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.

 Pacific wrote:
I suppose it comes down to a simple equation of the more options the player has, the more risk inherent in the design of the game mechanics.

I remember recently looking up what relic meant only to see it's basically 0-1. I was in love, forgeworld was adult enough to potentially risk their bottom line if it meant a semblance of sanity. This is something that is such a foreign concept in 40k now, the audacity to say no.


I'm still very curious to see what GW did with planetstrike, because the original still existed in a system with no allies and an actual forge org chart. Planetstrike set itself apart by having the attack and defender access different force org's. Now that they've thrown the force org chart in the toilet, I was just curious how they'd reign it back in for planetstrike.

There's no need to choose. It is QUITE possible for a competent game designer to design a game with plenty of options that is well balanced, not just between factions, but multiple options within factions.

As a tyranid player, if my army/dex was balanced I would have a huge amount of options - no need to add anything new! What you see now for the most part with nid armies is the same few models and weapons/biomorphs that work best because so much is subpar. When you see a hive tyrant it almost always will be a flyrant with 2 sets of devourers - its not because everyone loves this build - it is because with poor balance we have few options.

A balanced ruleset works for casual/competitive players alike. IF you are playing amongst friends you can do whatever you want anyways regardless of rules if that is your desire. Balance helps everyone.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm still very curious to see what GW did with planetstrike, because the original still existed in a system with no allies and an actual forge org chart. Planetstrike set itself apart by having the attack and defender access different force org's. Now that they've thrown the force org chart in the toilet, I was just curious how they'd reign it back in for planetstrike.

Planetstrike might have done interesting things with the FOC, but it was arguably the least balanced thing GW has ever published. The defender automatically wins every Planetstrike game unless they decide to go easy on their opponent and deliberately take a weak army and terrain setup. And since GW gives absolutely no guidelines on how to use the defender's advantages in a "fair" manner it's very easy for even people who aren't looking for an auto-win to create an extremely unbalanced game.

Amusingly, this is one situation where GW's obsessive focus on profit might actually benefit us. The worst Planetstrike abuses involved building your own terrain, and I can't imagine GW allowing that in the new version. If it only has rules for using specific Citadel™ Terrain™ Miniatures™ on your Citadel™ Realm™ Of™ Battle™ Board™ it will probably be a lot harder to create an auto-win situation.

Balance unless I'm playing a scenario. The battle of thermopylae is never going to be balanced for instance, but that doesn't mean both sides can't win.

This immediately made me think of GW vs PP in play style differences. PP games (W/H) are lacking heavily in options. From the number of models in a unit (min versus max) to the way a model is equipped (you never choose its loadout), the game limits options to ensure more focus on game balance.

40k gives many options, from weapons taken to number of models in a unit, to types of units. In fact, you can even play unbounbd if you want to go "no safeties" and just have a "game" with virtually no rules.

*I* prefer balance, because I like to play games where skill has a say, rather than just building a stupid Eldar army and crushing people because my codex is the flavor of the year. I do enjoy 40k to a degree, as I love the models and if my opponent and I agree on a narrow ruleset we casn actually play the same game. The fact that we have to do that shows a major flaw in the game TO ME, and therefore I prefer to have a game where everyone is playing the same game.

The two styles cater to different personalities. People who prefer the options over balance are looking for something very different in their games than I do. I have people locally who play for fluff, and are more "role-player" than "War-gamer." Others prefer the models, others still LIKE the imbalance that 40k has JUST so that they can exploit the game and WAAC. Many WAAC players who go to W/H don't last long, lol.

I play casual, themed games in 40k, and they are fun. But in a general sense, if I had to choose, it would always be balance over options, fluff, model-prettiness, and anything else you can come up with. Simply put, I play games to have a fair game (as often as possible in this genre of games!)

 Moktor wrote:
This immediately made me think of GW vs PP in play style differences. PP games (W/H) are lacking heavily in options. From the number of models in a unit (min versus max) to the way a model is equipped (you never choose its loadout), the game limits options to ensure more focus on game balance.

40k gives many options, from weapons taken to number of models in a unit, to types of units. In fact, you can even play unbounbd if you want to go "no safeties" and just have a "game" with virtually no rules.

*I* prefer balance, because I like to play games where skill has a say, rather than just building a stupid Eldar army and crushing people because my codex is the flavor of the year. I do enjoy 40k to a degree, as I love the models and if my opponent and I agree on a narrow ruleset we casn actually play the same game. The fact that we have to do that shows a major flaw in the game TO ME, and therefore I prefer to have a game where everyone is playing the same game.

The two styles cater to different personalities. People who prefer the options over balance are looking for something very different in their games than I do. I have people locally who play for fluff, and are more "role-player" than "War-gamer." Others prefer the models, others still LIKE the imbalance that 40k has JUST so that they can exploit the game and WAAC. Many WAAC players who go to W/H don't last long, lol.

I play casual, themed games in 40k, and they are fun. But in a general sense, if I had to choose, it would always be balance over options, fluff, model-prettiness, and anything else you can come up with. Simply put, I play games to have a fair game (as often as possible in this genre of games!)

Interesting to note that MkI of Warmachine was much closer to 40k. You bought the min unit and could add X many guys up to the maximum (still didn't get the same plethora of options, but really is Plasma Gun vs. Meltagun vs. Grav Gun vs Flamer really a meaningful option?). MkII changed that to only be min or max squads.

Part of the issue is that since GW doesn't balance anything, you have a nearly random gap between "good" and "garbage" units in the same book, to say nothing of across codexes. So a Wave Serpent is way OP, but an Eldar army with lots of Aspect squads (not just Dire Avengers) in Wave Serpents is fluffy. So an army like that will be fluffy and powerful, while something like a footslooging Iron Warriors siege army will be underpowered, despite being fluffy. There's too great an imbalance.

I'd personally go for more options if the options make the units fun to use.

If it's not that, I'd go for balance.

Does 40k realy give more options in most codex?


My main army for hordes cercle has quite a lot of options.
With
11 units, all but 1 with an upgrade I beleave.
13 warlocks all bringing something to the table with choice.
10 solo units.
19 warbeasts
That's a lot of options when you ad that there are mercs sand minions along with it.

Would be interesting to see how it's realy broken down in a codex for the difernt army's.
Maybe it's more a posiblity that 40k is rather choosing to ad options for there game differently than there simply being more.(this could also depend on what you take away as a meaningfull option. Also potently how it ads to the game also :0 )

Really tough choice, in the end I'd choose Balance over Options because:
1. I enjoy playing the game slightly more than the other aspects of the hobby, balance makes a game more competative/enjoyable
2. It would be easier for newcomers to get to grips with the game,
3. With balances forces you are "fighting" the player more than the army, having to rely more on tactics

However,

Having Options is awesome and I think its what sets WFB and 40k apart, plus you'd lose loads of hobbiests who colect the models for painting more than gaming

Balance does not really matter that much to me, but then again I rarely play and when I do, its mainly just for fun.
I like playing against the odds and I like the variation, I think that to make it more balanced would be to water it down so to speak.

I can see the other side of the argument though, I can see why competitive players could like more balance, it stands to reason.
I never really thought of it as a competitive game until I came to this forum.

 Crablezworth wrote:
To echo insaniak's last comment, this is a game where good intentions will not save you because people will project whatever they want on to you. Whether or not your intention was thematic or based on efficacy in game.

Unless of course, you talk to your opponent before hand and actually know what type of gamer they are.

I find the "balance" debate tends to be an ideal only when the player in question has a lot of games with people they do not know very well.

When you are close to the person these issues are much less strenuous.

@ orksmasha.
I really do not see why collectors need rules to let them collect minatures?
Or does GW confuse sales spiel to inspire purchases, with the functional requirement of random pick up games.
(That is the only purpose of the F.O.C and point values in 40k.)

Any group of friends can develop their own special narrative scenarios and units with as many new options as they want to devise.

However, a new player looking for a game , is better served with a well defined rule set that is balanced enough to allow random pick up games to be fun.

I enjoy narrative games as much as the next player.BUT my list of favorite narrative rules do not appear to have point values anywhere in sight.
(And not many have force composition lists either.)

Any game that includes point values and force organization charts, should be play tested enough to ensure enough balance to support enjoyable random pick up games.

 Eldarain wrote:
If something with more options isn't balanced wouldn't that lead to fewer actual choices as the superior "options" see vastly more play?

And it always does in my experience.

Also I think we talk about this as a binary, and it is way more relative than that.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Options, every time. I'd rather have the option to take something and be at a disadvantage than not have the option.

And it always does in my experience.

Also I think we talk about this as a binary, and it is way more relative than that.

An excellent point.

Personally, I love the background and the narrative of a game. However, I'll take a balanced ruleset over more options any day of the week I find that a well-balanced game is much more fun for both players, and easier (for me personally) to enjoy in a narrative as well.

I think in my case this certainly depends on whether you are a painter / modeller / collector or a gamer.

I know they are not mutually exclusive but in my case collecting, building and painting models and minis is my favourite part of the hobby and gaming for me is a secondary benefit.

However there are others who see the minis as tools to play a game and gaming is their primary benefit.

Because I fall into the painting and collecting camp for me it's all about options.

In other words I like to be able to model and paint lots of different things rather than having lots of stuff the same, or having to build and paint stuff purely because it's good in a game.

I like the new direction 40K is going in as it means I can now use my Super Heavies, Buildings and mixed lists to my heart's content but I can see why others don't enjoy that as much.

SInce this thread was posted, I've been asking my friends which option they'd prefer. I've only asked a few wargamers so far, but it's been a resounding "balance" over "options" for me.

Board gamers love balance the most, RPGers are all about options. The MTG dorks were split right in the middle (weeeird).

The couple minis gamers I talked to said balance, but with options. Cunningly brutal bunch, that lot.

Outside this poll they are absolutely not mutually exclusive.

How about (C) Competence

Proper playtesting and the desire to issue errata and rule changes outside of codex releases are very possible. If you care about your rules, you can have both :p

 MWHistorian wrote:
Outside this poll they are absolutely not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I know. I told them it's really a "chocolate in my peanut butter" situation. The best answer was that about proper internal/external balance allows for plenty of options when it's done well.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Outside this poll they are absolutely not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I know. I told them it's really a "chocolate in my peanut butter" situation. The best answer was that about proper internal/external balance allows for plenty of options when it's done well.

I love options, but I don't like how Gw implemented it. The model can use up to three x,Y, Z weapons and comes with only one of each, but you need to kit the squad out with Y,Y,Y. So you have to pay extra for that from bits services or scrounge them up somehow. Not a fan. I'd rather the kit comes with what it can have.

I really am struggling to understand why painter/collectors feel they need game developers to write rules to justify their purchases.

Painters and collectors just buy/create stuff they like the look of.

War game players buy the stuff they need to play the game.

If you are creative enough to create your own 'cool stuff' , then create your own cool rules to use them with.
And get opponents consent to use them .
No-one I know would refuse to play a narrative game with house rules to include creative cool stuff.

However, including rules for units that break the game JUST to sell expensive kits.
Destroys the fun for everyone .

Proper game development includes enough play testing , editing and proof reading to allow balance good enough for pick up games , and enough ACTUAL USABLE options to keep everyone happy.

Balance for me, mainly because of the rock paper scissors element. I'd prefer to win or lose a game based on tactics (assuming dice rolls even out) rather than because I picked an uber deathstar or units that an opponent cannot harm at all.

Im not sure if that falls under balance or poor rules writing though. Are they the same thing?

Those of you extolling the virtues of WMH balance obviously don't look at tournament lists. I'm sure people will quote one or two examples of someone winning a tournament with a weird list that nobody else uses while totally ignoring the fact that those cases are the exception rather than the rule. Here's an example of model usage in major tournaments in 2014 by Menoth (this was the easiest faction to find this data for but all the others would look similar. The data is comprised of 236 Protectorate of Menoth lists, played by 93 tournament entrants (fairly large sample size of players/tournaments all over the world).
Warjacks
1. Reckoner - 154 - (65.25%)*
2. Devout - 79 - (33.47%)*
3. Redeemer - 68 - (28.81%)
4. Judicator - 52 - (22.03%)*
5. Vanquisher - 48 - (20.34%)*
6. Templar - 28 - (11.86%)*
7. Repenter - 15 - (6.36%)*
8. Revenger - 6 - (2.54%)
9. Vigilant - 3 - (1.27%)*
10. Guardian - 2 - (0.85%)
10. Sanctifier - 2- (0.85%)
12. Crusader - 1 - (0.42%)
12. Dervish - 1 - (0.42%)

We have a clear top 5 and a whole bunch that are very rarely used. How is this different from the heavy support slot of most 40k books?

Units
1. Choir of Menoth - 199 - (84.32%)*
2. Exemplar Errants - 120 - (50.85%)*
3. Holy Zealots - 86 - (36.44%)
4. Temple Flameguard - 46 - (19.49%)*
5. Exemplar Bastions - 42 - (17.80%)*
6. Exemplar Vengers - 39 - (16.53%)*
7. Daughters of the Flame - 33 - (13.98%)*
8. Knights Exemplar - 27 - (11.44%)
9. Idrian Skirmishers - 23 - (9.75%)
10. Flame Bringers - 11 - (4.66%)
11. Flameguard Cleansers - 5 - (2.12%)*
12. Deliverers - 2 - (0.85%)
12. Deliverer Sunburst Crew - 2 - (0.85%)*

More of the same. A clear top 4, one of which was in nearly 90% of lists (auto take like dire avengers for eldar) and there's units that weren't even used at all (namely cinerators which PP were kind enough to include in the starter box everyone loves, probably to get rid of them because nobody in their right mind would buy this useless unit).

Solos
1. Vassal of Menoth - 187 - (79.24%)*
2. Wracks - 107 - (45.34%)
3. Hierophant - 79 - (33.47%)
4. Vassal Mechanik - 66 - (27.97%)*
5. Reclaimer - 41 - (17.37%)*
6. Knights Exemplar Seneschal - 33 - (13.98%)*
8. Exemplar Errant Seneschal - 23 - (9.75%)*
7. Paladin of the Order of the Wall - 19 - (8.05%)*
9. Attendant Priest - 16 - (6.78%)**
10. Exemplar Bastion Seneschal - 8 - (3.39%)
11. Allegiant of the Order of the Fist - 1 - (0.42%)

More of the same. 4 popular choices, 5 choices below 10% and more that nobody at all took.

Warcasters (Includes two players' Warcasters, whose lists are otherwise not included in the data)
1. Harbinger - 57 - (60.00%)
2. Feora2 - 39 - (41.05%)
3. Severius1 - 30 - (31.58%)
4. Kreoss3 - 25 - (26.32%)
5. High Reclaimer - 23 - (24.21%)
6. Kreoss1 - 22 - (23.16%)
7. Kreoss2 - 12 - (12.63%)
8. Severius2 - 10 - (10.53%)
9. Testament - 8 - (8.42%)
10. Amon - 4 - (4.21%)
10. Feora1 - 4 - (4.21%)
12. Reznik1 - 3 - (3.16%)
12. Thyra - 3 - (3.16%)
14. Vindictus - 2 - (2.11%)

Slightly more parity here but still 7 casters at 10% or less.

Mercenary Character Solos
1. Rhupert Carvolo, Piper of Ord - 73 - (78.49%)
2. Gorman di Wulfe, Rogue Alchemist - 57 - (61.29%)
3. Eiryss, Angel of Retribution - 51 - (54.84%)
4. Orin Midwinter, Rogue Inquisitor - 21 - (22.58%)
4. Saxon Orrik - 21 - (22.58%)
6. Kell Bailoch - 15 - (16.13%)
7. Anastasia di Bray - 11 - (11.83%)
8. Taryn di la Rovissi, Llaelese Gun Mage - 7 - (7.53%)
9. Eiryss, Mage Hunter of Ios - 6 - (6.45%)
9. Madelyn Corbeau, Ordic Courtesan - 6 - (6.45%)
11. Gastone Crosse - 4 - (4.30%)
12. Master Gunner Dougal MacNaile - 2 - (2.15%)
13. Alten Ashley - 1 - (1.08%)
13. First Mate Hawk - 1 - (1.08%)
13. Lord Rockbottom - 1 - (1.08%)

Notice a theme here? Every section has several units that are either auto take or auto take with a certain caster. The only difference is in 40k you have more options with each unit. I'm just tired of hearing how WMH is soooo much more balanced than 40k and every unit is useful bla bla bla. You can take that stance but good luck finding hard data to back it up.

Toofast wrote:
Notice a theme here? Every section has several units that are either auto take or auto take with a certain caster.

Which then leads to the next question: Is that because those units are better, or because they are perceived as being better?

Also, doesn't WMH have different event styles? How much does people taking armies geared towards specific events affect the pool of available options?

They are just flat out better. For example cinerators vs bastions. Bastions are the same cost, harder to kill, hit harder, can take UA to buff them even more and have reach. It's exactly like GH vs BC in the 5th edition SW codex but strip the extra attack from the BC. Why would anyone ever take them? No matter which caster you use or what the rest of your list looks like, there are exactly zero reasons to take cinerators over bastions. Every faction has choices like this, and it's not just restricted to units. The game as a whole is slightly better balanced but anyone who says WMH doesn't have auto takes or useless units like 40k is either purposely ignoring facts to make a point or delusional.

While there are certainly units that work better in situations than others in WM/H, I'd love to see that same data for 40K tournaments, I'm willing to bet it's a lot narrower than the WM/H data, where although there are several units taken far more often than others, most of the units are taken in at least some lists.

How many tournament lists do you think are taking say, purgation squads? Or Pyrovores, or rough riders? The Deliver Sunburst Crew is easily regarded as one of the single worst units Menoth has access to, but it's there.

Another thing to consider is that data was taken from a 2 list format. Anything under 10% was taken as a one off in people's backup/skew lists and would've been a 0 in a single list TAC format like 40k tournaments. I would venture a guess that between games, based on one list formats, the numbers would be about the same. The only variables would be certain factions like ret or cyriss that don't have as many options, or stuff like tyranids and sisters where they only have a few competitive units. If you compared the original 4 WMH to the top 4 in 40k (eldar, sm, necrons, daemons), the numbers would be almost indistinguishable.

Deadawake1347 wrote:
How many tournament lists do you think are taking say, purgation squads? Or Pyrovores, or rough riders?

Heh, I don't think I've seen Rough Riders on a table since 2nd edition.