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.

YAY this thread again.

You want balance go PP it's by and large balanced between factions. Even than there are some bad matchups.

I don't really care about balance. My friends don't run cheese lists and neither do I, and we have a good time.

 darefsky wrote:
YAY this thread again.

You want balance go PP it's by and large balanced between factions. Even than there are some bad matchups.

Depends on what you consider balance. Warmachine is about list synergy and therefore, arguably, not that balanced.

 Hindenburg wrote:

 darefsky wrote:
YAY this thread again.

You want balance go PP it's by and large balanced between factions. Even than there are some bad matchups.

Depends on what you consider balance. Warmachine is about list synergy and therefore, arguably, not that balanced.

Its balanced between factions. Its not like GW's "Hey I bring SW or GK and I pretty much auto-win". Yes there are bad caster match ups but by and large the game is balanced. The fact that when they release new models, all factions get a little love helps that out a lot too.

True. Didn't think about that. Point taken.

Remember there is balance in terms not only of codexes/units

you could also ask for balance in terms of

cost eg sports with a wage cap on either individuals/squads

experience eg sports where your squad can't have muliple world champions... rallying went down that route a while back, not so sure now

testing/practice eg several motorsports only allow testing/development over a limited period to keep costs down

handicaping eg horseracing/motorsport, used to bring things closer together

Maybe rather than trying to get GW to change (fat chance) those who want balance should look to implement one or more of the above

If the troops choices in every codex were balanced against every other troops choice, and the internal balance of the codex was maintained, you could have the game as balanced as possible. A pure complete balance would require you to play against your clone, with the exact same army. Even then first turn advantage, and the random rolls of dice, will play heavily in how the game progresses.

Theoretically, internal balance is definitely possible by simply using appropriate points costage. The number of differing interactions between wargear and special rules makes complete balance fairly impossible though.

However, I find dice rolls have more of an impact than anything else anyway. The vicissitudes of fate are the greatest variable in a game and balance is well within acceptable levels imho.

Is it possible to balance the game quite well (between lists and within lists)? Yes. Even GW is able to do it if you look at Epic.

Is GW interested in doing it in 40k? No.

No.
No game is ever perfectly balanced when:
-Players play with different units
-Players start in different positions
-The gameboard is not exactly the same on both sides

Essentially, no tabletop wargame is ever exactly equal.

Deal with it.

Eilif wrote:

Essentially, no tabletop wargame is ever exactly equal.

Deal with it.

I started playing historical war games as a child, balance wasn't an option. The BRB rules are balanced, codex not as much and personal choice plus play style put balance out the window. To me, not a big deal. That being said. No GW can not balance every match up. Especially if someone relies on tactical advice from Dachshunds.

No.

The problem is that the game doesn't have an identity, and different armies have been introduced at different points of the game.


Every army that existed in 2nd Edition were more or less balanced, because in 2nd Edition, the game was all about "modern combat" and was shooting centric. Assault troops in 2nd Edition were specialized. And even Tyranids and Orks were shooty armies in 2nd Edition. That's because, well, in combat, the guy who can blast you to bits from far away is always going to have an advantage over the guy who is trying to close the distance to hit you with a glowing stick.

The problem is, 3rd Edition screwed the pooch in the name of streamlined and shorter games. It did this gimping the hell out of shooting (In the grim darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cowering in fear, hoping his one or two shots do the trick before he is whalloped by the guy running across the open field with a glowing stick).

As such, you got armies like Tyranids and Orks that switched to focus entirely on close combat in order to "evolve" to the system. Armies like IGuard which are awful in close combat, and the newer entries like the Tau, counter-evolved by becoming so ridiculously shooty that they couldn't move, for fear of losing firepower due to 3rd Ed's awful shoot/movement rules, and having to fight those guys with the glowing sticks.

As it stands, many 40K factions now straddle editions, and the only way to "fix" it for balance is to make a lot of existing collected armies obsolete, and take them back to where they arguably should be. That's not going to make players happy. You can see some of the backlash of the players who liked close combat. But, realistically, close combat troops should be cheap as hell, because they're going to die in droves with a proper ruleset, lol. However, cheaper points means more expensive money wise. Nobody wants to have to buy 400 Tyranids to field a 1500 point army, lol.

The problem with any game, whether video or table top, one on one is almost impossible to balance. There will always be some kind of rock, paper, scissors element, but I think GW have done an ok job at balance this edition, especially with allies really helping.

I think if you want balance, 2v2 is where you're more likely to find it.

No.

Well, that was easy. Can we get on to some more useful questions now?

No, it is not

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Nobody wants to have to buy 400 Tyranids to field a 1500 point army, lol.

I would. In a heartbeat.

No, by the sole virtue that even if we assume every codex has perfect external and internal balance (internal balance occurs when units within a codex are balanced when compared with each other, and external balance occurs when codices as a whole are are balanced when compared to each other), and if we also assume that every player is able to build a perfect list (ie, all of the units synergize properly, no redundant/counterproductive loadouts) and perfect player skill, bad matchups would still exist merely by the virtue of your army list and the metagame. Its because certain types of lists will always counter other types of lists with some degree of effectiveness. For example, a Tyranid horde style list would have a very difficult time against a Necron Flyer list.

Every army that existed in 2nd Edition were more or less balanced, because in 2nd Edition, the game was all about "modern combat" and was shooting centric. Assault troops in 2nd Edition were specialized. And even Tyranids and Orks were shooty armies in 2nd Edition. That's because, well, in combat, the guy who can blast you to bits from far away is always going to have an advantage over the guy who is trying to close the distance to hit you with a glowing stick.

Actually assault was quite viable back in 2nd, Jumping Eldar behind cover often easily gained -3 to be hit,easily got into melee, and tied up units faster and destroyed them with quick precision, Thus you'd usually be shooting at BS1 against those with jump jets, or against vehicles moving fast. Going pure shooter meant those jumper armies easily was able to out maneuver you, get into combat, and easily kill your dedicated shooters.

It meant you needed a mix still, rather than shooting being the primary dominant, usually people took some basic melee weaponry at least, rather than simple knives, though if they didn't go with the mix, they created specialized "Anti melee units" so their shooting didn't take a hit ..Kinda like today.

Psykers dominated all though, even if it took five to six pages to explain some of them.

If they either fire Ward or get him to write everything. The game breaks down when a handful of codices get totally crazy gak and the other ones are nice and balanced.

 ManSandwich wrote:
If they either fire Ward or get him to write everything. The game breaks down when a handful of codices get totally crazy gak and the other ones are nice and balanced.

Didn't take long for the Ward whines to start...

Listen, there is no way for every single matchup to be balanced. Plain and simple. Close combat Tau? Heavy artillery Tyranids? Reliable Orks?

You want balance? Play Monopoly.

Here's a thought...

Only play against other players that use the same army as you. Then you're both playing with the same codex.

COMPLETELY BALANCED!

jcrone2 wrote:
thats all

I think the issue is really is it possible for GW to make this game balanced in *any* matchup?

And the answer today is no. Multiple space marine chapter books full of special rules and each charging different costs for the same weapons and options levels; some armies with flyers, 1 with flyers and heavies with support weapons usable against flyers, and some limited to only having a terrain piece to try and shoot down flyers, and one list without any real flyers or defense available to them; some lists that are now multiple versions of the rules behind.

If I play Codex marines against Space Wolves it *should* be a pretty balanced fight with some different flavor in each army. Instead the wolves get a bunch of silly advantages: cheaper cost units with better options and abilities, heavies that can split their fire when normal marine devastators can't do so, and so on. *that* is the kind of thing that could be fixed in the game to make it less annoying. This is also why some armies are seen as *the* armies to use in a tourney. Space Wolves yes, but codex marines no, when they should both really be on par with each other.

Perhaps if the chaos codex is a starting point of more balanced codex lists, maybe in 4 years *if they stick with it* the game might have some semblance of balance.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Skriker




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eilif wrote:
No.
No game is ever perfectly balanced when:
-Players play with different units
-Players start in different positions
-The gameboard is not exactly the same on both sides

Essentially, no tabletop wargame is ever exactly equal.

Deal with it.

Who said anything about perfect balance? Even some semblance and attempt at *any* balance in 40k would be appreciated. There are areas of consistency that GW could focus on to take away many of the basic complaints about balance in the game. Also some oversight on new codex development to kill crazy levels of codex creep would make a big difference too. It is as if these developers write their new books in complete and total isolation from the rest of the team and the rules and other codecies as well. Pretty dumb way to write a game.

Skriker

I think perfect balance would be bad for the game, because metagames evolve based on powerful armies and the counter to those armies growing (see the current tourney Daemon thing)... of course, let's all remember that tourney format is bad for 40k, since it actively hurts horde armies and encourages silliness and anti-sportsmanship.

I would like to see them bring all armies within about 10% of each other in terms of objective tabletop performance, so that skill mattered and really good generals could fight their way past a mediocre player with a "super" or "cheesy" list. GW would have to be willing to FAQ points cost tho, and outside of typos that's not something they've shown the balls to do.

In a way perhaps. The multitude of combinations makes it harder but some aspects of the game could be better balanced out, or made more fair. I think in some cases, parts of codex books are written to allow the writer an advantage for their army but they put in loopholes to protect it, like with Grey Knights, virtually everything from a soldier through to a tank, is counted as a psyker, they have a unit open in the Assassin's who can counteract psykers, by making its attacks X, X being how many psykers there are. 10 grey knight terminators are 10 psykers, but there is a loophole meaning although you have 10 psykers in the area of making up X, those 10 only count as 1.

The Eldar and undoubtedly others, could use a points cost revamp, and/or a change in their available weapons particularly Heavy Weapons. The Eldar would really benefit from their ranges being enhanced. It sucks to watch what you own die, whether in cover or not, because 90% of army A can shoot 30" and 99% of army B is limited to shooting 12" and the only things that can fire the 30" distance are priced out of range of the game you are playing.

Saves can't be changed, since really that all comes down to luck but the use of instant death/save negating weapons could be balanced out a bit more.

But really I'd say like others, there is no intention of balance. Because if you come in on day 1 you will own certain units, and then on day 20 the company is sick of you not buying anything, so they need X to be introduced. At Day 30, you haven't moved, you don't have X, so what you have must be replaced, Day 1 army is no longer viable, buy Day 20's army. GW needs you to spend money, and allies was a good use of this, but then allies also has the added benefit, you buy a small amount and the codex for that ally. And then you get caught in the 'trap'. You need another army... Then another. Then after you have 4 armies, your first one is viable again because the circle has come round to it again.

Total balance won't happen, but then if opponents looked at each others armies and then wanted to even it out, you just change the points cost for each army. If 1500 points of Imperial Guard has 100 troops, seven heavy tanks and a flier. But your Eldar opponent has little to counter the tanks and flier, but allowing him to go up to 2000 points would bring that balance to a more even level and you both agree on it, balance could be achieved. Also, it would probably look more authentic battlewise.

Sadly, I think in certain areas, the monetary cost of creating the ideal army can be verging on the impossible.

The paper scissors rock balance I think might have been there to begin with, but then it was added on to. Where once we had just paper scissors rock, we now have paper, scissors, rock, incinerator, power klaw, scything talons, nuclear bomb... And no one sat down and figured out what beats what... I just need a bigger gun. Or like that meme, a Commissar in a kick a** tank who needs to get closer so he can hit 'them' with his sword.

The funnier part of this thread is the fact that many of you have the tone that GW intentionally refuses to balance the game. In effect, its true. Do you want Tyranids with heavy artillery? Or Tau that are close combat experts? If you want all the options available to the other armies, this may not be the game for you. If you want an army that has a specific challenge, like lack of flyer support or no close combat, this game has that. Each army has a speciality, some more narrow than others. And sometimes, GW screws up by trying to make one army just like another.

MTG has become that game. When I played, if you played black, you had to deal with the fact that there were no black counterspells. Now, every color gets access to every type of spell, completely ignoring the fluff of the game that is ignored anyway because it has nothing to do with the game.

See what balance gets you? A boring game.

No one has said that balance means everyone can do everything. That's nonsense.

The point is that no matter how good a codex is supposed to be at, say, close combat and big creatures, another codex will have easy answers - Sanctuary, Purifying Flame, Force Weapons on everyone. And that codex doesn't have to specialize to get that.

And you're wrong about MTG by the way. Most every color has access to every spell, but they balance it by having the casting coats vary significantly.

With the exception of the bit about MTG, only because I know nothing about it, I agree with SoloFalcon1138. 'Perfect' balance is impossible to have with diverse faction rulesets in a game. The best you can get is a perfect imbalance, of sorts. This is something GW clearly strives for, but is hit and miss in their delivery.

No. GW doesn't care about game balance. They're a miniature company first.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Nobody wants to have to buy 400 Tyranids to field a 1500 point army, lol.

I would. In a heartbeat.

Yyyyesssssssss...

Perfect balance? - No with a continuously evolving game such as this. But perfect balance is not what is needed.

A serious move to balance books internally and externally? Yes, this is easily possible.

Proper detailed errata would address older dex/messed up issues easily until a new dex was done so the slow dex release schedule would not be a big issue. Players would still buy the new dex for any new rule changes/new units, etc.

Look at the nid dex. The day it came out there were serious problems with internal balance and poorly written/unworkable rules. The external balance was also off and each new dex highlighted serious weaknesses with the nid dex. So what happens - many units don't get used much or many biomorphs are not seen because of it.

If after 6 months, and GW cared about their customer/product, GW had released a detailed errata many of these issues could have been addressed - not to make it an OP dex but to provide some balance. This would be easy.

When 6th edition came out, sure they put out an errata but it was inadequate as many issues with nids in 5th remained and other things got nerfed a bit (stealers)(yes 6th also helped certain units/builds too which are the units you saw before and now even more often). How hard would it be to look at their rules and realize they are nerfing certain abilities such as outflank without adjusting the costs of units that are paying for this ability.

Every dex could be adjusted this way easily - not every couple of weeks - but say at regular intervals - say every 6 months and when a new edition is released. Then the customer knows the company cares about the consumer - the consumer is happy that his/her army/units that so much money and time were spent on are still decent - happy consumers continue to buy more product - GW should be happy.

Adding more balance to the game in such ways would not stop players from starting new armies and buying other models. But making a poor game that isn't properly supported will.