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 gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

I don't think it's incompetence, more apathy.
They'd like their game to be balanced, but they don't actually care.
That does, in part, result in a degree of incompetence though. They don't hire or promote people based on their ability to write robust, balanced rules.

They're more interested in creating a constant churn of interesting and unique rules to sell their toys and books.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.


Name them.

Genuinely curious what other companies do it, in your opinion.

I would like to see what mechanisms they use for balance and if they're appropriate or can be applied to 40k (I mean, hey its great if balance was because theirs was a game of two factions, each with two unit choices... I can't imagine nuking 99.99999% of the choices in 40k would go down well, as an example...) I would also like to see if there is a universal consensus on this balance, or if a quick Google will find me on a forum or blog stating game xyz is unplayable for abc reasons and mno factions/units are broken and no point taking.g them, take pqr instead...

I've played a lot of games. Every game has had problems when played competitively. I've never seen a game without trap options and go to builds. In my experience, the best I've seen from other companies is various shades of 'some stuff stacks up against other stuff, at least some of the time'. But every game can be broken.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Infinity has more interactions, more complex rules and it seems to be a lot more balanced then what w40k has right now, and it for sure is better what w40k had in the past, at least as far as 8th ed goes. But because I was told that 8th was somehow, which is hard to imagine for someone that started in 8th, super balanced comparing to prior edition, I would say that this means infinity is a lot more balanced then w40k.

And has free rules on top. Which is kind of a mind blowing considering how many books I had to buy to play.

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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:
Infinity has more interactions, more complex rules and it seems to be a lot more balanced then what w40k has right now, and it for sure is better what w40k had in the past, at least as far as 8th ed goes. But because I was told that 8th was somehow, which is hard to imagine for someone that started in 8th, super balanced comparing to prior edition, I would say that this means infinity is a lot more balanced then w40k.

And has free rules on top. Which is kind of a mind blowing considering how many books I had to buy to play.


I am actually very familiar with infinity.

Infinity is probably the most technically brilliant wargame on the market and while I adore the models its really not a game I enjoy playing any more.

Thing is, yoy are also talking about a vastly smaller scale and scope. a dozen guys per side, all humans, all.with rending, wearing slight variations of the equivalent of 40k's flak armour (,infinity power armour is like a 5+ save), carrying autoguns and the very occasional flamer or heavy stubber and the occasional crisis suit for good measure (TAG). For all its interactions, there are also in some ways, far fewer moving parts.

And with respect I don't have to go far to find posts on infinity saying 'sectorals are underpowered, these internal choices for my faction are rubbish,these rules are poor and can be rxploited' now, multiply that by a far larger, far more intense player pool and you'd get no difference in the kind of trash talking you see regarding 40k. Oh and never mind the fact that everyone with a vehicle or mc can go chuck them in a bin now and the best save you'll see is a 5+.

And let me repeat myself. Infinity is a fantastic game. When I played n2 and n3 I loved it. Love the models. Best metals in the industry as far as I am concerned. The game is good. Its decent. Bit it also has plenty limitations and cost associated with its 'better' balance.

Hecaton wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
I wish there was a term other than Stockholm Syndrome or Battered Wife Syndrome to express the excuses that seem to handwave away GW's inability to even try to balance the game anymore, or worse yet people flat out expecting it to NOT be balanced, but I can't think of a better term.


"Bootlicker" is part of my lexicon, certainly.


Oh please. Grow up. Stop being black knights.

If people were actively cheering on the imbalance and saying this was a good thing, and asking for more stuff to be broken and more factions to be badly designed then maybe you'd have a point. I've met a bare handful of people that have taken this view.

'Realistic or 'pragmatists' is a better term. Acknowledging the reality of the situation, the limitations of the medium as well as the costs, consequences and associated problems of any tools or mechanisms used to balance a game and realising its neither that easy, and is in all.likely hood impossible to do, is neither Stockholm syndrome, battered wife or bootlicker. Being a hater is easy. Complaining is easy. Broaden your perspective. The world is far more complicated.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/01/08 11:58:20


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I also love Infinity, both the game and the models, but it's a skirmish. It could be fair to compare it to Kill Team or Necromunda, not regular 40k.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

Deadnight wrote:
Karol wrote:
Infinity has more interactions, more complex rules and it seems to be a lot more balanced then what w40k has right now, and it for sure is better what w40k had in the past, at least as far as 8th ed goes. But because I was told that 8th was somehow, which is hard to imagine for someone that started in 8th, super balanced comparing to prior edition, I would say that this means infinity is a lot more balanced then w40k.

And has free rules on top. Which is kind of a mind blowing considering how many books I had to buy to play.


I am actually very familiar with infinity.

Infinity is probably the most technically brilliant wargame on the market and while I adore the models its really not a game I enjoy playing any more.

Thing is, yoy are also talking about a vastly smaller scale and scope. a dozen guys per side, all humans, all.with rending, wearing slight variations of the equivalent of 40k's flak armour (,infinity power armour is like a 5+ save), carrying autoguns and the very occasional flamer or heavy stubber and the occasional crisis suit for good measure (TAG). For all its interactions, there are also in some ways, far fewer moving parts.

And with respect I don't have to go far to find posts on infinity saying 'sectorals are underpowered, these internal choices for my faction are rubbish,these rules are poor and can be rxploited' now, multiply that by a far larger, far more intense player pool and you'd get no difference in the kind of trash talking you see regarding 40k. Oh and never mind the fact that everyone with a vehicle or mc can go chuck them in a bin now and the best save you'll see is a 5+.

And let me repeat myself. Infinity is a fantastic game. When I played n2 and n3 I loved it. Love the models. Best metals in the industry as far as I am concerned. The game is good. Its decent. Bit it also has plenty limitations and cost associated with its 'better' balance.

Hecaton wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
I wish there was a term other than Stockholm Syndrome or Battered Wife Syndrome to express the excuses that seem to handwave away GW's inability to even try to balance the game anymore, or worse yet people flat out expecting it to NOT be balanced, but I can't think of a better term.


"Bootlicker" is part of my lexicon, certainly.


Oh please. Grow up. Stop being black knights.

If people were actively cheering on the imbalance and saying this was a good thing, and asking for more stuff to be broken and more factions to be badly designed then maybe you'd have a point. I've met a bare handful of people that have taken this view.

'Realistic or 'pragmatists' is a better term. Acknowledging the reality of the situation, the limitations of the medium as well as the costs, consequences and associated problems of any tools or mechanisms used to balance a game and realising its neither that easy, and is in all.likely hood impossible to do, is neither Stockholm syndrome, battered wife or bootlicker. Being a hater is easy. Complaining is easy. Broaden your perspective. The world is far more complicated.


Chaos 3.5

Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.

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 us
Dominating Dominatrix






 Da Boss wrote:
I really believe they mean well but are not particularly competent.


Yeah. Robbin Cruddace is basically in charge of game development for 40k. They guy who actually wrote the 5th and 6th ed Tyranid codexes. The one where nobody thought it could get any worse and then the next one came out just to prove everyone wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability was so poorly written that it blew up every model on the table.

This is the guy signing off on everything as it passes over his desk. Incompetent is the text book definition of Games Workshop.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Just Tony wrote:

Chaos 3.5

Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.


as a chaos player, feth off.

there's allways the FOTM players right now they sit in marines, quins if they are slightly above average or custards, truth of the matter remains however, that 3.5 csm dex was conceptually brilliant, riddled with GW level incompetence in regards to execution.

And THAT is the reason as to why it is universally loved and despised at the same time, further if you would have any idea about what followed i'll remind you happily that there were far more broken things later on, like a certain whip power, obliterators, introduction level hellturky, suicide terminators, etc.

and that isn't even the complete list. And by extension you can apply the same to imperial or xeno armies.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
I really believe they mean well but are not particularly competent.


Yeah. Robbin Cruddace is basically in charge of game development for 40k. They guy who actually wrote the 5th and 6th ed Tyranid codexes. The one where nobody thought it could get any worse and then the next one came out just to prove everyone wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability was so poorly written that it blew up every model on the table.

This is the guy signing off on everything as it passes over his desk. Incompetent is the text book definition of Games Workshop.


Harsh but fair.

Truth is, the coordination in regards to ruleswriters is laughable, and was even more so in editions past.
Which is why you had such gems and general rules interaction...

Infact it got so bad during 6th and 7th that we had a whole rulebook more or less consisting about selfreferencing USR's...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/08 13:43:40


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Just Tony wrote:


Chaos 3.5

Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.


You didn't really, no.

You say 'chaos players'. Not 'some' chaos players. Not 'caac chaos players'. You say 'chaos players'. By inference, all of them. Are you saying all chaos players are 'bootlickers', suffering from. 'Stockholm syndrome' and 'battered wife syndrome and excusing gw's imbalances? And that it's only because of iron warriors in 3.5? Do you seek to delegitimise all of their grievances?

Or isthe truth of it a far more nuanced situation than your far too broadly stroked and inflammatory comment?

I mean, I played tau back then, amongst a very competitive group. Iron warriors was an abomination back then. Tau were amongst the worst codices in that era, and iron warriors ruined a lot of games and tourneys for me. I'll be the last person to stand up and defend it...

That said, iron warriors wasn't the entirety of 3.5. Not everyone played them. I'll put my grievances aside and say that. There has never been another dex like 3.5 and its best aspects were great- the customisation and freedom it allowed were breath taking. There were a lit of interesting and fun things that were not amongst the overpoweredness that have never generated hate and there has never been a better implementation of generating 'cult' units from regular csms (remember how hated banners were in later editions?)

And let's face it. Gw gutted the chaos dex for forth and fifth and since then. They sucked out all the character and soul. Chaos is a shadow of what it once was. Fourth was reduced to twin lash Prince plague marine spam. Fifth was hellturkey spam, I think. Its not been much better since and let's be honest about that. Chaos fans have a legitimate grievance in how chaos has been interpreted so poorly since 3.5. Amd as a hater of 3.5s excess I am happy to say that amd would include myself in the list of people wanting a better chaos codex. That's not bootlicking nor is it battered wife syndrome.

So when you talk about all the chaos players 'whining', consider if they are wanting the power level equivalent of 3.5 back then, which in the current era and discussion point would be equivalent to wanting chaos to be better than whatever flavour of the top broken primaris codex++++++++, or is it more accurate to instead ponder if what they are asking for us for chaos to have back some of the character that's been sucked our of their faction in intervening years, especially at the expense of primaris marines?

I'll wager a pound to your penny that the latter will completely drown out the former.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/08 14:36:58


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Just Tony wrote:

Chaos 3.5

Did I type that one clearly enough for you? Chaos players got accustomed to a MASSIVELY imbalanced codex and have been whining incessantly ever since to have that power level back.


From what i understood people clamoring for a return to codex 3.5 are asking for a return of the highly customizable and flavorful listbuilding that the codex allowed more than its powerlevel.
I didnt play back then but if it means that CSM get even half of the custumability that SM currently have, i'd 100% go back to 3.5.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk







Pretty much every game that qualifies as e-sport. 40k is trivial in complexity compared the invisible rules a game engine handles for your in the background. That's not a bad thing, because a low complexity is necessary for humans to play it without the help of a computer.

Genuinely curious what other companies do it, in your opinion.

I would like to see what mechanisms they use for balance and if they're appropriate or can be applied to 40k (I mean, hey its great if balance was because theirs was a game of two factions, each with two unit choices... I can't imagine nuking 99.99999% of the choices in 40k would go down well, as an example...) I would also like to see if there is a universal consensus on this balance, or if a quick Google will find me on a forum or blog stating game xyz is unplayable for abc reasons and mno factions/units are broken and no point taking.g them, take pqr instead...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
TL;DR: There is no tool that will fix every problem.

How you fix problems isn't actually as relevant as the process itself.
The only way to make your game better over time is to change the game, observe it, analyze your observations and then change it again. If your change made the game worse, you undo it in your next iteration.
Don't make huge sweeping changes unless necessary, like when you have developed yourself into a corner or part of your game is no longer salvagable. If you have the same people re-write the game from bottom up, you will not end up with better game, but with a new one that is just as flawed.
No one should know your game better than you yourself, if that's not the case, hire people who know your game. For example, WotC started hiring world champions to help them balance their game when they almost ran it into the ground.
If a game piece (in our case usually units) doesn't do what it's supposed to do, is acting counter-intuitive or generally disturbing the game, don't shy away from re-working it completely. If you adhere to tradition or conventions, it's likely that these are part of the problem.
Eventually you will collect experience what kind of numbers you need to tweak to get certain desired effects, so iterations will less likely be set backs and more efficient.

So essentially, if you genuinely work on eliminating problems, and you know what you are doing, the game will improve over time, as long as you don't toss out all the work and start anew.
And that's also precisely the reason why 40k feels like a game made by designers at the start of their career despite it being a 30 year old behemoth. They pretty much did the opposite of everything until mid 8th

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/08 14:35:13


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
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




From what i understood people clamoring for a return to codex 3.5 are asking for a return of the highly customizable and flavorful listbuilding that the codex allowed more than its powerlevel.


Precisely and thank you.

First off, while that codex did have some really strong builds and one or 2 OP builds, it was actually really challenging to build from. So many trap units, and, on top of that, anyone complaining in this day and age about the relative power level of that book likely wasn't actually "there" because it's nothing compared to things like 7th ed Craftworld, or Marines 2.0.

BUT like you say, the thing most Chaos players miss is the fact that you could build really fluffy lists. People like Just Tony want to say "CSM players are whining because they are WAAC", but the reality is, prior to Traitor Legions in 7th and Faith and Fury/DG/Tsons books, that book was the one and only time we even COULD play a fluffy army. Without exception, all of the books that came between 3.5 and the Traitor Legions supplement in 7th, were bland, sad, half hearted attempts at "Chaos". Gav Thorpe himself wrote a massive essay on his website trying to explain to players how, by removing all choice and flavor from the codex, he had actually given them MORE choice and flavor. It was that ridiculous and honestly, no other army has consistently had so many codexes in a row that utterly failed to represent them in any way, shape or form as CSM had. That's why we bring that book up. It's because it truly is that rare we get to have a book that actually even comes close to properly representing us. I do think 8th CSM 2.0 and Faith and Fury are do a decent enough job, but please, if you're going to invoke 3.5 in any way, know what you are talking about and don't just spit out the "party line".


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 pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Lance845 wrote:


Yeah. Robbin Cruddace is basically in charge of game development for 40k. They guy who actually wrote the 5th and 6th ed Tyranid codexes. The one where nobody thought it could get any worse and then the next one came out just to prove everyone wrong. The one where the Pyrovores ability was so poorly written that it blew up every model on the table.

This is the guy signing off on everything as it passes over his desk. Incompetent is the text book definition of Games Workshop.


That must have been something specialy funny to watch, your buddy comes up to you with sour face, you ask him if he lost bad, and he says it is worse, the nid player blew up both armies at the same time making it a draw . Though it is easy to laugh at other people plight.


Gav Thorpe himself wrote a massive essay on his website trying to explain to players how, by removing all choice and flavor from the codex, he had actually given them MORE choice and flavor. It was that ridiculous and honestly, no other army has consistently had so many codexes in a row that utterly failed to represent them in any way, shape or form as CSM had.

That sounds like what some people told my grandparents and their parents in 1948, that by taking all the land away from all farmers, and making it state owned, they become the owners of all land. Did he maybe make any other codex or army books besides the chaos one?

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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not sure these fights help anyone, but certainly *my* experience of 3.5 was that yes, almost all chaos lists became Iron Warriors (or sought out the few other power combos) - and, in a rather Karolesque fashion, lorded it over everyone in the shop while saying how fluffy it was that Iron Warriors were deffo better than everyone else.

Because in reality, fluffiness and power always go together. Is it fluffy that you have custom traits for all factions? Sure. Do people really play around with them? In my experience no. You don't see the "bad" traits.

Does this mean they shouldn't exist? Not really, because someone somewhere might enjoy them. But this declaration of "no true Chaos player near 20 years ago just took the most powerful combos" always seems to come up, and always rings a bit false.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




No I have idea of chaos, before 8th besides stories, but isn't chaos historicaly a codex where csm players, if they use actualy use chaos space marines, do something wrong?

It is bad or at least strange, when your whole csm army consists of a demon prince, obliterators swarm of cultists and some souped in demon or FW stuff.

In that regard stuff like marines or eldar, at least get the opportunity to play with the actual stuff their faction is named after.

If suddenly GW made a 2-3 kroot units and 2-3 kroot characters, and tau armies became just kroot, someone who wants to play tau with tau, could be rather unhappy about it. Specially if tau were kind of not that good. One can forgive a lot, if the army is the best of the best.

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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Tyel wrote:
Not sure these fights help anyone, but certainly *my* experience of 3.5 was that yes, almost all chaos lists became Iron Warriors (or sought out the few other power combos) - and, in a rather Karolesque fashion, lorded it over everyone in the shop while saying how fluffy it was that Iron Warriors were deffo better than everyone else.

Because in reality, fluffiness and power always go together. Is it fluffy that you have custom traits for all factions? Sure. Do people really play around with them? In my experience no. You don't see the "bad" traits.

Does this mean they shouldn't exist? Not really, because someone somewhere might enjoy them. But this declaration of "no true Chaos player near 20 years ago just took the most powerful combos" always seems to come up, and always rings a bit false.


What it means is that "bad" and "good" traits should not exist, and they should all be balanced with each other. I can say though that at least in my small circle of friends at the time we had Emperor's Children and Thousand Sons and I didn't see or hear about the IW craziness. Then again, I also didn't really ply the internet as much back then either.
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Tyel wrote:
Not sure these fights help anyone, but certainly *my* experience of 3.5 was that yes, almost all chaos lists became Iron Warriors (or sought out the few other power combos) - and, in a rather Karolesque fashion, lorded it over everyone in the shop while saying how fluffy it was that Iron Warriors were deffo better than everyone else.

Because in reality, fluffiness and power always go together. Is it fluffy that you have custom traits for all factions? Sure. Do people really play around with them? In my experience no. You don't see the "bad" traits.

Does this mean they shouldn't exist? Not really, because someone somewhere might enjoy them. But this declaration of "no true Chaos player near 20 years ago just took the most powerful combos" always seems to come up, and always rings a bit false.


this varies greatly on what kind of group you play with. Fluff and power can be completely separate. Me choosing to play Thousand sons (no supreme command, rubrics + terms) with tzeentch demons in early 8th was a purely fluff list that didnt do much for example. I still had a lot of fun with it.

I think its impossible to not approach this question from a non-anecdotical point of view tho.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
No I have idea of chaos, before 8th besides stories, but isn't chaos historicaly a codex where csm players, if they use actualy use chaos space marines, do something wrong?

It is bad or at least strange, when your whole csm army consists of a demon prince, obliterators swarm of cultists and some souped in demon or FW stuff.

In that regard stuff like marines or eldar, at least get the opportunity to play with the actual stuff their faction is named after.

If suddenly GW made a 2-3 kroot units and 2-3 kroot characters, and tau armies became just kroot, someone who wants to play tau with tau, could be rather unhappy about it. Specially if tau were kind of not that good. One can forgive a lot, if the army is the best of the best.


Pretty much yea, and its still the case since CSM didnt get their second wound yet. When they do, my cultists will go in my bottom drawer, hopefully to be forgotten.

You tau example doesnt really work since kroot ARE tau. In fact, i think one of the biggest complaint of tau players right now is that GW overfocuses on actual tau instead of their allied forces.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/08 15:39:04


Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN

To the OP-

I have yet to find a system designed by man that is unbreakable. If someone wants to unbalance and gain advantage in any system bad enough..... the system will break.

Now, why someone would WANT to break a system for toy soldiers is a completely different and interesting psychological question well beyond the scope of these forums.

Do you like Free Wargames?
http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Well then something like IG army consiting of 50 ogryns and commissars and priests to buff them. But yeah sometimes it is strange.

From what I understand tau players really, like really bad, want to play with suit armies, yet GW does everything to make it unfun and not viable.

As if they wanted people to first buy the things they like. Find out that it does not work, and then buy the stuff that works, only to find out that it is 9th, and stuff that works for tau, is on the level of doesn't work for other armies.

It is just too 3d chess level of design and company running economics for me.

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
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




What it means is that "bad" and "good" traits should not exist, and they should all be balanced with each other. I can say though that at least in my small circle of friends at the time we had Emperor's Children and Thousand Sons and I didn't see or hear about the IW craziness. Then again, I also didn't really ply the internet as much back then either.


Exactly. Traits should exist to reward fluffy pay. It was honestly too strong, but I think Gladius from 7th for Loyalist Marines is a good example. Like I said, it was probably too strong, but it did do a really good job of rewarding players for building an army that worked the way Marines are often described as working in the fluff.

They should all equally reward you based on the play style you want. There really shouldn't be so many clear cut "winners" and "losers".


Did he maybe make any other codex or army books besides the chaos one?


He did. They were way more fluffy and interesting than the CSM book he wrote. That's why his 4th ed CSM book was so disappointing. He had the ability to write fun, fluffy books. When it came to Chaos he just ... choose not to ...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/08 15:59:02


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 de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

A certain degree of imbalance is acceptable. However, with GW what you tend to get is a new edition, some sort of reasonable balance. The first few books come out and are designed around a particular design philosophy and things are broadly working. People who haven't been updated are falling behind, but hey, mayb-
WHAM some dude in GW gets overexcited about the project they have been handed. Suddenly, the design paradigm shifts hard. The next codex to come out is really powerful, and the the next one and the next one after that are too. Then someone gets excited again and redoes an army that already had a codex this edition rather than updating one of the out of date ones. Then someone gets excited and upgrades a subfaction to a full faction.

Then, hey, you know what? The game is getting outta hand! Time for a new edition!

There doesn't seem to be any discipline or process for how things work, or any kind of plan. It all seems pretty arbitrary and based on whatever the lads in the studio are excited about.

You can see different versions of this in 3rd ed 40K (the 3.5 chaos codex is an example of two of those) in 6th and 7th edition Fantasy (Dwarves got two books at different times, in 7e Daemons, Dark Elves and Vampires were all crazy good). It happened with 5e too, around halfway through people started getting these flyers and crap. I kinda consider 6th-7th an exception because they didn't even have the part at the start where the game kinda made sense in those editions.

And hey, pattern repeats in 8th edition with Marines 2.0.

So I dunno why people are saying it would be impossible to get good balance. They have managed it for periods in the past, but then lost all discipline and messed it up every time.

3e out of the book was balanced, so was 6e Ravening Hordes.

   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




The first few books come out and are designed around a particular design philosophy and things are broadly working. People who haven't been updated are falling behind, but hey, mayb-


I'd agree with you for most editions. The problem I see in 9th is that the first two books out of the gate are already running on totally separate tracks. I initially liked the 'cron book, and was pleased that Marines were toned down without being totally obliterated (how they managed to avoid the classic GW pendulum swing is anyone$ gue$$), but the more our group played, and the more I see of these books in reports and tournaments, the safer I feel in saying that actually, while still an improvement, the 'cron book is really pretty bad for the most part.

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
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:

Pretty much every game that qualifies as e-sport. 40k is trivial in complexity compared the invisible rules a game engine handles for your in the background. That's not a bad thing, because a low complexity is necessary for humans to play it without the help of a computer.



So... not for any other table top games? Right...

And what qualifies an e-sport? I'm not being pedantic here.

I mean, I know there are games like Starcraft and other computer games that have leagues etc. Same with mtg.

Thing is - firstly are they actually balanced (I know mtg isn't, despite what people say) and secondly, is the approach used for e-sports compatible with ttg's? They seem to be incompatible approaches to me.

Ttgs might be mechanically simpler, but they're also extremely modular and customisable and in the context of the current design philosophy (points, mission type, army rosters, variable terrain and dice vagaries) and it may be my approach to computer games, or maybe just my interest in ttgs but I do find the building blocks of a ttg are quite open ended and accounting for these variables is... tricky...

It would be a very interesting (though likely unfeasable) scenario if a computer could be designed with an algorithm that could calculate a units 'value' based on the ever changing other elements that define the 'context' (size, roster, opposing roster, mission, terrain type, quantity and layout, player skill and familiarity etc) and if this could be done for all the elements in a games economy system.

They tend to be self contained eco-systems for example (a game is generally bought whole) how does that compare to the 'wave' nature of ttg development where the game is never 'whole. You also have to factor a lit more people play computer games and a lot more data is generated a lot quicker than games like 40k.

 Jidmah wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
TL;DR: There is no tool that will fix every problem.

How you fix problems isn't actually as relevant as the process itself.
The only way to make your game better over time is to change the game, observe it, analyze your observations and then change it again. If your change made the game worse, you undo it in your next iteration.
Don't make huge sweeping changes unless necessary, like when you have developed yourself into a corner or part of your game is no longer salvagable. If you have the same people re-write the game from bottom up, you will not end up with better game, but with a new one that is just as flawed.
No one should know your game better than you yourself, if that's not the case, hire people who know your game. For example, WotC started hiring world champions to help them balance their game when they almost ran it into the ground.
If a game piece (in our case usually units) doesn't do what it's supposed to do, is acting counter-intuitive or generally disturbing the game, don't shy away from re-working it completely. If you adhere to tradition or conventions, it's likely that these are part of the problem.
Eventually you will collect experience what kind of numbers you need to tweak to get certain desired effects, so iterations will less likely be set backs and more efficient.

So essentially, if you genuinely work on eliminating problems, and you know what you are doing, the game will improve over time, as long as you don't toss out all the work and start anew.
And that's also precisely the reason why 40k feels like a game made by designers at the start of their career despite it being a 30 year old behemoth. They pretty much did the opposite of everything until mid 8th


I am aware of all of this, for what it's worth . I've been reading about this stuff for fifteen years.

But essentially 'take it slow, and refine' and 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' philosophical approach to game design didnt really answer my question, and doesn't really tell you anything as to the physical nitty gritty. Also, I would argue ithis approach works better for closed eco systems like computer games and board games ather than our ever expanding war games like 40k. And I'm.not sure how compatible it is with the business approach that seems to be the requirement for companies developing ttgs. And you still.didnt talk about the tools or approaches used in game development. Points costs are the tiniest, tiniest lever to pull (but they get the biggest amount of attention).

Smaller scale.

More limited scope.

Multiple win conditions.

Multiple list formats.

Mission formats.

Pseudo-diversity in unit types.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/01/08 17:16:05


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

"Fluffiness" is often in the eye of the beholder. I chuckled to myself when an opponent at a Saturday pickup game described his list with two Leviathans as "fluffy." Its like the "pro-painted" moniker you see on EBay.

At least at tournaments you go in with both eyes open and expect to meet "hard" lists. What I would like to see is GW policing "wombo-combos" like the Iron Hands 2.0 interactions with Leviathans and Chaplain Dreads, not to mention terrain shenanigans such as Magic Boxes. At the risk of being a White Knight, I think that 9th Ed is an attempt to address the problems that were on full display at LVO 20. Yesterday's FAQ drop also shows they are responsive to what happens in the wilds outside of the Nottingham studio.

To circle back to my point on fluffiness, can you argue with somebody who describes their Iron Hands Dreadnought list as "fluffy?" Its a bit of an empty term.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





cedar rapids, iowa

Tycho wrote:
I actually like a little imbalance and a little asymmetry. Too often they push it too far to clearly, significantly OP.
In the past it was Seer Council Eldar. In 2nd ed, heaven help you if you faced Abbadon and his Terminator Body guard. Playing against Blood Angels in 3rd? Good luck. To some extent this has always been a problem.


Right now though, it feels like, if GW felt like they could be honest with the player base, they would be saying "Look guys, just play marines ok? We don't want to make anything else, and rules are too hard to write, so please just everyone get on the same page and play marines." This is not ok.

I don't really understand your "morally wrong" fascination. I want the game to be fun. This requires, at the least, the various factions to participate somewhat equally in the rules. Somewhat. There will always be exceptions. That's fine. What you can't have is an army almost wholly immune to them. This is what we have right now and it isn't fun. For anyone.


The healthiest I have ever seen the game is when they put out the indexes in 8th edition. Since then it's been a slide back to nonsense and bloat to justify selling more gaming products.

 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

Do I expect a game to be balanced? Yes, I do.

Do I think GW's games are balanced? Beyond a level of "eh, good enough", no. If you followed GW's white tower thoughts on how you're supposed to play, it works "well enough", but if you start digging into the game, it's all rotten inside.

I think the closest GW had recently come to a balanced game was the 8E indexes. It had its issues, but it was a start. They then went in the other direction and off the deep end with the codexes* and never looked back.

* Even then, it took a couple codexes before things started to get insane. I think it was a case of that once they saw the wilder they got with the content the better it sold and the more likely people would buy it for the creep. And that ended up solidifying the direction of those that came afterward.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Deadnight wrote:
Thing is, yoy are also talking about a vastly smaller scale and scope. a dozen guys per side, all humans, all.with rending, wearing slight variations of the equivalent of 40k's flak armour (,infinity power armour is like a 5+ save), carrying autoguns and the very occasional flamer or heavy stubber and the occasional crisis suit for good measure (TAG). For all its interactions, there are also in some ways, far fewer moving parts.


Nah, this is pretty blatantly untrue. From an entirely uneducated analysis, you're right, but the variation between, say, a Keisotsu Butai and a Jotum rules-wise is pretty immense. Let's not forget that 40k moved over to modeling its vehicles with wounds and toughness now, too, so its scope is cramped in that way. The difference in survivability between those two models is immense; let's not forget about abilities like Nanoscreens, Mimetism, and Symbio-Mates which add durability in different ways.


Deadnight wrote:
And let me repeat myself. Infinity is a fantastic game. When I played n2 and n3 I loved it. Love the models. Best metals in the industry as far as I am concerned. The game is good. Its decent. Bit it also has plenty limitations and cost associated with its 'better' balance.


The limitations and cost *aren't* a lack of variety of units, rules-wise. And visuals-wise... you don't get a situation where 50% of the players are playing the same faction. That's not healthy for the game.

Deadnight wrote:


Oh please. Grow up. Stop being black knights.

If people were actively cheering on the imbalance and saying this was a good thing, and asking for more stuff to be broken and more factions to be badly designed then maybe you'd have a point. I've met a bare handful of people that have taken this view.


I've met a lot of Astartes players and GW fanboys who say "balance isn't worth achieving" and do things like insist that GW makes a better game because they clear more profit than Corvus Belli. There's a certain personality type that loves sucking up to whom they consider the most powerful actor in a space, and in the context of consumer relations go all <removed - none of that gak here please> on someone who they should regard more critically.

Deadnight wrote:
'Realistic or 'pragmatists' is a better term. Acknowledging the reality of the situation, the limitations of the medium as well as the costs, consequences and associated problems of any tools or mechanisms used to balance a game and realising its neither that easy, and is in all.likely hood impossible to do, is neither Stockholm syndrome, battered wife or bootlicker. Being a hater is easy. Complaining is easy. Broaden your perspective. The world is far more complicated.


Nope. People who cheer on GW lying to them and other players can be described pretty well by that term. And when you look at the balance that GW is failing to implement and look at other companies doing it better (CMON, Corvus Belli, etc) GW doesn't look like an industry leader in that regard. You're using circular logic; "it can't be more balanced because if it was GW would do it." That's just idiocy or subservient disingenuity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/08 20:52:35


 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




The healthiest I have ever seen the game is when they put out the indexes in 8th edition. Since then it's been a slide back to nonsense and bloat to justify selling more gaming products.


Same, although even then, from what I understand, there were some major issues. I think my area missed them because the armies that had the issues were not getting played at the time, but there were still some misses. I think though, they would have been easy to fix.

One of the problems w/GW's codex design is lack of a clearly defined design direction. Almost as though they lack a Creative Director, or Chief Editor, and there is, apparently, ZERO communication between authors. So end up w/a situation where each book becomes its own little experiment. Lore bending weirdness aside, I always maintained that the problem with "Matt Ward" codexes is NOT that they were Matt Ward codexes - it's that the OTHER codexes were NOT Matt Ward codexes.

His books were fun and powerful. If ALL the books had been pushed to 11, you have a lot fewer problems than what we had at the time. Which was three books pushed to 11 a few pushed to MAYBE 8, most stuck at 5, and a select few that never got past a 3 (out of 10).

Same w/Marines 2.0. If all the books are at that level - fewer problems. If ONE book is at that level - massive problem. Especially when it's by far the biggest faction in the game ...

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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The complaint of Ward codices being overpowered is simply not that true compared to the garbage Kelly does and gets defended for. True revisionism at its finest.

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 de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

Ward established a poor rep for balance in WFB with the Daemon book that pretty much broke that edition of the game. Played against a bunch of daemon armies back then and every game was like a tragic last stand.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: