Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wasn't sure where exactly to post this. Since it's part rules speculation, part game inquisition and part pure fantasy, I'll put it here.

1.) Has there ever been a statistical analysis of win percentages of the races? Anywhere? Even independantly?

Why? Because of an old game called S.F.B....

2.) Why hasn't GW looked at shoring up their rules into a final version, released in an open notebook style book that can be updated as needed with errata and codex improvements and tweaks, all in independant packs that you could add into your binders? Heck, GW could even sell custom binders (and they would).

S.F.B. heavily used statistics to balance their system to somewhere around 51-53% win ratio per race regardless of the player! (Assuming they understood the rules, of course) An excellent way to fix all of these complaints regarding older Codex and goofy rule releases (remember the mid 90's rules!).

I guess this applies to Warhammer Fantasy as well.

Just curious what others thoughts were...

GoFenris wrote:
S.F.B. heavily used statistics to balance their system to somewhere around 51-53% win ratio per race regardless of the player!

Man, that would suck. Why would they want to make a system that dosen't reward a player for skill? They already have a game with a 50% win ratio: it's called flipping a coin.

All GW needs to do is (and this will never be done):

1) Release all the codexes simultaneously.

2) Host a tournament with said codexes before they go on sale. That way, all the neckbeards and number crunchers have their chance to break the game, and GW has their chance to fix it.

3) Update faqs frequently.

Honestly, if they did everything to eliminate some unbalancing things, they would make the game too vanilla. There will always be exploits, and I've found that the more balanced the game system is, the more unbalancing every little exploit becomes.

I look at the army lists we have today like its a cold war. There are potentially game breaking lists that can be easily destroyed by other potentially game breaking lists and so on and so on. There should be configurations that aren't that great: like 180 grots compared to 180 Orks. Each race has its specialties, and removing that for the sake of balance would be dreadful.

Honestly, if GW just started releasing everything simultaneously and had more play testing with "extreme" lists, there wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, in most of the games I see/play, the good player almost always win barring terrible luck/deliberately bad list. I know I gobble nob bikers up whenever I see them.

Mekniakal wrote:

Man, that would suck. Why would they want to make a system that dosen't reward a player for skill? They already have a game with a 50% win ratio: it's called flipping a coin.

lmao! Damn good point! Didn't think of it quite that way. I should expand my initial statement and say the ratio was duelling between like class ships.

I agree with you about the rest and that GW would never release it all at the same time. I just grew so frustrated with "the next codex" army being inherently pretty darn stout and the older races growing weaker and weaker (Ok, it has been since the mid/late nineties since I've played).

Loved your thoughts on it! WH40K does have a lot more variety and it seems the newer rules are more balanced but I read some of the Rules threads and arguements and wonder...

GoFenris wrote:

Mekniakal wrote:

Man, that would suck. Why would they want to make a system that dosen't reward a player for skill? They already have a game with a 50% win ratio: it's called flipping a coin.

lmao! Damn good point! Didn't think of it quite that way. I should expand my initial statement and say the ratio was duelling between like class ships.

I agree with you about the rest and that GW would never release it all at the same time. I just grew so frustrated with "the next codex" army being inherently pretty darn stout and the older races growing weaker and weaker (Ok, it has been since the mid/late nineties since I've played).

Loved your thoughts on it! WH40K does have a lot more variety and it seems the newer rules are more balanced but I read some of the Rules threads and arguements and wonder...

That clears up what you were saying quite a bit! I agree that units that are of similar price and fill the same role (assault, shooting, etc.) should have roughly the same chance of victory... once again, modified by player skill.

Honestly, I feel the new codexes and the new rules are fixing a lot of the problems people used to suffer from. For example, the Space Marine and Ork codex (and I still believe eldar and chaos ones, though the chaos one is a bit bland) play differently, but are both capable of producing powerful lists that are not only effective, but fun.

Also, remember, a lot of the complaints on the rules thread is just typical internet banter; people always complain longer and harder on the net. I rarely see people field annoying, unbeatable armies: and if they do, usually just being a better player will let you go for the win. I love it when I win against a list that I know my opponent made specifically to counter mine. Also, a lot of it is short-sighted, and people just can't see the versatility of some units: now, I don't take this a far some people do, but a lot of things in my Ork codex can be extremely with the right list- barring tank bustas and flash gits, of course .

For example, normal bikers are considered a sub-par unit thanks to their morale save, but I've found that they are right killy in my battlewagon list thanks to synergy: My battlewagons can easily screen my bikers from any legitimate threats until it is time to start focus firing on specific units.