Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

thats all

Maybe.

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

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

No.

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

They can't force people to play smart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop crying and jusy play.

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

Stop crying and jusy play.

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

fursphere wrote:

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

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

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

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

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Stop crying and jusy play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Stop crying and jusy play.

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

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

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

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

No.

That's all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't this what I just said?

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

Other than the FAQs, obviously.

Which don't balance anything.

12thRonin wrote:
Which don't balance anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Stop crying and jusy play.

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

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

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

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

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

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

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

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

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

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

Is it possible? Yes.

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

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

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Hindenburg wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

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

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

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

This