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.
2022/02/10 23:43:12
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: The concept was intended as hyperbole to illustrate a point. The more calls for "external balance" the more homogenized we are going to see each army.
There are plenty of "balanced" competitive games out there, why should GW change the rich history of this one to placate to a competitive crowd that will move on as soon as they've been milked dry?
I think imbalance is more desirable. I may be old, but I miss the days when every army excelled in some aspects but had weaknesses in others. Marines at the time were considered a jack of all, best of none.
If GW were to act on all the zealots who turn any critical discussion into a means of balance argument, then the game will deteriorate anyway. Why wait? To milk the cash cow until it's at a state of disrepair and they implement another AoS/40k 8th reboot.
The complexity of the game is too high for there to be any semblance of balance given the current rules teams bandwith. Look at another hobby that, until recently, had a very large competitive scene and pro-circut. Magic: The Gathering. Their rulebook puts everything in 40k rules writing department to shame. Unless we want a manifesto the size of the Britannica then the only other option for a "balanced" ruleset is to have more homogenization and slimmer rules (ex. Chess, Catan, Ticket to Ride).
tl;dr
Achieving balance in 40K is impossible without making every army the same or investing too many resources to the rules department to the point of a bad ROI for GW.
EDIT:
To the competitive (tournament players) what is the appeal of 40k rule set that other more balanced competitive games do not scratch for you. Purely rules, not lore/narrative/setting, what is the appeal?
I am trying to understand your point of view. I am guessing you do not consider yourself a competitive player and you are upset about the competitive scene? You worry that adjustments made to the competitive game will affect your fun?
Are you worried about points changes? Why worry if you are not competitive? So one of your units costs more points. And? You aren't competitive. Heck, you are free to play without points or PL, just casually plonk down the models that you like and play a free-form game with your like-minded opponent. Recreate you favourite BL moment with someone who also wants to engage in that.
Is it the restrictions that are imposed on Matched Play? The sub-faction restrictions and flyer restrictions, for example, are for GT 2022 Matched Play games. I realize that if everyone at your FLGS/gaming community is playing that way it will be hard to find a like-minded opponent. That's on you, though, and not on them. They are presumably having fun playing their GT 2022 Matched Play games. You are free to join them.
You ask what is the appeal of 40K to tournament players. People will have different answers. I am not an ITC fellow, but I certainly play in local tournaments on a regular basis. A long time ago I played at the National GT. I like the background, the models (collecting and painting), the gameplay and the competitive aspect. By competitive I mean having to plan against another person who has agency. I like have relative freedom to pick my army. I understand the need for constraints and restraints, but I enjoy being able to design a list. List design is not, however, everything. You still have to play the game. Someone could try to use the latest LVO-winning list, but lacking that player's acumen they would not achieve the same results on the tabletop. Winning is nice, but playing is more important. For some tourney players, especially local tourneys, the tourney scene offers a convenient way to arrange games in a busy schedule.
My major gripes are:
1) The rules have become bland. Stripping flavor from the units and reintroducing it via strategems, doctrines or armys of renown etc.
2) Hamfisted band-aid fixes to repair broken concepts followed by more knee jerk changes to fix the new problems they created with the first attempt. (Ex. Lethality vs durabity paradim shift ad nauseum)
But the real ass kicker of this whole situation is that GW should be better than this as a market leader. It really seems that they keep making the bad decisions to sell dlc books to grinders.
2022/02/11 07:49:17
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: The concept was intended as hyperbole to illustrate a point. The more calls for "external balance" the more homogenized we are going to see each army.
There are plenty of "balanced" competitive games out there, why should GW change the rich history of this one to placate to a competitive crowd that will move on as soon as they've been milked dry?
I think imbalance is more desirable. I may be old, but I miss the days when every army excelled in some aspects but had weaknesses in others. Marines at the time were considered a jack of all, best of none.
If GW were to act on all the zealots who turn any critical discussion into a means of balance argument, then the game will deteriorate anyway. Why wait? To milk the cash cow until it's at a state of disrepair and they implement another AoS/40k 8th reboot.
The complexity of the game is too high for there to be any semblance of balance given the current rules teams bandwith. Look at another hobby that, until recently, had a very large competitive scene and pro-circut. Magic: The Gathering. Their rulebook puts everything in 40k rules writing department to shame. Unless we want a manifesto the size of the Britannica then the only other option for a "balanced" ruleset is to have more homogenization and slimmer rules (ex. Chess, Catan, Ticket to Ride).
tl;dr
Achieving balance in 40K is impossible without making every army the same or investing too many resources to the rules department to the point of a bad ROI for GW.
EDIT:
To the competitive (tournament players) what is the appeal of 40k rule set that other more balanced competitive games do not scratch for you. Purely rules, not lore/narrative/setting, what is the appeal?
I am trying to understand your point of view. I am guessing you do not consider yourself a competitive player and you are upset about the competitive scene? You worry that adjustments made to the competitive game will affect your fun?
Are you worried about points changes? Why worry if you are not competitive? So one of your units costs more points. And? You aren't competitive. Heck, you are free to play without points or PL, just casually plonk down the models that you like and play a free-form game with your like-minded opponent. Recreate you favourite BL moment with someone who also wants to engage in that.
Is it the restrictions that are imposed on Matched Play? The sub-faction restrictions and flyer restrictions, for example, are for GT 2022 Matched Play games. I realize that if everyone at your FLGS/gaming community is playing that way it will be hard to find a like-minded opponent. That's on you, though, and not on them. They are presumably having fun playing their GT 2022 Matched Play games. You are free to join them.
You ask what is the appeal of 40K to tournament players. People will have different answers. I am not an ITC fellow, but I certainly play in local tournaments on a regular basis. A long time ago I played at the National GT. I like the background, the models (collecting and painting), the gameplay and the competitive aspect. By competitive I mean having to plan against another person who has agency. I like have relative freedom to pick my army. I understand the need for constraints and restraints, but I enjoy being able to design a list. List design is not, however, everything. You still have to play the game. Someone could try to use the latest LVO-winning list, but lacking that player's acumen they would not achieve the same results on the tabletop. Winning is nice, but playing is more important. For some tourney players, especially local tourneys, the tourney scene offers a convenient way to arrange games in a busy schedule.
My major gripes are:
1) The rules have become bland. Stripping flavor from the units and reintroducing it via strategems, doctrines or armys of renown etc.
2) Hamfisted band-aid fixes to repair broken concepts followed by more knee jerk changes to fix the new problems they created with the first attempt. (Ex. Lethality vs durabity paradim shift ad nauseum)
But the real ass kicker of this whole situation is that GW should be better than this as a market leader. It really seems that they keep making the bad decisions to sell dlc books to grinders.
1) Nothing to do with the game being balanced. You could make chess unbalanced if you allowed players to replace their pawns with queens, it's still a relatively simple game, but anyone who has bought enough chess sets to replace their pawns with queens will be at an advantage. All balance means is assigning reasonable costs to units based on reasonable expectations of how the unit will be used and updating those costs based on how units are used or not used in tournaments.
2) The game does not become more or less balanced whether LRBT have 2+ Sv or whether dark lances do D3+3 Damage, the game becomes balanced if LRBT costs something appropriate for its stats and abilities, the game becomes balance if dark lances cost something appropriate for its stats and abilities. That means dark lances should cost 0 when they have D6 damage, 10 when they have D3+3 damage. If you want to blame someone for upping damage it seems more reasonable to me to blame casuals that complain about multimeltas and LRBT having bad stats, a competitive player will use the weapon if the price is right, a casual player is looking for an experience, the experience of a tough LRBT or the experience of a deadly Drukhari anti-tank weapon.
2022/02/11 08:38:03
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: ...But the real ass kicker of this whole situation is that GW should be better than this as a market leader. It really seems that they keep making the bad decisions to sell dlc books to grinders...
It's almost like they're a market leader purely because of network effects and their prominence has pretty much nothing to do with whether their game works on any level.
AnomanderRake wrote: It's almost like they're a market leader purely because of network effects and their prominence has pretty much nothing to do with whether their game works on any level.
I'd argue when GW was really bad there was an explosion of competition.
I guess you could argue that's happening now - mainly because lots of people seem not to like how the game has developed - but equally it seems incredibly split up and so lacks the critical mass of WmH and X-Wing.
Probably because everyone disagrees on why exactly they dislike the game.
2022/02/11 10:20:11
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
AnomanderRake wrote: It's almost like they're a market leader purely because of network effects and their prominence has pretty much nothing to do with whether their game works on any level.
I'd argue when GW was really bad there was an explosion of competition.
I guess you could argue that's happening now - mainly because lots of people seem not to like how the game has developed - but equally it seems incredibly split up and so lacks the critical mass of WmH and X-Wing.
Probably because everyone disagrees on why exactly they dislike the game.
I will never not be amazed at how Privateer Press managed to screw up their opportunity to properly get their foot in the door in terms of market value when 40k was at its lowest and WmH was at its peak. It was like watching a several trains crashing into each other all at once. Every decision they made was a bad one. Honestly, it's what would have happened to 40k ages ago if GW wasn't too big to fail.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/11 10:20:57
2022/02/11 13:40:04
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
I'm not sure if that has been mentioned as I've not read the whole thread (because 31 pages of waffle).
For the side board aficionados who I am guessing don't play 40k, there is a "side board" competitive version of the game that some consider to be the pinacle of competitive 40k.
That is the WTC/ETC team format. 8 (I think) lists vs 8 lists, no duplicate factions, different levels of terrain on the 8 boards, a matching sub game where the team captains determine which lists play each other and on which terrain.
It then doesn't matter if there are 3 broken factions, as every team brings them, and has the option to try to find the perfect counter from the other factions in the game, because they can pretty much guarantee every other team is bringing that faction. The scoring also allows for playing to lose but not by much as a valid and interesting strategy against broken factions.
Unfortunately, it is just a very hard format to play casually and it is even somewhat difficult to play tournament casually because if you have a team of eight, one person dropping for a variety of personal reasons would be a big issue, so you need a sub/reserve player or two.
2022/02/11 13:46:01
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
EightFoldPath wrote: I'm not sure if that has been mentioned as I've not read the whole thread (because 31 pages of waffle).
For the side board aficionados who I am guessing don't play 40k, there is a "side board" competitive version of the game that some consider to be the pinacle of competitive 40k.
That is the WTC/ETC team format. 8 (I think) lists vs 8 lists, no duplicate factions, different levels of terrain on the 8 boards, a matching sub game where the team captains determine which lists play each other and on which terrain.
It then doesn't matter if there are 3 broken factions, as every team brings them, and has the option to try to find the perfect counter from the other factions in the game, because they can pretty much guarantee every other team is bringing that faction. The scoring also allows for playing to lose but not by much as a valid and interesting strategy against broken factions.
Unfortunately, it is just a very hard format to play casually and it is even somewhat difficult to play tournament casually because if you have a team of eight, one person dropping for a variety of personal reasons would be a big issue, so you need a sub/reserve player or two.
Team Tournaments are usually 4 people on this side. Why do you do eight? Just for more variety?
2022/02/11 13:50:43
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
EightFoldPath wrote: I'm not sure if that has been mentioned as I've not read the whole thread (because 31 pages of waffle).
For the side board aficionados who I am guessing don't play 40k, there is a "side board" competitive version of the game that some consider to be the pinacle of competitive 40k.
That is the WTC/ETC team format. 8 (I think) lists vs 8 lists, no duplicate factions, different levels of terrain on the 8 boards, a matching sub game where the team captains determine which lists play each other and on which terrain.
It then doesn't matter if there are 3 broken factions, as every team brings them, and has the option to try to find the perfect counter from the other factions in the game, because they can pretty much guarantee every other team is bringing that faction. The scoring also allows for playing to lose but not by much as a valid and interesting strategy against broken factions.
Unfortunately, it is just a very hard format to play casually and it is even somewhat difficult to play tournament casually because if you have a team of eight, one person dropping for a variety of personal reasons would be a big issue, so you need a sub/reserve player or two.
Well it's not about playing alternative formats, its about changing the way the default way of playing 40k (Matched) works. Its very difficult to getting people to move away from the Cult Of Officialdom. Unless the change is made for Matched by GW there's no point discussing alternative formats. Its the same as saying "just find another group that plays the way you want to". Nice sentiment but not realistic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/11 14:13:59
2022/02/11 14:31:33
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
EightFoldPath wrote: I'm not sure if that has been mentioned as I've not read the whole thread (because 31 pages of waffle).
For the side board aficionados who I am guessing don't play 40k, there is a "side board" competitive version of the game that some consider to be the pinacle of competitive 40k.
That is the WTC/ETC team format. 8 (I think) lists vs 8 lists, no duplicate factions, different levels of terrain on the 8 boards, a matching sub game where the team captains determine which lists play each other and on which terrain.
It then doesn't matter if there are 3 broken factions, as every team brings them, and has the option to try to find the perfect counter from the other factions in the game, because they can pretty much guarantee every other team is bringing that faction. The scoring also allows for playing to lose but not by much as a valid and interesting strategy against broken factions.
Unfortunately, it is just a very hard format to play casually and it is even somewhat difficult to play tournament casually because if you have a team of eight, one person dropping for a variety of personal reasons would be a big issue, so you need a sub/reserve player or two.
Well it's not about playing alternative formats, its about changing the way the default way of playing 40k (Matched) works. Its very difficult to getting people to move away from the Cult Of Officialdom. Unless the change is made for Matched by GW there's no point discussing alternative formats. Its the same as saying "just find another group that plays the way you want to". Nice sentiment but not realistic.
If there's no point in discussing alt playstyles, why you type all this?
2022/02/11 14:37:14
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: To the competitive (tournament players) what is the appeal of 40k rule set that other more balanced competitive games do not scratch for you. Purely rules, not lore/narrative/setting, what is the appeal?
availability, you want to play miniature games events, you need to play 40k, end of story
(when I started it was Warhammer Fantasy here, even most people in the club liked 40k more but if you wanted to play tournaments, you needed to play WHFB, and the time before that it was Battletech)
Even if 40k MINIATURES are the most accessible, doesnt meant that 40k SYSTEM is the most accessible.
You don't need to play 40k just because your minis are for 40k
2022/02/11 14:57:04
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: To the competitive (tournament players) what is the appeal of 40k rule set that other more balanced competitive games do not scratch for you. Purely rules, not lore/narrative/setting, what is the appeal?
availability, you want to play miniature games events, you need to play 40k, end of story
(when I started it was Warhammer Fantasy here, even most people in the club liked 40k more but if you wanted to play tournaments, you needed to play WHFB, and the time before that it was Battletech)
Even if 40k MINIATURES are the most accessible, doesnt meant that 40k SYSTEM is the most accessible.
You don't need to play 40k just because your minis are for 40k
If you want to play competitively, which is what Kodos was responding to, then it matters what people are playing locally.
That's 'accessible' in the sense of 'easy to get into the competitive scene', not 'accessible' in the sense of 'easy to learn and play'.
You don't need to play 40k just because your minis are for 40k
I was toying with the idea of getting some basic forces together again and then writing my own version of 40k. But then thought that was a lot of effort for little payoff so stick with Battletech
(I don't know of any alt 40k rulesets people around me use and the battletech community is very large where I am)
2022/02/11 14:57:53
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: To the competitive (tournament players) what is the appeal of 40k rule set that other more balanced competitive games do not scratch for you. Purely rules, not lore/narrative/setting, what is the appeal?
availability, you want to play miniature games events, you need to play 40k, end of story
(when I started it was Warhammer Fantasy here, even most people in the club liked 40k more but if you wanted to play tournaments, you needed to play WHFB, and the time before that it was Battletech)
Even if 40k MINIATURES are the most accessible, doesnt meant that 40k SYSTEM is the most accessible.
You don't need to play 40k just because your minis are for 40k
I did not say accessibility of miniatures, but "miniature games events"
it is much easier to find other miniatures to use for a 40k tournament, than to find a different game event where you can use your 40k minis
the tournament scene uses 40k as the main gaming system for the main reason that there are a lot of 40k tournaments out there, and nothing else, there is not other reason
it is a little different for wargames and boardgames, as there you have a lot that does not use miniatures at all, and the tournament scene is different for that reason
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2022/02/11 17:00:19
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
You don't need to play 40k just because your minis are for 40k
I was toying with the idea of getting some basic forces together again and then writing my own version of 40k. But then thought that was a lot of effort for little payoff so stick with Battletech
(I don't know of any alt 40k rulesets people around me use and the battletech community is very large where I am)
One Page Rules has Grim Dark Future which is purpose built as an alt-40k type game that can be played with your 40k collection or 3d printed minis, seems quite popular. I dont know if there are many other "purpose built" games that are intended to provide an alternative avenue for you to play your 40k minis with though.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2022/02/11 17:13:30
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
You don't need to play 40k just because your minis are for 40k
I was toying with the idea of getting some basic forces together again and then writing my own version of 40k. But then thought that was a lot of effort for little payoff so stick with Battletech
(I don't know of any alt 40k rulesets people around me use and the battletech community is very large where I am)
We basically did this in 7th, with Herald of Ruin.
Which was basically a more in depth fan made kill team. Was hands down the best 40k i have ever played.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/02/11 17:50:18
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
I'd have to check that out. One page rules typically are not interesting to me because over simplified rules lack a lot of the crunch I desire but if done right could be cool.
The other problem of course is finding players that want to play that.
How do they handle army lists? Are they generally in line with each other?
2022/02/11 18:21:39
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
I was toying with the idea of getting some basic forces together again and then writing my own version of 40k. But then thought that was a lot of effort for little payoff so stick with Battletech
(I don't know of any alt 40k rulesets people around me use and the battletech community is very large where I am)
Writing own core ruleset is fun in its own right, but then there is a Sisyphean task of porting codices if you deviate too far from GWs core rules, which is usually the point of custom ruleset in the first place. And then you have to "sell" this rework to people who will inevitably complain about everything.
If you don't already have a group that is into such projects, then such effort is pretty much dead on arrival.
2022/02/11 18:39:30
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
auticus wrote: I'd have to check that out. One page rules typically are not interesting to me because over simplified rules lack a lot of the crunch I desire but if done right could be cool.
The other problem of course is finding players that want to play that.
How do they handle army lists? Are they generally in line with each other?
you have the same options as in 40k/AoS mostly and as far as i can tell, the balance is much tighter than in 40k (they point units mathematically, they even offer a points calculator to make custom units if youre a patreon)
2022/02/12 08:43:01
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
GW uses mathematical formulas to generate points too. They even wrote a whole article on how they do it for AoS in WD.
Math is good for estimates. It is not good for finalized point costs, and never will be. There are too many factors which cannot be quantified into numeric form. And that is assuming the math has assigned correct weight to everything in the first place, we can see with GW how badly that can get screwed up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW uses mathematical formulas to generate points too. They even wrote a whole article on how they do it for AoS in WD.
Math is good for estimates. It is not good for finalized point costs, and never will be. There are too many factors which cannot be quantified into numeric form. And that is assuming the math has assigned correct weight to everything in the first place, we can see with GW how badly that can get screwed up.
Math also loses its edge when unit are getting "flavor" rules as well as army wide "flavor" rules that are breaking the core paradigm of the game. I played AoF - to which I enjoyed I might add - but it is a very stripped down version and my elves didn't really feel much like elves except that they moved faster than dwarves.
So for me AoF is a nice replacement for what was lost(WHFB), but I am not sure it will replace AoS for me.
...and this is the generic problem. When an army have abilities that are overwhelming or underperforming it is just really annoying to balance for that. Take for example the Nighthaunt charge rule: You get an extra pre-attack phase if you roll 10+(iirc) on charge. You can go through an entire game without proccing this niche ability, but if it procs it can decimate the unit it is attacking. It's just too random to point accordingly.
AnomanderRake wrote: It's almost like they're a market leader purely because of network effects and their prominence has pretty much nothing to do with whether their game works on any level.
I'd argue when GW was really bad there was an explosion of competition.
I guess you could argue that's happening now - mainly because lots of people seem not to like how the game has developed - but equally it seems incredibly split up and so lacks the critical mass of WmH and X-Wing.
Probably because everyone disagrees on why exactly they dislike the game.
I just hope AMG manages to kick Legion into high gear and provide more robust faction sheets. With Boba Fett and Mandalorian this is a game that is ripe for expansion and promotion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/12 09:06:18
2022/02/12 09:33:10
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW uses mathematical formulas to generate points too. They even wrote a whole article on how they do it for AoS in WD.
Math is good for estimates. It is not good for finalized point costs, and never will be. There are too many factors which cannot be quantified into numeric form. And that is assuming the math has assigned correct weight to everything in the first place, we can see with GW how badly that can get screwed up.
Internal playtesting is also flawed because it either doesn't have a meta because you're testing all kinds of weird stuff or the meta is different (like if nobody at GW runs skew except when they play Knights).
Assigning a semi-random cost to T3-8 and multiplying it by the wounds characteristic and applying a multiplier for various things is not properly using math to calculate points. 100% a system like the one in one page rules that allows you to make custom units will be very unbalanced, whether you follow you random formula or just assign points willy-nilly is the same difference. It's like predicting the weather by horoscope, instead of the weather forecast.
Eldarsif wrote: ...Nighthaunt charge rule: You get an extra pre-attack phase if you roll 10+(iirc) on charge. You can go through an entire game without proccing this niche ability, but if it procs it can decimate the unit it is attacking. It's just too random to point accordingly.
You can totally point it accordingly, you can math out what the average damage of a unit is with or without the bonus and account for how unlikely it is to come up. Then you internally playtest and see if any Nighthaunt units benefit way too much from the ability (like units that have quality instead of quantity of attacks and therefore benefit most from extra quantity or maybe the math didn't account for the benefit of a tanky unit occasionally turning into a blender). Finally, you see which units are brought in competitive AOS Nighthaunt lists. If Nighthaunt overperforms generally then you nerf the most popular Nighthaunt units, if Nighthaunt underperforms generally you nerf the most unpopular units and make other minor changes depending on the details.
You can either err on the side of random mechanics being stronger or weaker in the game depending on whether the game is supposed to be a fun party game where you're doing something to do while drinking or with children or something more competitive that people try to get good at. I think skew (which is a kind of randomness since you don't know whether your opponent will be able to counter your skew) and extremely random armies should never be the best armies in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/12 09:33:54
2022/02/12 16:43:37
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW uses mathematical formulas to generate points too. They even wrote a whole article on how they do it for AoS in WD.
Math is good for estimates. It is not good for finalized point costs, and never will be. There are too many factors which cannot be quantified into numeric form. And that is assuming the math has assigned correct weight to everything in the first place, we can see with GW how badly that can get screwed up.
Math also loses its edge when unit are getting "flavor" rules as well as army wide "flavor" rules that are breaking the core paradigm of the game.
As long as the rules themselves aren't super uneven, I'd say it's not a problem. After all, Word Bearers have one of the singular worst army rules while Alpha Legion have one of the best. That's the fault of GW design though.
2022/02/12 17:07:36
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
You use math to find the baseline based on averages. If your baseline is sound then you can get a lot closer.
Most tournament players I've ever met use math averages to calculate whats optimal and undercost for what it does and that has been a staple since pretty much forever in determining meta lists.
Every meta list I've ever linear regressed has a baseline that shows very visibly that its operating many times above what it should cost, and thats from 1990s 40k and whfb all the way up to today - and thats calculated from the mathematical averages and baselining.
The intangibles are rightfully not able to be math'd.
2022/02/15 05:55:29
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
1) Nothing to do with the game being balanced. You could make chess unbalanced if you allowed players to replace their pawns with queens, it's still a relatively simple game, but anyone who has bought enough chess sets to replace their pawns with queens will be at an advantage. All balance means is assigning reasonable costs to units based on reasonable expectations of how the unit will be used and updating those costs based on how units are used or not used in tournaments.
2) The game does not become more or less balanced whether LRBT have 2+ Sv or whether dark lances do D3+3 Damage, the game becomes balanced if LRBT costs something appropriate for its stats and abilities, the game becomes balance if dark lances cost something appropriate for its stats and abilities. That means dark lances should cost 0 when they have D6 damage, 10 when they have D3+3 damage. If you want to blame someone for upping damage it seems more reasonable to me to blame casuals that complain about multimeltas and LRBT having bad stats, a competitive player will use the weapon if the price is right, a casual player is looking for an experience, the experience of a tough LRBT or the experience of a deadly Drukhari anti-tank weapon.
Your Chess example highlights a different point than you realize.
Replacing pawns with queens would do more than just change the balance - it would drastically increase complexity, and the more complexity a system has, the more room for imbalance there is. Chess masters will go for different strategies w/ regards to queens depending on their goals - if they're doing very well in a tournament and just need to coast to a victory, they will want to remove queens from the board as fast as possible to remove complexity and, therefore, make a draw more likely. If they're losing, they'll want the opposite. (Also, if they've got an advantageous position within a game they may also try to remove queens, locking in their victory.)
Being 'balanced' can mean very different things. Two kings with nothing else on the board is perfectly balanced - if a computer analyzes it, it'll give both players equal odds, and both players should have no trouble surviving in that circumstance. On the other hand, this board is *also* analyzed as a equal:
But a human player will have a much more difficult time finding a way to proceed safely with this chess board.
Hopefully my point is clear: Just because something *can be balanced* at any level of complexity does not mean that it is equally easy to balance. More complexity increases the difficulty in balancing a ruleset. A highly complex system of rules like 40k is going to be very difficult to balance. (I'm not saying that GW couldn't do better, or that they shouldn't try to include more unique and special 'fun' rules, just that balancing is far more complex than a rule just 'costing something appropriate for its stats and abilities'.)
2022/02/15 06:14:32
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Waaaghpower wrote: the more complexity a system has, the more room for imbalance there is
Yes, I agree that there is a theoretical benefit there, but simplifying the game would not balance it, it would only make it easier to balance should someone attempt to do so. Even if you cut out 100 SM Datasheets you'll still have good and bad SM datasheets and you'll still have good and bad options within those datasheets, because nobody has made an appreciable effort in balancing them in the first place. Pointing at the complexity of 40k is ignoring the real problem of GW not tackling balancing in a methodical and efficient manner.
2022/02/15 08:55:20
Subject: Do they just completely make it up as they go along?
Waaaghpower wrote: the more complexity a system has, the more room for imbalance there is
Yes, I agree that there is a theoretical benefit there, but simplifying the game would not balance it, it would only make it easier to balance should someone attempt to do so. Even if you cut out 100 SM Datasheets you'll still have good and bad SM datasheets and you'll still have good and bad options within those datasheets, because nobody has made an appreciable effort in balancing them in the first place. Pointing at the complexity of 40k is ignoring the real problem of GW not tackling balancing in a methodical and efficient manner.
When it comes to internal balance, one big issue is that many armies have a ton of pretty similar units, as in, units that fill the same role. It's very hard to make all of those units equal to each other. This is particularly prevalent in Marine armies where many roles have a whole series of units that fill it, but with different gradations of 'eliteness'. So, on that scale, there will usually be a single dominant version while no one cares about the ton of slightly different versions. The same goes with weapon options. I mean, if you have for instance an autocannon, a missile launcher, and a lascannon to choose from, all three of them are basically variations on the same theme with one being the most efficient option for the role.
Waaaghpower wrote: the more complexity a system has, the more room for imbalance there is
Yes, I agree that there is a theoretical benefit there, but simplifying the game would not balance it, it would only make it easier to balance should someone attempt to do so. Even if you cut out 100 SM Datasheets you'll still have good and bad SM datasheets and you'll still have good and bad options within those datasheets, because nobody has made an appreciable effort in balancing them in the first place. Pointing at the complexity of 40k is ignoring the real problem of GW not tackling balancing in a methodical and efficient manner.
When it comes to internal balance, one big issue is that many armies have a ton of pretty similar units, as in, units that fill the same role. It's very hard to make all of those units equal to each other. This is particularly prevalent in Marine armies where many roles have a whole series of units that fill it, but with different gradations of 'eliteness'. So, on that scale, there will usually be a single dominant version while no one cares about the ton of slightly different versions. The same goes with weapon options. I mean,
if you have for instance an autocannon, a missile launcher, and a lascannon to choose from, all three of them are basically variations on the same theme with one being the most efficient option for the role.
If you have Guardsmen, Intercessors, Raiders, Venerable Dreadnoughts and Knights, autocannons might be best against Intercessors and Raiders, but worst against Venerable Dreadnoughts and Knights, missile launchers best against Guardsmen, lascannons best against Venerable Dreadnoughts and Knights but worst against Guardsmen and Raiders. Maybe your meta has no Venerable Dreadnoughts and Knights so autocannons are by far the best option, that's okay. But if the missile launcher's cost is so low that it becomes the best option against every unit in the game then that's not okay and I personally think that is a pretty common occurence.
