Switch Theme:

Do You Expect 40k To Be Balanced?  [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 ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?

Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?


You're asking two different things.

Your title asks if i expect the game to be balanced, yes i do.
Your body asks if i think GW does aim for balance, no i don't.

Would it be morally wrong to create imbalance? Thats a tricky question that depends on whether or not GW does it with intent or by accident, which apart from isolated examples (wraithknight) its impossible for us to tell.
If they do it intentionally i'd say it is morally wrong. If its accidental then i couldn't really say if it is or not.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




I actually like a little imbalance and a little asymmetry. Too often they push it too far to clearly, significantly OP.
In the past it was Seer Council Eldar. In 2nd ed, heaven help you if you faced Abbadon and his Terminator Body guard. Playing against Blood Angels in 3rd? Good luck. To some extent this has always been a problem.


Right now though, it feels like, if GW felt like they could be honest with the player base, they would be saying "Look guys, just play marines ok? We don't want to make anything else, and rules are too hard to write, so please just everyone get on the same page and play marines." This is not ok.

I don't really understand your "morally wrong" fascination. I want the game to be fun. This requires, at the least, the various factions to participate somewhat equally in the rules. Somewhat. There will always be exceptions. That's fine. What you can't have is an army almost wholly immune to them. This is what we have right now and it isn't fun. For anyone.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 21:55:26


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
If they do it intentionally i'd say it is morally wrong.

How so? For the record, I probably agree with you on this I'm just curious if our reasons match up.

Tycho wrote:
I don't really understand your "morally wrong" fascination. I want the game to be fun. This requires, at the least, the various factions to participate somewhat equally in the rules. Somewhat. There will always be exceptions. That's fine. What you can't have is an army almost wholly immune to them. This is what we have right now and it isn't fun. For anyone.

My reason for asking about the morality of it is because of the level of investment people have in the game. Some people here are invested to the point where they feel any intentional imbalance on GW's part would be a moral ill and I want their thoughts on the issue.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/01/05 22:03:31


Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that


No, I think they aim for a rough balance but it's never been their primary concern.
Our current game is not the result of a quest for balance.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose?


Oh absolutely they'll use imbalance for some other purpose. Chiefly to sell you the next rule book - be it a whole new edition, some schlock like the PA series, or your annual Chapter Approved volume. And models. They'll definitely use it to sell you more models.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?


Nope. They're in the business of selling more models (and books). They have to accomplish that somehow & selling to new players only goes so far. But if they can keep established players buying....

And for the record I'm quite heavily invested in GW models. Small fortunes of the stuff. I do not hold their imbalances against GW, but when it gets too bad I simply go play something else for a bit. My GW models aren't going anywhere so I can always jump back in if the current version of the game suits ne.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 22:17:08


 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




My reason for asking about the morality of it is because of the level of investment people have in the game. Some people here are invested to the point where they feel any intentional imbalance on GW's part would be a moral ill and I want their thoughts on the issue.


That makes more sense. Yeah - honestly, the current imbalance does feel suspiciously disingenuous. I typically chuckle when people use the "They made good rules to sell the model" argument because for every set of "Aggressors" there's a set of "Reivers" and for every strong faction (marines) there's 5 or 6 that are just plain terrible (pretty much all xenos atm) so I don't think that necessarily holds water.

But that being said, I do feel like there's a bit of a shady undercurrent in the way 9th has worked out where it feels like GW would much rather it be 30k than 40k. I think it's a bit underhanded and sneaky but I suppose it could be chalked up to incompetence. It just seems like we've hit a level where incompetence is getting harder and harder to argue.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I have no expectations that 40k is or will be a balanced game. But I desire 40k to be a balanced game.
   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






 Canadian 5th wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
If they do it intentionally i'd say it is morally wrong.

How so? For the record, I probably agree with you on this I'm just curious if our reasons match up.


If GW intentionally manipulates whats good or bad in order to sell more stuff, theyre "abusing" (probably too strong of a word here, i just can't think of a softer one) their clientele.
I feel like they would be using people's impulsivity and fear of missing out to push them into buying things not everyone can necessarily afford.

Take Karol as an example, they said multiple times that they cannot afford to buy new units, which means they are stuck with an unfun army that has a hard time competing. In the past GKs were OP (or so i've heard) so GW manufacturing such a disparity in powerlevel intentionally, at the detriment of other's enjoyment is something i wouldnt be able to support and goes against my values, which in turn makes it immoral in my eyes.

EDIT: Actually i think i just coined why i find it amoral : Its manipulation, which is something i despise.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 22:13:10


Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Atlanta

I do expect warhammer to be balanced and I think that GW thinks they are balancing the game. I just think a majority of the vocal player base expects more out GW rules writing than GW is going to put into rules writing.
   
Made in de
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin




I think overall 40Ks balance is okay right now. I'd say since the first round of Codizes in 8th Edition balance was good enough that you could throw most armies against each other and have an interesting game. The tournament crowd would still find ways to break the game as usual, but for the majority of players the game was and is good enough to have an enjoyable game, balance is better than in previous editions where you used Maelstrom / custom missions to balance the game because eternal war only worked for a few lucky factions. Not saying there's nothing left to do, Marines are probably still a problem and the state of many factions is a little strange, due to old rules often being less restrictive than the current development (see auras and core) and GWs inability to write a proper "new edition update" for all factions.
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




Take Karol as an example, they said multiple times that they cannot afford to buy new units, which means they are stuck with an unfun army that has a hard time competing. In the past GKs were OP (or so i've heard) so GW manufacturing such a disparity in powerlevel intentionally, at the detriment of other's enjoyment is something i wouldnt be able to support and goes against my values, which in turn makes it immoral in my eyes.


In the past, a lot of the codex creep was unintentional. It was the result of just turning individual writers loose with little to no supervision or design direction, and of those same writers not really talking to each other. So things like the 5th ed Grey Knights (who could literally prevent demons from even deploying) being abusive were accidents of happenstance. It was random and unpredictable.

Since 8th ed it is considerably less so. You can see where efforts have been made to consistently allow certain books to pretty much ignore anything that hurts them, while others are saddled with additional rules that only exist to hurt them. It's a lot easier to connect the dots from the base rules of 9th, to the fact that mission design in general heavily favors a certain mega-faction, to the fact that this self-same faction can simply skip the part about being vulnerable to secondaries.

At this point, you either have to be wildly, unbelievable incompetent, OR you're letting the sales dept. run the studio again. That's pretty much the only two options ...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 22:18:03


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop? I'm not going to include a poll because I don't want a simple yes or no answer.

Do you think Games Workshop tries to balance 40k and our current game is the result of that or do you think they aim for just enough balance that it takes some investment to see if it's balanced at all and use that imbalance for some other purpose? As a follow-up, regardless of your thoughts on the previous question, would it be morally wrong for GW to intentionally create an imbalance to sell more models or even just so they can more easily shake up the meta?


No, I don't expect GW to succeed at balancing the game. But I do expect them to try.

Yes, GW does try to balance 40k. We've seen them do so. They don't do so well, but they try to. While they let Castellans and are letting Eradicators run rampant, they also responded pretty quickly to Conscripts and to Iron Hands.

No, if they were specifically trying to use the imbalance to sell more models, Primaris wouldn't have been basically strictly worse than regular marines for the first half of 8e until like 3 rounds of buffs. While it's hard to balance the game, it's not that hard to make something too good, and for every Eradicator or Castellan, there are also units on drop that are just crud.

Ish? I don't think it's right to use the imbalance to sell their newest models, but I also don't think it's wrong. It just kind of is, and as long as it's not drastically affecting the overall interfaction balance of 40k, then that's fine.



One thing that's awkward is that they prefer to adjust balance by changing rules than by changing points, which is like hilariously backwards. Rules changes should be saved for situations where the unit is structurally defunct or not operating as it should, and points changes should be used for when units are somewhat too efficient or somewhat too inefficient compared to their peers.

I would say that balance was the best about right before SM 2.0 in 8e, and still hasn't recovered from SM 2.0 & Supplements

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 22:21:48


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Well, define balance.

Do you want Chess balance, where it’s solely down to skill?

Do you want pro-sports balance, where it’s about getting your team working well together (after all, even Pele couldn’t carry a Sunday League team to the World Cup on his own).

Whilst GW could certainly do a better job of it, I don’t think we’ll ever see a “perfectly” balanced game of 40k. Not only are there too many possible combinations of units, there are also too many variables, such as the type, variety and density of terrain, Wild Dice Strikes etc.

And, let us all be truly honest....some reports of imbalance will be sour grapes from someone who lost a game.

As for me and GW’s games? I prefer their approach to others. Consider my opinion on X-Wing.

X-Wing without a doubt is a pretty damned decent game. But, because of its design, and how much it relies on experience to predict your opponent’s movements, it can be very daunting for a newcomer joining an established community.

Someone who’s been playing for ages could well have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the exact manoeuvres each ship in the game is capable of, married to other hard earned, experience based knowledge. The NooB likely barely knows what their ships can and can’t do.

For clarity, I am absolutely not claiming that is a flaw in game design. But. It is something I found offputting to the point I dropped out and sold up.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Tiny Red Chair Painting Sessions. A Discord dedicated to video painting sessions. PM me for an invite. 
   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, define balance.

Do you want Chess balance, where it’s solely down to skill?

Do you want pro-sports balance, where it’s about getting your team working well together (after all, even Pele couldn’t carry a Sunday League team to the World Cup on his own).

Whilst GW could certainly do a better job of it, I don’t think we’ll ever see a “perfectly” balanced game of 40k. Not only are there too many possible combinations of units, there are also too many variables, such as the type, variety and density of terrain, Wild Dice Strikes etc.

And, let us all be truly honest....some reports of imbalance will be sour grapes from someone who lost a game.

As for me and GW’s games? I prefer their approach to others. Consider my opinion on X-Wing.

X-Wing without a doubt is a pretty damned decent game. But, because of its design, and how much it relies on experience to predict your opponent’s movements, it can be very daunting for a newcomer joining an established community.

Someone who’s been playing for ages could well have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the exact manoeuvres each ship in the game is capable of, married to other hard earned, experience based knowledge. The NooB likely barely knows what their ships can and can’t do.

For clarity, I am absolutely not claiming that is a flaw in game design. But. It is something I found offputting to the point I dropped out and sold up.


chess actually isnt perfectly balanced either, white has a 55% winrate

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Yet one doesn’t approach Chess as a White player, instead I believe it’s down to luck, possibly taking it in turns?

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Tiny Red Chair Painting Sessions. A Discord dedicated to video painting sessions. PM me for an invite. 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Reaver Titan Princeps




Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.

That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




It has been my dream since I started with WFB more than 20 years ago. "Imagine a Warhammer game which is much less random and much better balanced... It would be the game to rule them all."

Stopped believing it can ever happen a long time ago, though. I think GW neither can nor want to make it happen.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Blastaar wrote:
I have no expectations that 40k is or will be a balanced game. But I desire 40k to be a balanced game.
This.

I'm an adult. I can acknowledge that balance is not GW's priority, nor is it ever something that will likely happen to the degree I want. But I want it to be a well-balanced game.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






I'll step back further: what even is balance and what does that mean for 40K?

For the first part, I think balance for 40K would mean that the difference between the worst list and best list represents about a 20% difference in effectiveness, assuming players of equal skill.

With players making thoughtfully constructed lists, that differences should shrink down to less than 10%. Which is so say the 90% comes down to strategy and fate (luck of the dice). Right now, I feel like list building is at least 50% of the equation, with 30% being luck of the dice and 20% strategy/tactics.

More pragmatically, I want the result of a well-balanced game to be that when I win or lose I'm attributing it to what I did on the table and not the list that I or my opponent brought. I want it so that when I win or lose, my first thought isn't "how can I make my list better" but rather, "how could I have played that better."

I do think we should strive for a more balanced game. I do think that as the range of models and potential lists continues to expand and grow, it's going to be increasingly difficult to achieve balance. I'm in favor of more restrictions to FOC in "matched play" in order to reign in the variability a bit, and I'd be supportive of GW striving to balance the game around those tighter requirements.

As for GW's motive or moral imperative - I have no idea - other than making money. Which they seem to be doing despite having a pretty imbalanced seeming game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 22:40:13


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Voss wrote:
Sure. But game balance isn't snap-your-fingers magic and the developers don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

Their world has constantly shifting draft versions and deadlines, for one thing. For another, what they think of as normal amongst their tiny group has no relationship with how other people (ie, customers) play the game.

That they're still surprised that people use the rules in the books as opposed to what's in their heads is a little sad, but not very surprising at this point. Especially after the opening paragraphs of several codex supplement FAQs. They're just that disconnected from external 'states of play'


One can also make the argument that given GW haven’t tried to design 40k as a strictly competitive game, those expecting it to be so will always be disappointed.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Tiny Red Chair Painting Sessions. A Discord dedicated to video painting sessions. PM me for an invite. 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

I do not expect GW games to be balanced at all. I would be an absolute fool to expect that after nearly three decades of experience with their games! I would like them to be reasonably balanced, not like perfectly balanced because that is impossible, but to the point where people can play together without having to worry about it too much, where people picking a faction because they like the background or models don't find out they are gonna be the whipping boy for the group for however long it takes for them to get an update (which might be years due to the lack of discipline on the part of the design studio).

Do I think it is intentional? Not really. I think they sometimes try to balance it, and mess it up because they are incompetent. And I think they sometimes don't care about balance at all, and just do whatever they think is cool. And I think sometimes they do try to make the new stuff more powerful, but often mess it up because they are incompetent.

I just don't think there is much reason to think that the design team take their jobs that seriously or are that good at it. They don't need to be, the game is selling really well and people LIKE the imbalanced game. People like me who would prefer a less list building focused game with better balance are in the minority, most players seem to like feeling smart because they googled the obvious netlist for their faction. So I don't see any reason for GW to change.

If you want balance, go for fan based rulesets. They are not perfect but they tend to be a bit better, having come from various frustrations with the official rules.

   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot




Vancouver, BC

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
chess actually isnt perfectly balanced either, white has a 55% winrate

True, though chess is played in sets where white plays to win and black plays to draw. A short set in chess is 4 games, some sets can be 16 or so games.

Debate the topic, not the poster. I will not be discussing myself in relation to debates and discussions on this forum. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'd like every unit to be reasonable in its own context.

Take for instance the Necron book. I feel the bulk of units are viable. Make the Monolith Heavy Support, do something with the Reanimator and you would be mostly done. Is everything 10/10, winning a GT near you? No. Are some things better than others? Undoubtedly. But compared with the vast majority of units in the game, your units should viably do what you expect them to do. If your opponent is playing a normalish army you should expect to have a decent game on your hands, unless the dice dictate otherwise.

Is GW aiming for this? I think some of the designers are - and others don't care as much. Or don't understand their game.

Really though a lot of the question of balance lies in *time*. There is I think a major difference in how you view the game between someone whose played say 50 games in 6 months and feels the meta is quite stale - and someone who has played about 3, and so may enjoy whinging about Marines with the best of them, but really isn't all that impacted. They may also not care about Marines maybe being good - they instead think the rules change too fast as they've had their 3 games, they were sort of fun, but now everything's changed again.

I'm not totally onboard with the_Scotsman's idea of forced unhappiness - but people undoubtedly do look for Codexes that change things. I don't think anyone enjoys paying £30 or whatever to get a book that says "all the units function as the same way as before". I guess some might - because they've tailored their 2k points of filth and never want to touch another model - but I think that's a strange way to engage with the hobby (and obviously not good for GW's bottom line in any case.)
   
Made in nl
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I used to expect that GW would support their customer base with balanced releases for different factions, etc... but I no longer do as - agreeing with Herzog’s post above - GW is immoral.

   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






 jeff white wrote:
I used to expect that GW would support their customer base with balanced releases for different factions, etc... but I no longer do as - agreeing with Herzog’s post above - GW is immoral.


I'm not saying they are amoral, i'm saying that if there is intent to their moves they are.
It's impossible for me to know their intent so im cautiously optimistic.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

The rules churn is a big part of the reason I have signed out of 40K. I work full time, I don't have the energy to keep up with all the stuff they put out now. Funny, because I used to lament waiting years for my new codex!

But I think you make a good point there. People are at very different places with the game once an edition has been out for a while.

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Mezmorki wrote:
I'll step back further: what even is balance and what does that mean for 40K?

For the first part, I think balance for 40K would mean that the difference between the worst list and best list represents about a 20% difference in effectiveness, assuming players of equal skill.

With players making thoughtfully constructed lists, that differences should shrink down to less than 10%. Which is so say the 90% comes down to strategy and fate (luck of the dice). Right now, I feel like list building is at least 50% of the equation, with 30% being luck of the dice and 20% strategy/tactics.

More pragmatically, I want the result of a well-balanced game to be that when I win or lose I'm attributing it to what I did on the table and not the list that I or my opponent brought. I want it so that when I win or lose, my first thought isn't "how can I make my list better" but rather, "how could I have played that better."

I do think we should strive for a more balanced game. I do think that as the range of models and potential lists continues to expand and grow, it's going to be increasingly difficult to achieve balance. I'm in favor of more restrictions to FOC in "matched play" in order to reign in the variability a bit, and I'd be supportive of GW striving to balance the game around those tighter requirements.

As for GW's motive or moral imperative - I have no idea - other than making money. Which they seem to be doing despite having a pretty imbalanced seeming game.



I think list construction is an important element of skill, but I think that faction selection should have little bearing on win probability. List construction is important because it's where one develops their strategy for the game and choose what tools they want to have available to pursue their own victory and deny the enemy's.

Ideally, the game would be balanced such that:
External Balance - At the highest level of play, choosing to compose your list from one faction's unit pool would not put you at an advantage over someone who composed their list out of another faction's unit pool.
Internal Balance - Once you've selected the unit pool you're going to compose your list from, there are at least two strategically and tactically different solutions towards a victory. This is different from "any combination of units is valid" so much as "there is more than 1 valid combination of units". Ideally, it would also not be obvious or solved what the valid combinations are.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/05 22:52:22


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in nl
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
I used to expect that GW would support their customer base with balanced releases for different factions, etc... but I no longer do as - agreeing with Herzog’s post above - GW is immoral.


I'm not saying they are amoral, i'm saying that if there is intent to their moves they are.
It's impossible for me to know their intent so im cautiously optimistic.

I used to be. Now I am realistic.

   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

Hmmm. I have grown to really dislike strong elements of list building. I would prefer if most elements worked reasonably well in a list. Obviously, you can go for a theme and that has always been a big part of the draw of army building, but I really find it tiresome to see most of the game boil down to discussions of list building.

I guess it's similar to how in roleplaying games I really don't care about levelling up my character or trawling through all the material for available powers. I want to actually make choices at the table in the game with other people there, not alone looking at numbers and calculating the best ones. I used to like that stuff but have just gone completely off it.

Particularly with miniature games, where I 100% want to play with the minis I think look cool and am 100% not interested in buying, building or painting any minis I think look stupid.

   
Made in gb
Irked Necron Immortal




UK

I think overall GW have done an ok job trying to balance the game design these past 3 years, certainly the amount of FAQ's and errata's they've put out in that time dwarves their combined total for the past 20. And that's not because 8-9th are uniquely in need of them compared to older editions, it's just that they're actually willing to do it now.

Where this balance is thrown off is imbalance in model releases, which leads to an imbalance (just in sheer amount of stuff being made) in rules releases. Space Marines could still have repeated points increases that push them into irrelevancy, but I'll still feel pissed off playing against them because of abusive mechanics or just for the fact that a random SM subfaction gets its own entire book with 20+ strats, an entire psychic discipline, 6 more WLT's, 6-8 more relics and an extra special rule on top of everything else whereas my Xenos/Chaos/other Imperial subfaction gets 1 of each of those, and no extra psychic powers and no extra special super-doctrine.

There's other "imbalances" in rules support too, like how Marines got Indexes for Codexes that were 1-2 months from release. Meanwhile Chaos is basically told to eat gak and do with what they've got. Or how back in 8th Marines got beta rules to help boost their abilities, whereas Necrons got nothing to address RP until 9th happened. The actual power of those rules is irrelevant because rules support like I just mentioned is all online PDF's or random articles in WD. It doesn't require a huge investment to roll out to other factions so there is precisely 0 reason that it cannot be done.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: