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.

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

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

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...

Fair enough, lol. I mean, yeah, I'd love to see a model tidal wave of cheap Tyranids troop selections that got mulched by extremely effective shooting rules, and the hope was that they could overwhelm on numbers.

However, as a marketing decision, Games Workshop would either have to drop the price on the models significantly, or essentially price out beginning players even more than they already are, haha.


Maybe the accurate way to say that is that "Nobody at Games Workshop" wants you to have to buy 400 models. It sounds good on the surface, but it would actually kill sales because then price would reduce demand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Nobody said they were good at being a miniatures company.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

You're going to disagree with their own investor relations page? Ok. Good luck with that. Just for the record, gaming comes last there.

In regard to the models, there's several reasons. They may not have had the large kit capacity at that time. They could have been doing revenue smoothing strategies. They could have been following the pattern they've had for the last decade or so where they had rules but no model to let people convert as they wanted.

And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

You need to figure out what your argument is there SoloFalcon.


However, nobody is arguing they haven't been successful, and more successful than many of their competitors. But it doesn't change the fact that they've made mistakes, and struggled. When you have a successful cash cow product, you can make more mistakes and not suffer for them. There's a lot more at work than what you seem to understand, at least from a business model standpoint.

My point is that GW finds themselves in a particularly unique situation. They may not be perfect, but they have succeeded where many other companies have struggled or failed. Don't like it? Take up golf.

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

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

kinda missed the rest of my responses, huh?

 Sigvatr wrote:
No.

That's all.

^this basically. Too many units to try and balance out between each other. Even PP struggles balancing armies against each other with the few units it has per army. (khador widowmaker deathstar comes to mind)

Though they could do a better job of trying. Coteaz only costing 100 or so points for a mastery level 2 psyker is already bad enough, add in what else he does and he's easily a 200pt + HQ choice. Now its not too bad when your running pure GK termies, but otherwise he is incredibly cheap. Compare that to the ork HQ choices like Ghaz who is, IMO, extremely overcosted for what he does and is 250pts. Now I suppose the internal balance idea was that since GK units were so expensive the HQ's needed to be cheaper, but with allies he can provide a lot of stronger potential than orks (since no ally can benefit)

I dont expect perfect balance ever, but Sheesh at least pretend to try and balance the army point costs instead of it just being all over the place.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

Foundry, RAFM, and Ral Partha/Iron Wind, would all disagree with you. GHQ actually laughs at your statement as well. There are several rulesets still in print that make WFB and 40k combined look wet behind the ears for how long they've been out. Don't let that stop your sweeping, albeit incorrect, generalizations though.

12thRonin wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

Foundry, RAFM, and Ral Partha/Iron Wind, would all disagree with you. GHQ actually laughs at your statement as well. There are several rulesets still in print that make WFB and 40k combined look wet behind the ears for how long they've been out. Don't let that stop your sweeping, albeit incorrect, generalizations though.

And how long would it take me to find these rules? My copy of Rally 'Round the Flag dated from the mid-80's (I think) and few people have ever even heard of it. My buddy Jim has a copy of Ral Partha's failed attempt at a miniatures skirmish game not too unlike TSR's short-lived BattleSystem. GHQ doesn't produce rules, just minis.

Anyway, back on topic...

The OP is an inherently poor question. Unless there is a game released specifically balancing gameplay, like Titan, where every player begins with the same resources and it is left to the players to affect the outcome, no wargame is balanced. As I showed with Magic, when you try and balance a system, it reduces the storyline of the game to a footnote on the game card. The fluff is half the reason some people play games like 40k.

(Dangerous) real world example: IROC racing. It took racing aces from all different racing groups and gave them identical cars, so the skill of the driver was showcased, not their mechanics' skills. It was kinda boring.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Reminds me when GK were head and shoulders the most powerful army in 5th...and the cheapest to collect. Yet so many people on these boards insisted this was "very clever marketing" by GW.

Just ignore the GW haters, they're basically sanctioned trolls

 Testify wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Reminds me when GK were head and shoulders the most powerful army in 5th...and the cheapest to collect. Yet so many people on these boards insisted this was "very clever marketing" by GW.

Just ignore the GW haters, they're basically sanctioned trolls

Yeah... agreed...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And for not being a good company, look at their longevity. They have outlasted every other game company out there. Remember, this company was printing 1e AD&D just before Warhammer ever premiered. They have outlasted every minis company I know of. Stop complaining or get a new hobby.

Foundry, RAFM, and Ral Partha/Iron Wind, would all disagree with you. GHQ actually laughs at your statement as well. There are several rulesets still in print that make WFB and 40k combined look wet behind the ears for how long they've been out. Don't let that stop your sweeping, albeit incorrect, generalizations though.

And how long would it take me to find these rules? My copy of Rally 'Round the Flag dated from the mid-80's (I think) and few people have ever even heard of it. My buddy Jim has a copy of Ral Partha's failed attempt at a miniatures skirmish game not too unlike TSR's short-lived BattleSystem. GHQ doesn't produce rules, just minis.

http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/military-models-rules.html.

It's also not hard to find a copy of ASL or Star Fleet Battles, just as a start.

Must have missed the link to their rules throight the massive selection of minis.

Either way, you missed the point.

Unless they can think up something that makes people play smart, not build overly cheesy lists and dont act like TFG no.

Nope, im with the "and they dont want to" camp. Not from GW hate though, more that from a business view they have kind of struck gold. They just do what most similar companies in fields do, make more money and either a) give you less or b) finding a way to make you keep buying more. Doesnt matter whether they're a model or game company, they make both, they sell both and the strategy applies to both. So in honesty i also say good on them in that respect (doing well in business).

As for SoloFalcons constant "sell your minis, play X" generic comebacks, he has a point. Well not the sell your minis part, but if you dont like this edition, take a break and play something else for a bit, its not like things will change, and its not like getting bent out of shapes going to change things. If you dont want to play something else, then ask your friends/group if they'll agree to play to older editions that you think worked. Its not like every time GW releases new editions of things law states they MUST be played >>

But the "Purposely broken for money" idea doesn't work, because if the game was at least well made in terms of balance, there would be a greater incentive to buy ALL of the models, not just the ones that are head a shoulders above the rest of the codex

The game should not be balanced in every matchup as obviously you should be punished for building a bad or just worse list like not bringing high strenght weaponry to matchup with Nidzilla or not bringing anything fast to outmanouver your opponent etc. Codieces should be balanced internaly and externaly, AA should be balanced with anti AA etc but finding a good tactic and building a force that suits it should gve you an edge vs opponent with randomly put together or just "fun" list. It's still a game and you have to field units according to FOC limitations etc so the obligation to create an effective force is fair, there just shouldn't be such massive disproportions in army strenght like when both players make no serious mistakes when building a list but one has a huge advantage because of his codex. Not to mention all units should be fieldable, that's a "fun" part when you can use the units you really like and they don't hurt your chance of wining, or when you have options for AA so you don't have to take that ADF you hate (that's me btw).

Would be enough for GW to avoid blatant underpricing or overpricing units, they are either incapable of or unwiling to though. It would take a realy lazy writing or bad playtesting to explain the Carnifex btw.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

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

I can prove you wrong in so many ways, but I'll just ask this: if they are a minis company first, why did the 5e Tyranid codex have over half a dozen units with no models? Granted, they made two this year, but wouldn't they have been johnny-on-the-money to have them out promptly to drive sales?

Maybe releasing from time to time is better for profit, as some players build their forces from what is avilable or buy additional models to convert but will buy the new units released anyway. This would mean GW gave themselves a chance to cash people twice, just a wildguess though.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
But the "Purposely broken for money" idea doesn't work, because if the game was at least well made in terms of balance, there would be a greater incentive to buy ALL of the models, not just the ones that are head a shoulders above the rest of the codex

It works when every Tyranid player owns too many Carnifexes and you want to sell them new MCs.

Lack of anti air except flyers and ADF is a cash grab too, imo.

 Trondheim wrote:
Unless they can think up something that makes people play smart, not build overly cheesy lists and dont act like TFG no.

That's a wrong attitude, why should players fix the game epecialy when it requires throwing out their ability to find effective combinations and setups?

Cheese is a fault of GW who makes some units obviosly OP vs their cost, not players.

Btw when we're at it, a spam tax, like taking second unit of the same kind (or more than 2 troops) costs you additional 10% of its price crossed my mind

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Must have missed the link to their rules throight the massive selection of minis.

Same thing is easy to do on the GW site too since you have to dig through menus to find them.

Either way, you missed the point.

Not really. Your points are all over the place. They aren't the oldest miniatures company and they aren't the oldest gaming company.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
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.

People want *balance* not *symmetry*. There is a distinct difference in the two. Balance would mean armies would be GREAT in melee *or* shooting, or OK in both of them. Instead we have some armies that are just good at melee or shooting, and terrible in the other facing off against armies that are close to great in both. That is not even remotely balanced. We also have space marine chapter lists where the basic troops have bonus skills and better weapon options, but are CHEAPER than regular tactical marines. That isn't just unbalanced, it shows a distinct lack of quality control across the codex development process. Add in army relevance and balance goes even more out the window.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that GW finds themselves in a particularly unique situation. They may not be perfect, but they have succeeded where many other companies have struggled or failed. Don't like it? Take up golf.

Yeah you opinion is the only one that matters, eh SoloFalcon...

GW outlasted many other mini companies because their minis were strides better. Even the earlier citadel lines were more varied and detailed then their contemporaries. The problem is that the gap has closed considerably in recent years and GW Is no longer the only company making trully exceptional looking minis. There are so many great options for minis these days it is great. As such my own GW purchasing and gaming has slowly diminished to play games like Malifaux, Flames of War and Warmachine. Rules that are written *better* that GW's rules, and rules that are actually *improved* when a new version comes out instead of just changed to remove the old problems while introducing a whole slew of new problems in their place. Battlefront released V3 of Flames of War. The changes they made were linked tightly with player feedback througout the life of V2. They left things that worked great ALONE and fixed all of the areas where players regularly had issues or complaints about the rules. They even offered free softbound mini rulebooks to anyone who already owned the V2 hardback rulebook to enable their existing players to jump right into the new version without requiring them to buy the new rules.

I don't have to take up golf to acknowledge the silly way that GW does business. Their rules are barely playable half the time, the codex books seem to be written in a vaccuum completely separate from any existing lists, and their pricing schemes are just nuts. I have gotten a new friend to start playing 40k in about 5 years completely due to the price. As someone who works solidly in the quality assurance field the way they write codex lists offends me to the core and makes them look completely amateurish as a company. How hard is it to make all your space marine codex lists come out comparable in points and balanced around the center line of the baseline Space Marines list? Apparently it is impossible in GW land, but those of us who do this stuff for a living know it is easily doable, but they actually have to do it. These days I greatly enjoy playing games where I am actually testing myself against my opponent's tactical acumen as opposed to fighting against the rules and the holes in them. In weeks of Flames of War legaue play at the local store you might here *1* argument about rules interpretation, whereas it happens every time WFB or W40k are played in the store. That right there should tell you something.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
(Dangerous) real world example: IROC racing. It took racing aces from all different racing groups and gave them identical cars, so the skill of the driver was showcased, not their mechanics' skills. It was kinda boring.

And just as boring as if some drivers were given baseline, off the dealer floor IROCs to race with and others were given super suped up versions to race with and always won. Yeah both extremes give the same result, which is why most people want things to settle into the middle: Balanced, not symmetrical. Balanced, but not exactly equal.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
Just ignore the GW haters, they're basically sanctioned trolls

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

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trondheim wrote:
Unless they can think up something that makes people play smart, not build overly cheesy lists and dont act like TFG no.

This is the balance that people are looking for. It is eminently in GW's control to write tighter rules, better thought out codex lists and unit rules and generally make a better product, but they don't. Such rules and lists would make it harder for people to build overly cheesy lists and be TFGs and ruin the game for others. It is certainly doable, but they just don't do it.

Skriker

Balance is not possible. Updating armies in the proper order and thereby not pissing off long time collectors with old codecies IS possible however. They just simply choose not to apparently.

IF the rule set for 40k was re written focusing on game play and provable levels of imballance .To make it suitable for ballanced competative play .
Then YES.

(As there are games with 2 to 5 times as many army lists, 10 times as many units than 40k,that have far better balance than 40k does.)

But as GWplc 'is in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.They simply focus on making the latest releases appeal to thier target demoghraphic.
Which is NOT gamers ...but children/collectors...apparently.

If you want a well ballanced intuitive wargame ,why play 40k?
40k the game of special rules,specialy written for GW s special demoghraphic.....

Is the goal perfect balance?

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

There's a difference between perfect balance (something no one in this thread has asked for) and perfect imbalance - and 40k is neither.

Skriker wrote:Their rules are barely playable half the time, the codex books seem to be written in a vaccuum completely separate from any existing lists, and their pricing schemes are just nuts. I have gotten a new friend to start playing 40k in about 5 years completely due to the price. As someone who works solidly in the quality assurance field the way they write codex lists offends me to the core and makes them look completely amateurish as a company.

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

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


personally i think the game IS currently balanced. yes space wolves have cheaper stuff, but they have lower leadership and dont have access to some of the stuff normal marines do. i would happily drop long fangs being able to split fire to have heavy weapons in my grey hunters.

yes some armies are bad match-ups, daemons vs grey knights for example (unless the fool hordes on termies/paladins) but deamons have units that are amazing at bringing down gk units..... flesh hounds will tear up strike squads/termies if you load up on them (and are good units in their own right)

i dont get all the "my current list doesnt work so the game is broken" arguments that populate the internet.... fliers have been introduced to the game and i'm all for them, even if the only flier i own is a valkyrie. every army has good options/opportunities for bringing down fliers, some just rely on allies (i'll agree that nids struggle, but even they have some options).

my grey knights lost their first game since the new codex a few weeks ago because of a doomscythe. not because it did anything spectacular (killed 2 rhinos and a dreadnought) but becuase i panicked and sent everything i had to destroy it (doing so in one turn).... leaving the necron army free from retaliation to pick me apart..... i think this applies to the internet complaints i keep seeing.... poeple need to be realistic about how dangerous fliers really are and what they think "balance" is

so then......... that turned into a bit of a rant

....... i'll say this again though: the game is balanced already, dont mess it up


and for what its worth, i think a balanced list is the most broken type of list you can create.............

Hi mrspadge.
I am glad you are personaly happy with the current level of game ballance in 40k.

Just curiuos why bother posting in this thread?

You admit there are some 'bad matchups' and 'some lists are no longer that viable.'
Well these statments prove the game IS NOT ballanced.
(And some people get a bit annoyed after spending alot of time and money on an army to have it 'invalidated' on a game developers whim).

If there was provable levels of imbalance, ALL lists would be equaly viable, and there would NOT be any bad match ups.

Not wanting to start anything , just saying....

I think forge world could be used more effectively as a method of mopping up the really heinous balancing issues that are discovered after a codex release.

Abhorash15000 wrote:
I think forge world could be used more effectively as a method of mopping up the really heinous balancing issues that are discovered after a codex release.

If Forge World releases were more "balanced" between codexes, sure.

GW could achieve balance if every Codex was Codex Space Marines, and all we were doing was painting the models differently for different races.

But there are so many variables in a 40k game, it's very difficult to model them effectively. The only way to even study balance is over a series of millions of games, involving some understanding of the relative skills of the players.

The current system of playtesting is suspect, and I doubt there is any kind of mathematical scrutiny applied to analysis outside of simple probability. This is why we see units with multiple wounds / no cover save, this is an attempt to adjust for noted imbalances without the benefit of detailed models that can explain the relative strengths and weaknesses of each unit.

There are a number of statistical analysis models, such as PECOTA odds for baseball, that provide a basis for analyzing different matchups with wildly different sets of variables. They achieve their accuracy through historical comparisons and observed trends which would be impossible for individuals to pick up on. The number of variables they track dwarf those possible for a 40k game, but they also have the benefit of 100+ years of collected data to look at. There are no stats in 40k, other than what we glean from tournaments and the occasional world wide event.

All that said, I think the math geeks at GW are all tied up working for marketing and sales. They certainly know how to ensure they sell the most models possible when new releases hit the shelves, and how to predict consumer behavior. I doubt anyone in a position to affect the rules will ever apply serious scrutiny to issues of balance in this game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
FWIW, I wish GW would publish some of the rules they use to assign point values to units in specific armies. I can't find any rhyme or reason to it myself and often believe they just make stuff up as they go along. Or that marketing and sales guys write the rules to ensure they are selling enough models.