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.

 Easy E wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That and 'balancing' the game isn't their job.

Exactly.

Sometimes I think people just want GW to do all the hard work (and therefore most rewarding work) for them.

At $50+ per codex, I should be expecting GW to do the "hard work."

Deadnight wrote:

Here is the thing though. I applaud your attitude. very page5. very "bring it on". and i agree. But its one thing to lose against something youve never faced before, and to learn something from it. that is true of every game from warmachine, hordes, flames of war, infinity, dystopian wars and you name it. Its one thing to know where you went wrong, where the other guy did right, and what you can do against him next time. the thing is, with a balanced game, your faction has options available to it to do just that. in an unbalanced game, you dont. you mention vietnam. Vietnam is a bad example. strategy can take you places, sure. but you need to tools and the skills to pull it off. the vietnamese had these. and over a long, drawn out guerrilla war, they hurt the americans enough to make them (and the folks back home) lose all stomach for the war. which is neither here nor there. but how would you feel about going up against an army, with which you have absolutely no way of winning, or even breaking even? it destroys the fun. im all for a competitive, "can do" attitude, and giving it your all, but a balanced game at least lets you push yourself to do this. an unbalanced one doesnt give you the options.

Plus, it's much easier to unbalance a balanced game than vice versa. Do you want to play an "underdog" game where one side is at a disadvantage? Okay, give one side a points advantage, or give the sides equal amounts of differering-quality troops, find someone who'll agree to play that and boom, you're done.

My opinion of balance is that both sides should be picking models and factions that they want instaed of which one who gets the most win results, and that each army has an advantage but also has a distinct disadvantage that the player needs to consider when plying the game, then is up to the players skill and strategy to find out that weakness is and exploit it, now I know this sounds a bit off but when you think about it both armies or factions are doing the same thing at the same time during a game, which can be an enjoyable experiance when they have the mission to consider as well.

I am currently making a D6 wargame and a D10 Sci-fi Skirmish game and how I am trying to make the rules is to make the core rules first, but design it as a simple rule so people can get playing as soon as they get the rules, and then I revolovemy factions around the rules, I then go onto playtesting to see how all factions react to one another, then I modify the rules to make the game more fair. My aims for my games is to make a decent ruleset where people will choose whatever models they liked and ran them with another player who also has done the same. but anyhho this is just my opinion on what balance is, with variety.

 happygolucky wrote:
My opinion of balance is that both sides should be picking models and factions that they want

When I first got into 40k I picked Tau because I wanted Tau the most. Admittedly, balance didn't even occur to me at the time because, stupid me, I just assumed every army was balanced to begin with. It never occurred to me that I could potentially be putting myself at a disadvantage and that I'd never win games because I picked the "wrong" army.

If I had known beforehand that some armies were just plain better than others, and that some got constantly updated while others spent 5-10+ years without anything, I wouldn't have picked any army. Probably would have been much happier in the end never having bothered with 40k at all anyway.

Many people won games as tau in fifth...

 BryllCream wrote:
Many people won games as tau in fifth...

Wow, really, that's going to be your argument?

 sourclams wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Many people won games as tau in fifth...

Wow, really, that's going to be your argument?

And coming from BryllCream you are surprised because?

Even understanding the source, to begin to allude to the viability of an outdated codex that few people played in a bygone edition that was consistently regarded in the 'bottom 3' of the power curve for multiple years is mind-bottling.

I think it depends on what you're playing. The rules themselves should have internal balance, so there is no 'auto-win' rule.

However, I have played several games where the scenario is unbalanced that have been extremely entertaining. Nothing like playing the whole 'Archaon's Horde' scenario against a force of Tyranids.

That is the difference.

If the game has no provable level of imbalance, then one sided senarios are all you can play.And you can never be sure which side has the upper hand to any finite amount.

Where as a game with a reasonable level of provable imbalance,can be used for ALL types of game play, and a more finite level of advantage can be deduced by the players.

IF a rule set uses PV and army composition lists to arrive at its 'balance'.They should be optimized for this purpose.
(Not to inspire people to purchase particular products.IMO)

You can unbalance a balanced game to any degree you want to, AND know how much imbalance you are creating.

This is preferable to trying to balance a game developed without any thought to the balance of the game at any level.

 sourclams wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Many people won games as tau in fifth...

Wow, really, that's going to be your argument?

Yes. Tau were weaker than other armies due to codex creep (and they lacked the cheese/spam of other codexes) but there was no "What the hell is the point in playing" feeling as Tau. The poster above was exaggerating. Or would you like me to dig up some posts from 5th edition era where people were asking how to beat Tau?

I submit to you this:




No seriously, watch this, please, thank you.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I submit to you this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

No seriously, watch this, please, thank you.

I knew it wouldn't be long until someone posted this... Well, the difference in Starcraft and WH40k makes that slightly..hmm. "inaccurate" to use here, and that difference is: WH40k, someone is paying to lose, whereas in SC, you don't have to pay any more money to play a different army.

I think it's important to know that what some of us here viewed as "balance" isn't so much that we want nids to outshoot Tau, the average DE to be better tank than some 2+/3++ HQ, or SM to outnumber orks, but more that each codex should be balanced by point value, this is of course a problem with GW's update schedule, as they only update every other month, provided that they aren't doing non-WHFB/WH40k updates inbetween, which is partly responsible for this whole "imbalance", just look at some older codices' point values and newer ones, it's 1 of the reasons why necrons are so strong, because their point values are made for this edition.

If you only watched half of it and thought its just about starcraft you didn't really get the meaning, or just did not watch the entire video.

Perfect imbalance applies to any gaming metaphor. Its just easier to disassemble with video-games. Watch it in its entirety.

I watched it ages ago... I watched all of Extra Creditz videos.

If you'd take the time to read what I wrote, you'd see what I meant. In video games, or any games where you don't pay to lose, it's fine to have some armies artificially imbalanced to improve gameplay experience, but WH40k, you actually have to pay to lose here, hence why you see stronger armies being most popular. So what I'm saying is that it's fine that each army has their own personal touch, but what myself and some others are asking for isn't for each army to lose their personal "imbalance" touch(such as nids being terrible at shooting, or Tau being terrible at assault), but that point values should correctly reflect the function of the unit.

Agreed 100%, I think the issue is GW not willing to retcon rules/values outside of a codex release due to powercreep.

I mean look at what Grey Knights did to the balance scene.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
Agreed 100%, I think the issue is GW not willing to retcon rules/values outside of a codex release due to powercreep.

I mean look at what Grey Knights did to the balance scene.

To be fair, it's hard to update rules/values without giving away crucial codex information, perhaps if they'd release better priced ebooks that are available to, you know, not iPad, they could "patch" rules/values for paid customers.

Well, with the improved update speed, and them basically axing everything(), they might be able to update all the codices before they go down, and hopefully, by then, all codices would keep their style while being able to play on the same ground.

Baronyu wrote:
To be fair, it's hard to update rules/values without giving away crucial codex information, perhaps if they'd release better priced ebooks that are available to, you know, not iPad, they could "patch" rules/values for paid customers.

This is why trying to make a profit on RPG-style rulebooks is bad for balance. If, instead, GW focused on making fluff books and did the rules MTG-style (freely available online, with profit coming from the pieces to play the game, not the rules) it would be easy to keep everything updated.

It's especially amusing (in a sad way) that you can already get everything a "patch" download would consist of anyway if you're persistent enough with searching forums and adding up all the bits of information people post. That is, if you don't just pirate the entire rulebook.

I wouldn't like to see a rules system updated on the GW website. Especially if they tried to "balance" things and someone's models were made obsolete by a random rules change.

I partially agree with you in that GW rarely tells people wen they update their website

 BryllCream wrote:
Especially if they tried to "balance" things and someone's models were made obsolete by a random rules change.

How is that any different from someone's models being made obsolete by having terrible rules (that a poor newbie didn't understand before buying them), or having a new codex? I don't really see why, say, adding 50 points to the cost of a Helldrake is so much worse than the new Tau codex turning my Hammerheads into paperweights. The model is still useful, it just isn't overpowered anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is why trying to make a profit on RPG-style rulebooks is bad for balance. If, instead, GW focused on making fluff books and did the rules MTG-style (freely available online, with profit coming from the pieces to play the game, not the rules) it would be easy to keep everything updated.

I think the issue for GW is that they use the re-release of the rules to so heavily drive sales of their new products. My local GW is currently treating Tau with no more ceremony than they treat Space Marines, only 2 months after release. (Of course, it doesn't help that they *still* haven't gotten any Broadsides on the shelves).
It might be possible for GW to change their rule style release, but it would require significant adjustments over their entire operations if you remove the regular sales spikes caused by releasing an army every month.

I wouldn't like to see a rules system updated on the GW website. Especially if they tried to "balance" things and someone's models were made obsolete by a random rules change.

This is an issue as well.. if you buy a model from GW currently, you can be reasonably sure it will continue to operate exactly as advertised for the next 3-4 years (or the next edition change, whichever comes first).
Imagine you're running a triple helldrake list, and you bought exactly enough models to play 1850pt tournaments. If GW upped their price by 50pts and suddenly you need to drop one to still play those same tournaments, you'd be understandably upset that you've spent $75 AU more than you needed to.

Trasvi wrote:
Imagine you're running a triple helldrake list, and you bought exactly enough models to play 1850pt tournaments. If GW upped their price by 50pts and suddenly you need to drop one to still play those same tournaments, you'd be understandably upset that you've spent $75 AU more than you needed to.

First of all, the long-term health of the game is more important than a few customers who are unhappy that the overpowered unit they bought to dominate tournaments with is no longer as overpowered as it used to be, especially if GW established a precedent of re-balancing problem units so nobody would be surprised when their overpowered stuff got brought down to a sane level.

Second, how is this any different than it is now? Every time an army gets a new codex anyone who bought stuff under the old codex probably has some wasted money. And even other codex releases can have the same effect, if the Eldar codex contains overpowered AA units then you wasted all the money you spent on Helldrakes.

 artofwaaagh wrote:
Strategy is the game. There are going to be armies that are better against one army but get obliterated against another one. but it challenges you to change up your tactics to defeat an enemy that OPs you.

Doesn't that just turn a game into very expensive rock-paper-scissors? If the game is already decided before the figures are down. Balance should mean that any x point army stands a reasonable chance against any other x point army, and that anything in an army list is a reasonable choice. There are lots of things in current 40K army lists that are either never-have items or must-have items, and that's not balance.

besides that every army being equally powerful sounds a little like communism to me. Lets look at the real world. Is Ethiopia's army as strong as Germany's? Is Iraq as strong as Israel? No, But with a little strategy they could still win a war against one another. Vietnam did a pretty damn good job defending against the U.S. on guerrilla tactics alone. All armies being equal sound very mundane and kind of brings me back to 3rd grade recess when everything had to be fair. bring on a stronger army. I might not win the first time but at least I learned something. It's a game I can just play again tomorrow I didn't actually die.

Balance doesn't have anything to do with all armies having equal stats, just that there is a way to provide games with an even chance of winning for both sides. Be that higher numbers of NVA troops to US Marines, or more imperial guard troops than Space Marines, or whatever.

Herzlos wrote:
besides that every army being equally powerful sounds a little like communism to me. Lets look at the real world. Is Ethiopia's army as strong as Germany's? Is Iraq as strong as Israel? No, But with a little strategy they could still win a war against one another. Vietnam did a pretty damn good job defending against the U.S. on guerrilla tactics alone. All armies being equal sound very mundane and kind of brings me back to 3rd grade recess when everything had to be fair. bring on a stronger army. I might not win the first time but at least I learned something. It's a game I can just play again tomorrow I didn't actually die.

That's a completely ridiculous argument. A tabletop wargame is NOT a simulation or a high-stakes fight to the death (like real war), it's a game where the goal is to have fun. Having unbalanced sides just means that one player has a disadvantage and is less likely to enjoy the game.

PS: Vietnam only "defended against the US" because the US declined to nuke them back to the stone age, a policy that wouldn't apply in 40k (or many other games). A 40k match between US/Vietnam equivalents would be completely one-sided and not fun for either player.

Trasvi wrote:
Imagine you're running a triple helldrake list, and you bought exactly enough models to play 1850pt tournaments. If GW upped their price by 50pts and suddenly you need to drop one to still play those same tournaments, you'd be understandably upset that you've spent $75 AU more than you needed to.

But if you're that sort of gamer, not only are you a tiny, tiny minority of the hobby, but you're also not the target audience for the game (you're playing tournaments).

I only bought metal models because I don't play the game, I just use the miniatures as paperweights. How dare GW switch to fine cast - don't they care about me and my paperweights?

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Especially if they tried to "balance" things and someone's models were made obsolete by a random rules change.

How is that any different from someone's models being made obsolete by having terrible rules (that a poor newbie didn't understand before buying them), or having a new codex? I don't really see why, say, adding 50 points to the cost of a Helldrake is so much worse than the new Tau codex turning my Hammerheads into paperweights. The model is still useful, it just isn't overpowered anymore.

Codex changes happen every 5 years, you are suggesting that GW change the rules whenever the hell they feel like it. Clearly that's untenable.

 Peregrine wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
besides that every army being equally powerful sounds a little like communism to me. Lets look at the real world. Is Ethiopia's army as strong as Germany's? Is Iraq as strong as Israel? No, But with a little strategy they could still win a war against one another. Vietnam did a pretty damn good job defending against the U.S. on guerrilla tactics alone. All armies being equal sound very mundane and kind of brings me back to 3rd grade recess when everything had to be fair. bring on a stronger army. I might not win the first time but at least I learned something. It's a game I can just play again tomorrow I didn't actually die.

That's a completely ridiculous argument. A tabletop wargame is NOT a simulation or a high-stakes fight to the death (like real war), it's a game where the goal is to have fun. Having unbalanced sides just means that one player has a disadvantage and is less likely to enjoy the game.

PS: Vietnam only "defended against the US" because the US declined to nuke them back to the stone age, a policy that wouldn't apply in 40k (or many other games). A 40k match between US/Vietnam equivalents would be completely one-sided and not fun for either player.

Well said, Comrade!

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Then I guess you never played any of Avalon Hill's Civil War games, huh? Or the Battleground computer games? Some battles were nearly impossible to win. The Pickett's Charge scenarios were usually that way for the Confederates. Bit fhay was the point of those games, to see if a player could overcome some of the mistakes or accidents the occurred in the actual battle. When I played through First Manassas, I actually managed to succeed with Johnston's strategy and nearly destroyed the Union army that day.

Gaming can't be balanced, or else it will be boring. For one, no one is playing their identical twin. No two pwople work exactly the same way. Two, if the sides were evemly balanced for winning, there would be no point in ever offering a variety, like in Warhammer or Flames of War. If all falls to the players to overcome disadvantages, not the game designers entirely. Its just easier to blame them when your tactics and/or army sucks.

I know I'm late to respond but I think your post is a perfect example of "missing the point."

You can have a balanced, 2-player Pickett's Charge scenario without compromising the history. You just have to design it with the Union player's superiority in mind: the Confederate player can win by performing better than in reality before being defeated, or by achieving a better than historical casualty ratio, for example. A "Major Victory" for the confederates may be that they achieve none of their historical objectives but won x amount of in-game victory points by taking fewer than y casualties or seizing ground z for an amount of time. The Union player, on the other hand, might only be able to score a "Major Victory" by not only decimating the confederate charge but following up with a succesful advance of his own, destroying Longstreet utterly. (And risking losing too much and throwing the game into a draw in the process.) The Confederate player may only "win" in terms of turning the historical battle 1 out of 100 times, but they can have a 50% shot of achieving certain in-game goals that show they've improved on the historical attempt. This happens in a lot of games. D-Day scenarios are a common example: the germans usually win by holding the allies for x amount of time (implying that they still get driven out of Normandy eventually), not by driving them into the sea.

The same could theoretically apply to Warhammer/40K: for example, Tyranids could be made explicitly worse at shooting and especially cracking armor than other factions, but their non-synapse units respawn and they win by comparison of killpoints no matter the scenario, while their better-equipped opponents may be forced to play towards objectives while also avoiding annihilation. Daemon armies could be handicapped by randomized warp rules but gain victory points that other armies don't have access to by achieving god-appropriate goals. Orc/ks could be made overly-dependent on assault, but force the opponent into a defensive posture by use of special greenskin deployment rules applying to both sides.