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.

Martel732 wrote:


We play random opponents with preset lists, chief. I'm not feeling you.

Indeed.

There are many quick ways to create near-perfect balance with 40K.

One-list-tournaments with exact mirror-matches all around. Randomizing armies and players, so people don't know which army they will play in any given game. Technically, even random-army-list generators should be technologically doable these days. Etc..., etc..

If people truly cared about balance in organized tournament play, it be dead-easy to do. Nobody cares enough about balance though. People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.

 Zweischneid wrote:
People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.

Or even competitive players care about the fluff and models, and don't have much interest in a game where they have to bring the specific models the tournament requires with no choices or customization.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.

Or even competitive players care about the fluff and models, and don't have much interest in a game where they have to bring the specific models the tournament requires with no choices or customization.

Well, if even tournament players pick fluff/models over balanced formats, you can hardly blame the game designers for not caring about balance.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.

Not anymore subjective than to say that 40K needs to be more balanced. Of course it is subjective. There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine. It simply caters to a different taste in the amount of "imbalance" people want in their games.

As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.

I might not like Warmachine, I think it is far too balanced to be engaging, but for all I care, it can stay the way it is, for the people who enjoy it this way, as long as I have 40K in its current variant as an alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.

No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.

However, as an ancillary effect - as a free bonus if you want - talking to people may also solve some of the problems you feel exist with 40K. But even if it didn't, talking with people is still better than not talking with them.

The problem is you formulate your way in a confusing way. You keep on talking about imbalance in 40k as though it is a good thing when it isn't in any way. Nobody praises it, it's the thing all will be at best neutral to and at worst openly critique. Even perfect imbalance talks about how it isn't done lazily, it's done in a very meticulous fashion. The cyclical imbalance doesn't even exist in 40k. There's no real solution to the riptide. There's no rise in a certain unit because of the riptide that leads to counters to the counter that leads to other counters. Along with that, the game the thing praises, LoL also has to re-balance their games whenever things come out often times because they are released overpowered. In the end, perfect imbalance is a form of balance in the grand scheme of things. Also, Warmachine actually has perfect imbalance in it. What I'm saying is that the current iteration of 40k is bad. The fact that units like the Riptide, Waveserpent, etc exist and dominate the meta for months to years is a big problem. When a unit is so much better that there is no use in bringing anything else, this is lazy designing. The rules with 40k are wrong. They are imbalanced, make no logical sense, punish many units, have worthless units, etc. As is, there are definitively superior choices that are foolish to not take and units that should never be taken.

People want a 40k game where Ksons, Riptides, and Kroot are all god. Sure, it might be that Ksons, in this fictional world of imperfect balance, are generally better but then there is the slightly underpowered riptide that is particularly efficient at killing Ksons. This brings a rise to riptides however then Kroot rise due to being good at beating riptides that leads to a return of Ksons that are good again due to the drop in number of riptides. This is good and swell but as of now we have a terrible ruleset that punishes everybody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


I don't really feel like digging up the posts in question, but what you said was essentially "I'm so happy that the game has finally reached a state where pre-game negotiation is mandatory and all those TFGs are being excluded, I would hate to go back to the old days when it wasn't necessary". And that's just one example of many, your point of view is, to be polite, somewhat unconventional and you've mastered the art of not caring when people demonstrate why your claims are wrong.

Yes.

In scale of

1. Pre-game communication is not necessary, and nobody does it.
2. Pre-game communication is necessary, and most people do it.
3. Pre-game communication is not necessary, yet most people do it anyways

In recent years, we have slowly moved from 1 toward 2, with 2 > 1. That is improvement. 3 would be ideal, but in a not-perfect-world, I take 2 over 1.

Again, people's tastes might differ, but I am sure there are non-40K games out there that cater to their taste. Diversity is the key to make everybody happy.

Thing is, pre-game communication shouldn't be necessary. It should be optional. We should be able to deploy what we want as long as it isn't our own houserules and just play a game on the bat. If we want narrative games, discussion is necessary.

 StarTrotter wrote:


The problem is you formulate your way in a confusing way. You keep on talking about imbalance in 40k as though it is a good thing when it isn't in any way. Nobody praises it, it's the thing all will be at best neutral to and at worst openly critique.

And you keep talking about imbalance in 40K as if it is a bad thing. If we can settle on neutral, we'd be good.

The cyclical imbalance doesn't even exist in 40k.

Maybe not. A discussion for another day. Cyclical imbalance however does exist in game-design though, as do other forms of imbalance, which proves that balance isn't everything, or always the best thing to go about designing a game.

 StarTrotter wrote:

In the end, perfect imbalance is a form of balance in the grand scheme of things.

No. Imbalance is always a form of imbalance in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, it must be done carefully. Yes, there can be too much imbalance (as there can be too much balance... e.g. Warmachine). Yes, maybe 40K hasn't hit the perfect spot just yet. Warmachine certainly has not.

The Extra Credit video I linked to isn't a description of 40K. It only served to show that the often-repeated notion of "balance=better" is not always right.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


We play random opponents with preset lists, chief. I'm not feeling you.

Indeed.

There are many quick ways to create near-perfect balance with 40K.

One-list-tournaments with exact mirror-matches all around. Randomizing armies and players, so people don't know which army they will play in any given game. Technically, even random-army-list generators should be technologically doable these days. Etc..., etc..

If people truly cared about balance in organized tournament play, it be dead-easy to do. Nobody cares enough about balance though. People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.

One list tournaments with exact mirror-matches also requires yanking the game in ways people don't want and restricts casual players that just want to play a relatively even game from the get go. Randomizing armies doesn't help anything as well. It just makes it a guess. That's like defending psyker and commander roles being random. That takes agency away from the layer (plus that'd be impossible and too expensive for anybody to conventionally do). Seriously, army list randomness is also stupid. This isn't a pc game where I get all my units. This is a game where you have to buy expensive models, build these models, and then paint htem.

It's not easy. And the problem is that nerfing one thing can cause other problems. Even now, tournaments try but look at all the crap that GW throws out with dataslates and minidexes and all this other stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


The problem is you formulate your way in a confusing way. You keep on talking about imbalance in 40k as though it is a good thing when it isn't in any way. Nobody praises it, it's the thing all will be at best neutral to and at worst openly critique.

And you keep talking about imbalance in 40K as if it is a bad thing. If we can settle on neutral, we'd be good.

The cyclical imbalance doesn't even exist in 40k.

Maybe not. A discussion for another day. Cyclical imbalance however does exist in game-design though, as do other forms of imbalance, which proves that balance isn't everything, or always the best thing to go about designing a game.

 StarTrotter wrote:

In the end, perfect imbalance is a form of balance in the grand scheme of things.

No. Imbalance is always a form of imbalance in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, it must be done carefully. Yes, there can be too much imbalance (as there can be too much balance... e.g. Warmachine). Yes, maybe 40K hasn't hit the perfect spot just yet.

The Extra Credit video I linked to isn't a description of 40K. It only served to show that the often-repeated notion of "balance=better" is not always right.

BECAUSE IT IS BAD! Perfect Imbalance is good but 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Not in the slightest. It's pure imbalance. It's a world where everything is absolutely broken and many a thing are almost unplayable with no real use (pyrocasters and flaming chariots). It's a crappy game that is held up by a combination of a great setting, well liked fluff, and a large playerbase, oh, and some pretty good models.

I like perfect imbalance. The problem is 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Also, then why link to it? Is that not what you are implying 40k should strive for? Why you are defending 40k's imbalance?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if even tournament players pick fluff/models over balanced formats, you can hardly blame the game designers for not caring about balance.

Except there shouldn't have to be a choice between the two. The "choice" only exists because the rule authors (GW's morons don't deserve to be called game designers) are incompetent. The fact that, when forced to choose the lesser of two evils, competitive players still want some fluff/model element in their games does not in any way excuse the utter idiocy and laziness of saying "well, they don't care about balance to the exclusion of all else, now we don't have to put any effort into balance".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
And you keep talking about imbalance in 40K as if it is a bad thing. If we can settle on neutral, we'd be good.

That's because it IS a bad thing. It's bad for competitive play, it's bad for narrative play, it's bad for casual/social play. The only people 40k's lack of balance is helping is the seal clubbers who bring the most overpowered armies and only play against helpless newbies.

Cyclical imbalance however does exist in game-design though, as do other forms of imbalance, which proves that balance isn't everything, or always the best thing to go about designing a game.

No, you're (once again) just failing to understand the difference between variable/cyclical balance and bad balance. If you do more than look at the title "perfect imbalance" you realize that the concept is about carefully crafting an environment where the power of each choice depends on what other choices are common in the metagame. It was a poor decision to use the word "imbalance" in the title because that's not really what it is.

 StarTrotter wrote:

BECAUSE IT IS BAD! Perfect Imbalance is good but 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Not in the slightest. It's pure imbalance. It's a world where everything is absolutely broken and many a thing are almost unplayable with no real use (pyrocasters and flaming chariots). It's a crappy game that is held up by a combination of a great setting, well liked fluff, and a large playerbase, oh, and some pretty good models.

I like perfect imbalance. The problem is 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Also, then why link to it? Is that not what you are implying 40k should strive for? Why you are defending 40k's imbalance?

I linked to the Extra Credit video because of repeated statements like this.

Martel732 wrote:

Balance is better. No amounts of imbalance are necessary or desirable.

I am not implying 40K is "perfect". But blind approaches to "more balance" don't make it better or address any of the problems either.

I am not defending 40K's imbalances. I am questioning the misconception that imbalance is a result of the game designers "mistake" or "inability", and not a result of the game designers conscious choice (possibly a bad choice in your eyes, but a choice nonetheless).

You are free to dislike 40K's imbalances as much as you like. I won't stop you. Just don't claim that your subjective opinion on this is some form of objective truth.

 Peregrine wrote:

It was a poor decision to use the word "imbalance" in the title because that's not really what it is.

It is not. The video actually spends about 1/3rd of the runtime explaining possible drawbacks of "balanced" games using the examples of Chess and Star Craft.

They are not "bad" games (we really need to get away from this false good/bad dichotomy), but different games that cater to a different taste among gamers and, as a result of their balance, are unable to offer some of the experience that more (carefully) imbalanced games can. Ergo, there are advantages to (careful) imbalances over balance.. That can't be true of "perfect imbalance=balance".

 Zweischneid wrote:
I am questioning the misconception that imbalance is a result of the game designers "mistake" or "inability", and not a result of the game designers conscious choice (possibly a bad choice in your eyes, but a choice nonetheless).

It might be a misconception when dealing with other games. For example, you might look at a bad card in MTG and think that the designers suck, but in reality that card's low power level was a deliberate choice to make draft and sealed formats work. The same is not true in 40k. We aren't dealing with a carefully-crafted metagame where deliberate variations in balance are used to achieve a desired result (other than selling the latest $100 model kit). What we have is a very obvious case of incompetent rule authors, nonexistent playtesting, and a management structure that doesn't give a about the company's quality problems.

Just don't claim that your subjective opinion on this is some form of objective truth.

Sorry, but it is objective truth.

I don't care if they intend it or not. It makes me less inclined to spend money on their game.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care if they intend it or not. It makes me less inclined to spend money on their game.

Fair enough.

I - in contrast - am less inclined to spend money on more balanced games like Warmachine.

Let people vote with their wallets than.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

BECAUSE IT IS BAD! Perfect Imbalance is good but 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Not in the slightest. It's pure imbalance. It's a world where everything is absolutely broken and many a thing are almost unplayable with no real use (pyrocasters and flaming chariots). It's a crappy game that is held up by a combination of a great setting, well liked fluff, and a large playerbase, oh, and some pretty good models.

I like perfect imbalance. The problem is 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Also, then why link to it? Is that not what you are implying 40k should strive for? Why you are defending 40k's imbalance?

I linked to the Extra Credit video because of repeated statements like this.

Martel732 wrote:

Balance is better. No amounts of imbalance are necessary or desirable.

I am not implying 40K is "perfect". But blind approaches to "more balance" don't make it better or address any of the problems either.

I am not defending 40K's imbalances. I am questioning the misconception that imbalance is a result of the game designers "mistake" or "inability", and not a result of the game designers conscious choice (possibly a bad choice in your eyes, but a choice nonetheless).

You are free to dislike 40K's imbalances as much as you like. I won't stop you. Just don't claim that your subjective opinion on this is some form of objective truth.

Thing is, it's not exactly imbalance. It's meticulously created to have a system where, case by case, their is an imbalance, but in the grand scheme of things, there is. It's an extremely complex equation of rock paper scissors jack hammer etc. Variable and cyclical balance are all about the specific plotting. It's about carefully crafting a system by which a fluid and dynamic metagame is established. It's built so that units will rise and fall due to perceptions where there are units that can counter that unit that then rise to take the dominant place for another unit to be capable of countering that. It's all fluid and creates a wave-like system for all models to have their own use and value. Along with this, the things that are just plain bad are then fixed (as in Magic and LoL) if they really are that bad/good. It's an odd system that relies on imbalancing units to establish a balanced world.

You could argue that dataslates and new codices bring about balance, but they really don't. There still isn't any real counter to the riptide and Taudar still reigns after months of existance. An update will literally invalidate certain lists and make entire armies worthless in comparison to others. Entire armies. Perfect imbalance, humerously, is a form of balance. Just not as obsessive as chess.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Thing is, it's not exactly imbalance. It's meticulously created to have a system where, case by case, their is an imbalance, but in the grand scheme of things, there is. It's an extremely complex equation of rock paper scissors jack hammer etc. Variable and cyclical balance are all about the specific plotting. It's about carefully crafting a system by which a fluid and dynamic metagame is established. It's built so that units will rise and fall due to perceptions where there are units that can counter that unit that then rise to take the dominant place for another unit to be capable of countering that. It's all fluid and creates a wave-like system for all models to have their own use and value. Along with this, the things that are just plain bad are then fixed (as in Magic and LoL) if they really are that bad/good. It's an odd system that relies on imbalancing units to establish a balanced world.

You could argue that dataslates and new codices bring about balance, but they really don't. There still isn't any real counter to the riptide and Taudar still reigns after months of existance. An update will literally invalidate certain lists and make entire armies worthless in comparison to others. Entire armies. Perfect imbalance, humerously, is a form of balance. Just not as obsessive as chess.

No. Perfect imbalance is a form of imbalance. I am not sure how it would be termed "balance" just because it is meticulously crafted.

Yes, creating good game imbalances is complex, difficult and laborious work. Any 6-year-old can create "balance" (e.g. chess-style mirror-matches, to name the most obvious example). Perfect imbalances is not "less obsessive" than chess. It is different to chess, trying to achieve different things. Notably not to establish a "balanced world", but to establish a "moving/evolving world". Different things.

That is why 20-years of game-experience in chess mean alot. It is balanced, thus static. Easy to learn, difficult to master. That is why 20-years of game-experience in MTG mean nothing, as the game evolves as a result of its cyclical imbalances and any "newbie" can jump in with minimal fuss by picking up the latest releases and learning the basics. More difficult to learn initially (creating a fake-sense of skill-progression), but far easier to master (reducing frustration).

The only reason you call it "balance" is because you are falling to your own fallacy of "imbalance = mistake".

Many of people are stating imbalance as the main issue. While it is an issue, it should be expected. This game is very complex leading to many things the developers don't foresee. For example, when Blizzard made Starcraft, they were surprised at the ingenuity of some players using tactics like lurker drops or players rushing liftoff and moving their bases to locations not reachable by ground attack. The difference is, Blizzard had to option of finishing each race (zerg, toss, terrain) simultaneously. This helped ensure they were fairly balanced.

GW doesn't have this option. If their codices were produced in unison, ensuring balance, we would have to expect crippling development times or a loss of quality. Instead, each codex needs to be produced separately. With this, some tactics will be missed as some players intentionally look for loopholes. Take the necron scarab rush that got FAQ'ed. It simply did not act as it was intended, so it was fixed.

This brings up "Why not just FAQ everything to keep it balanced?". The problem with FAQing everything is it eliminates the need to buy new codices. The only need to buy new codices would come in the forms of bragging rights, new units, or just changing entire units to somehow maintain balance but provide different play-styles. There is no reason in buying a new codex if it doesn't modify the current one.

Some tactics are more potent than others. This is true for any Min-Max tactic. It'll innately be strong against some while being horrible against others. Some Min-Max lists are just better suited for this, runtherd spam won't make it too far as it lacks anti-tank while Russ spam will make it further as certain units are required to take out heavier vehicles. This makes the counter to min-max being specially made lists or ingenious tactics with all-comer lists. The former being weak against other lists and the latter requiring genuine thought beyond simple list building.

All that said, I think the biggest problem with 40k is that the story will never progress. It's progression will only either be lateral or bring us closer to a logical conclusion to the game.

Bit late to the party here, but as far as my interpretation of the "perfect imbalance" would be something like the 3 ORIGINAL runesckape classes, before you skip this just listen. It was like a scissor paper rock except the rock didn't always beat the scissors hence like the three classes if there were a huge increase in say armour classes, you'd get that guy that figures out Mage and to counter that the archer. Plus mix and match combos like warrior with leather armour means that the things he is good against and beaten by is reversed.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Thing is, it's not exactly imbalance. It's meticulously created to have a system where, case by case, their is an imbalance, but in the grand scheme of things, there is. It's an extremely complex equation of rock paper scissors jack hammer etc. Variable and cyclical balance are all about the specific plotting. It's about carefully crafting a system by which a fluid and dynamic metagame is established. It's built so that units will rise and fall due to perceptions where there are units that can counter that unit that then rise to take the dominant place for another unit to be capable of countering that. It's all fluid and creates a wave-like system for all models to have their own use and value. Along with this, the things that are just plain bad are then fixed (as in Magic and LoL) if they really are that bad/good. It's an odd system that relies on imbalancing units to establish a balanced world.

You could argue that dataslates and new codices bring about balance, but they really don't. There still isn't any real counter to the riptide and Taudar still reigns after months of existance. An update will literally invalidate certain lists and make entire armies worthless in comparison to others. Entire armies. Perfect imbalance, humerously, is a form of balance. Just not as obsessive as chess.

No. Perfect imbalance is a form of imbalance. I am not sure how it would be termed "balance" just because it is meticulously crafted.

Yes, creating good game imbalances is complex, difficult and laborious work. Any 6-year-old can create "balance" (e.g. chess-style mirror-matches, to name the most obvious example). Perfect imbalances is not "less obsessive" than chess. It is different to chess, trying to achieve different things. Notably not to establish a "balanced world", but to establish a "moving/evolving world". Different things.

That is why 20-years of game-experience in chess mean alot. It is balanced, thus static. That is why 20-years of game-experience in MTG mean nothing, as the game evolves as a result of its cyclical imbalances and any "newbie" can jump in with minimal fuss by picking up the latest releases and learning the basics.

The only reason you call it "balance" is because you are falling to your own fallacy of "imbalance = mistake".

I'll succeed that I was using balance improperly. Also, chess still isn't extremely simple and no 6 year old would really make it. The number of rules it has and exceptions is very high. If not, there wouldn't be so many professionals. I was looking at it from the concept that it was balanced in the sense that there is a meter that everything is compared to with only a slight sense of divergence that is then countered by something else to formulate something slightly similar to rock paper scissors in the grand scheme of things. That said, it is true I shouldn't use balance. The problem is, it isn't really entirely imbalance. The video itself discusses something more along the liens of a game that has a concept of balance, the jedi curve, etc that is scaled and then planned out so that there are a few above and below the average score. The below score units are then built to be particularly efficient at besting certain above level units, etc. This requires some form of balance to then break off of. As said in the base, it's not large imbalances... it's "This week, we discuss the benefits of subtle imbalances in games ". Subtle ones are what make it so great.

40k has none of this though, not a single ounce of this. Pick the best army and watch as you crush newbies and experienced members alike. Pick a pyrovore and realize there's nothing it beats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hanith wrote:
Many of people are stating imbalance as the main issue. While it is an issue, it should be expected. This game is very complex leading to many things the developers don't foresee. For example, when Blizzard made Starcraft, they were surprised at the ingenuity of some players using tactics like lurker drops or players rushing liftoff and moving their bases to locations not reachable by ground attack. The difference is, Blizzard had to option of finishing each race (zerg, toss, terrain) simultaneously. This helped ensure they were fairly balanced.

GW doesn't have this option. If their codices were produced in unison, ensuring balance, we would have to expect crippling development times or a loss of quality. Instead, each codex needs to be produced separately. With this, some tactics will be missed as some players intentionally look for loopholes. Take the necron scarab rush that got FAQ'ed. It simply did not act as it was intended, so it was fixed.

This brings up "Why not just FAQ everything to keep it balanced?". The problem with FAQing everything is it eliminates the need to buy new codices. The only need to buy new codices would come in the forms of bragging rights, new units, or just changing entire units to somehow maintain balance but provide different play-styles. There is no reason in buying a new codex if it doesn't modify the current one.

Some tactics are more potent than others. This is true for any Min-Max tactic. It'll innately be strong against some while being horrible against others. Some Min-Max lists are just better suited for this, runtherd spam won't make it too far as it lacks anti-tank while Russ spam will make it further as certain units are required to take out heavier vehicles. This makes the counter to min-max being specially made lists or ingenious tactics with all-comer lists. The former being weak against other lists and the latter requiring genuine thought beyond simple list building.

All that said, I think the biggest problem with 40k is that the story will never progress. It's progression will only either be lateral or bring us closer to a logical conclusion to the game.

Honestly this is why I think that digital is really the way to go. Think about it, you make it and then can digitally update all of the flaws in the codex! It fixes so much (granted then they'd need to actually do that)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hiveof_chimera wrote:
Bit late to the party here, but as far as my interpretation of the "perfect imbalance" would be something like the 3 ORIGINAL runesckape classes, before you skip this just listen. It was like a scissor paper rock except the rock didn't always beat the scissors hence like the three classes if there were a huge increase in say armour classes, you'd get that guy that figures out Mage and to counter that the archer. Plus mix and match combos like warrior with leather armour means that the things he is good against and beaten by is reversed.

This is a decent comparison although I'd say it works a bit better if you throw in a warhammer that is good against both scissors and paper bad bad against rock, a unit named Soul that is good against scissors, paper, and rock but weak to a unit named Darkness that is weak to scissors, paper, and rock, neutral against warhammer, and strong against soul. A bit more variation and some things that peek at the top and bottom.

Good lord! He's caught in a loop.

Guys, we're never going to drill it through his skull that he's so utterly off base its keeps swinging from hilarious to terrible. Leave him to function in bizzaro-world where 40k is obviously amazing due to it's terrible balance.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if even tournament players pick fluff/models over balanced formats, you can hardly blame the game designers for not caring about balance.

Um.. just who the hell am I supposed to blame?
They are literally the ones creating this situation. It is entirely on the people making the game if the game is flawed....


And I think we would all still like an answer to how armies like Thousand Sons (or in my case a marine spam IW army, or a Deathwing army, ect) being made viable is a bad thing?

Your argument comes across as utterly stupid because you still haven't explained your position in a coherent manner.
Balance can be achieved without restricting options, yet the imbalance in the game is demonstrably hampering people and preventing them from running fluffy armies they want to run.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Your argument comes across as utterly stupid because you still haven't explained your position in a coherent manner.
Balance can be achieved without restricting options, yet the imbalance in the game is demonstrably hampering people and preventing them from running fluffy armies they want to run.

Not only that but the video he keeps referencing as "proof" that balance is bad isn't even saying what he thinks it is. A game like Warmachine IS perfect imbalance; 40k is about as far from that as possible.

 azreal13 wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Still waiting for that one specific example of a unit that would be ruined by whatever it is you think balance is Zwei....

The heldrake, riptide, screamerstar, and waveserpent of course! They wouldn't be as good....

Oh, right!

Just think how much less narrative they'd be if they were merely one viable choice amongst many, rather than obviously, brokenly much better than anything else even roughly comparable.



I haven't seen Zwei have this discussion in weeks! I'm really enjoying the nostalgia trip!

hang on a sec though to defend my loyal CSM here, its not that the helldrake is so damn amazing... it SEEMS to be because of the pile of gak that exists in lots of other units, its the diamond in the rough.

there is a thread where we were discussing the wyvern vs drake, and the wyvernsx3 is close to the same points but can kill 2-3x as many MEQ a turn.. the IG tank starts on the board can shoot from turn 1 etc etc, drake may not show up till turn 4..

so i think its time to stop labeling the drake one of thebest units in the game, when its just one of the best in the codex.

id love MORE viable options in my book and some more ballance.

ill also take some rules proofing, because i look in YMDC and cringe, so many "discussions" become based on 1 word that never appears again..

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Still waiting for that one specific example of a unit that would be ruined by whatever it is you think balance is Zwei....

The heldrake, riptide, screamerstar, and waveserpent of course! They wouldn't be as good....

Oh, right!

Just think how much less narrative they'd be if they were merely one viable choice amongst many, rather than obviously, brokenly much better than anything else even roughly comparable.



I haven't seen Zwei have this discussion in weeks! I'm really enjoying the nostalgia trip!

hang on a sec though to defend my loyal CSM here, its not that the helldrake is so damn amazing... it SEEMS to be because of the pile of gak that exists in lots of other units, its the diamond in the rough.

there is a thread where we were discussing the wyvern vs drake, and the wyvernsx3 is close to the same points but can kill 2-3x as many MEQ a turn.. the IG tank starts on the board can shoot from turn 1 etc etc, drake may not show up till turn 4..

so i think its time to stop labeling the drake one of thebest units in the game, when its just one of the best in the codex.

id love MORE viable options in my book and some more ballance.

ill also take some rules proofing, because i look in YMDC and cringe, so many "discussions" become based on 1 word that never appears again..

Naw, the heldrake is still pretty damn good. Look at the statistics, and you'll find that Chaos broke into the high ranking competitive top 15. That being said, they were without a single CSM and were only composed of 1 required squad of cultists, 1 DP, and one heldrake. It's lost some might but it's still underpriced for what it is (if you go baledrake). It's a tanky 12/12/10 flier (harder to hit) with a 5+ invuln save, that has a 360 degree gun that fires a template of flame S6 AP3 which can be placed far away from the model itself whilst also being able to vector strike. Simply put, the baledrake is still one of the best units out there. That said, it's in an incredibly bad codex.

Oh, and if you didn't know, I'm actually a chaos player at heart (don't trust my profile icon that might make you think of IG! I am secretly a cultist!)

That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.

The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.

 azreal13 wrote:
That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.

The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.

we were doing some basic math that goes like this.

12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)

baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...

numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.

lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)

so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one

 jonolikespie wrote:


And I think we would all still like an answer to how armies like Thousand Sons (or in my case a marine spam IW army, or a Deathwing army, ect) being made viable is a bad thing?

Because it doesn't ride on any particular unit or army.

It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".

Other games do it just like it. X-Wing players only play TIE-Fighters for so long, before they realized that they "need" Howlrunner, or "need" to have a few PtL cards that are so much better for 3 pts. than most others talents, or need Advanced Sensors on their B-Wing, etc.., etc.., etc...

Does that mean my "fluffy" TIE-Fighter "New Hope" Squadron led by Vader (or even worse, led by Maarek Stele) instead of Howlrunner is inferior for its points? Yes it does. Does that mean my "fluffy" B-Wing Squadron without Advanced Sensors looted from the Imperial Shuttle is inferior? Yes it does. People accept that as a price for the underlying "imbalanced" game-design. And every new release will bring a new hotness. Things that were hot and one point are fading, or will be fading soon.

Sucks if your "Vader + 2 starter-box-Tie Fighters"-list gets walked over, but you just eat it up and buy Howlrunner and move on. That's how it works. Until the time comes to shelf Howlrunner again.

These games are made that way on purpose (and possibly not even in the sense that game-designers decide that X should be a power-combination, but simple in the sense that game-designers allow enough "variance" so that power-combos occur "naturally").

You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.

 Zweischneid wrote:
You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.

Of course it's intentional, with 40k more than others since their idea seems to be if they invalidate/weaken a unit you already bought, you'll have to go and buy another one, and then when they weaken that one, you'll have to buy another, and so on. Their entire game design has shifted to a revolving door to sell things, rather than have a quality game that also happens to have quality models. The game might as well not even exist at this point, as it's an afterthought.

Let's compare that to Warmachine: All units are approximately balanced in the sense that there is no real "must have" or "never take" choices. There are some things that are better than others, which you see more frequently in the competitive space (certain Mercenary units spring to mind), and some things that are generally not that good for their points cost (again I use the Khador Man-o-War units as an example here), but even a "bad" unit like the MoW Shocktroopers (which aren't so much as "bad" as cost too much for what they do, and other units can do their job better) aren't going to cost you a game just because you "chose poorly" and decided to take them in the first place; you can field an MoW based army and still win if you are a superior player; the disadvantage is minimal and can be almost totally nullified by a skilled commander (as it should be).

On the other hand you have a powerful unit like Cygnar's Stormwall colossal (think the Warmachine equivalent of a titan). It's very good for its points, but you build an army around its tactics and that's what enables you to win a game; you don't just win because you happen to field one like what happens in 40k with the equivalent. It's just a different tactical dynamic - your army plays one way with a Stormwall, and another way without one, sometimes with exactly the same units and changing only that one model. You don't end up seeing every Cygnar player at a Warmachine tournament fielding a Stormwall because it's better than everything else; you see players with various lists based on their preferred playstyle and what their strategy is, and each of them have an equal (as far as the rules/models go) chance of winning - the game comes down to tactics and the skill of the person behind the list, not the list itself.

That's what 40k should strive to be. Nobody wants a game like Chess with everything identical, but there can and should be balance within each faction and across the game that doesn't mean some units just are going to make you lose the game if you happen to pick them, while others can win you the game just by being there. Every unit should have some sort of tactics or strategy associated with it (whether by itself or with other choices that complement it), and there should never be a situation where you can point to several units and tell a new player "These units aren't good, never take them" (even worse if said units are meant to be the mainstay of the army e.g. CSM) or point to another unit or two and say "You always want to take these units". While Warmachine has something like that to a point, the difference between a "bad" unit and a "good" unit generally comes down to "You can make this work if you're good" while in 40k it's "You have zero chance of this working barring fighting somebody totally clueless".

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.

The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.

I shortly mentioned it but admittedly didn't keep to long to it. It's also one of the few forms of ap3 that is actually good in the game.

we were doing some basic math that goes like this.

12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)

baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...

numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.

lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)

so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one

To be fair, you are comparing it to a codex that just came out focusing entirely upon damage without losing any units and against what is theorized to possibly be the best (or at least one of) the best units in the IG codex.

 Zweischneid wrote:

It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".

And so, once again, how does this evolving state of play, where people swap one min-maxed power list food the next min-maxed power list, encourage more narrative play than a system where a wider range of armies are viable?

It's much down to personal preference in what you like in the games and your general attitude towards it.

Do I wish some rules were written better? Yes - but that has little to do with balance.
Do I wish armies were more balanced? Unlikely to effect me....
Do I wish people would give up going on and on and on about the balance in 40k? Yes.


Revolving door type can also be a good thing. Keeps the game moving, keeps things different and keeps it new and interesting. I don't want to play with the same models game in and game out, I want to math hammer new builds or new uber builds, there's only 3 or 4 units in the entire game I think one of the designers were smoking something funny, even then it's only through players exploiting those they become a burden for some players.

Balance is not the be all and end all for many people. Bad balance doesn't automatically mean not fun. I recently played a doubles game where mine and my partner's lists were completely ill adept at handling our opponents when we turned up (Nids & White Scars VS Guard & SM /w Knight /w Fortress). Even worse the dice were against us, after scouting bikes forward and starting with FMC's on the table our opponents stole the initiative - don't think I need to explain the outcome but everyone had a good game and everyone had fun.

Like I say it really depends on what you want to the game. I have a friend who will complain about the balance of 40k on a weekly basis, he does currently play Dropzone and X-Wing. He has played Warmahorde - but did not keep that up. Obviously while the game balance annoys him, that system while good in balance, is lacking in something else.


Sad thing is it is probably the epic situations, adrenaline and drama created by iffy balance.



[edit] Wish people wouldn't use the words auto win and auto lose units like it actually exists. We all know while we can % up likelihoods and lists there is still a hell of a lot of strategy in 40k, and lets not forget those damn dice rolls.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


And I think we would all still like an answer to how armies like Thousand Sons (or in my case a marine spam IW army, or a Deathwing army, ect) being made viable is a bad thing?

Because it doesn't ride on any particular unit or army.

It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".

Other games do it just like it. X-Wing players only play TIE-Fighters for so long, before they realized that they "need" Howlrunner, or "need" to have a few PtL cards that are so much better for 3 pts. than most others talents, or need Advanced Sensors on their B-Wing, etc.., etc.., etc...

Does that mean my "fluffy" TIE-Fighter "New Hope" Squadron led by Vader (or even worse, led by Maarek Stele) instead of Howlrunner is inferior for its points? Yes it does. Does that mean my "fluffy" B-Wing Squadron without Advanced Sensors looted from the Imperial Shuttle is inferior? Yes it does. People accept that as a price for the underlying "imbalanced" game-design. And every new release will bring a new hotness. Things that were hot and one point are fading, or will be fading soon.

Sucks if your "Vader + 2 starter-box-Tie Fighters"-list gets walked over, but you just eat it up and buy Howlrunner and move on. That's how it works. Until the time comes to shelf Howlrunner again.

These games are made that way on purpose (and possibly not even in the sense that game-designers decide that X should be a power-combination, but simple in the sense that game-designers allow enough "variance" so that power-combos occur "naturally").

You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.

I'll give you one thing, you are stubborn.

How does it not make a difference if one unit is massively better than another or whether one entire codex is better than another? How the hell is it that you are endorsing an entire damn codex being superior than another one. AN ENTIRE FRIGGING CODEX! You aren't even talking about unit to unit, you are talking Imperial shall always win because hur durr I don't care balance is bad, perfect imbalance is bad let's have slow imbalance.

Also, need I remind you that at least X-Wing tries to have balance? That it also is dramatically cheaper. Compare the price for X-Wing and GW. Compare the amount of time to deploy those units. Pay attention to how a single Tie-Fighter model can represent multiple different units all depending on the card you place down. Notice how cheap it all is, notice how it is still more balanced than 40k.

Little tip, the game isn't built to have dramatic imbalance ON PURPOSE. Games are made in three ways. Pure balance, perfect imbalance, and pure imbalance. The last is a bad decision. A game like X-Wing is vying for perfect imbalance. No matter what is done, pure balance and perfect imbalance are unattainable. X-Wing shall never gain true perfect imbalance. It does try though. They can't figure out everything that will happen.

As for GW, GW doesn't plan anything at all. They fling COOL and it's the least work at a wall and get it out. They have no logic. It's not even making new models broken to increase sales. Look at the pyrovore. How is it creating a natural combo? When will it ever become relevant? When will Thousand Sons ever be of use when the niche they have, killing marines, CSM (which are already inferior to tactical marines in every way thus making them worthless as well) do their job better? When will the flow to the top? Ksons have been bad since 3.5 and perhaps even earlier. That is static and lifeless. Here is the thing, 40k's competitive environment is stagnant and even casual is stagnant. 40k is designed upon the third choice, pure imbalance where nothing is fun unless you just accept them, laugh it off, and make up with rolling a d6 to decide your arguments.

Also, Warmachine is designed on perfect imbalance, not chess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".

And so, once again, how does this evolving state of play, where people swap one min-maxed power list food the next min-maxed power list, encourage more narrative play than a system where a wider range of armies are viable?

If balance or perfect imbalance came into play, things would be different. With balance, countless armies would be playable and all equal leaving it to the luck of the dice and skill to make the game. It does promote static competitive world. Honestly, I'm okay with this but would prefer the latter which iiiiiissss..... Perfect imbalance. All units have a usage, all of them have a worth. Everything is worth it although not all are always useful. Some are generally bad but great at killing the things that would generally be strongest without it. By doing this, the gaming environment goes through a natural flowing game world that rises and falls and lets things be dynamic. 40k right now is crap units, decent units, broken units. Pick the broken units and you'll be set for years probably.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

A balanced game is better for all types of play;

Wrong.

Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.

It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.

A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.

A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.

This makes no sense. It's much easier to play a narrative game with balanced rules, you get more back and forth more choice of effective units and a better experience over all. Where is the imagination in only having a few lists that are effective? Where is the imagination and narrative potential of a game that can be decided before it has even started? Your argument isn't even slightly convincing.