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.

After another thread has decended into balance arguments, and some claims that balance actually spoils things for casual gamers, I thought I'd start a poll to see what people actually think.

If it appears a bit biased, feel free to modify it.

I personally think balanced rules make casual gaming much easier.

Of course not. A balanced game is a lot more fun than an unbalanced game as it offers equal chances to everyone who participates in the game.

Balance matters MORE for casual gaming. Competitive players will happily use the strongest options and ignore everything else, while casual players need a level playing field so that the "fun" options they want to use don't automatically cost them the game.

And I really don't see how anyone could argue that balance hurts casual gamers. Is the game somehow less fun if the chances of each player winning are too equal?

There is no reason whatsoever the two have to be different, it's just that GW have screwed up the system so much and were the first game for so many of us that the waters have been blurred.

To echo the rest of the thread, balance improves game play period. For competitive or "serious" play solid balance lets gamers do more and go farther, and means everyone has a serious chance in a tournament, no truly "broken" lists (like say Necron flying circus for a recent example). For the casuals who just want to have fun, balance makes for an easier (in the sense of how difficult it is to play the game) gaming experience and an overall more enjoyable experience. In a properly balanced system the only difference between how the system is used is the attitudes of the players.

Balance is very important to a fun game for me.

I think maybe some people are supporting imbalance because they believe units can't be unique and special if everything is balanced. Then again, they might just like the net lists.

A well defined intuitive rule set that delivers well balanced game play make it easier for ALL players to enjoy the game.

It is much easier TO PLAY AND ,ADD TO a well defined intuitive rule set, than an over complicated counter intuitive one.

Good game balance improves the game play for all players.

Generally, balance makes a game better.

However, there are notable exceptions where unbalanced things seem to work fine. Bloodbowl is an interesting one, to me, because people seem to accept that some teams suck (just like they do irl ) and that it'll be a challenge to field them.

Some level of balance is always needed, if I play a game that I stand no chance of winning (because of things like the army I chose to play) then it is not all that much fun for anyone.

That is not to say every game must be balanced, but that should be the choice of the players, not based around mechanics in the game.

Similarly, in BFG, fleets are more balanced by fluff than for gameplay, so for example, Necrons are ridiculously scary in space.

I don't think they should be mutually exclusive. Actually.. I find it kind of an odd suggestion to say that they should be! If anything, providing the game is well designed (and has had some thought put into it) the opposite should be the case.

Some of the simplest board and card games are perfectly balanced against one another - although often more complex, wargames should be no different.

@RiTides - I think most of the teams in BB are reasonably balanced, at least in the early stages of a league or for one-off games. The 'novelty' teams of Goblins and Halflings aren't particularly, but then I would postulate that most people who play those teams probably aren't aiming for 1st place in a league

 Pacific wrote:


@RiTides - I think most of the teams in BB are reasonably balanced, at least in the early stages of a league or for one-off games. The 'novelty' teams of Goblins and Halflings aren't particularly, but then I would postulate that most people who play those teams probably aren't aiming for 1st place in a league

Agree, the core teams for BB are balanced. And BB can be played as an 'all human leauge' really well. It is what makes BB so good for gaming in general.

Balance makes a game much better in my eyes.

Seriously, if someone rocks up with a cheese list and you have a fluffy one, then its an auto loss, so where is the fun in that?

Taking a squad of Vanilla Vanguard Veterans and twenty scouts up against a load of Grey Knights isn't much fun in my eyes, I dont care how good my dice rolls are.

Herzlos wrote:
After another thread has decended into balance arguments, and some claims that balance actually spoils things for casual gamers, I thought I'd start a poll to see what people actually think.

If it appears a bit biased, feel free to modify it.

I personally think balanced rules make casual gaming much easier.

Totally agree. Balance helps out the casuals by removing trap/overpowered options. They can just pick what they want, instead of worrying that some cool looking model has gimp stats, or soemthing that seems fun is just a waste of space in their army.

Pretty much the argument against balance boils down to "I'm a tool who wants to ROFLSTOMP newbs". Yeah, no thanks.

Of course they aren't. What an absurd assertion.

This seems like a really strange question to bring up. I play Magic: the Gathering (typically considered a very balanced and competitive game) at a casual level and have a great time. Similarly, I have fun with 40k in both competitive and casual play, and see balanced rules as improving both.

Really I think the one-sidedness of the poll here says all that there is to say on this matter.

No contest. Game balance makes casual gaming WAY more fun.

The enemy of the casual gamer is the realistic game. And realistic games, I find, might travel down the road a bit with balanced games, but there will always come a point where the two must part ways, and I for one would rather go with the balanced games.

I play a lot of Scenario driven games. The system does not provide the balance, the players do. Therefore, to me a systems balance does not matter.

Now the game itself should be balanced, but in my mind that has nothing to do with the system and everythign to do with the players.

A lot of these supposed "Balance" problems have nothing to do with Casual vs. Competitive. It has to do with GW gamingss "hook-up" culture of one off pick-up games between strangers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Pretty much the argument against balance boils down to "I'm a tool who wants to ROFLSTOMP newbs". Yeah, no thanks.

Ummm.... just no.

The argument against balance is that it isn't the job of the designers, it is the job of the players to decide what is balanced and then play accordingly.

A Spartan Hoplite is a Spartan Hoplite. A Persian Immortal is a Persion Immortal. Is it balanced to put a Spartan Holite against a Persian Immortal? maybe, maybe not. So how many Spartan Hoplites = How many Persian Immortals. Depends on what you want. If you want a battle of Thermopylae or do you want the Battle of Plataea. Each game experience will require a different "balance" system.

Balance is neither here nor there. If every codex were balanced, Orks would shoot well, and Tau would be effective in close combat. Every codex has its specialities. When I played 2500 points of terminators and Land Raiders, my buddy didn't cry that his orks were going to have a hard time with that. He dealt with it and we had fun. Ground down to a draw.

The only difference in playing a tournament list and a fun list is how much of a jerk one wants to be. I have seen the over-competitive play new people with their finely honed tourney list, only to defeat them and we never see them again.

It may be time to remember that this is a game for friends, too.

SoloFalcon, balance does not mean every army is the same. It means that different codices, while being unique, can stand up to other codices and not get steamrolled simply because one codex is better than another. You're taking balance too far and assuming it means no specialties.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Balance is neither here nor there. If every codex were balanced, Orks would shoot well, and Tau would be effective in close combat.

That is not what balanced means. Balanced means pricing those orks and fire warriors appropriately while considering that they are no good at shooting/close combat instead of pricing them the same as a unit that is good at both from another army.

Yeah, the problem here is defining what "balanced" really means. Some game pieces are going to be better in certain conditions than others, and the scenarios are going to change what conditions are available.

Think of a really balanced game, like chess - there are no random rolls, both armies are identical, and each player only moves one piece at a time - and yet the white player (who moves first) wins around 55% of the time given equally skilled players.

Obviously a relatively balanced game is usually more fun than a relatively unbalanced one, but there are diminishing returns when a game designer strives to make a game more balanced. At a certain point, the designer has to worry about what is the most fun for everyone, and balance is only a part of that equation.

Herzlos wrote:
After another thread has decended into balance arguments, and some claims that balance actually spoils things for casual gamers, I thought I'd start a poll to see what people actually think.

If it appears a bit biased, feel free to modify it.

I personally think balanced rules make casual gaming much easier.

How can balance spoil games?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Balance is neither here nor there. If every codex were balanced, Orks would shoot well, and Tau would be effective in close combat.

That is not what balanced means. Balanced means pricing those orks and fire warriors appropriately while considering that they are no good at shooting/close combat instead of pricing them the same as a unit that is good at both from another army.

This, plus balance means an army has a major flaw but a another strength to balance it out.

 Frazzled wrote:
How can balance spoil games?

It can't.

Unless you think schaedenfruede is a game, I guess.

 Da Boss wrote:
Similarly, in BFG, fleets are more balanced by fluff than for gameplay, so for example, Necrons are ridiculously scary in space.

Except of course BFG has special rules for victory conditions with the necrons. They are (or were now I guess) the hardest list by far though. Most other lists were generally pretty even, with strengths and weaknesses.

I always thought it and EPIC had lists that were pretty balanced. Now that definitely did not stop us from playing scenarios that weren't based on points or had severe mismatched, but the victory conditions were different too. But if you're playing a game based on points then the forces should be balanced all other things being equal.

I don't think balance could ever "hurt" game play for competitive or casual. buuuut......

 Coldhatred wrote:
Balance is very important to a fun game for me.

I think maybe some people are supporting imbalance because they believe units can't be unique and special if everything is balanced. Then again, they might just like the net lists.

The part about people liking net lists is kinda silly to me (no offense cold) because some people will always find the most points efficient units in a dex and maximize them in that slot (spamming) so sure, balance is one thing but tbh if every codex were PERFECTLY BALANCED there would still be a more efficient or more competitive list to be made from each codex than not. Then if someone is running the more efficient, competitive list they are a jerk? ... i don't think you could prevent people from doing that with balance. Now im not saying balance is useless or doesn't help game-play cause i believe it does. i just don't think it would "save" casual gamers from competitive gamers. IMO if you dont want to play people with "net lists" then dont. i myself try to have both casual lists and competative lists for my armys so i can play either or.

Balance is generally important, though it depends on the game you are playing. Most historical wargames recreating actual battles are not going to be balanced, because no battle in history has been balanced.

But for casual GW games then yes I'd prefer a balanced game. But a lot of that comes down to the players. Most games I've played over the last 25 years can be abused in some way.

Casual gaming requires requires the players to be sensible and lenient when preparing lists.

 Ugavine wrote:
Most historical wargames recreating actual battles are not going to be balanced, because no battle in history has been balanced.

Then those historical games are poorly designed. Even in a battle where historically one side lost you can set the game's victory conditions so that each player has an equal chance of winning. For example, a "last stand" battle might be one-sided in that the defender has no realistic chance of surviving, but the victory condition for the defender is based on surviving longer than the historical outcome.

Unless you are specifically talking about Warhammer, balanced gaming and casual gaming have NOTHING to do with each other. Nothing at all.

You can play and enjoy casual games that are totally unbalanced, if that is your expectation. Heck, you can play a game with your kids and deliberately let them win! Hide and seek is a fun game, even though seekers rarely fail to find hiders. Tag seldom ends with the initial "IT" never tagging anyone.

You can play and enjoy casual games that are perfectly balanced. Kids play Rock, Paper, Scissors and barring being really good at reading microexpressions or cheating, it's perfectly balanced.

The fallacy that GW seems to have embraced is that the careful tweaking and testing necessary to balance a (relatively) complicated game like Warhammer will somehow make the game less fun for players. They also seem to think that writing clear rules somehow makes the game less fun for players.

If I had to guess, I would ascribe these bogus notions to one of two things:

Their playtesters are their rules writers. Writing clear, unambiguous, balanced rules is work for the designers, and work is no fun. Since the designers are the only players they seem to listen to, then it seems like those rules are no fun.

Sour Grapes: if people keep complaining about our balance and poorly worded rules, then, rather than fix those things, balance and clear rules must be things we don't want!