Do you think Codex imbalances between armies is intentional?

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.

**Desubot**

Qlanth wrote:
I tend to not believe in conspiracies. It's far more likely that the imbalance is unintentional and simply a result of either bad practice or bad testing. This kind of thing happens in other games constantly. Game balance is not easy.

Should GW get off the hook for it? Not at all. They should be putting forth every effort to make the game fun for everyone, and I'm sure they are at least trying.

Is it some grand conspiracy to sell more products? I think you're giving them way too much credit.

The imbalance comes from the fact that there is always a head writer that often really REALLY likes the codex they are writing for.

it was really obvious before the whole codex team signature.

It comes down to favoritism. if they dont really care about orks or CSM than they will always be garbage.

**Accolade**

kronk wrote:
Intentional?

No. Just sloppily written to sell the new model(s) with no forethought of balance internally or externally.

Agreed, it's just the fact that the game is treated as secondary to models that results in rules being all over the place. Every now and then, some big release comes out that someone puts passion behind (read: better rules), but otherwise it's a dartboard of possibilities.

**oldzoggy**

Did anyone's opinion change after the ork FAQ ?

**CrownAxe**

Martel732 wrote:
They make too many new kits with terrible rules.

This. For every Riptide, Wraithknight, and Centurions there is a Razorshark, Exalted Tzeentch Chariot, and Mutilators

**Nithaniel**

oldzoggy wrote:
Did anyone's opinion change after the ork FAQ ?

NO. Still think its intentional imbalance.

**nurgle86**

Theres a lot of people on this forum that suggest that certain writers prefer their armies and so end up buffing their armies incredibly while disliking or being apathetic towards other armies. While I have never seen anything that confirms this idea it is definitely believable.

If this is the case then those writers are intentionally creating imbalance even if they are doing it in their minds as a positive way.

The fact that a writer may prefer the Eldar codex so puts all his effort into it while just doing a lazy copy paste minor tweak job on the ork codex is unforgiveable. The comparison between the Eldar getting almost army wide improvements over two codex releases while orks get army wide nerfs in just one release suggests to me that this isn't just apathetic writing but a deliberate decision to nerf an army.

This does sound like a conspiracy theory but it is also probably true.

I play multiple armies so I'm less bothered by it than some but it amazes me when I compare the massive differences between my army strengths

**master of ordinance**

I am in agreement with the general consensus that the rules design and writing team intentionally creates an imbalance and power difference between the codex's. Those codex's that the head writer likes (IE; Eldar, Space Marines, Tau) are often given wondrous new toys and shiny things as well as intentional buffs and points efficient units where as those that the head writer does not like (IE; Chaos and Orks), has no interest in (Sisters) or believes should be intentionally weaker so another army can be made to look 'better' (Imperial Guard) get shafted with bad rules, bad units, terrible points costs or just (as with the Sisters) forgotten. When they are challenged on this the team come up with this whole ethos on how the rules are "intended to promote a story" and "Play along with the story line" all of which culminates with the (in)famous quote from GW that is "Forge the narrative"
Ultimately this is an extremely poor excuse for what is pretty much a mix of lazy rules writing and the intentional nerfing of several armies to allow the certain poster boys shine.

**tneva82**

Desubot wrote:
Qlanth wrote:
I tend to not believe in conspiracies. It's far more likely that the imbalance is unintentional and simply a result of either bad practice or bad testing. This kind of thing happens in other games constantly. Game balance is not easy.

Should GW get off the hook for it? Not at all. They should be putting forth every effort to make the game fun for everyone, and I'm sure they are at least trying.

Is it some grand conspiracy to sell more products? I think you're giving them way too much credit.

The imbalance comes from the fact that there is always a head writer that often really REALLY likes the codex they are writing for.

it was really obvious before the whole codex team signature.

It comes down to favoritism. if they dont really care about orks or CSM than they will always be garbage.

Problem isn't that there's guy passionate about army writing codex. Problem is they don't have one for every codex.

If writer has no passion toward army it will end up boring army book. That's no fun either.

What they need is to have enough developers that SOMEBODY likes each army.

**Blacksails**

That, and, you know, competent writers, game designers, and play-testers.

**tneva82**

Blacksails wrote:
That, and, you know, competent writers, game designers, and play-testers.

Which doesn't help much if you aren't interested in the army. No interest, no good result.

**Blacksails**

Disagree. A competent game designer would be a professional. By that definition, they take pride in their work regardless of their personal feelings on any particular faction. You can create a well balanced, appropriately fluffy army while having no real love of the faction as long as you have a solid understanding of the core rules you're working with and the faction fluff. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't stop someone from making a good product.

Of course, someone passionate and competent will typically come up with a better end result, but you also have the problem of that person going too far with their love of the army. Ideally, you'd want the same group of people having a more or less equal contribution to writing/balancing all the armies so they're made with the same considerations in mind. Also ideally done at the same time.

**Crablezworth**

hobojebus wrote:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

+1

They'd have to have a plan to be malevolent, they're just inept.

tag8833 wrote:
Purifier wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's a mix of a few different factors:
1) Sales.
Need to sell a unit? Make it stronger in some way. Need a bump in revenue before the next fiscal year? Guess the next codex needs to be strong! etc. It's not all the same reason, but it all boils down to sales, so while they might show themselves differently, they are still all rooted in sales.
2) Personal bias by writers towards a certain army. Some writers seem to think that certain armies are awesome and should be strong as gak (Gav on GK) and think others are just cannon fodder and should be for anyone spending massive amounts of money on the army too (Gav on SoB.)
3) A complete disinterest by writers to actually write rules that are balanced. They just don't care. They've even come out and said in the past that it's not supposed to be balanced. It's that kind of attitude that created the mess of pointless (hehe, get it?) AoS.

I'm pretty sure that Purifier has it right, though I believe "Sales" are the last item on the list as can be represented by the awesome power of the Flyrant (an older model with a lower profit margin), or the 6th ED Wave Serpent when compared to the Gorkanaut or Maleceptor two new models with high profit margins that have really bad rules.

I am a software engineer by day, and a gamer by night. I think of things in terms of numbers and statistics. Mathhammer if you will. We have the wrong view on the GW rules team. They aren't like me. They are creative types. They aren't hired for their ability to write clear, fluffy, and fun rules, they are hired for their ability to write and create fluff. The rules are an afterthought, and a secondary responsibility for what they do, and they take an approach to it that is driving by "feel", and "inspiration" rather than logic or statistics.

I'll admit that I don't know all of the 40K rules, though I play frequently, and might know more than most. None of the GW writers play nearly as much 40K as I do. They don't know the rules that they aren't directly responsible for, and don't have a full understanding of the consequences of things like unit types and Ballistic Skill and combos and such.

These things regularly show up in interviews and writings with writers and former writers.

Notable is the discussion of Jervis Johnson. He was head of the Age of Sigmar design team that was working at the time that Blood Angels, Orks, IG, and Dark Eldar Codexes were in the development process. He returned to the helm of 40K rules writing at the point the Necrons were almost done, and then oversaw the development of Eldar (in his veiw the most "inspirational" army), Space Marines, and Tau. He has a vision of 40K that is directly at war with my vision of it as a friendly game where 2 people that don't know each other can have a fun pickup game at the Friendly local game store. Everything that is regularly quoted about how GW is clueless of its customer base, or hates them, or is generally unlikable with the morality of a Bond Villain can usually be traced back to something that Jervis wrote. Case in point: http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com/2015/07/40k-rant-travesty-that-is-jervis-johnson.html or this: http://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=70533.0

Jervis is a bad dude that is vehemently disliked by former members of the rules team. One of the former writers (Matt Ward I think) described him in incredibly flowery terms like "Having the quality of a festering wart on the 2 week dead corpse of a rancid fish". I can't remember the exact quote, and can't find that blog post anymore, but I remember it being quite vivid imagery.

His vision of 40K is that it isn't driven by math (he hates math) or probability (Hates that too). It is about "Inspiration", which translates to rules that give very little thought to points and stats. Over the years he has had personality clashes with various rules writers, and eventually risen to a point where he is the boss and can dictate the design philosophy. He also appears to be the writer most interested in telling us how we should be playing and ridiculing us if we don't do it his way.

The good news is that Age of Sigmar was Jervis's magnum opus. He finally had complete authority over a rule-set with no oversight above him. He made Sigmar in the image of what he thinks games should be. It would seem that his plan was for 40k to follow once the "True Gamers" made sigmar a success. The failure of AOS might have discredited his design philosophy sufficiently that we might see fewer travesties like the Eldar Codex going forward.

Also, Jervis is something of a control freak which leads to him getting reassigned to specialist games frequently, and the relaunch of specialist games might keep him occupied so that he does slightly less damage to 40K moving forward. The most bothersome thing about Jervis to me is perhaps his most redeeming quality. He loves what he does. So despite being 60, and having made more money than he will ever spend, he would like to continue doing it as long as he can.

You and me are officially friends now

buddha wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Dear jarvis: I don't want to spent 1.5 hrs before each game haggling over the point value of every model.

Jarvis doesnt want you playing pick up games. He wants you to play a scenario where there is a predetermined outcome and feel satisfied you forged a narrative. No really, from his article that seems to be his ideal game.

EXACTLY! He has an obsession with asymmetric gaming and thinks everyone has 14 hours to play a game. That's why 40k 7th edition and apoc are the same game. All the politics and logistics are there. 40k need to go back to being a skirmish game you can play in 3 hours.

**Mr. Burning**

The rules are just hodgepodges together in order to satisfy the demands of those customers who really have to have rules for the luxurious pieces of plastic that GW want to release.

GW can get away with it because we have been buying a creaking set of rules which are designed to only be guidelines in our RPG 'esque narrative based games.

Couple that with rules writers designers and editors who see a chance to stamp their mark and you continually get messy situations.

Imbalance is not intentional.

Neither is any 'balance' that crops up.

**sfshilo**

I guess I really do not understand the conspiracy theory here. There is SO MUCH that effects the outcome of a game, you can literally setup a scenario for every army that gives it an advantage.

The reason this persists is tournies, especially ITC format favors two types of army at the moment.
1. The super shooting mobile army. (Due to terrain being scarce and missions being maelstrom objective/kill point based)
2. The ultra mobile high unit count armies. (But low model count.)

Eldar are "good" because they are extremely mobile, have a decent amount of firepower, and can field an average amount of units. Space marines are good because they are highly mobile, have a decent amount of firepower, and can field a large amount of MSU. (On top of that they are hard to kill)

Orks are extremely mobile (more so than eldar IMO), but give up shooting and assaulting to do so. They can do MSU, but it becomes a hindrance in tourney settings because the games drag out. They are not very tough due to their high model count, but unlike IG, their shooting is suspect. On top of the fact that to do anything they need to NOT shoot because the ITC format requires MOBILITY.

In static, "take the objectives" type missions at lower points, say 1500 and down, the Orks Excel, especially if there is an abundance of terrain.

Additionally, this insistence that GW make "MY ARMY GOOD", IE: the warbike armies everyone built in 5th ed, is why so many people are struggling with their armies as of late. The orks have their drawbacks, but I have played against too many good ork armies to believe GW did this on purpose.

**Crablezworth**

sfshilo wrote:

In static, "take the objectives" type missions at lower points, say 1500 and down, the Orks Excel, especially if there is an abundance of terrain.

I needed a good laugh, I really did. Thankyou sir.

Abundance of terrain is good for everyone, especially the line of sight blocking kind.

I think if they can actually do their best to kill formations and all the silly crap, bring back the foc they might have a chance to bring future dex's up in power and hopefully see more balance. 30k isn't perfect but I rarely have a game as soul crushing as just about any 40k game in 7th.

**nurgle86**

sfshilo wrote:
I guess I really do not understand the conspiracy theory here. There is SO MUCH that effects the outcome of a game, you can literally setup a scenario for every army that gives it an advantage..

You are missing the point. I'm not talking about setting up scenarios to impose advantage. I'm talking about playing the standard scenarios and standard missions in environments where neither army actually has advantage.

In any standard non competitive game at a FLGS or even in my garage we would normally randomise scenarios but never pick them in advance. In these environments Orks would usually get beaten by Eldar more often than not.

But please don't let this debate get derailed by an orks suck eldar don't. This is about the attitude of GW towards game balance. Its also not really a conspiracy theory because I don't even think there is malice intended here nor do I think stupidity is an issue. I believe that the game is deliberately but not maliciously stacked in favour of some armies over others.

**Jacksmiles**

I can agree with "deliberate but not malicious," I feel like a lot of decisions come from "Who is supposed to win?" And that's just piss-poor design. Everyone is supposed to win sometimes.

**Davor**

nurgle86 wrote:
Theres a lot of people on this forum that suggest that certain writers prefer their armies and so end up buffing their armies incredibly while disliking or being apathetic towards other armies. While I have never seen anything that confirms this idea it is definitely believable.

What Tyranid codex not proof enough? Look how over powered Imperial Guard was in 5th edition. Then Robin Cruddace (spelling?) did the Tyranid codex and rumour was he didn't like Nids so Nids got the 5th edition codex. Then he redid the Tyranid 6th edition codex, then did Space Marines 7th edition codex. Yeah, that should be your proof right there an author bugging armies he likes and being apathetic towards something he doesn't care for or likes.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

This post about Jarvis thing reveals the global state of mind that rules GW nowadays. I'm not that surprised about this guy being a douche and it confirms they intentionally make it so that you either have to change army (competitive players), buy they're new

or buy loads of further minis to achieve a formation complete. And there we go.

You may have notcied it, but once again, i'l focus on competitive players, but i mean the hardcore ones, since I regard them as collaboraters. It Nothing new that our poor green skins aren't competitive anymore, nor that eldars etc are. So they only switch a bit between they "winners" and let the non or less competitve ones alone so that the players who use them directly feel concerned in the matter and forced to buy. As always, the problems would be far less grim if only casual players and painters had their word to tell.

**the_scotsman**

nurgle86 wrote:

This does sound like a conspiracy theory but it is also probably true.

Never heard that from a conspiracy theory.

**MechaEmperor7000**

GW zigzags with this.

The 5th and 6th Edition Tyranid Codexes were very blatant in nerfing old standbys and buffing some of the new kits (most infamously, nerfing the carnifex in 5th edition to pave the way for the Trygon).

However recently I don't think they do this anymore. The Eldar were the result of an accident in trying to streamline the range to match the current standard (deleting the funky Distort rule in favour of the Core Rulebook D-Weapon rule, and making a Gargantuan Creature out of an existing large model rather than making a whole new model).

Similarly the Tau didn't get much of an update to existing units but also didn't address some of the issues that made them powerful (basically ignoring the entire assault phase, which was their only real weakness).

And the "nerfs" to the weaker codexes ere also the result of poorly thought out streamlining, rather than itnentionally trying to make them weak. BAs got the short end of the hook because they came out just as the Space Marines as a whole were updated, while Dark Eldar basically just got their more esoteric Wargear trimmed away with little to replace it.

It's likely to cut down on production cost and time, since during this period codexes were coming out at a rapid pace.

**Nithaniel**

the_scotsman wrote:
nurgle86 wrote:

This does sound like a conspiracy theory but it is also probably true.

Never heard that from a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory is the wrong choice of words here. That implies that there is some hidden agenda in GW to the detriment of its players. Going by Jervis' previously mentioned statements, it was never his or the companies intention to make a balanced game. He is a roleplayer from a D&D background and mindset. They want to create stories and re-enactments and their bias is towards the "goodguys always win" side of the spectrum. This is all well and good if
A) the consumer base reflects this
B) it is made clear

To answer point A, its very difficult to know if the consumer base reflects this because I don't and I'm an older gamer that spends about £1k a year on this hobby and consider it a game first and a hobby second. I assume that a lot of people are like me and reading the comments on dakka I can see that a lot are but there are plenty of hobbyists and collectors on dakka that also don't reflect me and their attitude towards the hobby.

Point B however is where they have clearly fallen down. They use a points system which by virtue of its existence implies that points will create balance. They have an unwieldy convoluted and complex rules system that also implies balance. But by the very little communication the company gives us regarding this they don't care about the rules or balance as much as I do. Had I known this when I started I wouldn't have committed. As it is now I love the BL books, I love the aesthetic and I have grown to enjoy painting so I think I now get my monies worth from the hobby.

But I still want the balance that is implied but not stated.

So I think its not a conspiracy theory but it is a reflection on their attitude towards the game rather than the hobby and it is an intentional attitude. Not malicious, not imcompetent and not a conspiracy against gamers but just simply a deliberate design philosophy that isn't adequately communicated to their consumers

**Abadabadoobaddon**

Nithaniel wrote:
They want to create stories and re-enactments and their bias is towards the "goodguys always win" side of the spectrum.

This approach is entirely at odds with the very nature of the hobby and that's a big part of the problem. Given the amount of money and time it takes to purchase, assemble, and paint an army, who's going to be willing to do that in order to play the NPC "badguys always lose" side of the equation? Even worse, what about those people who purchase, assemble, and paint said badguy army before discovering the game is balanced against them?

It's almost like Jervis doesn't grasp the fact that those of us who don't work as games designers in the GW studio have to not only pay for our own models but build and paint them ourselves.

**Grief**

There is no such thing as some elaborate intentional imbalance of armies due to passionated vs apathy , they just writing over powered under costed rules for new models to sell while nerfing models that used to be good all to generate sales and create artificial demand.

**oldzoggy**

Grief wrote:
There is no such thing as some elaborate intentional imbalance of armies due to passionated vs apathy , they just writing over powered under costed rules for new models to sell while nerfing models that used to be good all to generate sales and create artificial demand.

The Gorkanaught and all the ork fliers wish to have a word with you.

**pm713**

Grief wrote:
There is no such thing as some elaborate intentional imbalance of armies due to passionated vs apathy , they just writing over powered under costed rules for new models to sell while nerfing models that used to be good all to generate sales and create artificial demand.

Which would make sense if all the new kits had good rules.

**Vankraken**

oldzoggy wrote:
Grief wrote:
There is no such thing as some elaborate intentional imbalance of armies due to passionated vs apathy , they just writing over powered under costed rules for new models to sell while nerfing models that used to be good all to generate sales and create artificial demand.

The Gorkanaught and all the ork fliers wish to have a word with you.

Dakkajets where awesome back in 6th and still serviceable in 7th, Just because the burna bommer is hot garbage doesn't mean it applies to the others. The Blitza bommer has improved dramatically in 7th and can be quite powerful if used correctly.

**Fauk**

You don`t only need the ork stuff. The Dark Eldar Bomber is gakky too, and was a new model. As far as I remember the Chaos Space Marine Apostel is the same gak, as the dinobots are too.

As someone said earlier for every wraithknight there will be some mutilators....

**tag8833**

Crablezworth wrote:
Abundance of terrain is good for everyone, especially the line of sight blocking kind.

LOS blocking terrain now a days shifts the balance in favor of Eldar (Warp Spiders become unkillable), Tau (don't need Line of Sight as much), and Demons (Gives them a place to hide psychers for summoning. Since those are the top 3 codexes, I don't think we need to focus on it as much as we used to. Sure, My Orks love having something big enough to obscure a trukk, but they also hate facing Warp Spiders that cant' be shot at.

My Tyranids used to love cover, but now that an FMC can't get a cover save even when in Glide mode (On the ground) without Jinking that has become less so.

Crablezworth wrote:
I think if they can actually do their best to kill formations and all the silly crap, bring back the foc they might have a chance to bring future dex's up in power and hopefully see more balance. 30k isn't perfect but I rarely have a game as soul crushing as just about any 40k game in 7th.

The biggest imbalances in the game right now are formations and the psychic phase. I also think we should relegate formation, Super Heavies, and Strength D to narrative / Apoc play and get back to a game of tactics and choices, but there are the players looking for a pay-for-advantage system, and formations / Super Heavies are great for them, and there are the players that love Apoc, but it sucks that nobody wanted to play that game. These two groups are militant in their defense of formations, Super Heavies, and Strength D, and the vast majority of gamers don't care that much one way or the other. They don't like Apoc, but don't want to rock the boat.

Because of that I've been working on sanding off some of the most jagged edges of formations: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VUB0iOj0o3L6SCqNpTWfBXpCVx3-1zhdP-EFPlfdeEY/edit?usp=sharing

By making all formations playable, and more in line with fluff I think it might be a solution that works for everyone except the pay-to-win crowd, and they are such a small group anyways.

That is sort of an example of how GW has wielded the imbalance as a weapon against the type of gaming they don't like (Friendly Pickup games). By creating a system ill suited to fun interesting games between evenly matched armies played by players who don't know each other, it has driven schisms into our community, and seen a bit of fracturing in the player base forcing players to be less inclusive and more insular among their opponent base. "I don't want to play Dustin! He is a WAC player!" "Competitive players are ruining the game!" "I'm not playing against Eldar they are OP!", and cliques shrink and radicalize farther. Look for instance at the ITC. The urge to tone down and balance the game has gradually decreased over time as the players have farther radicalized. When I go to Tournaments these days it isn't uncommon to play against someone who doesn't play casually, and only plays in tournaments and tournament prep. When I go to our Campaign meeting, some of the players only play against each other anymore. When I show up at the game store on Saturday there is more 40K played than ever before, but the games are between little sub cliques more and more.

For myself, I am every bit zealot that Jervis is, but in completely the opposite direction. I think the Friendly pickup game is the highest form of gaming, and would like to play a game open to everyone, so I will keep working towards that even as GW works against it.