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.

Back in Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 era, I remember clamoring for balance in that game. Linear fighters, quadratic wizards and Codzilla. D&D 4E rolls in and it’s “all about balance”. And I utterly hated it, as it felt as if the soul of the game had been sucked out of it. Eventually came 5E, and while it was far more balanced than 3E, the occasional imbalances one could find were offset by overall how good the whole structure was - the unbalanced portions could easily be checked by a modicum of self-restraint, not core flaws.

So yes, I want balance - but not at the cost of the soul of the game.

Which brings me to 40K. 6th/7th was an unwieldy mess built atop a frame that had been shored up since 3E. That made 8E a fresh breath of air - cleaner and simpler than previous. But the codex releases have been slowly adding in complexity, skewing balance and dragging the system off-course by introducing power creep and encouraging imbalance. Every time GW adds new faction abilities/stronger stratagems AND drops unit points, they are making it harder to balance the system overall. It needs to stop before we end up with the messes we had for 7E.

 Stormonu wrote:
Back in Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 era, I remember clamoring for balance in that game. Linear fighters, quadratic wizards and Codzilla. D&D 4E rolls in and it’s “all about balance”. And I utterly hated it, as it felt as if the soul of the game had been sucked out of it. Eventually came 5E, and while it was far more balanced than 3E, the occasional imbalances one could find were offset by overall how good the whole structure was - the unbalanced portions could easily be checked by a modicum of self-restraint, not core flaws.

So yes, I want balance - but not at the cost of the soul of the game.

Which brings me to 40K. 6th/7th was an unwieldy mess built atop a frame that had been shored up since 3E. That made 8E a fresh breath of air - cleaner and simpler than previous. But the codex releases have been slowly adding in complexity, skewing balance and dragging the system off-course by introducing power creep and encouraging imbalance. Every time GW adds new faction abilities/stronger stratagems AND drops unit points, they are making it harder to balance the system overall. It needs to stop before we end up with the messes we had for 7E.

Well the D&D comparison is moot because of the sheer level of customization available in character creation. Though I stopped playing in 3.5, stat stacking was a real thing and the 'openness' character creation is what made D&D good. This worked because you are essentially playing against NPCs for the most part, although there were some notable OP-ness during some of our colosseum PVP campaigns.

But back to the point - yes GW has to think about overall balance every time they release something new. Power creep and rule bloat is nearing its breaking point I'm afraid.

 Ratius wrote:
This came up in another thread where someone said GW themselves do not want balance in 40k.

People like to put words into GW's mouth when they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

Look at the top tables at tournaments a year ago. Look at them now. There is a wealth of variety in the armies making it to the top and no single army is really sticking like Castellans or Ynnari were.

The next task for GW is to expand the usability of all units so we can open up lists more. The new marine books open a lot of possibilities.

DnD is a bad comparison because the game runs almost entirely through a DM. As such the balance of the game isn't just based on the maths, but also how the DM crafts the game around that structure. They can adapt things to suit the party and the playstyle of the games; really good DMs can adapt things to suit specific players desires and mix and match multiple themes and elements into the game.

So even if the core rules were woefully imbalanced, the games actual playing balance would come from the DM. Of course a solid balanced system is lot easier for a DM to work with and makes their part of the game simpler. It also opens it up to a wider skillbase of DMs who can produce and work with fun games.


Most GW Wargames don't have a DM so its purely pvp and no filtration of the game rules as part of the experience. Even game modes that do have a DM - like Necromunda - often have a lesser role and might even be playing with their own force during the games

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The next task for GW is to expand the usability of all units so we can open up lists more. The new marine books open a lot of possibilities.

The problem with this is that there are too many redundant entries in some codex. Some culling is required but this is an act of walking a tight rope as already evidenced by the strong opposition for replacement of mini marines with nu marines.

It would be nice to see a better promise for Legends support - this way majority of the hobbyists wont feel as betrayed by the company who we've supported til now.

On 3.5 D&D: I didn't mind Druids being OP if built that way. Because, roleplay-wise, it made sense. Druids shouldn't be cut-rate spellcasters, and their wild shape should be impactful. Ideally, there would be reasons to play a Wizard or Fighter instead - and there were. They were mainly not "crunch" reasons, though.

WoW, on the other hand, can't allow such imbalance. When it came out, the idea of a Tauren Warrior made a lot of sense to me. But a Tauren should stomp several (equally-skilled/equipped) Gnome warriors into paste easily. Slower, but much stronger and tougher. That would be more logical, lore-wise. However, how do you balance that? Who wants to play such a weak Gnome? (All that said, Tauren Warriors were better than Gnomes, because Gnomes were alliance scum.)

Different mediums have different quality tradeoffs between balance and theme.

I, personally, view 40k as more a hobby and narrative game. Note that when I say "narrative game", I'm actually referring to "Matched Play" games, based on points, etc. I want more balance - it makes random games much more fun. But I don't want balance at the cost of theme. You could add balance by removing variation and theme, simplifying streamlining and balancing all the way down to Chess/TicTacToe/FlipACoin. But If I wanted to play a super balanced game, I can already play one of those.

There are much better venues for a tactical challenge than 40k. For "simple" (in terms of rules/crunch, not necessarily tactics) games, Chess/Go/etc will always beat 40k. For more complex games, video games will always have an edge in how quickly balance can be corrected. Or how quickly an alternate force/build can be assmebled/applied. In addition to being able to handle categorically much higher crunch gracefully.

Where 40k wins is in the character, story, and experience. Zerg swarming someone in StarCraft halfway across the world is nothing like picking apart their force meticulously will a well-applied Swordwind face-to-face over a physical 6x4 board with actual minis.

My Captain hunted a Helldrake across a campaign over months, only to die to it in the end (actual death, not just RFP) - only to have an allied BA Captain oneshot it with a Plasma Pistol the turn it came on in it's next game... There's something much more endearing about that in plastic than checkmating some random King, or eating the Marine "Command Chair" in a video game.

40k is awesome for a variety of reasons. Better balance would make it better. But not if it costs it's soul.

Of course people want balance; its just a matter of deciding or coming to an understanding of what balance is, what it can be, and what you want. For me, that's come down to the difference between wanting "everything" to be playable or wanting "anything" to be playable. I think we all initially kind of expect the latter, where we put our points down and they are worth their points whatever they are. I've come to appreciate that raw math constructs simply don't make that particularly feasible in 40k or any other game, so I think its more worthwhile to hope that "everything" has a place in the game; even if its in limited quantities or with specific support elements.

I've gotten away from the binary distinction of balance and unbalance in ever expanding games (mostly because they're all the latter by that definition) and started to appreciate appreciating the value of competitive diversity a bit more. I prioritize games where every faction has a competitive build, even if every build isn't competitive and since many games have "leader" options, my next priority is a variety of competitive leaders or "themes" or whatever subdivision the game gets down to.

 LunarSol wrote:
Of course people want balance; its just a matter of deciding or coming to an understanding of what balance is, what it can be, and what you want. For me, that's come down to the difference between wanting "everything" to be playable or wanting "anything" to be playable. I think we all initially kind of expect the latter, where we put our points down and they are worth their points whatever they are. I've come to appreciate that raw math constructs simply don't make that particularly feasible in 40k or any other game, so I think its more worthwhile to hope that "everything" has a place in the game; even if its in limited quantities or with specific support elements.

I've gotten away from the binary distinction of balance and unbalance in ever expanding games (mostly because they're all the latter by that definition) and started to appreciate appreciating the value of competitive diversity a bit more. I prioritize games where every faction has a competitive build, even if every build isn't competitive and since many games have "leader" options, my next priority is a variety of competitive leaders or "themes" or whatever subdivision the game gets down to.

^ this

I do indeed want balance for 40k.

What my ideal would be is this:

1) Minimal skill in list-building. I'm okay with it being possible to build bad lists, but a competent player should have a very similar list to a tournament player if both are playing to win as best they can.

2) All options are valid. Not necessarily in EVERY LIST, but every option should have a place in some list. A Spoilpox Scrivener should be great in a Plaguebearer heavy list, but I'm okay with it being useless in a Nurgle Monster Mash list.

3) Players of equal skill should have very close to a 50/50 win rate against each other, and players of VASTLY different skill should see curbstomps in favor of the skilled player (assuming both sides are playing hardball). If I, a decent but not great player, go up against a tournament-winning player, I should get my tuckus whooped if they're trying their best.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, I know that's not likely to happen. Given what GW does, I'd honestly prefer they just focus on options. While they should not ABANDON balance, I'd rather see them expand options at a minor cost to a balanced game, since they suck at balance. So, you know, might as well let you play with your dudes however you want.

Relatively so.
Just to make sure everyone has a fair chance at winning.

I don't see 40k as competitive enough to warrant an actual tight ruleset. Kill team yes though.

It would be nice if listbuilding at best gives a slight advantage, rather than the ability to crush an opponent. The game *should* be decided by actual play - with the superior tactician winning - not before the first model hits the table.

But that’s a tall order requiring a lot of work being put into the rule system. Something that I think is far beyond GW’s “that sounds good enough” minimal to non-exist playtesting and approach to rules writing.

 Stormonu wrote:
It would be nice if listbuilding at best gives a slight advantage, rather than the ability to crush an opponent. The game *should* be decided by actual play - with the superior tactician winning - not before the first model hits the table.

But that’s a tall order requiring a lot of work being put into the rule system. Something that I think is far beyond GW’s “that sounds good enough” minimal to non-exist playtesting and approach to rules writing.

Agreed. There needs to be more 'wrenches' that can be thrown in the game rather than revolving around statistical manipulation.

The definition of "balance" is what prompts these arguments; some folks want to define "balance" as "all things have an equal opportunity of beating all other things" and end up convincing themselves it is impossible.

I'd like the game to be "balanced" in the sense that there should be a good reason to play every army and every model; there should be no trap options where the answer to the question "how do I win?" is "buy different models".

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The definition of "balance" is what prompts these arguments; some folks want to define "balance" as "all things have an equal opportunity of beating all other things" and end up convincing themselves it is impossible.

I'd like the game to be "balanced" in the sense that there should be a good reason to play every army and every model; there should be no trap options where the answer to the question "how do I win?" is "buy different models".

Another issue is the vast differences in skill and local scenes.

Some clubs play with almost no terrain so armies are very much lined up and fight in a line, whilst other places might have tables chock full of line of sight blocking terrain and features. So even if the rules system itself is balanced out the way its used can break it. Clearly gunlines are going to work phenomenally better in the first situation and the game would require far more "first turn charges" to work for any close combat force. However if the latter is the terrain setup then suddenly those sneak attacks and first turn charges become more broken because now the gunline army can't get into position to dominate so easily.

It's one thing that I was encouraged with Warcry since GW put terrain setup cards into the terrain packs. With GW being more and more keen to sell terrain I can see it being something they might roll out in the future ofr their big games; even if its just terrain setup articles in White Dwarf.



Otherwise I fully agree, each army should have internal balance so that each model has a use and a purpose. Making purchases a choice of strategic style and situation rather than "OMG this unit is so overpowered I have to have it". Further armies should be balanced against each other so that armies build to the same level of skill should have an even chance of winning on the maths; or atl east put the greatest part of the win on the player.

Of course there will always be bad match-ups; esp if players build poor or niche lists.

 Stormonu wrote:
Back in Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 era, I remember clamoring for balance in that game. Linear fighters, quadratic wizards and Codzilla. D&D 4E rolls in and it’s “all about balance”. And I utterly hated it, as it felt as if the soul of the game had been sucked out of it. Eventually came 5E, and while it was far more balanced than 3E, the occasional imbalances one could find were offset by overall how good the whole structure was - the unbalanced portions could easily be checked by a modicum of self-restraint, not core flaws.

So yes, I want balance - but not at the cost of the soul of the game.

Which brings me to 40K. 6th/7th was an unwieldy mess built atop a frame that had been shored up since 3E. That made 8E a fresh breath of air - cleaner and simpler than previous. But the codex releases have been slowly adding in complexity, skewing balance and dragging the system off-course by introducing power creep and encouraging imbalance. Every time GW adds new faction abilities/stronger stratagems AND drops unit points, they are making it harder to balance the system overall. It needs to stop before we end up with the messes we had for 7E.

I think that adding complexity can be a good thing when the quality of the game improves and the tactical choices increase.
In case of GW's rule writing, more book generally mean "here's an hotfix for the SAG" and rule updates mean "sorry for messing up completely the transition between old 5 inches artillery rules and d6 shots, here, shoot twice that LR".
Which is all a convoluted way to admit "our studio cannot do math because we hire for attitude".
That attitude is also one of the reason factions are neglected time to time. The designer has his own marty-stus to pimp so who cares about faction X.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
there should be no trap options where the answer to the question "how do I win?" is "buy different models".

Even that I think can be valid in certain contexts. 'How do I beat all-Knights with my exclusively-anti-infantry army' might be one. I agree though that there shouldn't ever be units where the best way to use them is to always leave them on the shelf. Everything should have some viable role for which it is worth the cost of inclusion.

I often see this straw man interpretation of 'balance' where it's taken to mean 'everything has a 50/50 chance against everything else', and that's really not what any reasonable player expects. It's okay for there to be rock-paper-scissors, as long as all three options are equally viable.

The problem is that right now 40K is pretty limited for decision space. The IGOUGO system doesn't allow for immediate counterplay, and incentivizes one-turn combos that can be executed with total control and precision. There's no overwatch (in the military sense), no benefit to flanking, no vehicle armor facings, no leadership penalties to being surrounded, no C&C whatsoever. Cover is kind of a joke in 8th, morale is easy to ignore, and deep strike gives you absolute perfect control over when and where your units show up.

So the decision space largely comes down to abilities, auras, stratagems, and target priority, which in turn means that the actual tabletop matters a lot less than the units you bring to it, and in turn that means army composition is the be-all and end-all. You can't have battles like Agincourt (where terrain mattered), Waterloo (where maneuver mattered), D-Day (where cover mattered), or Market Garden (where C&C mattered) when the basic mechanics instrumental to those scenarios aren't well-represented. You can't play Rommel (or Ender Wiggin, or Hannibal, take your pick) leading an inferior force to victory if the game mechanics don't provide ways for an objectively inferior force to outmaneuver, out-react, or out-coordinate their enemy.

When the basic game plays more like a CCG than a wargame, I find it unsurprising that it's going to have balance issues more akin to CCGs than to wargames. We're never going to see the vaunted ideal of 'a good player with a bad list will reliably beat a bad player with a good list' unless there's actually more to the game for that good player to exploit beyond what's present in his list.

Imbalance is fine so long as 2 things happen, 1. The imbalance is relatively small. Things existing slightly above or below the power curve are totally fine as long they're it's not warping the game or army around themselves.

And 2. The imbalance changes. Shifting power around makes the imbalance feel less problematic because it oscillates more between stuff you like and stuff you dislike. It also helps alleviate boredom and burnout.

 Overread wrote:

It's one thing that I was encouraged with Warcry since GW put terrain setup cards into the terrain packs. With GW being more and more keen to sell terrain I can see it being something they might roll out in the future ofr their big games; even if its just terrain setup articles in White Dwarf.

Given how important map design is in competitive gaming (DotA is literally an entire game built on the back of a single, tactically exceptional map layout) I'm honestly surprised there's never been more effort to define tables a little more.

I think a huge part of the issue is that 40k tries to be too many things, it covers too many different scales normally broken into distinct different game systems, and too many forces operating in too many wildly differing fashions.

Trying to balance a game that's fundamentally played out as a pitched frontal firefight on a soccer field, while also trying to make tank companies, underground guerilla forces, entire batallions of conventional infantry, titan maniples and Knight lances, infiltration specialists, etc all work on the same ruleset, is basically impossible.

Half the factions in the game really have no business fighting each other or engaging in the way the game sets up, but it does it anyway. Why on earth do we have Dark Eldar raiding forces or Genestealer guerilla fighting Guard tank companies in frontal attacks, or why do we have Space Marine infiltration forces fighting battles with Chaos Knights? Trying to balance that while maintaining a flavor of what each force is intended to be, is mind bogglingly awkward, particularly when half those matchups have no business being balanced in any fluff/realistic sense.

catbarf wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
there should be no trap options where the answer to the question "how do I win?" is "buy different models".

Even that I think can be valid in certain contexts. 'How do I beat all-Knights with my exclusively-anti-infantry army' might be one. I agree though that there shouldn't ever be units where the best way to use them is to always leave them on the shelf. Everything should have some viable role for which it is worth the cost of inclusion.

I often see this straw man interpretation of 'balance' where it's taken to mean 'everything has a 50/50 chance against everything else', and that's really not what any reasonable player expects. It's okay for there to be rock-paper-scissors, as long as all three options are equally viable.

The problem is that right now 40K is pretty limited for decision space. The IGOUGO system doesn't allow for immediate counterplay, and incentivizes one-turn combos that can be executed with total control and precision. There's no overwatch (in the military sense), no benefit to flanking, no vehicle armor facings, no leadership penalties to being surrounded, no C&C whatsoever. Cover is kind of a joke in 8th, and deep strike gives you absolute perfect control over when and where your units show up.

So the decision space largely comes down to abilities, auras, Stratagems, and target priority, which in turn means that the actual tabletop matters a lot less than the units you bring to it, and in turn that means army composition is the be-all and end-all. You can't have battles like Agincourt (where terrain mattered), Waterloo (where maneuver mattered), D-Day (where cover mattered), or Market Garden (where C&C mattered) when the basic mechanics instrumental to those scenarios aren't represented.

When the basic game plays more like a CCG than a wargame, I find it unsurprising that it's going to have balance issues more akin to CCGs than to wargames. We're never going to see the vaunted ideal of 'a good player with a bad list will reliably beat a bad player with a good list' unless there's actually more to the game for that good player to exploit beyond what's present in his list.

So about that second paragraph, the examples you give mostly don't really support your 'counterplay and incentivizes one turn-combos' thing. You just got sidetracked into things you want to see rather than supporting your point. Flanking is more 'play' than 'counterplay' on a battlefield with no FOW, vehicle armor facings have proven to be almost entirely pointless in previous editions (not to mention nonsensical in a sci-fi setting), leadership penalties to being surrounded while neat in theory are, in practice, just a 'win more' thing that punishes the player who's losing for being behind, not something that constitutes either tactical play or counterplay. I agree about cover but deepstrike giving you control over where and when your units show up, with the limitations inherent to deepstrike in the modern game, incentivize NOT going for a super death all in in one turn and allows for flexibility on the deepstrikers part and counterplay on the deepstrike-e's part. Admittedly it also ALLOWS for super death combos on turn two(or turn one with droppods now) but the cost of doing so is often prohibative.

As for the second paragraph, this has been proven to be largely untrue. Army composition, while certainly having more weight than it might in more simulation heavy wargames, is not at all the be all end all and years of tournament statistics back that up. The same list that takes first place at events almost always exists at every rung of the ladder doing much, much worse in the hands of less skilled players.

I also don't agree that a good player with a bad list can't beat a bad player with a good list. That happens at locals all over the country every day. It happens in tournaments all the time, even. I've beaten netlists with random SoB
nonsense because of mistakes my opponent's made multiple times(not a brag, they literally beat themselves, all I did was not fall over dead at any point.). There's still plenty of room to feth up in this game and people find new ways all the time.

But let's break this down a bit more: How good of a player and how bad of a list vs how bad of a player and how good of a list are we talking? Because if we're talking a slightly below average player with a tournament winning netlist vs. a good player with an army of foot Techmarines and multimelta, flamer, powerfist, combi-plasma tac squads backing up max upgrade Assault marines, then yeah, I'm okay with the good player losing. List building is ALSO a skill and not one that I would want to see eliminated. Is it representative of actual warfare? Kind of but not really? But that's okay because it ISN'T actual warfare. It's a game and one that isn't trying to be a simulation.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
This came up in another thread where someone said GW themselves do not want balance in 40k.

People like to put words into GW's mouth when they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

Look at the top tables at tournaments a year ago. Look at them now. There is a wealth of variety in the armies making it to the top and no single army is really sticking like Castellans or Ynnari were.

The next task for GW is to expand the usability of all units so we can open up lists more. The new marine books open a lot of possibilities.

Aren't most tournaments being won by people running chaos soup, with ahriman, DPs, plague bearers etc ? Here those kind of lists win a lot, maybe half of all the events reported.


As balance goes. I don't have problems with unit on unit imbalance. Maybe a waveserpent has to be much better then a rhino. Armies themselfs though should be less all over the place, the gap between the normal armies being played, and those that are weak is too big in my opinion at least.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The definition of "balance" is what prompts these arguments; some folks want to define "balance" as "all things have an equal opportunity of beating all other things" and end up convincing themselves it is impossible.

I'd like the game to be "balanced" in the sense that there should be a good reason to play every army and every model; there should be no trap options where the answer to the question "how do I win?" is "buy different models".

This is what I wanted to say, put really clearly and succinctly.

Perfect balance is impossible without sacrifices to flavour and style that nobody wants. But much better balance is possible, even in a complex game with a lot of units. Warmachine and Hordes managed it for a long time.

I think an all rounder force from any army should stand a fair chance against an all rounder force from any other army. By all rounder I mean the sort of army a kid starts with - a couple of troops squads, a hero or two, an elite unit and some tanks or fast attack. This is currently not the case and the game does not seem to encourage this sort of approach..

Though, I will say, puttng Knight sized models and fliers into the game was a mistake that changed the scale and scope of the game in a way that makes balancing it very difficult now for these all rounder forces, and it may just be pretty broken as long as those things are allowed in the game. They make very little sense on a 6x4' table outside of special scenarios in any case, and their introduction was really what made me lose interest in 40K.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
This came up in another thread where someone said GW themselves do not want balance in 40k.

People like to put words into GW's mouth when they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Look at the top tables at tournaments a year ago. Look at them now. There is a wealth of variety in the armies making it to the top and no single army is really sticking like Castellans or Ynnari were.
The next task for GW is to expand the usability of all units so we can open up lists more. The new marine books open a lot of possibilities.

No idea?
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition and seen the Kirby fiasco to the bitter end.
But that is trying to establish some kind of authoritative credentials.

There are too many factors at work using "balanced", fluff vs competitive, build vs game... I think the intent is the overall fairness of play of one army vs the other of an "equal" value.
Already mentioned in the quoted post about how no unit should be an "auto-include" or an "auto-shelf" just differing applications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
It would be nice if listbuilding at best gives a slight advantage, rather than the ability to crush an opponent. The game *should* be decided by actual play - with the superior tactician winning - not before the first model hits the table.
But that’s a tall order requiring a lot of work being put into the rule system. Something that I think is far beyond GW’s “that sounds good enough” minimal to non-exist playtesting and approach to rules writing.

A game that is completely determined by play is chess.
Newbies without fail get utterly crushed by experienced players.

Rolling of dice and mitigating the odds of said dice is where most brain-power goes into for 40k.
This is why list building becomes so critical so you can play a more "predictable" army so can get the desired outcomes more consistently.
The more randomization thrown into the game greatly dilutes predictable outcomes so relatively new players have a viable chance for a win: considered an "accessible" or new player friendly game system.

Command Points and Stratagems feels like the replacement for Psychic powers before they got their own game phase: you can apply more predictable outcomes at pivotal times, they are wildcards to leverage a pivotal moment or condition.
Why do you see the more successful "soup" lists how they are? To squeeze-out the most command points for the least points spent possible for the juiciest Stratagems.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
This came up in another thread where someone said GW themselves do not want balance in 40k.

People like to put words into GW's mouth when they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
Look at the top tables at tournaments a year ago. Look at them now. There is a wealth of variety in the armies making it to the top and no single army is really sticking like Castellans or Ynnari were.
The next task for GW is to expand the usability of all units so we can open up lists more. The new marine books open a lot of possibilities.

No idea?
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition and seen the Kirby fiasco to the bitter end.
But that is trying to establish some kind of authoritative credentials.

There are too many factors at work using "balanced", fluff vs competitive, build vs game... I think the intent is the overall fairness of play of one army vs the other of an "equal" value.
Already mentioned in the quoted post about how no unit should be an "auto-include" or an "auto-shelf" just differing applications.

As have I. I probably still have my cardboard dreadnoughts somewhere. What's more bold is making an assertion at what GW is doing without citing an actual source. That's what I like to call bs artistry.

Someone can take 2000 points of infantry. Someone else can take 2,000 points of infantry shredding tanks. That doesn't mean the game is unbalanced. LunarSol said it best --

the difference between wanting "everything" to be playable or wanting "anything" to be playable

 Daedalus81 wrote:
What's more bold is making an assertion at what GW is doing without citing an actual source. That's what I like to call bs artistry.

I would say look back and think hard on who is putting words in a person's mouth.
REALLY would like to know how BS was created or how one would go about citing that "balanced", how GW has used it, may not be as accurate as "fair".

Someone can take 2000 points of infantry. Someone else can take 2,000 points of infantry shredding tanks. That doesn't mean the game is unbalanced. LunarSol said it best --

the difference between wanting "everything" to be playable or wanting "anything" to be playable

Again pretty sure I said:
Already mentioned in the quoted post about how no unit should be an "auto-include" or an "auto-shelf" just differing applications.
Yep, sure did.
So I assume you are arguing with someone else about how cavalry vs infantry, aircraft vs tanks, rock vs scissors works out and that a non-spam army be encouraged.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think a huge part of the issue is that 40k tries to be too many things, it covers too many different scales normally broken into distinct different game systems, and too many forces operating in too many wildly differing fashions.

Trying to balance a game that's fundamentally played out as a pitched frontal firefight on a soccer field, while also trying to make tank companies, underground guerilla forces, entire batallions of conventional infantry, titan maniples and Knight lances, infiltration specialists, etc all work on the same ruleset, is basically impossible.

Half the factions in the game really have no business fighting each other or engaging in the way the game sets up, but it does it anyway. Why on earth do we have Dark Eldar raiding forces or Genestealer guerilla fighting Guard tank companies in frontal attacks, or why do we have Space Marine infiltration forces fighting battles with Chaos Knights? Trying to balance that while maintaining a flavor of what each force is intended to be, is mind bogglingly awkward, particularly when half those matchups have no business being balanced in any fluff/realistic sense.

This.

Currently, 40k has 3 (official) modes of play - two of which are basically pointless.

Rather than splitting it into nonsense like Matched Play vs. Narrative vs. Unbound, it would make much more sense to split it into different scales of game - with models like fliers, baneblades, primarchs and knights being Apocalypse-only.

As it is, the 40k rules are still ultimately based on those of a skirmish game. And trying to include super-tanks and mechas causes no end of issues for balance and design.

My opinion: A lot of the balance issues in 40k comes down to the core of the game and most of the missions giving a huge advantage to direct killing power. Even non-killing mission goals like holding objectives or linebreaker are usually determined by one player's ability to kill another player's units. Even though sweeping is no longer an auto-win, it usually amounts to the same in most circumstances.

I don't have a fix for this, but if mission objectives were more varied and weren't as directly influenced by point-and-shoot tactics, it would heavily increase the skill ceiling and reduce the impact that list building has on victory.

Would anyone want balance from the game ? Yes I think most would.

I also agree with the poster who said " Fair " that is also a good idea. Fairness, as it currently stands most armies can't and don't feel fair when taken against some others.

For comments that it's impossible for GW to do, that is just offering forgiveness for lack of effort or lack of caring however you want to view it.

I'm still not sold on the fact GW want to even come close to balance, I think they are getting better at controlling the imbalance like a tide machine let it roll in and out and benefit from bringing up one while pushing down another. The see saw of balance to move product.

For those who would say it's impossible, it isn't. I mean at the point they release more and more bloat it becomes harder and harder to achieve that fairness and any fairness you can find seemingly is behind a pay wall with all these campaign books.

My ideal ? Every book feel fair, regardless of what codex I take and what codex my opponent takes. Obviously you'll always have bad lists but shouldn't be straight bad army books.

Once everyone felt fair at least, then add in the extras for everyone to flavor to choice but not just be power buffs over and over and over.

So yeah, I want fair, and balanced and I think they can do it, they just don't want to it doesn't fit their selling goals. 7th was so far out of control with that feeling, it bled players they are doing a better job with the controlling imbalance but its still not there and I really don't think they want it to be or they'd do more to fix the core baked in problems, then move on to armies, then to extras.

Instead its you get what you get, and if it sucks, oh well better buy the next campaign book, it'll get better then maybe, on and on till you have like 8 books for one mono faction army list.

My ideal ? Every book feel fair, regardless of what codex I take and what codex my opponent takes. Obviously you'll always have bad lists but shouldn't be straight bad army books.

Considering the state of internal balance and the absolute massive domination of certain subfactions only in top table i can only assume that external balance somewhat gets regarded.
The rest is non existent.

Of course I want balance. I pray for the day that I can take almost any combination of units and still be competitive. There is absolutely no logical reason my Evil Sunz bikers can’t compete with other competitive lists.