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.

I used to play 40k back in 3rd and 4th edition, then got back into it just after 7th edition came out.

There have been some pretty radical changes to the game in that time. It's not all bad, and I still enjoy playing the game. But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.

In 2nd edition (I believe) you had restrictions on how many points you could spend on certain units, which was designed to prevent you from spamming. This was seen as insufficient, and that era (alongwith 4th and 5th edition fantasy) was referred to disparagingly as "herohammer".

3rd edition saw the arrival of the Force Organisation Chart, which was designed to force you to rely on troops to win games, while characters and heavier units were there for support. Forgeworld units were strictly to be used with your opposing player's consent because they hadn't been balanced to the same extent as the regular Codex units.

Coming back to 40K in 7th edition, it seems like most of these balancing restrictions have been thrown out of the window. It is now extremely easy to spam uber-units (e.g. by using an "unbound" list), and there is no real restriction on Forgeworld units anymore - they just say "yes, you need your opponent's consent, JUST LIKE YOU ALWAYS NEED IT FOR ANY UNIT". You can also get superheavies via the standard citadel miniature line now, and there are no point restrictions on how large the army must be in order to take one.

Tactical advice consists mainly of advice on what units to bring rather than how to use them, and that advice is usually to spam a powerful unit of your own so that your opponent's counters to that unit will be overwhelmed unless he specifically designs his list to counter it. It all just turns into rock-paper-scissors. I still enjoy casual games at my FLGS, but a lot of tournament lists seem extremely boring for this reason. It shouldn't be the case that you have to play Spamhammer 40,000 (in the grim darkness of the far future there is only spam) if you want a chance of winning. If the old restrictions were still in place, there would not be such a discrepancy between fun lists and effective lists. I have fiercely resisted the temptation to get a 4th battlewagon for my Orks because I want miniature variety, even though I know it would probably be a good idea.

GW claim to have done this in order to give players "freedom", and any and all concerns about balance are answered with "oh, well, just don't play against [insert unit/army here] then #playerconsent". The problem with this is that you come off like a whiny bad sport if you ask your opponent not to use a certain unit or army that you have trouble with when that unit or army is perfectly legal. It would be different if it were a 4th edition game where, for example, your opponent wanted to use a Forgeworld unit that was clearly designated as OPTIONAL.

IMHO it should be the other way round: GW should say "these are the rules for the game, and we have designed those rules to create balance, but if you want to experiment with removing certain restrictions to replicate a scenario or whatever (e.g. an unbound army), that's perfectly fine as long as your opponent consents". This maintains player freedom without unduly penalising people for using balanced, take-all-comers armies.

I suppose the ultimate answer to this is that GW are, as they say, a models company, not a rules company, so the rules are inevitably designed to make you want to buy the models they want you to buy (e.g. superheavies and flyers). The game is also unlike a computer game where they can just tweak it using patches to address balance issues, as you can be looking at several years (or even several editions) between codices.

You are correct about GW putting no effort into game balance. Whatever the reasons may be they very clearly do not consider balance or rule quality to be important.

You are wrong about previous editions being balanced. There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.

You are wrong about FW rules having anything to do with game balance. They never did, and including them by default did nothing besides remove a stupid division between one set of books published by GW and a different set of books published by GW.

Some people were like that when the riptide was released,however...
Riptides tend to kill themselves frequentley
Riptides are usally in a corner/at the back of the table and can be scared off
But eldar,thats just OP

 Peregrine wrote:
You are wrong about previous editions being balanced. There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.

Well, I wouldn't say they were completely balanced, but at least you had to win using troops and tactics rather than spamming imperial knights. At least they TRIED, is what I am saying. They didn't just say "oh well, player's consent".

You are wrong about FW rules having anything to do with game balance. They never did, and including them by default did nothing besides remove a stupid division between one set of books published by GW and a different set of books published by GW.

Wasn't this the reasoning behind making them "optional" in the past?

 Krusha wrote:


IMHO it should be the other way round: GW should say "these are the rules for the game, and we have designed those rules to create balance, but if you want to experiment with removing certain restrictions to replicate a scenario or whatever (e.g. an unbound army), that's perfectly fine as long as your opponent consents". This maintains player freedom without unduly penalising people for using balanced, take-all-comers armies.

Like that ever worked.

Have you ever actually tried bringing some unbound/allied/fun-list to a pick-up game/organised gaming event in 4th or 5th edition?

40K-players are too small-minded for this to ever work without the rules being explicit about people having this freedom, and explicitly encouraging it. And even so, it's still a pain to field unbound. Still far too many events don't allow it (and FW-fans think they have it rough, ha!!).

 Krusha wrote:
Well, I wouldn't say they were completely balanced, but at least you had to win using troops and tactics rather than spamming imperial knights.

Who cares what FOC slot was spammed? Spamming overpowered troops is no more fun than spamming any other type of unit, and doesn't require any more tactics. Also, "only troops score" was only a rule in 5th and 6th editions, and other editions had lists that abused overpowered non-troops ("herohammer" certainly wasn't about overpowered tactical marines).

Wasn't this the reasoning behind making them "optional" in the past?

No. FW units were never unbalanced relative to the rest of the game. They've never explicitly said why the "permission required" thing was included originally, but the best speculation I've seen is that when GW first started the FW brand and gave rule-writing power to people outside of the "main" department they said something like "if someone calls us to complain about getting beat by a Baneblade we're ending this little experiment". And so the FW rules were made "with permission only" so that they would only be used in games where both players are happy with them and unlikely to be upset about GW's new brand.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Like that ever worked.

Have you ever actually tried bringing some unbound/allied/fun-list to a pick-up game/organised gaming event in 4th or 5th edition?

40K-players are too small-minded for this to ever work without the rules being explicit about people having this freedom, and explicitly encouraging it. And even so, it's still a pain to field unbound. Still far too many events don't allow it (and FW-fans think they have it rough, ha!!).

40k players would be resistant to unbound armies because of concerns about game balance, which IMO is perfectly reasonable. If two players really want to play some kind of scenario-based game then the option is still open to them. If the rules explicitly permit you to take whatever you want, then the guy who takes a balanced, take-all-comers army is at a disadvantage. He must therefore make a decision between balance and actually winning games.

 Krusha wrote:


40k players would be resistant to unbound armies because of concerns about game balance, which IMO is perfectly reasonable. If two players really want to play some kind of scenario-based game then the option is still open to them. If the rules explicitly permit you to take whatever you want, then the guy who takes a balanced, take-all-comers army is at a disadvantage. He must therefore make a decision between balance and actually winning games.

There are and always have been plenty of "legal" and "bound" lists that are extremely unbalanced. With unbound, it is clearly within the player's responsibility to ensure both sides have fun.

The real problem are the people who assume that any and all ways to play the game within the (more restrictive) rules are fair game, no matter how little their opponent enjoys the experience, because the "but it's legal"-argument is still far too often (and always falsely) put up by people to screen themselves from taking responsibility and owning up to their antisocial behaviour.

 Peregrine wrote:


Who cares what FOC slot was spammed? Spamming overpowered troops is no more fun than spamming any other type of unit, and doesn't require any more tactics. Also, "only troops score" was only a rule in 5th and 6th editions, and other editions had lists that abused overpowered non-troops ("herohammer" certainly wasn't about overpowered tactical marines).

It seems to me that SOME attempt at game balance is better than none at all. So even if some armies have OP troops that can be spammed, at least it's not "anything goes" on all unit types.

how many under 90kg MAA fighters are there in the no weight limit division in UK? Because playing a non uber build in a world where unbound is ok, would be probably just as common.

The problem is not that something is legal, but the fact that it is done offten enough for it be a problem. If let say FW suddenly made an army that is super broken at 1500pts, but costs twice as much in $ to make, no one would even bothe. But when GW makes draigo wing the problem is huge. Because the army is cheap, well for w40k, and pops up everywhere.

That is also why the I wont play you argument is so weak. It only works when people owning good armies are few, or if everyone has milions of models. But the chance of that is much smaller then people buying a 1500 army and trying to have fun with that.

 Krusha wrote:
It seems to me that SOME attempt at game balance is better than none at all.

But it isn't an attempt at game balance. A game with spammed overpowered troops is no more balanced than one with spammed overpowered fast attack units. The end result is exactly the same regardless of which FOC slot the overpowered spam happens to occupy.

Yes they have. They've also abdicated any kind of responsibility for writing a coherent ruleset and issuing timely and relevant FAQs. They aren't a rules company, remember? However, they'll happily take your $135+ for the required rules. God forbid you want a fortification, forge world model, etc. Then you're looking at $200+ for rules. If you don't like the rules, you're just playing the game "wrong", you need to forge the narrative harder, eat more pretzels and drink more beer, fix the rules yourself through pre game discussions (arguments)... Did I miss any?

 Toofast wrote:
Yes they have. They've also abdicated any kind of responsibility for writing a coherent ruleset and issuing timely and relevant FAQs. They aren't a rules company, remember? However, they'll happily take your $135+ for the required rules. God forbid you want a fortification, forge world model, etc. Then you're looking at $200+ for rules. If you don't like the rules, you're just playing the game "wrong", you need to forge the narrative harder, eat more pretzels and drink more beer, fix the rules yourself through pre game discussions (arguments)... Did I miss any?

You missed 'learn 2 play' too.

commander dante wrote:
Some people were like that when the riptide was released,however...
Riptides tend to kill themselves frequentley
Riptides are usally in a corner/at the back of the table and can be scared off
But eldar,thats just OP

So now Riptides aren't all that after all?

That's all everyone was crying about last year. Storm in a teacup, much like the OUTRAGE at the new Eldar codex?!

 Toofast wrote:
Yes they have. They've also abdicated any kind of responsibility for writing a coherent ruleset and issuing timely and relevant FAQs. They aren't a rules company, remember? However, they'll happily take your $135+ for the required rules. God forbid you want a fortification, forge world model, etc. Then you're looking at $200+ for rules. If you don't like the rules, you're just playing the game "wrong", you need to forge the narrative harder, eat more pretzels and drink more beer, fix the rules yourself through pre game discussions (arguments)... Did I miss any?

I want to buy rules where you buy them. $1000+ if you want 'em all At least, I think so. Maybe I exaggerate, but I'm also including Imperial Armour, because it's practically impossible to play totally devoid of Forge World these days.

Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.

the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.

Knights have obsec now if you take 3-5.

 koooaei wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.

Knights have obsec now if you take 3-5.

But yes OP, 40k is now just about collecting models and high price books. And I hope you like the books, because there's a good chance they'll be invalidated in 1-2 years, replaced with something nearly identical. So if you're into $50 shelf decorators, then this new 40k is for you!

GW games were always relatively poorly balanced by themselves. The 7th eddition of 40K is probably the worst of them all for GW is trying to move 40K into a «one size fits all» type of game where you can do pretty much all kinds of battle and scenario with the models you want and armies you want. It's a relatively smart move if you want to sell more miniatures, but it forces any kind of tournament to impose lots of tweak and clear house rules for it to become more fonctionnal. Then again, 40K was never designed to be a tournament style board game. Personnaly, I think the biggest balance issue doesn't come from unit selection, Forge World, Superheavies, or any perticular unit point cost. but from terrain choice, scenario and special rules you can add yourself.

Well, they were doing pretty good until recently. The end of 6-th and start of 7-th was very promising and lots of people returned back to 40k. Eldar and tau ruined 6-th. Now it's the same time of the cycle for 7-th i guess

But it's not all that bad, really. Just don't go too serious in all that competitiveness. It's a game of moveing toy soldiers and having fun. Don't like some unit? Homerule it out to be on appropriate level. Noone i know actually buys 40k rules. If they cost like 10-15 dollars than maybe...but not as is. It's not the correct price to pay for what you get.

I'm very similar to the OP in that I started with 40k as a kid and returned to the game in 4th edition. never played much for 5th and 6th and returned in 7th. The game changed so much but I think the game is more fun now than its ever been before.
It is my opinion that GW has abdicated responsibility for game balance. The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses. For competitive gamers that abdication of responsibility can only be taken over by the players and in tournament formats thats replaced by the TO.

If you think the game is unbalanced its up to you to balance it or pass that on to a higher power in game organising.

 Nithaniel wrote:
The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.

How does it prioritize fluff?

How does that make a better game for the masses?

 Blacksails wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.

How does it prioritize fluff?

How does that make a better game for the masses?

It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.

 Nithaniel wrote:
The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing

Except that it doesn't. It just makes bad rules that are both unfluffy and lacking in balance.

 vipoid wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing

Except that it doesn't. It just makes bad rules that are both unfluffy and lacking in balance.

Yeah, if fluff was prioritized, Space Marines would cost 100 points a piece and lay waste to other armies, and the number of guardsmen/orks/tyranids you would need for a game would be in the thousands.

I also don't see how the vast swathes of random charts could equate to anything other than lazy game design.

40k prioritizes buying as many miniatures as possible. If you don't buy enough, you're losing the game.

 Desubot wrote:


It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.

Clearly your narrative forging abilities are greater than mine.

 Desubot wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.

How does it prioritize fluff?

How does that make a better game for the masses?

It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.

I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year. 40k is no longer supported in competitive play and arguably never was. The implementation of things like tactical objectives improves the gameplay from a casual gamers perspective and destroys it (or at least de-stabilises) from a comp perspective.

Releasing new rules and new codex / models regularly mitigates this however it hurts comp gamers with limited disposable incomes severely.

But I stand by my point that the changes in the game systems go a few tentative steps towards leveling the playing field for casual gamers.

 Nithaniel wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.

How does it prioritize fluff?

How does that make a better game for the masses?

It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.

I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year. 40k is no longer supported in competitive play and arguably never was. The implementation of things like tactical objectives improves the gameplay from a casual gamers perspective and destroys it (or at least de-stabilises) from a comp perspective.

Releasing new rules and new codex / models regularly mitigates this however it hurts comp gamers with limited disposable incomes severely.

But I stand by my point that the changes in the game systems go a few tentative steps towards leveling the playing field for casual gamers.

It really doesn't improve anything for casual players. If anything casual players are hit hardest by the shoddiness of GW rules.

 Nithaniel wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
The game prioritises fluff over rules balancing for the better enjoyment of the masses.

How does it prioritize fluff?

How does that make a better game for the masses?

It prioritizes the person with the biggest wallet and the biggest ego to throw that money around.

I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year. 40k is no longer supported in competitive play and arguably never was. The implementation of things like tactical objectives improves the gameplay from a casual gamers perspective and destroys it (or at least de-stabilises) from a comp perspective.

Releasing new rules and new codex / models regularly mitigates this however it hurts comp gamers with limited disposable incomes severely.

But I stand by my point that the changes in the game systems go a few tentative steps towards leveling the playing field for casual gamers.

While my comment was really generalized banter with a smidge of truth to it.

You can still have a massive ego or a TON of money and still be a casual player.

They will still want to buy the new shinies because they can, or a whole new army or whatever flavor of the month. and it will suck for whoever has to fight them, even in a casual sense.

GW couldnt care less about the ANY player. all they care about is getting people to buy things with the least amount of effect. plain and simple as that. (oh that note. damnit they are making very pretty shiny things lately and it makes me mad because i want to hate them)

Indeed. As a 'casual' player, it was the game imbalances that kicked me out.