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.
2022/02/15 13:11:21
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.
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.
The problem with that is that stat condensation has made it so that generally speaking, one of them is the best option against everything. With maybe a separation between what's good against heavies and what's good against light units. Because when you're shooting at lighter vehicles like a raider, you still want to be using an anti-tank gun. And historically speaking, you would also want to use them against marines for that sweet AP.
And let's be honest, the blast option on missile launchers has never been particularly effective against any kind of light infantry. I mean, sure, you get a few more shots, but they still get saves and everything. So, for most of the game's history, the real draw was the krak missile. And that competes directly with the lascannon in many slots.
It gets even worse with multiple highly similar weapons like the different bolter variants. Sure, they all have a role, but they are so similar that there will generally be a single best option available.
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.
The problem with that is that stat condensation has made it so that generally speaking, one of them is the best option against everything. With maybe a separation between what's good against heavies and what's good against light units. Because when you're shooting at lighter vehicles like a raider, you still want to be using an anti-tank gun. And historically speaking, you would also want to use them against marines for that sweet AP.
And let's be honest, the blast option on missile launchers has never been particularly effective against any kind of light infantry. I mean, sure, you get a few more shots, but they still get saves and everything. So, for most of the game's history, the real draw was the krak missile. And that competes directly with the lascannon in many slots.
It gets even worse with multiple highly similar weapons like the different bolter variants. Sure, they all have a role, but they are so similar that there will generally be a single best option available.
The missile launcher deals more damage against Guardsmen than an autocannon. 2x shots, 0,8x wounds, 0,8x armour penetration = 1,3x damage. As long as the missile launcher isn't more expensive than an autocannon it will be more cost-effective against Guardsmen. Lascannons are overkill against Intercessors, Guardsmen and Raiders, so mechanically the missile launcher does have a niche.
The problem comes when you pay 1,3x and so you're effectively no longer the best among the options at the one thing you have a chance at being good at and you're less durable per point. Basically, missile launchers should be free for Heavy Weapon Squads. Heavy Weapons Squads are also pretty iffy in 9th with the level of terrain GW uses at their tournaments (too high according to the core rules) and probably even with just the more moderate suggestion made in the core rules. So with this bit of math and through looking at tournaments we can say that Heavy Weapons Squads should cost 45 and missile launchers should be free instead of Heavy Weapons Squads being 50 pts and missile launchers costing 5. Then you test whether 9x HWS w/ ML outperforms whatever you'd have to remove from a meta Astra Militarum list, if it doesn't then you can ship it. The smaller the change the less testing it needs, I think it'd be fine to ship this change with 3 tests total performed by one or more people. If you only changed the missile launcher from 5 to 0 then you can probably get away with 1 game. The game didn't break despite PBCs going down 10 pts when they almost definitely shouldn't have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/15 15:44:09
