Switch Theme:

Do You Expect 40k To Be Balanced?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

 BertBert wrote:
What would be a reasonable alternative then to make every single player happy?

Analyzing the data generated by people who play 40k and using it to balance the game rather than suggestions pulled out of a single player's backside as your suggestions seem to be. It won't be perfect but it would do better than your suggestions.

Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





 Canadian 5th wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
What would be a reasonable alternative then to make every single player happy?

Analyzing the data generated by people who play 40k and using it to balance the game rather than suggestions pulled out of a single player's backside as your suggestions seem to be. It won't be perfect but it would do better than your suggestions.


So balancing every single faction and the increasing amount of units supported by big data you pull from where?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 04:01:22


 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

 BertBert wrote:
So balancing every single faction and the increasing amount of units supported by big data you pull from where?

I'd start by gathering data from official tournaments and attempting to get FLGS and GW Store players to record data in casual play. I've also suggested a simulator which would be a great way to help GW improve the game.

Neither is likely to happen but from a logical standpoint data collection on a scale never before seen in 40k is the only place to start.

Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





 Canadian 5th wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
So balancing every single faction and the increasing amount of units supported by big data you pull from where?

I'd start by gathering data from official tournaments and attempting to get FLGS and GW Store players to record data in casual play. I've also suggested a simulator which would be a great way to help GW improve the game.

Neither is likely to happen but from a logical standpoint data collection on a scale never before seen in 40k is the only place to start.


Yup, that I can agree with.

They already sample tournament results, but sadly they will never commit to anything of this scale, never mind a digital version of 40k.
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

 BertBert wrote:
Yup, that I can agree with.

They already sample tournament results, but sadly they will never commit to anything of this scale, never mind a digital version of 40k.

If the ITC can grow from discontent with the state of the game so can such data collection.

Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Canadian 5th wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
Yup, that I can agree with.

They already sample tournament results, but sadly they will never commit to anything of this scale, never mind a digital version of 40k.

If the ITC can grow from discontent with the state of the game so can such data collection.


Well get busy then.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




ccs wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
Yup, that I can agree with.

They already sample tournament results, but sadly they will never commit to anything of this scale, never mind a digital version of 40k.

If the ITC can grow from discontent with the state of the game so can such data collection.


Well get busy then.

Well...we kinda are. Each time a tournament happens we discuss it pretty heavily and then GW does little to fix it. How long did it take to nerf Castellans?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Canadian 5th wrote:

How would you do that? How would you fix the balance between a T3 W1 5+Sv army with nothing but lasguns and a tank company that went full anti-horde skew? I'm being extreme on purpose because it forces people to confront the fact that the balance for 40k is really, extremely difficult to find due to its sheer scope and scale.


Running skew vs. skew is going to produce crazy results. That doesn't bother me.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

I'm sending up extreme examples because they're things that won't go away in 40k. People will buy models that make 'bad' lists and play against people that only bought tanks in a meta that only changes every few months when somebody finally buys and builds that new model they saved up for. At the same time, people will grind tournaments and others will play crusade with their middle-aged friends and everybody will use the coolest and best-painted stuff from their 10k+ points collection. The game will have to work for all of those to be balanced. It'll also have to work when Timmy guard horde goes into the store and plays Spike tournament grinder.


Sure, and Spike tournament grinder will probably win, and this isn't a bad thing. The point is, Spike should win because he plays better on the table, mostly, not because he sat around and came up with a better list.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I want the people asking for balance to confront this fact and then, rather than saying GW needs to fix it, give concrete and specific examples for how they would fix problems. Anybody can whine about balance and propose vague and unworkable solutions, but I think Dakka can do better. So let's fix 40k.


Well, your whims don't dictate other peoples' behavior, as much as you've shown you wish it. And the world is much better off for it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 07:23:04


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





I agree with you Hecaton, the onus of balancing is most certainly not on the consumer , which is forced to buy rules peacemeal for 30£ each. In some cases 2x or 3x for the chosen faction (singular) because GW want's to milk it's custommers.

And for that price i don't think it is entitlement to ask for a product handled with care.


Personally, as someone that recently moved back bit more torwards historicals:

List building should loose you the game, winning should happen on the board.

What do i mean by that, overly skew should be punished by core game mechanics (surpression vs infantry, AT weaponry and sightlines aswell as acess for tanks etc.) ( and not kill secondaries). Yes that would mean certain factions would need a complete overhaul.
As it stands tough 40k has these core mechanics not. And it attempts to simulate some of them lacklusterly with kill secondaries.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 08:02:01


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Not Online!!! wrote:
List building should loose you the game, winning should happen on the board.


Good one, I'm going to steal that

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter





Not Online!!! wrote:

List building should lose you the game, winning should happen on the board.

This is exactly the point, perfectly put.

As for inherently skewed factions like Knights, Custodes, Deathwatch, Harlequins, or whatever, I'm okay if these are just inherently not competitive as stand-alone armies in full size games.
Someone mentioned it way down the thread, but it's like having a playable army of SOE agents or naval Destroyers in Bolt Action. It's silly.
These should be called "Demi-Codexes" or similar to make it clear that they're not stand-alone in the way that proper Codexes are. We have ally rules, it's not unreasonable to use them.
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

Karol wrote:


But the mechanics themselfs don't matter. It is just like with sports, it doesn't matter what the sport is about, but if you want to check if something is wrong with it, you check who is winning and how often.


That's they worst example I've ever seen.

In sports everyone starts with the same rules, in 40k only the general rules are shared, then each faction has its own rules.

In sports a team or an athlete that dominates for a decade is a well earned achievement that should be celebrated, not countered or considered wrong. Changing the rules just because a team won eveything since forever is wrong on every possible level.

This is very different from 40k where factions have qualities just because GW designed them that way. In a context like 40k factions aren't real players with real abilities, factions are actually the rules. Game mechanics are also related to sales, GW makes the rules in order to max out the profits. Their business isn't just to provide a game but to produce and sell plastic toys and hobby tools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote:


The point is, Spike should win because he plays better on the table, mostly, not because he sat around and came up with a better list.



To a certain degree yes, but fielding a more optimized list than the opponent with real synergies can already be a consequence of playing better.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/01/13 08:33:06


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
List building should loose you the game, winning should happen on the board.


Good one, I'm going to steal that


By all means go ahead.

kirotheavenger wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

List building should lose you the game, winning should happen on the board.

This is exactly the point, perfectly put.

As for inherently skewed factions like Knights, Custodes, Deathwatch, Harlequins, or whatever, I'm okay if these are just inherently not competitive as stand-alone armies in full size games.
Someone mentioned it way down the thread, but it's like having a playable army of SOE agents or naval Destroyers in Bolt Action. It's silly.
These should be called "Demi-Codexes" or similar to make it clear that they're not stand-alone in the way that proper Codexes are. We have ally rules, it's not unreasonable to use them.


See, Knights generally have households and household guards, yes the focus should be on the big stompy stuff, but they should be just as forced to have and field servitor, knight guards or whatevs you call them and have a regular FOC like any other faction.
And yes, some of the minifctions are over the top.
Harlequins f.e. or scions are both exemples of GW attempting to force recurring sales via cutting appart or out options out of existing dexes with bare minimum support. ( i count supplements in there aswell, they are just a scumbag move to monetise the SM players of various blends, when you could've just had appendix lists in the SM dex and rules for specific chapters but that 'd be to custommer friendly)


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter





Not Online!!! wrote:


See, Knights generally have households and household guards, yes the focus should be on the big stompy stuff, but they should be just as forced to have and field servitor, knight guards or whatevs you call them and have a regular FOC like any other faction.
And yes, some of the minifctions are over the top.
Harlequins f.e. or scions are both exemples of GW attempting to force recurring sales via cutting appart or out options out of existing dexes with bare minimum support. ( i count supplements in there aswell, they are just a scumbag move to monetise the SM players of various blends, when you could've just had appendix lists in the SM dex and rules for specific chapters but that 'd be to custommer friendly)


Oh I totally agree. Knights could easily have Men at Arms added to their codex. Just making them a demi-faction would be the easiest route and letting players ally with Admech or whatever. Perhaps Knights could have a "Brood Brothers" esque rule where they can take an Admech detachment as Men at Arms.
Scions is a great example of exactly how I think other armies should work. You have the option of making a pure-Scions force, but they're really marketed as a supplementary faction to Imperial Guard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 08:42:41


 
   
Made in no
Regular Dakkanaut




With the way we now have the larger faction keywords like the Imperium keyword and ability to ally rather freely within it I also think we should do away with each faction being able to stand perfectly on their own.

Knights and Custodes probably shouldn't be able to stand on their own. If they do, that might work, but the core rules,including missions, shouldn't suffer when being designed to accommodate them. We have extremely simple core rules and mission design to make all kinds of lists and factions viable.

Their LOTR game isnt balanced around the smaller skew factions at all. Pure Ents are gonna crush some missions and auto-lose even more missions. The Ent player do have the option to ally in numbers to make up for their weaknesses but that will also reduce a lot of their strengths. It is obvious they tried to make all of the larger factions rather balanced and base the game and missions around that. Rohan, Gondor, Rivendell, Mordor, Isengard etc are what the game is based around. Not Ents, White Council, Eagles, Dragons or even the main characters of the books and series, The Fellowship and Thorins Company. The latter 2 are playable but even though they are the main characters of the story the game isnt centered around them.

40k with the large scale it is at now should probably decide what their focus is about. If they really want there to be this many models and these big models on the table as well perhaps smaller more niche factions being able to operate equally to others shouldnt be part of the design progress at all. Normal Space Marine chapters are probably the smallest faction that should work. They are after all super flexible and made to to operate in any condition against anything from 1 marine to the whole chapter at once. Grey Knights, Knights, Deathwatch and Custodes on the other hand should probably be half a list at the most and have the other half be normal marines, guard or admech if made competitive. I could see local meta variance allowing pure lists as some form of skew list be competitive but it shouldnt be a design goal.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




There is plenty of space with those factions to get some of the units and gear added to there roster without issue.

Grey knights could get a few more space marine tanks with special rules and access to only some configurations.

Knights could use house guard and other units with standard kit but get no standard access to the tanks.

Sisters of silence could use some more of the tanks available.
And I think would be cool to do a drednaught for them in some way.

Harlequin should get at least some of the Eldar tanks.

It would be easy if they wanted to give them a bit more to work with.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






I really don't see an issue with GK, Custodes or Harlequins. While they could use some more options, all of them can field a varied non-skew army.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter





True, you could go either way with those factions.
- Expect those factions to ally.
- Expand those factions so they don't need to ally.
Either one would work.

As for Little Timmy accidentally buying a terrible army entirely of Terminators, I don't think that's a realistic situation.
40k is a hobby that you're almost always introduced to. I can't see anyone jumping into the hobby blind by just buying a bunch of random stuff.
They'd start with the starter set, which by design should give them a balanced force to start upon. Other players in their group, store, school club, or whatever will be able to advise.

Honestly, every tactical/strategy game I know requires a basic balance of capabilities for you to be effective, and no one feels hard done by.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 09:37:03


 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





How dare you insinuate little Timmy engages in any sort of human relations pertaining to 40k?
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Yeah, little Timmy might join dakka and start posting about dystopian Poland for years.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 kirotheavenger wrote:

As for Little Timmy accidentally buying a terrible army entirely of Terminators, I don't think that's a realistic situation.
40k is a hobby that you're almost always introduced to. I can't see anyone jumping into the hobby blind by just buying a bunch of random stuff.
They'd start with the starter set, which by design should give them a balanced force to start upon. Other players in their group, store, school club, or whatever will be able to advise.

Honestly, every tactical/strategy game I know requires a basic balance of capabilities for you to be effective, and no one feels hard done by.


GK don't have a starter set. And the buying stuff always has two aspects. What you want to buy and how much an army costs. If an army costs 1100$, but you have 480$, and there is army you can buy for 480$ there is a no small chance you are going to pick up the one 480$ one, if you did decide to start. Otherwise you will just not play w40k, but then the whole balance, what ever game is fun or not aspect of everything does not matter, because you are not playing the game.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
I really don't see an issue with GK, Custodes or Harlequins. While they could use some more options, all of them can field a varied non-skew army.


I don't have the codex for the other two, but I do for the GK. I advice to look at edition rules both for 8th and for 9th, and compare how the different unit cost for the unit specific rules. I assume, considering all the harli lists look a lot like clones, that harlis with their limited unit option look the same. Custodes I only remember from 8th, and those that I see or read about all were spaming FW stuff and jetbikes.

And because everything to be efficient has to be doubled or trippled, and GK and Custodes are very high cost armies, you do end up with skew lists, because once you spend a 1000pts on two units of paladins and their support characters, you ain't going to spend the rest 500pts on something that turns the list less skew. Unless servitors someone count here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 11:29:57


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter





Karol wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:

As for Little Timmy accidentally buying a terrible army entirely of Terminators, I don't think that's a realistic situation.
40k is a hobby that you're almost always introduced to. I can't see anyone jumping into the hobby blind by just buying a bunch of random stuff.
They'd start with the starter set, which by design should give them a balanced force to start upon. Other players in their group, store, school club, or whatever will be able to advise.

Honestly, every tactical/strategy game I know requires a basic balance of capabilities for you to be effective, and no one feels hard done by.


GK don't have a starter set. And the buying stuff always has two aspects. What you want to buy and how much an army costs. If an army costs 1100$, but you have 480$, and there is army you can buy for 480$ there is a no small chance you are going to pick up the one 480$ one, if you did decide to start. Otherwise you will just not play w40k, but then the whole balance, what ever game is fun or not aspect of everything does not matter, because you are not playing the game.

The same arguments apply, you probably didn't see ~$500 of GK on eBay and, knowing nothing about 40k, bought it.
If 40k required reasonably balanced list-building, then you'd know that from your previous familiarity with 40k, and you'd know what you were buying. Or at least you should do.

I don't think it's worth dragging the whole game down because someone might bulk purchase a bunch of mismatched units.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:


That's they worst example I've ever seen.

In sports everyone starts with the same rules, in 40k only the general rules are shared, then each faction has its own rules.


That is not true. Go and try to put a complain against Norwegian players to the cross-country skiing commission and check what happens. You can be disqualifed for everything, but they can all be sick with asthma and running on roid, so hard they look like crossfitters. Weight lifting same. Want to postpone or change the game as Anglish or Spanish club, here you go, try the same when from different country and evern Bayern can't pull it off. Russian, Chinese, US have different health systems, and because they are so efficient with their supplements, each 2-3 years the minimums have to be pushed further and further. And lets not get in to stuff like fight sports or cycling.

That is the national country level. Then you have the state level, where different sports have their own "military" clubs or ones sponsored by cities/mobs. Those teams are treated different then other teams too. On the local level you have different schools clubs, sponsored by different nationalities or politicians. Good luck trying to pull one over a player or team the minister that is responsible for scholarships and school fundings are. And that is before any family stuff. For example in Poland, just last night. We have total lock down, but two of the ministers sons have winter break now, so an actual school team from a sports school got kicked out so here sons , turned in to sportsman by a ministerial decree two days before, could ride down the slopes. Our top female ball throw player, olympian with gold medals and multiple time world champion, has no sponsoring because the ruling party doesn't like her. And then you can go down in lower in to school and camps, where trainers promote their family members or decide , for different types of "gifts", who is going to get the scholarships and who is never going to make it in to a state run youth or adult sports ranking. And without ranking you can't be registered as a sports person, which means no healthcare, no funding etc.

 Blackie wrote:

In sports a team or an athlete that dominates for a decade is a well earned achievement that should be celebrated, not countered or considered wrong. Changing the rules just because a team won eveything since forever is wrong on every possible level.

This is very different from 40k where factions have qualities just because GW designed them that way. In a context like 40k factions aren't real players with real abilities, factions are actually the rules. Game mechanics are also related to sales, GW makes the rules in order to max out the profits. Their business isn't just to provide a game but to produce and sell plastic toys and hobby tools.


Do you know how FIFA or MKOL functions, or any sports federation ? Of course rules are changed to make it easier for specific teams or players to win. Why do you think qualifications for olympics look the way they do? And american football has like an age long history of different coachs and teams influancing how the game is played just so their team has a higher chance of winning. And this is just small stuff comparing to coachs hiring local ultras to deal with clubs or players they don't want to play against.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:

The same arguments apply, you probably didn't see ~$500 of GK on eBay and, knowing nothing about 40k, bought it.
If 40k required reasonably balanced list-building, then you'd know that from your previous familiarity with 40k, and you'd know what you were buying. Or at least you should do.

I don't think it's worth dragging the whole game down because someone might bulk purchase a bunch of mismatched units.

The store owners told me the army was full and that the codex for GK is coming out soon, and he did not lie about that the GK codex came out in like weeks after I bought the army. Which kind of a made me unhappy about the index I bought, but books and w40k are a separate matter.

I couldn't see anything on ebay, because I don't have an ebay account. And the armies localy that I did see being sold cost 800$ minium or were 600$ but required to be painted etc.

Ah and just to give a perspective, on what I bought. I bought a full GK termintor army. And termintors were bad all 8th ed. If instead each of the termintors was a power armoured model, I would have the optimal GK army. It would still be bad, but it would be the best what GK could build under the 8th rules. So it would be skew too. And getting a 50/50 termintor/power amoured list would not be skew, but it would still be a bad list.

It doesn't really matter how it is called in the end. But GW does produce and sell armies with very bad rules. If some noob decided they like how tau look, and started with tau in 9th, they are not having a good time right now, and they are probably in for a few months of the no fun in the future. I just hope they won't have to wait 3 years for an update and get it just when the edition ends, only to get a bad set of rules again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 11:57:29


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop?

Yes, and I am disappointed every time GW fails to produce it.
Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose?

The back of my head is in full tinfoil hat mode, why do tesla Immortals still cost 2 more points than regular Immortals? It is because GW still has yet to hit their quota for sale of the new Necron Warrior kits. Look at how quick they were to fix the trash new weapon option for Necron Warriors and make it into the most popular Necron Troops choice. At the front of my head I believe that the people responsible for balance are bad at their job, which is way more likely with how random it is whether new units are overcosted or undercosted.
As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?

It is wrong to intentionally devalue something someone has bought from you because that will make them trust you less and make them less willing to purchase from you and other sellers in the future. it's a short term game played by people that get paid to hike up quarterly earnings a bit rather than double sales in the next 10 years. It is also bad for players because they might not be able to get as much fun as they had imagined from their models as they had expected, like say if some smuck went out and bought a whole load of tesla Immortals at the tail end of 8th edition and then they were made trash by a points increase to them and a points decrease to their Troops choice competitors.

The meta will shake itself up naturally as players buy new models and armies and rotate around their lists around to counter new units or counter the units their opponents brought to counter their units, shaking it up by making trash units amazing and amazing units trash is a short term answer because it is relatively easy to spot, test and solve the meta if the game is badly balanced.

The tournament mission pack should punish horde and tank skew, not just one single mission where spamming one is punished and another one where the other is punished, because the random mission you get versus a horde or tank army might decide whether you win or lose and I think that is bad game design when there are already so many pre-turn 1 things that can heavily favour one player or the other and while the mission pack can be accounted for ahead of time, accounting for which mission you will play against which matchup is impossible. Then you could have a tank warfare casual mission where only horde skew is punished so that people are free to spam tanks if they want and people can expect more tanks.

First, a tournament mission set should be developed, then a terrain guide, then supplementary rules should be made for all factions (chapter tactics, relics...), then rules updates should be made for all factions, then points estimates should be made for how much each unit and option should cost with all the rules changes, supplementary rules and new tournament mission pack, it should get critiqued and revised, then thoroughly tested and revised again before the entire game is updated all at once and sent to the printers. Doing this project solo is impossible, you can get make a mission set, develop a terrain guide, update supplementary rules and make a suggestion for points, but you need people to look over the points estimates such that playtesters do not waste time on silly points costs like 35 pt Eradicators. Because if you send out 35 pt Eradicators and they say "that seems way too low", then you increase points by 15% up to 40 which is a hefty point increase, but whoops they are still at least 8 points undercosted, so you need to at least be within +-30% of the theoretically most balanced cost for every unit. You also need at least a couple hundred playtests to update all the points of the game which is the biggest barrier to fans being able to develop a well-balanced 40k on their own. Lastly, nobody is going to play with fanmade rules if GW are still updating the official rules, so even if you somehow succeed in making something awesome despite the odds nobody is going to care so why would anybody try?

The reason the mission set needs to be developed first is that depending on how much the missions punish spamming some armies might need to have their rules and points adjusted so that they are still viable. I think it would be best if every codex was usable solo, although I agree with some of the other posters that if Knights do not win any tournaments on their own then that is fine, even a very skewed list can be fun to play with or against if the other player's list is balanced or skewed in a way that favours neither player. While testing is going on various other missions can be made and the balance herein does not need to be solid, but imbalance needs to be obvious and intentional (like in a tank warfare mission) and the mission must still be fun to play (so no bowling alley terrain suggestion for any missions).
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Karol wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I really don't see an issue with GK, Custodes or Harlequins. While they could use some more options, all of them can field a varied non-skew army.


I don't have the codex for the other two, but I do for the GK. I advice to look at edition rules both for 8th and for 9th, and compare how the different unit cost for the unit specific rules. I assume, considering all the harli lists look a lot like clones, that harlis with their limited unit option look the same. Custodes I only remember from 8th, and those that I see or read about all were spaming FW stuff and jetbikes.

And because everything to be efficient has to be doubled or trippled, and GK and Custodes are very high cost armies, you do end up with skew lists, because once you spend a 1000pts on two units of paladins and their support characters, you ain't going to spend the rest 500pts on something that turns the list less skew. Unless servitors someone count here.


Yes, that is the same for every single other army that isn't Codex: Space Marines as well.

Neither GK nor Custodes with FW support have a much smaller range of options than TS or DG have, which no one seems to have a problem with. And if you add one additional option for every slot, harlequins would be in a decent spot as well. In contrast, knights would require a full relaunch or some really creative rules writing to get them out of the skew corner.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

Karol wrote:


That is not true. Go and try to put a complain against Norwegian players to the cross-country skiing commission and check what happens. You can be disqualifed for everything, but they can all be sick with asthma and running on roid, so hard they look like crossfitters. Weight lifting same. Want to postpone or change the game as Anglish or Spanish club, here you go, try the same when from different country and evern Bayern can't pull it off. Russian, Chinese, US have different health systems, and because they are so efficient with their supplements, each 2-3 years the minimums have to be pushed further and further. And lets not get in to stuff like fight sports or cycling.

That is the national country level. Then you have the state level, where different sports have their own "military" clubs or ones sponsored by cities/mobs. Those teams are treated different then other teams too. On the local level you have different schools clubs, sponsored by different nationalities or politicians. Good luck trying to pull one over a player or team the minister that is responsible for scholarships and school fundings are. And that is before any family stuff. For example in Poland, just last night. We have total lock down, but two of the ministers sons have winter break now, so an actual school team from a sports school got kicked out so here sons , turned in to sportsman by a ministerial decree two days before, could ride down the slopes. Our top female ball throw player, olympian with gold medals and multiple time world champion, has no sponsoring because the ruling party doesn't like her. And then you can go down in lower in to school and camps, where trainers promote their family members or decide , for different types of "gifts", who is going to get the scholarships and who is never going to make it in to a state run youth or adult sports ranking. And without ranking you can't be registered as a sports person, which means no healthcare, no funding etc.


Do you know how FIFA or MKOL functions, or any sports federation ? Of course rules are changed to make it easier for specific teams or players to win. Why do you think qualifications for olympics look the way they do? And american football has like an age long history of different coachs and teams influancing how the game is played just so their team has a higher chance of winning. And this is just small stuff comparing to coachs hiring local ultras to deal with clubs or players they don't want to play against.


Sorry but athletes/teams competing in the same league have all the same sets of rules. It's not like Bayern can play with 2 goal keepers or ignore the first yellow card (reference to SM dreads ) or concede a pre-game goal to the opponents because their "codex" gives them these special abilties. Rules are exactly the same for everyone.

If an athlete/team has access to more expensive/better equipment that has nothing to do with the rules of the game. The game's performances can be affected by that but rules are not. The poorest african football team plays the exact same game of Bayern, and if someone is better and wins everytime not only we have to accept it but we should also praise it.

In 40k factions play with very different sets of rules by intentional design, that's a huge difference with sports and that's why a fair comparison between the former and the latter cannot be made.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 12:40:02


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in fr
Stabbin' Skarboy






 Blackie wrote:
Karol wrote:


That is not true. Go and try to put a complain against Norwegian players to the cross-country skiing commission and check what happens. You can be disqualifed for everything, but they can all be against.


Sorry but athletes/teams competing in the same league have all the same sets of rules. It's not like Bayern can play with 2 goal keepers or ignore the first yellow card (reference to SM dreads ) or concede a pre-game goal to the opponents because their "codex" gives them these special abilties. Rules are exactly the same for everyone.

If an athlete/team has access to more expensive/better equipment that has nothing to do with the rules of the game. The game's performances can be affected by that but rules are not. The poorest african football team plays the exact same game of Bayern, and if someone is better and wins everytime not only we have to accept it but we should also praise it.

In 40k factions play with very different sets of rules by intentional design, that's a huge difference with sports and that's why a fair comparison between the former and the latter cannot be made.


Blackie dakka says you are Italian. Why Bayern and not Juventus ? Maledetto !

Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

 addnid wrote:


Blackie dakka says you are Italian. Why Bayern and not Juventus ? Maledetto !


Because Karol referred to Bayern while debating his point.

Also because that team in black and white doesn't have my sympathy .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/13 13:39:10


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I don't think 40k is fundamentally impossible to balance.

But you do have to have some restraint when designing armies.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if GW were designing Team Yankee, you'd end up with games where FBI field agents (maybe with an allied Border Patrol team for their awesome jeeps) are fighting Israeli tank platoons with allied Armenian guerillas in Moscow.

And then people would say "It can't be balanced!". Which is correct, but the fault for that is on GW for making Codex: FBI for pitched battles against Codex: IDF.
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




I've said it before and I'll say it again: if GW were designing Team Yankee, you'd end up with games where FBI field agents (maybe with an allied Border Patrol team for their awesome jeeps) are fighting Israeli tank platoons with allied Armenian guerillas in Moscow.

And then people would say "It can't be balanced!". Which is correct, but the fault for that is on GW for making Codex: FBI for pitched battles against Codex: IDF.




This may be the most perfect example I've ever seen. Funny because it's true ...

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: