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.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)

That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.

 Ailaros wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)

That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.

I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)

That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.

I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.

I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).

Even if 6th proves to be similar to WHFB 7th where Daemons were top dog, it is an improvement if there is relative balance between most codices.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)

That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.

I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.

I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).

Yeah the 'Every codex' part I've actually heard, the Necron bit I added from my own deductions. I think looking at the digital codex realeses gives us a good indication. If GW wanted they could easily release all the current codex' on the digital platform and they would make money. But instead what have they realesed? Codex:Space Marines, poster boys to launch the new product, pretty standard. The Codex:Necrons, the last 5th ed codex, which was really a 5.5/ early 6th ed. Then they left all the other 5th codex's alone and only release the digital versions of the newer codex's.

So you do have to ask your self why release the digital Necrons and nothing else? I mean even Grey Knights was written with 6th in mind, a lot of the rules in there are long hand of new rules from the 6th ed book.

Also I don't think Necrons won't be at the top of the table for all of 6th, as Skyfire becomes more readily available.

SkaerKrow wrote:As a Guard player, I don't mind if they deflate some of the power units from our book. I just hope that they maintain the variety of the current Guard Codex, and put a bit more oomph into a couple of the non-competitive options found in the book.

Dude I'll be happy if I can play a mech list backed up by lots a quality sniper (ratling and special weapon squads) fire. And be able to do alright.

Amaya wrote:I would not be surprised at all if a year from now people were crowning 6th edition as the golden age of 40k.

6th is growing on me a little but it's still not 3rd...sorry I am stubborn as

Ailaros wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)

That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.

As long as they hold off on popping 7th on our heads by 2016. At least wait 5-preferably 10 years before 7th. I hope.

Eldercaveman wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)

That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.

I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.

I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).

Yeah the 'Every codex' part I've actually heard, the Necron bit I added from my own deductions. I think looking at the digital codex realeses gives us a good indication. If GW wanted they could easily release all the current codex' on the digital platform and they would make money. But instead what have they realesed? Codex:Space Marines, poster boys to launch the new product, pretty standard. The Codex:Necrons, the last 5th ed codex, which was really a 5.5/ early 6th ed. Then they left all the other 5th codex's alone and only release the digital versions of the newer codex's.

So you do have to ask your self why release the digital Necrons and nothing else? I mean even Grey Knights was written with 6th in mind, a lot of the rules in there are long hand of new rules from the 6th ed book.

Also I don't think Necrons won't be at the top of the table for all of 6th, as Skyfire becomes more readily available.

'IF' GW is smart they should follow Paizo's model on digital downloads. 50 dollar hardback. (really though even hard back these books aren't big enough to be more then 25 but that's a complaint for another thread) 12.99-9.99 digital copy.

Also further nerfing of GKs and Necrons is alright by me. ^-^

the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.

 pwntallica wrote:
the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.

Yeah flavour of the month gaming doesn't really work anymore

Eldercaveman wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:
the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.

Yeah flavour of the month gaming doesn't really work anymore

And I for one am happy it is

its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.

Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.

Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.

I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.

Oh my God, seriously? After seeing people crying for two years about how unbalanced the game and/or the codexes are, someone is now whining that the new codexes are balanced?

I'm playing orks, what's this you call Cheese?

 pwntallica wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.

Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.

I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.

Its how most of my games go, i either do a bit of a "Come at me bro" or get wasted as i charge into range of his camped out 24inch heavy hitters as i usually cant avoid them and get on that side of the board at the same time. That game in particular was just the first ive had where i knew i could win just by sitting still. If his marines came around that corner, i'd hit him with 10-25 BIG attacks that usually hit (varying lootas that were left, quad gun with a BS5 tau on it, 12 fire warriors, and 3 broadsides) so he couldnt come out. Usually im on the other end of this issue, i HAVE to go in or i lose but i just cant because the gunlines are too damn good.

Thats why i have been trying to force the meganob+snikrot combo in my lists. It gives me that instant other side of the board option giving me a window to get the rest of my guys in.

EDIT: Its also why i have so many issues with IG as they are the gods of "Come at me bro" tactics. I have gimick heroes to get to the other side instantly, the most reliable being the meganob + snikrot and even thats not THAT great, the rest of my army NEEDS to get there alive somehow as he will outgun my lootas and lootas cant even touch his tanks (which is stupid as hell that theyre AV14 on the front)

I started playing tau almost two years ago. I had read several codexes and decided i liked them until i started playing and trying to match my buddies point for point. rumors are next month my new codex may come out. I think that Balance is a relative term to any game. But what i want to see is the armies work in the game as they do in lore. i dont mind space marines are good at everything if a couple armies can beat them in shooting and a couple armies can beat them in close combat. BALANCE as it were is more about lets not focus on one faction but actually make armies play like their lore with distinct STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. I like the idea of i know as long as i keep him suppressed at a distances im gold but he makes it to melee im screwed. You put in one or two units that can handle melee NOT that EXCEL in melee just that can handle it. Play some RTS games and then you can see how these things should work.

 pwntallica wrote:
I like the current internal balance of the DA and CSM codexes. Haven't looked at the new CD codex yet, but I like where things are going.

Think of Daemons like they're the "Horde version of Eldar" with more of a close assault theme going on.

On their own, Dameonic units in general aren't too flashy and each is highly specialised and geared towards a single style of play.
But add in the Heralds, (think Farseer levels of synergies & buffs), and suddenly you're going to pulling your hair out trying to deal with multiple very scary threats, all backed up by things like a Greater, Soul Grinder/Prince and likely a Skullcannon/Burning Chariot once it's FAQ'd to actually work!

You can build some absolutely terrifying beatsticks with the Daemons codex now - Slaanesh especially is dirty when it comes to character hunting while Tzeentch MC's will likely become all but challenge-proof outside of throwing the likes of Abby/Draigo and their ilk at them.

 Amaya wrote:
Even if 6th proves to be similar to WHFB 7th where Daemons were top dog, it is an improvement if there is relative balance between most codices.

7th ed Fantasy was like 5th ed 40k - power creep ramped-up x1000!
HE's introduced army-wide ASF. Then VC's one-up'ed them with the new spam-casting, Daemons killed the entire edition, then DE's/WoC/Lizzies & Skaven were powered up to the nines just so they could try and compete with an outright broken army...

I think you're thinking of 8th edition!
It re-balanced most of the problems, and you could compete against all but 1 Daemon list that was still an auto-win button. (Slaanesh Ld-bomb)

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Duh, GW is actually trying to introduce balance.

And GKs are hardly overpowered anymore. slightly above the power of 6th edition books, but not exceedingly so. Seriously, GK hate went out of style months ago.

...Except that you can still easily auto-win against us poor Daemons.

Given how many Daemon lists seem to be sweeping tournaments, I think "easily" is a bit embellished.

I like the flavour of the chaos codex, looking at the chaos boon table, you get some imaginative descriptions as to what is happening to the champion.
Add to that the fact that I can now happily say "I want this, this and this, because they sound/look/feel fething awesome", rather than saying "well, this is the cheesiest unit I can find, so I must use it".

jifel wrote: like how 6th is going. Necrons are slowly looking less and less powerful, and almost every army can compete now. Really, everyone but Tau, (non FW) and Sisters of Battle and Templars is at least semi competetive, even if only as an ally.

:p Sisters are more than compeititive. W/L/D 24/4/2 since Sixth came out (I know, I need to play more games)

Amaya wrote:I would not be surprised at all if a year from now people were crowning 6th edition as the golden age of 40k.

Seems legit to me, as long as they continue their codex-every-other-month roll.

Ailaros wrote:That's true. I will certainly say that the internal balance of codices is slowly improving over time. I don't think that Matt Ward is anything special in this regard, though.

It's probably a function of the fact that the game and its armies are just more mature now. If you're not having to completely redo the codices (only a few, like sisters, really need this), then you can just kind of tweak things. Tweaking tends not to create as serious of balance issues as inventing from whole cloth.

Even Sisters don't need a full redo. We just need more options and a point dropping from all our models and added back on to Celestine (Celestine at 115 points is broken. Celestine at 150 points would be more reasonable. Battle Sisters at the same price as Dark Angels space marines are too expensive considering how much faster we die and the lack of ATSKNF).

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.

I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).

A Night Scythe is an AV10 flier with a what basically amounts to a pair of twin-linked autocannons and it comes in at 165 points minimum (because a 5-man Warrior squad may as well not exist). Not exactly the height of undercosted.

Vineheart01 wrote:its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.

Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.

I was going to be really sarcastic, but it wasn't necessary. If you can't find a way to make an assault on a cityfight board you really aren't trying hard enough. Sounds to me like you just hate the idea of tactical combat instead of running across the board screaming (which I guess makes sense since you're an ork).

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Given how many Daemon lists seem to be sweeping tournaments, I think "easily" is a bit embellished.

Most of those tournaments predate the codex update though.

Selym wrote:I like the flavour of the chaos codex, looking at the chaos boon table, you get some imaginative descriptions as to what is happening to the champion.
Add to that the fact that I can now happily say "I want this, this and this, because they sound/look/feel fething awesome", rather than saying "well, this is the cheesiest unit I can find, so I must use it".

The main problem with the Chaos Boon table is that the Daemon Prince option basically just nukes your awesome character into a generic faceripper. If not for that, it would be awesome.

As for the last part... you can only do that if you don't play Daemons. If you play Daemons it's more a case of "I want this, this and this because they sound/look/feel awesome... but I rolled a two so I get that instead. Bleh."

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Selym wrote:I like the flavour of the chaos codex, looking at the chaos boon table, you get some imaginative descriptions as to what is happening to the champion.
Add to that the fact that I can now happily say "I want this, this and this, because they sound/look/feel fething awesome", rather than saying "well, this is the cheesiest unit I can find, so I must use it".

The main problem with the Chaos Boon table is that the Daemon Prince option basically just nukes your awesome character into a generic faceripper. If not for that, it would be awesome.

As for the last part... you can only do that if you don't play Daemons. If you play Daemons it's more a case of "I want this, this and this because they sound/look/feel awesome... but I rolled a two so I get that instead. Bleh."

I agree with your point about daemons being awkward as feth like that, but if you use the boons, spawndom and DP'ing is actually quite uncommon. The risk is reduced to almost nil if you bring a Dark Apostle, because you can re-roll the boons regardless of the result

 Vineheart01 wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.

Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.

I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.

Its how most of my games go, i either do a bit of a "Come at me bro" or get wasted as i charge into range of his camped out 24inch heavy hitters as i usually cant avoid them and get on that side of the board at the same time. That game in particular was just the first ive had where i knew i could win just by sitting still. If his marines came around that corner, i'd hit him with 10-25 BIG attacks that usually hit (varying lootas that were left, quad gun with a BS5 tau on it, 12 fire warriors, and 3 broadsides) so he couldnt come out. Usually im on the other end of this issue, i HAVE to go in or i lose but i just cant because the gunlines are too damn good.

Thats why i have been trying to force the meganob+snikrot combo in my lists. It gives me that instant other side of the board option giving me a window to get the rest of my guys in.

EDIT: Its also why i have so many issues with IG as they are the gods of "Come at me bro" tactics. I have gimick heroes to get to the other side instantly, the most reliable being the meganob + snikrot and even thats not THAT great, the rest of my army NEEDS to get there alive somehow as he will outgun my lootas and lootas cant even touch his tanks (which is stupid as hell that theyre AV14 on the front)

You complain about the game being nothing more than a peek-a-boo shooting match, but then you field an Ork/Tau alliance with maxed broadsides and lootas...

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:

 pwntallica wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.

Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.

I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.

Its how most of my games go, i either do a bit of a "Come at me bro" or get wasted as i charge into range of his camped out 24inch heavy hitters as i usually cant avoid them and get on that side of the board at the same time. That game in particular was just the first ive had where i knew i could win just by sitting still. If his marines came around that corner, i'd hit him with 10-25 BIG attacks that usually hit (varying lootas that were left, quad gun with a BS5 tau on it, 12 fire warriors, and 3 broadsides) so he couldnt come out. Usually im on the other end of this issue, i HAVE to go in or i lose but i just cant because the gunlines are too damn good.

Thats why i have been trying to force the meganob+snikrot combo in my lists. It gives me that instant other side of the board option giving me a window to get the rest of my guys in.

EDIT: Its also why i have so many issues with IG as they are the gods of "Come at me bro" tactics. I have gimick heroes to get to the other side instantly, the most reliable being the meganob + snikrot and even thats not THAT great, the rest of my army NEEDS to get there alive somehow as he will outgun my lootas and lootas cant even touch his tanks (which is stupid as hell that theyre AV14 on the front)

You complain about the game being nothing more than a peek-a-boo shooting match, but then you field an Ork/Tau alliance with maxed broadsides and lootas...

Sounds like you should all try greenskin foot spam (Give nobz power klaws, and every 10th boy a rokkit launcha in case of armour).

How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.

Everyone was complaining about power creep a few months ago. Then everyone whines about their favorite book not getting a dose of Cheez-X.

Do you people not understand how these kinds of conflicting feedback just leave game designers confused and without any idea of what their consumer base wants?

The only thing these Codexes need is greater INTERNAL balance. And over time things will be gradually be ironed out as we get back to the FOTM Codexes of the last edition.

Although to be fair I think the lack of internal Codex balance is systemic and has nothing to do with overall balance most of the time and is due to Codex writer incompetence/hurried development schedules, etc.

 TedNugent wrote:
How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.

By becoming like chess. When the game is limited to preset tactics and the only room for innovation (and fun) is at the lowest level of skill and the highest level of skill. Starcraft 1 is an example of this too.

Good game design is about perfect imbalance.

Chess and ASFAIK Starcraft don't have random damage output and saves. That alone will give room for tactical innovation within games.

 Amaya wrote:
Chess and ASFAIK Starcraft don't have random damage output and saves. That alone will give room for tactical innovation within games.

Ha, if you ever read the Starcraft boards, it might as well be as if they had random damage output with each balance.

 Amaya wrote:
Chess and ASFAIK Starcraft don't have random damage output and saves. That alone will give room for tactical innovation within games.

No indeed it doesn't. However, using randomness for such a reason is poor game design too. Having it included as part of a larger game, with imbalances and counters makes for a great game.

Perfect balance, relying on dice rolls is not engaging. Innovation would be dependent on poor or good rolls, and in the end, math hammer would become even more important than it is now.

On the subject of perfect imbalance, WH40K does have it in the 6th ed codices to some extent.

So far it seems to go like this:

MEQ > Basic Infantry + basic weapons > Specialised Units + Specialised Weapons > MEQ.

Tanks > Basic Units > Specialised Units > Tanks > Flyers > Troops > AA-Spec Tanks

etc.

It's more complicated than that, but it's there. The proof being that the 6th ed codices thus far have multiple viable builds, each with their own weaknesses and strengths.

For example, Chaos goes like this:

Tzeentch: Best specialised shooty
Khorne: Best specialised melee
Slaanesh: Best speedy + quick squishy melee
Nurgle: Most resilient + competent mid/short range shooty.

Different strengths, and they have different weaknesses (Although Khorne is going to be a tough sell in competition).

 Griddlelol wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.

By becoming like chess. When the game is limited to preset tactics and the only room for innovation (and fun) is at the lowest level of skill and the highest level of skill. Starcraft 1 is an example of this too.

Good game design is about perfect imbalance.

And we all know that chess if the most boring game ever made. There is nearly no depth to it whatever!

Where's the Bloodthirsters and the Draigowing? No game can be interesting without vast power level disparities and inherently weaker Codexes that everyone gets to beat up on.

Actually, good game design is about creating a variety of units that are valuable in some nuanced way, so that all units are implicitly viable but suited to a range of different tactical applications. For instance, if close combat jump infantry are good, and shooting units are good, and given equal conditions they can both be played to similar levels of effectiveness, would you find that boring? I would think it would be empowering. You don't HAVE to play a pure shooty army. You can play a jump infantry army, a Xenos army of your choice and flavor, Space Marines of your favorite color, flyers, Deep Strikers, Psykers - how much more fun and interesting would it be if we could BREAK the use of Vendetta or Baleflamer spam? Wouldn't you rather see different armies and have a wider range of effective units that you can play with?

That sounds like more fun rather than less.

 TedNugent wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.

By becoming like chess. When the game is limited to preset tactics and the only room for innovation (and fun) is at the lowest level of skill and the highest level of skill. Starcraft 1 is an example of this too.

Good game design is about perfect imbalance.

And we all know that chess if the most boring game ever made. There is nearly no depth to it whatever!

Where's the Bloodthirsters and the Draigowing? No game can be interesting without vast power level disparities and inherently weaker Codexes that everyone gets to beat up on.

Actually, good game design is about creating a variety of units that are valuable in some nuanced way, so that all units are implicitly viable but suited to a range of different tactical applications. For instance, if close combat jump infantry are good, and shooting units are good, and given equal conditions they can both be played to similar levels of effectiveness, would you find that boring? I would think it would be empowering. You don't HAVE to play a pure shooty army. You can play a jump infantry army, a Xenos army of your choice and flavor, Space Marines of your favorite color, flyers, Deep Strikers, Psykers - how much more fun and interesting would it be if we could BREAK the use of Vendetta or Baleflamer spam? Wouldn't you rather see different armies and have a wider range of effective units that you can play with?

That sounds like more fun rather than less.

Yes. I rarely see footslogging orks, and have never seen guard without tank-spam, or flyers. And there are waaaaaaay too many MEQ's. I'd like to kill a horde for once #Dreaming...