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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The thing that most of these "balance" arguments are actually about is the degree to which your buying choices should determine how the game goes. The ideal is for a customer to be able to walk into a GW, buy some models just because they look cool, and be able to then take them to the table and not get utterly disassembled.

Absolutely this. Why do armies like orks even exist? They are probably the most expensive in a $/£ per game point ratio of any army yet (without including Forgeworld) are consistently the weakest army in almost every edition. If they can't balance a faction they should remove them from sale until they can. They are forming a social contract with their customers as well as a financial one and they are failing both.

Still waiting for that rebuttal OP...

 Nithaniel wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The thing that most of these "balance" arguments are actually about is the degree to which your buying choices should determine how the game goes. The ideal is for a customer to be able to walk into a GW, buy some models just because they look cool, and be able to then take them to the table and not get utterly disassembled.

Absolutely this. Why do armies like orks even exist? They are probably the most expensive in a $/£ per game point ratio of any army yet (without including Forgeworld) are consistently the weakest army in almost every edition. If they can't balance a faction they should remove them from sale until they can. They are forming a social contract with their customers as well as a financial one and they are failing both.

I'd suggest they exist because thousands of people enjoy collecting, painting, converting and reading about them. Never mind gaming with them.

 Nithaniel wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The thing that most of these "balance" arguments are actually about is the degree to which your buying choices should determine how the game goes. The ideal is for a customer to be able to walk into a GW, buy some models just because they look cool, and be able to then take them to the table and not get utterly disassembled.

Absolutely this. Why do armies like orks even exist? They are probably the most expensive in a $/£ per game point ratio of any army yet (without including Forgeworld) are consistently the weakest army in almost every edition. If they can't balance a faction they should remove them from sale until they can. They are forming a social contract with their customers as well as a financial one and they are failing both.

This is a pretty stupid thing to say no? There's a HUGE part of the market that are just want to hobby. Build, Paint it, make dioramas, make display boards, enter competitions etc. Need models to do that

 Nithaniel wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The thing that most of these "balance" arguments are actually about is the degree to which your buying choices should determine how the game goes. The ideal is for a customer to be able to walk into a GW, buy some models just because they look cool, and be able to then take them to the table and not get utterly disassembled.

Absolutely this. Why do armies like orks even exist? They are probably the most expensive in a $/£ per game point ratio of any army yet (without including Forgeworld) are consistently the weakest army in almost every edition. If they can't balance a faction they should remove them from sale until they can. They are forming a social contract with their customers as well as a financial one and they are failing both.

Orks in previous editions were not top tiers but in any casual semi-competitive meta they can do great. Now they're struggling for not having a codex. And yet they have a built that actually won some tournaments.

IMHO the real question should be: why does super competitive gaming even exists? GW games should be around putting on the table the models players had built and painted, and with those toys just have fun with some friends.

Even though orks are not competitive overall, except for one list, they are actually selling or at least GW sold tons of their miniatures in the previous editions. If you have a look on the poll about users' armies, orks are among the most common ones. Armies that sell only because they are good in the game should be removed

 Blackie wrote:


IMHO the real question should be: why does super competitive gaming even exists?

Because people want to play like that.

GW games should be around putting on the table the models players had built and painted, and with those toys just have fun with some friends.

GW games should be around doing whatever you and your friends want to do. That could be a hero arena smash fest, a grand campaign, weekly skirmishes, or attending tournaments.

There is an argument that 40k is entirely balanced since every player has the same options from the outset.

Once a player limits their choices through preference of a faction or unit background or aesthetics, with the many rules and options that make each unique, there inevitably comes some degree of balance issue.

It's kind of a part of what makes every game so interesting.

Chess is balance, ludo is balance, checkers is balance, backgammon is balance.
Mirror miniatyr armys symmetricaly deployed on a 100% symmetrical table is balance.

as sutch 30k is far more balanced then what 40k ever will be.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Chess is balance, ludo is balance, checkers is balance, backgammon is balance.
Mirror miniatyr armys symmetricaly deployed on a 100% symmetrical table is balance.

as sutch 30k is far more balanced then what 40k ever will be.

Yes!

Whereas 40k is more like a queen and bishop vs four knights (which in theory should be balanced but probably isn't).

What I'm looking for, in a balanced wargame, is a situation in which a well constructed list has at least a 40% chance to defeat another. That's a 60/40 split, in the opponent's favour. If I were competing for a prize, I'd want each faction to have a list they could bring, with a minimum 40% chance of success in any given game.

So, if there are 18 primary factions, then a list built from any one faction should have all the tools to deal with skew from any other faction. That's a tall order.

Since I don't think that the scope of 40k allows that, I'd want to allow competitive games [with prizes] to allow for multiple lists to be taken, allowing the players to at the very least have "list chicken" as a factor. To me, this would allow players to bring a list skewed to deal with a variety of targets, and / or present a list with skew that challenges the opponent.

I say this, as a player that would prefer to be able to play TAC lists ALL THE TIME because that's how I like to play. Honestly, I think competitive 40k would require 3 lists. One for 'ard stuff, one for 'ordes, and a balanced / unique skew list that the player could keep for a TAC-type list. That would dramatically improve balance, as each game you have the potential for a decent match, depending on lists chosen.

Rather than a guaranteed-screwed matchup.


PS: To the Guard haters. Hate on the codex, not the players. We didn't choose our codex any more than Eldar did last edition. The codex is to blame, not the player. I've been collecting Guard since 2003. They have never, previously, been the flavor of the month. Further, most Guard players DONT play gunline, in my experience. I play a full mixture of Back, Mid, and Forward units. I think most long term players do as well, to get a mix of models on the board.

I personally take a 10% hit on points, to level the playing field with my friends. Guardsmen aren't power gamers, WAAC, or "unfun" players. We have a codex with that potential, but potential does not equal practice.

If you want purely fair. Tournaments would provide the armies. Players would use the provided lists. They would be identical and mirrored.
The best dice and best general would normally win everytime.

Since we DONT play that way.....40K has always been a rock paper scissors game. I bring something that beats you. You retool you list to beat that.....then I bring a completely different list knowing what your going to bring and made to counter yours....and so on. BALANCE IS THAT YOU HAVE AN OPTION TO DESIGN A LIST THAT CAN BEAT SOME OTHER LIST.

We lost a player for a year. He kept using more and more 2nd ed Dark Angels Land Speeders.(predictable) My buddy and I decided to take a lot of gargoyles for our side. The DA players loaded up heavy with like 4 Land Speeders. After Turn 2 no more land speeders and the veteran quite the game and left. His novice ally kept on fighting; and after I got knocked out it came down to the last 2 pieces to decide the game.....a ton of fun despite.

The Dark Angels player is back with us again btw.

Bharring wrote:
Sorry for the nitpick but:

It has been shown that Chess is not balanced. White has the advantage.

Ponder that.

If Chess isn't balanced, how is WH40K going to be.

Lack of question mark is intentional.

But Chess is reasonably balanced.
Taking out draws - which are common and make up over a third of all games - white wins 52-55% and black wins 45-48%.
This is born out of hundreds of thousands of games.
We can therefore say the advantage is not overwhelming.
If I advance in a tournament, winning consistently as white and black, it would tend to indicate I am playing better than my opponents.

Leaving aside faction imbalance - I think the biggest issue in 40k is that the first player has a massive advantage. I'd be interested to see if that is borne out across grand tournaments.

I mean I think Guard are overpowered. But they are not breaking the meta in ways predicted because while their alpha strike is comically overpowered this is true for all the top factions. So you can be overpowered, perhaps even statistically the best, but if a third or something of your army is dead before you get to do anything you are probably going to struggle to catch back up.

Furthermore, chess doesn't use "unit A is FOTM" as the framework for definining a "meta." Rather, chess has evolved as the result of numerous schools and openings, with multi-turn maneuvers getting terms such as Alekhine's Defense, Windmilling, etc. There was even one chess match known as The Immortal Game where a player managed a checkmate despite trading his queen, rooks and a bishop for three pawns. Contrary to assumptions, a mostly static set of rules has not led to a "stale meta" but has created a game defined by maneuver and long-term planning. (IIRC, the only notable recent rule qualification by FIDE was in 1971 stating that when you promote a piece, it must be your color. A white player promoted his pawn into a Black Knight, opening up an attack route for his Bishop while being uncapturable, leading to checkmate).

 Hollow wrote:
You can't go 2 seconds on Dakka without seeing this word. It's thrown around like feces in the monkey enclosure at the zoo. This is balanced, that is balanced, this isn't balanced, that isn't balanced... Is this balanced? Is that balanced? GW wouldn't know balance if it slapped them across the face and threw them off balance! Balance here, balance there, balance everywhere! But what does 'balance' actually mean? How is it defined? and is it (as I suspect) entirely subjective terminology, which means very different things, to very different people.

To me, when someone asks the question; "Is 40k a balanced game?" My answer is generally "Yes" because what does a balanced 40k mean to me? It means that each FACTION can generally compete with each other FACTION and has a range of options to do so.

Full-stop you got it in a nutshell right there: "In a two-player game, saying it is “balanced” usually means that one player does not have an unfair advantage over the other.". I keep thinking of chess but some debate on advantage on who goes first.
I like this article that is worth quoting a few things:
https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/level-16-game-balance/

It does not mean, that every LIST/UNIT/MODEL can compete with every other LIST/UNIT/MODEL... that is an impossibility. It is also something that I find undesirable because it would require losing so much of the character that separates and defines the various factions within the game.

"In multi-player games where there is asymmetry (that is, where players do not start with exactly equal positions and resources), we use “balance” to describe whether one starting position is easier to win with than another."
"Within a system that has several similar game objects (such as cards in a trading-card game, weapons in a role-playing game, and so on), we use “balance” to describe the objects themselves, specifically whether different objects have the same cost/benefit ratio."

There are levels of granularity from "army" to "unit" to "model" cost/benefit.

One of my favourite computer games is the amazing and timeless Age Of Empires. I have been playing this game online for years and years and one of the main reasons for it's longevity is because it's 'generally balanced'. All the civilisations have a decent chance against the other civilisations, there is no doubt that there are better civs than others at specific things and against specific opponents, There are certain units that counter others, but when it comes down to 1v1, a good player will always be able to overcome any civ advantage the other might have.

I played that game a long time ago a fair bit.
I would agree with that observation. Again it was a matter of fielding the right combo of units to counter your opponent's at that time.
Spam, mixed forces, it is a more dynamic form of game, you get to create your "army list" in waves.

When it comes to tournaments, having looked at the results from the GT, Adepticon etc I would say that there is a fairly mixed bag regarding results.. I would also argue that tournament bandwagons and copy-cats tend to skew the results as certain FACTIONS are over-represented. It sure would be interesting to see tournaments run with allocated spaces for each of the factions.Like a total of 180 spaces with only 10 spaces per faction. That would show (I would bet) that 40k is in fact a balanced game in regards to faction v faction.

The challenge is always how to enforce that?
A lottery? (Not a workable suggestion so being a bit disingenuous here).

Thoughts? What does balance mean to you? Is everything in 40k either OP or "hot trash" as so many of the cry-babies on Dakka like to describe it? Or is it something else?

I find my test for "balance" is you can easily see a unit being very useful in the right circumstance (plays much like Eldar aspect warriors) or reasonable "all-rounders" to hedge your bets (age old question of qty vs quality).
The question best asked is "When would you field this unit?" if the answer is "Well, that depends." it is good, if the answer is "(almost) Always" or "(almost) Never", well...

We will always feel our chosen army has been "ripped off" one way or another.
I think it is the human condition if you are not winning all the time or any given unit is not the best at all things: we have room to complain.
I think Dakka is not exclusively the land of cry-babies.

To me "balance" is making sure every unit can be used without disadvantaging yourself, this is very difficult given just how many units 40k has, you just need competent staff, proof readers and a playtesting team, something that GW appears not to have any of.

 admironheart wrote:
If you want purely fair. Tournaments would provide the armies. Players would use the provided lists. They would be identical and mirrored.
The best dice and best general would normally win everytime.

Since we DONT play that way.....40K has always been a rock paper scissors game. I bring something that beats you. You retool you list to beat that.....then I bring a completely different list knowing what your going to bring and made to counter yours....and so on. BALANCE IS THAT YOU HAVE AN OPTION TO DESIGN A LIST THAT CAN BEAT SOME OTHER LIST.

We lost a player for a year. He kept using more and more 2nd ed Dark Angels Land Speeders.(predictable) My buddy and I decided to take a lot of gargoyles for our side. The DA players loaded up heavy with like 4 Land Speeders. After Turn 2 no more land speeders and the veteran quite the game and left. His novice ally kept on fighting; and after I got knocked out it came down to the last 2 pieces to decide the game.....a ton of fun despite.

The Dark Angels player is back with us again btw.

Ah, I know the type. He needs to divorce himself from his army. Makes it a better experience overall.

M.

My point about chess is that perfect balance is an unreasonable goal. Although better balance would be a reasonable goal.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Why do armies like orks even exist? They are probably the most expensive in a $/£ per game point ratio of any army yet (without including Forgeworld) are consistently the weakest army in almost every edition.

If they can't balance a faction they should remove them from sale until they can. They are forming a social contract with their customers as well as a financial one and they are failing both.

As an Imperial Guard / Sisters player, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about who is the most expensive in $/points.

As a Dogs of War player, I kind of hope that you get your wish, if only to know what it's like to have your primary army Squatted.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Furthermore, chess doesn't use "unit A is FOTM" as the framework for definining a "meta." Rather, chess has evolved as the result of numerous schools and openings, with multi-turn maneuvers getting terms such as Alekhine's Defense, Windmilling, etc. There was even one chess match known as The Immortal Game where a player managed a checkmate despite trading his queen, rooks and a bishop for three pawns. Contrary to assumptions, a mostly static set of rules has not led to a "stale meta" but has created a game defined by maneuver and long-term planning. (IIRC, the only notable recent rule qualification by FIDE was in 1971 stating that when you promote a piece, it must be your color. A white player promoted his pawn into a Black Knight, opening up an attack route for his Bishop while being uncapturable, leading to checkmate).

The thing about 40k is that I am not sure there is enough time to really form and then evolve a meta.

Putting it bluntly - people don't play that many games.
I mean maybe someone will rush out to prove me wrong - but how many tournaments do even the keenest players attend? One every month? Less than that? So even once a meta is formed - which isn't immediate - you are not going to get to face it that many times before it probably shifts.

Maybe its because 40k isn't (yet?) open as a profession - but I don't think someone can sit down and practice dozens, possibly hundreds of different openings just to try and find the statistical best way of beating whatever is the current meta.
And right now the meta changes every month with a new codex release.

 Desubot wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Sorry for the nitpick but:

It has been shown that Chess is not balanced. White has the advantage.

Ponder that.

If Chess isn't balanced, how is WH40K going to be.

Lack of question mark is intentional.

Nothing is perfectly balanced, but that doesn't mean you should throw balance out the window. It's an unachievable goal but striving for it anyways makes for a better game.

I dunno, pistol dueling is pretty balanced. at least if played by the rules.

Rock scissors paper has great balance. It is also incredibly boring to play over and over.

That may be the most insightful post I've seen in this thread.

Tyel wrote:


The thing about 40k is that I am not sure there is enough time to really form and then evolve a meta.

Putting it bluntly - people don't play that many games.
I mean maybe someone will rush out to prove me wrong - but how many tournaments do even the keenest players attend? One every month? Less than that? So even once a meta is formed - which isn't immediate - you are not going to get to face it that many times before it probably shifts.

Maybe its because 40k isn't (yet?) open as a profession - but I don't think someone can sit down and practice dozens, possibly hundreds of different openings just to try and find the statistical best way of beating whatever is the current meta.
And right now the meta changes every month with a new codex release.

Locally the younger guys without responsibilities play weekly and do small tournaments (30ish) monthly with an occasional big tournament.

Meta will always be largely relative to your area. For a big tournament you need to pay attention to forums.

Balance is sometimes difficult and subjective, but sometimes not. For instance:

1) Eldar Fusion Gun is the same stats as the Marine Melta Gun, and they cost the same. That is balance. However, the Bright Lance which is basically the same as the Multi Melta, is 7 pts cheaper and has 50% more range. That is not balanced. For the record, the Marines need to spend 13pts for the Tac Marine or 16pts for the Sternguard to gear a melta, while the Eldar Fire Dragon costs 5pts, and also doesn't eat the -1 penalty to hit for firing assault after advancing, so this seeming parity in cost/ability is actually quite heavily skewed towards Eldar, resulting in it not being balanced.

2) Space Marine Chapter Tactics apply to only infantry, bikers, Dreadnoughts, while Eldar Craftworld traits apply to their entire Detachment. That is not balanced.

3) Eldar Wraithlords have higher T, more wounds, more speed, and a free but functional CCW with strong AP and wound values, while the Marine Dreadnought costs more, is slower, softer, and this would be another good example of not being balanced.

4) Eldar squad leaders have +1A like most squad leaders, but also +1W, along an random additional ability on what type of Exarch it is, which others don't get. Not balanced.

5) Space Marine scouts have to pay thru the nose to include "scout" gear. Putting them at 50% more expense than Eldar Rangers who get their sniper rifles for free and their cloaks included, who's cloaks not only add to cover save but come with an awesome -1 to Hit as well. Lovely. Also, not balanced.

6) For 2 more points than a Marine pays for a just a Missile Launcher, Dark Reapers get a better weapon AND the awesome unit that fires it, hitting on 3+ no matter what, with a solid 3+ armor save to boot. And all the units in the squad can take it. Want that 10 man squad to get the most from whatever guarantee-to-hit/wound buff your dirt cheap psykers are going to slap on it? No wasted space there.

There are many more examples I could make, but I'm sure you get the idea. I understand you need to make things different, but damn, when your modus operandi is to simply just take one group and make their similar stuff just cheaper and all around better, you are doing it wrong. Some of this stuff is subjective, but some is not. I honestly don't know how non Eldar armies compete with them. Eldar units and gear are simply better, cheaper, and more versatile.

The Brightlance doesn't have the roll-two-dice-at-half-range the Multi Melta has. It's always been the Lascannon's Eldar equivelent, not the MultiMelta.

The Dreadnaught has much better ranged weapons than the Wraithlord, and the Wraithlord degrades. A Wraithlord with 2 heavy weapons and sword is about equal to a Dread with a heavy weapon and a CCW in both shooting and CC.

Eldar Exarchs don't give squads +LD. They should have to pay, which is imbalanced. But are exemplars, not squad leaders.

Ranger Sniper Rifles and Cloaks are only free if you don't count the 4 points Rangers pay to get them. They are still Guardians with that equipment. With S/T of 3 and a 5+ vs a S/T of 4 and a 4+ (base). I should hope they cost less.

Reapers are unbalanced. That's true. But the guarentee-wound is on the target, not the unit for CWE - CWE doesn't get LT-equivelents, just basic-captain equivelents and psychic power. They can be denied. They behave very differently. It's not all upsides.

This is one of the problems with balance. Everything the other guy has has no downsides, but your stuff is trash.

Even in cases like CWE, where they actually are OP, people spout off about many "imbalances" with half-truths and incorrect rules.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The thing that most of these "balance" arguments are actually about is the degree to which your buying choices should determine how the game goes. The ideal is for a customer to be able to walk into a GW, buy some models just because they look cool, and be able to then take them to the table and not get utterly disassembled.

Only because the average person's conception of balance begins and ends with their own interests. For instance, "Army X doesn't need a nerf, everyone else needs a buff!" That is incredibly short sighted. Strength is a competitive curve. In order for someone to be strong, everyone else must be relatively weak.

Balance should be in aggregate. If X% of the playerbase identifies with Dark Eldar as their faction of choice, then logically X% of top, or near top tournament players should be Dark Eldar.

That doesn't improve Casual Billy's chance of buying a "what looks cool" collection at his local GW and then beating someone who has a hard-counter army. Because it's a one-off scenario. Every single interaction between every codex cannot be balanced. What if i have an all dreadnought versus wraithguard battle? Should that be balanced? Is that level of balance fair to expect?

Gwarok wrote:
Balance is sometimes difficult and subjective, but sometimes not. For instance:

There are many more examples I could make, but I'm sure you get the idea. I understand you need to make things different, but damn, when your modus operandi is to simply just take one group and make their similar stuff just cheaper and all around better, you are doing it wrong. Some of this stuff is subjective, but some is not. I honestly don't know how non Eldar armies compete with them. Eldar units and gear are simply better, cheaper, and more versatile.

In most of those instances you forgot the toughness and saves of the models carrying the gear. Those Assault troops charged those rangers....gone! The marines may still hang on. Is that balanced.

If marine missile launchers are 2 points less than the 22 point reaper launcher then why does the elder pay 25 points for an elder missile launcher? Is that balanced? (as far as I know they have similar stats)

I know fire dragons fall way faster to fire than marines holding some meltas from most small arms....is that fair?

You were extremely subjective in your 'instances' even after you noted that some things are very subjective.

Try playing a paper army like elder. They have great tools, sweet gimmicks and some of the best options out there.....but they do blow away to a strong wind....sometimes a breeze if you make tactical mistakes. Marines usually are much more forgiving. Marines are a great starter army as there is built in game padding to make up for their shortfall as a novice player. Other armies usually need a refined skill to master, moreso than marines. Is that fair..no its just different. Things in this game are not fair....but they need to be balanced.

If you take the ultimate list for X army, then every other Y Z Q T B army should have at least 1 build that can take it down. If they cannot then you have an UNFAIR and UNBALANCED game.

Eldar ML HAS Ap-1 on its frag missile. Not huge, but better than IOM

Bharring wrote:
Eldar ML HAS Ap-1 on its frag missile. Not huge, but better than IOM

Also S5.

Edit: I think so, at least. Not 100% sure.

This reminds of all the old 7th threads about how CSM are just more expensive SM with less special rules.

For the entirety of 3E-6E, I wished my Eldar had 48" S9 Lascannon instead of 36" S8 Brightlances. Lascannon are OP compared to Brightlances.

Except when those lances are basically free and can be taken en masse as Dark Eldar Darklances - then they're fair.