Switch Theme:

Do You Expect 40k To Be Balanced?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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.
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine





Karol wrote:
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.
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

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?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/07 20:26:26


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 catbarf wrote:

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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 LunarSol wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 21:09:59


 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/07 21:42:49



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




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

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 21:44:09


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

+1.

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.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/07 22:31:12


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

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.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 greatbigtree wrote:
+1.

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.
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

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.

What does being vulnerable
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 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?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

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.


All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




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.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
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.
Fair enough.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 catbarf wrote:
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.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Canadian 5th wrote:
 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.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

 Jidmah wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 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.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/08 09:44:20


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 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.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

I really believe they mean well but are not particularly competent.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: