Switch Theme:

The Neglect of Under-Powered Factions  [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
Regular Dakkanaut




I've noticed lots of hate for Votann over being "Over-Powered" and I say this in quotes because they are new and I see weaknesses in them that can be exploited but are never used i.e. don't charge directly at the slow army with heavy firepower and the fact that they have no indirect fire, which has been extremely decisive since 8th. But that's not my main point, my point is if you are truly concerned with balance and fairness a faction being underpowered, such as Imperial Guard, AdMech and Knights should be taken just as seriously, but nobody seems to care even though statistics among top players shows loss rates of 60-70% easy, at least. This unbalances a tournament just as much as an OP Army, if not more since multiple factions can be considered UP. Why is this? Is it just human nature to ignore the little guy? Is it just that others are not playing the UP factions and just don't care as long as THEY have an advantage?
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

Asenion wrote:
Is it just human nature to ignore the little guy?
Yes? A faction being underpowered does not directly effect people who do not play that faction. A faction being overpowered DOES effect people who do not play that faction because they still have to play against it, and that's a frustrating experience when the enemy army is inherently more powerful than yours.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think two things.

GW doesn’t have to care, and players often make a lot of excuses for the state of the game.
Even if there are issues, Gw will make money and when they finally update a faction. Players will often be happy enough to spend more money then.

In a sense I think it’s positive if a new faction coming with design flaws becomes a central focus for the design of 40k as a whole.

Players should be asking for better from GW.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Apple fox wrote:
I think two things.

GW doesn’t have to care, and players often make a lot of excuses for the state of the game.
Even if there are issues, Gw will make money and when they finally update a faction. Players will often be happy enough to spend more money then.

In a sense I think it’s positive if a new faction coming with design flaws becomes a central focus for the design of 40k as a whole.

Players should be asking for better from GW.


Great points from both replies. That's why I hate nerfs as lazy and producing unexpected consequences. I think of a side is OP, instead of nerfs other factions should be buffed.This is better for the consumer, because instead of buying a product that became inferior, they buy one that is buffed. But that takes time, and effort and worst of all ... Patience. Heaven forbid people have to wait instead of receiving instant gratification. Not that I'm opposed to that, but sometimes good things are worth waiting for.


Blaxicon:

" Nevermind those Under-Powered factions I rolled over. This is negatively effecting me, what about ME!!!!"

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/09/29 06:46:15


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain




The problem with that is that boosting other factions up leads to a continuous spiral of escalation which quickly makes everything ridiculous, and solving a balance issue by adjusting one unit/faction is easier than solving it by adjusting everyone else.

Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2835
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rock is broken, paper is fine.

Sincerely, scissors.


People won't complain about 'lesser' powered factions because they're not seen as a problem.


Combine this with the # of people who might actually play said faction and what design niches gw can see to push new models as a 'fix'. Basically 'not worth their time fixing this'. It and might simply be a complex combination of things.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




locarno24 wrote:
The problem with that is that boosting other factions up leads to a continuous spiral of escalation which quickly makes everything ridiculous, and solving a balance issue by adjusting one unit/faction is easier than solving it by adjusting everyone else.


I think this is more just a GW issue, other games do fine with some buffs and nerfs here and there. And oftentimes in very reasonable times.
GW it’s maximised hype, rather than much real look to the game itself.

With GW you can wait months for a single line that changes nothing but clarify a neche issue.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




locarno24 wrote:
The problem with that is that boosting other factions up leads to a continuous spiral of escalation which quickly makes everything ridiculous, and solving a balance issue by adjusting one unit/faction is easier than solving it by adjusting everyone else.


Easier but not better. And if you keep other factions the same while you buff one it is a gradual process that addresses issues from the bottom up. A rising tide for all boats. Like I said nerfs seem like a quick fix that ignore way more issues - buffs take more work but in the long run make the game more balanced.

In fact in spirit of a game where rule disputes are determined by rolls, an OP side should give their opponents 500 more points. An UP should get 500 more on top of that. That means Votann get 2,000, Tau 2,500, and Imperial Guard 3,000. It makes the game fair, which especially in Tournaments should be the goal.

I think you nailed it actually, companies prefer nerfs to buffs because nerfs are cheap, and easy and seem to deliver immediate results, even if they cheapen the game by leaving a myriad of problems unaddressed. An easy buck vs hard work, putting someone else down vs making yourself better.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/09/29 07:02:04


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Asenion wrote:
locarno24 wrote:
The problem with that is that boosting other factions up leads to a continuous spiral of escalation which quickly makes everything ridiculous, and solving a balance issue by adjusting one unit/faction is easier than solving it by adjusting everyone else.


Easier but not better. And if you keep other factions the same while you buff one it is a gradual process that addresses issues from the bottom up. A rising tide for all boats. Like I said nerfs seem like a quick fix that ignore way more issues - buffs take more work but in the long run make the game more balanced.

In fact in spirit of a game where rule disputes are determined by rolls, an OP side should give their opponents 500 more points. An UP should get 500 more on top of that. That means Votann get 2,000, Tau 2,500, and Imperial Guard 3,000. It makes the game fair, which especially in Tournaments should be the goal.

I think you nailed it actually, companies prefer nerfs to buffs because nerfs are cheap, and easy and seem to deliver immediate results, even if they cheapen the game by leaving a myriad of problems unaddressed. An easy buck vs hard work, putting someone else down vs making yourself better.

You're being far too binary in your thinking.

It may be that buffs are preferable to nerfs in some ways but that doesn't mean they are just "better". If the game is relatively balanced, then a faction is released that is way more powerful than everyone else, the logical thing to do is introduce nerfs to the outlier to bring it back into line rather than start handing out buffs to everyone else. The notion that nerfs are lazy and buffs take more work is bizarre. The biggest buffs we've seen in this edition are probably AoC and IG getting HotE. Both of those have been criticised for how lazy they are and how they're a quick fix that fail to address the deeper problems. The truth is, game balance is hard, and the difficulty of it isn't dependent on whether you're buffing or nerfing something. That's an absurd notion. The difficulty is identifying the core issue and implementing the correct fix without further upsetting balance with those fixes. I don't think any serious games designer is going to look at a problem, see a buff is needed, then declare they can't do it because buffs are harder to implement than nerfs.

The problems you have seem to be more to do with general bad design decisions. Any change that happens without proper thought or playtesting can cause problems. Nerfs aren't magically more susceptible to these issues than buffs.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




locarno24 wrote:
The problem with that is that boosting other factions up leads to a continuous spiral of escalation which quickly makes everything ridiculous, and solving a balance issue by adjusting one unit/faction is easier than solving it by adjusting everyone else.


There for it is better to build some faction on a fundation of broken books for a few decades, while others maybe get one codex every 4-5 editions. When everything is ridiculous, then nothing is. Sure stuff may die fast and the game may end quicker, but there is no situation of faction X is not worth to play against faction Z, X and Y, because it is mathematicaly impossible for them to win against them, aside for opponents not using their own army rules.

If the game is relatively balanced, then a faction is released that is way more powerful than everyone else, the logical thing to do is introduce nerfs to the outlier to bring it back into line rather than start handing out buffs to everyone else.

But LoV were balanced. They were balanced against the pre nerf eldar and tyranids, against the new SoB and Necrons etc They just aren't balanced vs armies that came out 1+year plus ago, or which haven't been given a codex yet. That is why I think GW should make an update book for older factions mid in to an edition.

Also one has to take in to account how GW balances stuff. Point cost changes often don't matter, till they do and then they often just kill a unit or a faction. The other way to fix stuff is rules changes, but GW changes their rules ax murderer style. They remove stuff, no matter how crucial it was to the functioning of the army, and they give nothing in return. This either means the faction doesn't care what was changed and plows on carried by powerful rules, with maybe little list changes, or the faction gets the Inari treatment and is dead .

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Asenion wrote:
locarno24 wrote:
The problem with that is that boosting other factions up leads to a continuous spiral of escalation which quickly makes everything ridiculous, and solving a balance issue by adjusting one unit/faction is easier than solving it by adjusting everyone else.


Easier but not better. And if you keep other factions the same while you buff one it is a gradual process that addresses issues from the bottom up. A rising tide for all boats. Like I said nerfs seem like a quick fix that ignore way more issues - buffs take more work but in the long run make the game more balanced.

In fact in spirit of a game where rule disputes are determined by rolls, an OP side should give their opponents 500 more points. An UP should get 500 more on top of that. That means Votann get 2,000, Tau 2,500, and Imperial Guard 3,000. It makes the game fair, which especially in Tournaments should be the goal.

I think you nailed it actually, companies prefer nerfs to buffs because nerfs are cheap, and easy and seem to deliver immediate results, even if they cheapen the game by leaving a myriad of problems unaddressed. An easy buck vs hard work, putting someone else down vs making yourself better.

Welcome to 40k, you need 4000 pts of Astra Militarum to play in tournaments and you basically cannot use Infantry because those aren't worth the table space they take up because you have to fit 4000 pts on the table.

Welcome back to 40k, you now need 5000 pts of Astra Militarum to play in tournaments. That'll be 2000 dollars to make your army legal again, you know, because of inflation.

I have made two exaggerated examples that I hope might convince you to change your mind. Have a good day Asenion. I would also argue that rules changes should never be used to buff or nerf an overperforming or underperforming faction, only to increase internal balance or to make rules more thematically appropriate for what they are supposed to represent. Anti-titan lasguns were a mistake.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:


If the game is relatively balanced, then a faction is released that is way more powerful than everyone else, the logical thing to do is introduce nerfs to the outlier to bring it back into line rather than start handing out buffs to everyone else.

But LoV were balanced. They were balanced against the pre nerf eldar and tyranids, against the new SoB and Necrons etc

My comment wasn't specifically about LoV. It was talking in the abstract about the absurdity of the position that nerfs are always wrong and buffs should always be used instead to balance a game. Also, being balanced only against the very top books means something isn't actually balanced since that immediately makes them better than the vast majority of factions. You're also making the mistake of believing anything GW says about balance in the first place.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Asenion wrote:
locarno24 wrote:
The problem with that is that boosting other factions up leads to a continuous spiral of escalation which quickly makes everything ridiculous, and solving a balance issue by adjusting one unit/faction is easier than solving it by adjusting everyone else.


Easier but not better. And if you keep other factions the same while you buff one it is a gradual process that addresses issues from the bottom up. A rising tide for all boats. Like I said nerfs seem like a quick fix that ignore way more issues - buffs take more work but in the long run make the game more balanced.

In


Ah yes constant power creep with more and more lethality is obviously so much better.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Buffs can be bad, because they create a race to the bottom.

GW isn't ignoring factions.

Guard got a gak load of buffs. They hit 52% last week.
GSC got none and they're at 56%.

At some point people need to accept that balancing such a massive game isn't simple at all.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Asenion wrote:
I've noticed lots of hate for Votann over being "Over-Powered" and I say this in quotes because they are new and I see weaknesses in them that can be exploited but are never used i.e. don't charge directly at the slow army with heavy firepower and the fact that they have no indirect fire, which has been extremely decisive since 8th. But that's not my main point, my point is if you are truly concerned with balance and fairness a faction being underpowered, such as Imperial Guard, AdMech and Knights should be taken just as seriously, but nobody seems to care even though statistics among top players shows loss rates of 60-70% easy, at least. This unbalances a tournament just as much as an OP Army, if not more since multiple factions can be considered UP. Why is this? Is it just human nature to ignore the little guy? Is it just that others are not playing the UP factions and just don't care as long as THEY have an advantage?


Not to dog pile on you but Indirect fire has been DOA for about 3-4 Months now. The only faction who still uses it is basically the Imperial Guard. LoV were busted because they didn't need to be fast because they just removed your units before you could do anything about it. So unless you were playing on a board that was 80% hidden by LoS blocking terrain there just wasn't much you could do. The test matches I've watched just had the LoV player removing enemy models by the fistful no matter how powerful those units were.

As far as under-powered factions, GW has done a pretty good job of addressing that point, well, let me put it a different way; they've done a better job than usual. IG have had numerous rounds of buffs to help them struggle through the darkage before they get a codex. Ad-Mech literally ran around dominating the meta for about a year....So they definitely got balanced out but at the same time they literally won LVO this year....not exactly horrifically under-powered.

And to be blunt, and I do mean blunt, Imperial Knights and their Chaos Cousins should NEVER HAVE EXISTED in 40k. At least as a standalone army. Their very existence is that of a skew list. GW just spent this entire edition destroying horde skew lists because it made people upset that their perfectly tailored list designed to kill vehicles didn't do very well against 150 infantry models well...now you are left with a single skew type, that of big vehicles, and guess what? The game is deadlier then ever before and filled with lots of creative ways to dish out a dead Imperial Knight every turn...sometimes 2 a turn. So if I go first and pop 2 of your 400pt models...well the game is basically over halfway through turn 1.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight






Does it make it worse that Votan.. Votaan... Votann were never playtested against Guard?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BlackoCatto wrote:
Does it make it worse that Votan.. Votaan... Votann were never playtested against Guard?


Does it make it worse that the guys who playtested in 8th are playtesting in 9th, and the guy who playtested orkz in 8th said the Stompa was broken OP?

to quote a favorite movie of mine,
if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time.
GW hires playtesters with bias, those playtesters make suggestions to favor their faction, if GW doesn't have a playtester who favors your faction....sucks to be you.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in it
Dakka Veteran




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Buffs can be bad, because they create a race to the bottom.

GW isn't ignoring factions.

Guard got a gak load of buffs. They hit 52% last week.
GSC got none and they're at 56%.

At some point people need to accept that balancing such a massive game isn't simple at all.


Looking only at winrates is a bad metric and you sir never cease to disappoint me in applying bad logic

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/29 16:01:29


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Buffs can be bad, because they create a race to the bottom.

GW isn't ignoring factions.

Guard got a gak load of buffs. They hit 52% last week.
GSC got none and they're at 56%.

At some point people need to accept that balancing such a massive game isn't simple at all.


Looking only at winrates is a bad metric and you sir never cease to disappoint me in applying bad logic
W/L rate is an important metric, but I agree that you should use others as well, for me I think Win% vs specific factions is very telling and overall health can be seen by how often those armies place in major events. Top 4 finishes is a fairly important metric since it will judge top factions based on how often they appear in those top 4 spots over a prolonged period of time. For IG who don't have a codex yet, its unlikely they get top 4 finishes, so just being able to bump them to the 50% W/L ratio is pretty important.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Personally, I tend to feel that the game is too lethal and has too many special rules floating around at a given time. So I think I tend to not talk about underpowered armies much partly because they're already closer to my preferred power level than the more powerful factions.

To oversimplify, my preferred power level is a 7/10. Most factions are around a 9. Tyranids were probably a 10, Squats might manage to be an 11 (trying not to be too harsh until I play them). So with that in mind, the armies that are an 8 are already closer to being where I want them than the armies with higher ratings. Plus, bringing the 8s down to a 7 without also lowering the 9s and 10s would just exacerbate imbalance.

If that makes sense.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Buffs can be bad, because they create a race to the bottom.

GW isn't ignoring factions.

Guard got a gak load of buffs. They hit 52% last week.
GSC got none and they're at 56%.

At some point people need to accept that balancing such a massive game isn't simple at all.

I don't think rules changes makes it easier. How do you calculate or estimate the impact of AoC + HotE + pts changes + 2 codex releases after 3 months? You don't. That's why pts should be tested against the next codex released and rules shouldn't be changed willy nilly like LoV are being changed now.
SemperMortis wrote:
 BlackoCatto wrote:
Does it make it worse that Votan.. Votaan... Votann were never playtested against Guard?


Does it make it worse that the guys who playtested in 8th are playtesting in 9th, and the guy who playtested orkz in 8th said the Stompa was broken OP?

to quote a favorite movie of mine,
if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time.
GW hires playtesters with bias, those playtesters make suggestions to favor their faction, if GW doesn't have a playtester who favors your faction....sucks to be you.

Rumour is the playtesters have been fired because of leaks. Hasn't this been discussed on Dakka?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





KurtAngle2 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Buffs can be bad, because they create a race to the bottom.

GW isn't ignoring factions.

Guard got a gak load of buffs. They hit 52% last week.
GSC got none and they're at 56%.

At some point people need to accept that balancing such a massive game isn't simple at all.


Looking only at winrates is a bad metric and you sir never cease to disappoint me in applying bad logic


Great. Show me the other data that I can analyze.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 vict0988 wrote:

Rumour is the playtesters have been fired because of leaks. Hasn't this been discussed on Dakka?


If true, then good. And they should be sued into oblivion as well.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:

Rumour is the playtesters have been fired because of leaks. Hasn't this been discussed on Dakka?


Yep, a lot of them got fired. Doesn't mean all. And more importantly, playtesting for a book like this would have had to have happened months ago.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




SemperMortis wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Rumour is the playtesters have been fired because of leaks. Hasn't this been discussed on Dakka?


Yep, a lot of them got fired. Doesn't mean all. And more importantly, playtesting for a book like this would have had to have happened months ago.


They're sketchy on timings, if they were buddied up with eldar and nids, it might have been printed last year even.
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






Honestly for beer and pretzles games the game is probably in the most balanced state its been in decades (possibly barring the release of 8th with index hammer 40k). There are some bad units in each codex but very few units so bad they cannot be used and still pull off a win with a balanced list and smart play.

From a tournament level play scenarios its also a lot more balanced than any edition I can remember. its not perfectly balanced but a lot of the weaker codexes got easier secondaries and so compete on score to pull off victories. Is this an ideal solution? probably not but it does make it where outside major level tournaments with world class players (art of war + others) and the best lists

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Other companies pursued similar routes and now they are in the swamp.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/09/29 17:05:44


 
   
Made in us
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord




Inside Yvraine

Asenion wrote:
Nevermind those Under-Powered factions I rolled over. This is negatively effecting me, what about ME!!!!"
Correct. That is human nature in a nutshell. People do not have a direct incentive to care if an army that they don't play or collect is weak. To the contrary, in many ways is actually more fun for you to play against a weaker army. You can feel more freedom to experiment with weaker units or a weaker lists that you wouldn't otherwise employ, for example.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/29 21:17:56


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain




SemperMortis wrote:


Does it make it worse that the guys who playtested in 8th are playtesting in 9th, and the guy who playtested orkz in 8th said the Stompa was broken OP? .


Do you have a link to that? I'm not doubting you but the claim just seems.....bizarre.....and I'd love to read any reasoning that came with it.

Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2835
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Honestly for beer and pretzles games the game is probably in the most balanced state its been in decades (possibly barring the release of 8th with index hammer 40k). There are some bad units in each codex but very few units so bad they cannot be used and still pull off a win with a balanced list and smart play.


I think the game left 'beer and pretzels' behind when GW expected us to bring 3-4 books to play on top of a half dozen erratas and FAQs, not to mention the need to memorize stratagems or make cheat-sheets just to play as intended.

This is beer and pretzels balance and beer and pretzels gameplay depth with The Campaign for North Africa complexity.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: