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 find it odd that people throw generalisations that for balance everyone must have same models. A game with multiple different factions and models can be quite balanced with sufficient testing. GW just is not interested in doing this for 40k. It would most likely mean the removal of myriad special rules which could hurt the "cinematic" feeling that 40k is trying to achieve.

Obviously balance is not required to make a successful game (meaning a game which makes a lot of money to its producer).

Originally when I started playing Warhammer 40,000 I believed that this game could be balanced, but it wasn't because the designers were stupid.

As it turns out, the designers were only incompetent, but they weren't necessarily stupid.

I believe that it is impossible for GW (or any company) to make this game balanced in every matchup. Make that "most matchups" and I'd have an easier time saying yes. But the simple fact is that there are so many units and so many different ways to customize them that it's impossible for any system to cope.

I am currently still playtesting a tabletop wargame I'm writing, and I -still- find things that are underpointed or too expensive and I've been testing the game for more than a year now. Granted I have changed parts of the rules over the years so that changes unit interactions/the strength of equipment, etc.

Here's how you could make the game have a semblance of Balance:

-Scrap all codices, and then make new ones and playtest them all rigorously against eachother.

And we know this all isn't going to happen, so I go back to my answer that no, this game can't be balanced in EVERY matchup. The simple fact is that there are players who metagame (including myself) and this gives them more of an advantage then you'd think.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
That's sort of an empty argument. "Don't like it, git out?". That's not really even in the frame of this discussion. What needs to go their separate ways are you, and this thread, lol.

kinda missed the rest of my responses, huh?

"I wouldn't exactly say that I missed them, Bob"

Just saying that you've apparently run out of constructive things to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Here's how you could make the game have a semblance of Balance:

-Scrap all codices, and then make new ones and playtest them all rigorously against eachother.

I still believe that to balance a game, you have to give the same weight of power to all aspects of the game for the armies.

The early armies evolved to play 2nd Edition, which was shooting based.

Some armies evolved to play 3rd edition, which was close combat weighted.

The rules only got goofier from there.

The problem is that some armies are optimized for editions that no longer exist. And then there is the Tau, who didn't even exist until the game was optimized against them.


Scrap the codex books. Scrap the rules. Start from scratch. That's the only way. But, for some players, it will require a complete alteration of their army to play at a competitive level because they will have models that are largely useless once "balanced" rules are in place.

I agree that the game, with new dexes/rules and a multitude of units, will never be perfectly balanced and there will be bad match-ups particularly between certain lists. That is fine. But there is a difference between that and the mess of imbalance that GW allows and fails to correct. Within a ruleset edition, each dex should be relatively internally balanced so that pretty much all choices are options. Some units/wargear will obviously work better depending on the list you happen to face.

For bad balance just look at nids. A Hive Tyrant has 4 choices of ranged weapons, but you will almost always see only one picked (devourers). This is a combination of how the current ruleset plays (such as the addition of flyer rules) but also because of poor rules/weapon stats in the dex. It is fine if one weapon is better vs something than another - so that target type, range, str, AP, special rules, etc all become considerations. But you have imbalance when most of the choices are poor options and 1 or 2 are always chosen. A good errata could fix most of these types of problems between units/wargear/biomorphs allowing for a much wider variety of builds that are still good, but might have certain bad match-ups.

Yeah. Exact same points, TL S5 AP5 Assault 3 or TL S6 AP- Assault 6.

 Skriker wrote:

Just like the fanboys who think GW walks on water are sanctioned suck ups??

I've been on this forum for a while and I've never seen a single GW fanboy.

Hena wrote: It would most likely mean the removal of myriad special rules which could hurt the "cinematic" feeling that 40k is trying to achieve.

I don't think it is special rules that lead to a cinematic feel. Last time I checked, Space Wolves with Acute Senses were no more cinematic than Ultramarines without it.



I think that "perfect" balance is not feasible, because it's always possible for a player to make poor choices. A Space Marine army with flamers and heavy bolters is going to have a hard time against a land raider, for example. You can have 1000 points of those marines, and outpoint me 4-1, and my land raider will still not die to your army.

I think better balance is certainly possible - but not for GW. They're simply not competent enough. A good first step would be to simply standardize the costs of all marine armies and make the differences between chapters a matter of what they have available, rather than what they pay.

 Redbeard wrote:

Hena wrote: It would most likely mean the removal of myriad special rules which could hurt the "cinematic" feeling that 40k is trying to achieve.

I don't think it is special rules that lead to a cinematic feel. Last time I checked, Space Wolves with Acute Senses were no more cinematic than Ultramarines without it.

I was thinking more along the lines of special characters. A generic rule over an army shouldn't pose much problems from balance, as long as they are not against a specific enemy (ala Grey Knights vs Demons).

I think that "perfect" balance is not feasible, because it's always possible for a player to make poor choices. A Space Marine army with flamers and heavy bolters is going to have a hard time against a land raider, for example. You can have 1000 points of those marines, and outpoint me 4-1, and my land raider will still not die to your army.

I think better balance is certainly possible - but not for GW. They're simply not competent enough. A good first step would be to simply standardize the costs of all marine armies and make the differences between chapters a matter of what they have available, rather than what they pay.

I think it would be sensible to define what I meant with good balance.
1. Internal. Each (or almost everyone) selection in the list is usable.
2. External. Each army list is balanced against other lists.

So sure above allows you can make a list which will not work. However what should be possible is to not have lists which by themselves are best. That other combinations played well should work as well.

GW is able to do this (or close to it) as Epic: Armageddon presents. I just don't think that is the aim in 40k.

Faq point costs each let's say 3 months, problem solved.

Good game balance is far more than just provable levels of in game performance,(Points values.)

The rules and army composition has to be written to support the intended game play.(To illiminate clunky counterintiutive play.)

After defining the level and types of interaction , in game performance can be measured,

Then after acurate as posible PV are allocated , synergistic anomalies need to be identified and addressed.

Accurate provable levels of imbalance is just PART of the process..

Can't we just hate matt ward and move on

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
can't we just matt ward and move on

But that would be too easy unless matt wards evil plan is to make forum goers do all this ballancing business for him, and 6ed is just a blank template for a ballanced 7ed without gw doing any of the work

GK are OP and always will be 20pts for anything with a Force weapon is OP
GK can and do kill 190pt Carnifexs solo all the time. but often die fighting Nurglings. do you think anyone told him the Daemonhunters, since we all know he dose not read the fluff

Sometimes i wonder if Matt Ward is clearly Compensating about having a small Penis

mrspadge wrote:
errr...... i thought this was a 40k forum...... if it "offends you to the core" why are you still here at all??

not wanting to start anything, just curious....

Not wanting to start anything but starting it anyway...

I have been playing this game for 25+ years, since 3rd edition WFB and Rogue Trader. I have plenty of time and enjoyment in during that time. As such, as a quality professional, I can easily be offended by the poor way they handle quality in their products and still be here. They are a game company after all and my irritation is that they come across as complete amateurs in this kind of stuff than the long term veterans of the market that they are. If they were using slave labor I would stop supporting them, but disliking the fact that their writing staff seems lazy and incapable of collaborating with each other is not even remotely close to the same concept level. I also still buy computer games software to entertain myself despite the fact that almost zero PC games are functional out of the box anymore without downloading *at least* one patch after installation. Again, shoddy quality work. Gamers seem to accept this just fine all the time, but few other consumers do. I know in my job if we ship a product that requires a patch before it can be used the first time then we have failed. It is that simple. If we release a product that completely ignores how another package we do does things and change the paradigm because we didn't bother to pay attention, then we have failed. GW releasing 5+ different Marine codecies that don't sync up in the least logically or mathematically is just lazy work and a fail in my book from the standpoint of being a quality professional.

I can still be here *AND* still wish they would take it to the next level. Those things are not even remotely mutually exclusive of each other.

Skriker