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.

That's true. But we don't have a little imbalance, we have great big, can't believe the designers didn't see this imbalances.

It's one thing to say that it's hard to balance a Panzer and a Sherman in a WWII game. It's another to say it's equally hard to balance a Chaos Predator, a SM Predator and a SW Predator...

Actually the Panzer IV and Sherman (especially the later editions of both tanks) weren't really that different in terms of capability, they just specialized in different kinds of tank warfare.

 Redbeard wrote:
That's true. But we don't have a little imbalance, we have great big, can't believe the designers didn't see this imbalances.

It's one thing to say that it's hard to balance a Panzer and a Sherman in a WWII game. It's another to say it's equally hard to balance a Chaos Predator, a SM Predator and a SW Predator...

That's a fair point. To a certain extent I suspect it has to do with the different ages of the codices meaning they're written with different versions of the rules (not to mention the other armies) in mind, and there may be some amount of "wow, Rune Priests are really unbalanced now. We'll have to fix that in the next SW codex."

Is the issue with the CSM, SM, and SW predators that they're too similar in dissimilar armies, or that they're too dissimilar (one more powerful than the others, for e.g.) for the same models/points cost?

 Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:a unit worth 100 points in codex A should be comparable in value to a unit worth 100 points in codex B.

points don't balance.

It's almost like you took a single line out of context to respond to.
And you even agree with me - taken from your blog link:

Points only start to work as a balancer the more that things are controlled for. If you're talking about units within a single codex, and that have a limited number or limited combinations (you must take a certain unit to unlock others, etc.), then they start to work better. As it is, GW is going in the opposite direction, which is why points costs, even if they were accurate, are doing a progressively worse and worse job of acting as a balancer.

Currently, point costs don't work for comparison cross codex. They should.

office_waaagh wrote:

That's a fair point. To a certain extent I suspect it has to do with the different ages of the codices meaning they're written with different versions of the rules (not to mention the other armies) in mind, and there may be some amount of "wow, Rune Priests are really unbalanced now. We'll have to fix that in the next SW codex."

But good design wouldn't see an ever-increasing power level for new codexes. I mean, I understand that the business model they're using is based on selling as much of the new thing as possible as fast as possible, so as to recoup its cost as fast as possible, before moving on to the next thing, but this is a flawed approach that ends up creating a situation where at least 50% of their product line is not a good buy (gamewise) at any given time.

There shouldn't be a huge need to completely re-price every model with each release.

Is the issue with the CSM, SM, and SW predators that they're too similar in dissimilar armies, or that they're too dissimilar (one more powerful than the others, for e.g.) for the same models/points cost?

That's an interesting question, and speaks to the two contrasting goals of game design. One one hand, you have the idea that you want to differentiate different factions. But, you also want to balance them. The correct approach to this is to use availability as your tool for differentiation, and cost as your tool for balance.

There's really nothing wrong with a couple of similar factions having access to the same unit, as long as they pay the same price for it.

Where it goes wrong is when the developer decides that availability isn't a tool they want to use. We've seen this progress through GW development, where back in 3rd ed, it was not uncommon to see units that were 0-1 or 0-2, to now, where that's doesn't happen anymore. They chose to disregard that tool, in favour of (hopefully) selling more of each model kit. That might be good for short-term business, but when it leads to an unbalanced game, I can't see it being good for the long-term, as more and more players leave to play games that are more balanced (and fun). Availability can also help with balance; I doubt anyone would complain about a riptide if it were a 0-1 choice (reflecting it's supposed new, experimental status). It'd be a strong piece, but just one piece.

So, without availability, they turn to cost as a way to differentiate armies. Space Wolves like combat more than Ultramarines, so to reflect that, Space Wolves get an extra attack/model at no extra cost (in the form of a CCW). Well, all other things remaining constant, if one army has freebies that they don't pay for, and the other doesn't, you know up-front that this isn't a balanced game. The new SM codex now offers some freebies to each chapter, so the comparison with SW may be dated, but it's the concept that's important here, not the specifics. If I'm allowed to take 3 predators as a legal army list, and you're allowed to take 3 identical predators, then we should have a balanced game. But if your predators cost less than my predators, allowing you to take something else in addition to your predators, this isn't going to be a fair game. And to claim that it's because your chapter has a natural affinity for predators might sound like a good fluffy rational, but it doesn't change the fact that we're both playing legal armies, and you've got a decided advantage on the tabletop. This is why cost should never be used to differentiate factions - it's the wrong tool for the job, and inherently leads to an unbalanced game.

Interesting discussion. Thanks all for some thought provoking replies.

MadmanMSU wrote:
This is a complete cop out. Just because you can't figure out how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Same goes for GW. This is not an issue of "this is impossible to do", it's an issue of "they don't put the time in to do it"***.

Could they make improvements? Definitely. Could they balance things to the extent that any reasonable fluffy list would stand a chance against a flavor of the month WAAC list? I doubt it. FAQ out one cheese build and the netlisters will invent three more.

***I would also accept that its not about them putting the time in to fix the game, but instead that a balanced game is simply not in the 40k vision of GW. Making a balanced game is simply not what they aim to do. Their goal is to put gorgeous models on the table and help players narrate a story. That's it.

I think this is true - the 'beer and pretzels' comment does seem to point that way. I think it's telling that at a time when computer games are busily chasing the next big thing of e-sports GW are definitely not trying to expand 40K into an 'official' tournament scene.

 Redbeard wrote:


But good design wouldn't see an ever-increasing power level for new codexes. I mean, I understand that the business model they're using is based on selling as much of the new thing as possible as fast as possible, so as to recoup its cost as fast as possible, before moving on to the next thing, but this is a flawed approach that ends up creating a situation where at least 50% of their product line is not a good buy (gamewise) at any given time.

There shouldn't be a huge need to completely re-price every model with each release.

I see what you're getting at, but on the other hand if they're releasing new models and updated rules they're going to have to rebalance things once in a while. If you've got a new unit that fills an intentional "gap" in an army, you need to compensate by creating a weakness elsewhere so that they don't become broken (at least, not in the long term). This has a cascading effect whereby the whole codex needs to be rebalanced.

I think a good example of putting the game ahead of selling models is the refusal to allow new units like fliers and centurions into SM variant lists based on older codices. SW can't take storm ravens or storm talons; although this means that those players won't be buying the models, the codex wasn't designed with fliers in mind and it would need to be rebalanced before they could be included. It seems to me that having a few of the armies outdated at any given time is the cost of having a game that evolves and adapts.

I sort of agree with you on the idea of using availability for differentiation and cost for balance. I think the issue is that the same unit doesn't necessarily work the same or have the same synergy with each army. SW get a free close combat attack and counter-attack to boot, but can't take heavy weapons in their tactical squads (whether this is a fair trade-off is debatable). A predator might be more powerful in one army than another simply because one army might have several options for a "mobile tank-killer" role while the other has only one, or one army has a unit that makes the predator more powerful when they're used together.

It's fairly common for heavy weapons to cost more for a dedicated heavy weapons squad than for a unit of troops, because the troops have to sacrifice their mobility to use the heavy weapon effectively while the dedicated heavy weapons unit can be placed in a static position. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine them massaging the points values a bit depending on the role a model might have within a given army (a static shooting unit would be worth less to a mobile Dark Eldar army than to a ponderous IG army, surely?) Maybe a storm raven would need to be worth more points in a SW army because it would have the ability to drop a venerable dreadnought into the middle of the battlefield, as an example of an identical model being worth more to one army than another.

This plays into the main fallacy about balance: that it is for competitive players.

Look, competitive players will play whatever is good. They'll get fast paintjobs, just enough to qualify for the standard of the tournament. They'll sell an army as soon as it's no longer top-tier, and move on with no regrets. Competitive tournament players do not care if the game is well balanced or not, they will use only the best units, regardless of how much better those units are.

It's casual players who suffer from an unbalanced game. The guy who goes into the store, and falls in love with Chaos Raptor models, and buys a few boxes, only to lose every game in which he fields them. That guy isn't a competitive player, he's a victim of poor game design. And, he's more likely to stop playing as well. You know how many times I've read this comment on here:

Poster 1: I bought these models, and am trying to make my army work, but I keep losing, can someone help.

Poster 2: Those models don't work very well, you should buy these other models instead.


Poster 1 isn't a "competitive player"....

A balanced game is more beneficial to the casual, fluffy player than to the hardcore tournament goer.

I don't understand why so many posters are treating game balance of any game with asymmetrical factions as some impossible, intractable problem. Blizzard has released not one, but two, versions of Starcraft each of which has three completely unique races each with their own distinct sets of units and each and have managed to precisely balance each an every unit correctly with respect to rest. This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is entirely possible to balance multiple distinct factions in an asymmetrical wargame if one is only willing to spend the time and effort. No divine intervention is required, you just have to care about your product and your customers.

Additionally, those of us who would like to see balance improvements real aren't looking for anything approaching the precision of Starcraft. We just want everything roughly in the same ballpark. Take those outliers, such as your Heldrakes, Nightscythes, Riptides, Waveserpents on one side and your Rough Riders, Nephilim, Pyrovores, Razorsharks at the other extreme and adjust them at least to the point where the cease to become auto-includes and auto-rejects. If your average player can identify the under and over powered units in the game and propose fixes, than certainly the professionals at GW can bring them in line if only they spend the time.

I think Games Workshop is the fuel and we are the fire. As long as we eat the fuel, GW will keep giving it to us. So yea it if we stop eating the fuel then then they will either change what they give us or "starve" us.

Hence why I believe it starts with the players to fix the game rather than GW.

Not saying GW is free from blame, but players arent free from it either. 1 wont change without the other.

office_waaagh wrote:

I see what you're getting at, but on the other hand if they're releasing new models and updated rules they're going to have to rebalance things once in a while. If you've got a new unit that fills an intentional "gap" in an army, you need to compensate by creating a weakness elsewhere so that they don't become broken (at least, not in the long term). This has a cascading effect whereby the whole codex needs to be rebalanced.

Well, there's two flaws in this thinking. The first is that you can't create a weak unit in order to create a weakness in a faction, as the weak unit, unless made mandatory, simply won't be taken. And the other is that, with the allies system, I'm not even sure they can create intentional gaps anymore. What's the point of saying Space Wolves can't have a flyer, if they can ally with ultramarines, who bring the flyers?

.... It seems to me that having a few of the armies outdated at any given time is the cost of having a game that evolves and adapts.

Except that other companies seem to manage it. You can evolve the game by releasing some units for each faction, along with their rules, rather than redoing entire factions. It's not the model GW chose, but we've seen enough examples of how their decision making is flawed that this should not be a surprise.

I sort of agree with you on the idea of using availability for differentiation and cost for balance. I think the issue is that the same unit doesn't necessarily work the same or have the same synergy with each army. SW get a free close combat attack and counter-attack to boot, but can't take heavy weapons in their tactical squads (whether this is a fair trade-off is debatable). A predator might be more powerful in one army than another simply because one army might have several options for a "mobile tank-killer" role while the other has only one, or one army has a unit that makes the predator more powerful when they're used together.

But both of these are exactly what I'm saying. Space Wolves are different from Ultramarines -because- they can't take a heavy weapon. That's a perfect example of availability in action, creating differences between the factions. Now, take the SW unit and the Ultra unit, and assume that the Ultra player did not buy a heavy weapon (a completely legal choice he made). Why is the SW player getting his advantages for free? That's poor balance.

As for the predator, it's the same thing. The fact that one army has fewer options to choose from is an example of availability creating differences. But that doesn't mean that his predators should be overpriced as a result.

It's fairly common for heavy weapons to cost more for a dedicated heavy weapons squad than for a unit of troops, because the troops have to sacrifice their mobility to use the heavy weapon effectively while the dedicated heavy weapons unit can be placed in a static position. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine them massaging the points values a bit depending on the role a model might have within a given army (a static shooting unit would be worth less to a mobile Dark Eldar army than to a ponderous IG army, surely?)

Not the same thing. If it's legal for us to make essentially the same army, then we should pay the same points. Making a unit cost more based on implied extra efficiency of that unit is fine, and then it is up to the player to make it worth what he paid for it. But making it cost more (or less) than the same thing in another army is flawed design, and just leads to people not taking the overpriced ones.

Maybe a storm raven would need to be worth more points in a SW army because it would have the ability to drop a venerable dreadnought into the middle of the battlefield, as an example of an identical model being worth more to one army than another.

But SM's can drop ven dreads too. And if SW ven dreads are better than SM dreads, their price should reflect that, not the transport that may not even have a dread passenger. You start to see how this works?

One possibility that just occurred to me is that they may balance the points values with the idea that you'll know in advance what army you're going to be playing against. Pyrovores are basically useless in a "take all-comers" list, but against Orks or IG (or even dismounted Tau) I could see a unit of them covered by a venomthrope and hidden behind a carnifex being almost absurdly powerful.

Maybe this explains some of the otherwise nonsensical decision on points costs?

I think the comparison with Starcraft is flawed; Blizzard can issue minor changes and tweaks as they go as updates, while 40k needs a whole new edition (or at least an extensive errata) to do the same. Starcraft has only three factions, making a "rock-paper-scissors" balance easier to achieve. They can collect vast amounts of data in real time. So at the very least Blizzard has an easier time of it, at any rate.

Do GW make a balanced rule-set?

Do GW want to make a balanced rule-set?

Has GW ever provided a balanced rule-set (through design)?

No, No and No.

Time and again GW tell us they are not interested in balance and only in some kind of contrived version of narrative play.

Once you understand that GW really has no current interest in balancing, prototyping and or extensive playtesting you are left with a few options.

Play the game as GW intend - with your own narrative elements added.

Play the released rules as is with no narrative element or campaign etc.

Say thank you GW i'll go and modify this information you have provided me with so I can play my version of the game.

GW do not care what you figure out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

office_waaagh wrote:
One possibility that just occurred to me is that they may balance the points values with the idea that you'll know in advance what army you're going to be playing against. Pyrovores are basically useless in a "take all-comers" list, but against Orks or IG (or even dismounted Tau) I could see a unit of them covered by a venomthrope and hidden behind a carnifex being almost absurdly powerful.

Maybe this explains some of the otherwise nonsensical decision on points costs?

I think the comparison with Starcraft is flawed; Blizzard can issue minor updates and tweaks as they go as updates, while 40k needs a whole new edition (or at least an extensive errata) to do the same. Starcraft has only three factions, making a "rock-paper-scissors" balance easier to achieve. They can collect vast amounts of data in real time. So at the very least Blizzard has an easier time of it, at any rate.

GW could have looked at the amount grammatical errors, typos and other errors that lie at the heart of rules disputes any time in the last 25 years and said -you know - maybe we should proof read this junk.

Instead of offering one of the core tennets of playing their games systems - roll a d6 for disputes - meaning the rules can change every game you play. AND numerous errata.

 Redbeard wrote:

Well, there's two flaws in this thinking. The first is that you can't create a weak unit in order to create a weakness in a faction, as the weak unit, unless made mandatory, simply won't be taken. And the other is that, with the allies system, I'm not even sure they can create intentional gaps anymore. What's the point of saying Space Wolves can't have a flyer, if they can ally with ultramarines, who bring the flyers?

I didn't necessarily mean "create a weak unit" when I said "create a weakness"; I was thinking more along the lines of tweaking something like taking one unit's deep strike away to compensate for a newly introduced unit being able to take a flyer as a dedicated transport for example (I don't mean that this specific example would necessarily be a good idea).

But yeah, you've got a point about the allies matrix sort of ruining things in that respect.

Except that other companies seem to manage it. You can evolve the game by releasing some units for each faction, along with their rules, rather than redoing entire factions. It's not the model GW chose, but we've seen enough examples of how their decision making is flawed that this should not be a surprise.

It's not necessarily flawed decision making, I don't think; they have a specific strategy that they're pursuing. It's not the strategy I'd have chosen, I'd make the rules available for free on the grounds that it would lower the barrier to entry for new players, but there you have it. Again, I think the problem is internally balancing all the units within a codex against the others as well as against the other armies.

But both of these are exactly what I'm saying. Space Wolves are different from Ultramarines -because- they can't take a heavy weapon. That's a perfect example of availability in action, creating differences between the factions. Now, take the SW unit and the Ultra unit, and assume that the Ultra player did not buy a heavy weapon (a completely legal choice he made). Why is the SW player getting his advantages for free? That's poor balance.

As for the predator, it's the same thing. The fact that one army has fewer options to choose from is an example of availability creating differences. But that doesn't mean that his predators should be overpriced as a result.

Well put. I don't mean to defend the SW codex necessarily; it just comes down to whether you think that tactical flexibility should have a points value associated with it. I don't, and I think grey hunters especially are undercosted, but I can see the argument for the other side.

If it's legal for us to make essentially the same army, then we should pay the same points. Making a unit cost more based on implied extra efficiency of that unit is fine, and then it is up to the player to make it worth what he paid for it. But making it cost more (or less) than the same thing in another army is flawed design, and just leads to people not taking the overpriced ones.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't have a problem with a unit's point value being determined by its effectiveness within the context of the codex from which it is chosen rather than its objective abilities. Although, as you rightly point out above, the allies matrix makes this type of balancing much less effective.

I think the comparison with Starcraft is flawed; Blizzard can issue minor changes and tweaks as they go as updates, while 40k needs a whole new edition (or at least an extensive errata) to do the same. Starcraft has only three factions, making a "rock-paper-scissors" balance easier to achieve. They can collect vast amounts of data in real time. So at the very least Blizzard has an easier time of it, at any rate.

The original Starcraft was largely balanced right out of the box. The continual patches are largely there to satisfy the ultra-competitive e-sports crowd and is supporting a level of balancing precision well beyond what I believe most players in 40k would demand. We are talking about not letting things like the heldrakes slip through the cracks, not about balancing the game for people who play it professionally. Given the far more lax standard, balancing the game without constant patching should be feasible provided it was actually attempted.

 ashcroft wrote:
Could they make improvements? Definitely. Could they balance things to the extent that any reasonable fluffy list would stand a chance against a flavor of the month WAAC list? I doubt it. FAQ out one cheese build and the netlisters will invent three more.
.

Why not?

40k is the only game that fragments and divides it's player base with the artificially different concepts like 'Waac' lists and 'fluffy' lists. It has the end result of someone like you taking the consequence of their poor design, thinking it's great and assuming that that is all it can ever be, and failing to see that gws methodology isn't true if the industry, nor is it a gold standard. In other games like warmachine or infinity, you just take lists. There is no Waac or fluff list - they're one and the same. There is no discrepancy between 'fluff' and 'power', your belief that they are somehow mutually exclusive is incorrect.

In any case, why couldn't a fluffy list operate on the same level as something else? Good design is all it takes, and dont confuse gws design philosophy with this - gw doesn't have a decent (or coherent) design philosophy -look to other manufacturers - see how they aimfor both balance and immersion and often succeed.

Rogue Trader. The game you are playing came from that game. If you need some perspextive on what kind of game you're plating, play some Rogue Trader. Want balance? Play Malifuax, or whatever else. Want a game with fun armies and aweet models and a rich universe? Play 40k. But stop bitching. We all know the game.

 purplkrush wrote:
Rogue Trader. The game you are playing came from that game. If you need some perspextive on what kind of game you're plating, play some Rogue Trader. Want balance? Play Malifuax, or whatever else. Want a game with fun armies and aweet models and a rich universe? Play 40k. But stop bitching. We all know the game.

That's somewhat stupid of you to say.. if GW encourages tournaments then they have the courage to call their products balanced unless they expect everyone to housecomp everything to make it playable.

Telling someone to stop expecting balance from a game focused on competitive play is mentally impaired at best, please - reconsider your stance in this matter.

What people state in most cases are valid points - not everyone wants to have to make house rules and discuss everything with the opponent every game - if the system was balanced enough like WarmaHordes everything they would have to discuss would be the points they're gonna be playing and that is the state of balance everyone seems to want. That or bring in MtG-like format comps to set apart tournament and casual play rules-wise.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Do GW make a balanced rule-set?

Play the game as GW intend - with your own narrative elements added.

Play the released rules as is with no narrative element or campaign etc.

Say thank you GW i'll go and modify this information you have provided me with so I can play my version of the game.

But how do you find opponent to play this your version of the game . Unless people are lower in the food chain then you , you won't be able to make them play the game your way. I see shop owners oppose FW , because they don't sell it . They are the ones that have tables , so they can enforce the rule. If someone wanted to do the same , he or she would have to own a FLGS .

Makumba wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Do GW make a balanced rule-set?

Play the game as GW intend - with your own narrative elements added.

Play the released rules as is with no narrative element or campaign etc.

Say thank you GW i'll go and modify this information you have provided me with so I can play my version of the game.

But how do you find opponent to play this your version of the game . Unless people are lower in the food chain then you , you won't be able to make them play the game your way. I see shop owners oppose FW , because they don't sell it . They are the ones that have tables , so they can enforce the rule. If someone wanted to do the same , he or she would have to own a FLGS .

There are always like minded players around. Thats why we have so many differing ways of playing. Thats why most of us find people to play with. I have never heard of a FLGs dictating how players play their game either. Just what models are allowed. Which is usually not connected to the games but more directed about sales.

And you find players by asking if they would like to try your version of the game. You dont ask the store owner what he wants you and your buddy to play (unless things are radically different in your country). Its so easy to find a game to play with enjoyment if you simply talk about it. Oh so easy. Given most people are reasonable.


I will admit though, if you play at a GW you are disadvantaged big time.

I rather sure that the way the game is played is dictated by the avarge salary . I understand that people in the UK or US have more money . We have less money , so we buy only the units that are good and build armies in a such a way that they can play the most opponents.

People talk about 10 riptides or 10 helldrakes lists and how unbound is bad , when I on the other hand know that no one here would buy 10 of those . Not because they are good or bad, but because spending so much money on an army that you may never get to play is not going to happen.

As not going to shops that have their own house rules goes. Where do you play then . Sure one can buy an army and only play at tournaments , but that is a lot of money spend on something one may use 7-9 time per year.


I don't play at a GW , there is only one in the whole country and they only let noobs that buy from them play there , and give them the boot as soon as they stop buying stuff.

Well to be honest your area seems very weird compared to anywhere I have played. Shops with rules on how to play? Seems odd.

Here nobody buys anything like that too. I have never met someone who purchased an army or units simply because it was good. Usually buying units that are good and only units that are good is wasteful because those units are always the ones that get worse over time.

But wouldnt it be better to work WITH the people you play with to buy units. I know its a bit late now, but even as a kid we planned our armies together as we went to avoid any issues. We could barely afford models so thats why we did it.

Good, GW stores are aweful haha.

I know exactly where you are coming from though, but with research, communication and planning you can slowly turn things around. But of course, as you who is currently in that situation knows, its much harder to do when you have already gone down that path.

I sympathize with you, however id call your situation a special one.

In the case of the grey knights guy, proxying could get him playing again. As he proxies he will learn what he needs to be part of the club. Of course that doesnt fully mend what has been done.

Phanixis wrote:

I think the comparison with Starcraft is flawed; Blizzard can issue minor changes and tweaks as they go as updates, while 40k needs a whole new edition (or at least an extensive errata) to do the same. Starcraft has only three factions, making a "rock-paper-scissors" balance easier to achieve. They can collect vast amounts of data in real time. So at the very least Blizzard has an easier time of it, at any rate.

The original Starcraft was largely balanced right out of the box. The continual patches are largely there to satisfy the ultra-competitive e-sports crowd and is supporting a level of balancing precision well beyond what I believe most players in 40k would demand. We are talking about not letting things like the heldrakes slip through the cracks, not about balancing the game for people who play it professionally. Given the far more lax standard, balancing the game without constant patching should be feasible provided it was actually attempted.

There's also no reason that GW can't patch the tabletop game as much as a company patches a video game now that internet access is basically universal. Anyone can check for the latest full update to the game, and a changelog can show you cleanly what's changed between each patch.

This wouldn't be that hard for GW to do.

40k Update v 6.14
"Since the update last month, several balance issues were brought to our attention and we reworded a section to make the rules cause less confusion"
*** Changelog ***
- Vendettas have been performing far better than we expected. They now cost 170 points (up from 130) and have transport capacity reduced to 6 (from 11).
- Rough Riders are underperforming to the extent players feel penalized if they take them. They now cost x (from y) and have the z special rule.
- Reworded so and so rule from xxx to yyy.

*** Full list of updates since game launch ***
blah
blah
blah

I also thoroughly disagree with the OPs premise, but others have already covered why.

office_waaagh wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You want BALANCE. Go play Risk, otherwise keep the complaining to a minimum and realize there is no such thing as BALANCE in war. And this is exactly what we are playing, a WAR game.

I'm sorry for not relating to the rest of your post but after reading this quote I really, really have to say that it's the greatest heap of feces I've ever read regarding any tabletop system. I think that if we ever build a pile of bull as high as that, the Earth would probably hit the moon with it like a huge baseball bat.

Are you really telling us that we should not expect balance from a wargame because it's about war..? I mean.. are you telling us that if we want a balanced game we should go somewhere else? Seriously? I.. I think I need some chamomile tea and a break from humanity for the rest of the evening.

I understand what he's getting at, even if it's sort of poorly phrased. Risk is perfectly balanced, everybody gets the same armies, same units, same numbers at the start, etc. In 40k everybody has different armies, so it's always going to be a little unbalanced. I mean, you couldn't accurately represent a Sherman tank, a Panther tank, and a T-45 in a WWII game and still have it balanced perfectly like a game of Risk. The points system and FOC mostly compensates for this pretty effectively, but with the sheer number of different units and wargear items, inevitably there will be the odd combination that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I broadly agree with the OPs thesis that the only way to eliminate this completely would be overly and undesirably restrictive, and a little imbalance is the price we have to pay for the freedom we have to play the models/armies that we want.

You clarified better than I did lol, I get annoyed with people whining so much that I lose coherency sometimes.

 Klerych wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:
Rogue Trader. The game you are playing came from that game. If you need some perspextive on what kind of game you're plating, play some Rogue Trader. Want balance? Play Malifuax, or whatever else. Want a game with fun armies and aweet models and a rich universe? Play 40k. But stop bitching. We all know the game.

That's somewhat stupid of you to say.. if GW encourages tournaments then they have the courage to call their products balanced unless they expect everyone to housecomp everything to make it playable.

Telling someone to stop expecting balance from a game focused on competitive play is mentally impaired at best, please - reconsider your stance in this matter.

What people state in most cases are valid points - not everyone wants to have to make house rules and discuss everything with the opponent every game - if the system was balanced enough like WarmaHordes everything they would have to discuss would be the points they're gonna be playing and that is the state of balance everyone seems to want. That or bring in MtG-like format comps to set apart tournament and casual play rules-wise.

This seems to get to the heart of the issue; people are broadly falling into two camps. On the one hand there are the people that agree with the OP, and believe that the game should be fun, fluffy, and cool first and foremost, and as long as the codices are roughly balanced against each other they're happy. If the odd oversight leads to an exploit or a particular army becoming overpowered, you can just agree with your gaming buddies not to play that army list. This is considered a small price to pay for having the freedom to play the game as you like and use cool models. On the other hand there is a group of people that believes the game should be balanced perfectly out of the box, and that you should never have to worry about showing up for an open game night and looking at an all-deathstar list across the table and have to basically start packing up before you begin. That you do speaks to a deep flaw in the system of rules, points values, and codices.

I'm more sympathetic to the first view, mainly because the second seems like just complaining for its own sake to me. I understand that there is frustration over this issue, and quite justifiably so. Ultimately, however, the game we have is the game GW makes. If we don't like it, we can take our business elsewhere and they'll change their tune right quick or lose their fanbase, which choice they are free to make for themselves. The "gentleman's agreement" school of thought seems more constructive to me; take the game we have and sand down the rough edges among ourselves, and then get on with having fun.

Klerych has the right idea, I think, in that the best solution would be for them to create a system to separate tournaments from casual play. I think it can be generally agreed that the "unbound" armies from the upcoming edition will be hopeless in tournaments, and it will just be a competition of who can make the beardiest list. It may be wishful thinking, but if enough people email GW customer service asking after this it might get the designers to take notice.

office_waaagh, I wish I could type like you! My opinions would not sound so harsh haha.

But I agree with that very much. Well mostly.

 Klerych wrote:

This seems to get to the heart of the issue; people are broadly falling into two camps. On the one hand there are the people that agree with the OP, and believe that the game should be fun, fluffy, and cool first and foremost, and as long as the codices are roughly balanced against each other they're happy. If the odd oversight leads to an exploit or a particular army becoming overpowered, you can just agree with your gaming buddies not to play that army list. This is considered a small price to pay for having the freedom to play the game as you like and use cool models. On the other hand there is a group of people that believes the game should be balanced perfectly out of the box, and that you should never have to worry about showing up for an open game night and looking at an all-deathstar list across the table and have to basically start packing up before you begin. That you do speaks to a deep flaw in the system of rules, points values, and codices.

You mischaracterise the second camp. No one thinks you can balance a game perfectly. The argument is that it is balanced so horribly that with minimal effort it could be balanced so much better that it's ridiculous, with *no* sacrifice in fluff, fun or cool factor. In fact, it would substantially enhance the fun by stopping casual players from being penalised so harshly. A number example would be, you could go from an 80/20 win rate of Blood Angels to a 60/40 win rate. It's still not perfectly balanced, but it's close enough as to be fun to play at 60/40 whereas 80/20 is not.

Ultimately, however, the game we have is the game GW makes. If we don't like it, we can take our business elsewhere and they'll change their tune right quick or lose their fanbase, which choice they are free to make for themselves.

What a great idea - never offer constructive criticism or air complaints about something and result in nothing ever getting improved. I always use starcraft as an example because it's something I'm more familiar with. Blizzard of course goes off of their own statistics and tests, but also off of feedback from the community. When the community - from casuals to pro gamers offer feedback, Blizzard gets a much better impression of what needs tweaking, and how they should tweak it. Some things can be imbalanced at the casual level but balanced at the pro level for example, which would necessitate a different change than one unbalanced at both.

The "gentleman's agreement" school of thought seems more constructive to me; take the game we have and sand down the rough edges among ourselves, and then get on with having fun.

I'd much prefer a gentleman's agreement without the manual labour of sanding down the rough edges every game so you can get straight to the fun, that doesn't seem unreasonable as it's doable in virtually every other game.

Klerych has the right idea, I think, in that the best solution would be for them to create a system to separate tournaments from casual play.

That's ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason that a balanced ruleset will harm casual play - far from it, it will improve it even more than it will competitive play.

I think it can be generally agreed that the "unbound" armies from the upcoming edition will be hopeless in tournaments

That's just naive. If all you're expecting is 10 riptides or 10 heldrakes, you haven't looked at how poorly balanced codices are. Most suffer from extremely lopsided FoC slots. Chaos and necrons have amazing fast attack but shoddy elites. Most have good heavy support. You'll be seeing 5-10 fast attack choices made of several types of units such as chaos bikes, heldrakes and spawn, not just straight heldrakes.

Yonan, I'll forgo quoting your reply at length to save space. It wasn't my intention to make the "the game is unbalanced" camp appear unreasonable, and I apologize for the confusion if my wording did so. I'm just not sure that you can simply rebalance a dozen or more armies while still introducing new models and units quite so easily as you suggest. I certainly don't know how to do it, at any rate, and I solve statistics problems for a living. The number of degrees of freedom is daunting, to say the least.

You are correct, of course; if there are flaws we perceive in the system, we should raise them and seek to have them addressed. Indeed, I heartily encourage doing so with GW customer service.

We all play the same game, and we're never all going to agree on what we want. Some people are happy with the game the way it is, while others find it unbalanced and believe the game suffers for it. Neither group is wrong, in any objective sense. I have fun with the game in its current format, and I enjoy the flexibility. The people that say it's unbalanced are just as correct; they're not having fun, and they are rightly raising the issues that they believe are getting in the way.

I think that a separate set of rules for tournaments or less casual play is the best of both worlds. It retains the flexibility that some parts of the community enjoy while offering a more structured and objectively balanced system for those who prefer it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, there are enough similar replies as well as the OP himself on the thread to suggest that at the very least I'm in a sizeable minority, if the split isn't closer to even. But by all means, I am open to alternate suggestions, and this is just my personal opinion.

To a certain extent, I'm just trying to be realistic. The design philosophy that informs GW's decisions is only within our influence to a very limited extent, and we don't all agree on whether it's the right one or not. Some people like the "rule of cool" style, while others would prefer a more objectively balanced game even if it meant a more limited wargear selection (for example). We should raise our issues and complaints; we are the customers, after all, and we have a reasonable expectation of getting something worth our significant investment. But at the end of the day, the game they make is the game we have, and I'd rather just get on with having fun. So far, for me, the rules haven't gotten in the way of that objective.

office_waaagh wrote:
I think that a separate set of rules for tournaments or less casual play is the best of both worlds. It retains the flexibility that some parts of the community enjoy while offering a more structured and objectively balanced system for those who prefer it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, there are enough similar replies as well as the OP himself on the thread to suggest that at the very least I'm in a sizeable minority, if the split isn't closer to even. But by all means, I am open to alternate suggestions, and this is just my personal opinion.

This seems based on the false assertion that better balance reduces flexibility when it's actually the opposite. Better balance greatly improves the flexibility of the players by ensuring more units are viable and you can basically guarantee a good game regardless of what you or the other player want to take. You can have balanced asymmetrical gameplay without having identical units, this should be beyond question given the huge number of examples we have to prove it.

 ashcroft wrote:
Could they make improvements? Definitely. Could they balance things to the extent that any reasonable fluffy list would stand a chance against a flavor of the month WAAC list? I doubt it. FAQ out one cheese build and the netlisters will invent three more.

It's hilarious that you make it sound so impossible. The current market shows making a well designed ruleset with asymetrical forces that caters to people building from background and people building from a competitive standpoint and allowing them to play together without the competitive player gaining an innate advantage is possible. Smaller compaines do it better, which shows how much effort GW actually put into the design side of their game.