40k, too many comprimises?

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.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

My only disagreement with the original post was that 3rd ed many people left.

It was a golden age in my town for 40k when 3rd ed was released.

The rules became much more playable, it became easier to play with the larger forces the long time players had, new players could pick it up quickly.
For about 4 years it was brilliant (playing at clubs in regional Queensland and in the UK).
Then the wheels started to fall off as too many exceptions were brought in, too many new releases, and the awful trial vehicle rules. :(

I barely played a game of 4th ad and am building an army for 5th because I see more 3rd ed in 5th ed than 4th ed ever had (if that makes sense)

**Orkeosaurus**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
...power is multiplicative or exponential, not additive. That's why nobody cares about single units, but when you max those very same "fair" units out, suddenly, they're no longer fair.

I think this is the hardest problem GW faces in game balance. You just can't kill 180 orks - and you just can't kill 8 monsterous creatures - and you just can't kill an armored company, etc.

GW did try and limit this with the force organization chart; you can't bring 5 Basilisks, so you don't have to worry about the effects of having so many. They also used to have 0-1 or 0-2 limit on some things, but for some reason these look like they're going away. A 0-3 limit on carnifexes would have been good. Nobody needs to have more than 5 monsterous creatures outside of apoc anyway.

With things like ork boys it's trickier; they're a troops choice, so you can't limit them by force organization. A 0-4 limit would hurt KoS players for no reason. Horde orks is fluffy, so putting in a rule that says you can't have over 120 boys might be overly restrictive, but better than the first idea. The most balanced way to do it would be, as you noted, to get rid of the linear cost; make every boy after 100 cost 7 points, after 150 cost 8 points, etc. That might be a lot of math though, if it runs through multiple units in the army. It also makes victory points kind of useless, if you wanted to use them.

**H.B.M.C.**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Having a separate "tourney" system necessarily takes resources away from non-Tourney play.

Tourney system? What are you blathering about now DD?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW makes a Tournament set, those resources aren't available for Apocalypse or anything else.

A 'tournament' isn't a product DD. It's not like you can walk in and buy a book for a tournament. All a tournament requires is a clear, well written and balanced set of rules. That should be the aim of the writers from the get-go. It's not a product that requires resources to be taken away. What imaginary set of standards have you invented for all this bull$hit that you spew on a constant-fething-basis.

Having a clear set of rules benefits everyone. I really cannot fathom why this is such a difficult concept for your mind to grasp.

Bad ruleset = Competitive Players Unhappy & Casual Players don't care.
Good ruleset = Competitive Players Happy & Casual Players don't care.

One is WIN/WIN for everyone, the other is this imaginary land YOU seem to dwell in where making a good set of rules is somehow a separate product that requires resources to be taken away from other areas of the hobby.

And as for your precious Apocalypse, have you read Apoc: Reload, where they basically state that the rules for 5th don’t work with Apoc because of the way scoring is done, and hold their hands up saying ‘Do whatever you want!’ when it comes to working out how you’re going to play it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW notes that Tournament players are 5%

You take everything JJ says as gospel, now don't you DD?

BYE

**Chimera_Calvin**

1. There is no problem with the rules (both core and in individual army codices) that cannot be solved by some combination of:
a) Better initial writing
b) More thorough playtesting
c) Timely and well-written FAQs (these should be a 'living document', BTW, not a rare release)

2. There is no problem with game balance that cannot be solved by:
a) Reviewing points costs (after proper playtesting)
b) Applying appropriate restrictions on unit selection in a standard FOC

I would like someone to explain why doing this would in any way spoil the enjoyment of the 'casual gamer'.
Such improvements would not prevent any of the following things from happening:
'Anything goes' games (such as Apocalypse)
Scenarios or other narrative-driven games
Friendly beer-and-pretzel game evening

I am not advocating removing choice from gamers - I am advocating increasing choice for gamers. The 'three types of tournament player' was spot on.
I can, for example, use my SoB Repentia in friendly play. I love the models and the fluff. Taking them to a tournament would be useless, because I'd be giving my opponent a head start.
Why can't GW give every gamer a chance to use any models they want in all settings? Instead of handing out free 'epic fail' cards for a lot of their products?
Surely this would drive sales up? And encourage exactly the sort of 'fluffy' armies they claim they want to see?

Good, balanced rules don't damage the game. They enhance it for all participants.

**Kilkrazy**

Imagine a codex that has a unit in it like this:

HQ : Big Stompy Guy : Megatough : 250 Points : 0-1

Let's assume that unit is perfectly balanced with the other components of its army and the codex it is in is perfectly balanced with all other codexes. This satisfies the tournament players.

Now suppose you are a "narrative" player and you want to use three of these units in your game. What's stopping you?

**Abadabadoobaddon**

H.B.M.C. wrote:Having a clear set of rules benefits everyone. I really cannot fathom why this is such a difficult concept for your mind to grasp.

Bad ruleset = Competitive Players Unhappy & Casual Players don't care.
Good ruleset = Competitive Players Happy & Casual Players don't care.

One is WIN/WIN for everyone, the other is this imaginary land YOU seem to dwell in where making a good set of rules is somehow a separate product that requires resources to be taken away from other areas of the hobby.

I think there's one very important problem you're forgetting H.B.M.C. - writing a good balanced ruleset is hard. It's really easy to write unbalanced rules, but it's a lot harder to write balanced ones. And the studio doesn't like doing things that are hard.

**Noisy_Marine**

It's easy to sell books and models to kids.

Oh, and it's easy to KICK ASS with the new space marine codex! *air guitar*

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Having a clear set of rules benefits everyone. I really cannot fathom why this is such a difficult concept for your mind to grasp.

Bad ruleset = Competitive Players Unhappy & Casual Players don't care.
Good ruleset = Competitive Players Happy & Casual Players don't care.

One is WIN/WIN for everyone, the other is this imaginary land YOU seem to dwell in where making a good set of rules is somehow a separate product that requires resources to be taken away from other areas of the hobby.

I think there's one very important problem you're forgetting H.B.M.C. - writing a good balanced ruleset is hard. It's really easy to write unbalanced rules, but it's a lot harder to write balanced ones. And the studio doesn't like doing things that are hard.

Actually, I think it would be nigh on impossible. After all, 40k has how many seperate armies? And Fantasy has more. And within those armies there are usually at least a dozen or more basic options, with various possible upgrades etc. You cannot playtest that to destruction. There are simply far, far too many variables introduced to do so in the space of time a Codex or Army Book has to be developed in. Smaller games can manage it by limiting internal variations (for example, in Warmachine, you tend to just buy Unit X, and that is how it comes. Some have optional additions, but to my knowledge, this is for the minority of units). But over time, as your game naturally expands, more and more options crop up.

Seriously people, think about what you are demanding from GW, and then honestly consider the practicalities involved.

**twigg**

so you are saying that because the product would be hard to do we should let GW slide on it?

How is that any different than letting Microsoft go for releasing a buggy as hell operating system. Hell, at least Microsoft gets updates out reasonably fast.

Dont excuse their poor rules writing

**Lanrak**

Hi all.

Perhaps I should point out some facts.

ALL gamers play styles are valid!
From very realxed casual, make it up as you go, to very exact and presise competative play.Its your hobby , enjoy it !(It helps if you play with like minded players.Its worth haveing a pre game chat to make sure both players share game play preferences.

)

There is NO right or wrong JUST DIFFERENT!

Some gamers prefer very detailed skirmish game, and would like a rule set to use 40k minatures in this way.(3D RPG)
How is this request wrong or not valid?

Some gamers like the current 40k rule set,or minor adaptations of it.(Apoc-CoD).
Does this make other game play preferences less valid?

Some gamers prefer a tighter written rule set developed for ballanced competative play, and would like a rule set to use thier 40k minatures in this way.(Tournament play)
How id this request wrong or invalid?

(A skirmish game would be a better intro into 40k than the current 40k rule set IMO.Fewer minis to build-paint, so less investment before you get a feel for a particular force-faction. And this could naturaly lead to current 40k rules set-game.OR the tournament rule set-game.)

The current 40k rule set HAS NEVER been developed with competative play in mind.NO concideration to this style of play has EVER been made.(AFAIK)
This makes getting the current 40k rules 'balanced enough for the competative minded players' practicaly impossible.(Unless GW towers sanction 10,000,000 hours of playtesting.

)

So rather than radicaly change a popular rule set for narrative play.(Current 40k rule set.)To try to 'artificaily inject' more 'ballance'.

Why not develop a NEW rule set for 40k ,with competative play front and formost in the design brief?

To get similar or more complex tactical game play, with much simpler rules and therfore easier to prove levels of (im)ballance.

Any how, thats my thoughts for what they are worth.

TTFN
Lanrak.

**Noisy_Marine**

In other words, develop a new edition to be balanced from day 1. That's what they need to do.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Sadly, the only way to ensure 100% balance at a Tournaments is to Chess it. By that, I mean a single list, drawn up by the organiser which all participants must adhere to.

Why? Every army has an achilles heel, and every army has a potential opponent very good at exploiting it. This is, strictly speaking, not balanced or necessarily fair. For example, Tau tend to do well against Guard, as their main weakness is HTH, which Guard are hardly noted for. Add in the ease Tau have in taking out Armour, and the IG in most cases is facing an uphill struggle from the get go.

And yet, Guard can do better against Nids, as the higher volume, lower strength shots will serve better against Genestealers, Gaunts etc than the Tau Pulse Weapons.

I really think Balance should stem from the missions. Sure, KPs don't work they way they could, this is known, but when it comes down to taking and holding, most armies will have a fair crack at winning this, with the deciding factor being less power lists, and more gamer ability.

**H.B.M.C.**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sadly, the only way to ensure 100% balance at a Tournaments is to Chess it. By that, I mean a single list, drawn up by the organiser which all participants must adhere to.

Nonsense. There are plenty of games that work and have a balanced ruleset that aren't Chess FFS.

BYE

**Orkeosaurus**

I don't think making the game 100% balanced is really necessary. Being more balanced than it is now would still be nice. Some of the balance issues should be clear even before playtesting begins; 6 carnifexes might not be such a good idea, flashgits really aren't going to be able to do much, etc. I could see that flashgits weren't all that great just reading the ork codex for the first time, and when I first heard about 6 carnifexes being allowed in the new tyranid codex I knew that was going to be too much for most armies to handle.

**YojimboJones**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:5th Ed is certainly the most playable of it's various incarnation.

Fairly well written rules, pace is good, and some interesting tactical opportunities just by dropping in running and going to ground. Adds a smidge of realism, without requiring clunky mechanics.

But with regard to studio's view, I do agree. The game is designed as a Hobby. A hobby to me is something to be indulged in with like minded people.

And theres the crunch. Like minded. Me, I don't care for Tournaments. Not my bag at all, so I have a group of fellow gamers who see it as your aforementioned co-operative narrative game. None of us particularly enjoy fighting a Powergamed list, yet we are happy to take on more exotic lists for the change and the challenge (my Dark Elf Monster army being a notorious example).

To be honest, I don't think there can be a mutually satisfying compromise. The Tournament players are welcome to play as competitively as they want, as long as their demands for greater and greater balance (essentially fewer options and a loss of flavour to my mind) don't start infringing on my enjoyment.

So many times I have read things on the Interwebs *demanding* that Option X become 1 per Y,000 points, or 0-1, or something else should be dropped in points. All healthy debate I'm sure, but by taking up Tournaments, you are tying yourself to the rulebook too much. One of the core principals of GW's games (and others) is to do as you will with the rules. Want to tinker, go ahead. Playtest with your circle, find out what suits you best. The rules as sold can be used as they are, sure. But step back from them a bit, and you'll see a framework for a great game. For example, Campaigns.

I wrote an article on the subject for The Watchman which went down quite well. And I encouraged people to use such things as a testbed for new ideas, and to break out the box of self imposed, slavish rules following. Outside of a Tournament, where things need to be as equal as possible, a game does not need to have equal points. Why? Because it is more than possible to write a Scenario where regardless of points, both sides have an equal chance of winning. And it goes further. Want to use a list from Eye of Terror? Go for it. Was balanced then, it's balanced now. Main reason GW don't back it fully is that as a company, their resources are finite and there are far bigger fish to fry first.

Sorry, went on a bit of a gibber there...time to steer back to topic.

Essentially, compromise is not that possible. I don't want a game where everything has been playtested to destruction, as the armies are likely to become clones of each other, even across Codex and Army Book. I like the variety on offer, even if it means things are a bit shonky. Quick bit of houseruling or a Gentlemans Agreement (example being not directing attacks at characters in Warhammer. Reasoning? It's boring, and there such thing as challenge rules!) and you are there. But Tournament players deny themselves this through their own choice....

Very well written, I agree 100% with this viewpoint.

**H.B.M.C.**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Essentially, compromise is not that possible. I don't want a game where everything has been playtested to destruction, as the armies are likely to become clones of each other, even across Codex and Army Book.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Playtesting armies so that they are balanced does not create armies that are clones of one another. One does not automatically cause or lead to the other.

BYE

**Kilkrazy**

Mad Doc Grotsnik, you should have a look at games like WRG Ancients or Field of Glory or Warmaster Ancients.

There is huge variation between different armies yet all are reasonably balanced against each other within the parameters of terrain etc.

(For instance, a mainly heavy cavalry army is always going to have trouble on a table consisting of swamps and mountains.)

And those are games where a man is a man is a man. No SMs or Space Elfs or Nids, with their different base characteristics.

There is no logical reason why game rules cannot cater for a wide variety of fighting styles and still have balance.

**GMMStudios**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why does everybody hate Temple Flameguard

You just made my night.

I honestly didn't know what TFG was before this thread (I know who he is just not that the acronym stood for "that fething guy." But I have played warmachine before!

**JohnHwangDD**

Chimera_Calvin wrote:1. There is no problem with the rules (both core and in individual army codices) that cannot be solved by some combination of:
a) Better initial writing
b) More thorough playtesting
c) Timely and well-written FAQs (these should be a 'living document', BTW, not a rare release)

2. There is no problem with game balance that cannot be solved by:
a) Reviewing points costs (after proper playtesting)
b) Applying appropriate restrictions on unit selection in a standard FOC

I would like someone to explain why doing this would in any way spoil the enjoyment of the 'casual gamer'.

First off, if this were as easy and simple as you say, GW would have done it already. However, what you ask for requires a lot off effort for very little gain. Assuming that this is even possible. Compared to where we are right now, we might be 5% better-balanced at the cost of halving the release schedule (i.e. doubling the time and effort required to produce something). Now if it costs twice as much for only 5% gain in "balance", with no benefit in Fluff or sculpting, is that really a smart business decision?

No, it is a foolish decision.

And that is why GW isn't doing what you want them to.

Now if the cost/benefit ratio were reduced (twice as balanced for only 5% more effort), I'd agree with GW finding a way to do this.

Secondly, GW is moving away from restrictions, to support the casual philosophy that, if GW makes it available, there is no reason not to take as many as the FOC and pocket money budget allow.

twigg wrote:so you are saying that because the product would be hard to do we should let GW slide on it?

Dont excuse their poor rules writing

I would agree, if not for the fact that GW rules quality is better now than at any other time aside from the immediate aftermath of the 3E Rulebook release and all armies were forced to use the Rulebook lists.

I also don't believe that this "perfect" balance that you want exists.

Kilkrazy wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik, you should have a look at games like WRG Ancients or Field of Glory or Warmaster Ancients.

There is huge variation between different armies yet all are reasonably balanced against each other within the parameters of terrain etc.

And those are games where a man is a man is a man. No SMs or Space Elfs or Nids, with their different base characteristics.

There is no logical reason why game rules cannot cater for a wide variety of fighting styles and still have balance.

If these are all human-based games, then I don't think you have anywhere near the variation you have in 40k or WFB. Ogre Kingdoms is hugely different from Undead which is different from Humans or even Elves. Certainly, I don't want Ogres and Elves to be reduced to just Men, as that rather defeats the point.

**Kilkrazy**

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik, you should have a look at games like WRG Ancients or Field of Glory or Warmaster Ancients.

There is huge variation between different armies yet all are reasonably balanced against each other within the parameters of terrain etc.

And those are games where a man is a man is a man. No SMs or Space Elfs or Nids, with their different base characteristics.

There is no logical reason why game rules cannot cater for a wide variety of fighting styles and still have balance.

If these are all human-based games, then I don't think you have anywhere near the variation you have in 40k or WFB. Ogre Kingdoms is hugely different from Undead which is different from Humans or even Elves. Certainly, I don't want Ogres and Elves to be reduced to just Men, as that rather defeats the point.

These are games of historical ancient and medieval warfare. The game factors include something like six armour classes, 5 morale classes, 3 formation classes, two training classes, a variety of weapons with different ranges and different effects on armour and formation, and some rules also have special rules or factors (skilled swordsmen, shock lancers.) On top of all that there are command and control rules giving variability to the way armies are set up and controlled. Also, movement differs by the armour, formation and training classes and by the type of terrain.

I think you can see that there can be a huge variation between an English Wars of the Roses army with a lot of heavy infantry, longbows and some artillery, a Lithuanian army consisting mainly of light cavalry, and an Inca army with no cavalry but lots of fast-moving, disciplined infantry and slings.

All that is done without "racial characteristics", which could easily be added.

[Edited to add more detail.]

**Chimera_Calvin**

@JohnHwangDD - at no point was I saying that balancing armies and writing better rules would be easy or simple to do. What I was saying is that doing so would have no impact on non-tournament games.

As I stated in my post, anyone is at liberty to do what they want with the game as it is now. You can write scenarios, you can play mad games unrestricted by FOC's, anything you like.

If the rules were better and more balanced, tournament play would improve - I haven't heard anyone dispute that. What I would like to hear is a cogent argument from anybody that states that improving rules and game balance would have a detrimental effect on non-tournament players.

**H.B.M.C.**

JohnHwangDD wrote:First off, if this were as easy and simple as you say, GW would have done it already.

False dilemma.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If these are all human-based games, then I don't think you have anywhere near the variation you have in 40k or WFB. Ogre Kingdoms is hugely different from Undead which is different from Humans or even Elves. Certainly, I don't want Ogres and Elves to be reduced to just Men, as that rather defeats the point.

Another false dilema.

You're creating imaginary critiera - both you and Grotsnik are very good at this.

"It can't be done because it's impossible" and "They have different races, therefore it can't be done!" are not arguments. They're nonsense.

BYE

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I said it was very hard to balance it as Tournament Players wish, whilst still leaving the variety open to less competitive play.

For example, themed lists. I love my themed lists, but with the balance wanted for Tournaments, certain themes would be lost.

Seriously, consider the amount of options available to a player when raising a force. There are loads. That there is any balance is surprising all things considered. The books are balanced against the Rulebook, and itself. To do so against all other books would take an age, and most likely require all books to be released simaltaneously, which although possible, is not good business sense.

**Abadabadoobaddon**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Seriously people, think about what you are demanding from GW, and then honestly consider the practicalities involved.

Like what? Like demanding, oh I don't know, that they NOT put things like Fzorgle in the game. You know, like maybe expecting Gav Thorpe to be like, "I got an idea! Let's put Fzorgle in the game! Oh wait, on second thought let's not - because MAYBE THAT WOULD BE slowed." Yeah I guess demanding stuff like that is just not practical.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Yes. Lash. Because including it in your army means you are guaranteed, 100% of the time to win with incredible ease and by a huge margin?

Utter nonsense. And if the utility of a single power is the best arguement you can come up with, the game is pretty much perfectly balanced.

Seriously, so many apparent 'fixes' suggested on the Interwebs are simply people trying to get round a problem they can't on the Battlefield. You know, with tactics, instead of randomly imposed limitations.

As I said, the they way GW designs their lists is internally. The options available are priced within the context of their own list. Hence Orcs in Fantasy are more expensive than you might think, because the Orc player has the option of fielding cheap and cheerful (and not as bad as you might think) Gobbos for a variety of battlefield duties. Like distraction and baiting. Using them thus enables the Orcs to be more of a threat than in a Gobbo free list.

There is a lot more to balancing a list than you guys giver credit.

**JohnHwangDD**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Seriously, so many apparent 'fixes' suggested on the Interwebs are simply people trying to get round a problem they can't on the Battlefield. You know, with tactics, instead of randomly imposed limitations.

There is a lot more to balancing a list than you guys giver credit.

QFT.

Next time, play better!

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

It's not so much about playing better, as being a better player.

Bad workman blames his tools. Bad Players blames his opponents rules. Sometimes there appears to be a mental block preventing a proportion of gamers just accepting their opponent played a blinder, and they weren't in a position to predict or counter it.

Me? I tend to accept I got chinned fair and square. For example, in 45 minutes, I'm off to GW to play Dan's Chaos army. He's using the new book, and I've not had a chance to read it fully. I'm expecting more than a couple of surprises from him which I won't be ready for, and I intend to learn from my mistakes. Though having said that, I do have a cunning, cunning plan up my sleever to wreck his day (Orc Krooz Missile equivalent, straight into his Chaos Lords face!).

Is it the fault of the rules writer that I personally was not prepared for what he has chosen? Of course not. I don't know his army book, let alone his list. My fighting is done on the tabletop, not when I write my list.

So be a better player. Take your licks, accept you defeats as graciously as your victories. And next time, have a plan to prevent his last trick.

**H.B.M.C.**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:For example, themed lists. I love my themed lists, but with the balance wanted for Tournaments, certain themes would be lost.

And you base this on what?

Again, Grotsnik, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Having balanced rules does not automatically (or even logically) lead to lesser options or theme.

BYE

**Kilkrazy**

The game rules are based on maths, probability and logic.

It is absolutely possible to balance everything, it simply depends on how much effort the design team put in.

I accept that 100% balance for everything may not be possible given commercial constraints. However, the problem is there are very obvious cases of imbalance which should not have got into the game. The excuse that it isn't written for tournament players is just a cop-out.

**Lanrak**

Hi all.
The basic original game rules were based on statistical comparisons and probability.
But the addition of several situational and subjective exclusions have made calculable levels of ballance harder.(Marketing requirment has comprimised the integrity of the game play.IMO )

Perfect ballance is theoretical.
However provable levels of imballance is what most competative tournament players require.( That element/unit cost X amount , and here is how we we arrive at that value in a finite way.Not 'well we thought it was about right after playing a few games'.)

The maths involved in accurate PV calculation for 40k are very complex.
And as FoC and numerical restrictions require playtesting , perhaps GW devs are more comfortable with playtesting to get ballance they think is good enough.

As they have limited playtesting resources , any improvment in ballance would mean they reduce the amount of variables.
So to get the current 40k rule set to the required level of 'ballance ' required for 'ballanced competative play' would require comprimising the variety of the units available.
Even then the values and FOC would still be purley subjective.
So what would be the point?

The real problem as far as I can see is lots of competative minded gamers were sold 40k as a game suitable for ballanced competative play.
And after they spent a small fortune on GW product,(over 10 years or so), GW tell them 40k is NOT the game they thought it was!

Oh BTW when I say narrative driven game play, I mean senario based engagments.(Not just make stuff up and change it as you go along.)
Stargrunt II is a good example of a rule set in this style.(I think of it as the game RT would have eventualy developed into.)
(By Ground Zero Games .)

However a new rule set developed SPECIFICALY for competative 40k.(Not a WH clone) would be well recived IMO.

Happy Gaming .
TTFN
Lanrak.