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.

 Selym wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I dunno. I see the balance = homogeny argument.

If my 502 points of Stormhammer were exactly as effective at general 40k as 502 points of gretchen or 502 points of valkyries or 502 points of carnifexes, then they might as well be the same.

It was my issue with balance before - I've been told that balance means that lists, given equal player skill, should be 50/50. So what does that mean for a conscript horde vs superheavy tanks?

I guess it does mean conscripts should be able to hurt superheavy tanks. After all, that's what we got this edition.

It should not mean that at all. If a "balanced" wargame just lets 502 points of Grots compete fairly against 502 points of Stormhammer, you have a bad wargame. Units ought to have FUNCTION.
Just like in real life, failing to bring an AT weapon against a tank should get you killed.

This is also why GW should have never departed from the FOC. Bringing a list of just one thing should be punished, not rewarded.

So how much balance is okay then? Because it's clear that armies shouldn't have a 50/50 win rate against eachother based on construction, at least in your version of balance. So what exactly does 'balanced' mean?

One possible form of a balanced wargame, is where:

- You are not put at an instant and serious disadvantage for being a different army than the opponent (Orks vs Tau, Nids vs Guard, DE vs Space Marines)
- Each codex's units has a viable purpose (this one is fast, this one is strong, this one is durable, this one is a jack of all but master of none...)
- Each unit is assigned a points value based on their use and expected synergies (Unit A is pointless with Units B, C and D, but perfect in unison with Units E and F, and helps counter Unit G)
- Points costs are revised over time incrementally to find the best costing for them (Unit Q was slightly undercosted in Revision 1, and then slightly overcosted in Revision 2. Time for Revision 3)
- Armies receive simultaneous codex releases, after 2-5 years of playtesting by the community
- Armies have multiple viable builds
- The game is NOT "take whatever to beat whatever"
- Players must make use of combined arms, or focus on a skill-based gimmick
- Strategy, planning and tactics all matter
- There is no "Auto-Take" anything
- You do not win at just the listbuilding level

I recognise that this is an ideal and thus incredibly difficult to do, but we can get close. If the game is designed to allow player skill to shine through, army imbalances will become a lot less important.
40k 6e-7e was almost always won at the listbuilding level. A balanced game will not allow such extremes.

1) This is patently false, though. Armies do (and should) have engineered weaknesses, such as GK vs hordes or Orks vs heavy armour.
2) If every codex has the same collection of units, that's sameness. Every codex has that one Fast unit, every codex has that one Tough unit - and if, say, IG's Fast unit is worse than SM's Fast unit, then you'll never see IG's Fast unit because it isn't the most efficient choice for the army. That's imbalance, right?
3) If points values = capability, and balanced means every unit has roughly the same capability to influence the game, then this is the problem I illustrated earlier: 502 points of Stormhammer is equally capable of influencing the game as 502 points of anything else. Sameness.
4) This is fine with me, though I still reject point 3, which this seems to lean towards.
5) I suppose that could work, though 'community playtesting' is essentially 'finding the most broken unit and spam that' unless you think tournaments will stop for those 2-5 years.
6) This is sameness again - why should 2000 points of conscripts be equally viable to (or against) 2000 points of Stormhammers? And if it is, why wouldn't a competitive player just buy the cheapest 2000 points they can find and play that?
7) How is this compatible with 3 and 6 while allowing skew lists? If you ban skew lists, you're reducing options and making everything seem the same.
8) Why force people to rely on combined arms at the company level? If they want to play a Soviet tank company, they should be able to, even if the Soviets didn't combine unit types until the Battalion level.
9) This I agree with.
10) This I also agree with, though I am also convinced that people will find the most efficient choice anyways, even if it's only .5% better.
11) Listbuilding is a player skill, I believe, and so to say "listbuilding takes player skill out" makes me giggle. It's just a different skill.

So has anyone actually come up with definitions of "spam" vs "redundancy" vs "skew" vs "taking a lot of the same unit" yet, or are we still just BSing around with differing definitions of the same words as usual?

 Melissia wrote:
So has anyone actually come up with definitions of "spam" vs "redundancy" vs "skew" vs "taking a lot of the same unit" yet, or are we still just BSing around with differing definitions of the same words as usual?

You know I was gonna say spam instead of skew, but I chose Skew because even a 1-unit army can be a skew list, with the prime example being a Warlord Titan.

I recognise that this is an ideal and thus incredibly difficult to do, but we can get close. If the game is designed to allow player skill to shine through, army imbalances will become a lot less important.
40k 6e-7e was almost always won at the listbuilding level. A balanced game will not allow such extremes.

40k 3rd - 7th ed was almost always won at the listbuilding level. Every edition has its top x lists that destroy anything they come in contact with that is not also a top x list. I ran starcannon spam list in 3rd ed. Any concept of take all comers armies facing that were destroyed. The big weakness of the starcannon spam list was a horde army like orks or nids. Which no one ever took because the meta back then was nearly all blood angels or space wolves with a smattering of black templars (each of which had top spammed units)

4th and 5th ed had their own top x armies that annihilated everything they came in contact with barring another top x army.

Rose colored glasses and all. 40k has never been balanced and never been primarily about player-skill. Its always been won primarily at the list-building level, same as 6th and 7th, same as today. I say that having spent all of the 90s and most of the 00s as a powergaming GT attending tournament gamer that spammed to my little heart's content to garner as high a rank at GTs as I could. My high placements at the GW GTs was not from my superior player skill. It was because I built spam power min/max armies and got lucky I faced a lot of guys that weren't min/maxing as heavily as I was, and who were marine players that were all geared to die against my build. Same held true when I moved to IG guard blob dice saturation army, and same held true when I was running undead or demons in a bent and busted WHFB 5,6, and 7th edition.

When people deride list building being so heavy handed, its not because "list building is not a skill", its just that in 40k its about as challenging as primary school mathematics to determine what is undercost and point efficient, and people come in with an assumption that as a *GAME* that 2000 points vs 2000 points should present a decent *GAME*, when that is often not true... and listbuilding makes 2000 vs 2000 points actually 5000 vs 2000 points if one person is min/maxing and the other is not.

Thats where the disparity of expectations blooms from, and where the chasm of ideologies springs.

As to what "SPAM" means... that will always have different meanings to different people. I find that SPAM often means the same as "min/max the same powerful units" as opposed to "repeating units" because if you repeat non min/max units most people don't care. Its when you are powergaming against a guy not powergaming (or powergaming against a waac player and you win) that spam seems to become an issue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) If every codex has the same collection of units, that's sameness. Every codex has that one Fast unit, every codex has that one Tough unit - and if, say, IG's Fast unit is worse than SM's Fast unit, then you'll never see IG's Fast unit because it isn't the most efficient choice for the army. That's imbalance, right?

Units having purposes =/= everything is homogenous. What, you think I'm calling for Ork shooting to be on par with Tau shooting, while also expecting Fire Warriors to punch out Khorne Berserkers? Heck no.

Army = Theme
Armybuild 1: Method of thematic implementation 1
Armybuild 2: Method of thematic implementation 2

And if you find that Guard have a FA unit that is not quite on par with a SM FA unit, that does not render the former obsolete in any way. It's a different army, and the Guard's FA is in a different situation to the SM FA.
Efficiency of comparable choices is more commonly an internal balance issue, like when GW drops the rules for their new dreadnought. It will almost certainly turn out to be a straight improvement over the old dreadnought. At that point, that's a problem with GW and not wargaming mechanics.

Orks: Spammy melee playstyle
Khorne: Elite melee playstyle with some chaotic gimmicks
Tau: Mobile shooting
Guard: Cannon Fodder and Big Guns
Nids: Horde dotted with Gribblies

Different armies are supposed to be different. Otherwise, what's the point in having multiple lines?
You can still make a balanced wargame. Army themes is not guaranteed to result in homogeneity or imbalance. I mean, look at how 8e is faring - Nids are patently different than SM and yet aren't too much more powerful or weaker than them. We see right in front of us a number of armies that have congregated around eachother in terms of TT power, while still being wildly different.

Balance =/= homogeneity.

 Selym wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) If every codex has the same collection of units, that's sameness. Every codex has that one Fast unit, every codex has that one Tough unit - and if, say, IG's Fast unit is worse than SM's Fast unit, then you'll never see IG's Fast unit because it isn't the most efficient choice for the army. That's imbalance, right?

Units having purposes =/= everything is homogenous. What, you think I'm calling for Ork shooting to be on par with Tau shooting, while also expecting Fire Warriors to punch out Khorne Berserkers? Heck no.

Army = Theme
Armybuild 1: Method of thematic implementation 1
Armybuild 2: Method of thematic implementation 2

And if you find that Guard have a FA unit that is not quite on par with a SM FA unit, that does not render the former obsolete in any way. It's a different army, and the Guard's FA is in a different situation to the SM FA.
Efficiency of comparable choices is more commonly an internal balance issue, like when GW drops the rules for their new dreadnought. It will almost certainly turn out to be a straight improvement over the old dreadnought. At that point, that's a problem with GW and not wargaming mechanics.

Orks: Spammy melee playstyle
Khorne: Elite melee playstyle with some chaotic gimmicks
Tau: Mobile shooting
Guard: Cannon Fodder and Big Guns
Nids: Horde dotted with Gribblies

Different armies are supposed to be different. Otherwise, what's the point in having multiple lines?
You can still make a balanced wargame. Army themes is not guaranteed to result in homogeneity or imbalance. I mean, look at how 8e is faring - Nids are patently different than SM and yet aren't too much more powerful or weaker than them. We see right in front of us a number of armies that have congregated around eachother in terms of TT power, while still being wildly different.

Balance =/= homogeneity.

You are opening the door for imbalace though. What if you play a pure long-range shooty Ork army? Or a Close-Combat Guard army? Those are off-'theme' as you put it, and will lose games because they are less efficient than the other options.

That's imbalance, and is my point. If you have 'themes' built into the rules of the game, than anything 'off-theme' is going to be less competitively efficient, and in competition, efficiency is everything.

So either: You essentially admit that the off-theme playstyle is less efficient, and render every army within the faction essentially the same collection of on-theme units (sameness!) or you try to make the 'off-theme' stuff just as efficient as the 'on-theme' stuff and obliterate the 'themes' concept entirely, in which case, the factions are all the same, essentially, aside from looks.

Or your could realize that balance doesn't mean "everyone's the same" like you keep pushing.

Thing is, Ork mid-to-long range shooting actually was passably good at some point. It was good in a very different way than other long-range shooting though-- it lost that with 8th, but there's no reason it shouldn't be added back in.

And Guard actually, amusingly, have ways to be better at assault (include a few Priests and suddenly your guard infantry's assault capabilities double). They could still be made better via different options (pistol+ccw comes to mind), but again, in a different way than other assault armies.

Since "spam" is usually used as a negative term, I'd give a defnition of spam as "overuse of something which is either unbalanced or 'off theme'."

However, since people differ in opinion over what is unbalanced or 'off theme', its hard to get consistency.

 Melissia wrote:
Or your could realize that balance doesn't mean "everyone's the same" like you keep pushing.

Thing is, Ork mid-to-long range shooting actually was passably good at some point. It was good in a very different way than other long-range shooting though-- it lost that with 8th, but there's no reason it shouldn't be added back in.

And Guard actually, amusingly, have ways to be better at assault (include a few Priests and suddenly your guard infantry's assault capabilities double). They could still be made better via different options (pistol+ccw comes to mind), but again, in a different way than other assault armies.

So how do armies have theme if Guard are as efficient at CC as Khorne Berzerkers?

Or would a Guard CC army lose to Khorne Berzerkers more than 50% of the time, even if player skill was equal?

 Elbows wrote:
I don't think there is a real "community" to 40K, rather several separate communities.

Spam is effective due to poor rules or loopholes normally (failue to appropriately cost stuff - and people being drawn to tournaments/prize support). Is it "healthy"? Nah, but it's inevitable. You need look no further than the army composition part of this forum.

Q: "I want to run a 1500 point list of X!"

A: "Take these three identical HQ units and six identical units of this..."

Effective? Sure. Exciting? No. Interesting? No. Boring? God yes. I won't even bother playing a list like that. I don't give two gaks about winning, but if you're going to stomp me into the ground at least make it seem cool, or look cool doing it.

This is exactly correct. We all have different ideas about what this game should be. A lot of the complaining and bemoaning of balance and rules comes from a strictly competitive mindset. I want a game that is fun. I want a game that looks cool. If I want to put a power fist on a marine sergeant give the squad a meltagun and a heavy bolter just because I like the way it looks then thats fine. 8th allows this with power levels and split fire. Is it smart in a tournament with points values? Never. But I don't play in tournaments and don't really care about who wins as long as cool stuff happens along the way.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Or your could realize that balance doesn't mean "everyone's the same" like you keep pushing.

Thing is, Ork mid-to-long range shooting actually was passably good at some point. It was good in a very different way than other long-range shooting though-- it lost that with 8th, but there's no reason it shouldn't be added back in.

And Guard actually, amusingly, have ways to be better at assault (include a few Priests and suddenly your guard infantry's assault capabilities double). They could still be made better via different options (pistol+ccw comes to mind), but again, in a different way than other assault armies.

So how do armies have theme if Guard are as efficient at CC as Khorne Berzerkers?

Or would a Guard CC army lose to Khorne Berzerkers more than 50% of the time, even if player skill was equal?

Zealots in starcraft cost 100 mins but can't hit fliers. Marines are 50, but can hit fliers. Is the zealot overcosted?
No, not if you use it correctly. Points should reflect overall combat utility, but two units with same cost can have very different roles and abilities. I don't understand how sameness is even entering the discussion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You are opening the door for imbalace though. What if you play a pure long-range shooty Ork army? Or a Close-Combat Guard army? Those are off-'theme' as you put it, and will lose games because they are less efficient than the other options.

That's imbalance, and is my point. If you have 'themes' built into the rules of the game, than anything 'off-theme' is going to be less competitively efficient, and in competition, efficiency is everything.

So either: You essentially admit that the off-theme playstyle is less efficient, and render every army within the faction essentially the same collection of on-theme units (sameness!) or you try to make the 'off-theme' stuff just as efficient as the 'on-theme' stuff and obliterate the 'themes' concept entirely, in which case, the factions are all the same, essentially, aside from looks.

Oh, I see! You want player choices to be meaningless, then!
You can't make everything viable and have differentiaatoin. If IG is as good at melee as Orks, Orks as good at shooting as Tau, Space Marines as good at footspam as Nids and Nids as good at mechanisation as IG, you can only ever get homogeneity. At that point, there is no reason to have separate armies.

The whole point of the different army lines in the first place is that they play differently. You can have them do that and still be balanced, but you as a player will have to make some darn decisions. A good wargame is not entirely won or lost at the listbuilding level because allowing that makes gameplay worthless. But a bad wargame makes strategy and decisions pointless.

At this point in the argument the problem is you, not balance.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how do armies have theme if Guard are as efficient at CC as Khorne Berzerkers?

They aren't, and I never said they would be, that was all on you-- you're the one blindly and straw-manningly insisting that everything must be identical. I merely suggested they're better in melee than you'd think they would otherwise be-- the priest gives <Astra Militaritum> units +1 attack in his 6" aura. For 35 points, that's not a bad choice if you want to surprise an enemy trying to assault your guardsmen, or make your guardsmen assault something and have an actual impact. Funny thing is he is impacted by his own rule, and thus has 4 attacks at WS4 S3 in melee, so he's not a bad assault character himself when given something like a power axe or power maul.

Armies should have "themes". I don't pick Tau to play a competitive meele army.

Every game system both in physical or digital form that has different factions has "themes": You can't play Protoss as a Rush-Horde army. You can't play a Priest in WoW as a Tank. You can't play Caitlyn as a support, etc, etc...

This doesn't means that you can't have a more flexible army that can be built in a full gimminicky version like, I don't know, a meele IG army full of Ogryns and Bullgryns, etc... it could work but normally something like that should be the "I'm so pro that I take a army that isn't as powerfull because I like them"

Or "I like how this army looks and I think it's fun to play, and if I do it right it can still win". Not "this army is better than a dedicated melee army from a melee-themed force".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So either: You essentially admit that the off-theme playstyle is less efficient, and render every army within the faction essentially the same collection of on-theme units (sameness!) or you try to make the 'off-theme' stuff just as efficient as the 'on-theme' stuff and obliterate the 'themes' concept entirely, in which case, the factions are all the same, essentially, aside from looks.

Or, third option, you have more than one theme per army. There. Diversity and balance at the same time.

 Melissia wrote:
Or "I like how this army looks and I think it's fun to play, and if I do it right it can still win". Not "this army is better than a dedicated melee army from a melee-themed force".

By just his core mechanics I think at the end of the day 40k has the list building phase being the most important phase of all of the game, so I think is just impossible to win just by pure hability. You can do this in other games, like a guy winning a Call of Duty game just with a Knive by how good he is. In 40k I doubt that is reachable without changing like... all of the game system.

But I agree tought that ideally differect factions should have variety even if they are as shoe horned into a "theme" as Tau. Full movile shooting Suits Tau, full Auxiliary and Kroot shot ranged shooting army, a mixed and balanced army, etc... everyone of that should be playable and have a chance to win if they are at least build upon sinergyes.

Yes. Marines have it easiest in that regard; their theme is being kinda expensive but good at everything. And that's how they should remain. If you want to specialize you'll play a specialist marine chapter.

With the recent FAQ, it seems GW flyer sales have already peaked? I kid.

So is this GW offically saying spam is bad?

Pancakey wrote:
With the recent FAQ, it seems GW flyer sales have already peaked? I kid.

So is this GW offically saying spam is bad?

No, they were finding a way to balance Fliers without gouging your army points wise. That way you can still do it, but just be prepared for the possible consequences.

Spam doesn't hurt the game. Unbalanced units and armies do. Spamming abusive, unbalanced units may magnify the problem, but ultimately the problem is the unit itself. Fix the unit and any problems with the spam go away.

 NorseSig wrote:
Spam doesn't hurt the game. Unbalanced units and armies do. Spamming abusive, unbalanced units may magnify the problem, but ultimately the problem is the unit itself. Fix the unit and any problems with the spam go away.

I think most people agree with this sentiment.

That being said, do you think GW did the right thing by "balancing" flyer spam with a change to the core rules of the game?

It was that or jack flyer prices up higher.

Martel732 wrote:
It was that or jack flyer prices up higher.

That would work. Or just lower the wounds on the damn flying fortresses already!

A model the size of the raven should have plenty of wounds, though.

Martel732 wrote:
A model the size of the raven should have plenty of wounds, though.

I think an easy fix would be to reduce the wounds to 11

Just to add my thoughts on spam its the point at which if you dont own a specific unit your army is no good. So spam should not be noted with how many of one unit is in an army list but by how many winning list use that unit.

Its funny how no one has mentioned the bane of eldar in 7th. I played a 95% loss in 7th edition because my army was based on blobs of gaurdians with a farseer to guid them and wraithlords walking amidst them firing heavy artillery across the field. Sometimes using wavesperpents to transport tacticle units like dragon and wraith gaurd. For all purposes my army was built to handle any situation except that all my opponents played armies that relied on only one type of attack. Nids flying circus, grey knights dread knight, deamons free summons, necrons warriors that never die, imperial knights oh they got the d cannon from my gaurds. Eldar without jet bikes could only do one thing take on heavy vehicals but nobody was bringing vehicals so the meta was going to force me to buy a different troop choice becasue my 90 points of gaurdians were less effective than 51 points of jetbikes.

So i take the losses and never win local tournies but still complain about that can not win without "min maxing"

My idea for eight is for my clubs to start announcing what detachment(s) the players armies must include which will help to negate some min maxing and force players to build a more well rounded army.