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.

I've been thinking about this since... well basically any codex post-Eldar. And my thought is: "How should GW bring balance back into the game?" As of right now, since the release of Grey Knights, Orks, SW, etc. it seems the direction GW is taking in terms of balance is toning things down. It looks to me like they are trying to avoid codex creep. The obvious problem here is that many players feel shortchanged that their brand new codex isn't able to take on the current top-dog and didn't receive the huge buff that Eldar, Tau, 6th ed. Daemons, etc. did. Looking at them now though I would say that all of these new codices are on a somewhat level field, with Orks being a bit underpowered for my taste (I don't play them, but they are easily one of my favorite armies in 40k, so I want to see them do well), amongst each other.

Do you think that it would be better if GW buffed the other codices to match Eldar? Basically what I'm wanting to know is if people would rather GW set a bar, and then updated the codices to match that bar (as it seems their aim may be atm), or had the codices set the bar (say the power-level of Eldar, Taudar, the big tourney winners basically), and then buff up to it as necessary as each book gets updated?

Honestly when it comes right down to it I'm not sure which approach I think would be better. On one had you can end up with one army that many people feel is clearly out of balance, and you have to wait a few years for it to be 'fixed', but on the other you end up with what happened at the tail end of 5th, with the whole 'flavor of the month' armies, where each new codex was better than the last.

Edit: I think a lot of people are reading my post and thinking of how to balance th game mechanically (play testing and whatnot). While those are all very valid points I was more looking into the philosophy of it. Like buff to match the overpowered? Or nerf to match the underpowered? Now obviously the best is to arrive somewhere in the middle, but clearly the writers will probably lean one way or the other. Right now they seem to be nerfing, what does everyone else think?

They'd be better off doing rigorous play testing among themselves, a dedicated beta test group, and open betas from the community at large.

They'd be even better off if they did the big factions/codices all at the same time during development of the edition for which they'll be released in.

You don't need to set a bar so much when you do it all together.

Which has to be repeated each time they churn out a new codex or group of codices.

If the more recent Codexes were all the same power level as Eldar and the other army lists were updted then it would be reletively fine - although even the Eldar Codex has units like the Banshees which need fixing the Wave Serpent which is just broken.

 milkboy wrote:
Which has to be repeated each time they churn out a new codex or group of codices.

Not necessarily.

Adding one or two codices halfway into the lifespan of an edition would work just fine. Assuming the competent playtesters, beta group, and community feedback, it'd be easy to add something while being aware of the game's issues so as not to upset the balance.

They just need to play test beyond just the narrative type games.

Ether that or burn everything in a gasoline fire and start from scratch with ALL forces from the get go.

Approach to balance? Games Workshop will need a change in philosophy. I can't believe that JJ, Cruddance (who is suppose to have a PhD) and others are complete IDIOTS! GW needs to let these guys do their jobs properly and not to "just sell models" which they are not doing a very good job of in the first place.

If this is not the case then the boys in Nottingham are complete IDIOTS! and don't know how to make a balanced game rule set and codices. I am sure this is not the case so GW just keeps doing what they are doing. So we will never have balance since each codex comes out one after the other and during edition changes where different rules mean different things, balance will never be in 40K until GW changes their philosophy.

I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

I am also very far removed from any desire for competive play, and balance is not right in 40k at all for me.

Right now I think GW needs to do something with the game, but I think the first approach could be to get off this cycle of promote a release and then forget about the army.
It's the first part to balance in the factions representations.
And the first things new players see. In some cases a new player may have to wait years to get a update, being told they should get something at some point not good for keeping a potential players interest.
Or a new player that finds they cannot compete havering to wait a long time why everyone around them getting fun new things to talk about.
This I think is the first stage GW needs to get to, all factions from the game. And to neglect any for to long harms the Game as a whole.

This goes for the other games they now lost.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

Ditto, I'd just like all the models in my collection to have a fair shout at getting used without sacrificing any chance I may have of winning at the list building stage. I don't care if I win, but I'd like it to remain an option as late into the game as possible.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

Ditto, I'd just like all the models in my collection to have a fair shout at getting used without sacrificing any chance I may have of winning at the list building stage. I don't care if I win, but I'd like it to remain an option as late into the game as possible.

Same, I was a fluff player and didn't like getting stomped just because I liked certain armies/units. It's frustrating and not fun.

Personally I think it's very difficult to make a properly balanced game across numerous codexes and supplements and ally combos/formations. The thing that really bothers me about GW rule making is that the number of poorly worded entries and oversights just shows the lack of testing and refinement in what they do for the crunch.

Every codex needs to be internally balanced and as long as the power levels aren't completely out of wack it should at least encourage variety of army lists and avoid I Win units or cheese combos. Only thing worse than OP units are terrible units that just make your army weaker than any other unit choice.

Edit: The old double post.

 Vankraken wrote:
Personally I think it's very difficult to make a properly balanced game across numerous codexes and supplements and ally combos/formations.

Of course its difficult.

If you're a multi-million dollar corporation though, I don't think its unreasonable to have a dedicated staff of testers, a group of beta testers from the community, and work on open beta testing with the community when and where appropriate.

Pay enough competent game designers and you'll get a quality game. Like anything in life, the more you put into something, the more you'll get out of it.

A lot of the problem with the eldar codex is in the allies.

Most eldar armies are a lot less scary when they don't have the Baron in the seer council tanking hits on a 2++ rerollable.

There is a big difference between a seer council with the 3+/4++ rerollable and a 2++ rerollable.

of course wave serpents are ridiculous but thats another story.

The only way to create a balanced system is to bring all armies into the current edition.

Which at this rate they might well do.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Personally I think it's very difficult to make a properly balanced game across numerous codexes and supplements and ally combos/formations.

Of course its difficult.

If you're a multi-million dollar corporation though, I don't think its unreasonable to have a dedicated staff of testers, a group of beta testers from the community, and work on open beta testing with the community when and where appropriate.

Pay enough competent game designers and you'll get a quality game. Like anything in life, the more you put into something, the more you'll get out of it.

Did you not read anything past that first part?

blaktoof wrote:
A lot of the problem with the eldar codex is in the allies.

Most eldar armies are a lot less scary when they don't have the Baron in the seer council tanking hits on a 2++ rerollable.

There is a big difference between a seer council with the 3+/4++ rerollable and a 2++ rerollable.

of course wave serpents are ridiculous but thats another story.

The only way to create a balanced system is to bring all armies into the current edition.

Which at this rate they might well do.

As an Eldar player I need to disagree here. While a seer council is "scary," it is far from the worst we can do. The "problem" is that our units are, by and large, useful across the board. I can build for any scenario, whether it is clearing a table or holding objectives. Fast troops, hard to kill transports that can be used as tanks, and everything else in the codex (except CC, but honestly, who cares.) Eldar OP? I think this is how it should be. Every army should have loads of options, and while some people crutch on Serpent spam, the best players don't even bother with them.

 Vankraken wrote:


Did you not read anything past that first part?

I did.

Did you not read my post?

 Blacksails wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:


Did you not read anything past that first part?

I did.

Did you not read my post?

I did as well.

I think it's quite possible to properly test a release to make it relatively balanced but I don't feel the standard that competitive WAAC of balance with every army is realistically possible. What is doable is producing internally balanced armies that are relatively balanced without having to homogenize everything. The issue with GW is they don't seem to try beyond encouraging "forging a narrative" and pushing sales. A public beta on each codex release with the intent to try and exploit or uncover unclear wording in the rules would both generate goodwill with the community and help squash some major issues before it goes to print.

And I'm not advocating a WAAC competitive level of balance either, whatever that's supposed to mean.

If the game is balanced, there's not a whole lot that could be considered WAAC from a list building perspective. You can also balance without homogenizing everything.

Its difficult with the amount of work involved for 40k in particular, but far from impossible.

This "beer and pretzles forging the narrative" excuse is just that, an excuse. So many other games manage to be way more balanced and guess what, they are still narrative, fun games able to be played casually. Balance does not equal homogeneous. Balance is two equal but different forces having a fairly equal chance of winning assuming equal skill level. That sounds like a much better beer and pretzel game than "I brought my jetseer/quadruple riptide list so I win".

Mostly, I would argue that, in any system this complex, decent balance is an absurdly difficult task.

However, it only took reading the Serpent Shield rules when they leaked to see the problem right away.

I can understand balance being hard. But the serpent sheild. WTF.

Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

Apple fox wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

I am also very far removed from any desire for competive play, and balance is not right in 40k at all for me.

Right now I think GW needs to do something with the game, but I think the first approach could be to get off this cycle of promote a release and then forget about the army.
It's the first part to balance in the factions representations.
And the first things new players see. In some cases a new player may have to wait years to get a update, being told they should get something at some point not good for keeping a potential players interest.
Or a new player that finds they cannot compete havering to wait a long time why everyone around them getting fun new things to talk about.
This I think is the first stage GW needs to get to, all factions from the game. And to neglect any for to long harms the Game as a whole.

This goes for the other games they now lost.

Azreal13 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

Ditto, I'd just like all the models in my collection to have a fair shout at getting used without sacrificing any chance I may have of winning at the list building stage. I don't care if I win, but I'd like it to remain an option as late into the game as possible.

MWHistorian wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm actually okay with 40k's current balance, because I don't play 40k as a competitive game.

I don't play competitive either, and I'm not okay with 40k's balance.

Ditto, I'd just like all the models in my collection to have a fair shout at getting used without sacrificing any chance I may have of winning at the list building stage. I don't care if I win, but I'd like it to remain an option as late into the game as possible.

Same, I was a fluff player and didn't like getting stomped just because I liked certain armies/units. It's frustrating and not fun.

You guys have odd definitions of 'not competitive.' One of you says losing is outright 'not fun,' while another says he likes to keep winning an option 'till as late in the game as possible.' I mean the logical conclusion of both statements is "winning is fun" or "I postponed the option of winning until after the end of the game" (which means I won).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You guys have odd definitions of 'not competitive.' One of you says losing is outright 'not fun,' while another says he likes to keep winning an option 'till as late in the game as possible.' I mean the logical conclusion of both statements is "winning is fun" or "I postponed the option of winning until after the end of the game" (which means I won).

"Not competitive" =/= "not caring at all about winning".

Maybe we need to define competitive, because by my understanding of it 40k is ALWAYS competitive, it's a game where you have a winner and a loser, therefore it is a competitive game, that's basically the definition of competitive. Non-competitive games are the contrived activities you play with preschoolers at parties to stop kids getting upset when they lose.

It doesn't matter if you play seriously or in tournaments or with mates or whether you care if you lose or any of that crap. The fact it is a game with a winner and a loser makes it a competitive game.

If we have invented a new definition for competitive, can someone let me know what it is

For something to be really competitive, it needs to be a more or less even playing field. It needs to be, more or less, fair.

40k is an odd game since players invest lots of time and lots of money into building a particular army or a limited set of armies and they form a personal bond with those armies.

Army selection is a huge thing in 40k and does bear on the overall success rate at a particular tourney.The outcome of any match is determined a lot by army selection (assuming equal player skill).

From an army-centric perspective, the amount of divide between the top army and the lowest army exactly defines the overall fairness of the competition. For example, if orks have zero to ten percent chance of beating eldar (assuming equal player skill) then it's not a fair competition (again this is from an army-centric perspective).

However, if you step outside of an army-centric perspective and let players have access to whichever army they want (unlimited funds and time or unlimited friends to borrow/swap) then the degree of fairness can be much higher since you are really then dealing only with the difference in power between the top 5 armies or so, which can be much narrower and in constant flux. If players are totally free to field any army they want without any real world restriction (which is usually impossible) then there is possible a truly fair and competitive level of play between players, since no player is handicapped by being forced to play a particular army and the outcome will be entirely based on player skill. Its when you have a pool of haves and have nots then that is where the unfairness creeps in, which is more or less akin to a caste system. And apparently is also responsible for the pronounced bitterness among some of the 40k veterans. No one likes to be forced into the lower class loser camp.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You guys have odd definitions of 'not competitive.' One of you says losing is outright 'not fun,' while another says he likes to keep winning an option 'till as late in the game as possible.' I mean the logical conclusion of both statements is "winning is fun" or "I postponed the option of winning until after the end of the game" (which means I won).

"Not competitive" =/= "not caring at all about winning".

Then let me amend my first post in this thread.

"I don't worry about winning, and I am okay with 40k's balance."

EDIT:
Actually, I won't edit my first post. Because the literally definition of competitive is: "of or relating to a situation in which people or groups are trying to win." So not competitive is [not] of or relating to a situation in which people are groups are trying to win.

Therefore, if I play with a group of people who are not trying to win, I am not playing 40k competitively. And as soon as someone does try to win, then it is competitive. That is an absolute definition - either you are trying to win, or you are not worried about it.

The Codexes that have released during 7th seem to be balanced to me (with the exception of including Cahos Space Marines and Dark Angels), it's mainly 2 that seem to have slipped through the next with howling OP units. If you look at everything apart from Tau and Eldar you can't really say that the books aren't balanced. Yes there are some units that still do t work in every codex but in time I think we will see changes in their rules like in every edition.

By the way I don't get when people say they don't play competitive this is a game if you don't play to win why do you play? I get other added factors such as a narrative to emerge yourself more into the setting but everyone still wants to win right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is an absolute definition - either you are trying to win, or you are not worried about it.

Not trying to win is still different to not worrying about winning.

I feel like not even trying to win would just make for very boring games with very apathetic players. Unless you are playing some historic scenario where a side has to win, but even when playing historic scenarios in historic games, the players are still usually trying to win.

As much as people say they aren't playing competitively, I think very few people would be playing in such a way that they aren't even attempting to win. Even if they don't put effort in to creating the best army lists for winning, come the actual game itself I think most people would still at least be attempting to do something.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Therefore, if I play with a group of people who are not trying to win, I am not playing 40k competitively. And as soon as someone does try to win, then it is competitive. That is an absolute definition - either you are trying to win, or you are not worried about it.

Then you, and every other 40k player, play competitively. You aren't just moving your units randomly and throwing dice, you're executing a plan to win the game. If you make even the slightest effort to do things like not shooting a squad of bolter marines (with no weapon that can possibly damage AV 14) at a Land Raider then you are trying to win the game.

Since your definition does not divide players into "competitive" and "not competitive" it is clearly a useless definition and needs to be replaced with a better one. An example of a useful definition might be defining competitive play as a game where winning is a much higher priority for both players than fluff/painting/etc, especially when the game is played in an organized setting like a league or tournament. A non-competitive game is where both players are concerned with things like the story behind the game and are willing to accept a lower chance of winning to accomplish some other goal.