I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
You're asking two different things.
Your title asks if i expect the game to be balanced, yes i do.
Your body asks if i think GW does aim for balance, no i don't.
Would it be morally wrong to create imbalance? Thats a tricky question that depends on whether or not GW does it with intent or by accident, which apart from isolated examples (wraithknight) its impossible for us to tell.
If they do it intentionally i'd say it is morally wrong. If its accidental then i couldn't really say if it is or not.
I actually like a little imbalance and a little asymmetry. Too often they push it too far to clearly, significantly OP.
In the past it was Seer Council Eldar. In 2nd ed, heaven help you if you faced Abbadon and his Terminator Body guard. Playing against Blood Angels in 3rd? Good luck. To some extent this has always been a problem.
Right now though, it feels like, if GW felt like they could be honest with the player base, they would be saying "Look guys, just play marines ok? We don't want to make anything else, and rules are too hard to write, so please just everyone get on the same page and play marines." This is not ok.
I don't really understand your "morally wrong" fascination. I want the game to be fun. This requires, at the least, the various factions to participate somewhat equally in the rules. Somewhat. There will always be exceptions. That's fine. What you can't have is an army almost wholly immune to them. This is what we have right now and it isn't fun. For anyone.
How so? For the record, I probably agree with you on this I'm just curious if our reasons match up.
Tycho wrote: I don't really understand your "morally wrong" fascination. I want the game to be fun. This requires, at the least, the various factions to participate somewhat equally in the rules. Somewhat. There will always be exceptions. That's fine. What you can't have is an army almost wholly immune to them. This is what we have right now and it isn't fun. For anyone.
My reason for asking about the morality of it is because of the level of investment people have in the game. Some people here are invested to the point where they feel any intentional imbalance on GW's part would be a moral ill and I want their thoughts on the issue.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that
No, I think they aim for a rough balance but it's never been their primary concern.
Our current game is not the result of a quest for balance.
Canadian 5th wrote: or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose?
Oh absolutely they'll use imbalance for some other purpose. Chiefly to sell you the next rule book - be it a whole new edition, some schlock like the PA series, or your annual Chapter Approved volume. And models. They'll definitely use it to sell you more models.
Canadian 5th wrote: As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
Nope. They're in the business of selling more models (and books). They have to accomplish that somehow & selling to new players only goes so far. But if they can keep established players buying....
And for the record I'm quite heavily invested in GW models. Small fortunes of the stuff. I do not hold their imbalances against GW, but when it gets too bad I simply go play something else for a bit. My GW models aren't going anywhere so I can always jump back in if the current version of the game suits ne.
My reason for asking about the morality of it is because of the level of investment people have in the game. Some people here are invested to the point where they feel any intentional imbalance on GW's part would be a moral ill and I want their thoughts on the issue.
That makes more sense. Yeah - honestly, the current imbalance does feel suspiciously disingenuous. I typically chuckle when people use the "They made good rules to sell the model" argument because for every set of "Aggressors" there's a set of "Reivers" and for every strong faction (marines) there's 5 or 6 that are just plain terrible (pretty much all xenos atm) so I don't think that necessarily holds water.
But that being said, I do feel like there's a bit of a shady undercurrent in the way 9th has worked out where it feels like GW would much rather it be 30k than 40k. I think it's a bit underhanded and sneaky but I suppose it could be chalked up to incompetence. It just seems like we've hit a level where incompetence is getting harder and harder to argue.
How so? For the record, I probably agree with you on this I'm just curious if our reasons match up.
If GW intentionally manipulates whats good or bad in order to sell more stuff, theyre "abusing" (probably too strong of a word here, i just can't think of a softer one) their clientele.
I feel like they would be using people's impulsivity and fear of missing out to push them into buying things not everyone can necessarily afford.
Take Karol as an example, they said multiple times that they cannot afford to buy new units, which means they are stuck with an unfun army that has a hard time competing. In the past GKs were OP (or so i've heard) so GW manufacturing such a disparity in powerlevel intentionally, at the detriment of other's enjoyment is something i wouldnt be able to support and goes against my values, which in turn makes it immoral in my eyes.
EDIT: Actually i think i just coined why i find it amoral : Its manipulation, which is something i despise.
I do expect warhammer to be balanced and I think that GW thinks they are balancing the game. I just think a majority of the vocal player base expects more out GW rules writing than GW is going to put into rules writing.
I think overall 40Ks balance is okay right now. I'd say since the first round of Codizes in 8th Edition balance was good enough that you could throw most armies against each other and have an interesting game. The tournament crowd would still find ways to break the game as usual, but for the majority of players the game was and is good enough to have an enjoyable game, balance is better than in previous editions where you used Maelstrom / custom missions to balance the game because eternal war only worked for a few lucky factions. Not saying there's nothing left to do, Marines are probably still a problem and the state of many factions is a little strange, due to old rules often being less restrictive than the current development (see auras and core) and GWs inability to write a proper "new edition update" for all factions.
Take Karol as an example, they said multiple times that they cannot afford to buy new units, which means they are stuck with an unfun army that has a hard time competing. In the past GKs were OP (or so i've heard) so GW manufacturing such a disparity in powerlevel intentionally, at the detriment of other's enjoyment is something i wouldnt be able to support and goes against my values, which in turn makes it immoral in my eyes.
In the past, a lot of the codex creep was unintentional. It was the result of just turning individual writers loose with little to no supervision or design direction, and of those same writers not really talking to each other. So things like the 5th ed Grey Knights (who could literally prevent demons from even deploying) being abusive were accidents of happenstance. It was random and unpredictable.
Since 8th ed it is considerably less so. You can see where efforts have been made to consistently allow certain books to pretty much ignore anything that hurts them, while others are saddled with additional rules that only exist to hurt them. It's a lot easier to connect the dots from the base rules of 9th, to the fact that mission design in general heavily favors a certain mega-faction, to the fact that this self-same faction can simply skip the part about being vulnerable to secondaries.
At this point, you either have to be wildly, unbelievable incompetent, OR you're letting the sales dept. run the studio again. That's pretty much the only two options ...
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
No, I don't expect GW to succeed at balancing the game. But I do expect them to try.
Yes, GWdoes try to balance 40k. We've seen them do so. They don't do so well, but they try to. While they let Castellans and are letting Eradicators run rampant, they also responded pretty quickly to Conscripts and to Iron Hands.
No, if they were specifically trying to use the imbalance to sell more models, Primaris wouldn't have been basically strictly worse than regular marines for the first half of 8e until like 3 rounds of buffs. While it's hard to balance the game, it's not that hard to make something too good, and for every Eradicator or Castellan, there are also units on drop that are just crud.
Ish? I don't think it's right to use the imbalance to sell their newest models, but I also don't think it's wrong. It just kind of is, and as long as it's not drastically affecting the overall interfaction balance of 40k, then that's fine.
One thing that's awkward is that they prefer to adjust balance by changing rules than by changing points, which is like hilariously backwards. Rules changes should be saved for situations where the unit is structurally defunct or not operating as it should, and points changes should be used for when units are somewhat too efficient or somewhat too inefficient compared to their peers.
I would say that balance was the best about right before SM 2.0 in 8e, and still hasn't recovered from SM 2.0 & Supplements
Do you want Chess balance, where it’s solely down to skill?
Do you want pro-sports balance, where it’s about getting your team working well together (after all, even Pele couldn’t carry a Sunday League team to the World Cup on his own).
Whilst GW could certainly do a better job of it, I don’t think we’ll ever see a “perfectly” balanced game of 40k. Not only are there too many possible combinations of units, there are also too many variables, such as the type, variety and density of terrain, Wild Dice Strikes etc.
And, let us all be truly honest....some reports of imbalance will be sour grapes from someone who lost a game.
As for me and GW’s games? I prefer their approach to others. Consider my opinion on X-Wing.
X-Wing without a doubt is a pretty damned decent game. But, because of its design, and how much it relies on experience to predict your opponent’s movements, it can be very daunting for a newcomer joining an established community.
Someone who’s been playing for ages could well have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the exact manoeuvres each ship in the game is capable of, married to other hard earned, experience based knowledge. The NooB likely barely knows what their ships can and can’t do.
For clarity, I am absolutely not claiming that is a flaw in game design. But. It is something I found offputting to the point I dropped out and sold up.
Do you want Chess balance, where it’s solely down to skill?
Do you want pro-sports balance, where it’s about getting your team working well together (after all, even Pele couldn’t carry a Sunday League team to the World Cup on his own).
Whilst GW could certainly do a better job of it, I don’t think we’ll ever see a “perfectly” balanced game of 40k. Not only are there too many possible combinations of units, there are also too many variables, such as the type, variety and density of terrain, Wild Dice Strikes etc.
And, let us all be truly honest....some reports of imbalance will be sour grapes from someone who lost a game.
As for me and GW’s games? I prefer their approach to others. Consider my opinion on X-Wing.
X-Wing without a doubt is a pretty damned decent game. But, because of its design, and how much it relies on experience to predict your opponent’s movements, it can be very daunting for a newcomer joining an established community.
Someone who’s been playing for ages could well have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the exact manoeuvres each ship in the game is capable of, married to other hard earned, experience based knowledge. The NooB likely barely knows what their ships can and can’t do.
For clarity, I am absolutely not claiming that is a flaw in game design. But. It is something I found offputting to the point I dropped out and sold up.
chess actually isnt perfectly balanced either, white has a 55% winrate
Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.
That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'
It has been my dream since I started with WFB more than 20 years ago. "Imagine a Warhammer game which is much less random and much better balanced... It would be the game to rule them all."
Stopped believing it can ever happen a long time ago, though. I think GW neither can nor want to make it happen.
Blastaar wrote: I have no expectations that 40k is or will be a balanced game. But I desire 40k to be a balanced game.
This.
I'm an adult. I can acknowledge that balance is not GW's priority, nor is it ever something that will likely happen to the degree I want. But I want it to be a well-balanced game.
I'll step back further: what even is balance and what does that mean for 40K?
For the first part, I think balance for 40K would mean that the difference between the worst list and best list represents about a 20% difference in effectiveness, assuming players of equal skill.
With players making thoughtfully constructed lists, that differences should shrink down to less than 10%. Which is so say the 90% comes down to strategy and fate (luck of the dice). Right now, I feel like list building is at least 50% of the equation, with 30% being luck of the dice and 20% strategy/tactics.
More pragmatically, I want the result of a well-balanced game to be that when I win or lose I'm attributing it to what I did on the table and not the list that I or my opponent brought. I want it so that when I win or lose, my first thought isn't "how can I make my list better" but rather, "how could I have played that better."
I do think we should strive for a more balanced game. I do think that as the range of models and potential lists continues to expand and grow, it's going to be increasingly difficult to achieve balance. I'm in favor of more restrictions to FOC in "matched play" in order to reign in the variability a bit, and I'd be supportive of GW striving to balance the game around those tighter requirements.
As for GW's motive or moral imperative - I have no idea - other than making money. Which they seem to be doing despite having a pretty imbalanced seeming game.
Voss wrote: Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.
That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'
One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.
I do not expect GW games to be balanced at all. I would be an absolute fool to expect that after nearly three decades of experience with their games! I would like them to be reasonably balanced, not like perfectly balanced because that is impossible, but to the point where people can play together without having to worry about it too much, where people picking a faction because they like the background or models don't find out they are gonna be the whipping boy for the group for however long it takes for them to get an update (which might be years due to the lack of discipline on the part of the design studio).
Do I think it is intentional? Not really. I think they sometimes try to balance it, and mess it up because they are incompetent. And I think they sometimes don't care about balance at all, and just do whatever they think is cool. And I think sometimes they do try to make the new stuff more powerful, but often mess it up because they are incompetent.
I just don't think there is much reason to think that the design team take their jobs that seriously or are that good at it. They don't need to be, the game is selling really well and people LIKE the imbalanced game. People like me who would prefer a less list building focused game with better balance are in the minority, most players seem to like feeling smart because they googled the obvious netlist for their faction. So I don't see any reason for GW to change.
If you want balance, go for fan based rulesets. They are not perfect but they tend to be a bit better, having come from various frustrations with the official rules.
VladimirHerzog wrote: chess actually isnt perfectly balanced either, white has a 55% winrate
True, though chess is played in sets where white plays to win and black plays to draw. A short set in chess is 4 games, some sets can be 16 or so games.
I'd like every unit to be reasonable in its own context.
Take for instance the Necron book. I feel the bulk of units are viable. Make the Monolith Heavy Support, do something with the Reanimator and you would be mostly done. Is everything 10/10, winning a GT near you? No. Are some things better than others? Undoubtedly. But compared with the vast majority of units in the game, your units should viably do what you expect them to do. If your opponent is playing a normalish army you should expect to have a decent game on your hands, unless the dice dictate otherwise.
Is GW aiming for this? I think some of the designers are - and others don't care as much. Or don't understand their game.
Really though a lot of the question of balance lies in *time*. There is I think a major difference in how you view the game between someone whose played say 50 games in 6 months and feels the meta is quite stale - and someone who has played about 3, and so may enjoy whinging about Marines with the best of them, but really isn't all that impacted. They may also not care about Marines maybe being good - they instead think the rules change too fast as they've had their 3 games, they were sort of fun, but now everything's changed again.
I'm not totally onboard with the_Scotsman's idea of forced unhappiness - but people undoubtedly do look for Codexes that change things. I don't think anyone enjoys paying £30 or whatever to get a book that says "all the units function as the same way as before". I guess some might - because they've tailored their 2k points of filth and never want to touch another model - but I think that's a strange way to engage with the hobby (and obviously not good for GW's bottom line in any case.)
I used to expect that GW would support their customer base with balanced releases for different factions, etc... but I no longer do as - agreeing with Herzog’s post above - GW is immoral.
jeff white wrote: I used to expect that GW would support their customer base with balanced releases for different factions, etc... but I no longer do as - agreeing with Herzog’s post above - GW is immoral.
I'm not saying they are amoral, i'm saying that if there is intent to their moves they are.
It's impossible for me to know their intent so im cautiously optimistic.
The rules churn is a big part of the reason I have signed out of 40K. I work full time, I don't have the energy to keep up with all the stuff they put out now. Funny, because I used to lament waiting years for my new codex!
But I think you make a good point there. People are at very different places with the game once an edition has been out for a while.
Mezmorki wrote: I'll step back further: what even is balance and what does that mean for 40K?
For the first part, I think balance for 40K would mean that the difference between the worst list and best list represents about a 20% difference in effectiveness, assuming players of equal skill.
With players making thoughtfully constructed lists, that differences should shrink down to less than 10%. Which is so say the 90% comes down to strategy and fate (luck of the dice). Right now, I feel like list building is at least 50% of the equation, with 30% being luck of the dice and 20% strategy/tactics.
More pragmatically, I want the result of a well-balanced game to be that when I win or lose I'm attributing it to what I did on the table and not the list that I or my opponent brought. I want it so that when I win or lose, my first thought isn't "how can I make my list better" but rather, "how could I have played that better."
I do think we should strive for a more balanced game. I do think that as the range of models and potential lists continues to expand and grow, it's going to be increasingly difficult to achieve balance. I'm in favor of more restrictions to FOC in "matched play" in order to reign in the variability a bit, and I'd be supportive of GW striving to balance the game around those tighter requirements.
As for GW's motive or moral imperative - I have no idea - other than making money. Which they seem to be doing despite having a pretty imbalanced seeming game.
I think list construction is an important element of skill, but I think that faction selection should have little bearing on win probability. List construction is important because it's where one develops their strategy for the game and choose what tools they want to have available to pursue their own victory and deny the enemy's.
Ideally, the game would be balanced such that:
External Balance - At the highest level of play, choosing to compose your list from one faction's unit pool would not put you at an advantage over someone who composed their list out of another faction's unit pool.
Internal Balance - Once you've selected the unit pool you're going to compose your list from, there are at least two strategically and tactically different solutions towards a victory. This is different from "any combination of units is valid" so much as "there is more than 1 valid combination of units". Ideally, it would also not be obvious or solved what the valid combinations are.
jeff white wrote: I used to expect that GW would support their customer base with balanced releases for different factions, etc... but I no longer do as - agreeing with Herzog’s post above - GW is immoral.
I'm not saying they are amoral, i'm saying that if there is intent to their moves they are.
It's impossible for me to know their intent so im cautiously optimistic.
Hmmm. I have grown to really dislike strong elements of list building. I would prefer if most elements worked reasonably well in a list. Obviously, you can go for a theme and that has always been a big part of the draw of army building, but I really find it tiresome to see most of the game boil down to discussions of list building.
I guess it's similar to how in roleplaying games I really don't care about levelling up my character or trawling through all the material for available powers. I want to actually make choices at the table in the game with other people there, not alone looking at numbers and calculating the best ones. I used to like that stuff but have just gone completely off it.
Particularly with miniature games, where I 100% want to play with the minis I think look cool and am 100% not interested in buying, building or painting any minis I think look stupid.
I think overall GW have done an ok job trying to balance the game design these past 3 years, certainly the amount of FAQ's and errata's they've put out in that time dwarves their combined total for the past 20. And that's not because 8-9th are uniquely in need of them compared to older editions, it's just that they're actually willing to do it now.
Where this balance is thrown off is imbalance in model releases, which leads to an imbalance (just in sheer amount of stuff being made) in rules releases. Space Marines could still have repeated points increases that push them into irrelevancy, but I'll still feel pissed off playing against them because of abusive mechanics or just for the fact that a random SM subfaction gets its own entire book with 20+ strats, an entire psychic discipline, 6 more WLT's, 6-8 more relics and an extra special rule on top of everything else whereas my Xenos/Chaos/other Imperial subfaction gets 1 of each of those, and no extra psychic powers and no extra special super-doctrine.
There's other "imbalances" in rules support too, like how Marines got Indexes for Codexes that were 1-2 months from release. Meanwhile Chaos is basically told to eat gak and do with what they've got. Or how back in 8th Marines got beta rules to help boost their abilities, whereas Necrons got nothing to address RP until 9th happened. The actual power of those rules is irrelevant because rules support like I just mentioned is all online PDF's or random articles in WD. It doesn't require a huge investment to roll out to other factions so there is precisely 0 reason that it cannot be done.
I wish 40k were balanced enough to avoid trap options/trap Codexes. I don't expect it to be, no, because I've played GW games for over a decade and I'm convinced their release structure (update a whole army all at once, then don't touch it for years while releasing other armies) and internal organization (assign each Codex to some small sub-team that doesn't talk to anyone writing any other Codexes, proceed without any centralized leadership or vision, and if you don't play the army you've been assigned to write feel free to fix absolutely nothing about it) isn't capable of producing anything better, no matter how much people wish it were.
At this point ? No. GW have proven even with their most vocal cries for balance they are either unwilling or incapable of doing so with their game system. Perhaps the imbalance sells and they like pushing players towards and away from units to keep lists flowing, who knows but it tends just to sweep from side to side or leave some armies and choices trash forever with no real dream of balance in view. Neither for army unit selection or army vs army match ups.
Voss wrote: Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.
That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'
One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.
They're just setting themselves up for disappointment.
The game works perfectly fine when you play with someone. The minute one player is playing against the other, it ceases to.
Voss wrote: Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.
That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'
One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.
They're just setting themselves up for disappointment.
The game works perfectly fine when you play with someone. The minute one player is playing against the other, it ceases to.
Which is a problem. 40k is a competitive game-not a good tournament game, but a competitive one. There's a winner and a loser, and you're directly working against your opponent.
It's not D&D, or any other TTRPG. Those games are cooperative.
Now, that is not to say you should be trying to squash your opponent's fun or anything, but in general, you should be able to play your best and not worry about the game being a boring slog for either people just due to imbalances. Don't be a jerk-but playing well shouldn't be a jerk move.
Not anymore. I would like for w40k to be balanced, with armies each having at least that one good fun list and if possible no trap options or even factions. But GW does not seem to be very much interested in balancing anything. So if that happens to be the case, then I want as good as possible rules for my army, and as bad as possible rules for armies that hard counter my.
Voss wrote: Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.
That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'
One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.
They're just setting themselves up for disappointment.
The game works perfectly fine when you play with someone. The minute one player is playing against the other, it ceases to.
Which is a problem. 40k is a competitive game-not a good tournament game, but a competitive one. There's a winner and a loser, and you're directly working against your opponent.
It's not D&D, or any other TTRPG. Those games are cooperative.
Now, that is not to say you should be trying to squash your opponent's fun or anything, but in general, you should be able to play your best and not worry about the game being a boring slog for either people just due to imbalances. Don't be a jerk-but playing well shouldn't be a jerk move.
That I think is the spirit most players of the game should or do have. They don't expect the most finely balanced game ever, they just wish to be rid of trap choices or even whole trap factions that are just bad. At the far ends of competitive play things will always look crazy over the top but you shouldn't need to pace yourself just to have a fun game against a random. That is and has been a large flaw in the games design for awhile. Easy to miss in the beginning but hard to avoid the longer you play. Which may be a reason they love to drag in new blood and try and phase out the old guard, the old guard are wise enough to know how they do things new entrants haven't been a part of the cycle long enough. Also the older players only get things here and there and new players need to buy whole new armies.
GW is a miniature company. Their business is selling you plastic. From their perspective, the rules don't have to be great, they just have to be good enough to get you to buy the plastic.
When you realize this, a lot of what GW does with rules becomes more comprehensible. I don't think it's so much that they actively go out to create an unbalanced game, they just don't really care as long as people keep buying the plastic crack.
While that is true some people, foolishly, believe GW is their friend and not just a company that wants their cash. Hence why they become evil, or morally wrong, for keeping a system forever unbalanced. When you think they care, their lack of actions to words hurts. Not to me, I know they don't care, but to some and that is what breeds resentment after a time.
I never expected it to be balanced and it never even crossed my mind until I encountered tournament play. I would rather have deeper mechanics that make an attempt to depict actual fighting than balance.
One time 40K was balanced. 3rd Edition using the army lists in the big rulebook. Just like 6th WFB with Ravening Hordes, the lists were balanced off the rule set AND with each other immediately. And just like 6th WFB, army book/codex creep destroyed that balance.
I had high Hope's that 8th would pull a similar thing with the Indexes (Indices?) at launch but that was not the case.
But yes, I expect balance. It's also why I stopped playing the modern games and went back to editions I felt WERE balanced.
No I don't expect it. I suspect there are a culmination of reasons why, many will just take the one that suits their narrative. Suits vs creatives, how the designers see the game, the modelling side being at least as important as the gaming in the eyes of the company, the sheer size of it all, time (or lack of it).
I think the dev team are at least clearly trying at this point.
I don't expect everything to be balanced. That would be boring tbh. I feel like the players have a responsibility to themselves and to their opponents to keep their lists "sane", even nerfing their armies on purpose if necessary. I'm playing to have fun, not to establish chestbeating rights over my colleauges and friends.
GW has too much to gain from manipulating WAAC players, they will not strive for 100% balance, or even "good enough". There will always be something new to buy to give you an advantage on the tabletop, if you want to be GW's bitch.
No one here has mentioned the "testing" done by -if i am not mistaken- the ITC guys (i read every post, but I may have read them too fast and missed it, in that case sorry).
We heard a lot about that during 8th, not so much since 9th kicked off. They alledgedly warned GW about the initial IH release, saying it was too strong. I hope GW have learned from that fiasco a bit, but the fact that no chapter approved is heading our way makes me fear they don't really care about balance ATM.
Necron codex is ok, but War Nuns is quite OP in my opinion (though I have won against them with my nids thanks to their relative lack of mobility, which means they can't get across to objectives that easily, unless they use lots of jetpack sisters).
We will see with the next codex relases, but the fact that GW doesn't communicate at all on how they check for balance when they design a codex is worrying me. It does seem like they never learn...
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
No, and for good reasons. There are too many variables when creating a list that games can be absolutely one-sided even if at the top competitive levels all armies have the same winning ratio. Those competitive data however are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.
So those ultra competitive games can be reasonably balanced and it's legit to assume that they should be. But most of the times two noob friends get into the hobby together and start playing 40k both with small or medium sized X points lists consisting in their entire collections and one of them wins everytime no matter what. Even if he expands his collection with a couple of new kits; to compete with his friend he may need a significant investment in miniatures.
But that shouldn't be a problem at all IMHO, new players should focus to learn the game, paint their army and expand their collections. Constantly losing for even a year or two shouldn't be an issue. It wasn't for me when I was a kid. The issue is that new players want to have a 50/50 winning ration since the beginning, no matter what. They shouldn't have that: if they do it means they play mirrored matched which is the death of 40k, or they have been extremely lucky in choosing the models. Same issue with people owning extremely old collections and they want to have that 50/50 winning ratio without buying anything new.
It's when players have some experience and play with half or less their collections that things should be reasonably balanced and actually they already are with acceptable standards.
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
No, and for good reasons. There are too many variables when creating a list that games can be absolutely one-sided even if at the top competitive levels all armies have the same winning ratio. Those competitive data however are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.
So those ultra competitive games can be reasonably balanced and it's legit to assume that they should be. But most of the times two noob friends get into the hobby together and start playing 40k both with small or medium sized X points lists consisting in their entire collections and one of them wins everytime no matter what. Even if he expands his collection with a couple of new kits; to compete with his friend he may need a significant investment in miniatures.
But that shouldn't be a problem at all IMHO, new players should focus to learn the game, paint their army and expand their collections. Constantly losing for even a year or two shouldn't be an issue. It wasn't for me when I was a kid. The issue is that new players want to have a 50/50 winning ration since the beginning, no matter what. They shouldn't have that: if they do it means they play mirrored matched which is the death of 40k, or they have been extremely lucky in choosing the models. Same issue with people owning extremely old collections and they want to have that 50/50 winning ratio without buying anything new.
It's when players have some experience and play with half or less their collections that things should be reasonably balanced and actually they already are with acceptable standards.
I am sure, the " great balance " of 8th for early dex GK or R&H even with massed and allied armies was not describeable as balanced at all.
And yes, GW IS using frustration to force sales upon rules and supplements or to encourage buying of certain units.
I don't expect 40k to be balanced, but I expected GW to try and make it balanced.
I want 40k to be balanced, but I accept that 40k won't be balanced and play anyway.
The problem is that GW blatantly introduces imbalances in order to shift product. To SOME EXTENT this is tolerable; turning SM into the worst army, bar none, would be problematic when it makes up the bulk of their range and profit. I totally get that.
But what we're seeing right now is insane. Marines have been gaking on everyone, with basically no-holds-barred, for about a year. And there's no end in sight. The amount of releases marines get in comparison to other factions is staggering.
I feel that a fair contrast would be 5th ed orks. In 5th ed orks were strong. Nob Bikers were a death-star unit that could merc most things, run rampant across the board, and was a huge pita to kill. Boyz were cheap as chips but also surprisingly dangerous, making them great chaff. Things like Grots and Killa Kans had their place. Orks could put together a top-tier and nigh unbeatable list, but if you didn't take care during the list-building phase you could also wind up with a pile of useless garbage that couldn't accomplish anything on the board. Orks also were good at what they were good at; they couldn't do crazy things like out shoot guard, have more specialization & mobility than eldar, or run psychic deep-strike hordes like nids.
A certain Player character army can, at present, take just about any combination of units in their codex and be at the competent / semi competitive level. That faction also does everything in the game (except MAYBE hordes) better than any other faction. This faction also seems to have been forgotten when making secondary objectives, as while they have a slew of secondaries which allow them to tailor their objectives against any enemy, they fit into the perfect place where their enemies don't get that edge.
And then on top of that they've gotten a plurality more releases over the past few years than many other factions.
This leads to an atmosphere which just feels.. Abusive. Specific factions (mainly one faction) is the Player Character faction. They get all the toys, all the strength, all the tools, all the releases, and none of the draw backs. While it's expected they'd be top dog, numerous other factions receive so little in comparison that they serve no purpose other than being NPC goons to get blasted off the table.
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
No, and for good reasons. There are too many variables when creating a list that games can be absolutely one-sided even if at the top competitive levels all armies have the same winning ratio. Those competitive data however are only a tiny fraction of the whole picture.
So those ultra competitive games can be reasonably balanced and it's legit to assume that they should be. But most of the times two noob friends get into the hobby together and start playing 40k both with small or medium sized X points lists consisting in their entire collections and one of them wins everytime no matter what. Even if he expands his collection with a couple of new kits; to compete with his friend he may need a significant investment in miniatures.
But that shouldn't be a problem at all IMHO, new players should focus to learn the game, paint their army and expand their collections. Constantly losing for even a year or two shouldn't be an issue. It wasn't for me when I was a kid. The issue is that new players want to have a 50/50 winning ration since the beginning, no matter what. They shouldn't have that: if they do it means they play mirrored matched which is the death of 40k, or they have been extremely lucky in choosing the models. Same issue with people owning extremely old collections and they want to have that 50/50 winning ratio without buying anything new.
It's when players have some experience and play with half or less their collections that things should be reasonably balanced and actually they already are with acceptable standards.
Two new players joining a 40K game club may get close to that 50/50 ratio if both seek advice from more experienced players (I have seen it happen once, with my own eyes, years ago during 5th edition. The ratio was perhaps 60/40 but both kids were having a blast), and then listen to feedback when they make ingame mistakes and list building mistakes. But these must be like 5% of the new kids joining in, sadly. And 0% currently with covid.
I don't know if store owners/employees have the time to give enough advice, or if the younglings have the patience to hear it, but left alone to their own devices, new kid starting marines will crush new kid starting eldar/orks/tyranids/GSC/etc.
Unless maybe battlereps on youtube and such can teach new players (I guess they would have to already have a good grasp on rules, missions and army specific rules), but I doubt it. I would like it to be the case though. Perhaps someone here knows something about that.
You were happy losing for a long time, and understood that it was the price to pay for a game with factions offering very diffrent rules (making the game rich in this sense). But the majority of newcomers probably get put off by such an ordeal.
=> I also think that 40k keeps it appeal with the diversity of faction specific rules and playstyles, and if it lost that in the search of better balance (it won't because GW will thankfully never take that road), it would start bleeding players. This diversity will always poop on balance attempts, but balance can still be improved, and GW has to keep trying. The game right now is pretty rad, and I think the young me would get into it even more than I did (end of 4th), even if I destroyed for a year before understanding how to win.
I don't expect GW to deliver balance at all.
I think GW wants a roughly balanced game, but balance is very low on their priority list.
I agree with earlier sentiments that external balance between factions should be very close. Whether you choose Space Marines or Tau should not have a big impact on how well you perform.
Internal balance is also important, but much more complex. I think it should be important for each army to deliver a balanced output. You need some anti-tank units, some horde clearing units, some heavy infantry killers, etc. Some long and short range capabilities.
Within each of those there should be multiple viable ways to achieve that. Whether I choose Devastators, Predators, or Eradicators as my anti-tank capability should not matter, although each would have clear positives and negatives.
Skewing your capabilities too far one way would leave yourself with serious gaps or vulnerabilities for a more balanced enemy to exploit.
That's what I think is the ideal.
However, this won't happen. Balance is best achieved through a mature system which gradually converges on the ideal.
However, GW has a very strong incentive NOT to allow this, as only a fresh system will sell another £100+ round of rulebooks to each player.
A mature model range means everyone already has what they need, a fresh range means they sell to existing players again. Newer, fancier, rules draw people to the new units instead of what they already have.
That is why the game will never be balanced.
Having played since the tail end of 5th, absolutely not. It'd be nice if it were more balanced, but given the evidence so far I have to conclude it'd be quite an unreasonable expectation. Especially since they're a big company that brings out new stuff far quicker than they squat stuff, and as the list of units to balance grows it becomes an ever harder task.
I am sure, the " great balance " of 8th for early dex GK or R&H even with massed and allied armies was not describeable as balanced at all.
And yes, GW IS using frustration to force sales upon rules and supplements or to encourage buying of certain units.
If just a couple of subfactions aren't good I'd consider the game very well balanced.
The point is 40k should have two ways of playing:
- Ultracompetitive mode with players that should periodically update their armies, otherwise lists that may be incidentally overpowered will last forever
- Friendly games with players that should agree to tone up/down their lists if needed, even the most infamous editions can be balanced this way
Lack of balance wouldn't be a problem, outide of end tables of big events, as long as the armies were fun to play with.
The moment a faction is forced in to playing the way people don't want to play it , like cmd or shield spams, or there is no fun to play your army, things become rather grim.
addnid wrote: No one here has mentioned the "testing" done by -if i am not mistaken- the ITC guys (i read every post, but I may have read them too fast and missed it, in that case sorry).
We heard a lot about that during 8th, not so much since 9th kicked off. They alledgedly warned GW about the initial IH release, saying it was too strong. I hope GW have learned from that fiasco a bit, but the fact that no chapter approved is heading our way makes me fear they don't really care about balance ATM.
Yes, well, GWdoes use imbalance to sell stuff. I doubt they'd have sold nearly as many IH supplements (& dreads) had they heeded the warning they got from those play testers....
Instead they released the book, soaked in the $, and THEN changed it. Milked a bunch of fools but good in a short amount of time with that scam. And they'll do it again.
addnid wrote: codex is ok, but War Nuns is quite OP in my opinion (though I have won against them with my nids thanks to their relative lack of mobility, which means they can't get across to objectives that easily, unless they use lots of jetpack sisters).
An immobile SoB army is a choice made by the individual player, not the Codex.
Sob have: 2 different jump squads (3 if you count the saint & her girls), nearly every unit can be mounted in a rhino/immolator/repressor (legends option), there's 3 units (Arcos/Penitent engines/Mortifiers) that move 7"+ & who's only goal in life is to close with you - so they don't mind advancing at all, Dominion squads get a free move prior to the 1st turn, and the force as a whole can load up on assault class weapons wich work best at short ranges & encourages movement as needed.
In addition, save for aircraft of their own, the SoB player has all the Strategic Reserve options every other player enjoys.
That's not a force lacking in mobility....
So if your SoB opponent isn't moving, & moving to objectives, then that's just their choice.
Now imagine how OP you'll think those nuns are once your opponent figures out mobility.
The rhinos and and all ground vehicules can be moved blocked pretty easily, and the jump squads are not ob sec, nor are they very tough.
Any army with hordes will be prevent deep strike shenanigans.
My opponent plays well, he has placed well in past tournaments in Paris (during The World Before), though he is relatively new to sisters. I think sisters lose out on their strenghs if they go for more mobility. But perhaps it needs to be done.
Dominion squads getting the "before first turn move" can help, but the unit is not that scary or that tanky if it goes out of range of certain auras.
My opponent did have arcos and mortifiers, which are great (though with repentia, who really needs these ? Still very good melee units though) but not when they get hit by a tyranid dimachaeron, or other high number of wound high tougness beast.
He should have used his dominions to "before first turn move" and bubblewrap the mortifiers though (arco were in a rhino).
SoB can indeed move, you demonstrated that, but, say compared to eldar, kraken tyranids, white scars, even orks or necrons, I would say not that well.
The still hit like a truck and tank, and they are most def a top tier army overall, but I still claim that movement shenanigans is the only RELATIVE real weakness they have. It is not a glaring weakness, I agree with you, but they just don't have enough stuff with fly, and no special deepstrike, and they don't have bikes. OK they have a +1 to charge and advance option, an advance and charge strat (advance with miracle dice then charge with miracle dice can go a long way though, true), but all in all nothing really impressive. Again, still a top tier army, and one that requires a bit of skill to master.
I think it's balanced well enough. Games workshop doesn't view 40k as their competitive tournament game. I think they try to make it as balanced as possible, and the updates twice a year are a good way to help with that. But, it's too complicated a game to ever be truly 'balanced'
Warhammer Underworlds is the game they advertise as their competitive game, and I think it's very well balanced (hence why it's my favourite GW game).
I hope for a +/- 10% scenario, in terms of balance.
GW has no *moral* obligation when it comes to rules design. They have a product, people choose to pay for it or not. It's a luxury item. So unlike food, clothing, shelter, etc, they GW games are not a necessity. If a person is unhappy with the state of the game, they vote with their wallet.
The problem with voting with your wallet is that there's often other pressures to participate beyond what you personally like.
Wargames are very geographically limited, and expensive in terms of money and time.
If everyone around you is sticking to 40k, you'll either have to do without wargames or play 40k. Similarly if you can't afford to buy in to a new system.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with you to a point, GW has n o obligation to make a good game.
But I do think 40k has reached a critical mass of self-sustaining size where it will continue to attract and retain players in spite of anti-consumer decisions by GW. Which is helped enormously by the extreme loyalty of much of the fanbase.
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
40K? Not really.
For their explicitly more "competitive" / "event" / "tournament" -style games like Underworlds or Kill Team Arena, I would expect that game balance be at a fairly high priority for the game designers.
For the more "kitchen-sink" / "show-off-all-your-miniatures" / "3-hour-sunday-afternoon" -style games like 40K or AoS that aren't really suited for tournament play or events (and never were designed for it), balance probably shouldn't be a high priority for the game designers. At least I wouldn't expect it.
Especially older and "legacy-games" from GW that have been around for 20+ or even 30+ years, some imbalances are a big part of the nostalgic appeal that draws the majority of players to those games in the first place (40K being the obvious, but also things like stunty teams in Blood Bowl, etc..).
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with voting with your wallet is that there's often other pressures to participate beyond what you personally like.
Wargames are very geographically limited, and expensive in terms of money and time.
If everyone around you is sticking to 40k, you'll either have to do without wargames or play 40k. Similarly if you can't afford to buy in to a new system.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with you to a point, GW has n o obligation to make a good game.
But I do think 40k has reached a critical mass of self-sustaining size where it will continue to attract and retain players in spite of anti-consumer decisions by GW. Which is helped enormously by the extreme loyalty of much of the fanbase.
i havnt bought anything from GW for my last two armies... there are ways to keep playing while not giving GW money.
I will say that I don't think GW can balance 40k without some drastic changes, and I also don't think they will make those changes.
So I don't 'expect' it to be balanced - in the sense that in my estimation of the future it won't be balanced.
HOWEVER
I do think a balanced game is a better game, if there are multifactions involved. How long would an MMO last if only one faction crushed all the others even 65% of the time in PVP? That's too high of an imbalance.
So I expect40k to be balanced. Here I am using expect in the moralizing way, rather than the anticipatory way.
In other words, a balanced game is better and more fun. 40k could be more balanced, therefore it could be better and more fun. However, the game designers have shown time and again that the required changes are not a priority, and so 40k will be less good and less fun (while still having a degree of fun that means playing it isn't a chore).
I know, I've hardly given GW anything either, and certainly not directly.
However, that's definitely not a universal solution. If you want to play anywhere officially GW sanctioned, like a store or tournament, 3rd party models aren't going to cut it.
And in general things like pirating rules and cheap low quality proxies is generally frowned upon.
I'm afraid I'm suspect on this well-worn idea that two new players can buy up a list and then one will win 100% of the time versus the other. I suspect what you really have is that one player does know *more* than the other, even if you don't perceive it to be the case.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 60/40 relationship - which would be bad *if they play enough games for this to actually be clear* - but its a fair distance from 100%/0%.
Its like Tau are bad. Why? Because across a games and number crunching since 9th launched they have a 40% win rate. They should be buffed. Its worth emphasising though those stats do however still mean they win 40% of their games. Its not like they lose every single one - which you might be meant to believe according to the forums. (It could for example be that Tau only have a 25%~ versus Harlequins/Marines/Sisters - but as a result a 50% chance versus everyone else.)
Whisper it - but I actually increasingly think 40k's problem is that there is a lot of "skill" in it, and so getting two players who are genuinely of equal ability/knowledge is very rare. As a result you get circles of friends where player X seemingly always beats player Y (who loses to everyone) but then always seems to lose to player Z (who seems to beat everyone, cos whatever he is playing is overpowered, and it often is cos more serious about the game).
Perhaps not "skill", but I definitely think people take different approaches.
Some people really like optimising their lists. They put their effort and money into finding, buying, and using the best combos they can. Fair enough.
Other this attitude makes my stomach turn, and other people are the same. We derive our enjoyment from forging a narrative with awesome conversions, cool paint jobs, fluffy army compositions, etc.
These armies rarely come out optimised competitively and playing games against the first person I mentioned just isn't that enjoyable.
For me, balance means that the sorts of armies the second group comes up with aren't bad, unless it's something ridiculous. Likewise the lists that the first group comes up with shouldn't on an entirely different level.
Yeah. Generally when we say balanced, we mean that dividing the game between "competitive" and "non-competitive" lists is difficult if not impossible.
It's a subjective thing though; obviously every game will have competitive and non-competitive lists in the sense that silly lists exist that will never and should never be as good as a deliberately built list (e.g. 100% cultists with the HQ choices being Warpsmiths).
But there is a degree to which a list is "reasonable" and "fluffy" and lists that meet these (admittedly subjective) criteria should not be further divisible into "competitive" and "non-competitive." For example, a list with lots of Leman Russes isn't really a competitive list right now, but it is reasonable and fluffy.
Tyel wrote: Its like Tau are bad. Why? Because across a games and number crunching since 9th launched they have a 40% win rate. They should be buffed. Its worth emphasising though those stats do however still mean they win 40% of their games.
Tau and Astra Militarum have a go-second win rate of 29%. Their go-first winrate is closer to balanced, but I don't think you can look at a situation where a flip of the coin means you more than twice as likely to lose as win as reasonably balanced. It's better than it has been in the past, but that's a real low bar.
More importantly, these winrates are in a tournament environment, where people are taking the most competitive, powerful lists they can. Rough parity in winrates would tell us that the top-tier lists these armies can field are roughly equivalent, but it tells us nothing about their internal balance. Right now Tau depend on crutches like Riptides and millions of shield drones to be at all competitive. So yeah, maybe in tournament play the overall winrate for Tau isn't that far off from Marines... but if you put a fluffy Tau list with Kroot and Hammerheads up against a fluffy Marine list, the Tau get stomped bad.
And I think that's a much more relevant concern. We could reach a state where every faction has exactly a 50% winrate in tournament play, but still have un-fun, lopsided casual play games because Player A brought the A-tier units in their book and Player B brought the C-tier ones in theirs. Tournament results tell us what someone who understands and listbuilds to the meta can expect to achieve, not what two new players making purchasing decisions based on fluff or looks will achieve.
I don't really buy when people say that 9th Ed requires no skill or thought, or that it's won or lost in listbuilding. But it is less about ingame skill and more about listbuilding than most other games I've played, and in large part that comes down to imbalance within each codex. If internal balance can be improved it will translate to better external balance, and in turn mean fewer pitfalls and less meta knowledge needed to have an effective army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I will say that I don't think GW can balance 40k without some drastic changes, and I also don't think they will make those changes.
So I don't 'expect' it to be balanced - in the sense that in my estimation of the future it won't be balanced.
HOWEVER
I do think a balanced game is a better game, if there are multifactions involved. How long would an MMO last if only one faction crushed all the others even 65% of the time in PVP? That's too high of an imbalance.
So I expect40k to be balanced. Here I am using expect in the moralizing way, rather than the anticipatory way.
In other words, a balanced game is better and more fun. 40k could be more balanced, therefore it could be better and more fun. However, the game designers have shown time and again that the required changes are not a priority, and so 40k will be less good and less fun (while still having a degree of fun that means playing it isn't a chore).
There are also a stupendous amount of units, armies, rules and interactions to factor in.
Compare to say, Adeptus Titanicus and Underworlds.
AT has essentially a single faction. Maniples can be used to theme a collection, and Legion specific rules can add further themeing. But for all that, a Warlord largely remains a Warlord and so on and so forth. As a result, the game is pretty well balanced. Provided the points value between chassis and weapons is about right, there’s not a huge amount to balance out.
Underworlds benefits from a “best of three” rounds, and fixed Warbands. Now I’m not terribly familiar with the game, but it does seem to be well regarded in terms of player feedback. And I’m not aware of a given Warband being noticeably more powerful than the others. This also features the victory conditions, where it’s not just “smash the opponents face in as quick as possible”.
So it seems GW can, when they want, produce well balanced games.
But 40k is a very, very different beast. Armies have lots of units. Different units have different options. Different builds favour certain units and certain weapon combinations. A codex needs to be internally balanced (so no unit is objectively completely useless), and balanced against the wider game system.
When you think about it in those terms, and through that lens? The level of balance they have achieved is pretty remarkable. Yes improvements are needed (oh hai Grey Knights!), but for the most part, most armies can go toe to toe and produce an enjoyable game.
Remember. Meta Lists are the result of hours of play, and hard number crunching. And even then they’re not always what they’re cracked up to be, as they still need the tactical know how and in-game experience to make them work.
Theory and Math Hammer also often fall down, because they don’t factor in variables, or revolve solely around averages. Now, the latter is definitely a useful and unavoidable part of the game. But it is not in itself a deciding factor. We’ve all had the game specific equivalent of Rubber Lance Syndrome, and I dare say we’ve all pulled off one in a million shots far more often than one in a million times.
Yet both are often used to ‘prove’ imbalance. Math Hammer in particular falls down here. Sure (numbers purely for demonstration) strictly statistically, a blob squad of 30 Guardsman might only do 2.3 wounds to Intercessors. But as I mentioned above, Math Hammer all too often seems to simply ignore the potential wounds, treating Likely as sacrosanct and unchanging, the result you will only ever roll.
If that is the deciding factor in all your tactical thinking? You’ll miss out on the riskier shots, because you’ve already convinced yourself it can’t work because statistics. Compare that to say, your Assault Squad, with a charge lined up, taking pot shots at a tank which they could finish off. If you take that risk, and it pays off, you’re in a better position than leaving the tank be because statistics. Even if you take it an fail? Well, depending on the situation, it could be a “so what” outcome. And any such successes have a decent chance of wrong footing your opponent, because they didn’t think you’d even try it, let alone pull it off.
There’s also a tendency to only use The Right Tool in people’s strategies. Now of course, if given the choice I’d rather shoot a LasCannon at a Leman Russ than a Heavy Bolter, so having a decent mix of weapons (or super specialising and accepting the risks therein) is important, as is knowing your Math Hammer as to which is which. But that doesn’t mean the Heavy Bolter won’t make the difference you need.
You don’t have to go pants on head crazy. That is not what I’m espousing here. But you should keep an open mind, and run the right risk at the right time.
Well....I’ve Wimbrelled. But yeah. 40k has a stupendous number of variables to balance. Like, thousands. And it often feels people are overly restricting their thinking when it comes to their tactical and strategic options.
I don't disagree, Mad Doc, but the stupendous amount of options isn't a good reason not to chase balance. It's a good reason not to have a stupendous amount of options.
The game is a designed, artificial thing. Those options can arrive and be taken away at will. GW clearly choses to take away some options (the entire Renegades and Heretics army list) while adding other options (17 Space Marine captain datasheets).
One could make a good argument that 40k has grown bigger than its britches. It's a mass battle game where you and your opponent are engaged in galactic war, but I can bring an army of Deathwatch or Sisters of Silence.
That'd be like playing a World War 2 game and bringing an "army" of OSS agents or the Bletchley Park decoding team (+5ppm to give them Walther pistols!), and my opponent has the 502. Schwere Panzerabteilung. There miiiiiiiight be a bit of a problem with this WWII game's scoping and scaling...
I think it is also bigger than flat win rates. Those win rates might involve lists which are extremely narrow and exclude a lot of choices.
Like if I like the idea of Tau as a multi-species coalition and I want to bring Kroot and Fire Warriors and Vespid and so on, can I do that or will my list immediately be less good than a list that takes some other combination?
That is why balance is important, it frees you up to play with the stuff you think is cool without worrying too much that you are wrecking your chances of ever winning a game.
The conversation sort of assumes we are gonna read through the rules and build a list that avoids the "trap" options. But in a game that also involves collecting, modelling and painting miniature figures with a story behind them, being able to just use the ones you think are cool is a huge part of the game that is completely left high and dry for some factions who have a very narrow choice if they want to compete with even a casual list from a faction that has more viable variety.
That is probably why all "tactics" discussion ultimately boils down to list building, and that is the biggest "skill" in 40K. The other skills like target priority, movement and resource usage are not very complex.
I agree that a balanced game is optimal, and provides the best experience for competitive and non-competitive players. Particularly when they are gaming together.
Heuristically speaking (scenario with a reasonably small investment of effort resulting in a "pretty good" solution) I am happy with a 60/40 victory split in a given matchup. That's as close to balanced as a single "extra" win for either side would result in, in a 10 game series. Having just started Tau in 9th edition, I think I have a bit of an uphill battle, just based on the mission parameters, but I don't feel I'm "locked out" of a win by choice of faction.
But again, GW doesn't "owe" anyone a well balanced game. I think there could be financial benefits to them for doing so, but they seem to have a business model that tends towards flavour of the month and that's ok too. It's their business and they can run it how they choose.
60/40 would be pretty decent, I would consider that balanced for a complex tabletop game. I would be okay with 70/30 as well, go any lower than that and you are in "feels bad" territory.
But within that you want to feel like everything is contributing in your games.
I fully agree they don't "owe" people a balanced game but I also think if they charge money for product then people have the right to voice their opinions on it if it is crap. Hell, they have that right even if it is something they put out for free!
I could be convinced to settle for 60/40, but flat winrate isn't everything. An army might be 40/60 against another army, but equipped with very narrow builds or a specific wombo-combo, while the other army can do whatever.
70/30 is probably a game I wouldn't play, if I was the 30. It's just not worth my time and brainpower to fight those uphill odds and then try to write a narrative about it. (unless we deliberately prearranged the game to be a last stand or something).
Can 40k ever be truly balanced? No, too many units and options, and for the record I don't want those options curtailed for the sake of balance. But could 40k be more balanced? Definitely. And it starts with gw not playing favorites among the various factions when writing their rules. All those different units and options need to be at least viable, that's why balance starts with good internal balance for every faction. Just because a faction has a couple good tournament lists doesn't mean its codex is balanced. Every codex should support multiple types of armies, maybe not at tournament level, but definitely at a casual level, and without negotiating lists.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can 40k ever be truly balanced? No, too many units and options, and for the record I don't want those options curtailed for the sake of balance. But could 40k be more balanced? Definitely. And it starts with gw not playing favorites among the various factions when writing their rules. All those different units and options need to be at least viable, that's why balance starts with good internal balance for every faction. Just because a faction has a couple good tournament lists doesn't mean its codex is balanced. Every codex should support multiple types of armies, maybe not at tournament level, but definitely at a casual level, and without negotiating lists.
Another important factor here? Try to avoid situations like the 3.5 Chaos Codex.
The bloke who wrote that was an Iron Warriors player. Let’s just say that shone through!
A Codex should absolutely have someone with an interest driving it, but that needs to be tempered correctly.
Underworlds benefits from a “best of three” rounds, and fixed Warbands. Now I’m not terribly familiar with the game, but it does seem to be well regarded in terms of player feedback. And I’m not aware of a given Warband being noticeably more powerful than the others. This also features the victory conditions, where it’s not just “smash the opponents face in as quick as possible”.
I have played Underworlds Competitively since season 1. It's a fantastic game, and with the Forsaken/Restricted card list, it's very well balanced. Some of the season 1 warbands have weaker faction specific cards than those from more recent seasons, but I've won Beastgrave (season 3) tournaments with Season 1 warbands. It's probably the best game GW has if you want to play tournaments. You create your own win conditions for your warband, so there are multiple ways to play and win. Best of 3 really helps mitigate loosing a game from a run of bad dice, or dead cards in hand. I can't say enough good things about the game.
I'd love to play Underworlds, but having to buy essentially every warband to get the best cards from each scuppered any desire I had.
The models are cracking though.
I think the scope and general setup of 40k is just too vast to have truly balanced.
Which is why I think any balance should focus around "sane" lists, and punishing everything else competitively.
Spamming conscripts could be fun, but it shouldn't be competitive.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can 40k ever be truly balanced? No, too many units and options, and for the record I don't want those options curtailed for the sake of balance. But could 40k be more balanced? Definitely. And it starts with gw not playing favorites among the various factions when writing their rules. All those different units and options need to be at least viable, that's why balance starts with good internal balance for every faction. Just because a faction has a couple good tournament lists doesn't mean its codex is balanced. Every codex should support multiple types of armies, maybe not at tournament level, but definitely at a casual level, and without negotiating lists.
Another important factor here? Try to avoid situations like the 3.5 Chaos Codex.
The bloke who wrote that was an Iron Warriors player. Let’s just say that shone through!
A Codex should absolutely have someone with an interest driving it, but that needs to be tempered correctly.
Heh, I think gw seems to have a "thing" for any Legion/chapter with "Iron" in their name. I love the 3.5 CSM codex, but it wasn't internally balanced very well. When people complain about 3.5, they definitely aren't complaining about Night Lords.
kirotheavenger wrote: I'd love to play Underworlds, but having to buy essentially every warband to get the best cards from each scuppered any desire I had.
The models are cracking though.
You don't need them all for championship format, only the most recent two seasons. For Vanguard format, you only use the most recent, so it's not too bad.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I could be convinced to settle for 60/40, but flat winrate isn't everything. An army might be 40/60 against another army, but equipped with very narrow builds or a specific wombo-combo, while the other army can do whatever.
70/30 is probably a game I wouldn't play, if I was the 30. It's just not worth my time and brainpower to fight those uphill odds and then try to write a narrative about it. (unless we deliberately prearranged the game to be a last stand or something).
I've had a 70/30 winrate with my Orks at the end of the old 3e codex lifespan when I was up against a lot of stuff that was just better than what my book or model collection could provide. I didn't love it, but winning just under a third of my games was okay. I felt like I had a chance in each game.
Later in 5e I was able to get my win rate just up above 50%, and I really had a lot of fun then. Lots of close games, felt like I had a chance every game.
But the bigger issue became being forced into certain builds to compete. I had all these big shootas I was never gonna use, certain units that you just knew you wouldn't bother with and so on. That's why balance within a faction is nearly as important as balance between factions.
Very hard to do in a game like 40K that routinely has squads of basic grunts going up against super heavies like Titans or flyers.
Da Boss wrote: That is probably why all "tactics" discussion ultimately boils down to list building, and that is the biggest "skill" in 40K. The other skills like target priority, movement and resource usage are not very complex.
I don't think this is true.
Target priority, movement, resource management etc are not that easy to do in the heat of the moment.
If so, why do people at FLGS and Tournaments all over the world make fairly obvious mistakes?
I think "knowing and remembering things" is the key skill in 40k. But its hard to discuss that online - because it sort of boils down to "get good". And the main solution is practice.
I think for example there's a debate which could be had on how to move onto the mid board versus say Harlequins - because I think their very strong going second win rate is facilitated by their opponents giving easy charges. Unfortunately if you don't, they'll just go sit on the objectives and you lose that way - but still, it would be worth thinking about.
I think for the above comments, most Tau lists would actually *benefit* from having some blobs of kroot, rather than it being an insta-loss. I think this is because that pre-game move allows them to threaten the mid objectives (with obsec) in a way that Fire Warriors never will. But I don't practice what I preach, and I'm not going to buy 30-60 ancient kroot models to play with, baring in mind their rules could be changed completely - and there could be a new much shinier kit in the works (press X for doubt).
(I continue to theorise the best Tau list right now would be 6 commanders+170~ kroot and shapers, abusing character protection, not overly sweating on Thin Their Ranks and just flooding the board with crap - but see above for why I'm not running it.)
Same reason for why I'm not buying 120 Acolytes for GSC, even though I think that's been the competitive way to run them for a year or so. I don't want to spend £500-600 on a skew that could be nerfed into oblivion were GW to notice it was "a bit good" - which results in me having 60-80 Acolytes sitting on a shelf to never see the table again.
TL/DR I feel talking about *how* you should play is difficult - especially without a lot of pictures to demonstrate.
By contrast its very easy to have discussions over whether unit X or Y is better in a given list - or show that Space Marines (and Sisters tbh, but I like them) get far too many buffs compared with other factions. Which is why most tactical discussion turns into it.
I don't know much about how tau play, I was just using the list as an example.
I guess I will accept it is debatable, but I don't think "Don't move close enough to let them charge you" or "use screening units" and so on are particularly complex ideas.
They have less influence on the game generally than list choice because most people understand the basics pretty easily.
But I agree, list talk is easier so that is what most discourse goes down to. But it is also the issue that list choice is actually very significant because of how the game is made. Those people are right, you do need a good list to compete and making a bad list is gonna really screw you over even if you play well.
I think there's definitely a fair amount of tactical decision-making in 40K, particularly when it comes to the objectives.
What I think the game currently lacks are tactical force multipliers that can swing the odds. Typical wargame examples are cover (beyond just +1 to a save), armor facings, crossfire rules, spotting, suppression, and other mechanics that contribute to combat and originate purely from tactical decisions made on the table.
Your force multipliers instead come primarily from unit synergies, which makes it much easier to accidentally screw yourself with listbuilding. If your list doesn't have much anti-tank, you can't make the most of what you have by flanking to hit vulnerable rear armor, or using terrain to get your infantry in close enough for assault. Without that ability to dynamically shift matchups in your favor, the list ends up driving capabilities to a more significant degree.
I remember WHFB players talking about this sort of stuff a lot more. Beyond listbuilding, it was important to properly manage maneuver and strategy, and you could potentially wipe out Chaos Warriors with Clanrats if you outflanked them. But there is basically no way I can get Conscripts to beat Intercessors- unless I have other things in my list that can amp them up.
That's the sort of non-listbuilding skill element that I feel 40K is currently light on. It's not that there isn't skill to 40K, but the non-list-related elements (eg spacing, screening, tripointing) are pretty simple, and then the more complex elements come down to optimally employing your list. I've played other games with comparable levels of imbalance in the army lists themselves, but the depth of gameplay provided tools for a good player to overcome that imbalance, and ultimately that made the outcome more skill-driven and the games feel more balanced.
Tl;Dr- no. I don't expect it to be balanced. Especially out of the box, or with any kind of 'universal' game/mission types. No ttg has ever achieved this. Its an unsolvable equation.
In depth, I don't think it can be balanced. 'A balanced game' is a myth, and frankly, unobtainable. Ttgs are extremely limited systems and can't hold much weight. The best you can reasonably expect in my opinion is some things match up well against some other things, at least some of the time.and even then with the caveat that you might need to front-end the game yourself.
Now, can the game be better balanced? Maybe, but I think it misses the point too. How much 'better' is 'good enough'. I think 'better' is as much of a unicorn as 'balanced. I don't think any amount of 'better' will be good enough, especially for the competitive expression of the game. I suspect any amount of problems, loose ends or imbalances will be seized on to the exclusion of whats positive, making 'better' simplistic pointless.
It seems to me often online there is a simplistic explanation of 'something something incompetence' and an equally simplistic expectation of some kind of magic solution along the lines 'if only things were costed correctly' as though this was the main lever to pull. When you talk about actual nitty gritty fixes (multiple win conditions, multiple lists, smaller scale/scope), you quickly realise it's not that simple, the tools that impose the illusion of balance also create as many problems as they solve and as soon as people realise some of the consequences and costs of these solutions, they go quiet and jump back to magic unicorn answers. I've not seen any of these 'solutions' in other games,especially cb or pp, not generate rage online, and fully expect any of these to be magnified like crazy when exposed to the much larger 40k community.
Honestly, in my opinion, any expectation of 'balanced, or of having a 'fair game' requires a front ended game building approach, and more than a bit of collaboration from the players as well, and cannot be expected out of the game box.
catbarf wrote: I think there's definitely a fair amount of tactical decision-making in 40K, particularly when it comes to the objectives.
What I think the game currently lacks are tactical force multipliers that can swing the odds. Typical wargame examples are cover (beyond just +1 to a save), armor facings, crossfire rules, spotting, suppression, and other mechanics that contribute to combat and originate purely from tactical decisions made on the table.
Your force multipliers instead come primarily from unit synergies, which makes it much easier to accidentally screw yourself with listbuilding. If your list doesn't have much anti-tank, you can't make the most of what you have by flanking to hit vulnerable rear armor, or using terrain to get your infantry in close enough for assault. Without that ability to dynamically shift matchups in your favor, the list ends up driving capabilities to a more significant degree.
I remember WHFB players talking about this sort of stuff a lot more. Beyond listbuilding, it was important to properly manage maneuver and strategy, and you could potentially wipe out Chaos Warriors with Clanrats if you outflanked them. But there is basically no way I can get Conscripts to beat Intercessors- unless I have other things in my list that can amp them up.
That's the sort of non-listbuilding skill element that I feel 40K is currently light on. It's not that there isn't skill to 40K, but the non-list-related elements (eg spacing, screening, tripointing) are pretty simple, and then the more complex elements come down to optimally employing your list. I've played other games with comparable levels of imbalance in the army lists themselves, but the depth of gameplay provided tools for a good player to overcome that imbalance, and ultimately that made the outcome more skill-driven and the games feel more balanced.
This is a fantastic post, and I wish I could exalt it more than once.
Voss wrote: Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.
That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'
One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.
One could. But those arguments are usually sheer sophistry about how playing a game to win is BadWrongFun and shouldn't be allowed.
One could. But those arguments are usually sheer sophistry about how playing a game to win is BadWrongFun and shouldn't be allowed.
Not necessary. He is not wrong. I.could have a corn flake eating contest with my wife. Is that meaningful? Gradients, not lines in the sand. Wanting to win is all well and good, and despite what you say, I doubt that more than a handful of people (the mythical casual at all cost scrub- in all my time here, I've identified one who would fit this description) would flat out state this as 'badwrongfun', but wanting to win has a price and it is realistic to acknowledge there is a point where the desire for this win, can become toxic and can damage everything around it.
While you are not not necessary wrong that achieving victory is a goal, is it or should it be considered the only goal, should it supercede all other aspects of someone's enjoyment to the point of detriment? How much should be sacrificed on the altar of competitive play in order to.summon this 'goal of winning? And how much does it really count for in an game as utterly breakable and poorly designed as 40k?
Truth is, it's a social hobby and context matters.
One could. But those arguments are usually sheer sophistry about how playing a game to win is BadWrongFun and shouldn't be allowed.
Not necessary. He is not wrong. I.could have a corn flake eating contest with my wife. Is that meaningful? Gradients, not lines in the sand. Wanting to win is all well and good, and despite what you say, I doubt that more than a handful of people (the mythical casual at all cost scrub- in all my time here, I've identified one who would fit this description) would flat out state this as 'badwrongfun', but wanting to win has a price and it is realistic to acknowledge there is a point where the desire for this win, can become toxic and can damage everything around it.
I've seen it a lot. I've seen the toxicity a lot less (except in crafted hypotheticals, and always, always only online, which to me means it has nothing to do with playing the game itself). Playing the game and socializing aren't even vaguely at odds and don't come into conflict with each other- you can't really play the game without socializing to some degree. So nothing needs to be sacrificed to the 'goal of winning,' any more than you need to sacrifice swimming to winning in a swimming event.
Voss wrote: [
I've seen it a lot. I've seen the toxicity a lot less (except in crafted hypotheticals, and always, always only online, which to me means it has nothing to do with playing the game itself). Playing the game and socializing aren't even vaguely at odds and don't come into conflict with each other- you can't really play the game without socializing to some degree. So nothing needs to be sacrificed to the 'goal of winning,' any more than you need to sacrifice swimming to winning in a swimming event.
And yet plenty folks get driven out of, or walk away from games because of a competitive, or sometimes hyper competitive community that cannot, ot refuses to rein itself in. Look at warmachine now for example. Often it just takes one over the top player.
I've found the same as you, more or less in real life- most folks are decent. However you can rank up the competitive to the point where it impacts on the enjoyment of other people. Neither is necessarily wrong, but the consequences for the other person are more negative. I don't necessarily see that as a good thing.
And you can sacrifice a lot to swim better. Time, relationships, other hobbies, your health, yoy own personal enjoyment of said swimmimg etc . I've done reasonably high level wargaming when I was an active player. In wmh The time commitment was huge, it took from a lot of other things I also enjoyed and frankly, in the end I wasn't actually enjoying the games I was playing or the lists the competitive meta obliged me to use. For what it's worth some of my friends are fairly highly ranked amateur athletes. The cost to be at that level is huge and too often, it becomes an obsession, rather than an enjoyment, to the point where their health seriously deteriorated (I'm talking hospitalizations etc). Being at the other end of (or even the proximity) of someone that dedicated can come at a serioud cost. imagine being my wife, if I'm away several times a week until late in the evening/night playing toy soldiers. Its hardly cool for her, is it?
Frankly, it's not always worth it, which is why I am so wary of statements that winning is fine (hence, to what extent) and hyperbole that disagreement is akin to claiming 'badwrongfun'. You're not necessary wrong. Thing is, neither are they. Sometimes it's OK to want your hobby to be relaxing and casual, and not too serious, and that hyper competitive player sometimes is actually a jerk thats ruining it for everyone else.
Look,again, you're not wrong. Just... just keep what I said in mind that someone else's perspective might differ. You don't have to be a bad person or tfg to be the villain in someone else's story.
catbarf wrote: I think there's definitely a fair amount of tactical decision-making in 40K, particularly when it comes to the objectives.
What I think the game currently lacks are tactical force multipliers that can swing the odds. Typical wargame examples are cover (beyond just +1 to a save), armor facings, crossfire rules, spotting, suppression, and other mechanics that contribute to combat and originate purely from tactical decisions made on the table.
Your force multipliers instead come primarily from unit synergies, which makes it much easier to accidentally screw yourself with listbuilding. If your list doesn't have much anti-tank, you can't make the most of what you have by flanking to hit vulnerable rear armor, or using terrain to get your infantry in close enough for assault. Without that ability to dynamically shift matchups in your favor, the list ends up driving capabilities to a more significant degree.
I remember WHFB players talking about this sort of stuff a lot more. Beyond listbuilding, it was important to properly manage maneuver and strategy, and you could potentially wipe out Chaos Warriors with Clanrats if you outflanked them. But there is basically no way I can get Conscripts to beat Intercessors- unless I have other things in my list that can amp them up.
That's the sort of non-listbuilding skill element that I feel 40K is currently light on. It's not that there isn't skill to 40K, but the non-list-related elements (eg spacing, screening, tripointing) are pretty simple, and then the more complex elements come down to optimally employing your list. I've played other games with comparable levels of imbalance in the army lists themselves, but the depth of gameplay provided tools for a good player to overcome that imbalance, and ultimately that made the outcome more skill-driven and the games feel more balanced.
This is a fantastic post, and I wish I could exalt it more than once.
I will add my own exalt to yours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?
I expect 40K should be roughly balanced in a way that makes every faction capable of offering up a reasonable solution for defeating most/all potential armies they could face.
I do not expect that every army will be capable of defeating any other army of a same point value.
I do not expect 40K units to be "balanced" because I expect that different units will have much different values based on context. Some units will be far better in dense terrain than others, for example.
I like the way you put that at the end, not necessarily being a "bad person" to be the villain in someone else's story.
Kudos, Deadnight.
Off topic, but...
It's kind of my own philosophy - im keenly aware of perspective. We all see the world differently. We all want slightly different things. no one,bar malcolm Reynolds plans to be a bad guy(and even then, he's not really...). We all justify our actions to some extent and we all see ourselves,not wrongly, as the heroes of our own story.
Thing is, everyone has a story and while you may not wish it, just because you don't aim to be the bad guy in your story doesn't mean you're not the villain in someone else's.
I also consider myself to be conscious of differing perspectives, and try to be respectful of them. *internet-based, COVID-safe Fist-bump*
And so as to not be entirely off topic... how about a throw away line about differing opinions on what balance means to an individual making a balanced game difficult to define and thus difficult to create?
Yup, vaguely on topic so less spammy.
For example, my sense of balance in the game is an emotional experience and not an empirical one. For me, balance is the feeling that when I play a game against a similarly skilled opponent, that we both have a reasonable chance to win. A highly subjective quality at best... what’s reasonable?
By extension, “balance” isn’t a yes/no , but a shade of grey. I would arbitrarily set my experience of sense of balance for 9th as being 7/10... highly acceptable. My experience with 8th edition circa Index era was about 9/10... notable failing with Guard balance that I was able to correct by playing at a handicap. Compared to later 7th edition where I’d rank balance at 2/10... it could hypothetically have been worse. I was considering selling my model collection, utterly unacceptable.
I’m also pragmatic by nature. I can accept a handful of flaws, especially if I can easily correct them, so long as the overall experience is positive. So in that regard I’m satisfied in my personal experience with the degree of balance in the game.
greatbigtree wrote: I also consider myself to be conscious of differing perspectives, and try to be respectful of them. *internet-based, COVID-safe Fist-bump*
And so as to not be entirely off topic... how about a throw away line about differing opinions on what balance means to an individual making a balanced game difficult to define and thus difficult to create?
Yup, vaguely on topic so less spammy.
For example, my sense of balance in the game is an emotional experience and not an empirical one. For me, balance is the feeling that when I play a game against a similarly skilled opponent, that we both have a reasonable chance to win. A highly subjective quality at best... what’s reasonable?
By extension, “balance” isn’t a yes/no , but a shade of grey. I would arbitrarily set my experience of sense of balance for 9th as being 7/10... highly acceptable. My experience with 8th edition circa Index era was about 9/10... notable failing with Guard balance that I was able to correct by playing at a handicap. Compared to later 7th edition where I’d rank balance at 2/10... it could hypothetically have been worse. I was considering selling my model collection, utterly unacceptable.
I’m also pragmatic by nature. I can accept a handful of flaws, especially if I can easily correct them, so long as the overall experience is positive. So in that regard I’m satisfied in my personal experience with the degree of balance in the game.
That seemed perfectly on-topic to me. My questions were all asked to provoke this discussion and I'm grinning ear to ear at how civil it is.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with voting with your wallet is that there's often other pressures to participate beyond what you personally like.
Wargames are very geographically limited, and expensive in terms of money and time.
If everyone around you is sticking to 40k, you'll either have to do without wargames or play 40k. Similarly if you can't afford to buy in to a new system.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with you to a point, GW has n o obligation to make a good game.
But I do think 40k has reached a critical mass of self-sustaining size where it will continue to attract and retain players in spite of anti-consumer decisions by GW. Which is helped enormously by the extreme loyalty of much of the fanbase.
i havnt bought anything from GW for my last two armies... there are ways to keep playing while not giving GW money.
That is only available if you will pirate books and/or play with others who never expand their collections. Otherwise you will sooner or later have to spend some money to GW. Like for me, I accept the game for what it is, do I wish my group would maybe expand to other things ? Yes but as they won't it's either play GW or not play a mini war game based on my area. As was said GW by size of market self sustains, unless they do another first drift of AoS for 40k that will happen and even AoS on first release had people supporting it blindly as a marvel of amazing rules design, GW was so large even that fiasco took awhile to kill off interest and that was a huge mess of a terrible idea.
Strictly speaking, 40K and any game like it are impossible to balance. There are too many variables to balance all possible permutations of the game.
That being said, I expect 40K to be reasonably balanced between reasonable list. GW should continue to work to smooth out any balance issues between and within armies.
For example, it can be safely said GW needs to do something about Eradicators. They are simply an unbalanced unit that messes with nearly any battlefield it appears on. It is too efficient to not be used and that impacts both Space Marine and non-Space Marine list alike. It is the type of issues GW needs to deal with.
Much less important is how to make place for AM Conscripts as opposed to AM Infantry Squads. Ideally, both units would have a place in the game, but it is darn hard to balance between those two.
AngryAngel80 wrote: That is only available if you will pirate books and/or play with others who never expand their collections. Otherwise you will sooner or later have to spend some money to GW. Like for me, I accept the game for what it is, do I wish my group would maybe expand to other things ? Yes but as they won't it's either play GW or not play a mini war game based on my area. As was said GW by size of market self sustains, unless they do another first drift of AoS for 40k that will happen and even AoS on first release had people supporting it blindly as a marvel of amazing rules design, GW was so large even that fiasco took awhile to kill off interest and that was a huge mess of a terrible idea.
Untrue. You can always buy both books and models second hand and not give GW anything.
catbarf wrote: I remember WHFB players talking about this sort of stuff a lot more. Beyond listbuilding, it was important to properly manage maneuver and strategy, and you could potentially wipe out Chaos Warriors with Clanrats if you outflanked them. But there is basically no way I can get Conscripts to beat Intercessors- unless I have other things in my list that can amp them up.
That's the sort of non-listbuilding skill element that I feel 40K is currently light on. It's not that there isn't skill to 40K, but the non-list-related elements (eg spacing, screening, tripointing) are pretty simple, and then the more complex elements come down to optimally employing your list. I've played other games with comparable levels of imbalance in the army lists themselves, but the depth of gameplay provided tools for a good player to overcome that imbalance, and ultimately that made the outcome more skill-driven and the games feel more balanced.
Maybe I guess but I'm not sure. Maybe its just that once you move beyond a certain level, most people bring *good* (or at least *not awful*) lists. So the view that the game is all about list building is bit weird. You don't even have to learn it - just google a list that won a tournament last week and run that.
This is easier think than knowing "how to screen optimally" or even "which models should you remove as casualties (now further complicated by coherency)" and so on. "Target the right thing" is easy - but "the right thing" changes depending on how other units and whole turns have gone.
The problem is more if you've got a bad faction you are screwed (largely full stop, the end, until there is a re-write) - and frankly if you have a bad army even in a good faction it may be expensive to make it into a good one.
To go with your examples - and its hard to do without pictures - I feel a lot of flanking etc in older 40k or WHFB just didn't... happen. I mean yes *in theory* you could sandwich a chaos warrior unit with two blocks of clan rats. But the Chaos player presumably saw the clan rats so if he ends up in that position, he made a mistake (which I think is implied you shouldn't make). Or rather than making a mistake, he may have gambled and lost (i.e. failed a charge, or charged but didn't break the unit when you would have expected to etc etc).
In the same way if you spent 3 turns creeping forward with a melta gun to get into the rear arc of a tank and the tank-player did nothing about it... well, they should have? They saw the melta unit moving towards them - you can't hide it. The reality more often was "I'm going to deep strike in the tank's flank (or rear, if they didn't just backline to a board edge) and hope I don't massively scatter". Which the tank player couldn't do anything about. So I'm not really sure you can call it "skill" exactly - beyond what I feel you have now. Position it in the right place and hope the dice don't screw you over.
I'm not totally against the principles. I would love a 40k meets Infinity game which had reactive turns (or something of that ilk). But I don't know how you do it without really messing up things I do like about 40k.
I much rather just get to the point where all units are reasonable in their own terms - and you got rid of autotakes and nevertakes. Which I don't think is impossible - I'm just not sure GW will ever do it because of the way their release cycle works.
I guess I'm banking a lot on the next two codexes.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with voting with your wallet is that there's often other pressures to participate beyond what you personally like.
Wargames are very geographically limited, and expensive in terms of money and time.
If everyone around you is sticking to 40k, you'll either have to do without wargames or play 40k. Similarly if you can't afford to buy in to a new system.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with you to a point, GW has n o obligation to make a good game.
But I do think 40k has reached a critical mass of self-sustaining size where it will continue to attract and retain players in spite of anti-consumer decisions by GW. Which is helped enormously by the extreme loyalty of much of the fanbase.
i havnt bought anything from GW for my last two armies... there are ways to keep playing while not giving GW money.
That is only available if you will pirate books and/or play with others who never expand their collections. Otherwise you will sooner or later have to spend some money to GW. Like for me, I accept the game for what it is, do I wish my group would maybe expand to other things ? Yes but as they won't it's either play GW or not play a mini war game based on my area. As was said GW by size of market self sustains, unless they do another first drift of AoS for 40k that will happen and even AoS on first release had people supporting it blindly as a marvel of amazing rules design, GW was so large even that fiasco took awhile to kill off interest and that was a huge mess of a terrible idea.
I legit got 2 full armies with 0$ going to GW's pockets. You just gotta know where to look.
I think GW feels the short term benefits of an unbalanced game state outweigh the long term benefits of a balanced one. Specifically, they do so enough that they do not want to invest additional resources into balancing it. This is the apathy.
But are GW bad at balance? Yes, obviously. Balance is difficult to get right, even when not talking about the straw man of 'perfect balance' often brought up by individuals without an understanding of the subject. But there are things so egregiously out of whack that the community spots them literally within minutes. Things that don't make sense on a basic mathematical level, or a mechanical one. This is the incompetence.
The reason GW gets away with this combination is they have the momentum of being the biggest name on the market. Ditto for some of the pricing; while much of what they produce is very appealing and high quality I think we can all agree it isn't so good that they would be able to sustain the level of prices they do without the popularity factor.
It is what it is. I enjoy the game for what it costs me personally and if that stops being true I will quit and wait to come back when things get fixed up. Though the caveat is I have phased out doing matched play almost completely.
Yes, I do expect it to be balanced to a reasonable point.
But I don’t expect GW to ever be capable of putting something out that is more than Avg at best at it.
I don’t even thinks it entirely the rules writers, but more management incompetence and letting the other teams run the show.
Right now there are factions that cannot interact with entire phases and design ideas of the game.
So the rules have to try and accommodate that and push them into design holes that reasonably they should have looked to address years ago.
With smart planing some of them only needed minimal investment and thought.
Instead we end up with a bland, surface level excitement lacking much real depth and a over reliance on the pregame set up.
I think the balance i look for is-do both players have a chance at winning?
The deeper answer is as a lore based player not driven by tournaments or e-sport style ideals i play 40K for immersive in universe appeal.
This is most clearly shown in the love for the 3.5 chaos codex where an army could be both capable of winning but also have rules and restrictions that made it play to the lore.
Every faction used to have it's faults and strengths based in the lore and it was up to the players to use them to their best ability on the table to pull off a victory.
Eldar for example were the specialist army. relying on specific aspect warriors, speed and advanced tech to make up for weaknesses in strength toughness and numbers
Guard by comparison were just as weak and squishy as eldar, but they lacked the speed, tech, and focus advantage. they countered it with sheer numbers and (less accurate) overwhelming firepower
AngryAngel80 wrote: That is only available if you will pirate books and/or play with others who never expand their collections. Otherwise you will sooner or later have to spend some money to GW. Like for me, I accept the game for what it is, do I wish my group would maybe expand to other things ? Yes but as they won't it's either play GW or not play a mini war game based on my area. As was said GW by size of market self sustains, unless they do another first drift of AoS for 40k that will happen and even AoS on first release had people supporting it blindly as a marvel of amazing rules design, GW was so large even that fiasco took awhile to kill off interest and that was a huge mess of a terrible idea.
Untrue. You can always buy both books and models second hand and not give GW anything.
Only if you are buying old copies of things. If its a new unit it can be quite hard to get them second hand. If you are buying from a store not GW, GW still got paid, just not directly. If its a new codex, it's hard to find that right away as second hand, and that is what I mean. Sure by second hand for cheaper prices as much and as often as you can but if its from new boxes GW put out, GW already got your money no matter how many ways you try and slice it.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with voting with your wallet is that there's often other pressures to participate beyond what you personally like.
Wargames are very geographically limited, and expensive in terms of money and time.
If everyone around you is sticking to 40k, you'll either have to do without wargames or play 40k. Similarly if you can't afford to buy in to a new system.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with you to a point, GW has n o obligation to make a good game.
But I do think 40k has reached a critical mass of self-sustaining size where it will continue to attract and retain players in spite of anti-consumer decisions by GW. Which is helped enormously by the extreme loyalty of much of the fanbase.
i havnt bought anything from GW for my last two armies... there are ways to keep playing while not giving GW money.
That is only available if you will pirate books and/or play with others who never expand their collections. Otherwise you will sooner or later have to spend some money to GW. Like for me, I accept the game for what it is, do I wish my group would maybe expand to other things ? Yes but as they won't it's either play GW or not play a mini war game based on my area. As was said GW by size of market self sustains, unless they do another first drift of AoS for 40k that will happen and even AoS on first release had people supporting it blindly as a marvel of amazing rules design, GW was so large even that fiasco took awhile to kill off interest and that was a huge mess of a terrible idea.
I legit got 2 full armies with 0$ going to GW's pockets. You just gotta know where to look.
Yet again, it's possible, I've gotten plenty of models second hand. However, if its a new unit, that market is much drier, if its a strong unit, same thing. As well second hand you may be spending near just as much and have to put more time into it as well and time can be more precious than the cash at certain stages. So yes can you ? Sure, but new rules and new units make that near impossible to do. Unless you are saying just don't buy directly from GW and somehow that doesn't equate to GW already got their money either way.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's morally wrong if you're gonna be one of those players that won't let their opponents proxy because they chose the wrong paint scheme.
Absolutely. I started painting my orks with the Deathskullz colours during 3rd edition era, then 17 years later colour scheme matters for the rules! Even if I've mostly played Deathskullz since 8th anyway, forgive me if sometimes I play orks with the klan rules I want to try regardless of how they are painted .
People misinterpreted the rules pretty often anyways. All it meant was that if you had an army painted as a specific faction with rules you could not use it as another specific faction with rules. You could not use models painted as White Scars to be Salamanders. You could not use Iron Warriors as Word Bearers. Which is really a bit unsportsmanlike to spring on someone without asking ahead of time anyways. If you painted up your army with a custom scheme (or one without rules support) you could call them anything you wanted.
If there is something that screws other people over, there is a 100% chance that someone has done it in the past.
That would mean we could never discover new ways to screw other people over since anything that is possible will already have been done!
Besides, it's not like GW wrote these rules at the same time they were using them to screw someone over. There is a period between a method becoming possible and it being exploited to screw.
catbarf wrote: I remember WHFB players talking about this sort of stuff a lot more. Beyond listbuilding, it was important to properly manage maneuver and strategy, and you could potentially wipe out Chaos Warriors with Clanrats if you outflanked them. But there is basically no way I can get Conscripts to beat Intercessors- unless I have other things in my list that can amp them up.
That's the sort of non-listbuilding skill element that I feel 40K is currently light on. It's not that there isn't skill to 40K, but the non-list-related elements (eg spacing, screening, tripointing) are pretty simple, and then the more complex elements come down to optimally employing your list. I've played other games with comparable levels of imbalance in the army lists themselves, but the depth of gameplay provided tools for a good player to overcome that imbalance, and ultimately that made the outcome more skill-driven and the games feel more balanced.
To go with your examples - and its hard to do without pictures - I feel a lot of flanking etc in older 40k or WHFB just didn't... happen. I mean yes *in theory* you could sandwich a chaos warrior unit with two blocks of clan rats. But the Chaos player presumably saw the clan rats so if he ends up in that position, he made a mistake (which I think is implied you shouldn't make). Or rather than making a mistake, he may have gambled and lost (i.e. failed a charge, or charged but didn't break the unit when you would have expected to etc etc).
Don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of discussing the ins and outs of a dead game, but this point above is a good representation of what Catbarf was talking about with in-game strategy and list building. One of the weaknesses of Chaos Warrior armies was they didn't have the chaff units other armies had access to. You got warhounds but they were easy to remove for most armies. They also had very little ranged firepower so they had to engage in close combat to win. That meant the army was vulnerable by design against masses of much weaker blocks of infantry. At a very basic level it would be a mistake to allow your Warrior block to be flanked, but your army design made that more likely so it became a constant threat you had to work around as a Chaos player to make the trade-off between over-committing while actually engaging the enemy so you could win the game. You then need to develop strategies to manage this trade-off, but they're not so much list building strategies as they are play style ones.
The biggest problem with this type of discussion is it's really difficult to properly describe and discuss on a forum. It's easy to say things just shouldn't be allowed to happen by a competent player but part of the skill of a lot of wargames is engineering situations where all your opponent's options are bad. Sot he move that loses the game may be the decision to charge but the reason that was game-losing is because of the specific scenario that was set up in previous turns. Sometimes it's a gradual build-up of lots of small decisions over 2-3 turns. By contrast, list building is a really easy discussion to have online because it's relatively easy to spot powerful units and discuss idealised scenarios without having to get too in-depth about tactics on the board.
I expect that my army is capable to put up a fight if I play correctly with it, and that my Codex is internally balanced.
I don't want half my models in a shelve for 3 years because they put 0 effort on the rules and they're absolutely unplayable. Not because I want to win, but because I want to play the models I love without handicapping myself.
Denegaar wrote: I expect that my army is capable to put up a fight if I play correctly with it, and that my Codex is internally balanced.
I don't want half my models in a shelve for 3 years because they put 0 effort on the rules and they're absolutely unplayable. Not because I want to win, but because I want to play the models I love without handicapping myself.
That's the key for me. I don't think perfect balance is achievable. I want every unit in the army to have some chance of being useable in an appropriate army list and I want a list that conforms to the background of the army to be effective. One of the worst things to see in a new player is someone who's absorbed the background for their army and has a real passion for it, has put together a list base don the background, and then gets utterly crushed not because they're new to the game but because their army doesn't work the way it should.
The inverse of that was my primary problem with the 8.5 SM Codex. I saw some players just get totally disheartened because they'd chosen some xenos faction while the other new player had chosen SM and no matter what the xenos player did they couldn't win. More than one of those players never showed up again. I think that's where you see the real impact of truly terrible balance. Established players may have the models in their collection to do something to combat the truly broken armies, but for new players it just seems totally unfair and insurmountable. In practical terms it often is.
Denegaar wrote: I expect that my army is capable to put up a fight if I play correctly with it, and that my Codex is internally balanced.
I don't want half my models in a shelve for 3 years because they put 0 effort on the rules and they're absolutely unplayable. Not because I want to win, but because I want to play the models I love without handicapping myself.
That's the key for me. I don't think perfect balance is achievable. I want every unit in the army to have some chance of being useable in an appropriate army list and I want a list that conforms to the background of the army to be effective. One of the worst things to see in a new player is someone who's absorbed the background for their army and has a real passion for it, has put together a list base don the background, and then gets utterly crushed not because they're new to the game but because their army doesn't work the way it should.
The inverse of that was my primary problem with the 8.5 SM Codex. I saw some players just get totally disheartened because they'd chosen some xenos faction while the other new player had chosen SM and no matter what the xenos player did they couldn't win. More than one of those players never showed up again. I think that's where you see the real impact of truly terrible balance. Established players may have the models in their collection to do something to combat the truly broken armies, but for new players it just seems totally unfair and insurmountable. In practical terms it often is.
Which is why someone starting 40K should check the netlists online before buying stuff. But honestly most imperial factions are good to go aside from our beloved imperial guard (Astra Militarum sorry), everything works to some extent. Some blade guards and eradicators for marines, exorcist tanks and repentia + rhinos for sistas, cavalry + skorpius tanks for ad mech...
But for xenos or chaos then yes, a new player really should check online for winning lists. Not copy these winning lists, but to think "hey, this units no one brings. I like the model but should I really be buying that right now, as I am starting and learning to play ?"
I don't have kids so I don't really know how they think things through when starting such a complex game, but surely they look online a bit no ? Or do they approach it like they would a simple boardgame ?
Voss wrote: Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.
That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'
One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.
One could. But those arguments are usually sheer sophistry about how playing a game to win is BadWrongFun and shouldn't be allowed.
They’re more “you can’t buy a Ford Focus, and expect it to be a race car”. The game, for better or worse, isn’t designed with competition play in mind. This why we have “three ways to play”, and a seemingly endless provision of campaign books, new missions and different victory conditions.
Whether a given player agrees with that or not, that’s the game GW wants to produce.
Tournaments are often painted in the worst possible light. I dunno if you were around at the time, but perhaps The Wrecking Crew might ring a bell? A group of self proclaimed “elite” 40k players. They got up to various shenanigans (including using smaller than required bases etc). To my mind, such behaviour represents the worst elements of the Tournament scene - the sort of player to whom winning is everything, and damn the other player’s enjoyment.
But that of course is far from the whole picture. The handful of tournaments I’ve taken part in have for the most part been fun. Yes, I’ve had the odd poor sport opponent, but that is solely on them. Such experiences are the happy majority. People go to get new challenges against different players. You might come up against armies and lists you’ve never seen before after all.
Yet the fact remains the game isn’t and hasn’t been designed with the “Bad Sort” in mind. And for my money, nor should it. Give me my options. The more the merrier. Why? Because the “Bad Sort” will find a way to get their jollies regardless. They’ll find some angle to stoke their own egos at the expense of a mutually enjoyable game. Consider the ITC. They do a pretty bang up (and unpaid) job of getting things organised. Their efforts include their own attempts to tweak things to a more enjoyable format for tournament play. Yet we still see the “Bad Sort” trying to work the system, because that’s what they do. It doesn’t make them bad people, but it does make them bad opponents,
Even if GW moved to better balance? The “Bad Sort” would still exist. Exactly what their army looks like would change, but their approach and attitude wouldn’t.
One could. But those arguments are usually sheer sophistry about how playing a game to win is BadWrongFun and shouldn't be allowed.
They’re more “you can’t buy a Ford Focus, and expect it to be a race car”. The game, for better or worse, isn’t designed with competition play in mind. This why we have “three ways to play”, and a seemingly endless provision of campaign books, new missions and different victory conditions
For something not build with competition in mind, GW is selling a ton of rules, rules updates etc If they were a model collector driven company, one would expect the rules to either not exist, be fan made or be a free download bonus on their site. But GW has clearly in the past and present, made units with rules to drive the models sells. You don't make something like a Wraight Knight and then under cost it by 1/3, just for people collecting that model
or those who want to paint it. We have had what 80+pages of people being unhappy that marines are good in game. If tw40k wasn't about gaming, but playing we wouldn't be getting threads like that. Only 80+ stuff about painting and converting.
All games need to be nominally balanced, it's just more fun that way.
Where I would say competitive design comes in is eliminating the outliers.
In a casual game, specific combinations of stuff being OP isn't an issue. It is in a competitive game.
Soo 40k not being a competitive game is no excuse not to have a balanced game.
Although, in general I'd argue the premise that 40k isn't intended for competitive play is false. GW sure puts a lot of effort into facilitating tournament play.
I think it is the revers actualy, and that makes it a real problem. Power unbalanced doesn't matter that much in tournaments. Because in tournaments people play to win with the best armies, and if someone is crazy enough to go with something like tau it is their own foult, or they are going for something like a faction best player etc. Where big imbalances are a real problem is in casual games.
If four friends play at store or home with their 2000pts collections of models, and suddenly a codex or edition changes turns one army in to 2.0 Iron Hands or 9th ed tau, then those 4 people are in trouble. Specially if they live in a place where they can't just buy a new army in 2-3 months. I mean if a tau player would want to play the game right now and his 3 friends played even mid tier armies, there is no ways of fixing the quality of games the tau player will have. Same the other way around, if there is 3 casual players and the 4th is a harlquin player with an army from 8th, which over night became a almost clone of GT winning armies, the other 3 will may no longer want to play with him. And what is worse, it is not like the harli player had a good time in 8th with the rule set he had back then.
Denegaar wrote: I expect that my army is capable to put up a fight if I play correctly with it, and that my Codex is internally balanced.
I don't want half my models in a shelve for 3 years because they put 0 effort on the rules and they're absolutely unplayable. Not because I want to win, but because I want to play the models I love without handicapping myself.
That's the key for me. I don't think perfect balance is achievable. I want every unit in the army to have some chance of being useable in an appropriate army list and I want a list that conforms to the background of the army to be effective. One of the worst things to see in a new player is someone who's absorbed the background for their army and has a real passion for it, has put together a list base don the background, and then gets utterly crushed not because they're new to the game but because their army doesn't work the way it should.
The inverse of that was my primary problem with the 8.5 SM Codex. I saw some players just get totally disheartened because they'd chosen some xenos faction while the other new player had chosen SM and no matter what the xenos player did they couldn't win. More than one of those players never showed up again. I think that's where you see the real impact of truly terrible balance. Established players may have the models in their collection to do something to combat the truly broken armies, but for new players it just seems totally unfair and insurmountable. In practical terms it often is.
Yeah, this. I have been bringing people to the game for years, and the one thing that drives most away is picking an underpowered army and losing all the time because of that. During 5th there was this store event thing where GW gave you free stuff if you bought units following an upgrade path starting with AOBR, but you really ended up with a horrible marine army if you did. Out of six (or maybe seven?) players who did that only one is playing today - because he was the lucky guy who picked space wolves whose long fangs were really good units back then.
This is also my main drive for being so active in dakka's ork community. Orks are an army that is really easy to play wrong, and I've often met ork players in stores who were totally enthusiastic about orks and playing them, but then started to come less often and eventually disappear when their lose streaks were starting to get to two digits. Incompetent GW staff members or marine players giving bad advice only sped up this process, because then they keep losing despite spending more money. When you help them with building their army into something decent though, you at least have a 50-50 chance of them sticking around longer. I even got into a fight with a store manager because I intervened when he was trying to push the usual junk (kanz, nobz, bikes, dreads) onto a player who had just lost a game, when he really just needed a proper army core first. He ended up buying four boxes of boyz, two boxes of lootas and a metal KFF mek, so the manager really had no reason to be pissed at me. Sadly, I've never met the guy again, so no idea how that worked out for him.
I imagine a player starting tau, eldar or TS these days won't even last until their codex drops.
On topic: Do I want the game to be balanced? Hell, yes. Not bringing three different power levels of lists to compensate for my opponent's collection size and codex power would be so awesome. Ideally, at a semi-competitve level every codex should be able to build an army of similar power for every archetype it supports. Perfect balance is neither possible nor needed to reach that goal. It's still a game of chance and player skill often doesn't match up. At the top of competitive gaming, a single powerful build per codex should be sufficient. Within each codex, there should be no dead units, and no units that fail to perform their primary role, nor should any unit be strictly worse than another one. Just shoving an incoherent mass of models into a pile won't always result in a usable army, but an army should just fail to perform because you brought squig buggys and snazzwagons instead of scrapjets and shokk-jump dragstas. Right now they do.
Denegaar wrote: I expect that my army is capable to put up a fight if I play correctly with it, and that my Codex is internally balanced.
I don't want half my models in a shelve for 3 years because they put 0 effort on the rules and they're absolutely unplayable. Not because I want to win, but because I want to play the models I love without handicapping myself.
That's the key for me. I don't think perfect balance is achievable. I want every unit in the army to have some chance of being useable in an appropriate army list and I want a list that conforms to the background of the army to be effective. One of the worst things to see in a new player is someone who's absorbed the background for their army and has a real passion for it, has put together a list base don the background, and then gets utterly crushed not because they're new to the game but because their army doesn't work the way it should.
The inverse of that was my primary problem with the 8.5 SM Codex. I saw some players just get totally disheartened because they'd chosen some xenos faction while the other new player had chosen SM and no matter what the xenos player did they couldn't win. More than one of those players never showed up again. I think that's where you see the real impact of truly terrible balance. Established players may have the models in their collection to do something to combat the truly broken armies, but for new players it just seems totally unfair and insurmountable. In practical terms it often is.
Which is why someone starting 40K should check the netlists online before buying stuff. But honestly most imperial factions are good to go aside from our beloved imperial guard (Astra Militarum sorry), everything works to some extent. Some blade guards and eradicators for marines, exorcist tanks and repentia + rhinos for sistas, cavalry + skorpius tanks for ad mech...
But for xenos or chaos then yes, a new player really should check online for winning lists. Not copy these winning lists, but to think "hey, this units no one brings. I like the model but should I really be buying that right now, as I am starting and learning to play ?"
I don't have kids so I don't really know how they think things through when starting such a complex game, but surely they look online a bit no ? Or do they approach it like they would a simple boardgame ?
Nah, I think people tend to assume the expensive game they are buying will be reasonably balanced, and that buying minis you think look cool is the point? Like, they will overwhelmingly be guided by aesthetics as that is the draw of the game, perhaps by fiction they have read or a video game they played where they liked one faction or other.
Since most fiction and games are ALSO about Space Marines, no doubt a lot of them will be fine as they will be in the nice Space Marine environment where they are well looked after.
But if they liked some currently down on it's luck Xenos faction then they are screwed.
And I don't even think this is a kid specific problem, most people getting into a game like this assume the company did it's job and produced a reasonably (I have to add this all the time to stop people going "Aha, but perfet balance is impossible!", god damnit) balanced game and they can pick what they like.
Which is why someone starting 40K should check the netlists online before buying stuff. But honestly most imperial factions are good to go aside from our beloved imperial guard (Astra Militarum sorry), everything works to some extent. Some blade guards and eradicators for marines, exorcist tanks and repentia + rhinos for sistas, cavalry + skorpius tanks for ad mech... But for xenos or chaos then yes, a new player really should check online for winning lists. Not copy these winning lists, but to think "hey, this units no one brings. I like the model but should I really be buying that right now, as I am starting and learning to play ?" I don't have kids so I don't really know how they think things through when starting such a complex game, but surely they look online a bit no ? Or do they approach it like they would a simple boardgame ?
For me, that's a totally backwards way of looking at things. The game should be reasonably well balanced enough that you should be able to buy most things and make a decent army out of it. Not literally any combination of units, but if you put a little thought into you army and go by the background you should be able to get a good balanced game against most opponents and have a solid starting point for a good army.
As for how new players behave, my experience is it's nothing like you think. You have to remember Dakka members probably make up, at most, 5% of the player base, and they're - by definition - among the most enthusiastic and invested players of the game. You'd be surprised how many new players aren't even aware that tournaments exist, so the chances of them checking out netlists and copying them are pretty slim. Mostly, they buy in to GW's marketing about what armies should look like or assume the game is fairly balanced to begin with. Even among those who do a bit more research I've witnessed the surprise first-hand at how bad it can actually be. If you contrast that with games that are better balanced the new player experience is very different because you rarely have to tell someone they've wasted their money and time buying and painting a bunch of units that are really bad.
As an example, I started playing Hordes around the start of Mk2. I liked the Dire Troll Mauler and the Earthborn Dire Troll Sculpts, so I picked those up. I got an Axer and Impaler half price at a con, as well as some scattergunners. Due to supply problems (it was hard to get the full line in Ireland) I could never get the Krielstone, even though everyone said it was key to Troll lists. I picked up Grim Aengus and a unit of Kriel Warriors because I thought the Warriors looked better than the Champions.
I played games with these guys throughout Mk2, added maybe a solo here or a light warbeast there, based on what I could find in the local shop. I won tournaments with this fairly random selection of models, a lot of which was not what the net lists would have told you to take (krielstone, Champions etc).
But I just had fun. I always felt I had a decent chance of winning any game I played, and I was able to easily swap in and out leaders for my force (I got Kegslayer, Doomshaper and so on) and eventually added Mulg because I loved his model too.
That is the ideal to me - grab a bunch of units, make maybe some minor concessions to list building to make a cohesive force, and have a fair shot at winning your games because you know how to use the strengths and weaknesses of your models.
Ironically, Privateer Press changed army set ups in Mk3 to heavily punish that sort of approach with Theme lists, and I dropped out of the game at that point. But Warmachine and Hordes was a very complex game too, with lots of different variables and they managed (mostly) to let people buy whatever they felt looked cool and make lists that could compete pretty well.
There have been times that GW achieved nearly that level of balance, but never for an entire edition of the game. There is always a lack of discipline from one or other designer that messes things up eventually in each edition. Only 6e and 7e were broken by the core rules (in my view).
Which is why someone starting 40K should check the netlists online before buying stuff.
I disagree with that. Meta shifts very quickly, someone that starts the hobby should only focus to get familiar with the hobby. How to assemble and paint the models, how to play the game, learn own army's mechanics, etc.
I've seen plenty of newbies starting with armies that were on par at the moment of buying them but just a few months later, with a large portion of the models still unpainted, games were already one sided, with the sad consequence of a guy abandoning the hobby. Say a dude wants to play drukhari and his buddy wants SM: should I suggest the former to get a skew coven oriented list and the latter a chunk of mediocre units to get balanced games against each other? Of course not. What happens if suddenly a couple of coven units (basically 50% of the roster) get nerfed? What happens if the SM player wants to play against someone else and his army sucks?
Say a dude wants to start orks: I may suggest to have a look at a Goff greentide but by the time he has bought, assembled, painted the models and learned how to play that list could have already become unplayable and being a skew list there's little he could do about it but buying, assembling and painting (tons of) other models.
My only suggestion to people that start the hobby is to focus on every part of it and play with half or two thirds of their collection. This way they can always update their lists without buying anything else after the inevitable changes to their armies. And to avoid skew lists starting with un-optimized armies with a bit of eveything.
My advice is, rules come and go but models are forever, so make sure you get the ones you like the look of first and foremost. At worst you can use them for other games with better rules.
Models aren't entirely forever, I was only playing a few years before some of my models dropped off the plane of existence. Now several key units of my army are only legal with my opponent's consent, since they're Legends.
I just change rule systems if GW makes my models invalid. Understand that that is not an option for most people who want to take part in the pick up game side of things.
My models are more important to me than the other aspects of the game. They are cooler and I invest more time in them.
Yeah you guys are right, the more I think about it , the more I realize I was thinking of new players gettting into the game 5-10 years ago, when things evolved a lot slower
Currently things move so fast (good units becomre priced out of being good any longer, like centurions last year were great, and now no one sees them anymore) it is impossible to predict -what will work and what will not- by the time a new player has painted his/her stuff.
So a new player might as well buy what he/she thinks look cool or has cool fluff. Who knows if it will be good or not in 6 months. If they have opponents willing to tone their lists accordingly all should be ok.
Yeah well that would be nice if stuff moved fast for everyone. If someone decided to buy in to Tyranids, because they like big monsters and Alien in 8th, then they are not having a good time for longer then 6 months. Same with csm playing folks, who actualy want to use csm models in their armies.
Karol wrote: Yeah well that would be nice if stuff moved fast for everyone. If someone decided to buy in to Tyranids, because they like big monsters and Alien in 8th, then they are not having a good time for longer then 6 months. Same with csm playing folks, who actualy want to use csm models in their armies.
Yeah, it is still incredible to me that people continue to insist there is no double standard, when GW decided to release for free all the datasheets for unique space wolves DABADW units JUST so they didn't have to wait EVEN ONE MONTH for their codexes to be released....
....but Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, CSM, DG? Have fun with your 1W marines vs 2W marines games, losers, hope you didn't buy into our brand new chaos space marine army range we launched like 6 months ago because those are going to suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck to play against all your friends for we don't know how long.
Never mind that we're just randomly throwing DA W3 terminators with always-on -1D randomly, so you can't make the argument that we would give imbalanced rules to such crazy, wildly different units as...*checks notes* chaos space marines, who are identical to tactical marines except they have worse chapter tactics and no doctrines
Well I like to think that it is just them having their releases pushed because of corona. Stuff like DG, but probably DE and DA well probably were all ment for 2020, but GW is not going to put them out in to a world where stores are closed and people aren't buying stuff, because of 2ed wave and fear of 3ed wave in spring.
Da Boss wrote: Stuff like that is clear evidence that the design team is not really professional or serious.
And this is the number 1 reason I don't expect or anticipate balance.
Perfect balance isn't even what I'm asking for, but as pointed out there's some absolutely ridiculous, egregious balance shenanigans out there that aren't "this unit is off by a few percentage points because this gak is hard." It's like "This entire army is unplayable because of a fairly simple interaction between the way they have to build and the way secondaries are scored."
Well, they are professional unless GW is relying on unpaid labour for their rules? Yes, I know you mean acting unprofessionally but that is just an unfounded personal attack and from what I hear GW are not the kind of company to put up with nonsense from staff. As for serious, from interviews I have seen they appear to be very passionate and serious. Warhammer - Serious Business "serious", probably not, I suspect they have some fun with it.
Why do they do such a bad job so consistently then? Look at the example above, how is that defensible? It would be trivially easy to put out an update or to have included the chaos marines in that update, but they don't bother.
As for unprofessional, I understand the pedantic meaning of the phrase, but colloquially it also has the meaning of "not to a very high standard" or "amateurish", which I definitely feel applies to the studios output.
Some of them seem to do a decent job, but overall there is a lack of care or quality control that is very disappointing.
It is pretty common in tabletop games though, I find.
The reason they don't usually give people stuff is that they want to sell it.
I mean we have these debates on digital ruleset, GW just hand out rules and unit entries etc - but they want people to buy books.
*If* their app joined the 21st century I could see that being the main mechanism. But until someone can prove these books don't generate a lot of money for comparatively little work and overhead, they'll keep churning them out. See what will presumably be day 1 DLC to codexes released 20 minutes earlier coming soon next year.
I mean, they do give people stuff for free. All the Space Marine subfactions got indexes to carry them over to their next codex/supplment/bookything.
Why not give CSM some indexes in the same way? Do they really think that CSM players won't then buy the codex when it drops? But they think DA players will buy the supplement after giving them an index?
Tyel wrote: The reason they don't usually give people stuff is that they want to sell it.
I mean we have these debates on digital ruleset, GW just hand out rules and unit entries etc - but they want people to buy books.
*If* their app joined the 21st century I could see that being the main mechanism. But until someone can prove these books don't generate a lot of money for comparatively little work and overhead, they'll keep churning them out. See what will presumably be day 1 DLC to codexes released 20 minutes earlier coming soon next year.
It would be prime content for a white dwarf and a decent annual rules update book. Smaller sub factions as well could be well served that way and promote sales of the miniatures themselves.
I'll be honest I don't play weird Marines, and don't actually know what's in the indexes. GW having a double standard on Marines versus anything else in the game isn't really new though so I can fully believe it.
I can imagine CSM would be less likely to buy their codex if they got a free decent update that gives them new points with new stat lines - unless it contains a lot of codex creep, which carries its own problems.
Tyel wrote: I'll be honest I don't play weird Marines, and don't actually know what's in the indexes. GW having a double standard on Marines versus anything else in the game isn't really new though so I can fully believe it.
I can imagine CSM would be less likely to buy their codex if they got a free decent update that gives them new points with new stat lines - unless it contains a lot of codex creep, which carries its own problems.
I'm just pointing out GW themselves don't share your logic, so there must be another reason they didn't update those other armies with their own indexes.
It's plausible that the reason rhymes with "sun processional"
Calling it unprofessional is kind of stupid because it doesn't account for cost/benefit of the work being described. QA can double the cost of doing something; the reason why media platforms are outperforming publishers these days is because they remove the cost of that QA (moderation, editing). Consider that gamers and especially tournament competitive players aren't worth the effort it would take.
wuestenfux wrote: Not at all.
Mathematically, balancing would be an NP-hard problem.
That's why you solve that problem through iteration to get sufficiently close enough to the desired point. From previous editions one can assume people feel like an army is healthy if its average win rate is in the 45-55% window.
People still manage to build large circular structures despite not using the exact value of pi.
Nurglitch wrote: Calling it unprofessional is kind of stupid because it doesn't account for cost/benefit of the work being described. QA can double the cost of doing something; the reason why media platforms are outperforming publishers these days is because they remove the cost of that QA (moderation, editing). Consider that gamers and especially tournament competitive players aren't worth the effort it would take.
It may well be a cost benefit thing, in fact it certainly is. Doesn't mean they ge to be respected for that.
Jidmah wrote: People still manage to build large circular structures despite not using the exact value of pi.
They actually don't, they build spheroid structures to varying degrees of eccentricity and smoothness. It's impossible to build a circle in anything but theory as one cannot build with infinitely small particles measured and placed with infinite precision.
Well yeah, that is the point of what Jidmah is saying. We still call approximately circle shaped objects IRL "circles" and no one feels the need to constantly correct us and say "a real circle is impossible!".
I wish the conversation about balance in wargames worked the same way
Da Boss wrote: Well yeah, that is the point of what Jidmah is saying. We still call approximately circle shaped objects IRL "circles" and no one feels the need to constantly correct us and say "a real circle is impossible!".
I wish the conversation about balance in wargames worked the same way
Not when discussing it with obnoxious pedants who don't even play the game in question.
But otherwise yeah I think reasonable people recognize that while '''true balance''' is an ever-shifting and impossible target; getting better than what we have is doable. Most often the 'true balance is impossible' line is trotted out to defend the status quo, but it's an extreme straw man argument.
Da Boss wrote: Well yeah, that is the point of what Jidmah is saying. We still call approximately circle shaped objects IRL "circles" and no one feels the need to constantly correct us and say "a real circle is impossible!".
I wish the conversation about balance in wargames worked the same way
The issue is most posters grossly underestimate how much work achieving even a 45-55 split between the top and bottom win rates is within 40ks vast potential number of matchups and play experiences. Even getting that level of balance internally to a codex is near impossible let alone also nailing inter-faction balance to that degree. The issue at hand is that list building at 40ks scale will always cause skews in list strength which are further compounded by player skill and the 'pseudo-random nature of dice.
catbarf wrote: But otherwise yeah I think reasonable people recognize that while '''true balance''' is an ever-shifting and impossible target; getting better than what we have is doable. Most often the 'true balance is impossible' line is trotted out to defend the status quo, but it's an extreme straw man argument.
How close to perfect is acceptable? How much work do you estimate achieving that balance will take? How did you arrive at that estimate?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's morally wrong if you're gonna be one of those players that won't let their opponents proxy because they chose the wrong paint scheme.
Absolutely. I started painting my orks with the Deathskullz colours during 3rd edition era, then 17 years later colour scheme matters for the rules! Even if I've mostly played Deathskullz since 8th anyway, forgive me if sometimes I play orks with the klan rules I want to try regardless of how they are painted .
And believe it or not, there are actually fans of Iron Hands that don't want to play another Chapter's rules because you whine about it being unfair.
As much as I never agree with Slayer, they do have a point.
I have never had any interest in playing my Salamanders as any other chapter. If I wanted to play as someone else, I wouldn't have painted them as Salamanders.
Slayer-Fan123 795143 11023838 wrote:
And believe it or not, there are actually fans of Iron Hands that don't want to play another Chapter's rules because you whine about it being unfair.
It shouldn't be unfair to begin with.
That actualy happened to a guy at my old store. Started at the same time as me. Picked iron hands and his army was 2 halfs of DI and 2 primaris dreads. As everyone can imagine, he was not wining stuff through out most of 8th. Then 2.0 came and people who were rolling over him for 2+ years suddenly started calling him names, and even trying to make others not play him. One of the worse things I have seen with my own eyes directly in my entire life. Dude quit when the store went down, I really felt bad for him, and what people did to him.
The issue is most posters grossly underestimate how much work achieving even a 45-55 split between the top and bottom win rates is within 40ks vast potential number of matchups and play experiences.
I think anyone who does sports or at least follows sport knows it. 50/50 is the general norm for good teams or players. Anything above it is legend. And win rates in the 60% are mind blowing strong. Specially when facing something that has a under 30% win rate. Then the actual chance to win drop so low, that in actualy they may as well mean you never win against this dude. I have seen dudes that have 60%+ win rates and all of them look like mutants. 18+y sized at the age of 15-16, with body build to match. Sometimes it is downright scary to watch the bout.
Racerguy180 wrote: As much as I never agree with Slayer, they do have a point.
I have never had any interest in playing my Salamanders as any other chapter. If I wanted to play as someone else, I wouldn't have painted them as Salamanders.
That's great when you have a Marine subfaction with a fleshed-out history and very specific color scheme, but keep in mind that GW often invents subfactions out of whole cloth.
I have a friend with a Hive Fleet Hydra army. I call it Hive Fleet Hydra because that's what 8th Ed has labeled it; he just based his scheme on the Genestealers in the original Space Hulk. The problem is that his army theme is Nidzilla, but Hydra solely provides buffs for outnumbering. There's no way he could have known when he painted the army that the scheme would eventually be tied to rules that benefit hordes. When I play him, I have no problem letting him play them as Behemoth instead.
There are also cases where it's not obvious what the 'official' paint scheme is or if an army qualifies. If I have Cadian models in a green-and-tan scheme, maybe they're the studio Cadian 8th, but maybe they're one of the other regiments using Cadian-pattern equipment; and Cadians use a huge variety of color schemes anyways (just look in the 4th Ed codex). And if I'm using Steel Legion minis to represent my hazardous environment Cadians- as GW themselves did in some of the older copies of WD- can I play them as Cadians, or am I forced to use Steel Legion rules?
Overall I think it's much simpler and less likely to cause problems if players can simply pick what subfaction they want to use, without explicitly requiring that it be tied to specific colors.
Canadian 5th wrote: How close to perfect is acceptable? How much work do you estimate achieving that balance will take? How did you arrive at that estimate?
Slayer-Fan123 795143 11023838 wrote:
And believe it or not, there are actually fans of Iron Hands that don't want to play another Chapter's rules because you whine about it being unfair.
It shouldn't be unfair to begin with.
That actualy happened to a guy at my old store. Started at the same time as me. Picked iron hands and his army was 2 halfs of DI and 2 primaris dreads. As everyone can imagine, he was not wining stuff through out most of 8th. Then 2.0 came and people who were rolling over him for 2+ years suddenly started calling him names, and even trying to make others not play him. One of the worse things I have seen with my own eyes directly in my entire life. Dude quit when the store went down, I really felt bad for him, and what people did to him.
That is really messed up. I do hope that someday you'll find a place that does gaming right and you can truly enjoy it someday. At very least find more peace within the hobby.
***
As for playing the models as they are painted. It doesn't bother me much. I completely understand a player wanting to do it for a number of reason. At the same time, I would prefer they lean away from the subfaction that is the most powerful at the moment as the sole reason. At very least try to play the army in the color they are painted a little more often than the others would be nice.
I always have and will always play my Black Legion as such even if I don't field Abbadon most of the time. I part of the reason I picked Black Legion is due to how they conduct battle. I don't really think GW has it right for them since 8th, but I can lend out a little hope 9th might be better even if I expect it to be not the case. I still have no plans to make use of a Chapter supplement for my Primaris army. They are unknown, and I will treat them as such. I don't even want to change the Chapter Tactics I game them from the second 8th ed C:SM. However, my Genestealer Cult is a little different. They are closely painted as Rusted Claw which I do generally plan to run them as such. But at the same time, I do like the fluff behind many of the other Cult Creeds with Twisted Helix being my second favorite. So I don't plan to run my GSC the same every game. Since I consider most every game with my GSC as a brand-new cult since they do tend to get wiped out.
I don't hold it against a player not matching rules to paint color. Especially if they painted their models well before rules were added. Heck, most of my kill teams are in that boat as I painted them long before Elites, and because Kill Team is more about a small insertion team a good portion of the have the old Ravenguard like Chapter Tactics. Which are horrible in Kill Team since you are likely to be within 12" even in Turn 1 and almost entirely by Turn 2. I do want players to want to play the rules that match their model colors though. I suppose that best that can be done.
Racerguy180 wrote: If you liked a faction enough to paint your army like it and you did it due actually liking it, how is that punishing you?
A player might choose a paint scheme for reasons that have nothing to do with that paint scheme's connection to ingame rules or fluff; or they might choose a faction they like for the fluff but not how that fluff translates into rules, or a faction whose fluff and rules they like but not the color scheme.
Personally my process goes like this:
1. Decide on a color scheme I like, that motivates me to collect the faction.
2. Decide what sort of models I want to collect.
3. Decide how I can build an army out of those elements.
4. Pick the subfaction rules that facilitate that playstyle on the tabletop.
So if I pick blue because I have a blue paint scheme I really like, then decide on an armored force because I like that faction's tanks, it's going to be annoying if I get screwed because I have to use the Blue Subfaction's rules and they're actually about light infantry.
There's also the secondary issue that, IMO, GW doesn't always get it right with subfaction traits. Personally, I think the Kraken rules represent Jormungandr on the tabletop better than the actual Jormungandr rules do. If a player with a Jormungandr-scheme army wanted to use Kraken rules, I'd be fine with that.
Overall I think it's much simpler and less likely to cause problems if players can simply pick what subfaction they want to use, without explicitly requiring that it be tied to specific colors.
What I would do is define the Chapter Tactics as just being Tactics a Detatchment operates under. Just Tactic: Oathkeeper, for example. Then in the the fluff blurb for each Chapter you can have something like Black Templars - Preferred Tactic: Oathkeeper.
Overall I think it's much simpler and less likely to cause problems if players can simply pick what subfaction they want to use, without explicitly requiring that it be tied to specific colors.
What I would do is define the Chapter Tactics as just being Tactics a Detatchment operates under. Just Tactic: Oathkeeper, for example. Then in the the fluff blurb for each Chapter you can have something like Black Templars - Preferred Tactic: Oathkeeper.
Thats actually how I've been doing my homebrew Marines kinda.
Racerguy180 wrote: If you liked a faction enough to paint your army like it and you did it due actually liking it, how is that punishing you?
For an example, Genestealer Cult Creeds are VERY tied to particular units with what they do. If I play Rusted Claw but don't want to field that many bikes and face something that can get a fair amount of AP-2. I almost may not have a Cult Creed at all. And in fact probably would benefit greatly by just going Bladed Cog to ensure I have that +6 Invul. Just like maybe I want to have an army that focuses on Abberants, playing a Hivecult army might not be all that worthwhile.
Yes, in the fluff all these cults would have these units. At the same time, GSC already struggles with a lot of run-of-the-mill level lists even if the GSC army is fairly optimized. Playing a badly optimized lists such the examples above will leave games as a forgone conclusion.
I painted my Genestealer Cult pretty close to Rusted Claw. I like the color orange (honestly I didn't really think about it and pained the models close to what they looked like in Kill Team) and the Rusted Claw fluff of scruffy frontier peoples fits well with my idea of a cult of savage yokels and hicks The Hills Have Eyes style. Most of the time I do play them as Rusted Claw, even if I am not a huge fan of fielding a bunch of bikers all the time. Every now and again I want to field a bunch of Abberants, the Abominant and maybe even the Biophagus which because of GSC's hyperfocus signature unit Cult Creeds is a horrible choice with Rusted Claw. I think any other Creed works better. I don't plan on winning games with GSC, but I do try to get them to go the distance. Someday, I am sure my GSC will see Turn 5. Or at least Turn 4.
This is more a criticism of GSC subfactions than the painting, but the issue is still there. I do avoid running a bunch of Creeds, which I never liked and didn't paint my models any different, so it would super be confusing. In 8th, that already hobbled my army pretty bad. I simply can't at the moment run an off focus Creed and offer any kind of challenge to my opponent.
That said, I do understand how a player could paint their army in a particular color and discover maybe they don't like the rules associated with them as much as they thought they did. Or never had those type of rules before at all and now are locked into something they never agreed to even if it isn't how they imagined their subfaction worked (such as my Black Legion traits aren't what I would have picked necessarily for them). So there are a good deal of reasons for not using them. While I want to want players to use the rules that match the painting. I understand it isn't that clear cut and being forced to can be see as punishing. I am not a fan of player going all Blue Omega Iron Hands at the wiff of over powered rules, but as demonstrated with Karol's story, sometimes it is hard to know what came first. Maybe the player painted their marines as Ultramarines as they weren't really thinking about it at the time and boxes showed them in that color, maybe they like the color blue and Ultramarine transfers are what came in the box. I don't want to condemn someone until I can at least decipher their intention. Given the speed in which GW hammers down the nails sticking up way further than the rest, it can be easy to spot players whose favorite subfaction is always 'the most meta'. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I also don't play GW games that way. So I probably will avoid playing games with that person since it is very likely to not be fun.
What they REALLY need to do is go whole hog into the build your own mechanics. Build your own chapter tactics or whatever. Build your own relics or whatever. Build your own characters or whatever. Tool box of stratagems and pick some or whatever.
Then, instead of bespoke ultramarine/salamander/whatever rules, they show you how they used the tool boxes to represent the chapter and it's characters, organization, and war gear on the table.
Then everyone can paint and convert however they want and build however they want. Want to follow GWs guidelines? Fine. Do it. Want to do ANYTHING else? There are the tools. Go nuts.
What they REALLY need to do is go whole hog into the build your own mechanics. Build your own chapter tactics or whatever. Build your own relics or whatever. Build your own characters or whatever. Tool box of stratagems and pick pick some or whatever.
Then, instead of bespoke ultramarine/slamander/whatever rules, they show you how they used the tool boxes to represent the chapter and it's characters, organization, and war gear on the table.
Then everyone can paint and convert however they want and build however they want. Want to follow GWs guidelines? Fine. Do it. What to do ANYTHING else. There are the tools. Go nuts.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not sure we're ready for that kind of power
TBH, I'd rather they did away with these faction bonuses entirely.
If I like playing assault armies, do I really need a special +1 to assault units?
It's just begging for mismatches because creating half a dozen unique and interesting traits that are all perfectly balanced is not an easy feat.
Same for Warlord Traits and Relics. When I see a generic Captain beating the hell out of Abbadon the Despoiler, due to all the traits/relics he has, I want to scream.
kirotheavenger wrote: TBH, I'd rather they did away with these faction bonuses entirely.
If I like playing assault armies, do I really need a special +1 to assault units?
It's just begging for mismatches because creating half a dozen unique and interesting traits that are all perfectly balanced is not an easy feat.
Same for Warlord Traits and Relics. When I see a generic Captain beating the hell out of Abbadon the Despoiler, due to all the traits/relics he has, I want to scream.
They help provide niches for a larger variety of units in a codex. If you gave every unit the Tactic that made them competitive viable at once; there would still be winners and losers like only. Only getting the "best" buff for certain units by making other units suboptimal creates more design space by having multiple "optimal" combinations of units based on the bonus applied.
Theoretically, this means new players have more direction in their initial collection and existing players have more ways to use their models. Realistically, tying the bonuses to paint scheme limits how practical the latter benefit is. It still works fairly well for existing players when the bonuses correctly direct them to the models that drew them to those sub factions, but can also create a lot of traps that are easy to hit without help.
kirotheavenger wrote: TBH, I'd rather they did away with these faction bonuses entirely.
If I like playing assault armies, do I really need a special +1 to assault units?
It's just begging for mismatches because creating half a dozen unique and interesting traits that are all perfectly balanced is not an easy feat.
Same for Warlord Traits and Relics. When I see a generic Captain beating the hell out of Abbadon the Despoiler, due to all the traits/relics he has, I want to scream.
Yeah something tells me if you did the math the generic Captain loses even with the Warlord Traits and Relics AND Strats.
I'd much rather get away from petty +1's here, and +1's there, and Oh! Plus 1 over here, and now +1 on this and now you're +4 on this standard-costed unit and it's broken... but that guy plays the same unit and it's reasonable because it has no +'s at all.
I feel that balance becomes harder to achieve the more granular and compounded rules become. The flavour of my army comes from the mix of units I take, not the bonuses that stack on top of my chosen units, that crank their abilities up. If I want a tank army to be viable, make tanks viable without bonuses. If I want sneaky infantry armies to be viable, make units that are viable based on their unit cards. Don't make a stratagem that gives Jump Pack troops reroll charge distances... make that part of their rules and charge *points* for it... the currency that should hypothetically determine the power of that unit.
Bah... barking up the wrong tree... but it would make balance easier.
kirotheavenger wrote: TBH, I'd rather they did away with these faction bonuses entirely. If I like playing assault armies, do I really need a special +1 to assault units? It's just begging for mismatches because creating half a dozen unique and interesting traits that are all perfectly balanced is not an easy feat.
Same for Warlord Traits and Relics. When I see a generic Captain beating the hell out of Abbadon the Despoiler, due to all the traits/relics he has, I want to scream.
Yeah something tells me if you did the math the generic Captain loses even with the Warlord Traits and Relics AND Strats.
Abaddon T5, 2+/4++, W8, half damage.
White Scars Chapter Master on Bike T5, 2+*/4++, W6 Equipped with: Storm Shield, Teeth Of Terra Warlord Traits: The Imperium's Sword, Chogorian Storm *Technically a 3+ with +1 to the roll, but effectively a 2+
On the charge, he gets 4 (base)+1 (Shock Assault)+3 (Teeth of Terra)+1 (Imperium's Sword)+d3 (Chogorian Storm), rerolling (due to his own Chapter Master ability), at S6 AP-2 D3
10 attacks 350/36 or 175/18 hits 350/54 or 175/27 wounds 175/54 failed saves An average of 6 damage-but with a 42% chance of one-rounding Abaddon.
Add +1 to his wound rolls (from a friendly Chaplain) and we get...
10 attacks 350/36 or 175/18 hits 875/108 wounds 875/216 failed saves An average of 8 damage-enough to kill Abaddon. 63% chance of happening, assuming you spend CP to ensure the Litany goes off.
Edit: Abaddon will (usually) kill the Captain if he survives.
8-12 attacks with Drach'nyen gets him anywhere from 7.78-11.67 hits, wounding 2/3rds of the time for 5.19-7.78 wounds, and he only needs two failed saves to kill the Captain. (3 if they have a FNP, such as from an Apothecary.) But, should Abaddon roll a 1, he has to use the Talon with only 6 attacks. Which is 5.83 hits, 4.86 wounds, 2.43 failed saves, or not quite enough to kill the Captain on average with d3 damage.
The specific example I gave was from 8th edition, with an Ultramarines captain stacking some fancy relic armour and warlord trait so he was tanking more than Abaddon, plus other stuff to buff his damage to parity as well.
TBH, I don't really recall much because it wasn't my character and it disgusted me to the point I didn't want to know specifics lol.
I'd much rather get away from petty +1's here, and +1's there, and Oh! Plus 1 over here, and now +1 on this and now you're +4 on this standard-costed unit and it's broken... but that guy plays the same unit and it's reasonable because it has no +'s at all.
I feel that balance becomes harder to achieve the more granular and compounded rules become. The flavour of my army comes from the mix of units I take, not the bonuses that stack on top of my chosen units, that crank their abilities up. If I want a tank army to be viable, make tanks viable without bonuses. If I want sneaky infantry armies to be viable, make units that are viable based on their unit cards. Don't make a stratagem that gives Jump Pack troops reroll charge distances... make that part of their rules and charge *points* for it... the currency that should hypothetically determine the power of that unit.
Bah... barking up the wrong tree... but it would make balance easier.
It does... and it doesn't. You make tanks viable and something else is no longer viable. That's the trap of optimization. You can't really make things perfectly balanced without making their differences irrelevant. You have tanks, you have guardsmen. You have popguns and tankbusters. You either make both weapons capable of killing their "points" of each reliably (which makes them the same) or you allow them to have specific strengths. Specific strengths create specific weaknesses which creates both diversity and imbalance. The more options you put into the same design space, the more optimization favors some options over the other.
The trap I see a lot of understanding of balance fall into, including my own when I first got into competitive gaming (which mostly wasn't GW based) is the idea that balance means any combination of points is the same as any other combination that adds up to the same number of points. That's... essentially the promise of points and how we think they should work. Having played dozens of systems at this point, all I can say is that they just don't work that way. They provide a framework and structure for how the game is played, but can never perfectly balance a game on their own.
Balance just isn't binary. There's degrees of balance. You can have more variety in a game with 8 competitive factions even if it has 12 factions that are "bad". Another game might only have 5 factions, but all could be competitive. Beyond that, the number of different configurations that are viable is another kind of balance (internal balance) to consider. Ideally, it would all be balanced; I just haven't found it yet without sacrificing a lot of variety and even then, dominant choices are more common than not.
Honestly, out of any game, I "expect" about 5 factions to have at least one competitive build. More is obviously better, but it seems to be about as far as anything gets before groupthink makes it hard to tell how the rest shakes out. Ideally, the difference between those 5 and suboptimal choices still creates room for a game, which is usually the case outside of the 3+ games a week crowd. Overall though, I've just found that understanding the gradient and adapting my expectations accordingly makes it a lot easier to get enjoyment out of a competitive system than finding faults and the frustration that comes from being unable to have them "fixed' to shape the game I want. It's also probably why I play a lot more different systems these days.
You can easily make things more interesting than that.
You can use a tank, which will be more mobile than infantry, all but invulnerable to small arms and carry heavier weapons, but is vulnerable to anti-tank guns and vulnerable to close-assaults.
The problem is with current core rules a lot of their differences don't matter.
Who cares about movement if all you need to do is travel a short distance anyway? Or if infantry can regularly outpace tanks.
kirotheavenger wrote: TBH, I'd rather they did away with these faction bonuses entirely.
If I like playing assault armies, do I really need a special +1 to assault units?
It's just begging for mismatches because creating half a dozen unique and interesting traits that are all perfectly balanced is not an easy feat.
Same for Warlord Traits and Relics. When I see a generic Captain beating the hell out of Abbadon the Despoiler, due to all the traits/relics he has, I want to scream.
Yeah something tells me if you did the math the generic Captain loses even with the Warlord Traits and Relics AND Strats.
Abaddon T5, 2+/4++, W8, half damage.
White Scars Chapter Master on Bike T5, 2+*/4++, W6
Equipped with: Storm Shield, Teeth Of Terra
Warlord Traits: The Imperium's Sword, Chogorian Storm
*Technically a 3+ with +1 to the roll, but effectively a 2+
On the charge, he gets 4 (base)+1 (Shock Assault)+3 (Teeth of Terra)+1 (Imperium's Sword)+d3 (Chogorian Storm), rerolling (due to his own Chapter Master ability), at S6 AP-2 D3
10 attacks
350/36 or 175/18 hits
350/54 or 175/27 wounds
175/54 failed saves
An average of 6 damage-but with a 42% chance of one-rounding Abaddon.
Add +1 to his wound rolls (from a friendly Chaplain) and we get...
10 attacks
350/36 or 175/18 hits
875/108 wounds
875/216 failed saves
An average of 8 damage-enough to kill Abaddon. 63% chance of happening, assuming you spend CP to ensure the Litany goes off.
Edit: Abaddon will (usually) kill the Captain if he survives.
8-12 attacks with Drach'nyen gets him anywhere from 7.78-11.67 hits, wounding 2/3rds of the time for 5.19-7.78 wounds, and he only needs two failed saves to kill the Captain. (3 if they have a FNP, such as from an Apothecary.)
But, should Abaddon roll a 1, he has to use the Talon with only 6 attacks. Which is 5.83 hits, 4.86 wounds, 2.43 failed saves, or not quite enough to kill the Captain on average with d3 damage.
I calculated 30% to kill Abigail in one go, but fair enough. He's still very unlikely to do so.
Also did you not incorporate DttFE for Abigail?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I calculated 30% to kill Abigail in one go, but fair enough. He's still very unlikely to do so.
Also did you not incorporate DttFE for Abigail?
How'd you get your 30%? I used Anydice.
And I did forget about DttFE, but Abby will one-round the Chapter Master even without it most of the time, so I'm not too miffed I forgot that.
I guess I expect that a game between two players should be decided by skill, with lady luck occasionally leaning on the scale to remind us that random chance is a thing. To me, skill includes such things as visualizing how the game will unfold, playing through reaction and counter-reaction in your head. Skill includes playing to the mission. Skill includes an understanding of probability to mitigate lady luck. Skill includes staying calm under pressure and remembering things. Skill includes knowing your army cold. And yes, skill includes list building.
I think that list building should not win you the game, but I am OK with it if list building can lose you the game. I think that players should be able to build a viable list out of any faction, but I am not fussed if some choices in a faction are "sub-optimal." So external balance is more important to me than internal balance. The game is rather sprawling, and there are reasons other than competitiveness to collect and play models.
I've played 40K since 2nd Ed, walking away during 7th and coming back for 8th. I played at a National Grand Tournament during 2nd, but since then I've stuck to local tourneys. My impression is that GW is much more serious about "balance" than in days of old. I think they could use a few more former poachers as their game wardens during play testing, so to speak, but they do seem to be aiming for "balance." Your mileage may vary.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I calculated 30% to kill Abigail in one go, but fair enough. He's still very unlikely to do so.
Also did you not incorporate DttFE for Abigail?
How'd you get your 30%? I used Anydice.
And I did forget about DttFE, but Abby will one-round the Chapter Master even without it most of the time, so I'm not too miffed I forgot that.
My guess is I probably only added 1 attack with Storm. Math is hard when you're exhausted with COVID.
Racerguy180 wrote: If you liked a faction enough to paint your army like it and you did it due actually liking it, how is that punishing you?
Well you may have liked the faction, but had to force yourself in to painting the army, because lets say you play at a store that has house rules against unpainted armies. I like how the models in my army look, and they are all painted , but I bought them that way. If someone would have told me I have to pay for paints and spend time painting them in 8th ed, I would have never done it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I calculated 30% to kill Abigail in one go, but fair enough. He's still very unlikely to do so.
Also did you not incorporate DttFE for Abigail?
How'd you get your 30%? I used Anydice.
And I did forget about DttFE, but Abby will one-round the Chapter Master even without it most of the time, so I'm not too miffed I forgot that.
My guess is I probably only added 1 attack with Storm. Math is hard when you're exhausted with COVID.
Racerguy180 wrote: As much as I never agree with Slayer, they do have a point.
I have never had any interest in playing my Salamanders as any other chapter. If I wanted to play as someone else, I wouldn't have painted them as Salamanders.
That's great when you have a Marine subfaction with a fleshed-out history and very specific color scheme, but keep in mind that GW often invents subfactions out of whole cloth.
I have a friend with a Hive Fleet Hydra army. I call it Hive Fleet Hydra because that's what 8th Ed has labeled it; he just based his scheme on the Genestealers in the original Space Hulk. The problem is that his army theme is Nidzilla, but Hydra solely provides buffs for outnumbering. There's no way he could have known when he painted the army that the scheme would eventually be tied to rules that benefit hordes. When I play him, I have no problem letting him play them as Behemoth instead.
There are also cases where it's not obvious what the 'official' paint scheme is or if an army qualifies. If I have Cadian models in a green-and-tan scheme, maybe they're the studio Cadian 8th, but maybe they're one of the other regiments using Cadian-pattern equipment; and Cadians use a huge variety of color schemes anyways (just look in the 4th Ed codex). And if I'm using Steel Legion minis to represent my hazardous environment Cadians- as GW themselves did in some of the older copies of WD- can I play them as Cadians, or am I forced to use Steel Legion rules?
Overall I think it's much simpler and less likely to cause problems if players can simply pick what subfaction they want to use, without explicitly requiring that it be tied to specific colors.
Canadian 5th wrote: How close to perfect is acceptable? How much work do you estimate achieving that balance will take? How did you arrive at that estimate?
Go outside, dude.
Personally I would like to see them go to more a battle tactics style, where you pick a force tactics that your army falls under. And put that this chapter is a famous example of this in use, but they can change since space marines are well versed in all the types of warfare they are equiped for. It would at least get rid of this paint for power issue.
I think a lot of it just ends up being less fluffy as the ability’s given are so nebulous.
Da Boss wrote: Well yeah, that is the point of what Jidmah is saying. We still call approximately circle shaped objects IRL "circles" and no one feels the need to constantly correct us and say "a real circle is impossible!".
I wish the conversation about balance in wargames worked the same way
The issue is most posters grossly underestimate how much work achieving even a 45-55 split between the top and bottom win rates is within 40ks vast potential number of matchups and play experiences. Even getting that level of balance internally to a codex is near impossible let alone also nailing inter-faction balance to that degree. The issue at hand is that list building at 40ks scale will always cause skews in list strength which are further compounded by player skill and the 'pseudo-random nature of dice.
The simple answer to that is, other companies can do it, even with much more complex games, so it is possible. End of story, no excuses.
Da Boss wrote: Well yeah, that is the point of what Jidmah is saying. We still call approximately circle shaped objects IRL "circles" and no one feels the need to constantly correct us and say "a real circle is impossible!".
I wish the conversation about balance in wargames worked the same way
The issue is most posters grossly underestimate how much work achieving even a 45-55 split between the top and bottom win rates is within 40ks vast potential number of matchups and play experiences. Even getting that level of balance internally to a codex is near impossible let alone also nailing inter-faction balance to that degree. The issue at hand is that list building at 40ks scale will always cause skews in list strength which are further compounded by player skill and the 'pseudo-random nature of dice.
The simple answer to that is, other companies can do it, even with much more complex games, so it is possible. End of story, no excuses.
I wish there was a term other than Stockholm Syndrome or Battered Wife Syndrome to express the excuses that seem to handwave away GW's inability to even try to balance the game anymore, or worse yet people flat out expecting it to NOT be balanced, but I can't think of a better term.
People play 40k for a variety of reasons, far and away though it's because 40k is the most popular.
People like to think that they make the best decisions, and admitting to themselves that they're playing a game with horrendous rules from a company that is actively working against their enjoyment in order to draw more money out of them is not an option.
So they convince themselves 40k is the best game, and GW is the best company.
I hope the bubble pops, but in my experience most people won't even consider playing another game, even if you provide them all the bits!
I'm sometimes met with outright anger for suggesting games with superior mechanics, which suggests people are insecure in their choices defending them anyway.
Just Tony wrote: I wish there was a term other than Stockholm Syndrome or Battered Wife Syndrome to express the excuses that seem to handwave away GW's inability to even try to balance the game anymore, or worse yet people flat out expecting it to NOT be balanced, but I can't think of a better term.
I feel getting "close enough" balance really isn't that hard - because things can just evolve on an iterative basis. Buffing the bad stuff and nerfing the good stuff *works*.
I don't think this has to happen every 20 seconds - you have to give people a chance to think up alternate builds. But at a certain point its obvious.
An edition of RG->Ynnari->Castellan->SM2.0 doesn't seem like the most balanced of editions. But CA points changes meant factions were not *totally* left on the scrapheap for half a decade as had been the case previously. Some - GK being the obvious one - never got the buffs (pre PA anyway) necessary to push them up. Others though, like Ad Mech and Necrons, did evolve through the edition into having a functional list - even if the pool of viable units was more limited than you would like.
Are for example Eradicators "fixed" at 45 points? I'm not sure - but I think its *better* for the game than having them at 40. I suspect competitive Marines will just ditch them for 55 point attack bikes, which were sort of a straight swap anyway. They should clearly have got a points hike at the same time - but this is GW's seeming lack of a holistic knowledge of their game.
In the same spirit, Harlequins are left untouched, and Tau saw Commanders get nerfed, with some compensatory buffs for other units that are probably still not quite viable. I can maybe understand the Harlequin's approach - because while they win glory at tournaments, they are not crushing people in stores all over the world due to their relative rarity. But from a theoretical perspective its a bit odd.
I don't think it's incompetence, more apathy.
They'd like their game to be balanced, but they don't actually care.
That does, in part, result in a degree of incompetence though. They don't hire or promote people based on their ability to write robust, balanced rules.
They're more interested in creating a constant churn of interesting and unique rules to sell their toys and books.
Da Boss wrote: Well yeah, that is the point of what Jidmah is saying. We still call approximately circle shaped objects IRL "circles" and no one feels the need to constantly correct us and say "a real circle is impossible!".
I wish the conversation about balance in wargames worked the same way
The issue is most posters grossly underestimate how much work achieving even a 45-55 split between the top and bottom win rates is within 40ks vast potential number of matchups and play experiences. Even getting that level of balance internally to a codex is near impossible let alone also nailing inter-faction balance to that degree. The issue at hand is that list building at 40ks scale will always cause skews in list strength which are further compounded by player skill and the 'pseudo-random nature of dice.
The simple answer to that is, other companies can do it, even with much more complex games, so it is possible. End of story, no excuses.
Name them.
Genuinely curious what other companies do it, in your opinion.
I would like to see what mechanisms they use for balance and if they're appropriate or can be applied to 40k (I mean, hey its great if balance was because theirs was a game of two factions, each with two unit choices... I can't imagine nuking 99.99999% of the choices in 40k would go down well, as an example...) I would also like to see if there is a universal consensus on this balance, or if a quick Google will find me on a forum or blog stating game xyz is unplayable for abc reasons and mno factions/units are broken and no point taking.g them, take pqr instead...
I've played a lot of games. Every game has had problems when played competitively. I've never seen a game without trap options and go to builds. In my experience, the best I've seen from other companies is various shades of 'some stuff stacks up against other stuff, at least some of the time'. But every game can be broken.
Infinity has more interactions, more complex rules and it seems to be a lot more balanced then what w40k has right now, and it for sure is better what w40k had in the past, at least as far as 8th ed goes. But because I was told that 8th was somehow, which is hard to imagine for someone that started in 8th, super balanced comparing to prior edition, I would say that this means infinity is a lot more balanced then w40k.
And has free rules on top. Which is kind of a mind blowing considering how many books I had to buy to play.
Karol wrote: Infinity has more interactions, more complex rules and it seems to be a lot more balanced then what w40k has right now, and it for sure is better what w40k had in the past, at least as far as 8th ed goes. But because I was told that 8th was somehow, which is hard to imagine for someone that started in 8th, super balanced comparing to prior edition, I would say that this means infinity is a lot more balanced then w40k.
And has free rules on top. Which is kind of a mind blowing considering how many books I had to buy to play.
I am actually very familiar with infinity.
Infinity is probably the most technically brilliant wargame on the market and while I adore the models its really not a game I enjoy playing any more.
Thing is, yoy are also talking about a vastly smaller scale and scope. a dozen guys per side, all humans, all.with rending, wearing slight variations of the equivalent of 40k's flak armour (,infinity power armour is like a 5+ save), carrying autoguns and the very occasional flamer or heavy stubber and the occasional crisis suit for good measure (TAG). For all its interactions, there are also in some ways, far fewer moving parts.
And with respect I don't have to go far to find posts on infinity saying 'sectorals are underpowered, these internal choices for my faction are rubbish,these rules are poor and can be rxploited' now, multiply that by a far larger, far more intense player pool and you'd get no difference in the kind of trash talking you see regarding 40k. Oh and never mind the fact that everyone with a vehicle or mc can go chuck them in a bin now and the best save you'll see is a 5+.
And let me repeat myself. Infinity is a fantastic game. When I played n2 and n3 I loved it. Love the models. Best metals in the industry as far as I am concerned. The game is good. Its decent. Bit it also has plenty limitations and cost associated with its 'better' balance.
Just Tony wrote: I wish there was a term other than Stockholm Syndrome or Battered Wife Syndrome to express the excuses that seem to handwave away GW's inability to even try to balance the game anymore, or worse yet people flat out expecting it to NOT be balanced, but I can't think of a better term.
"Bootlicker" is part of my lexicon, certainly.
Oh please. Grow up. Stop being black knights.
If people were actively cheering on the imbalance and saying this was a good thing, and asking for more stuff to be broken and more factions to be badly designed then maybe you'd have a point. I've met a bare handful of people that have taken this view.
'Realistic or 'pragmatists' is a better term. Acknowledging the reality of the situation, the limitations of the medium as well as the costs, consequences and associated problems of any tools or mechanisms used to balance a game and realising its neither that easy, and is in all.likely hood impossible to do, is neither Stockholm syndrome, battered wife or bootlicker. Being a hater is easy. Complaining is easy. Broaden your perspective. The world is far more complicated.
Karol wrote: Infinity has more interactions, more complex rules and it seems to be a lot more balanced then what w40k has right now, and it for sure is better what w40k had in the past, at least as far as 8th ed goes. But because I was told that 8th was somehow, which is hard to imagine for someone that started in 8th, super balanced comparing to prior edition, I would say that this means infinity is a lot more balanced then w40k.
And has free rules on top. Which is kind of a mind blowing considering how many books I had to buy to play.
I am actually very familiar with infinity.
Infinity is probably the most technically brilliant wargame on the market and while I adore the models its really not a game I enjoy playing any more.
Thing is, yoy are also talking about a vastly smaller scale and scope. a dozen guys per side, all humans, all.with rending, wearing slight variations of the equivalent of 40k's flak armour (,infinity power armour is like a 5+ save), carrying autoguns and the very occasional flamer or heavy stubber and the occasional crisis suit for good measure (TAG). For all its interactions, there are also in some ways, far fewer moving parts.
And with respect I don't have to go far to find posts on infinity saying 'sectorals are underpowered, these internal choices for my faction are rubbish,these rules are poor and can be rxploited' now, multiply that by a far larger, far more intense player pool and you'd get no difference in the kind of trash talking you see regarding 40k. Oh and never mind the fact that everyone with a vehicle or mc can go chuck them in a bin now and the best save you'll see is a 5+.
And let me repeat myself. Infinity is a fantastic game. When I played n2 and n3 I loved it. Love the models. Best metals in the industry as far as I am concerned. The game is good. Its decent. Bit it also has plenty limitations and cost associated with its 'better' balance.
Just Tony wrote: I wish there was a term other than Stockholm Syndrome or Battered Wife Syndrome to express the excuses that seem to handwave away GW's inability to even try to balance the game anymore, or worse yet people flat out expecting it to NOT be balanced, but I can't think of a better term.
"Bootlicker" is part of my lexicon, certainly.
Oh please. Grow up. Stop being black knights.
If people were actively cheering on the imbalance and saying this was a good thing, and asking for more stuff to be broken and more factions to be badly designed then maybe you'd have a point. I've met a bare handful of people that have taken this view.
'Realistic or 'pragmatists' is a better term. Acknowledging the reality of the situation, the limitations of the medium as well as the costs, consequences and associated problems of any tools or mechanisms used to balance a game and realising its neither that easy, and is in all.likely hood impossible to do, is neither Stockholm syndrome, battered wife or bootlicker. Being a hater is easy. Complaining is easy. Broaden your perspective. The world is far more complicated.
Chaos 3.5
Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.
Da Boss wrote: I really believe they mean well but are not particularly competent.
Yeah. Robbin Cruddace is basically in charge of game development for 40k. They guy who actually wrote the 5th and 6th ed Tyranid codexes. The one where nobody thought it could get any worse and then the next one came out just to prove everyone wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability was so poorly written that it blew up every model on the table.
This is the guy signing off on everything as it passes over his desk. Incompetent is the text book definition of Games Workshop.
Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.
as a chaos player, feth off.
there's allways the FOTM players right now they sit in marines, quins if they are slightly above average or custards, truth of the matter remains however, that 3.5 csm dex was conceptually brilliant, riddled with GW level incompetence in regards to execution.
And THAT is the reason as to why it is universally loved and despised at the same time, further if you would have any idea about what followed i'll remind you happily that there were far more broken things later on, like a certain whip power, obliterators, introduction level hellturky, suicide terminators, etc.
and that isn't even the complete list. And by extension you can apply the same to imperial or xeno armies.
Da Boss wrote: I really believe they mean well but are not particularly competent.
Yeah. Robbin Cruddace is basically in charge of game development for 40k. They guy who actually wrote the 5th and 6th ed Tyranid codexes. The one where nobody thought it could get any worse and then the next one came out just to prove everyone wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability was so poorly written that it blew up every model on the table.
This is the guy signing off on everything as it passes over his desk. Incompetent is the text book definition of Games Workshop.
Harsh but fair.
Truth is, the coordination in regards to ruleswriters is laughable, and was even more so in editions past.
Which is why you had such gems and general rules interaction...
Infact it got so bad during 6th and 7th that we had a whole rulebook more or less consisting about selfreferencing USR's...
Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.
You didn't really, no.
You say 'chaos players'. Not 'some' chaos players. Not 'caac chaos players'. You say 'chaos players'. By inference, all of them. Are you saying all chaos players are 'bootlickers', suffering from. 'Stockholm syndrome' and 'battered wife syndrome and excusing gw's imbalances? And that it's only because of iron warriors in 3.5? Do you seek to delegitimise all of their grievances?
Or isthe truth of it a far more nuanced situation than your far too broadly stroked and inflammatory comment?
I mean, I played tau back then, amongst a very competitive group. Iron warriors was an abomination back then. Tau were amongst the worst codices in that era, and iron warriors ruined a lot of games and tourneys for me. I'll be the last person to stand up and defend it...
That said, iron warriors wasn't the entirety of 3.5. Not everyone played them. I'll put my grievances aside and say that. There has never been another dex like 3.5 and its best aspects were great- the customisation and freedom it allowed were breath taking. There were a lit of interesting and fun things that were not amongst the overpoweredness that have never generated hate and there has never been a better implementation of generating 'cult' units from regular csms (remember how hated banners were in later editions?)
And let's face it. Gw gutted the chaos dex for forth and fifth and since then. They sucked out all the character and soul. Chaos is a shadow of what it once was. Fourth was reduced to twin lash Prince plague marine spam. Fifth was hellturkey spam, I think. Its not been much better since and let's be honest about that. Chaos fans have a legitimate grievance in how chaos has been interpreted so poorly since 3.5. Amd as a hater of 3.5s excess I am happy to say that amd would include myself in the list of people wanting a better chaos codex. That's not bootlicking nor is it battered wife syndrome.
So when you talk about all the chaos players 'whining', consider if they are wanting the power level equivalent of 3.5 back then, which in the current era and discussion point would be equivalent to wanting chaos to be better than whatever flavour of the top broken primaris codex++++++++, or is it more accurate to instead ponder if what they are asking for us for chaos to have back some of the character that's been sucked our of their faction in intervening years, especially at the expense of primaris marines?
I'll wager a pound to your penny that the latter will completely drown out the former.
Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.
From what i understood people clamoring for a return to codex 3.5 are asking for a return of the highly customizable and flavorful listbuilding that the codex allowed more than its powerlevel.
I didnt play back then but if it means that CSM get even half of the custumability that SM currently have, i'd 100% go back to 3.5.
Pretty much every game that qualifies as e-sport. 40k is trivial in complexity compared the invisible rules a game engine handles for your in the background. That's not a bad thing, because a low complexity is necessary for humans to play it without the help of a computer.
Genuinely curious what other companies do it, in your opinion.
I would like to see what mechanisms they use for balance and if they're appropriate or can be applied to 40k (I mean, hey its great if balance was because theirs was a game of two factions, each with two unit choices... I can't imagine nuking 99.99999% of the choices in 40k would go down well, as an example...) I would also like to see if there is a universal consensus on this balance, or if a quick Google will find me on a forum or blog stating game xyz is unplayable for abc reasons and mno factions/units are broken and no point taking.g them, take pqr instead...
How you fix problems isn't actually as relevant as the process itself. The only way to make your game better over time is to change the game, observe it, analyze your observations and then change it again. If your change made the game worse, you undo it in your next iteration. Don't make huge sweeping changes unless necessary, like when you have developed yourself into a corner or part of your game is no longer salvagable. If you have the same people re-write the game from bottom up, you will not end up with better game, but with a new one that is just as flawed. No one should know your game better than you yourself, if that's not the case, hire people who know your game. For example, WotC started hiring world champions to help them balance their game when they almost ran it into the ground. If a game piece (in our case usually units) doesn't do what it's supposed to do, is acting counter-intuitive or generally disturbing the game, don't shy away from re-working it completely. If you adhere to tradition or conventions, it's likely that these are part of the problem. Eventually you will collect experience what kind of numbers you need to tweak to get certain desired effects, so iterations will less likely be set backs and more efficient.
So essentially, if you genuinely work on eliminating problems, and you know what you are doing, the game will improve over time, as long as you don't toss out all the work and start anew. And that's also precisely the reason why 40k feels like a game made by designers at the start of their career despite it being a 30 year old behemoth. They pretty much did the opposite of everything until mid 8th
From what i understood people clamoring for a return to codex 3.5 are asking for a return of the highly customizable and flavorful listbuilding that the codex allowed more than its powerlevel.
Precisely and thank you.
First off, while that codex did have some really strong builds and one or 2 OP builds, it was actually really challenging to build from. So many trap units, and, on top of that, anyone complaining in this day and age about the relative power level of that book likely wasn't actually "there" because it's nothing compared to things like 7th ed Craftworld, or Marines 2.0.
BUT like you say, the thing most Chaos players miss is the fact that you could build really fluffy lists. People like Just Tony want to say "CSM players are whining because they are WAAC", but the reality is, prior to Traitor Legions in 7th and Faith and Fury/DG/Tsons books, that book was the one and only time we even COULD play a fluffy army. Without exception, all of the books that came between 3.5 and the Traitor Legions supplement in 7th, were bland, sad, half hearted attempts at "Chaos". Gav Thorpe himself wrote a massive essay on his website trying to explain to players how, by removing all choice and flavor from the codex, he had actually given them MORE choice and flavor. It was that ridiculous and honestly, no other army has consistently had so many codexes in a row that utterly failed to represent them in any way, shape or form as CSM had. That's why we bring that book up. It's because it truly is that rare we get to have a book that actually even comes close to properly representing us. I do think 8th CSM 2.0 and Faith and Fury are do a decent enough job, but please, if you're going to invoke 3.5 in any way, know what you are talking about and don't just spit out the "party line".
Yeah. Robbin Cruddace is basically in charge of game development for 40k. They guy who actually wrote the 5th and 6th ed Tyranid codexes. The one where nobody thought it could get any worse and then the next one came out just to prove everyone wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability was so poorly written that it blew up every model on the table.
This is the guy signing off on everything as it passes over his desk. Incompetent is the text book definition of Games Workshop.
That must have been something specialy funny to watch, your buddy comes up to you with sour face, you ask him if he lost bad, and he says it is worse, the nid player blew up both armies at the same time making it a draw . Though it is easy to laugh at other people plight.
Gav Thorpe himself wrote a massive essay on his website trying to explain to players how, by removing all choice and flavor from the codex, he had actually given them MORE choice and flavor. It was that ridiculous and honestly, no other army has consistently had so many codexes in a row that utterly failed to represent them in any way, shape or form as CSM had.
That sounds like what some people told my grandparents and their parents in 1948, that by taking all the land away from all farmers, and making it state owned, they become the owners of all land. Did he maybe make any other codex or army books besides the chaos one?
Not sure these fights help anyone, but certainly *my* experience of 3.5 was that yes, almost all chaos lists became Iron Warriors (or sought out the few other power combos) - and, in a rather Karolesque fashion, lorded it over everyone in the shop while saying how fluffy it was that Iron Warriors were deffo better than everyone else.
Because in reality, fluffiness and power always go together. Is it fluffy that you have custom traits for all factions? Sure. Do people really play around with them? In my experience no. You don't see the "bad" traits.
Does this mean they shouldn't exist? Not really, because someone somewhere might enjoy them. But this declaration of "no true Chaos player near 20 years ago just took the most powerful combos" always seems to come up, and always rings a bit false.
No I have idea of chaos, before 8th besides stories, but isn't chaos historicaly a codex where csm players, if they use actualy use chaos space marines, do something wrong?
It is bad or at least strange, when your whole csm army consists of a demon prince, obliterators swarm of cultists and some souped in demon or FW stuff.
In that regard stuff like marines or eldar, at least get the opportunity to play with the actual stuff their faction is named after.
If suddenly GW made a 2-3 kroot units and 2-3 kroot characters, and tau armies became just kroot, someone who wants to play tau with tau, could be rather unhappy about it. Specially if tau were kind of not that good. One can forgive a lot, if the army is the best of the best.
Tyel wrote: Not sure these fights help anyone, but certainly *my* experience of 3.5 was that yes, almost all chaos lists became Iron Warriors (or sought out the few other power combos) - and, in a rather Karolesque fashion, lorded it over everyone in the shop while saying how fluffy it was that Iron Warriors were deffo better than everyone else.
Because in reality, fluffiness and power always go together. Is it fluffy that you have custom traits for all factions? Sure. Do people really play around with them? In my experience no. You don't see the "bad" traits.
Does this mean they shouldn't exist? Not really, because someone somewhere might enjoy them. But this declaration of "no true Chaos player near 20 years ago just took the most powerful combos" always seems to come up, and always rings a bit false.
What it means is that "bad" and "good" traits should not exist, and they should all be balanced with each other. I can say though that at least in my small circle of friends at the time we had Emperor's Children and Thousand Sons and I didn't see or hear about the IW craziness. Then again, I also didn't really ply the internet as much back then either.
Tyel wrote: Not sure these fights help anyone, but certainly *my* experience of 3.5 was that yes, almost all chaos lists became Iron Warriors (or sought out the few other power combos) - and, in a rather Karolesque fashion, lorded it over everyone in the shop while saying how fluffy it was that Iron Warriors were deffo better than everyone else.
Because in reality, fluffiness and power always go together. Is it fluffy that you have custom traits for all factions? Sure. Do people really play around with them? In my experience no. You don't see the "bad" traits.
Does this mean they shouldn't exist? Not really, because someone somewhere might enjoy them. But this declaration of "no true Chaos player near 20 years ago just took the most powerful combos" always seems to come up, and always rings a bit false.
this varies greatly on what kind of group you play with. Fluff and power can be completely separate. Me choosing to play Thousand sons (no supreme command, rubrics + terms) with tzeentch demons in early 8th was a purely fluff list that didnt do much for example. I still had a lot of fun with it.
I think its impossible to not approach this question from a non-anecdotical point of view tho.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: No I have idea of chaos, before 8th besides stories, but isn't chaos historicaly a codex where csm players, if they use actualy use chaos space marines, do something wrong?
It is bad or at least strange, when your whole csm army consists of a demon prince, obliterators swarm of cultists and some souped in demon or FW stuff.
In that regard stuff like marines or eldar, at least get the opportunity to play with the actual stuff their faction is named after.
If suddenly GW made a 2-3 kroot units and 2-3 kroot characters, and tau armies became just kroot, someone who wants to play tau with tau, could be rather unhappy about it. Specially if tau were kind of not that good. One can forgive a lot, if the army is the best of the best.
Pretty much yea, and its still the case since CSM didnt get their second wound yet. When they do, my cultists will go in my bottom drawer, hopefully to be forgotten.
You tau example doesnt really work since kroot ARE tau. In fact, i think one of the biggest complaint of tau players right now is that GW overfocuses on actual tau instead of their allied forces.
I have yet to find a system designed by man that is unbreakable. If someone wants to unbalance and gain advantage in any system bad enough..... the system will break.
Now, why someone would WANT to break a system for toy soldiers is a completely different and interesting psychological question well beyond the scope of these forums.
Well then something like IG army consiting of 50 ogryns and commissars and priests to buff them. But yeah sometimes it is strange.
From what I understand tau players really, like really bad, want to play with suit armies, yet GW does everything to make it unfun and not viable.
As if they wanted people to first buy the things they like. Find out that it does not work, and then buy the stuff that works, only to find out that it is 9th, and stuff that works for tau, is on the level of doesn't work for other armies.
It is just too 3d chess level of design and company running economics for me.
What it means is that "bad" and "good" traits should not exist, and they should all be balanced with each other. I can say though that at least in my small circle of friends at the time we had Emperor's Children and Thousand Sons and I didn't see or hear about the IW craziness. Then again, I also didn't really ply the internet as much back then either.
Exactly. Traits should exist to reward fluffy pay. It was honestly too strong, but I think Gladius from 7th for Loyalist Marines is a good example. Like I said, it was probably too strong, but it did do a really good job of rewarding players for building an army that worked the way Marines are often described as working in the fluff.
They should all equally reward you based on the play style you want. There really shouldn't be so many clear cut "winners" and "losers".
Did he maybe make any other codex or army books besides the chaos one?
He did. They were way more fluffy and interesting than the CSM book he wrote. That's why his 4th ed CSM book was so disappointing. He had the ability to write fun, fluffy books. When it came to Chaos he just ... choose not to ...
A certain degree of imbalance is acceptable. However, with GW what you tend to get is a new edition, some sort of reasonable balance. The first few books come out and are designed around a particular design philosophy and things are broadly working. People who haven't been updated are falling behind, but hey, mayb-
WHAM some dude in GW gets overexcited about the project they have been handed. Suddenly, the design paradigm shifts hard. The next codex to come out is really powerful, and the the next one and the next one after that are too. Then someone gets excited again and redoes an army that already had a codex this edition rather than updating one of the out of date ones. Then someone gets excited and upgrades a subfaction to a full faction.
Then, hey, you know what? The game is getting outta hand! Time for a new edition!
There doesn't seem to be any discipline or process for how things work, or any kind of plan. It all seems pretty arbitrary and based on whatever the lads in the studio are excited about.
You can see different versions of this in 3rd ed 40K (the 3.5 chaos codex is an example of two of those) in 6th and 7th edition Fantasy (Dwarves got two books at different times, in 7e Daemons, Dark Elves and Vampires were all crazy good). It happened with 5e too, around halfway through people started getting these flyers and crap. I kinda consider 6th-7th an exception because they didn't even have the part at the start where the game kinda made sense in those editions.
And hey, pattern repeats in 8th edition with Marines 2.0.
So I dunno why people are saying it would be impossible to get good balance. They have managed it for periods in the past, but then lost all discipline and messed it up every time.
3e out of the book was balanced, so was 6e Ravening Hordes.
The first few books come out and are designed around a particular design philosophy and things are broadly working. People who haven't been updated are falling behind, but hey, mayb-
I'd agree with you for most editions. The problem I see in 9th is that the first two books out of the gate are already running on totally separate tracks. I initially liked the 'cron book, and was pleased that Marines were toned down without being totally obliterated (how they managed to avoid the classic GW pendulum swing is anyone$ gue$$), but the more our group played, and the more I see of these books in reports and tournaments, the safer I feel in saying that actually, while still an improvement, the 'cron book is really pretty bad for the most part.
Pretty much every game that qualifies as e-sport. 40k is trivial in complexity compared the invisible rules a game engine handles for your in the background. That's not a bad thing, because a low complexity is necessary for humans to play it without the help of a computer.
So... not for any other table top games? Right...
And what qualifies an e-sport? I'm not being pedantic here.
I mean, I know there are games like Starcraft and other computer games that have leagues etc. Same with mtg.
Thing is - firstly are they actually balanced (I know mtg isn't, despite what people say) and secondly, is the approach used for e-sports compatible with ttg's? They seem to be incompatible approaches to me.
Ttgs might be mechanically simpler, but they're also extremely modular and customisable and in the context of the current design philosophy (points, mission type, army rosters, variable terrain and dice vagaries) and it may be my approach to computer games, or maybe just my interest in ttgs but I do find the building blocks of a ttg are quite open ended and accounting for these variables is... tricky...
It would be a very interesting (though likely unfeasable) scenario if a computer could be designed with an algorithm that could calculate a units 'value' based on the ever changing other elements that define the 'context' (size, roster, opposing roster, mission, terrain type, quantity and layout, player skill and familiarity etc) and if this could be done for all the elements in a games economy system.
They tend to be self contained eco-systems for example (a game is generally bought whole) how does that compare to the 'wave' nature of ttg development where the game is never 'whole. You also have to factor a lit more people play computer games and a lot more data is generated a lot quicker than games like 40k.
How you fix problems isn't actually as relevant as the process itself.
The only way to make your game better over time is to change the game, observe it, analyze your observations and then change it again. If your change made the game worse, you undo it in your next iteration.
Don't make huge sweeping changes unless necessary, like when you have developed yourself into a corner or part of your game is no longer salvagable. If you have the same people re-write the game from bottom up, you will not end up with better game, but with a new one that is just as flawed.
No one should know your game better than you yourself, if that's not the case, hire people who know your game. For example, WotC started hiring world champions to help them balance their game when they almost ran it into the ground.
If a game piece (in our case usually units) doesn't do what it's supposed to do, is acting counter-intuitive or generally disturbing the game, don't shy away from re-working it completely. If you adhere to tradition or conventions, it's likely that these are part of the problem.
Eventually you will collect experience what kind of numbers you need to tweak to get certain desired effects, so iterations will less likely be set backs and more efficient.
So essentially, if you genuinely work on eliminating problems, and you know what you are doing, the game will improve over time, as long as you don't toss out all the work and start anew.
And that's also precisely the reason why 40k feels like a game made by designers at the start of their career despite it being a 30 year old behemoth. They pretty much did the opposite of everything until mid 8th
I am aware of all of this, for what it's worth . I've been reading about this stuff for fifteen years.
But essentially 'take it slow, and refine' and 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' philosophical approach to game design didnt really answer my question, and doesn't really tell you anything as to the physical nitty gritty. Also, I would argue ithis approach works better for closed eco systems like computer games and board games ather than our ever expanding war games like 40k. And I'm.not sure how compatible it is with the business approach that seems to be the requirement for companies developing ttgs. And you still.didnt talk about the tools or approaches used in game development. Points costs are the tiniest, tiniest lever to pull (but they get the biggest amount of attention).
"Fluffiness" is often in the eye of the beholder. I chuckled to myself when an opponent at a Saturday pickup game described his list with two Leviathans as "fluffy." Its like the "pro-painted" moniker you see on EBay.
At least at tournaments you go in with both eyes open and expect to meet "hard" lists. What I would like to see is GW policing "wombo-combos" like the Iron Hands 2.0 interactions with Leviathans and Chaplain Dreads, not to mention terrain shenanigans such as Magic Boxes. At the risk of being a White Knight, I think that 9th Ed is an attempt to address the problems that were on full display at LVO 20. Yesterday's FAQ drop also shows they are responsive to what happens in the wilds outside of the Nottingham studio.
To circle back to my point on fluffiness, can you argue with somebody who describes their Iron Hands Dreadnought list as "fluffy?" Its a bit of an empty term.
Tycho wrote: I actually like a little imbalance and a little asymmetry. Too often they push it too far to clearly, significantly OP.
In the past it was Seer Council Eldar. In 2nd ed, heaven help you if you faced Abbadon and his Terminator Body guard. Playing against Blood Angels in 3rd? Good luck. To some extent this has always been a problem.
Right now though, it feels like, if GW felt like they could be honest with the player base, they would be saying "Look guys, just play marines ok? We don't want to make anything else, and rules are too hard to write, so please just everyone get on the same page and play marines." This is not ok.
I don't really understand your "morally wrong" fascination. I want the game to be fun. This requires, at the least, the various factions to participate somewhat equally in the rules. Somewhat. There will always be exceptions. That's fine. What you can't have is an army almost wholly immune to them. This is what we have right now and it isn't fun. For anyone.
The healthiest I have ever seen the game is when they put out the indexes in 8th edition. Since then it's been a slide back to nonsense and bloat to justify selling more gaming products.
Do I think GW's games are balanced? Beyond a level of "eh, good enough", no. If you followed GW's white tower thoughts on how you're supposed to play, it works "well enough", but if you start digging into the game, it's all rotten inside.
I think the closest GW had recently come to a balanced game was the 8E indexes. It had its issues, but it was a start. They then went in the other direction and off the deep end with the codexes* and never looked back.
* Even then, it took a couple codexes before things started to get insane. I think it was a case of that once they saw the wilder they got with the content the better it sold and the more likely people would buy it for the creep. And that ended up solidifying the direction of those that came afterward.
Deadnight wrote: Thing is, yoy are also talking about a vastly smaller scale and scope. a dozen guys per side, all humans, all.with rending, wearing slight variations of the equivalent of 40k's flak armour (,infinity power armour is like a 5+ save), carrying autoguns and the very occasional flamer or heavy stubber and the occasional crisis suit for good measure (TAG). For all its interactions, there are also in some ways, far fewer moving parts.
Nah, this is pretty blatantly untrue. From an entirely uneducated analysis, you're right, but the variation between, say, a Keisotsu Butai and a Jotum rules-wise is pretty immense. Let's not forget that 40k moved over to modeling its vehicles with wounds and toughness now, too, so its scope is cramped in that way. The difference in survivability between those two models is immense; let's not forget about abilities like Nanoscreens, Mimetism, and Symbio-Mates which add durability in different ways.
Deadnight wrote: And let me repeat myself. Infinity is a fantastic game. When I played n2 and n3 I loved it. Love the models. Best metals in the industry as far as I am concerned. The game is good. Its decent. Bit it also has plenty limitations and cost associated with its 'better' balance.
The limitations and cost *aren't* a lack of variety of units, rules-wise. And visuals-wise... you don't get a situation where 50% of the players are playing the same faction. That's not healthy for the game.
If people were actively cheering on the imbalance and saying this was a good thing, and asking for more stuff to be broken and more factions to be badly designed then maybe you'd have a point. I've met a bare handful of people that have taken this view.
I've met a lot of Astartes players and GW fanboys who say "balance isn't worth achieving" and do things like insist that GW makes a better game because they clear more profit than Corvus Belli. There's a certain personality type that loves sucking up to whom they consider the most powerful actor in a space, and in the context of consumer relations go all <removed - none of that gak here please> on someone who they should regard more critically.
Deadnight wrote: 'Realistic or 'pragmatists' is a better term. Acknowledging the reality of the situation, the limitations of the medium as well as the costs, consequences and associated problems of any tools or mechanisms used to balance a game and realising its neither that easy, and is in all.likely hood impossible to do, is neither Stockholm syndrome, battered wife or bootlicker. Being a hater is easy. Complaining is easy. Broaden your perspective. The world is far more complicated.
Nope. People who cheer on GW lying to them and other players can be described pretty well by that term. And when you look at the balance that GW is failing to implement and look at other companies doing it better (CMON, Corvus Belli, etc) GW doesn't look like an industry leader in that regard. You're using circular logic; "it can't be more balanced because if it was GW would do it." That's just idiocy or subservient disingenuity.
The healthiest I have ever seen the game is when they put out the indexes in 8th edition. Since then it's been a slide back to nonsense and bloat to justify selling more gaming products.
Same, although even then, from what I understand, there were some major issues. I think my area missed them because the armies that had the issues were not getting played at the time, but there were still some misses. I think though, they would have been easy to fix.
One of the problems w/GW's codex design is lack of a clearly defined design direction. Almost as though they lack a Creative Director, or Chief Editor, and there is, apparently, ZERO communication between authors. So end up w/a situation where each book becomes its own little experiment. Lore bending weirdness aside, I always maintained that the problem with "Matt Ward" codexes is NOT that they were Matt Ward codexes - it's that the OTHER codexes were NOT Matt Ward codexes.
His books were fun and powerful. If ALL the books had been pushed to 11, you have a lot fewer problems than what we had at the time. Which was three books pushed to 11 a few pushed to MAYBE 8, most stuck at 5, and a select few that never got past a 3 (out of 10).
Same w/Marines 2.0. If all the books are at that level - fewer problems. If ONE book is at that level - massive problem. Especially when it's by far the biggest faction in the game ...
The complaint of Ward codices being overpowered is simply not that true compared to the garbage Kelly does and gets defended for. True revisionism at its finest.
Ward established a poor rep for balance in WFB with the Daemon book that pretty much broke that edition of the game. Played against a bunch of daemon armies back then and every game was like a tragic last stand.
The complaint of Ward codices being overpowered is simply not that true compared to the garbage Kelly does and gets defended for.
It's about consistency. For every Craftworld Eldar Kelly wrote, he also had a 6th ed CSM. So many flops and misses. Ward was far more consistent in his output than Kelly probably ever will be (my guess is the new Cron dex is a Kelly special and I bet money it turns out to be TERRIBLE before it's all said and done).
Ward established a poor rep for balance in WFB with the Daemon book that pretty much broke that edition of the game. Played against a bunch of daemon armies back then and every game was like a tragic last stand.
That's exactly my point. If ALL the codexes are turned UP to that level, you have fewer problems. The issue is, one author wants everything pushed as far as they can go, one would rather drag everyone DOWN to their level, and another (mostly Kelly) can't be bothered to do anything at all but phone it in unless it's one of their pet projects. If they all arrive at the same philosophy at the start and STICK TOIT, it fixes a lot of our problems.
Yeah, I totally agree. The studio lads are probably nice, but they just don't seem to have much discipline in how they approach the job.
To be fair, I think they just see it as playing toy soldiers and probably think taking it seriously at all is silly, and everything should be worked out between gentlemen.
The problem is, that is not what 40K is. It is built on the premise of the PUG or of at least being able to find a group wherever you go, so it isn't really a garage wargame where you can always come to a gentleman's agreement with your opponent in that way.
I mean, it is definitely arguable that the PUG culture is the real problem. Historicals are basically all run on the gentleman's agreement model and they work fine as far as I can see.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I totally agree. The studio lads are probably nice, but they just don't seem to have much discipline in how they approach the job.
To be fair, I think they just see it as playing toy soldiers and probably think taking it seriously at all is silly, and everything should be worked out between gentlemen.
The problem is, that is not what 40K is. It is built on the premise of the PUG or of at least being able to find a group wherever you go, so it isn't really a garage wargame where you can always come to a gentleman's agreement with your opponent in that way.
I mean, it is definitely arguable that the PUG culture is the real problem. Historicals are basically all run on the gentleman's agreement model and they work fine as far as I can see.
Part of the issue is that 40k doesn't actually run on the "gentleman's agreement" model. It uses that to deflect criticism, but it's clear that they make imbalanced things with the goal of them breaking the game.
Historicals may work on gentleman's agreements, but there always very niche.
I can't have a gentleman's agreement with all the 40k players in my city, there's at least 4 separate clubs each with at least a dozen different players.
If 40k was required to be played in the way historicals are, the game would wither to nothing compared to what it is now.
I would expect them to rotate the winners and losers a bit more thoroughly in that case to maximise profits. I dunno, sometimes it feels like you are right but then other times they just make really baffling decisions that to me imply they just aren't thinking very hard about stuff.
Yeah, I totally agree. The studio lads are probably nice, but they just don't seem to have much discipline in how they approach the job.
To be fair, I think they just see it as playing toy soldiers and probably think taking it seriously at all is silly, and everything should be worked out between gentlemen.
The problem is, that is not what 40K is. It is built on the premise of the PUG or of at least being able to find a group wherever you go, so it isn't really a garage wargame where you can always come to a gentleman's agreement with your opponent in that way.
I mean, it is definitely arguable that the PUG culture is the real problem. Historicals are basically all run on the gentleman's agreement model and they work fine as far as I can see.
Eh - it's easy to blame current "gamer culture", but this problem has always generally existed to some degree when it comes to 40k and I'd say you're right in that there has, for the longest time just been a genuine disconnect between how the writers view the game and how the customers view it. I'm not even a "power gamer", but the amount of times I've read a rule for the first time and immediately thought of a use for it that one of the writer's would later say "We never imagined it would be used like that" is nothing short of astounding.
I DO think they're getting better at it, but the biggest thing I always come back to is the Horus Heresy series. Like it, hate it, or somewhere in between, the one thing it is is consistent. Super consistent. Which is incredible given the number of authors working across the number of books they had. When you hear ANY author from that series talk about it, they all universally talk about how connected they are. How often they talk, how hard they all work to cooperatively make sure one author doesn't inadvertently ruin something for another, etc, etc. And keep in mind, that's a group of people spread across the entire globe.
Now contrast that with any interviews with the rules team. Especially any of the codex authors. It is always "I though this", "I selected that", you do not get the impression they speak at all, and this feeling is backed up by the end result.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, I totally agree. The studio lads are probably nice, but they just don't seem to have much discipline in how they approach the job.
To be fair, I think they just see it as playing toy soldiers and probably think taking it seriously at all is silly, and everything should be worked out between gentlemen.
The problem is, that is not what 40K is. It is built on the premise of the PUG or of at least being able to find a group wherever you go, so it isn't really a garage wargame where you can always come to a gentleman's agreement with your opponent in that way.
I mean, it is definitely arguable that the PUG culture is the real problem. Historicals are basically all run on the gentleman's agreement model and they work fine as far as I can see.
40k is not a historical game to recreate battles though.
ah, this is pretty blatantly untrue. From an entirely uneducated analysis, you're right, but the variation between, say, a Keisotsu Butai and a Jotum rules-wise is pretty immense. Let's not forget that 40k moved over to modeling its vehicles with wounds and toughness now, too, so its scope is cramped in that way. The difference in survivability between those two models is immense; let's not forget about abilities like Nanoscreens, Mimetism, and Symbio-Mates which add durability in different ways.
To be fair, You grabbed 2 units at the opposite end of the scale in a game that has pretty high granularity. If any two units would have vaeuation ita these. What about kazaks and fusiliers and celestial guard? I have ariadna, yu-jing and pan-o factions at home, I found at the end of the day there was limited 'real' differences between them that I was interested in exploring.
all those extra abilities bogged down the game for me to the point I found it tedious and unplayable, as much as I wanted to enjoy it.
The limitations and cost *aren't* a lack of variety of units, rules-wise. And visuals-wise... you don't get a situation where 50% of the players are playing the same faction. That's not healthy for the game.
I said scale and scope. Two different things. Please note, this is not necessarily a criticism- I've made my positive opinion of infinity pretty clear repeatedly.
And arguably, in terms of 'the same faction', that's precisely the criticism I see infinity get. they're all human with very similar equipment for the most part.it works, and while I like the look, infinity is the game that in my experience has drawn most criticism from people for its 'samey clean across thr board sci-fi looks'. Weird, and I disagree, but I think it's fair to acknowledge it.
I've met a lot of Astartes players and GW fanboys who say "balance isn't worth achieving" and do things like insist that GW makes a better game because they clear more profit than Corvus Belli. There's a certain personality type that loves sucking up to whom they consider the most powerful actor in a space, and in the context of consumer relations go all <removed - none of that gak here please> on someone who they should regard more critically.
They'd be foolish to suggest that. Cb make a great game. It's not for me, but I can't and won't fault its technical sophistication.
And fantastic models.
And there is also a personality that is hyper-critical and hyper entitled who will never be havby with anything and just wants to watch the world burn. It's very easy to get suxked into that mindspace and it's not necessarily a positive place.
Nope. People who cheer on GW lying to them and other players can be described pretty well by that term. And when you look at the balance that GW is failing to implement and look at other companies doing it better (CMON, Corvus Belli, etc) GW doesn't look like an industry leader in that regard. You're using circular logic; "it can't be more balanced because if it was GW would do it." That's just idiocy or subservient disingenuity.
Here's the thing in case you are obliquely referring to me. I don't rate gw for balance. Lets be clear about that. I've played gw games for 15 years. They've always been terrible. They don't and won't change. Do gw fail there? Absolutely. Theirs is a clunky flawed limited system. Only way to get value our of it is to front end and game build with the other guy. I think this is a good approach anyway so I can live with gw's rubbish in this regard.
I'm not arguing 'it can't be more balanced because if it was GW would do it." Never said that and I never will. Please retract that if you are implying that that is something I've said. I've played wargames for 15 years. Not just 40k. Privateer press- 3 armies, infinity - 3 armies. Various historicals. Some I've played competitively to a fairly high level in some(Idis reasonably OK in 40k years ago and i can claim one scalp of a UK masters winner in wmh and a bunch of seconds and thirds in local tourneys... back in wmh mk2). What I am saying is balance is a unicorn. Better isn't necessarily 'good enough'. I'm saying it will never be 'balanced enough' to make people happy or to provide the game that people think they're entitled to. And folks always seem oblivious or uninterested in the costs and consequences of any approach to balance a game. The workload to even do some of that on the part of the developers quickly becomes a game of vanishingly diminishing returns and I genuinely don't regard that dragon as worth chasing at the end of the day. Even the best balanced games I've played had go-to builds, trap units and winning strategies. There's other approaches in this hobby and for what it's worth, since I've embraced this instead of being critical about problems all of the time, I've never been happier.
I am saying that I have had multiple periods of playing GW games where I was satisfied with the balance. A lot of 3e, most of 5e for 40K. And most of 6e and the first part of 7e for WFB. Even when WFB got unbalanced, it was still fun to play and player skill still mattered enough that you could make the difference if you knew what you were doing.
So I dunno that all of us who think the balance is generally poor would never be satisfied. You'll never satisfy EVERYONE, but where has anyone been making that argument?
I agree about there being other approaches in the hobby btw. But those approaches are not right for everyone, you know?
Pretty much every game that qualifies as e-sport. 40k is trivial in complexity compared the invisible rules a game engine handles for your in the background. That's not a bad thing, because a low complexity is necessary for humans to play it without the help of a computer.
So... not for any other table top games? Right...
And what qualifies an e-sport? I'm not being pedantic here.
I mean, I know there are games like Starcraft and other computer games that have leagues etc. Same with mtg.
Thing is - firstly are they actually balanced (I know mtg isn't, despite what people say) and secondly, is the approach used for e-sports compatible with ttg's? They seem to be incompatible approaches to me.
Ttgs might be mechanically simpler, but they're also extremely modular and customisable and in the context of the current design philosophy (points, mission type, army rosters, variable terrain and dice vagaries) and it may be my approach to computer games, or maybe just my interest in ttgs but I do find the building blocks of a ttg are quite open ended and accounting for these variables is... tricky...
1. 40k can, without doubt, be transformed into a PC game. At that point it would be 100% comparable to any other game. Note that there are other adaptation of TTGs, even wargames. 2. As a game itself 40k is a turn-based game with just 5 turns and a comparable small amount of moving pieces, with no ability to loop or trigger things and a finite number of game states. Most mobile games are more complex than that.
What qualifies as an e-sport can be googled. At the very least all games where price money/salary for top players is high enough for them to live of it.
It would be a very interesting (though likely unfeasable) scenario if a computer could be designed with an algorithm that could calculate a units 'value' based on the ever changing other elements that define the 'context' (size, roster, opposing roster, mission, terrain type, quantity and layout, player skill and familiarity etc) and if this could be done for all the elements in a games economy system.
The creation of such an algorithm would require an amount and detail of data that doesn't even exist for most other games. Some games (like MtG) can't be solved at all, because they are infinitely complex.
They tend to be self contained eco-systems for example (a game is generally bought whole) how does that compare to the 'wave' nature of ttg development where the game is never 'whole.
This is also true for a vast number of other games, including some of the top e-sports which keep introducing new game pieces.
You also have to factor a lit more people play computer games and a lot more data is generated a lot quicker than games like 40k.
This only changes iteration speed. Those games also iterate twice a month, 40k is currently iterating twice a year.
But essentially 'take it slow, and refine' and 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' philosophical approach to game design didnt really answer my question, and doesn't really tell you anything as to the physical nitty gritty. Also, I would argue ithis approach works better for closed eco systems like computer games and board games ather than our ever expanding war games like 40k. And I'm.not sure how compatible it is with the business approach that seems to be the requirement for companies developing ttgs. And you still.didnt talk about the tools or approaches used in game development. Points costs are the tiniest, tiniest lever to pull (but they get the biggest amount of attention).
You aren't asking for methods, you are asking for solutions. Which brings me back to the silver bullet part - another person's solution might or might not work for your problem. The thing is, there is no way to tell what solutions are going to work, because the problem is just way to complex. Many smaller steps will eventually improve the game, even though not every single step will. Your pile of solutions is definitely just flinging silver bullets at the problem, but you are suggesting too many, too big changes to the game. You will end up with a different game, but it will be just as flawed as 8th, 7th and all the editions before were on the day of their release.
I think the closest GW had recently come to a balanced game was the 8E indexes. It had its issues, but it was a start. They then went in the other direction and off the deep end with the codexes* and never looked back.
It depends on the army you played. For me, with orks and drukhari, it was the worst gaming experience ever. Orks in particular only worked with 180+ boyz and 6+ characters, eventually backed up by the cheapest (and ancient model wise) artillery. Litterally everything else couldn't possibly be fielded even at the most friendly levels. I had to wait 18 months to get rid of that mess and for the first time I entirely gave up playing orks until the codex dropped.
That xeno index made me even mourn the end of 7th edition, when orks were absolute trash and some awful game mechanics like armor facings, templates, formations and the older AP system still existed.
Deadnight wrote: You grabbed 2 units at the opposite end of the scale in a game that has pretty high granularity. If any two units would have vaeuation ita these. What about kazaks and fusiliers and celestial guard? I have ariadna, yu-jing and pan-o factions at home, I found at the end of the day there was limited 'real' differences between them that I was interested in exploring.
all those extra abilities bogged down the game for me to the point I found it tedious and unplayable, as much as I wanted to enjoy it.
Well, people in 40k talk about "GEQs" or "MEQs", and all these troops you describe are 1 armor 1 wound... but their defensive capabilities actually differ. The Fusilier has higher Ballistic Skill, and in Infinity, what weapons a trooper is armed with changes its defensive capabilities. So there can actually be a significant variation here.
Deadnight wrote: I said scale and scope. Two different things. Please note, this is not necessarily a criticism- I've made my positive opinion of infinity pretty clear repeatedly.
Well, there's scale and scope in terms of the game, and that's one thing. Infinity is meant to model smaller-scale conflicts than 40k, with less troops on the board. But in terms of rules scale and scope, Infinity blows 40k out of the water. There's so much more you can do, you can interact with the terrain, attack your opponent in a number of different ways... so I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying because it's incorrect.
Deadnight wrote: And arguably, in terms of 'the same faction', that's precisely the criticism I see infinity get. they're all human with very similar equipment for the most part.it works, and while I like the look, infinity is the game that in my experience has drawn most criticism from people for its 'samey clean across thr board sci-fi looks'. Weird, and I disagree, but I think it's fair to acknowledge it.
I've seen those same people claim that there is more variation between Astartes chapters than entire factions in Infinity. That's just entirely untrue, so that gets back to my point about how bootlickers will lie for the benefit of the company they feel subservient or allegiant to.
Deadnight wrote: And there is also a personality that is hyper-critical and hyper entitled and just wants to watch the world burn.
Maybe. But smiling and taking your licks when GW serves up a plate of dogshit is a bigger problem.
Here's the thing in case you are obliquely referring to me. I don't rate gw for balance. Lets be clear about that. I've played gw games for 15 years. They've always been terrible. They don't and won't change. Do gw fail there? Absolutely. Theirs is a clunky flawed limited system. Only way to get value our of it is to front end and game build with the other guy. I think this is a good approach anyway so I can live with gw's rubbish in this regard.
I'm not arguing 'it can't be more balanced because if it was GW would do it." Never said that and I never will. Please retract that if you are implying that that is something I've said. I've played wargames for 15 years. Not just 40k. Privateer press- 3 armies, infinity - 3 armies. Various historicals. Some I've played competitively to a fairly high level in some(Idis reasonably OK in 40k years ago and i can claim one scalp of a UK masters winner in wmh and a bunch of seconds and thirds in local tourneys... back in wmh mk2). What I am saying is balance is a unicorn. Better isn't necessarily 'good enough'. I'm saying it will never be 'balanced enough' to make people happy or to provide the game that people think they're entitled to. And folks always seem oblivious or uninterested in the costs and consequences of any approach to balance a game. The workload to even do some of that on the part of the developers quickly becomes a game of vanishingly diminishing returns and I genuinely don't regard that dragon as worth chasing at the end of the day. Even the best balanced games I've played had go-to builds, trap units and winning strategies. There's other approaches in this hobby and for what it's worth, since I've embraced this instead of being critical about problems all of the time, I've never been happier.
By saying "balance is a unicorn" you're just reinforcing my point about your circular logic. If GW fails to balance something, it's not because they judiciously spent their resources elsewhere or are preserving some ineffable "soul." They're just making a worse game, and they can get away with that because they have such a huge chunk of the market share.
Hecaton, I'm starting to think you *might* have a slightly negative opinion of GW in general?
And *maybe* you are demonizing people that don't agree with your opinion? Because that's simpler than acknowledging that there is some good and some bad in this regard?
*Maybe?*
I have fun when I play 40k. I have yet to have a game in 9th where I felt I *could not* win. I think GW could do better, but I could do better too. So could you, so could the guy on the other computer, so could the guy on the other end of the internet. We all could do better.
I think it's good enough. I've played versions of 40k with much, MUCH worse balance than the current edition. Do I have ideas about how to achieve better balance? Yes. Would everyone agree with them? No. So that's part of the problem with the "unicorn" of perfect balance, is that we are all looking for a different unicorn. I like goats with just one horn. I have a buddy that looks for deer with just one horn. Another seeks a gazelle-like creature, while another searches for a one-horned rhino.
Balance is always a subjective experience. A sense of a game's balance is an emotional reaction, not an empirical one. So there's not a logical argument that can overcome, "I like it, so it's fine by me." And there doesn't need to be a malicious motive behind that. I have fun when I play 40k, I'm content with the state of the game, and I find it balanced well enough that I don't feel I'm screwed before I deploy models, nor do I think my opponents are screwed before they deploy models.
In the end, a more open minded and altogether less aggressive approach might give you a more satisfying experience with 40k and life in general.
It is definitely better than darker moments but far before we get anywhere near talking about perfect balance we should be expecting far better than the status quo.
As long as there are instantly obvious must takes and never takes within factions (and most egregiously factions themselves) there is plenty of room for improvement.
As long as "tactics" threads are full of "take more of these and less of those" as the vast majority of the discussion the outliers obviously still need work.
*All of this being said they have shown a massive improvement to how things were.
I agree that the balance can be better, and I’ve been impressed by GW’s willingness to create faq’s and address this... even if it had been paid content previously.
Release of this year’s points adjustments at no cost has been a tremendously positive move, in my opinion.
I guess what I’m getting at, is that I’m happy with the current state, and pleased that some effort is being directed at improving balance further. I’m a reasonably satisfied customer at the moment... and I couldn’t say that for the last few years. I just hope other people are having a similar positive experience, and aren’t just buying into the complaint of the month club.
Balance is always a subjective experience. A sense of a game's balance is an emotional reaction, not an empirical one. So there's not a logical argument that can overcome, "I like it, so it's fine by me." And there doesn't need to be a malicious motive behind that. I have fun when I play 40k, I'm content with the state of the game, and I find it balanced well enough that I don't feel I'm screwed before I deploy models, nor do I think my opponents are screwed before they deploy models.
In the end, a more open minded and altogether less aggressive approach might give you a more satisfying experience with 40k and life in general.
Am not sure what his views are suppose to have with being aggresive. You ain't telling me that it is a subjective feeling that tau do not work in 9th or that other armies didn't work in 8th, and I am sure there were even mroe of those in other GW games or other editions of w40k. It is not an emotional reaction. If someone has a legion of the damned army and can't play it right now, or had a bretonian army, it is not a question of emotions or feeling, but very much empirical data.
Also have you ever played with or against an army which is generaly considered to be of the unbalanced type, and if yes and you still have fun. Was maybe the fun based on the fact that you spent time with friends and less on the actual game expiriance.
greatbigtree wrote: Hecaton, I'm starting to think you *might* have a slightly negative opinion of GW in general?
Sure, but it's because of things they did.
greatbigtree wrote: And *maybe* you are demonizing people that don't agree with your opinion? Because that's simpler than acknowledging that there is some good and some bad in this regard?
No. I got no problems with someone who says "Yes I acknowledge that GW has problems X Y and Z but I enjoy the games for whatever reason."
It's pretending problems X Y and Z don't exist that's the problem.
greatbigtree wrote: I have fun when I play 40k. I have yet to have a game in 9th where I felt I *could not* win. I think GW could do better, but I could do better too. So could you, so could the guy on the other computer, so could the guy on the other end of the internet. We all could do better.
Not the same thing at all. You're under no responsibility to cover for GW's mistakes. Do you play Tau? Do you just tell Tau players to "do better"?
That's an entirely separate issue from how you treat someone in a conversation.
greatbigtree wrote: I think it's good enough. I've played versions of 40k with much, MUCH worse balance than the current edition. Do I have ideas about how to achieve better balance? Yes. Would everyone agree with them? No. So that's part of the problem with the "unicorn" of perfect balance, is that we are all looking for a different unicorn. I like goats with just one horn. I have a buddy that looks for deer with just one horn. Another seeks a gazelle-like creature, while another searches for a one-horned rhino.
Balance is always a subjective experience. A sense of a game's balance is an emotional reaction, not an empirical one. So there's not a logical argument that can overcome, "I like it, so it's fine by me." And there doesn't need to be a malicious motive behind that. I have fun when I play 40k, I'm content with the state of the game, and I find it balanced well enough that I don't feel I'm screwed before I deploy models, nor do I think my opponents are screwed before they deploy models.
That's entirely incorrect. Balance is definitely determined empirically. Sure, there are gakky people (like seemingly a wide amount of Astartes players, strangely) who only feel it's balanced when they have an unfair advantage. But you can use math to show those people are wrong, and they shouldn't be indulged. I've definitely encountered 40k players who whine constantly when they're losing, even if their faction was massively overpowered. I remember back when I played WHF in 8e, there was a guy running the full Blood Knight deathstar in our league who got wrecked by an Orcs & Goblin player who was a contractor, and could guess ranges across a table to within 1/4". His stone throwers basically "sniped" his commander off the board. Afterwards, the guy just would not shut up about it, and wanted artillery banned or restricted in our league. He needed to have an overpowered faction to be happy in the game. Those people feel that, subjectively, but they're objectively wrong, and they make the community worse.
greatbigtree wrote: In the end, a more open minded and altogether less aggressive approach might give you a more satisfying experience with 40k and life in general.
Life is aight. But the great thing about other games is that the balance is far greater, and so you can enjoy the social aspect, the painting, the cool armies, *and* have a fun game.
It is an emotional state. Contentment vs frustration. A sense of justice or sense of unfairness. And, empirically speaking, Tau can win 40k. I’ve just started them in 9th, and I’d say I’ve won 40% of my games. And I’m just learning. I’ve only played against them fewer times than I’ve played as them. I acknowledge they aren’t able to acquire objectives like other armies, but I like the play style. I enjoy a slightly uphill battle. Makes the victory sweeter.
@ Hecaton: I do play Tau. I picked up a bunch of 2nd hand models with the start of 9th, and have been enjoying playing them immensely.
Your final statement is a logical fallacy. You can not assert that I am entirely incorrect when I’m stating my internal state of mind. I know my mind, I exist within it. When I state that balance in regards to 40k is an emotional experience for me, that is absolutely accurate. Regardless of the data collected by many people and examined by many others, I am still content with the degree of balance. It could be improved, sure. But I’m happy with it.
Further, your claim that I feel a need to defend GW is also absurd. I do not. You assert authority over a subject you have utterly no knowledge of. Thereby you choose to display your lack of credible understanding of this subject. I can, and do express my contentment with the product GW has produced, with no concern to an “attack” on a corporate entity that has nothing to do with me. The absurdity of your statement is making me smile.
PS: you don’t need to quote my responses point by point. I can follow your statements without needing to see mine first.
Why balance can be subjective, there are also clear indicators that can be signs it is off.
Even if you ignore simple, vs stats 40k has some problems that let it down and prevent it from finding a good balance.
This also a thought on how other games just don’t compare, with warmachine/hordes.
If you look at the two games.
Warmachine for all factions and sub factions will be often supported well to lesser extent to fit there themes.
Things like leadership is fully supported across the board.
You have both leader supported and leader seperate units.
Heavy and medium units that fit into heavy support role for both anti armor and anti infantry.
Light and medium infantry, with cavalry being a sub class of medium used for some factions.
Solo units with fits in as Sub leadership on the battlefield.
Flying and pathfinder filling in silmilar roles why being different mechanically.
Ranged and close combat is well supported where fitting themes and often even close combat themes will have access to shooting and shooting defence.
The big thing is that every faction has the units and design support to play on the same battlefields despite how different they are.
Often looking very different in how they play as well as how you build up your army.
With 40k they are often far less structured despite what they say.
With things like sisters of silence being put out to kind of die, and even now sort of just tacked on. With even a small effort to the rules could expand them to at least be an enjoyable force to play. Taking units from other imperial army’s and giving them fitting rules, like the rhino.
Now GW is probably holding that back so they can sell a whole army at some point and not dilute there customers. But that only works if you have a working plan for them before players get frustrated and just leave.
Flyers have a similar issue, there was little to no design thought put into them.
So when they got dedicated rules you ended up with support for several types, supersonic fighters, Drop/transport ships and hover/support vehicles.
This ended up with it all just being converted to rules more fitting to a game where half the factions effectively even now cannot really fight on a battlefield with flight as a major part of the game.
Imperial knights are another issue, when they come out they where basically a faction of Nope.
My own meta just fell apart as players choose rather than buy a bunch of units to just not play.
Again I think this lead to the game needing to dumb down the rules to fit them in after they threaten to break things.
GW cannot find a good balance between there desire for grimdark sci fi warfare and it’s Super cool power fantasy.
They want big massive guns and military forces with strategy as well as full army’s of close combat units that due to the low bar of design have little in the way to get there without tilting the rules far towards there favour.
They simply want the fantasy of a marine charge into a tau line, but rarely put the thought into design to make that play out well.
Even little things like transports get left out of a lot of design, and with the game being well suited for combined warfare they often prefer the easy options.
Terrain is getting better, but they cannot ever make them really good since they now have factions that could not ever use infantry based terrain for combined arms.
And it would require the team making the miniatures to take part in the game design process as well.
Which from interviews seems they are often left to there own and the rules have to fit them in at some point.
These are all ballance issues that are mostly seperate to a direct comparison, issue of support. Things could simply be better if they put in the effort and they really don’t have much to say they couldn’t as every other game could.
Infinity can use vehicles with relative ease as every faction is playing the same game to begin with. It’s a great system that we mess a lot with to do all kinds of wild things. Simply since it has that balance in design already.
Warmachine is the same, RPG, narrative and campaigns all work without any issue.
Castle sieges and building destruction all easy to toss into it with little issues at breaking things.
And at the end can play it Full hard mode as well.
GW just needs to plan more ahead, so many factions would have been great if they had got 1 miniature they needed a year and some thoughtful design to them as well.
This was a bit of rant, and more at basic design. Sorry
greatbigtree wrote: It is an emotional state. Contentment vs frustration. A sense of justice or sense of unfairness. And, empirically speaking, Tau can win 40k. I’ve just started them in 9th, and I’d say I’ve won 40% of my games. And I’m just learning. I’ve only played against them fewer times than I’ve played as them. I acknowledge they aren’t able to acquire objectives like other armies, but I like the play style. I enjoy a slightly uphill battle. Makes the victory sweeter.
Aight, how do they do against players who know what they're doing? What scenarios are you playing?
greatbigtree wrote: I do play Tau. I picked up a bunch of 2nd hand models with the start of 9th, and have been enjoying playing them immensely.
Your final statement is a logical fallacy. You can not assert that I am entirely incorrect when I’m stating my internal state of mind. I know my mind, I exist within it. When I state that balance in regards to 40k is an emotional experience for me, that is absolutely accurate. Regardless of the data collected by many people and examined by many others, I am still content with the degree of balance. It could be improved, sure. But I’m happy with it.
Further, your claim that I feel a need to defend GW is also absurd. I do not. You assert authority over a subject you have utterly no knowledge of. Thereby you choose to display your lack of credible understanding of this subject. I can, and do express my contentment with the product GW has produced, with no concern to an “attack” on a corporate entity that has nothing to do with me. The absurdity of your statement is making me smile.
PS: you don’t need to quote my responses point by point. I can follow your statements without needing to see mine first.
I clearly know more about it than you. Balance is not an entirely subjective thing; the implication is that if two factions are balanced in this game, they have an equal chance of winning when piloted by players of similar skill. Your feelings are irrelevant to that idea. And if you're content with the balance, and the balance is bad, it might indicate a failure of judgment on your part. You might be in Dunning-Kruger territory for how bad the balance is, you might have just invested into your first wargame and not be able to handle criticism of its balance because then all the money you spent on your Tau would feel like a waste, whatever.
greatbigtree wrote: It is an emotional state. Contentment vs frustration. A sense of justice or sense of unfairness. And, empirically speaking, Tau can win 40k. I’ve just started them in 9th, and I’d say I’ve won 40% of my games. And I’m just learning. I’ve only played against them fewer times than I’ve played as them. I acknowledge they aren’t able to acquire objectives like other armies, but I like the play style. I enjoy a slightly uphill battle. Makes the victory sweeter.
Aight, how do they do against players who know what they're doing?
Alright, no need to be rude to GreatBigTree. Rule #1.
But, GBT, at what point balance is good enough is subjective. If you're happy with 40k's balance, great! But... There are objective ways to gauge balance, though. And quite simply put, 40k doesn't really achieve significant balance.
That's not to say you can't have fun with 40k. I've enjoyed 40k for years, despite its awful balance. But that's because I play with friendly folk, who I could have a good time with regardless of what we're doing.
Despite balance being a subjective feeling for any given player, multiple other games have shown that actual data usually matches the subjective feeling of the people playing the game.
Of course, this can be muddied if there are issues in the game that frustrate people that have nothing to do with balance (for example, unintuitive/unclear rules or armies feeling like a chore to play).
I feel like I have to repeat this every time there is talk about balance and win rates. For pickup games 40% winrate isn't that bad when it is random matchups. In tournament settings it is an abysmal win rate. 55% winrate is massively overpowered in the same setting.
After the first round of a tournament more and more of the top games will be good armies vs good armies and the bottom games will be bad armies vs other bad armies. Which means that in the later rounds the field is mostly separated and play in different tiers and that makes the conclusion you can draw different from random pick up games.
Marines(best subfaction) and Harlequins might have a 55% win rate when facing mostly other good armies but it they were to pair up against one of worse ones they might have a 70-90% winrate.
The bad armies usually fight it out more to the bottom of the rankings and since both players can't lose one of them will win and introduce kind of a floor around 40%.
45% winrate armies against 55% armies usually have a 10-30/70-90 split when actually facing each other. Way worse balance than overall winrates might show.
At one point my faction on paper had a 45% winrate and people said they were fine. Against IH we had 10% and most other top tier factions we didn't have more than 30%. Good luck winning a tournament if you have a 1/10 to win against the meta army that is making up a third of the field. Winning 5 rounds would not be 0,45*0,45*0,45*0,45*0,45 but rather 0,45*0,30*0,20*0,1*0,1 as the likelihood of meeting IH or other top armies increased each round.
Jidmah wrote: Despite balance being a subjective feeling for any given player, multiple other games have shown that actual data usually matches the subjective feeling of the people playing the game.
Of course, this can be muddied if there are issues in the game that frustrate people that have nothing to do with balance (for example, unintuitive/unclear rules or armies feeling like a chore to play).
There is some argument that many other games have a smaller player base and/or smaller pool of factions/subfactions/options. I am not saying that my subjective feeling of 40k's balance is equal or better than most other miniatures war games I played. It's not. I am just saying that all the other mini war games I have played did have less people playing and therefor less discussed online about balance and a smaller pool to find any imbalances. Not to mention have far less 'spinning plates' in options so to speak.
Probably the miniatures war game I played the most and would have been the most skilled at was Dust Battlefield. The Battlefront Miniatures tabletop version of Dust Tactics. There were only 3 factions when I played with each have a fairly wide selection of unit options better than some 40k factions. I would say the factions were generally balanced though I personally felt SSU was best and the Allies were the worst. Though some areas around the world said the opposite. Speaking of the SSU, while I felt they had the best units in Dust. They most certainly had the largest range of stinkers with the faction basically consisting of either very good or very bad units. Often whole categories of units (such as super heavy infantry and flyers) being wholly worthless to field. With the flyer rules extending to all factions.
A popular tournament game during the 7th edition 40k days in my region was Bolt Action. Which is very balanced. Mostly because everyone has access to the same core unit archetypes and a focused spectrum of unit types. Often having exactly the same rules with only the model being different. I could literally make a U.S., German, British and Soviet army to have exactly the same units in them. The only real difference being the "National Traits". Even then, it was often argued that U.S. traits were considered too powerful and Germany traits were too weak. And again, there were categories of units that just weren't generally worth taking such as machine gun teams (so sad in a WWII game).
That's just the platoon/company 28mm games that most closely match 40k's scope I played a lot of. Yes, I think they were much better balanced. Or at very least want a player did with their army mattered more making what their list had matter less than how 40k plays. However, even those games had whole areas of bad balance that often did take but a single game fielding a bad unit (there were much few auto-take units) to know they just were a liability. So I do think GW games, and 40k specifically, is poorly balanced in comparison to a few other miniatures war games on the market. Or at very least, 40k is less balanced than those games to a generally noticeable level. Especially if any of those games I played at the most optimized level of power.
At the same time, I don't know if I have seen a miniatures war game with enough balanced to satisfy a whole of posters on Dakka. Especially the ones that seem to have an axe to grind toward 40k and Games Workshop. For me, 40k is good enough. Especially if you just play the models you have and like, not ensuring you keep up with the latest optimized hotness. Which has the added bonus that when the rules inevitably change in 6-months to a year the power of your army really doesn't. I could see 40k being extremely frustrating to play in groups seeking maximum optimization of army lists. I think 40k breaks down so fundamentally as to wonder why even bother playing that way.
What would you rather want to hear, that your grandma forgot something this year, or that she likes your sisters better then you, and that is why you didn't get any presents this year and they did?
Same here. It is much better to keep on playing and buying, thinking that next time the rules are going to be fun. Specially as sometimes they actualy are. Then sit down and think that you spend thousands of , waited for 10+ years and then GW just removed your faction and deleted the game you liked. IMO a much less healthier way of dealing with stuff.
It is an emotional state. Contentment vs frustration. A sense of justice or sense of unfairness. And, empirically speaking, Tau can win 40k. I’ve just started them in 9th, and I’d say I’ve won 40% of my games. And I’m just learning. I’ve only played against them fewer times than I’ve played as them. I acknowledge they aren’t able to acquire objectives like other armies, but I like the play style. I enjoy a slightly uphill battle. Makes the victory sweeter.
Nah. when I see the goon post data based on data from a few thousand games, and there is no * saying, that tau games were so few that it is hard to judge their win ratios, and the data shows that tau are bad, and get really bad when they go second. This is not a question of emotions of feelings. I do not care about the tau, further then me playing against them from time to time. I am also not good player, nor do I play a good faction, and even out of that I don't play the optimised list. I do like 9th incomperably better then 8th, even with all the bad it has. But non of the judgments have anything to do with emotions.
I take medicin to not run on emotions, and I really wouldn't want to start to run on them, because of w40k. Which actualy did happen in 8th, mostly due to me being new and a slow learner.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: There is some argument that many other games have a smaller player base and/or smaller pool of factions/subfactions/options. I am not saying that my subjective feeling of 40k's balance is equal or better than most other miniatures war games I played. It's not. I am just saying that all the other mini war games I have played did have less people playing and therefor less discussed online about balance and a smaller pool to find any imbalances. Not to mention have far less 'spinning plates' in options so to speak.
40k is not a special snowflake that and it's player base is not particularly large either. It's fairly safe to assume that 40k does not have vastly more than 1 million players, if they have that many at all. That still is a lot (DotA2 has similar numbers), but not exceptional: WoW still has five times as many, MtG has at least 40 times as many players, League Of Legends more than 100 times as many.
<miniature games>
You need to accept that miniature games are not special in any way in regards of game development. The main aspect which distinguishes them from regular table top games, TCG, P&P and video games is the hobby part, which has zero impact on the game itself or its balance.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: There is some argument that many other games have a smaller player base and/or smaller pool of factions/subfactions/options. I am not saying that my subjective feeling of 40k's balance is equal or better than most other miniatures war games I played. It's not. I am just saying that all the other mini war games I have played did have less people playing and therefor less discussed online about balance and a smaller pool to find any imbalances. Not to mention have far less 'spinning plates' in options so to speak.
40k is not a special snowflake that and it's player base is not particularly large either. It's fairly safe to assume that 40k does not have vastly more than 1 million players, if they have that many at all. That still is a lot (DotA2 has similar numbers), but not exceptional: WoW still has five times as many, MtG has at least 40 times as many players, League Of Legends more than 100 times as many.
<miniature games>
You need to accept that miniature games are not special in any way in regards of game development. The main aspect which distinguishes them from regular table top games, TCG, P&P and video games is the hobby part, which has zero impact on the game itself or its balance.
Some Video games do this too. COD “oopsies” every new weapon they introduce to pvp only to “fix” it next patch.
Even if GW was special or miniature games were special, it is still demonstrable that they have managed periods of fairly acceptable balance in the past, so it is not impossible.
Pancakey wrote: Some Video games do this too. COD “oopsies” every new weapon they introduce to pvp only to “fix” it next patch.
I think we are discussing separate things. But yes, LoL, for example just threw its entire balance out the window on purpose, MtG regularly rotates its sets and WoW keeps releasing expansions to make the game interesting again, as things tend to get stagnant if they remain unchanged for too long, even if they are reasonably well balanced.
GW never has reached that point though, and they honestly have failed to "oops" a new kit as often as they have succeeded. Essentially they are trying major league plays at a school match.
Da Boss wrote: Even if GW was special or miniature games were special, it is still demonstrable that they have managed periods of fairly acceptable balance in the past, so it is not impossible.
With record earnings they are only going to double down on the “oopsie” strategy.
Jidmah wrote: I'm beginning to think that you are just in this discussion to keep posting "oopsie".
I will cut it out. Haha. It just pains me to see the apologist attitude when GW is so hostile towards the health/balance of the game and its players.
And there is your problem. You interpret the results of GW actions to mean they are hostile to game balance and players.
I always say never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation. In GW's case, I feel they are not great at balance and are not the best at communications. When GW blames the players for "playing the game wrong" what they should be saying is "we didn't design or test it that way". Same idea without blaming the players.
The biggest barrier to balancing 40K is army construction allows to much freedom. They allow you to take just about anything you want in your army. That is impossible to balance with as many choices as even a small army like Custodes or Harliquins have. Add in the bazillion units for Space Marines and they are lucky to get as much balance as they have.
It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.
Da Boss wrote: It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.
@ Hecaton: I’m not trying to make an appeal to authority, just stating that my subjective experience goes back to 2nd edition 40k, shortly after the Chaos Terminator with Reaper Autocannon came out. That was the model that got me to take a dive from WHFB into 40k. With such background stated, I hope the notion that I “just got into the game” can be dispelled, I’ve played WMH, and recently-ish gotten into a game called Godtear. A game so well balanced that exactly 2 Champions are considered to be outside “standard tier “. One below, Morrigan, and one above, Raith. The remaining 16 champions, ish, are considered to be on par with each other. The game has near-immaculate balance. So I do have experience with well balanced, and near-perfectly balanced games.
My regular opponents and I have been garage gaming for 20 or more years together. We agree that the game is fundamentally better balanced than it has been for many years. Which is our subjective experience.
A person can *feel* that a game’s balance is off, and then find facts to support that. I don’t *feel* the game is unbalanced inside my fishbowl *to a degree I feel is unacceptable*. Anecdotal, but I can truthfully feel that the game is in an acceptable state for my purposes. My motive for saying that is that other people reading this can understand that, if they take a step back from focusing on cherry-picked details, the game may be acceptable to them. They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun.
And, on top of that, the designers are putting some degree of effort into improving that balance.
Attacking the qualifications of an arguer, rather than the merits of an argument, is considered poor form, and indicative of a weak argument by the attacker. You’re using logical fallacies to do that, from assumption of correctness, to appeals to authority, to dismissing a statement without addressing the merits. If you wish to create a stronger argument, you will need to avoid those pitfalls.
My regular opponents and I have been garage gaming for 20 or more years together. We agree that the game is fundamentally better balanced than it has been for many years. Which is our subjective experience.
If it's your subjective experience, then it's mostly meaningless without numbers to back it up. Above you said that "I win about 40% of my games" which is an argument that rests on objective evidence, so even you acknowledge that subjective "feelings" aren't the be-all end-all. Of course, it's a *bad* numbers-based argument, because it's relying on one player, but it's there.
greatbigtree wrote: A person can *feel* that a game’s balance is off, and then find facts to support that.
That's pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.
greatbigtree wrote: I don’t *feel* the game is unbalanced inside my fishbowl *to a degree I feel is unacceptable*. Anecdotal, but I can truthfully feel that the game is in an acceptable state for my purposes. My motive for saying that is that other people reading this can understand that, if they take a step back from focusing on cherry-picked details, the game may be acceptable to them. They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun.
The issue is that the game *isn't* balanced that well. If an Astartes player takes the units that "feel right" they're going to run roughshod over the GSC cult player who takes units that "feel right." That creates a bad play experience.
greatbigtree wrote: And, on top of that, the designers are putting some degree of effort into improving that balance.
Sure, but the goal seems to be manufactured discontent i.e. purposefully imbalancing the game to a certain point to drive sales, rather than a balanced game.
greatbigtree wrote: Attacking the qualifications of an arguer, rather than the merits of an argument, is considered poor form, and indicative of a weak argument by the attacker. You’re using logical fallacies to do that, from assumption of correctness, to appeals to authority, to dismissing a statement without addressing the merits. If you wish to create a stronger argument, you will need to avoid those pitfalls.
I did fine. You argued from your own subjective experience, from your own "feels." I pointed out that your feels aren't necessarily correct or representative of reality. You don't get to make the "feels" argument and then say a critique of that argument is an ad hominem; you've made your being part of the argument.
They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun.
And, on top of that, the designers are putting some degree of effort into improving that balance.
Interesting, I didn't know I could get angry at a post. You really think that someone playing GK in 8th or tau in 9th, would be in a good place if they just glaze over a few details? I at least get the argument, that people with bad armies can find fun in painting or converting, if they happen to both like and be able to afford it, but this just shot over my head. But I ain't a smart person, and my english isn't that well, plus there are cultural difference, so maybe it is just that.
But yes, LoL, for example just threw its entire balance out the window on purpose, MtG regularly rotates its sets and WoW keeps releasing expansions to make the game interesting again, as things tend to get stagnant if they remain unchanged for too long, even if they are reasonably well balanced.
Only the cost of playing WoW or LoL, specially casualy, is hard to compare with the cost of a 2000pts army. Unless we count the cost of the rig in to the cost of the game, and make a huge assumption that it is only used by one person and only for the purposed of playing only LoL or WoW.
MtG rotates stuff out, and is not cheap, unless someone plays with reprints from China, which I guess mirrors the recast problem GW has. So I guess there is that. There is that one problem though MtG is run by Hasbro, which is one of those companies on the not-nice list. Also in MtG no one picks a colour and decides I will play white till the rest of my life, and will never buy anything else. A DA death wing player who may not have the option to switch to the new thing, if the new thing doesn't include DeathWing models for him to buy and play with.
Da Boss wrote: It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.
The precise reason I went back to 3rd edition 40K and 6th edition WFB
greatbigtree wrote: ...My motive for saying that is that other people reading this can understand that, if they take a step back from focusing on cherry-picked details, the game may be acceptable to them. They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun...
I'm really not following you here. Is the game well-balanced because you're having a good time, and other people who aren't having a good time should step back, take a look at the big picture, recognize that other people are having fun, and stop grumbling? Is that all there is to it? Once we accept and internalize that our own enjoyment is not important enough to care about, we will have achieved enlightenment and will be able to have fun?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: ...Interesting, I didn't know I could get angry at a post. You really think that someone playing GK in 8th or tau in 9th, would be in a good place if they just glaze over a few details? I at least get the argument, that people with bad armies can find fun in painting or converting, if they happen to both like and be able to afford it, but this just shot over my head. But I ain't a smart person, and my english isn't that well, plus there are cultural difference, so maybe it is just that...
I don't think it's cultural or linguistic; I live pretty near Canada and I speak quite good English, and his post is gibberish to me too.
Da Boss wrote: It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.
Paying for wargear, also... no combo whambo aura baloney.
Da Boss wrote: It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.
I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.
I’m saying that yes, there are some outliers, but the game’s balance is good *enough* to not detract from my experience playing. I think a lot of people focus too intensely on a handful of bad units or matchups and miss the fun of playing the game. I hope to sway the opinions of the observers of this argument, to take a step back from focussing on a few details, to take a look at the big picture. Are your games close? Do you feel like you have a decent chance to win at the start of the game, and your opponent does too? Are your losses due to bad decisions you’ve made?
A salient point. I’ve been able to trace the causes of my losses to decisions I made, not to having insurmountable odds. I wasn’t beaten by math, or luck. I was beaten because I made mistakes and my opponents were savy enough to take advantage of them. That’s what good balance rewards. Good play leads to good results. Poor play leads to poor results.
The games I won were the same, I judged the resources I needed to accomplish my objectives better than my opponents. When necessary, I changed my strategy and tactics to regain an upper hand. When I did that successfully I won.
It’s late here, and I got myself (perfectly legally) into the green zone earlier. Given the events of the past few days, I’m not surprised that my neighbour to the south has trouble making sense of things. Seems to be a common plight down there. (That’s meant to be a bit of humour, in case anyone takes that to be hurtful, it’s not meant that way.)
greatbigtree wrote: I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.
I’m saying that yes, there are some outliers, but the game’s balance is good *enough* to not detract from my experience playing. I think a lot of people focus too intensely on a handful of bad units or matchups and miss the fun of playing the game. I hope to sway the opinions of the observers of this argument, to take a step back from focussing on a few details, to take a look at the big picture. Are your games close? Do you feel like you have a decent chance to win at the start of the game, and your opponent does too? Are your losses due to bad decisions you’ve made?
A salient point. I’ve been able to trace the causes of my losses to decisions I made, not to having insurmountable odds. I wasn’t beaten by math, or luck. I was beaten because I made mistakes and my opponents were savy enough to take advantage of them. That’s what good balance rewards. Good play leads to good results. Poor play leads to poor results.
The games I won were the same, I judged the resources I needed to accomplish my objectives better than my opponents. When necessary, I changed my strategy and tactics to regain an upper hand. When I did that successfully I won.
It’s late here, and I got myself (perfectly legally) into the green zone earlier. Given the events of the past few days, I’m not surprised that my neighbour to the south has trouble making sense of things. Seems to be a common plight down there. (That’s meant to be a bit of humour, in case anyone takes that to be hurtful, it’s not meant that way.)
If the humor is what I assume it to be, I can safely say maybe people should avoid certain topics on a forum for toy soldiers. Isn't there enough annoyance and anger to be stirred up talking about balance and GW ? Even if its meant to be a joke, I'm not sure it's going to taken that way by everyone considering the times.
greatbigtree wrote: I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.
Again, the statistics don't agree with you. What kind of missions are you playing?
Hecaton, you do understand that both of you can be right?
If he won 4 out of 10 games, that means his win rate is 40%, which is almost exactly what goonhammer has on record for tau. Data actually does agree with him.
You are just having different opinions on the current state of game, while you actually agree what that state is.
A sample size of 4 across a specific local meta is nothing. It's entirely plausible he has won 40% of his games.
Perhaps his meta his comprised of mostly bottom tier factions, perhaps he's the best player of the group, perhaps he plays super sweaty and no one else does.
IMO balance is a reasonably objective measure.
How balanced is balanced enough is very subjective though. Some people don't even slightly care about balance, others care very much.
kirotheavenger wrote: A sample size of 4 across a specific local meta is nothing. It's entirely plausible he has won 40% of his games.
Perhaps his meta his comprised of mostly bottom tier factions, perhaps he's the best player of the group, perhaps he plays super sweaty and no one else does.
Could also just be that the only Tau players who show up to the tourneys you all measure things by just aren't very good Tau/40k players....
greatbigtree wrote: I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.
I’m saying that yes, there are some outliers, but the game’s balance is good *enough* to not detract from my experience playing. I think a lot of people focus too intensely on a handful of bad units or matchups and miss the fun of playing the game. I hope to sway the opinions of the observers of this argument, to take a step back from focussing on a few details, to take a look at the big picture. Are your games close? Do you feel like you have a decent chance to win at the start of the game, and your opponent does too? Are your losses due to bad decisions you’ve made?
A salient point. I’ve been able to trace the causes of my losses to decisions I made, not to having insurmountable odds. I wasn’t beaten by math, or luck. I was beaten because I made mistakes and my opponents were savy enough to take advantage of them. That’s what good balance rewards. Good play leads to good results. Poor play leads to poor results.
The games I won were the same, I judged the resources I needed to accomplish my objectives better than my opponents. When necessary, I changed my strategy and tactics to regain an upper hand. When I did that successfully I won.
It’s late here, and I got myself (perfectly legally) into the green zone earlier. Given the events of the past few days, I’m not surprised that my neighbour to the south has trouble making sense of things. Seems to be a common plight down there. (That’s meant to be a bit of humour, in case anyone takes that to be hurtful, it’s not meant that way.)
Your opinion is worth reading mate, not a fan of the pile ons that are becoming more prevalent on this forum. This covid stuff is really making folk more irritable I suspect.
We’re playing missions out of the rulebook. *shrug* We’ve played a couple 500 point games, a few 1000 point games, and we’re playing 1500 points lately... which will probably be our normal. They play quick, and force tough choices in list building.
I don’t think I have anything more to add to this discussion. I’ve said my piece.
Be well, Dakka!
PS: I acknowledge that my joke was in bad taste. I apologize for that, and for bringing up politics on a forum I actively try to keep politics out of. That was hypocritical of me.
kirotheavenger wrote: A sample size of 4 across a specific local meta is nothing. It's entirely plausible he has won 40% of his games.
Perhaps his meta his comprised of mostly bottom tier factions, perhaps he's the best player of the group, perhaps he plays super sweaty and no one else does.
Could also just be that the only Tau players who show up to the tourneys you all measure things by just aren't very good Tau/40k players....
The probability of a single group of players beinf below average in skill or just Les competitively minded *substantially* higher than the chance of hundreds of people sampled in competitive 40k games.
40K can't be properly balanced even if you take the best rules designer of the planet and set him to work.
The only instance when two armies are balanced is when there are identical units on both sides and both forces have the same objectives.
Terrain needs to be addressed too. Structures would need to be placed in a symmetrical fashion on each board side.
Does this sounds like fun? Maybe for a few matches but it would become tedious soon.
It can be a lot better. We all see the leaks each time and within minutes have identified the feth ups and what's good (underpriced, OP) and what's bad (niche, overpriced, random) Goonhammer etc have articles up swiftly breaking it down.
Why do these threads always go this way?
"Perfect is impossible so don't try"
"You'd have to strip out all the options and flavour so don't try"
"If you want balance play chess"
"lol even chess isn't balanced so don't try"
It's not wrong to expect better, it's just sad there are so many legions of people giving them no reason to bother.
greatbigtree wrote: We’re playing missions out of the rulebook. *shrug* We’ve played a couple 500 point games, a few 1000 point games, and we’re playing 1500 points lately... which will probably be our normal. They play quick, and force tough choices in list building.
Aight, once your meta evolves, you might be seeing some different results.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: It can be a lot better. We all see the leaks each time and within minutes have identified the feth ups and what's good (underpriced, OP) and what's bad (niche, overpriced, random) Goonhammer etc have articles up swiftly breaking it down.
Why do these threads always go this way?
"Perfect is impossible so don't try"
"You'd have to strip out all the options and flavour so don't try"
"If you want balance play chess"
"lol even chess isn't balanced so don't try"
It's not wrong to expect better, it's just sad there are so many legions of people giving them no reason to bother.
It's because they don't want it to be balanced. There are so many people involved in 40k who win games by exploited GW's poorly balanced mess, and they're afraid that if that goes away they won't be able to win games.
I actually think it's because GW can do no wrong in the minds of these people.
You get the same attitude regardless of what GW does. "It's perfect, it's impossible to achieve better, worth every penny!".
kirotheavenger wrote: I actually think it's because GW can do no wrong in the minds of these people.
You get the same attitude regardless of what GW does. "It's perfect, it's impossible to achieve better, worth every penny!".
It's a pity because it makes when GW *does* do cool stuff absolutely meaningless. Like the KT Rogue Trader boxed set - those minis were amazing.
They're...cleverly selective when it comes to balance. On one hand there's attempts to address issues and make the game more fun. On the other we get new models with stats rules that are so imbalanced that it us clearly intentional.
Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.
As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.
thegreatchimp wrote: They're...cleverly selective when it comes to balance. On one hand there's attempts to address issues and make the game more fun. On the other we get new models with stats rules that are so imbalanced that it us clearly intentional.
.
I think this is a balancing factor only if someone plays multiple armies or multiple games. If your army is not fun to play with, and GW doesn't give it new models, then the fact that they are making new stuff for other factions doesn't help much. In fact it may generate resentment, like in the case of marines.
Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.
Sort of.
1st: I only played in the early 1/2 of 6th & then mostly using Khorne demons so I paid little attention to SM. and then I played no 7th.
2nd: I've always loved dreads. The boxy dread is one of my favorite 40k pieces. And ages ago in WD there was a story about 9 dreads holding the field. Sadly fielding 9 dreads in 3rd wasn't a legal option at that time. Still inspired though.... Building it though was always on the back burner as there's little reason to build a force that can't be played.... But maybe, one day....
And lo & behold, then came that one summer at GenCon where I was able to pick up all the used dreads I could ever want - metal, plastic, even a few of the early boxy FW resins + almost any arms I wanted for pennies on the dollar. I'm talking complete dreads for $10....
Had no idea what caused that, didn't care, didn't question it. Just stocked up. All my SM armies now had a few dreads & I could build my {still unplayable} 9 dread army as a hobby project & not waste too much $.
When I returned in 8th I was quite pleased to see the rules had shifted enough to allow me to put nothing but dreads on the table.
Oh, and while I was away FW had been very busy designing new dreads to siphon off my $.
thegreatchimp wrote: As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.
I don't. If they had a well rounded collection & weren't perpetually selling things off to buy the new hottness, just to scrap that on the next pendulum swing, they could just rotate what they play with & have only had to pay once.
I often regret selling models, but then I remember why I sold them in the first place.
I don't have the space to keep them. Lord knows I don't have enough space to keep the models I'm currently using.
Additionally, I wouldn't want to use the models anyway. They're from a time where I was much worse at building and painting than I am now, I don't like what I did anymore.
Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.
Sort of.
1st: I only played in the early 1/2 of 6th & then mostly using Khorne demons so I paid little attention to SM. and then I played no 7th.
2nd: I've always loved dreads. The boxy dread is one of my favorite 40k pieces. And ages ago in WD there was a story about 9 dreads holding the field. Sadly fielding 9 dreads in 3rd wasn't a legal option at that time. Still inspired though.... Building it though was always on the back burner as there's little reason to build a force that can't be played.... But maybe, one day....
And lo & behold, then came that one summer at GenCon where I was able to pick up all the used dreads I could ever want - metal, plastic, even a few of the early boxy FW resins + almost any arms I wanted for pennies on the dollar. I'm talking complete dreads for $10....
Had no idea what caused that, didn't care, didn't question it. Just stocked up. All my SM armies now had a few dreads & I could build my {still unplayable} 9 dread army as a hobby project & not waste too much $.
When I returned in 8th I was quite pleased to see the rules had shifted enough to allow me to put nothing but dreads on the table.
Oh, and while I was away FW had been very busy designing new dreads to siphon my $ away.
thegreatchimp wrote: As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.
I don't. If they had a well rounded collection & weren't perpetually selling things off to buy the new hottness, just to scrap that on the next pendulum swing, they could just rotate what they play with & have only had to pay once.
Oh i feel you there. The entire reason i kept my salamanders successors when i reduced the number of armies i had for my 28mm 40K stuff was because of dreads. in 5th you had the option to take them as elites and heavies if you had a master of the forge in an HQ slot. FW made it even better with the badab war supplement allowing dread talons (3 ironclads or seige dreads) to be taken as a troops slot for every regular tac marine/scout troop slot you filled. so technically if you were playing a big enough points game that would be 3X3 dread talons as troops with 3 more in elites and 3 in heavies for a gran total of 15 with a master of the forge with the old FOC chart.
Even to this day since our group still plays 5th you will always see my ironclad dread talon in my army.
Its not just new models either. Do you remember for 6th ed (I think) when dreadnoughts gotit reduced from 3 to 2 attacks, making them fairly unviable.Trading sites were inundated with unwanted dreads. Then barely more than a year later, dreads get bumped up to 4 attacks! And they're flying off the shelves again.
Sort of.
1st: I only played in the early 1/2 of 6th & then mostly using Khorne demons so I paid little attention to SM. and then I played no 7th.
2nd: I've always loved dreads. The boxy dread is one of my favorite 40k pieces. And ages ago in WD there was a story about 9 dreads holding the field. Sadly fielding 9 dreads in 3rd wasn't a legal option at that time. Still inspired though.... Building it though was always on the back burner as there's little reason to build a force that can't be played.... But maybe, one day....
And lo & behold, then came that one summer at GenCon where I was able to pick up all the used dreads I could ever want - metal, plastic, even a few of the early boxy FW resins + almost any arms I wanted for pennies on the dollar. I'm talking complete dreads for $10....
Had no idea what caused that, didn't care, didn't question it. Just stocked up. All my SM armies now had a few dreads & I could build my {still unplayable} 9 dread army as a hobby project & not waste too much $.
When I returned in 8th I was quite pleased to see the rules had shifted enough to allow me to put nothing but dreads on the table.
Oh, and while I was away FW had been very busy designing new dreads to siphon my $ away.
thegreatchimp wrote: As much as this approach disencourages me as a customer, I don't begrudge them for doing so. Its clever marketing, and it keeps the game going. I just feel sorry for the poor sods who feel compelled to fork out big cash every year replacing nerfed units.
I don't. If they had a well rounded collection & weren't perpetually selling things off to buy the new hottness, just to scrap that on the next pendulum swing, they could just rotate what they play with & have only had to pay once.
Oh i feel you there. The entire reason i kept my salamanders successors when i reduced the number of armies i had for my 28mm 40K stuff was because of dreads. in 5th you had the option to take them as elites and heavies if you had a master of the forge in an HQ slot. FW made it even better with the badab war supplement allowing dread talons (3 ironclads or seige dreads) to be taken as a troops slot for every regular tac marine/scout troop slot you filled. so technically if you were playing a big enough points game that would be 3X3 dread talons as troops with 3 more in elites and 3 in heavies for a gran total of 15 with a master of the forge with the old FOC chart.
Even to this day since our group still plays 5th you will always see my ironclad dread talon in my army.
Of course, this can be muddied if there are issues in the game that frustrate people that have nothing to do with balance (for example, unintuitive/unclear rules or armies feeling like a chore to play
This has definitely not helped over the years. In past editions (especially 7th) I often found myself either moving a lot, or at least travelling a lot, and what yo saw was people largely playing totally different versions of 40k depending on their interpretation of the rules and what armies existed in the local meta. This was true to the point that, in some cases, the players had been doing it for so long, they actually forgot that some of their "house rules" were not actually part of the main rules. SO they would feel the game was well balanced, but completely neglect to mention the fact that it was balanced due to extra effort on their part.
For pickup games 40% winrate isn't that bad when it is random matchups.
Depends. It actually could be horrific, or it could actually be amazing. We don't have the info needed to make the call, but generally speaking, for pickup games, you would want to see at least a slightly higher percentage.
Why do people keep believing that GW makes “oopsies” in their rules?
Because it makes the players feel smart?
Free FAQs sort of demonstrate the "oopsies" .... what a weird post ... You think they deliberately kept the same copy/paste error through three separate books just so they could "trick us" into a free FAQ? I mean if so then yeah, they've got us right where they want us ... lol
I will cut it out. Haha. It just pains me to see the apologist attitude when GW is so hostile towards the health/balance of the game and its players.
Yeah, the apologists are annoying but easily ignored. The folks on the other side of the fence (GW is evil, everything they do is evil, and if you bought that new model you fell right into their devious trap) are just as bad though. Take the whole "GW makes rules to sell models thing. The theory that, every release is made OP on purpose because it sells the model. Now, take that reasoning and explain to me, Reivers, the Canoptek Reanimator, Ophydian Destroyers, Repulsors, the Hexmark, etc. The theory doesn't hold up does it?
I can go on all day with examples. For every example of a "OP model release" I can likely give you two flops. Two releases that were outright terrible at release. Some of which, never got better ...
Does GW engage in anti-consumer behavior? Sometimes. Is it always because they are evil and conspiratorial? Nope. Most of the time it is 100% incompetence. I'm fine with calling them out when they've clearly done something dirty (like the special edition IG Sarge model that was released during quarantine), but if you really think everything they do is some sort of evil conspiracy, or deliberate anti-consumer practice, please seek help.
Strg Alt wrote: 40K can't be properly balanced even if you take the best rules designer of the planet and set him to work.
The only instance when two armies are balanced is when there are identical units on both sides and both forces have the same objectives.
Terrain needs to be addressed too. Structures would need to be placed in a symmetrical fashion on each board side.
Does this sounds like fun? Maybe for a few matches but it would become tedious soon.
Thats a bold claim when you consider all the other similar games that manage to have better balance than 40k. We're not asking for perfect 50% winrate on any list possible when we ask for balance.
Hecaton wrote: If it's your subjective experience, then it's mostly meaningless without numbers to back it up. Above you said that "I win about 40% of my games" which is an argument that rests on objective evidence, so even you acknowledge that subjective "feelings" aren't the be-all end-all. Of course, it's a *bad* numbers-based argument, because it's relying on one player, but it's there.
Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:
In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?
VladimirHerzog wrote: Thats a bold claim when you consider all the other similar games that manage to have better balance than 40k. We're not asking for perfect 50% winrate on any list possible when we ask for balance.
See my reply to Hecaton for why even 'perfect' balance can be imperfect for a game's player base. There's every chance that more players would dislike 40k if it were balanced as close to 50-50 as possible than currently dislike the imperfect balance we currently have.
Hecaton wrote: If it's your subjective experience, then it's mostly meaningless without numbers to back it up. Above you said that "I win about 40% of my games" which is an argument that rests on objective evidence, so even you acknowledge that subjective "feelings" aren't the be-all end-all. Of course, it's a *bad* numbers-based argument, because it's relying on one player, but it's there.
Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:
In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?
VladimirHerzog wrote: Thats a bold claim when you consider all the other similar games that manage to have better balance than 40k. We're not asking for perfect 50% winrate on any list possible when we ask for balance.
See my reply to Hecaton for why even 'perfect' balance can be imperfect for a game's player base. There's every chance that more players would dislike 40k if it were balanced as close to 50-50 as possible than currently dislike the imperfect balance we currently have.
i'm not asking for a perfect 50% tho. Thats litterally what i wrote in the comment you responded to.
To me if it was lets say 45-55, i'd consider 40k balanced enough (and thats less balanced than your LoL example).
The fact that some factions right now have sub-40% winrate and that others get to enjoy 60%+ is a problem.
Oh, i just realised who i was responding to. I'll stop interacting any further but i'll leave this answer up.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i'm not asking for a perfect 50% tho. Thats litterally what i wrote in the comment you responded to.
To me if it was lets say 45-55, i'd consider 40k balanced enough (and thats less balanced than your LoL example).
The fact that some factions right now have sub-40% winrate and that others get to enjoy 60%+ is a problem.
Oh, i just realised who i was responding to. I'll stop interacting any further but i'll leave this answer up.
How do you know what the current post-FAQ win rate for Tau will be? They literally just did a fresh balance pass on the game and everybody is acting like nothing will change.
Because nothing much will change, especially for Tau, they didn't change substantially at all.
The biggest changes I've seen is the slight bump in Eradicator pricing and Inquisitonal Acolytes get special weapons for free (because even FAQs need FAQs).
kirotheavenger wrote: Because nothing much will change, especially for Tau, they didn't change substantially at all.
The biggest changes I've seen is the slight bump in Eradicator pricing and Inquisitonal Acolytes get special weapons for free (because even FAQs need FAQs).
I'd say the changes designed to level off first turn advantage are the biggest changes. Being able to Fire and fade into transports also has the potential to be huge.
Tau got a couple of buffs to their best units, it won't be a huge change but it's dishonest to pretend that Tau aren't at least a little better than they were before.
Because nothing much will change, especially for Tau, they didn't change substantially at all.
The biggest changes I've seen is the slight bump in Eradicator pricing and Inquisitonal Acolytes get special weapons for free (because even FAQs need FAQs).
I mean, they could have nailed the points absolutely perfectly, and I still think Tau would be struggling honestly. 9th has been extremely unkind to a handful of armies and Tau is chief among them imo. Unfortunately, for these armies, I don't think anything short of a new codex that significantly revamps them with 9th in mind is going to change anything.
Having played against Tau a lot prior to this update, I don't see the issues Tau have as being anywhere near fixed via the update.
Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:
In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?
Riot isn't actually a good example for moral game balancing; they do scheisty gak all the time to keep their new heroes favorable for microtransaction reasons. Magic has been chipping away at its balance to encourage high dollar value creatures and planeswalkers, using the excuse of people finding control "unsatisfying." In any case, 40k is not LoL. If you played it you might figure that out.
I find that attitude scrubby and selfish. If someone only finds things satisfying when they have an unfair chance to win, then it's unethical to indulge them.
See my reply to Hecaton for why even 'perfect' balance can be imperfect for a game's player base. There's every chance that more players would dislike 40k if it were balanced as close to 50-50 as possible than currently dislike the imperfect balance we currently have.
Here's an example of subjective balance trumping objective balance:
In League of Legends champions classes as assassins are purposefully held at a sub 50% win-rate because people find them frustrating to deal with. Meanwhile less annoying units like tanks and enchanters are allowed to divide that share of win-rate among themselves because people don't find them annoying even when they are considerably over tuned. Should Riot force everything to 50-50 balance even if it ruins the play experience for their players?
As you and I have previously agreed upon (ha - at least I think it was you - maybe not?) - Videogame comparisons fall down almost instantly for a million very different, but very real reasons.
Hecaton wrote: Riot isn't actually a good example for moral game balancing; they do scheisty gak all the time to keep their new heroes favorable for microtransaction reasons.
For one if anything is busted you can always choose to ban it. Secondly, they nerf (or buff) the new units every patch after release until they get them right. Third, how strong a new champion is depends on your skill and the MMR you're placed at, certain champions will dominate bronze but see zero play in platinum and higher, and the opposite is also true. This is why in the patch notes they denote which skill level the champion is problematic at and make changes accordingly. Fourth, they're still far more balanced than 40k and still one of the largest most played games in human history which wouldn't happen if the balance was driving people away.
Magic has been chipping away at its balance to encourage high dollar value creatures and planeswalkers, using the excuse of people finding control "unsatisfying."
They've been releasing broken cards, yes, but the balance is that you have equal access to those cards as your opponent does. Nothing prevents a mirror match.
In any case, 40k is not LoL. If you played it you might figure that out.
I have played a lot of 40k. Not having played the current edition hardly matters when I did play 8th and played heavily from 3rd to 5th.
Your reply doesn't really hold water.
You literally didn't acknowledge my argument. You attempted to handwave it away while ignoring the central theme which was there are factors beyond simple mechanical balance that you need to consider when designing and maintaining a game.
Tycho wrote: As you and I have previously agreed upon (ha - at least I think it was you - maybe not?) - Videogame comparisons fall down almost instantly for a million very different, but very real reasons.
Video games have far greater resources at their disposal when it comes to gathering data used to balance them but the human factors such as player enjoyment and retention are going to be similar between videogames and any other kind of game. In all cases, you need to foster investment by the player and then keep balance and fun at a level where players aren't willing to walk away from their investment. This is what keeps 40k, League, MtG, and WoW running and none of them use the exact same balancing mechanics as the others.
For one if anything is busted you can always choose to ban it. Secondly, they nerf (or buff) the new units every patch after release until they get them right. Third, how strong a new champion is depends on your skill and the MMR you're placed at, certain champions will dominate bronze but see zero play in platinum and higher, and the opposite is also true. This is why in the patch notes they denote which skill level the champion is problematic at and make changes accordingly. Fourth, they're still far more balanced than 40k and still one of the largest most played games in human history which wouldn't happen if the balance was driving people away.
As you said yourself, imperfect balance sometimes attracts players. But anyway, like I was mentioning, in LoL heroes will come out that are OP and then they will fine-tune (read: nerf) them once the initial glut is over with.
It being more balanced than 40k is fine, it doesn't mean that it's getting there via a good method.
They've been releasing broken cards, yes, but the balance is that you have equal access to those cards as your opponent does. Nothing prevents a mirror match.
Same thing in 40k. You could have a single tournament viable list, and everyone would be equally able to buy it, play that faction, and bring it to tournaments. But that's unsatisfying, and doing it purposefully is generally considered to be duplicitous.
You literally didn't acknowledge my argument. You attempted to handwave it away while ignoring the central theme which was there are factors beyond simple mechanical balance that you need to consider when designing and maintaining a game.
I talked about it in my reply to your earlier comment. Popularity of a game doesn't actually mean people are enjoying it, per se, either - plenty of games like Fortnite work on making a game that's frustrating, but that constantly dangles the carrot of a better game in front of your face. I think 40k works on this model.
Hecaton wrote: As you said yourself, imperfect balance sometimes attracts players. But anyway, like I was mentioning, in LoL heroes will come out that are OP and then they will fine-tune (read: nerf) them once the initial glut is over with.
Please, just ignore all the champions (not heroes) that release drastically underpowered. Recent examples are Volibear, Yuumi, and Lillia as well as the word of Riot themselves:
Same thing in 40k. You could have a single tournament viable list, and everyone would be equally able to buy it, play that faction, and bring it to tournaments. But that's unsatisfying, and doing it purposefully is generally considered to be duplicitous.
You could, but you also don't need to. Even at its worst MtG tends to have more than one list at the top of competitive play and that list changes from tournament to tournament. How do explain that if you assume each match must be a mirror match?
My suggestion to play mirror matches is an example of how literally any game can be balanced and the type of balance that MtG specifically chooses to employ based on how Hasbro wants to sell the game.
No, it pretty much does.
The general manager of a sports team doesn't play that sport anymore, are they qualified to build a team?
I talked about it in my reply to your earlier comment. Popularity of a game doesn't actually mean people are enjoying it, per se, either - plenty of games like Fortnite work on making a game that's frustrating, but that constantly dangles the carrot of a better game in front of your face. I think 40k works on this model.
You have an unsupported opinion. Please prove it or conceed.
Please, just ignore all the champions (not heroes) that release drastically underpowered. Recent examples are Volibear, Yuumi, and Lillia as well as the word of Riot themselves:
Nah. And, in the end, it's still a red herring - just because one group of players (those who play assassin-type heroes) is more mature than those who play, for example, tanks, and is less likely to table flip if they don't have an unfair advantage in the game, doesn't mean that one should try to appease the less mature ones. Squeaky wheel gets the grease can get you in bad places, because some people don't complain, they move on.
You could, but you also don't need to. Even at its worst MtG tends to have more than one list at the top of competitive play and that list changes from tournament to tournament. How do explain that if you assume each match must be a mirror match?
It's not a matter of need. It's a hypothetical point to prove your rationale is bankrupt. If everyone can just play the same deck (caw blade), then there's no reason to encourage a diversity of deck archetypes. Hell, right now GW seems to have taken it to heart, and just *really* wants everyone to play Primaris.
Canadian 5th wrote: My suggestion to play mirror matches is an example of how literally any game can be balanced and the type of balance that MtG specifically chooses to employ based on how Hasbro wants to sell the game.
Ok, sure. But it's meaningless to 40k, because every rational person agrees that a variety of factions makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. (No I don't have a citation. You'll just have to trust me on that one.)
The general manager of a sports team doesn't play that sport anymore, are they qualified to build a team?
They're involved in it regularly, and moreover the skills that a player has on the field don't necessarily translate into being a good manager. Here, however, you're playing the armchair quarterback, not the manager. But it's hilarious because the stereotype of the armchair quarterback is they totally think they'd be qualified to coach or manage, just like you, and that position doesn't even exist in 40k.
The general manager of a sports team doesn't play that sport anymore, are they qualified to build a team?
This is the crux of it though. You haven’t played since 5th. Your experience in 5th is certainly useful in certain discussions, but again, like the Skarboyz example, you don’t seem to know where that usefulness finds its limit. 9th is so functionally different from 5th that they are almost wholly different games. In you example, it would be like the general manager of a basketball team from way back when it was first invented, trying to manage a current team in the NBA. It’s just so different that there is a pretty hard limit on where your past experience can take you.
Again, it’s not that you’re automatically wrong in anything just because you don’t play, but there are times when you might do better to ask questions or clarify rather than come in with a hot take. I know you say you have read the rules, but reading is not equal to playing, as, particularly in 9th, there are a lot of little details that suddenly become much more clear after actual “on the table” experience.
Hecaton wrote: Nah. And, in the end, it's still a red herring - just because one group of players (those who play assassin-type heroes) is more mature than those who play, for example, tanks, and is less likely to table flip if they don't have an unfair advantage in the game, doesn't mean that one should try to appease the less mature ones. Squeaky wheel gets the grease can get you in bad places, because some people don't complain, they move on.
They aren't doing it because assassin players complain less. They're doing it because they find more people enjoy the game when the class balance is done a certain way. Do you even play LoL?
If there was a style of army in 40k that could either table you by turn 2 or flame out spectacularly most players probably wouldn't want that army to be good. That's assassin's in LoL, they either snowball and carry or lose and contribute nothing.
It's not a matter of need. It's a hypothetical point to prove your rationale is bankrupt. If everyone can just play the same deck (caw blade), then there's no reason to encourage a diversity of deck archetypes. Hell, right now GW seems to have taken it to heart, and just *really* wants everyone to play Primaris.
Caw Blade? My man, that's a deck older than my last game of 40k. Maybe you should stop talking about MtG if that's the most modern deck you can name.
They're involved in it regularly, and moreover the skills that a player has on the field don't necessarily translate into being a good manager. Here, however, you're playing the armchair quarterback, not the manager. But it's hilarious because the stereotype of the armchair quarterback is they totally think they'd be qualified to coach or manage, just like you, and that position doesn't even exist in 40k.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there have been many armchair quarterbacks picked up as video scouts and analysts in recent years...
Are you aware of Fortnite or do I have to spell it out for you?
You have to prove that it has intentionally bad balance as a core gameplay element to draw players into their next match.
Tycho wrote: This is the crux of it though. You haven’t played since 5th.
|
Ignoring that I played some games of 8th is a poor move on your part. I haven't played regularly since 5th but I have played since then.
Your experience in 5th is certainly useful in certain discussions, but again, like the Skarboyz example, you don’t seem to know where that usefulness finds its limit.
The Skarboyz limit is literally 1st at a major tournament if played correctly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Again, it’s not that you’re automatically wrong in anything just because you don’t play, but there are times when you might do better to ask questions or clarify rather than come in with a hot take. I know you say you have read the rules, but reading is not equal to playing, as, particularly in 9th, there are a lot of little details that suddenly become much more clear after actual “on the table” experience.
That's where battle reports and tournament writeups come into the equation. I can probably analyze more games in my free time than somebody who plays does because I can spend that three hours watching a couple of games while you get in merely one.
|
Ignoring that I played some games of 8th is a poor move on your part. I haven't played regularly since 5th but I have played since then.
Upon being asked (by me) if you play, you literally said:
Canadian 5th wrote:
Not currently, though I own a large collection of Chaos Space Marine and Dark Angels models. I also have played almost every army, but this was back in 4th early 5th and that was all proxies.
8th ed where now? lol
It's all good. I think I see what you're about. Moving on.
It's all good. I think I see what you're about. Moving on.
You're really bad at reading clauses. You should probably avoid games like MtG and YGO because the placement of a comma in those games can change an entire card. What I said with that final sentence is that I played almost every army in 4th and 5th using proxied models. Nothing more and nothing less.
I've played games in 8th and have said as much on this very message board. My games of 8th weren't nearly as expansive though and mostly involved my Chaos and Dark Angeles armies versus a friend's Necron and DE armies. As such I consider my experience with older versions of the game more complete than my experience with 8th edition.
because those are going to suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck to play against all your friends for we don't know how long.
