Switch Theme:

Do you actually want balance in 40k?  [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 us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

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

You should still need to build a competent list-taking nothing but Servitors should end in you losing, no matter what. But taking a balanced, fluffy list should be a perfectly viable and even tournament capable list.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






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

You should still need to build a competent list-taking nothing but Servitors should end in you losing, no matter what. But taking a balanced, fluffy list should be a perfectly viable and even tournament capable list.

What if I told you Evil Sunz bikers was a fluffy, balanced list?
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




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

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


It's much like health of your body. It starts what you take in, how you keep yourself in shape, your mental state etc. Express that in the game, the core game needs to be solid, which currently it still isn't. The codex needs to have good internal balance of choices to take when most are full of things that aren't even very good in a casual list even given the perfect units to use them against. Then off set this off of all the other books.

I get that no one should expect taking all infantry with no heavy weapons or AT should just roll up on a tank company and perhaps win. However infantry with proper weapons, using the game play mechanics should have an ability to tackle a slew of tanks, that isn't an unreasonable belief to have. Outside the real lopsided lists, most stuff should feel usable and not that you just gave away the game because you brought say..drop pods. Which like a couple weeks before the new marine dex dropped was literally called the worst thing ever. That if I took a 10 man grey hunter squad with a drop pod, regardless of equipment, I might as well not even play the game, it was over. That is not very fair, or remotely balanced if its viewed that way and plays that way.

So work on the core game, internal balance, then external and it doesn't need to be perfect, just a good deal better than it is. I actually like an uphill struggle when I play, I don't chase the meta but I also have played a long time and like the challenge, not every player has the tenacity to hang in there with that. They get into the game, get some poor units and are smashed over and over because they believed the units had some use baked into them. That is and has been an issue.

The fact that GW just keeps pushing on but not really fixing base issues first is what makes me believe it's either their intention to leave it like this, or they just can't with all the new additions coming so quickly. They just may not have the capability because selling trumps quality control in that regard, I don't know. People may care but like in any large company they may not have the say in what happens when if at all.
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot





Holy Terra

Absolute balance is absolutely boring.

At the sane time if the disparity is too high that causes a lot of problems.

We need a slight imbalance lol

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Absolute balance no one asked for, or expects. Workable balance which isn't where we currently reside is I think not too much to ask for.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/30 23:00:30


 
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot





Holy Terra

What is giving you do much grief?

GW rebalance things all the time. They literally fixed the Caladius tank today.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

I wonder if it would help to have HQs that were more focused?

For example, Warmachine/Hordes isn't perfectly balanced but it has very few 'dud' units. And one of the main reasons is that each of the Warcasters/Warlocks has a different niche. So, even if an army's swordsman infantry are relatively weak, there's usually one or more Warcasters with enough infantry-buffing abilities to make them viable or even powerful when used with him.

In contrast, the majority of 40k's HQs have buffs that are near universal. A SM Captain doesn't care if he'd buffing a unit of Tactical Marines or a Predator Tank - both get the exact same buff. Hence, there's rarely any reason to not just use the strongest unit(s) available. They get the same buff but the stronger unit still benefits more simply because it was better to begin with.

Perhaps it might be better if buffs were more limited but also stronger (especially in the case of weaker or underused units). e.g. A character could have an aura that allowed all failed hits to be rerolled - but it only affects Terminators.

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






 Ishagu wrote:
What is giving you do much grief?

GW rebalance things all the time. They literally fixed the Caladius tank today.

Questionable on Caladius tanks. They are still very/too points efficient.
   
Made in ca
Focused Fire Warrior




Canada

Wtf does balance mean? People throw that word around in strategy games like crazy .

It doesn't make sense to refer to a game as balanced or im-balanced in most cases. Rather aspects can be.

Is 40k balanced? Yes I have the same options as my opponent does (in that we have can play whatever unit/faction in the game we want and pay the same points for it) . Is this codex balanced to this other.

The units I chess are balanced, the turn system is not (as one gives a higher winrate). You have to say what you mean by balance or its meaningless. You can't just say 40k is not balanced.

What kind of balance are you talking about? This is paramount to addressing all concerns of a dialogue about balance.

Op your original post doesn't mean anything; I have to infer things I don't want to to even have an idea of wtf you are talking about

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/30 23:38:13


 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Douglasville, GA

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

Thanos said that, and I think he knows a little more about 40k than you do.

On a real note, I agree with the majority here: just making it so every unit is useful would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Tone down the power of some things, step up the power of others, and we can still have our little differences without it being 40k checkers.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 vipoid wrote:
I wonder if it would help to have HQs that were more focused?

For example, Warmachine/Hordes isn't perfectly balanced but it has very few 'dud' units. And one of the main reasons is that each of the Warcasters/Warlocks has a different niche. So, even if an army's swordsman infantry are relatively weak, there's usually one or more Warcasters with enough infantry-buffing abilities to make them viable or even powerful when used with him.

In contrast, the majority of 40k's HQs have buffs that are near universal. A SM Captain doesn't care if he'd buffing a unit of Tactical Marines or a Predator Tank - both get the exact same buff. Hence, there's rarely any reason to not just use the strongest unit(s) available. They get the same buff but the stronger unit still benefits more simply because it was better to begin with.

Perhaps it might be better if buffs were more limited but also stronger (especially in the case of weaker or underused units). e.g. A character could have an aura that allowed all failed hits to be rerolled - but it only affects Terminators.


That's actually a pretty cool idea. So far all I've seen that for though is that one librarian having psyker powers that for some odd reason only affect certain types of units but it is a step in that direction. I could see it being a synergy thing, like ground commanders can buff certain ground units more because of skill set, or equipment etc and maybe do much less for vehicles. Would give some layers to things and make you put a bit more thought into army make up as opposed to just slap buffs down and add strongest units, as the buffs then could make units stronger that were otherwise kind of middle of the road.

I'd love for a tactical oriented HQ that buffs tac marines lets say and makes people go," wow, those tac marines are pretty bad a^^ ! " Just using tac marines as an example. of course. They've kind of had some stuff that felt close to that before in various ways but never quite there, I would like it though. Incentive army builds of backbone units or units that should be a backbone anyways.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

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

You should still need to build a competent list-taking nothing but Servitors should end in you losing, no matter what. But taking a balanced, fluffy list should be a perfectly viable and even tournament capable list.

What if I told you Evil Sunz bikers was a fluffy, balanced list?
It's not that specific list I object to-it's the idea that you can any combination of units and be competitive.

Evil Sunz Bikers SHOULD be competitive. As should Greentide, as should Mekrush, as should various other Orky configurations.

But, to continue the ork theme, taking 500 Grots and nothing else shouldn't be competitive.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission




Tacoma, WA, USA

Do we want balance? Of course we do. The more balanced the game the better. It will never be perfectly balanced, because perfection is impossible. But the search for better balance is a good thing.

That being said, 40K as it is will be very difficult to balance. There are too many variables for the game to get highly balanced. Still, there is much that can be done even without radically restructuring the game with balance as the goal.

1. Balance units in Codexes to make all units useful. A Codex should not have must pick or must avoid units in them.
2. Balance the effectiveness of units across ally factions to prevent too much multi-faction synergy in an army. Codex Space Marines is a good example on building towards this.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ishagu wrote:
What is giving you do much grief?

GW rebalance things all the time. They literally fixed the Caladius tank today.

Only their "rebalancing" is not very good. In spring FAQ, GK got nerfs again, same with FAQs before, and CA fix nothing. The "balancing" they do to GK, are changes they make to all marines. They drop the costs of all dreadnoughts, GK drop too. all marines, including chaos, gets +1A on first round, GK get it too, but changes that are made to everyone help those at the bottom a lot less the those who are in the mid or at the top. I mean when CA was coming out GW probably finished the changes to codex sm. I find no explanation why they thought a 21pts strike is a good thing to leave in the game, when tacs were suppose to drop to 12pts and primaris to 17.
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Ratius wrote:
This came up in another thread where someone said GW themselves do not want balance in 40k.
Imbalance shifts product as people will rush to try and keep up with the meta/flavor of the month/whats cool.

Park that for a moment but ask the question, do you as a player really want balance in 40k?
Do you want, or at least expect your Ork bike army to be able to compete VS a dedicated Tau gunline line or your footslogging Primaris to be able to beat IKsoup?
I don't want my Intercessors to shoot a knight to pieces in a turn. I want my Intercessors to be able to assist in damaging a Knight. I want an Ork Bike Army to be able to engage in a war of attrition with a Tau Gunlin such that it comes down to how much the Tau whittled down the bikes before the bikes mulched the Tau.


Or is it fair to just accept that 40k does not and cannot have balance when you factor in the range of armies, rules, special abilities, interactions etc.
In the above case, accept these are bad match ups and move on? (I used to play friendly MtG as white and really struggled against blue but had much better matchups vs black funnily enough. Eventually learned to accept it ).

Its fair to expect hard counters to be hard counters. It's not fair to be able to expect an entire army being a hard counter to another entire army. Hordes should not in and of itself be the hard counter to low model count elite armies that they are. Thematic armies should have the special rules they need to be competitive as well - We're too forced into the Batallion for CP Generation, and troops for objectives. The White Scars bike army, the Raven/Death/Combi - Wing armies, Eldar Jet Bike armies.. they are all punished for being thematically accurate but Force Org/Detachment different.

Or should GW balance the game by giving each army "roughly equal units". e.g. a waveserpent is so far ahead of a rhino as a transport its kinda imbalanced? Hence GW should focus on fixing this via more equal abilities, points increase/decrease or better unit interactions.

Im on the fence on this one and have to give it more thought
The Rhino and the DropPod both have inadequacies that should be resolved. That's not a balance vs a Wave Serpent issue, it's systemic to the Rhino and the Drop Pod itself before you even compare it to other transports.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




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

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


This i thinks sums up my thoughts on it mostly as well, every faction should have things they can build into a workable game. Without going outside its own army. But throwing down units with no really thought should be discouraged. This should also work into the world and the story they present, Bunch of space marines running into a tau gun line should never be presented as a good idea.
But space marines with there support and heavy elements drawing fire, and thoughts to how there use of units be the real selling point to that narrative.

I have also really thought GW need to put out a solid narritive book, with Good missions and how to lay out a table for narritive focused games. To show players they do support that way to play as well with good content.
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






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

You should still need to build a competent list-taking nothing but Servitors should end in you losing, no matter what. But taking a balanced, fluffy list should be a perfectly viable and even tournament capable list.

What if I told you Evil Sunz bikers was a fluffy, balanced list?
It's not that specific list I object to-it's the idea that you can any combination of units and be competitive.

Evil Sunz Bikers SHOULD be competitive. As should Greentide, as should Mekrush, as should various other Orky configurations.

But, to continue the ork theme, taking 500 Grots and nothing else shouldn't be competitive.


Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my original post but I absolutely agree with you.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





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

You should still need to build a competent list-taking nothing but Servitors should end in you losing, no matter what. But taking a balanced, fluffy list should be a perfectly viable and even tournament capable list.


I think he meant that a properly built army made of bikers, buggies and other things that make up speed freaks should have the same shot at winning as an army made of tau battle suits. Which is not the case right now.

Also, something fascinating: Basically everyone replied with "yes we want balance". Dakka agrees on something

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/31 08:26:55


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Spoiler:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
My ideal ? Every book feel fair, regardless of what codex I take and what codex my opponent takes. Obviously you'll always have bad lists but shouldn't be straight bad army books.

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


It's much like health of your body. It starts what you take in, how you keep yourself in shape, your mental state etc. Express that in the game, the core game needs to be solid, which currently it still isn't. The codex needs to have good internal balance of choices to take when most are full of things that aren't even very good in a casual list even given the perfect units to use them against. Then off set this off of all the other books.

I get that no one should expect taking all infantry with no heavy weapons or AT should just roll up on a tank company and perhaps win. However infantry with proper weapons, using the game play mechanics should have an ability to tackle a slew of tanks, that isn't an unreasonable belief to have. Outside the real lopsided lists, most stuff should feel usable and not that you just gave away the game because you brought say..drop pods. Which like a couple weeks before the new marine dex dropped was literally called the worst thing ever. That if I took a 10 man grey hunter squad with a drop pod, regardless of equipment, I might as well not even play the game, it was over. That is not very fair, or remotely balanced if its viewed that way and plays that way.

So work on the core game, internal balance, then external and it doesn't need to be perfect, just a good deal better than it is. I actually like an uphill struggle when I play, I don't chase the meta but I also have played a long time and like the challenge, not every player has the tenacity to hang in there with that. They get into the game, get some poor units and are smashed over and over because they believed the units had some use baked into them. That is and has been an issue.

The fact that GW just keeps pushing on but not really fixing base issues first is what makes me believe it's either their intention to leave it like this, or they just can't with all the new additions coming so quickly. They just may not have the capability because selling trumps quality control in that regard, I don't know. People may care but like in any large company they may not have the say in what happens when if at all.


IN conjunction with what Jimdah said about dakka aggreeeing on something for once, i believe we are at a stage were we can see the clear internal balance issues of the dexes alone.

Basically, regardless of DEX, really, people can see in their own dex the vast differences in capability alone in the traits and conected stratagems. Noboy would use Mordian ever for IG, Word bearers might aswell not exist anymore.
It get's worse when the internal balance is so skewed in one direction and dependant on a combination of subfaction + stratagem that only makes a whole unit class work.
Take the basic CSM, signature unit, outside of AL or RC you don't see them. IN RC they generate a massive advantage since they generate enough CP to be "Worth it " to hamstring yourself for CP gain.
Conditional Stratagems are also hillariously loopsided: The CSM codex is also a funny exhibition there, It has 2 double fight /shoot stratagems, the kind that is also often heavily critizied. Ironically you don't see the double melee that often due to two reasons, A: It's khorne/ melee and B: ) 3 CP and vastly more expensive to get use out of it. Whilest the double shooting one is only 2 CP for slaanesh. The other god specific stratagems , well they exist but are so bad that it is hillarious.

Not only do these two stratagems skew all CSM lists and plans into 1 direction, they also have a massive effect on points aswell. Subfactions that are mark limited and therefore don't gain access to these stratagems are often massively overpriced, whilest the same unit in another subfaction that can have access to these is performing vastly over what you paid. Best exemple Combi plas Terminators. Not worth in Scourged, Brazen beasts, WE, etc.


And you find this issue in a lot of books, i also wouldn't be surprised if the supplements for the marines end up with the same issue.

And now, let's talk about specialist units. (what do i mean by that? Units with either a specialized role or tactical application, e.g. Stormboyz, tankbustas, Veterans)

They fall into two categories:
Used, or NOT used. --> The issue is they should be used as a capability gap filler, instead they are either autoinclude or hardpass. Their inclusion should DEPEND on the type of list the Player fields NOT just be autoinclude or hardpass.
exemple how it(imo) should be: Stormboyz, a sacrificial mobility option for greentide to allow the rest of the army to close in with less losses due to effective tying up. How they are atm used: Nope, why bother when A tellyporta exists and B they are overpriced for what they do?
Harpass units are units that are obsolete in any way or form: Possesed f.e. Units so abmissaly bad by design that they don't work until the price forces them to be an autoinclude.


Then there is the third category: The troopchoice + often found in the elites: (Chosen, Veterans, Cultmarines etc) There is honestly not a reason for them to not be troopchoices.
Also they often suck. Thanks to CP generation and the role it fills in certain armies: E.g in many cases the only reason the army even works. Why do they suck, because you pay premium on stats,when CP generation and CP allocation atm prefers CHEAP as possible (preferably exploitable by allies) Generation and Use on as Expensive / (probably better most effective) as possible unit.

Then there are Signature units: Unit types that are there and Unique to specific armies/ factions: Daemonengines for exemple.
They either work conceptually or they don't.
In the Case of daemonengines, more often then not they don't work. (excluding the Lord discordant) mostly because in essence you pay the price for a what should be a WS/BS 3+ really.
Ofcourse there are also exemples of them done well. Khorne berzerkers come to mind, even plague marines after pricedrops.

In essence: ATM you get codexes that tend to be very specific in their capability and whilest that wouldn't be bad, it is bad when there is in essence just one combination that works great and the rest might aswell as an archetype does not exist.
:
TLDR: Internal balances fethed and mostly based around combos of Stratagems and specific subfactions, that vastly overshadow all other subfactions in a dex.



https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my original post but I absolutely agree with you.
Fantastic. Glad we could be at consensus.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






What hurts unit variety is the fact that 8th lacks so much mechanically that it basically all boils down to killing power, staying power, and mobility. There is a lack of other mechanics that creates variety in the function of similar units so it tends to boil down to utilizing the units that can do those 2 or 3 things the best for the best points cost. The only wrench that gets thrown in there comes in the form of auras and stratagems but in practice it seems to just augment the good units to be even better while not helping the weaker units to be viable due to opportunity cost. Depth of mechanics allows for more meaningful niche roles to emerge while the lack of mechanics results in easier to calculate mathhammer results. Without a lot of systems in place to disrupt unit operations it becomes easier to effectively utilize those theoretical results in practice.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

 Da Boss wrote:
If I had to choose between balance and the list building phase being a game in itself, I would choose balance every time.

I am in these games to play with minis. I can do the maths on the most powerful stuff as easily as anyone else, but it does not interest me. I want to collect miniatures that inspire me due to their aesthetics and background and then make what I consider to be a fun and interesting army out of whatever I have chosen.

I want a fair enough shot at winning with this if I make a few concessions to list building like ensuring a good mix of anti tank and anti infantry options, some mobile options and some more slow, long range ones. I don't mind list building giving an edge, but I really disagree with entire factions being trash because GWs lazy and unprofessional game designers cannot be bothered ensuring that any kid who likes the look of a faction and picks up a start collecting and a codex does not get autostomped by another kid who happened to choose whatever the powerful faction is by sheer accident. That is unpleasant for new players, it is unpleasant for older players too.

A more balanced game with more consistent design means people are free to do what they want and will still get a satisfying game most of the time. The free for all, list building is super important style favours people who like the intellectual exercise of breaking lists down into their most powerful configuration and who do not care too much about the miniatures or the story behind the game. It also compensates for a lack of tactical skills, because you can easily google what the best stuff is and then just apply it, particularly if you play on boards with predictable, GW mandated terrain.

I do not mind some imbalance and am not seeking perfect balance to be clear. Just something decent enough. And it is important that the design paradigm remains fairly consistent throughout an edition, which is a problem for GW because their designers seem to be really immature and unprofessional and they do not seem to care about what it means to radically change the design paradigm halfway through an edition (not to mention leaving stuff without an update for years and years, though I can see they have gotten better about that).

To me though the entire paradigm has changed and all GW games are a bit more card game or board game like in nature than what I consider a classic wargame to be like.


So much this^^


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vankraken wrote:
What hurts unit variety is the fact that 8th lacks so much mechanically that it basically all boils down to killing power, staying power, and mobility. There is a lack of other mechanics that creates variety in the function of similar units so it tends to boil down to utilizing the units that can do those 2 or 3 things the best for the best points cost. The only wrench that gets thrown in there comes in the form of auras and stratagems but in practice it seems to just augment the good units to be even better while not helping the weaker units to be viable due to opportunity cost. Depth of mechanics allows for more meaningful niche roles to emerge while the lack of mechanics results in easier to calculate mathhammer results. Without a lot of systems in place to disrupt unit operations it becomes easier to effectively utilize those theoretical results in practice.


And this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/31 23:00:31


   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




AngryAngel80 wrote:
Absolute balance no one asked for, or expects. Workable balance which isn't where we currently reside is I think not too much to ask for.


The thing is that the stats say we are getting pretty close to workable balance.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report?fbclid=IwAR2f4sqx0OETmiFmfCMDqpnysw1h3Ok0LHI81qGypeUexbGk2cBXqgsCXw0

If you take out factions that have less than 10 lists included (because they will statistically skew on tiny numbers of games) almost every faction falls between 40% and 60% win rate - so they can all meet an expectation of going to a 5 game tournament and winning 2 or 3 games. The sad exception right now is Dark Angels; sorry dudes, updates clearly still needed for some of the power armour factions.

So we have balance to the extent that you can play almost any faction and do OK at a tournament, so really you can have competitive fun with your models whatever they are. If you go to a pickup game you should do fine and win enough games that it stays fun, if you are not doing fine then the problem is unlikely to be your faction choice.

What more do people actually want?

   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





happy_inquisitor wrote:
What more do people actually want?


The other thing people want is that there is more variety of what you can play within a faction. Right now there are a whole lot of units across all codices which just don't serve a purpose. Burna boyz, Spyders, Banshees, Assault Terminators and many other iconic and liked models simply fail to function when played and simply handicap you when you field them.
If you get everything withing reasonable range of what's working right now, 40k would be in a truly great state.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




happy_inquisitor wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Absolute balance no one asked for, or expects. Workable balance which isn't where we currently reside is I think not too much to ask for.


The thing is that the stats say we are getting pretty close to workable balance.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report?fbclid=IwAR2f4sqx0OETmiFmfCMDqpnysw1h3Ok0LHI81qGypeUexbGk2cBXqgsCXw0

If you take out factions that have less than 10 lists included (because they will statistically skew on tiny numbers of games) almost every faction falls between 40% and 60% win rate - so they can all meet an expectation of going to a 5 game tournament and winning 2 or 3 games. The sad exception right now is Dark Angels; sorry dudes, updates clearly still needed for some of the power armour factions.

So we have balance to the extent that you can play almost any faction and do OK at a tournament, so really you can have competitive fun with your models whatever they are. If you go to a pickup game you should do fine and win enough games that it stays fun, if you are not doing fine then the problem is unlikely to be your faction choice.

What more do people actually want?



Not really. 40Kstats says nothing about 40K balance, because it only samples tournament lists. Not all lists.

Even the worst-performing tournament list is probably already in the top 5%, if not the top 1% of all lists you could build in the game.

Looking at tournament data for 40K balance is like examining only olympic athletes for a general picture of public health.

The sample is biased to the extreme and irrelevant for the larger picture.
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 Jidmah wrote:
happy_inquisitor wrote:
What more do people actually want?


The other thing people want is that there is more variety of what you can play within a faction. Right now there are a whole lot of units across all codices which just don't serve a purpose. Burna boyz, Spyders, Banshees, Assault Terminators and many other iconic and liked models simply fail to function when played and simply handicap you when you field them.
If you get everything withing reasonable range of what's working right now, 40k would be in a truly great state.


This, it isn't really well balanced when you don't even see half the subfactions within a codex.
Not to mention of all the units that are simply not existent and their archetypes.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





Not Online!!! wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
happy_inquisitor wrote:
What more do people actually want?


The other thing people want is that there is more variety of what you can play within a faction. Right now there are a whole lot of units across all codices which just don't serve a purpose. Burna boyz, Spyders, Banshees, Assault Terminators and many other iconic and liked models simply fail to function when played and simply handicap you when you field them.
If you get everything withing reasonable range of what's working right now, 40k would be in a truly great state.


This, it isn't really well balanced when you don't even see half the subfactions within a codex.
Not to mention of all the units that are simply not existent and their archetypes.


Exactly.

For example, the ork codex did the sub-faction thing pretty well right out the gates - freebootas, bad moons, deff skulls, evil suns all see plenty of play. Goff, snakebites and blood axes are lagging behind, with goff at least seeing play on less competitive levels. But I don't think many other codices have four sub-factions of roughly equal power. With some tweaking of existing culture, there all should at least

As for the archetype part - if there is an archetype supported in the army, it should be able to archive that 40-60% win rate bracket that was mentioned above. If something like speed freaks, deathwing or footdar fails to deliver, they should be buffed as well, even if there is another archetype in that same codex doing well.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/01 11:19:19


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Sunny Side Up wrote:
happy_inquisitor wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Absolute balance no one asked for, or expects. Workable balance which isn't where we currently reside is I think not too much to ask for.


The thing is that the stats say we are getting pretty close to workable balance.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report?fbclid=IwAR2f4sqx0OETmiFmfCMDqpnysw1h3Ok0LHI81qGypeUexbGk2cBXqgsCXw0

If you take out factions that have less than 10 lists included (because they will statistically skew on tiny numbers of games) almost every faction falls between 40% and 60% win rate - so they can all meet an expectation of going to a 5 game tournament and winning 2 or 3 games. The sad exception right now is Dark Angels; sorry dudes, updates clearly still needed for some of the power armour factions.

So we have balance to the extent that you can play almost any faction and do OK at a tournament, so really you can have competitive fun with your models whatever they are. If you go to a pickup game you should do fine and win enough games that it stays fun, if you are not doing fine then the problem is unlikely to be your faction choice.

What more do people actually want?



Not really. 40Kstats says nothing about 40K balance, because it only samples tournament lists. Not all lists.

Even the worst-performing tournament list is probably already in the top 5%, if not the top 1% of all lists you could build in the game.

Looking at tournament data for 40K balance is like examining only olympic athletes for a general picture of public health.

The sample is biased to the extreme and irrelevant for the larger picture.


40K stats answers a specific question - which best picks from which factions do well in certain scenarios. The stats answer that question well and tell us that nearly all full codexes have decent and viable options for that style of play - which typifies the tournament scene and also a lot of pick up play.

When you start to look at other units you are often looking at units which are thematic or good for specific scenario styles rather than for the generic tournament situation. In city fight missions what counts as a good unit will often be very different to what is good in a more vanilla mission set - especially in mission sets such as ITC with little functional difference between different missions. That does not mean that those units are bad, it just means that they are more specialised and thematic.

So should the game designers be removing that sort of thematic option in order to maintain this idea of balance when applied to the "default" of some tournament mission set? Is that the balance that people want?

Or to put this another way - tournament lists are optimised to a very narrow set of missions so there will always be a preference towards the narrow set of sub-factions and units which best suit those missions. the narrower the set of missions (and I would argue that ITC in particular are basically just all one single mission with trivial variations) then the more you will see this effect. This is to ignore the much wider part of the game which is all the other missions out there from alternative matched play missions through narrative missions etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:


As for the archetype part - if there is an archetype supported in the army, it should be able to archive that 40-60% win rate bracket that was mentioned above. If something like speed freaks, deathwing or footdar fails to deliver, they should be buffed as well, even if there is another archetype in that same codex doing well.


A speed freak list is a speed archetype list, you would expect it to be good at missions which emphasise speed and less good at missions which emphasise the other things which it sacrificed for speed. It seems to me that this is exactly what a themed list should be - better at the thing it is themed for than for. Are you looking for the game to be balanced in a way that a themed list is better at its theme and yet exactly as good as other lists when playing in missions that those other lists were designed for? Seems like an odd thing to want but if that is what you want then I guess you want it.

I would expect speed freeks to do better than the 40-60% bracket in missions which emphasise the value of speed. That description does not fit most tournament missions and nor really what people use for pick up games but that is a mismatch of list to mission rather than a fundamental flaw with the units or the sub-faction.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/01 15:53:43


 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





A speed freak list will see itself tabled by turn 3, no matter the mission.

I expect it do just as well as an eldar jetbike list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/01 17:14:18


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
A speed freak list will see itself tabled by turn 3, no matter the mission.

I expect it do just as well as an eldar jetbike list.


If you play a mission like Thunder Run your speed freak list may well have won already. Themed missions suit themed armies. Conversely, strongly thematic armies are not good at missions that do not suit their theme.

My question was whether you do not want themed armies to fit themed missions. Do you want all armies to be functionally equally good at all missions? I think that would mean that designing a list to suit a mission would be pointless, may as well randomly generate your list as design it but I do sometimes think that this is what dakkanauts are asking for.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: