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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.

Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".

Correct game balance would be if every single Codex taken as a mono-list could have an equal chance of winning, before ever coming to the table. The strengths and weaknesses of an army (say, Blood Angels, for instance) would equal each other out, making the only real determining factors within the ensuing game to be deployment and terrain.

I have played plenty of miniatures games like this. And none of them had to be situations where all the armies felt the same "for the sake of balance".

Most of the armies I have in 40K didn't have un-fun downsides to me when I decided on the army (and this is across all editions), because their strengths stopped the nasty-ness of the weaknesses from being overpowering.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Correct game balance would be if every single Codex taken as a mono-list could have an equal chance of winning, before ever coming to the table. The strengths and weaknesses of an army (say, Blood Angels, for instance) would equal each other out, making the only real determining factors within the ensuing game to be deployment and terrain.

I have played plenty of miniatures games like this. And none of them had to be situations where all the armies felt the same "for the sake of balance".

Oh now you've gone and done it. You've just gone and pulled the pullstring on his back. Prepare for another 10 pages of misunderstanding a certain Youtube video...

I don't know why. Take X-Wing.

A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.

Strengths balanced against weaknesses.

If GW were properly balanced, having an Imperial Guard Infantry swarm versus a small Elite SM army would be a toss-up, left to the meeting of the players individual skills at the game to decide (with terrain being a variable)

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.

Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".

Right but none of them overtly states that they enjoy 40k because of it's imbalance rather in spite of it. They just think it's better than the previous editions which could mean a bunch of different things.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.

Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".

Right but none of them overtly states that they enjoy 40k because of it's imbalance rather in spite of it. They just think it's better than the previous editions which could mean a bunch of different things.

Indeed, they're just bunch of random quotes with no context to them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Thus, when an Ork or Tyranid player gets creamed by a Taudar gunline/Wave serpent circus because his army is several editions out of date/his codex was terribad and filled with underpreforming units he doesn't feel like he truly earned a defeat, he feels like he just got smashed with a ton of Bricks because the rules authors were too lazy to see if they were screwing over people for playing what they wanted to use in a setting outside of the twisted nether realm that is whatever passes for GW's playtesting.

This. And don't bother justifying this as "narrative", because a one-sided slaughter is not a very interesting story. For that you need a relatively balanced game where each side has a reasonable hope of victory, and a reason to care about the outcome.

I'd really like to see the kinds of games that go on in GW's in house play testing that lets them miss things like the screamer star, strip biomancy away from Tyranids while doing absolutely nothing about Daemons abusing these powers on their monstrous creatures to an even greater extent (and having divinitation to boot), let Necron fliers go around for dirt cheap prices, or conclude that abysmal units like the Howling Banshee need no fixing (despite the Banshee being perhaps the most iconic Eldar unit and one of the first things anyone introduced to the Eldar will see, and thus likely buy) but the already decent Wave Serpent needed to throw out Loota-levels of firepower from a grotesquely durable and mobile platform.

Because there's no way anything resembling a competitive list has seen the light of day there.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I don't know why. Take X-Wing.

A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.

Take Infinity.

An army of elite super soldiers with a remote piloted battle mech versus a rag-tag force of the fore lorned and forgotten that use weapons of centuries past or whatever may be acquired off the black market; the latter being few in number with superiority, the former using presence of strength in numbers banded together (game mechanic called linked teams) and weight of fire power to win the day.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.

Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".

Right but none of them overtly states that they enjoy 40k because of it's imbalance rather in spite of it. They just think it's better than the previous editions which could mean a bunch of different things.

Exactly. We also have no context regarding those quotes. For all we know the person might have said "6th ed is the most fun I've had in 40k. I wish, however, that it were more balanced so I could play my Blood Angels rather than my Tau." but then you cut it to just "6th ed is the most fun I've had in 40k."

Ninja'd by Grimtuff. Curse you, stylish funny man

While it would make things more vanilla (though that seemed fine in the old days) I think that the loss in prevalence of USR's would do a great deal to balance out units. Make them stand on their stat-lines and wargear again.

If I were to somehow get a typical Daemonic cheese list into GW's in-house play testing games, how quickly would it take for them to realize how badly they've screwed up?

It couldn't hurt in getting rid of some of the bloat either. I am sure I am not the only one sick of having to spend a good chunk of the game looking for two different rules to see if my guy died or not.

@Kain

No, they are probably well aware of the balance issues with their game. They just don't care.

 Kain wrote:
If I were to somehow get a typical Daemonic cheese list into GW's in-house play testing games, how quickly would it take for them to realize how badly they've screwed up?

They'd probably just kick you out and say that nobody ever uses that stuff. If there's one thing we can be sure of from GW, it's not admitting they've made a mistake.

And then they'll raise the prices of the units you showed them.

For the record, I think 6E is more fun, or at least has the potential to be so, if it were better balanced and supported.

I think the problem with 40k is that the Devs do not seem to grasp that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I don't know why. Take X-Wing.

A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.

Strengths balanced against weaknesses.

A double-Falcon list hogging the table-edge is virtually unbeatable for a TIE Interceptor list.

A TIE Swarm with Howlrunner will beat an equally pointed Tie Swarm without Howlrunner every time.

A B-Wing with Advanced Sensors is infinitely superiour to a B-Wing with any other 3 pts. upgrade.

Etc....



X-Wing release very much on churning out continues goodies to keep people buying, upping the ante with each wave.


For a game with only 12 models in the entire range, only two factions, only one type of terrain, etc.. it is ridiculously badly balanced.

If you want to play 40K X-Wing style, it is easy enough.

- Remove all factions but 2.
- Reduce to Game to 12 Miniatures, 6 per faction (e.g. Tac Marine = X-Wing, Assault Marine = A Wing, Eldar Guardian = Tie Fighter.,,.. something like this).
- Standardize all weapons into a single profile.
- Standardize all weapon ranges
- Standardize all types of movement to be equal.
- Remove rules for LD and moral, for transports, for psionics, etc..
- Remove Close Combat.
- Play on a flat table with only one type of terrain (no buildings, etc..).
- Play with only 3 to 5 miniatures per side
- Deploy everything at the start of the game at the board-edge.. no reserves, infiltrate, scout, etc..
- Reduce upgrade options to a handful each.
- etc....

Not that hard really to do.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I don't know why. Take X-Wing.

A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.

Strengths balanced against weaknesses.

A double-Falcon list hogging the table-edge is virtually unbeatable for a TIE Interceptor list.

A TIE Swarm with Howlrunner will beat an equally pointed Tie Swarm without Howlrunner every time.

A B-Wing with Advanced Sensors is infinitely superiour to a B-Wing with any other 3 pts. upgrade.

Etc....



X-Wing release very much on churning out continues goodies to keep people buying, upping the ante with each wave.


For a game with only 12 models in the entire range, only two factions, only one type of terrain, etc.. it is ridiculously badly balanced.

If you want to play 40K X-Wing style, it is easy enough.

- Remove all factions but 2.
- Reduce to Game to 12 Miniatures, 6 per faction (e.g. Tac Marine = X-Wing, Assault Marine = A Wing, Eldar Guardian = Tie Fighter.,,.. something like this).
- Standardize all weapons into a single profile.
- Standardize all weapon ranges
- Standardize all types of movement to be equal.
- Remove rules for LD and moral, for transports, for psionics, etc..
- Remove Close Combat.
- Play on a flat table with only one type of terrain (no buildings, etc..).
- Play with only 3 to 5 miniatures per side
- Deploy everything at the start of the game at the board-edge.. no reserves, infiltrate, scout, etc..
- Reduce upgrade options to a handful each.
- etc....

Not that hard really to do.

Balance =/= All options and combinations of options are equal against each other. Of course a buffed TIE swarm list will beat an unbuffed one. Of course TIE/in lists would have a solid counter. That's all part of designing an interesting game.

Pictured here: The GW Dev team in response to cries for rebalancing the game for fairness (harsh language warning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aznFLJ5qjl8

You like the "12 models" thing to bash X Wing with don't you?

How many different pilots?

How many elite pilot talents?

How many secondary weapons?

How many upgrades?

How many crew?

Now, given many of those can be taken in combination with each other across multiple versions of "12 ships" how many actual variations of units have we got?

You are really vehemently opposed to any other opinion than yours, aren't you?

GW could do a great deal towards balancing 40K in one step, which the absolute basic part of it would be:

-Don't make any army choice inherently be able to buff other army choices other than for leadership tests. Remove all of those USR back to a USR setting like in 4th edition.

All the crazy rules that alter how Unit A operates compared to how it is placed(or purchased in a list) in conjunction to Unit B are where tons of issues stem from. Used to be all you had to worry about were leadership buffs, or small very situational things. Now a force in 40K can be this large web of interconnected rules.

I'll say it again, but without any kind of nastyness or sarcasm. 40K would be considered "balanced" by nearly all players simply if taking any army as a mono-codex list had the same chance of a win as any other.

 azreal13 wrote:
You like the "12 models" thing to bash X Wing with don't you?

How many different pilots?

How many elite pilot talents?

How many secondary weapons?

How many upgrades?

How many crew?

Now, given many of those can be taken in combination with each other across multiple versions of "12 ships" how many actual variations of units have we got?

So what? Add a few things like "chapter tactics" or Kill-Team style USR to the "40K-X-Wing-style" as outlined above. Most of the pilots in X-Wing are identical except for one single stat-point. Most options are never taken in "competitive" play, because everyone uses the same few anyhow.... PtL, Advanced Sensors, Stealth Upgrade, etc... ya know the suspects.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
You are really vehemently opposed to any other opinion that yours, aren't you?

GW could do a great deal towards balancing 40K in one step, which the absolute basic part of it would be:

-Don't make any army choice inherently be able to buff other army choices other than for leadership tests. Remove all of those USR back to a USR setting like in 4th edition.

All the crazy rules that alter how Unit A operates compared to how it is placed(or purchased in a list) in conjunction to Unit B are where tons of issues stem from. Used to be all you had to worry about were leadership buffs, or small very situational things. Now a force in 40K can be this large web of interconnected rules.

I personally like how Warmahordes handles allies (or mercs/minions). The vast majority of the buffs that a Warcaster/lock can give out are "friendly faction". Mercs/minons are only considered "friendly" and not part of the faction, so cannot get access to these buffs unless a ranking officer is attached, 2 of which in the factions that have them are named characters and thus can only be taken once.

As soon as this guy dies, they are no longer "friendly faction".


40k should have a similar system, as the levels of allies on the table just does not cut it, as TauDar demonstrates.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
You like the "12 models" thing to bash X Wing with don't you?

How many different pilots?

How many elite pilot talents?

How many secondary weapons?

How many upgrades?

How many crew?

Now, given many of those can be taken in combination with each other across multiple versions of "12 ships" how many actual variations of units have we got?

So what? Add a few things like "chapter tactics" or Kill-Team style USR to the "40K-X-Wing-style" as outlined above. Most of the pilots in X-Wing are identical except for one single stat-point. Most options are never taken in "competitive" play, because everyone uses the same few anyhow.... PtL, Advanced Sensors, Stealth Upgrade, etc... ya know the suspects.

So there's not "12 ships" which is your disingenuous way of trying to paint X Wing as much simpler than it is.

In reality, most 40K units are just riffs on one or two basic archetypes (every single Marine infantry unit is essentially the same with slightly varied equipment) so to bash X Wing for something that 40K is also guilty of to a great extent, is just another of your flawed arguments.

But those are all upgrades separate from the basic stat-lines of the ships. They are equal to wargear in 40K.

Possibly aside from the TIE Advanced, there is no basic, un-upgraded ship choice that is considered to be "crap" like there are units in 40K.

In reality, most 40K units are just riffs on one or two basic archetypes (every single Marine infantry unit is essentially the same with slightly varied equipment) so to bash X Wing for something that 40K is also guilty of to a great extent, is just another of your flawed arguments.

And that's not really even equatable to X-Wing, because two ships may be the same stats, but the "small" change in pilot skill (a single stat) makes a huge difference. But yes. With the exception of characters, most a Marine Codex is a very small selection of identical statlines.

To quote myself:

I'll say it again, but without any kind of nastyness or sarcasm. 40K would be considered much more "balanced" by nearly all players simply if taking any army as a mono-codex list automatically had the same chance of a win (mechanically) as any other. There would be no "Tier Codexes"

 AegisGrimm wrote:
But those are all upgrades separate from the basic stat-lines of the ships. They are equal to wargear in 40K.

Possibly aside from the TIE Advanced, there is no basic, un-upgraded ship choice that is considered to be "crap" like there are units in 40K.

Well, even if it is only the TIE Advanced (and no other pilots, upgrades, etc.., that nobody ever uses?), that is a full 8.3% of the entire game that fulfills this. A good deal more than an entire Codex in 40K.

Blood Angels in 6th edition is commonly regarded as an entire codex that is horrible to play as.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Blood Angels in 6th edition is commonly regarded as an entire codex that is horrible to play as.

Perhaps.

But it is still less than 8%, and it is in itself more than twice as old as the entire game of X-Wing. We shall see how the TIE Advanced fares 3 years from now.

And of course, 40K isn't "praised" as an allegedly balanced game in the first place.

40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:

Codex: Space Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angel
Grey Knights
Chaos Space Marines

I've actually had solid results with the Advanced under "competitive" conditions (playing tourney rules against friends who were using tourney lists when they were practicing for a sanctioned event) so even then, one can't call it and certainly can't start trying to ascribe statistics to it.

 TheKbob wrote:
40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:

Codex: Space Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angel
Grey Knights
Chaos Space Marines

Sounds like there must be great demand among player for these.