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.

For the overall health of the game? yes, absolutely.

This isn't MTG, where some cards are good for draft, and worthless for constructed and vice versa, you cannot have an expensive hobby and do so.

I'm saying that unit X and unit Y (and unit Z, and unit etc...) Cannot all cost the same, even if they have the same rules and the same comparative utility. In order to make any given army selection relevant, there has to be better and worse choices that could be made in it's place.

Or they could be taken based on unit role, or a perfect imbalance. What you are suggesting is just straight imbalance.

"Congratulations. Your observations (while interesting) are statistically insignificant. I can tell you that balancing the game based on your chosen metric is bad for the game, as it would render pointless the publication of different codexes and very quickly result in stagnation of gameplay due to the removal of most list building and tactical considerations."

So this is why Starcraft has an order of magnitude (or more) more players than 40K? It has balanced units and far from a stagnant meta. If a unit gets underused, Blizzard tweaks it to make it more desirable. That's what I'm talking about. Once these codices go to print, it's all over. The codices need to be online and updated in real time based on table results. Just a bit ago, mutalisk play was too dominant in Zerg vs Zerg, so they boosted the spore tower against biological units (mutalisks). GW doesn't even pretend to care like this.

Starcraft is FAR more tactical than 40K because there are no wave serpent equivalent units. When I choose to push, what units I build, etc are all in play.

There doesn't have to be BETTER and WORSE choices, there just has to be different, but equally valid choices.

It doesn't have to be MtG for the game design theory to be relevant. The way GW has been doing it for years has been artificially raising and lowering the 'value' of the models they sell with edition and codex changes to encourage their player-base to purchase as many of them as possible.

here is the cycle they use now:
new codex is released. GW sells lots of models of the most obviously useful examples found therein.
Sales of the new models wane as people have purchased as many as they need and/or more indepth analysis of their utility occurs.
new codex is released. Models in said codex are specifically designed to either contribute to or be a counter to the dominant metagame caused by the previous release.
Sales of the new models wane as people have purchased as many as they need and/or more indepth analysis of their utility occurs.

With your 'balancing' example appled:
new codex is released. GW sells lots of models of the most obviously useful examples found therein.
Sales of the new models wane as people have purchased as many as they need.
No one buys any more models until GW releases a new codex that has more powerful models than the current standard. (resulting in either massive power creep over time, or codexes simply not selling due to lack of interest)

But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Martel732 wrote:
So this is why Starcraft has an order of magnitude (or more) more players than 40K?

If I had to guess, A) it's because it's orders of magnitude cheaper to purchase and to play B) can be tweaked in something resembling real time in response to game imbalances in order to insure competitive gameplay.

What blizzard can do with monthly patches can take GW an entire 'edition' (so half a decade or so?) to accomplish.

GW could change how they roll out the codices. Stop using print codices and make up the sales on balanced units.

Martel732 wrote:
But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Because like I said, some models have to be obviously poor selections in order for all players to have tactical considerations to make.

Even the worst players need to be able to point at two different units and confidently say 'this one is good' and 'this one is bad' in order to have a reason to select one from the other. The only way to insure this can happen is for some units to cost more than they should or simply suck in other obvious ways compared to other models.

 Neorealist wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Because like I said, some models have to be obviously poor selections in order for all players to have tactical considerations to make.

Even the worst players need to be able to point at two different units and confidently say 'this one is good' and 'this one is bad' in order to have a reason to select one from the other. The only way to insure this can happen is for some units to cost more than they should or simply suck in other obvious ways compared to other models.

That is such wrong-headed thinking. It is far superior to have one unit be good in X, Y, Z cases and another unit be good in A, B, C cases, but have neither one be "superior" to the other for the points.

Martel732 wrote:
That is such wrong-headed thinking. It is far superior to have one unit be good in X, Y, Z cases and another unit be good in A, B, C cases, but have neither one be "superior" to the other for the points.

True, however that is functionally impossible to sustain. Even if every single unit in every single codex was perfectly balanced with every single codex that came before it (with the unbelievable amount of complexity and errata such a situation would inevitably accrue), you cannot assure this will remain the case for units and rules you haven't even 'designed' yet. (ie: future codexes).

As they cannot, so they don't.

 Neorealist wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That is such wrong-headed thinking. It is far superior to have one unit be good in X, Y, Z cases and another unit be good in A, B, C cases, but have neither one be "superior" to the other for the points.

True, however that is functionally impossible to sustain. Even if every single unit in every single codex was perfectly balanced with every single codex that came before it (with the unbelievable amount of complexity and errata such a situation would inevitably accrue), you cannot assure this will remain the case for units and rules you haven't even 'designed' yet. (ie: future codexes).

As they cannot, so they don't.

Blizzard does a damn good job. And if Codex A is balanced with Codex B, then when codex C comes out, you just have to maintain balance, not balance ahead of time. Some concepts are universal like anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-air. If you make sure that all those concepts are balanced in each codex against a standard, then all codices will be close to each other.

Basically, you're saying its hard, so we get the Wave Serpent. Feth that.

So my -1 to strength and ap of weapons fired at them idea is a no go then?

I'll be doing a playtest with this tomorrow (today? ...2am here) to see if that makes them worth their 40+ppm cost. I'll let ya know the results.

I think that's an interesting idea StarHunter, but I think a defensive boost needs to go along with some kind of offense boost too. Otherwise, they won't even be a threat.

 StarHunter25 wrote:
So my -1 to strength and ap of weapons fired at them idea is a no go then?

I'll be doing a playtest with this tomorrow (today? ...2am here) to see if that makes them worth their 40+ppm cost. I'll let ya know the results.

Hrmmm... what ap is a lascannon again? Can't remember what guns are ap 2 and ap1 anymore blah. But this seems like a far better direction! Do tell about the results! Also AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Run away! Don't kill me StarHunter.

Reduce the number of special weapons in armies, because currently, every model has one...

Martel732 wrote:
Starcraft is FAR more tactical than 40K because there are no wave serpent equivalent units. When I choose to push, what units I build, etc are all in play.

There doesn't have to be BETTER and WORSE choices, there just has to be different, but equally valid choices.

Can we even compare them? The other is a slowly played turn based tabletop game, the other is fast-paced real time strategy game that requires quick reflexes, multitasking, and handling micro- and macromanagement simultaneously.
They are played differently, even though they both share the common feature: strategy.
Starcraft has a medium-light strategic value, since it emphasises speed and reaction time. Its real prowess relies on small to big tactical moves that decide the course of the game. It is more like an action-strategy than a full-fledged strategy game.
40K and many other tabletop games have a strong effect on strategic AND tactical level since it's turn-based, and there's usually no hurry to make your moves - ergo having much more time to think about your next moves... and think what the opponent's next trick woule most likely be. It's like chess, but on steroids.

I'm pretty aware of the GW's inability to balance the game properly - on the other hand, the perfectly balanced game wouldn't be fun, and that has been proven in various cases. I'm not implying that I'm supporting the current balance issues of the 40K, but meaning that bringing it to the maximum would also cause issues. Even Starcraft is not perfectly balanced, but Blizzard and creators of League of Legends have reached pretty close how to use this small imbalance factor in their games. Extra Credits tell about this thing better, so I suggest that you'd check their presentation out in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

------------

I've also been thinking the issue of "outdated" Terminators, as the discussion has progressed on this topic. I'd be ready to use Terminators much more often for a single change:
Give the damn Sergeant a chance to change his wargear more effectively! He's a bleeding veteran! At least let him change his lousy power sword to another power weapon... or power fist! I DESPISE the fact, that the squad leader deals the weakest yet fastest hit. It wouldn't hurt if he'd have an access to Combi-weapons too.

If this would read in the codex, I'd be damn happy:
"Terminator Sergeant may take items from Terminator Weapons list."

 Tigramans wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Starcraft is FAR more tactical than 40K because there are no wave serpent equivalent units. When I choose to push, what units I build, etc are all in play.

There doesn't have to be BETTER and WORSE choices, there just has to be different, but equally valid choices.

Can we even compare them? The other is a slowly played turn based tabletop game, the other is fast-paced real time strategy game that requires quick reflexes, multitasking, and handling micro- and macromanagement simultaneously.
They are played differently, even though they both share the common feature: strategy.
Starcraft has a medium-light strategic value, since it emphasises speed and reaction time. Its real prowess relies on small to big tactical moves that decide the course of the game. It is more like an action-strategy than a full-fledged strategy game.
40K and many other tabletop games have a strong effect on strategic AND tactical level since it's turn-based, and there's usually no hurry to make your moves - ergo having much more time to think about your next moves... and think what the opponent's next trick woule most likely be. It's like chess, but on steroids.

They have different time frames, but both fundamentally deal with opposing armies governed by a range of variable numerical values. These numbers can be tweaked, and this will effect the balance, so they are comparable imo. Would it be great if GW could do as Blizzard does to make the game competitive? Yes, but then they would have to lose the revenue from their overpriced books as publishing codices online would be the only viable way to do this. (Or ever updating codices downloaded to tablet, although I hope to god this doesn't happen. Having to buy a tablet to support my plastic crack addiction would be too much).

The downside to this of course is that powergaming in SC2 involves using your vitual resources to make what you deem to be the most OP combination. In W40K power gaming involves spending real world money. Suddenly nerfing lists that people had spent hundreds of dollars/pound to build would be a hard pill for the community to swallow.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

The downside to this of course is that powergaming in SC2 involves using your vitual resources to make what you deem to be the most OP combination. In W40K power gaming involves spending real world money. Suddenly nerfing lists that people had spent hundreds of dollars/pound to build would be a hard pill for the community to swallow.

You nailed it. Money decides.
Also, GW sucks handling the good pricing. Whenever someone says out loud that GW should lower their prices, one of their employees drops a spoon and the whole production line becomes quiet for a second.

Make them 30pts base so they can compete points-wise with Honor Guard, give a 5man squad the option to take a pod, let them take 2 Heavy Weapons no matter the squad size, and let the sergeant change his weaponry.

So, it's the ability to sweep and an extra attack (due to BP/PW) for the power fist, +5 Invuln Save, and the ability to teleport (though I'd probably give them a pod if i had the option to) in terms of combat ability, where as the Terminators would finally maybe be able to compete with Sternguard if you could take a small, cheaper squad with some Missiles or Assault Cannons. Heck, Heavy Flamers and the option to be decent in combat is still good, too.

Storm Shields + Hammers cost +10pts per model, so their survivability and damage capability is at least somewhat moderated by points cost in compared to what a LC one would be, as it's still a no brainer at +5ppm.

I think they (alongside the other ridiculously expensive near-useless elite units, like Lychguard) need 2W/T5, if not both.

Then you have 45 points for T5 2+/3++ 2W tank that throws 2 S8 AP2 attacks after being charged.

That sounds reasonable to me.

In the brackets I mentioned Lychguards, which cost the same as Termies and are a lot less difficult to kill. a 2+ save & 2W fixes them, and for 40 points you then have a T5 2+ 2W model that throws 2 S7 AP1 attacks after being charged.

+1 W&T seems to work as a fix for me (+1 W & -1 S) for the Lychguard

 Neorealist wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But GW isn't even that clever. The mysteriously leave units they could be selling as garbage for multiple editions.

Because like I said, some models have to be obviously poor selections in order for all players to have tactical considerations to make.

Even the worst players need to be able to point at two different units and confidently say 'this one is good' and 'this one is bad' in order to have a reason to select one from the other. The only way to insure this can happen is for some units to cost more than they should or simply suck in other obvious ways compared to other models.

Even Tzeentch lingered for a moment bewildered.

Choosing a unit should be for what purpouse said unit can perform, not chosen to not be chosen because it was unfavorably ballanced so you can choose a better unit over it, thats the inferior units sole purpouse, to not be chosen over others, to not be used.

That dosent fly, and economiclly dosent work either because now you have these unsellable boxes of useless units in a store occypying shelf space that could be used to sell more worthwhile units instead.

That GW would make a mold, shelf its models in stores for years, so it takes up valuable shelf space for more attractive models with better stats to teach new players to not choose and to not buy certain models based on their stat lines foregoing profits in the process by making the inferior unsellable product compete, not with other minature companies but with GW's own brand by taking up valuable shelf space.

Thats a bit hard to swallow.

I would probably stay away from the +1 W, if only to avoid making them the sames stats as centurions, but more mobile and 30% cheaper. The more I mull it over, I like +1T, but for all terminator armour. It would make terminator characters more of an option over bike characters, which seem to be auto takes now.

I think they should probably either get a cost decrease as well, as I think their powerfists are overvalued, or some sort of offensive buff to make them appropriately powerful as throw away units. Perhaps give them access to assault 2 versions of sternguard ammo to avoid buffing GK? Salvo 2/4 seems reasonable until you think about how much fire a PAGK squad can put out if it's stationary. There is always the option of making a 'new' stormbolter exclusive to the non-GK codices.

Oh, and I'd like to add my vote against Neorealists ideas. There should be no bad units in a tabletop miniature game. GW can make their money by making new awesome models, not by making my current ones rules so bad that I have to either pony up or lose. How many people who already had sternguard bought the new ones because the box was just so awesome?

Just a heads up, its going to be 750 of my CSM -vs- my buddy's deathwing. I'm using zhufor + some khorne CSM, and actually buying plasma pistols for my zerkers. I'll throw up a quick AAR here, but I did some dice rolling and it seemed to make termies worth it. But as we all know mathhammer =/= actual gameplay.

Things like boltguns termies literally laugh at, as a bunch of what come into be effectively s3 shots barely scratch the paint, while lasguns are almost completely ignored

And as an addendum, I'm going to pose it to my group to make this a BRB homemade USR, so we can apply it to other units with 2+/something++ t4/1w that are largely useless, but are usually perceived as being able to soak ridiculous amount of damage for their size.

The idea that GW should balance their games like M:TG is absolutely bizarre.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time. Granted, you do have the option of buying singles to build your deck at a premium, but in order to do so, somebody had to buy the packs/boxes to open them up and sell individually. Anybody who sells the individual cards is not devoting a lot of shelf space (just binder space usually, sometimes a showcase with other cards) to do so. Now the cost to Hasbro to make these cards is somewhat minimal...they have the R&D and then just printing the cards, they can easily cover the cost of the "bad" cards as part of the overhead.

Meanwhile, with 40K, GW sells the kits individually (except, of course, for the occasional bundle pack). Each kit has to be sculpted, boxed, and then sent to whichever store is going to sell them.

A bad card in M:TG just takes up space in the store binder, occasionally sold as an impulse buy to some player trying to find the next Necropotence (usually at what, a couple of bucks?). A bad unit for 40K means boxes sitting on the shelf at the store at $50.00+, or in GW's warehouses waiting for orders that never come.

It's in GW's best interests to make all models "good" in some way or fashion in order to make certain that they are moving the product that it takes money to design and manufacture.

Now, that being said, Terminators in the background are incredibly resilient and the tactical ones are shooty. Perhaps the big problem right now is indeed an issue with the metagame, however it is in GW's best interests to address this as right now the end effect is that Terminators are just $50.00 fill-in boxes for shelves.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time.

And even then the 'Bad' cards are better for different formats like Draft.

Someone should make an app that allows you to 'draft' a 40k list, so that we can all use our terminator models again.

nobody wrote:
The idea that GW should balance their games like M:TG is absolutely bizarre.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time. Granted, you do have the option of buying singles to build your deck at a premium, but in order to do so, somebody had to buy the packs/boxes to open them up and sell individually. Anybody who sells the individual cards is not devoting a lot of shelf space (just binder space usually, sometimes a showcase with other cards) to do so. Now the cost to Hasbro to make these cards is somewhat minimal...they have the R&D and then just printing the cards, they can easily cover the cost of the "bad" cards as part of the overhead.

Meanwhile, with 40K, GW sells the kits individually (except, of course, for the occasional bundle pack). Each kit has to be sculpted, boxed, and then sent to whichever store is going to sell them.

A bad card in M:TG just takes up space in the store binder, occasionally sold as an impulse buy to some player trying to find the next Necropotence (usually at what, a couple of bucks?). A bad unit for 40K means boxes sitting on the shelf at the store at $50.00+, or in GW's warehouses waiting for orders that never come.

It's in GW's best interests to make all models "good" in some way or fashion in order to make certain that they are moving the product that it takes money to design and manufacture.

Now, that being said, Terminators in the background are incredibly resilient and the tactical ones are shooty. Perhaps the big problem right now is indeed an issue with the metagame, however it is in GW's best interests to address this as right now the end effect is that Terminators are just $50.00 fill-in boxes for shelves.

This is why Starcraft is a better model for balancing. If there are units seeing constant use, nerf them, and buff model that never get used.

Martel732 wrote:

nobody wrote:
The idea that GW should balance their games like M:TG is absolutely bizarre.

M:TG uses an entirely different model of purchasing game pieces than 40k, where you buy a pack (or a box) and you have the chance to get "good" cards or "bad" cards every time. Granted, you do have the option of buying singles to build your deck at a premium, but in order to do so, somebody had to buy the packs/boxes to open them up and sell individually. Anybody who sells the individual cards is not devoting a lot of shelf space (just binder space usually, sometimes a showcase with other cards) to do so. Now the cost to Hasbro to make these cards is somewhat minimal...they have the R&D and then just printing the cards, they can easily cover the cost of the "bad" cards as part of the overhead.

Meanwhile, with 40K, GW sells the kits individually (except, of course, for the occasional bundle pack). Each kit has to be sculpted, boxed, and then sent to whichever store is going to sell them.

A bad card in M:TG just takes up space in the store binder, occasionally sold as an impulse buy to some player trying to find the next Necropotence (usually at what, a couple of bucks?). A bad unit for 40K means boxes sitting on the shelf at the store at $50.00+, or in GW's warehouses waiting for orders that never come.

It's in GW's best interests to make all models "good" in some way or fashion in order to make certain that they are moving the product that it takes money to design and manufacture.

Now, that being said, Terminators in the background are incredibly resilient and the tactical ones are shooty. Perhaps the big problem right now is indeed an issue with the metagame, however it is in GW's best interests to address this as right now the end effect is that Terminators are just $50.00 fill-in boxes for shelves.

This is why Starcraft is a better model for balancing. If there are units seeing constant use, nerf them, and buff model that never get used.

Oh I agree, I was just posting my confusion at the idea that GW should spend the several thousand putting together molds for "bad" units.

I'm confused by that as well.

Models in terminator Armour can choose to double tap their storm bolter, or fire it as normal with sternguard ammo, models in terminator Armour have FNP, models in terminator Armour are immune to interceptor shots and lastly, a terminator squad may choose one turn per game to re-roll failed saves (must be declared at the start of an opponents turn).

That's actually the best set of suggestions yet, I think. Although how important is immune to interceptor?