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.

Disclaimer 1: I'm not trying to exonerate GW of all responsibility, There are issues, but it's not a one-way street.

Disclaimer 2: Alternative title for this topic would have been "Competitive 40K would require a whole different ruleset."

There's a lot of debate about 'balance' in 40K - mostly to do with pick up games - and it reminds me a lot about the never ending arguments about PVP (Player vs Player) in MMOs.

In any MMO which has optional PVP there will be two types of player in a pvp zone - the casual player, who has built his character according to personal preference and what they find fun, and the pvp player or powergamer/min-maxer, who has built his character to be absolutely optimised, either doing the number crunching himself or getting the current flavor of the month build from the internet. Is this sounding at all familiar?

If a casual/fluffy player enters a pvp zone and goes one on one against someone running an optimised/min-maxed uber build, then the casual is going to lose, almost always. Doesn't matter if they are more skilled as a player - the superior gear, stats, attack rotation of the min-maxer will usually be the deciding factor. In much the same way a fluff list is, more often than not, going to take a beating from an optimised tournament ready netlist.

There's very little that GW can do to prevent this. If other games are better balanced it's in no small part due to a couple of things - either the armies are more inherently equal to begin with (such as most historical wargames, or for that matter 30K with its marine vs marine set up), or they have a smaller playerbase, or both. A big game like 40K will have more WAAC players simply because it has more players overall. Fiercely competitive players in MMOs are almost always drawn to the big games and the high pop servers - and in tabletop gaming 40K is the big, high pop game.

The only way for GW to force balance onto 40K would be to drastically reduce the options available to the players - in terms of units that can be fielded, missions that can be played, the way and the quantity of terrain that is deployed. Everything. Is 40K as well balanced as a tournament game like Starcraft? Not in the slightest, but Starcraft has only 3 races. I daresay if GW squatted everyone except the Ultramarines, the Eldar and the Tyranids they could balance those 3 codexes better against each other.

GW isn't twisting anyone's arm to force them to spam Riptides, or Wave Serpents or deathstar units. Just because the rules don't say you can do something does not mean you either have to or should do it. Some of the responsibility has to lie with the players to actually agree about what makes an enjoyable game for all concerned, rather than waiting for GW to dictate from on high a set of draconian restrictions to force the game to be what any particular player wants it to be.

That's what I think anyway.

Maybe what I'll write here would be surprising given the fact that I'm probably seen as one of those raging GW apologetics on this forum, but.. I think you're wrong. At least with the current state of GW's games. See - a wargame system is supposed to be a well-balanced game that enforces, not just encourages fair play. What you're saying is more like 40k was a sandbox for people to play the way they want.. and 40k was not supposed to be a game like this. 40k from the dawn of time was meant, just like any other serious tabletop game, to be competitive and balanced.

What we're looking at now is people freely using available means to make cheesy lists because GW didn't think/playtest through the Codexes and allowed such stuff to happen, which is unacceptable, coming from a huge, serious company such as Games Workshop.

Of course players take a big part in it because there will always be those that try to exploit the gaps in the system for maximum benefit(and that's, kids, how netlists are born), but if the rules and Codexes were written properly, they would either not allow that at all or it would not be as drastic as it is now. It is not players' fault that GW gave them unbalanced books to work with, resulting in cheese. Especially when you mention competitive scene, which in my dictionary means tournament players. Tell me, why do people go to tournaments? Inside and outside the hobby. See - they go there to win. If we had a mixed sprinting championship, who do you think the countries would send to represent them - best runners or best rowers? It is not their fault that they're sending their best assets to win, and neither you should in case of tabletop wargaming. If one particular fictional race would have better predispositions for running, the country they come from would be still okay to use them, even if others didn't have runners like them, unless the tournament orgs disallow them in the rules. If the rules say they could field them, why not then? They're not bad guys for using superior sportsmen, neither is fielding Taudar.

Of course in our community it's less serious(most the times, at least), and we know that people deliberately running Taudar do it on purpose and can be called TFGs, but if GW didn't allow such overpowered mix, they would not happen. I know that there will always be people trying to exploit everything possible and will not stop even if they end up with in their hands, but a good rule set with army books balanced not within themselves but also regarding other books AND the big rulebook would never let their cheesy creations be that powerful. So, yeah, the way 40k looks right now is only GW's fault for not balancing the books together and making the game exploit-proof to a desirable degree. Unless they want to turn 40k into a sandbox game with only basic rules so people can play anything they want(7th?).. but with that it'd be impossible to play it competitively straight out of the box and it'd require players to also go an extra mile to make their own rules.

Ever occured to you that very few serious tabletop titles have the same issue on such scale?

Edit:
tl:dr - players should NEVER be responsible for the game's balance and as long as GW doesn't openly and officially admit that their game is not competitive and requires ETC-like comping, the playerbase expects them to make a balanced, well-designed ruleset. And if you think it's the variety of armies' fault, then why did GW dabble into stuff they couldn't control later in the first place? Incompetence is not an excuse.

Balance is with the game. Go play any other that actively manages it's game,.... You don't have the fissured player base GW has.

I travel for work a lot and have thus played Wargamers across the country. Warhammer 40k is the only game that requires a discussion on the tone of the game beyond "how many points."

The onus is on the company, more so when the cost of rules is three times that, or more,of the competition. Otherwise, you're just giving them a pass to pay a high price and then troubleshoot the game for them.

 Klerych wrote:
40k from the dawn of time was meant, just like any other serious tabletop game, to be competitive and balanced.

It's possible I have a different perspective on this, since my first edition of 40K was Rogue Trader. Back then the game was exactly a sandbox - army lists and point values would be the stuff of future WD articles. If later editions remained balanced to some extent it was at least partly because there were less things that could be put on the table.

I have no issue with tournament lists - it's simply that a lot of the complaints I see about balance involve people bringing tournament lists to 'friendly' or casual pick up games. I don't think that is something GW could control without drastic restrictions to what was allowed. Sure GW could reduce the exploits, but if they shut one down the netlists will just find another. If someone brings a powergamer list to a friendly game solely because there's nothing in the rules that says they can't then the problem lies with the player at least as much as with the game.

The problem, as I see it, is that having introduced superheavies, fortifications, flyers, D weapons and suchlike, there's no way to put that genie back into the bottle. The only way I could see them even begin to balance the sheer mass of different options available nowadays would be to release a core rules set/army lists that disallowed ALL of the expansion stuff - which they won't do. Not only would it be bad for sales of the new stuff, but for every player who embraced them stepping back from Epic 28mm there'd be another complaining about not being able to field their beloved baneblade, heldrake, wraith knight, whatever in a regular game.

Ever occured to you that very few serious tabletop titles have the same issue on such scale?

The more niche a title the less likely it is to attract the WAAC community that flocks to the big names. GW also has the unenviable - at this point I'd say impossible - task of attempting to balance a game that has had 25+ years of continual expansion, with many new units in that time being introduced because someone thought it would make a cool mini rather than any other reason. Give Warmachine/Hordes another 20 years of development and expanded army lists and see how balanced that will remain.

QQ n00b, if you want to win l2p.

I think one of the problem is many 'game' companies fix balance issues retrospectively (When the players have math hammered everything to death). It happens in MMO's, card games, DnD etc. New combinations emerge the designers didn't pick up on and after enough complaints they tone it down. Then the next big thing... this is something that never ends.

Issue is, people complain when good units are now average on codex releases, some people take it to the extreme. While some issues may be errata'd (veeery occasionally) if I was GW I'd let it persist rather than tell 100's of players who recently bought the £50 awesome unit that it's now just average.

Hate for the nerf bat is strong, and people would just accuse them of doing it for money anyway. Won't win if they do, won't win if they don't.

 ashcroft wrote:
Disclaimer 2: Alternative title for this topic would have been "Competitive 40K would require a whole different ruleset."

No, it wouldn't.

[quote[If a casual/fluffy player enters a pvp zone and goes one on one against someone running an optimised/min-maxed uber build, then the casual is going to lose, almost always. Doesn't matter if they are more skilled as a player - the superior gear, stats, attack rotation of the min-maxer will usually be the deciding factor. In much the same way a fluff list is, more often than not, going to take a beating from an optimised tournament ready netlist.

The problem is that nerds desperately want to win. They will exploit any loophole they can find, and unfortunately GW has provided ample opportunity over the years. Even when large ones are found, they are rarely closed off.

It is the onus of the players to rise above that. To recognize if they are just including stuff in their army list for the mechanics alone, and not for the fun of playing an enjoyable game, too.

Usually players have a personal filter to eliminate that, but some have this clinical detachment where they are only getting enjoyment out of the victory alone.

I can look at other games like firestorm armada and x-wing. They have units, different armies, core rules and unit costs and I don't see anywhere near the same type of complaining by people about what should or shouldn't be taken. I also don't see people saying you have to have a conversation about the type of game you are playing in order for it to be fun.

The same type of people that play those games also play 40k. That tells me that the 40k game system has problems.

Someone did GW can't overcome this because they have 25+ years of producing something that has fundamental flaws. I call BS on that. With every rulebook and codex release they have an opportunity to fix it. Why? Because when they release a codex they have an opportunity to hit delete on everything in it and try again.. Typically they don't. 20+ books in 2 years is a lot of opportunity. My fingers are crossed that 7th will be going in the right direction.

 ashcroft wrote:
The only way for GW to force balance onto 40K would be to drastically reduce the options available to the players - in terms of units that can be fielded, missions that can be played, the way and the quantity of terrain that is deployed. Everything. Is 40K as well balanced as a tournament game like Starcraft? Not in the slightest, but Starcraft has only 3 races. I daresay if GW squatted everyone except the Ultramarines, the Eldar and the Tyranids they could balance those 3 codexes better against each other.

This is a complete cop out. Just because you can't figure out how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Same goes for GW. This is not an issue of "this is impossible to do", it's an issue of "they don't put the time in to do it"***.

Using Malifaux as an example, they have just as many choices, if not more, than 40k does to create a force, and yet their game is incredibly well balanced. How can this be? They go through a very extensive beta phase that lasts for months, and is open to the public. Yes, joe public can go to their forums, see the what is being proposed, play test it himself, give feedback directly to the designers. And the game is absolutely better for it.

So I don't buy this whole "its impossible to balance 40k with so many choices, so we have to live with it". If you want to eat that crow, be my guest. I vote with my wallet.


***I would also accept that its not about them putting the time in to fix the game, but instead that a balanced game is simply not in the 40k vision of GW. Making a balanced game is simply not what they aim to do. Their goal is to put gorgeous models on the table and help players narrate a story. That's it.

But 25 years of history shows they are unwilling to do that. Everything they publish needs immediate eratta on the day of release.

X-Wing has it's share of 40K shenanigans on what to take to the table, but the difference is that players realise that double YT-1300 lists are an asshat way to win. 40K players will take super Riptide lists in casual games and proclaim that it's their "right" becuase GW wrote it that way and you just have to deal with it.

Sorry, but you're 100% absolutely wrong. Balance starts with the game, and here's why.

First, for a game with seventeen factions to be viable, balance has to exist. Otherwise, those factions that aren't as good simply won't get played. This is human nature. What's more, eventually the units that aren't as good won't get played much either.

It's a spiral effect, and it can be demonstrated with the cyclic nature of this game.

So, let's say that back in 2004, I thought that White Scars were cool, and I made a White Scars army. I lovingly converted all my models to be all Ghengised out, and built the army using the rules from Chapter Approved and the 3rd ed marine codex. And, they were a reasonable army, and won and lost about 50% of the time.

4th edition came out, and they lost the Chapter Approved benefits for being a fluffy White Scars army, but could still be played using the Chapter Trait system - but they weren't very good and lost more than they won.

Towards the end of 4th and through 5th, the 'tiers' of armies really started to differ from each other, and Marines on Bikes (not really "White Scars" anymore, but Marines w/ a Special Character) ebbed and flowed from good to bad, with a minor heyday as an all out-flanking reserve army in 5th. Still mostly fluffy, not dominating though.

And then... 6th happened, and bikes got awesome, and then the Marine codex happened, and White Scars became 'a thing' again, with crazy good special rules, Khan giving the whole army traits, grav guns on relentless platforms, and something stupid like 20 point bike marines (maybe 21, not sure off-hand, but way cheap). All of a sudden, this same army that I've been playing for ten years is winning something like 80% of its games, and absolutely dominating anything resembling a fluffy opponent list. The only thing its losing to is the equally stupid 6th ed stuff like riptides and seer councils.

What happened? Did I suddenly become TFG? Am I now responsible for the lack of balance in the game, because I'm playing the same fluffy army I've played for a decade?

No, what changed was the rules.

As far as "desperately waning to win". It's a GAME. A the end there are 3 main components: a winner, a loser and the journey to get there.

If you aren't playing to win then I have to wonder why you are playing a GAME. There are several things you have to do to win: pick a strategy, put together a list that can implement your strategy, execute it on the tabletop. GWs rules define the strategies available and units that can fulfill them. If a codex has poor internal balance then that codex will only have a few ( or one ) viable strategies available.

If you decide not to go with what's viable to win then you are saying that only the journey matters and should be completely ok with losing every single game.

However, the rules also shape what the journey may look like. When the core rules are confusing and scattered then starting a game with a new opponent requires a lot of negotiation. This can easily lead to hard feelings when you thought a rule worked one way but they think it works very differently and both of you hung part of your strategy on it. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what leads to rules lawyering. If neither player cares much about the rules then, again, I have to asky why you are playing a game instead of just setting some models up and making noises.

Ultimately, I can't understand people whining about those that look at the game and try to figure out how to win. It really just sounds like they are mad they aren't winning while being unwilling to take the time to work within the framework we are given.

So, if you don't like the current state of the game then perhaps you should join the rest of us that wants the game to be at least somewhat balanced ( see rigelds excellent explanation ) so that we can have a fairly level playing field where "upfront negotiation" just isn't necessary.

If you want balance in a 40k game, play the same army list vs. the same army list.

Once you start jamming all the different 40k Special Rules from different units and codices, and how they react to different units, there's no getting around it, you just unbalanced the game.

And then... 6th happened, and bikes got awesome, and then the Marine codex happened, and White Scars became 'a thing' again, with crazy good special rules, Khan giving the whole army traits, grav guns on relentless platforms, and something stupid like 20 point bike marines (maybe 21, not sure off-hand, but way cheap). All of a sudden, this same army that I've been playing for ten years is winning something like 80% of its games, and absolutely dominating anything resembling a fluffy opponent list. The only thing its losing to is the equally stupid 6th ed stuff like riptides and seer councils.

What happened? Did I suddenly become TFG? Am I now responsible for the lack of balance in the game, because I'm playing the same fluffy army I've played for a decade?

No, what changed was the rules.

Welcome to the plight of every older gamer with armies from several edition back.

At the same time you want to not be TFG for still using White Scars, I want to be able to still use my sizeable 13th Company army without having to buy vehicles to make them generic Space Wolves and also having to shelve my Wolfen pack.

Long-time 40k gamers have seen GW be all over the freaking board when it comes to content.

The only way for GW to force balance onto 40K would be to drastically reduce the options available to the players - in terms of units that can be fielded, missions that can be played, the way and the quantity of terrain that is deployed.

I disagree. I think you could retain most of the options in the game, provided they were point costed correctly. A lot of what goes into making a unit OP or UP is the cost, OP units tend to be far more powerful than what you pay for them while UP units leave you scratching your head asking yourself what exactly is it you are paying a massive amount of points for.

There are a few options I would outright cut, things like borderline invulnerable deathstars using rerollable save shenanigans. However, I think the game would become richer, rather than poorer, by eliminating such abusive units.

Also, we need to recognize the distinction between the number of options that appear on paper vs. the number of options that are actually useful. Having an option such as Rough Riders in the AM/IG codex doesn't enrich the game because it never gets fielded and thus the entry might as well not be there at all. This is one of the major drawbacks of game imbalance, you have a huge number of options on paper, but only a small number of units and army configurations get fielded because everything else is garbage. Losing a handful of options would be a small price to pay if everything in every codex was useful and strong on the tabletop. Although you might lose a few options on paper, you actually wind up gaining options as every entry in your codex becomes usable. This is what people need to recognize: only the options that are useful are meaningful and that 40k should strive to maximize the number of useful options, rather than the number of codex entries. And this is achieved through proper game balance.

The title of this thread is backwards; it should read "Balance needs to start with the game, not with the players".

I hearken back to my days as a tournament level MTG player, and I can tell you that "balance" is pretty laughable in that game. People will go and say "oh but they ban cards to make things fair for everyone," and "oh you can get good decks for less than a good army in 40K!" Yeah, go ahead and try and buy a netdeck that is slaughtering the meta in standard and tell me how it is cheaper than 40K. The DCI addresses problem decks by banning certain cards that were warping the format to extreme degrees. This in turn led to other decks dominating. This in turn led to people crying out for the banning of a certain card that made those new decks broken. In the event that DCI bans those cards, you then find another deck archetype takes over and the process repeats itself.

As for 40K, I fear there is no way to truly balance it out. Redbeard hits it dead on. I am a Blood Angels player. My understanding is that these guys were cheese in 5th (didn't play 5th, got in at 6th so take that as you will,) but they are totally craptacular in 6th. I hear about how Tau was total gak before 6th edition, and now they are the powerhouse to beat in 6th. With 7th coming in, there is a possibility of a new army becoming awesome.

Point is, play because you like to play. Collect your army. Paint your dudes. Laugh at your buddy when his MSS totally biffs and Mephiston slaughters the Lord and he fails the EL roll. Cry when the next turn Mephiston gets warscythed to death when you roll like balls. We all play to win, winning is the point, but you can still have a lot of fun losing. It depends on your mindset.

Just because a list is really good right now, doesn't mean you should hate the guy playing it. I see that on these forums all of the time. Some people blindly hate on the guy who brings triptide/serpent spam and cry out "this guy ruins the game," and "sure of course he wins, he can afford it...jerk." Maybe 40K is what he wants to devote his extra cash to. Why is that so bad? Why is it so bad (as a particular nemesis of mine points out) to build a list to the max power it can be? So you lose to those lists. Get over it. Don't play that guy, or ask if he can tone it down a bit.

I've given up on balance. And you know what I discovered? Once I started playing to have fun, and BS with my opponent over nonsensical things, and made it a good time rather than and constant bitchfest about how broken the game is, I had a GREAT time with 40K. We all get mad when we get ROFLstomped, it's to be expected, but it is a game, and honestly in 25 years, hell TEN years from now, nobody will give a flipping gak about how great a player at 40K you were, or how broken your list was. They will remember the good times and the bad times gaming with that group of guys, and friendships made along the way. And that occasional time when your buddy "who in a fit of drunken stupor, did...WTF was he thinking and why exactly did he think that would work!?"

You are playing the wrong game if you want total balance. Go play chess.

There will never be perfect balance in this game, but there's a humongous number of things that are largely plainly obvious that GW is somehow oblivious to but everyone else manages to pick up on the first time they see it.

Stuff like Heldrakes, Wave Serpents, 5E IG Vendettas, 2++sv deathstar units, Mantle of the Laughing God, Divination, Riptides, Revenant Titans, etc.

As noted, bikes are another. Massive decrease in cost, big boost in utility (even for non white scars/ravenwing), and it's increasingly difficult to see why you wouldn't run a biker army over a tac marine army.

Players will do what the game allows them to do, there's a degree of responsibility on the player side not to be a git, but the vast majority of the responsibility lies with GW not seeing what everyone else picks up on in minutes.

Phanixis wrote:

The only way for GW to force balance onto 40K would be to drastically reduce the options available to the players - in terms of units that can be fielded, missions that can be played, the way and the quantity of terrain that is deployed.

I disagree. I think you could retain most of the options in the game, provided they were point costed correctly. A lot of what goes into making a unit OP or UP is the cost, OP units tend to be far more powerful than what you pay for them while UP units leave you scratching your head asking yourself what exactly is it you are paying a massive amount of points for.

There are a few options I would outright cut, things like borderline invulnerable deathstars using rerollable save shenanigans. However, I think the game would become richer, rather than poorer, by eliminating such abusive units.

Also, we need to recognize the distinction between the number of options that appear on paper vs. the number of options that are actually useful. Having an option such as Rough Riders in the AM/IG codex doesn't enrich the game because it never gets fielded and thus the entry might as well not be there at all. The is one of the major drawbacks of game imbalance, you have a huge number of options on paper, but only a small number of units and army configurations get fielded because everything else is garbage. Losing a handful of options would be a small price to pay if everything in every codex was useful and strong on the tabletop. Although you might lose a few options on paper, you actually wind up gaining options as every entry in your codex becomes usable. This is what people need to recognize: only the options that are useful are meaningful and that 40k should strive to maximize the number of useful options, rather than the number of codex entries. And this is achieved through proper game balance.

Pretty much this.

When a new core book comes out the right answer would be to deliver a set of errata for each book updating point costs based on the new reality. If a particular combo is found in the wild as honestly being OP/UP (not just someone's knee jerk reaction) then update the errata to change the unit cost. Yes, I'm aware this takes quite a bit of work. Of course, the first step to that would be to establish a standard way of defining unit points.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I hearken back to my days as a tournament level MTG player, and I can tell you that "balance" is pretty laughable in that game.

There's a big difference in how M:tG balance and 40k balance work.

In M;TG, you have multiple ways to play. A card that is awesome in constructed can be fairly mediocre in draft, and vice-versa. Their designers need to make cards that make these different formats interesting. Yes, a top netdeck will usually beat a casual deck - and that's expected because a netdeck is designed for that environment. Put that same netdeck in a game of three-headed dragon or multiplayer free-for-all and it's going to lose.

But, that's not even the primary reason that M:tG and 40k are different. The primary reason is that a game of M:tG takes maybe ten minutes, and that a competitive match of M:tG is a best 2-of-3 affair that involves sideboarding to eliminate poor matchups. You're able to design a deck with contingencies versus the different stronger strategies you expect to face.

40k, in contrast, takes two+ hours to play a decent sized game, and there's no opportunity to sideboard and replay the game, certainly not in any competitive event. The expectation that you play TAC lists means that any imbalance in the game sets up the potential for horribly one-sided games,and those games are a big waste of time. Losing can be fun, but feeling like you've no hope from turn one isn't pleasant, and sitting through two hours of watching that play out isn't how I'd choose to spend my free time.

You are playing the wrong game if you want total balance. Go play chess.

There's a significant difference between wanting total balance, and wanting a game that's balanced enough that its outcome is primarily determined by player actions, not mismatches and random die rolls. If you want to win based on who rolls the right die at the right time, go play Candyland.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The problem is that nerds desperately want to win. They will exploit any loophole they can find, and unfortunately GW has provided ample opportunity over the years. Even when large ones are found, they are rarely closed off.

It is the onus of the players to rise above that. To recognize if they are just including stuff in their army list for the mechanics alone, and not for the fun of playing an enjoyable game, too.

Usually players have a personal filter to eliminate that, but some have this clinical detachment where they are only getting enjoyment out of the victory alone.

It's not just nerds that want to win, everyone wants to win. That's why anything called a "game" is more fun when it's fair. You think every owner of every team in the NFL wouldn't want to win every year? Of course they would, but they've gotten together to create a system that creates parity and keeps the playing ground fair. Why? because fairness makes the games/seasons more interesting and it's better long term for the organization as a whole.

Hmm. Read that last sentence again.

ashcroft wrote:The only way for GW to force balance onto 40K would be to drastically reduce the options available to the player

Indeed.

Of course, there will be those witch doctors who make claims about the great asymmetric balance in the sky who one day shall come to earth and punish all unbelievers, but it's best to take any talk on the subject as just that - assertions of something that doesn't exist.

Also, I'd note that some players are already doing a pretty good job of making the game balanced, like tournament players. When two people show up to a game and are running basically the same version of that taudar list, then the game is pretty balanced, as you can take list strength out of the equation as the game becomes closer to a mirror match. Often tournaments will have symmetrical terrain pre-set as well.

Of course, when you control for other things, that just makes the game more determined by a handful of die rolls, but that's another topic.

Klerych wrote:Ever occured to you that very few serious tabletop titles have the same issue on such scale?

Very few serious tabletop games offer you even a small fraction of the freedom that GW's games do.

rigeld2 wrote:a unit worth 100 points in codex A should be comparable in value to a unit worth 100 points in codex B.

points don't balance.

Redbeard wrote:Otherwise, those factions that aren't as good simply won't get played. This is human nature.

The very fact that there are people still playing armies that aren't triptides or taudar proves you wrong.

What you're talking about is only human nature for a very small percentage of people. A vast majority of 40k players have in their nature the desire to play something despite the fact that it isn't good as the best.

WAAC behavior isn't built into the human genome. The desire to be successful drives most people into behavior different than what you're describing.

 slowthar wrote:
You think every owner of every team in the NFL wouldn't want to win every year? Of course they would, but they've gotten together to create a system that creates parity and keeps the playing ground fair. Why? because fairness makes the games/seasons more interesting and it's better long term for the organization as a whole.

Hmm. Read that last sentence again.

Yup, see NFL vs MLB. I stopped watching baseball a while ago, but when I could still stand it, it was fast evolving into a game of "which of the following 6 rich team will win the World Series"..every year, year after year, it was 1 of those 6 teams without fail. Yo didn't need to look at the roster at the beginning of the season, it would without fail be one of those 6 teams.

With NFL, teams are winning the Super Bowl that I didn't even know existed.

Sorry to burst everyones bubble but it isn't a problem with the game or the players. There is a lack of balance intentionally and those not here complaining realize it.

You can't have as many factions as this game has and not realize that each has their STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES.

These weaknesses are exploited by other army types, this is normal and necessary as every army being equal and the same, or balanced as you call it would absolutely destroy the game. There would be no varying tactics, no inherent strengths or weaknesses in any army and thus, the entire game would be played by those running the cheapest set to buy.

For example.

Tyranids from the start, from way way way back are a horde army, trying to play them any differently is simply moronic because they simply are not strong enough in small numbers for skirmishes. This isn't an imbalance in the game, its how this type of army is meant to be played. Strength in numbers, the more you have the better, the less you have the worst, common sense.

Now let's look at Space Marines, adaptable, no true master of any battlefield tactic, this is their inherent strength as they can adapt for any situation. their overall weakness is their inability to truly dominate any one style of war.

There has to be some give and take in a strategy game where one can choose their own army.

You want BALANCE. Go play Risk, otherwise keep the complaining to a minimum and realize there is no such thing as BALANCE in war. And this is exactly what we are playing, a WAR game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 slowthar wrote:
You think every owner of every team in the NFL wouldn't want to win every year? Of course they would, but they've gotten together to create a system that creates parity and keeps the playing ground fair. Why? because fairness makes the games/seasons more interesting and it's better long term for the organization as a whole.

Hmm. Read that last sentence again.

Yup, see NFL vs MLB. I stopped watching baseball a while ago, but when I could still stand it, it was fast evolving into a game of "which of the following 6 rich team will win the World Series"..every year, year after year, it was 1 of those 6 teams without fail. Yo didn't need to look at the roster at the beginning of the season, it would without fail be one of those 6 teams.

With NFL, teams are winning the Super Bowl that I didn't even know existed.

With this example, you're not taking into account the amount of money that went into compiling the best team. Not everyone can have the best defense in the league or the best running back so inherently, some teams will be significantly better than others. But they don't whine about it, they go out there and they adapt. They find a way to win despite the weakness in their team.

 Ailaros wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Otherwise, those factions that aren't as good simply won't get played. This is human nature.

The very fact that there are people still playing armies that aren't triptides or taudar proves you wrong.

I'm sure there are some people who keep banging their heads against the wall. There are some people who deliberately cut themselves too. There's a marked difference between needing to play "the best" army, and wanting not to lose every game you play, and it's the latter that drives people away. I've seen people stop playing for an edition at a time because their army became obsolete. I've seen them repaint their type of marine, or shelve an army in favour of another. I'm sure there will always be some people who are willing to lose every game they play, but they're not the norm. Most people don't find that fun.

Zodiark wrote:


These weaknesses are exploited by other army types, this is normal and necessary as every army being equal and the same, or balanced as you call it would absolutely destroy the game. There would be no varying tactics, no inherent strengths or weaknesses in any army and thus, the entire game would be played by those running the cheapest set to buy.

For example.

Tyranids from the start, from way way way back are a horde army, trying to play them any differently is simply moronic because they simply are not strong enough in small numbers for skirmishes.

(1) rubbish. Balance is not the same as 'everything is identical'. Let's make that clear. You can have variety, and options in a balanced game. In fact, what you ascribe to 'no varying tactics' is a product of unbalanced games where various styles of play are unworkable.

(2) nidzilla is a thing. Horde isn't the only way of doing tyranids.

Zodiark wrote:
You want BALANCE. Go play Risk, otherwise keep the complaining to a minimum and realize there is no such thing as BALANCE in war. And this is exactly what we are playing, a WAR game.

I'm sorry for not relating to the rest of your post but after reading this quote I really, really have to say that it's the greatest heap of feces I've ever read regarding any tabletop system. I think that if we ever build a pile of bull as high as that, the Earth would probably hit the moon with it like a huge baseball bat.

Are you really telling us that we should not expect balance from a wargame because it's about war..? I mean.. are you telling us that if we want a balanced game we should go somewhere else? Seriously? I.. I think I need some chamomile tea and a break from humanity for the rest of the evening.

I pretty well agree with the OP. My gaming group has a number of "house rules" that we sort of make a gentleman's/gentlewoman's agreement to abide by. Examples are no spamming (as defined by the "I know it when I see it!" rule), no special character HQs, max one flier or 2 FMCs, and so on. The rule of thumb is to ask yourself "would I have fun playing against this list?" because, after all, we're all friends and the point is to hang out, play a game, have a good time, crack a couple of beers, and know that the winner was the better general on the field and not just better at math or had a bigger selection of models.

One guy plays his beloved Inquisition/Guard list despite never having won with it; he just loves the models and the fluff too much to care, and he has fun anyway.

It's nearly impossible to keep over a dozen different armies unique with their own strengths and weaknesses while also keeping them perfectly balanced against each other all the time. Some units/characters are almost useless against one army while being hopelessly overpowered against another; to some extent it's up to players' discretion to play a "fair" army and not, say bring only burna boyz and tankbustas and two min-size units of grotz to a game against nids.

What can I say, I like the challenge of trying to take on a superheavy with my footsloggin' boyz, or seeing if I can steel the football from a White Scars army. Yeah, most of the time I lose, but the times I do win I feel like a boss, and trying to come up with clever strategies to compensate for your weaknesses is a huge part of the appeal of the game to me.

Zodiark wrote:
You want BALANCE. Go play Risk, otherwise keep the complaining to a minimum and realize there is no such thing as BALANCE in war. And this is exactly what we are playing, a WAR game.

Risk is also a WAR game!

 Klerych wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You want BALANCE. Go play Risk, otherwise keep the complaining to a minimum and realize there is no such thing as BALANCE in war. And this is exactly what we are playing, a WAR game.

I'm sorry for not relating to the rest of your post but after reading this quote I really, really have to say that it's the greatest heap of feces I've ever read regarding any tabletop system. I think that if we ever build a pile of bull as high as that, the Earth would probably hit the moon with it like a huge baseball bat.

Are you really telling us that we should not expect balance from a wargame because it's about war..? I mean.. are you telling us that if we want a balanced game we should go somewhere else? Seriously? I.. I think I need some chamomile tea and a break from humanity for the rest of the evening.

I understand what he's getting at, even if it's sort of poorly phrased. Risk is perfectly balanced, everybody gets the same armies, same units, same numbers at the start, etc. In 40k everybody has different armies, so it's always going to be a little unbalanced. I mean, you couldn't accurately represent a Sherman tank, a Panther tank, and a T-45 in a WWII game and still have it balanced perfectly like a game of Risk. The points system and FOC mostly compensates for this pretty effectively, but with the sheer number of different units and wargear items, inevitably there will be the odd combination that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I broadly agree with the OPs thesis that the only way to eliminate this completely would be overly and undesirably restrictive, and a little imbalance is the price we have to pay for the freedom we have to play the models/armies that we want.