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.

 hellpato wrote:


I don't know why 40k should be balanced.

Pfft, I know right?

Balance is overrated anyways.

LordBlades wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
I know people will blast me but look at World of Warcraft. Video game MMO that has had a fair share of balance issues.

They respond to fix one issue but greatly break another. Make two classes seem somewhat alike or balanced and the players throw a fit about how they don't want to play a style similar to another class.

Or complain that the new ability is the same as another ability.

When you try to give everyone a little of their own flavor you end up with this problem.

Then how does let's say Warmahordes avoid it? 6 factions in Warmachine (plus mercenaries), 4(i think) in Hordes (+ minions), each woth their own distinctive flavor and yet pretty balanced.

They manage to balance the game because they actually give a feth about balance instead of just selling more colossals. Don't tell the apologists though, they'll just straw man and move goalposts saying things like "but perfect balance is impossible" when nobody on here has ever asked for perfect balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hellpato wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

As other's have said. 30K is exactly as balanced as 40K would be with only Space Marines.

It boggles my mind that people say things like this, considering that 40K marine armies match-up horribly with each other. Chaos Space Marines would like to have a word with you in regards to how evenly 40K marine armies are balanced against one another.

Ha! That's a good point, I hadn't even thought of that.

I don't know why 40k should be balanced. Different worlds, different technologies and let the best win.

It should be balanced because balance makes the game more fun for everyone and prevents you from hemorrhaging customers, causing revenue and profit to plummet. Who wants to play a game where you lose the minute you choose which army you want to play, but you only find out you lost after spending $1,000 and a year building and painting the army? Now your turn. Why the hell shouldn't the game be balanced? How does the enormous amount of imbalance in the current game benefit anyone other than those who already owned a bunch of wave serpents at the expense of the other 90% of players?

I think one reason 30k is better balanced than 40k is because 30k is devised in these fixed volumes. The majority of all the armies were written at the same time; even if they aren't released all at once they're released several at a time. This keeps 30k tighter with few things going too far from the norm. 40k on the other hand is released and revisited one army at a time so there is no way to account for balance. It is especially when you consider that sales of an individual codex perform better the less balanced it is.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think one reason 30k is better balanced than 40k is because 30k is devised in these fixed volumes. The majority of all the armies were written at the same time; even if they aren't released all at once they're released several at a time. This keeps 30k tighter with few things going too far from the norm. 40k on the other hand is released and revisited one army at a time so there is no way to account for balance. It is especially when you consider that sales of an individual codex perform better the less balanced it is.

Once again, 30k is balanced because the people writing the rules actually give a feth about balance. 40k is not impossible to balance. It's only impossible to balance if you write rules solely to sell models without any regard for game balance, you're lazy or you're incompetent. GW checks all 3 of those boxes.

 Toofast wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think one reason 30k is better balanced than 40k is because 30k is devised in these fixed volumes. The majority of all the armies were written at the same time; even if they aren't released all at once they're released several at a time. This keeps 30k tighter with few things going too far from the norm. 40k on the other hand is released and revisited one army at a time so there is no way to account for balance. It is especially when you consider that sales of an individual codex perform better the less balanced it is.

Once again, 30k is balanced because the people writing the rules actually give a feth about balance. 40k is not impossible to balance. It's only impossible to balance if you write rules solely to sell models without any regard for game balance, you're lazy or you're incompetent. GW checks all 3 of those boxes.

your both correct and seem to be arguing the same point from different directions.

1: its true that as each army in 40k is written in a vacuum it seems, that no attempt at balance is made
2: these writers are told or motivated by the sales department to make good rules to sell the models, but because of number 1 above, they screw it up sometimes (my poor poor land speeder vengeance)

30k Is balanced (mostly, looking at you pre FAQ dual plasma toting moritat) because the rules team have A: sat down together with the fluff writers and hashed it all out, and B: done it all at the same time.

 Formosa wrote:

2: these writers are told or motivated by the sales department to make good rules to sell the models, but because of number 1 above, they screw it up sometimes (my poor poor land speeder vengeance)

I just can't believe this when the results are so over the place. Sure, some new kits get really strong rules; Heldrake springs to mind. Conversely, in the same release, the dragon things get awful rules, to the point I can't remember what silly name GW gave them.

The DA release was mostly mediocre. Then we got strong Knights. But then the Eldar release saw a new kit, the flyer, have mediocre rules while a staple of most armies got a huge boost with the Serpent.

The IG release had the middling Taurox, then a strong Wyvern but weak Hydra dual kit. Stormtroopers remain meh at best. All the while, basic Russes got huge boosts almost universally.

There is no rhyme or reason why some units get super strong rules, and others really weak rules. I can't for a second imagine that sales department are pushing for strong rules for new models, and if they are, it only shows the true depth of the incompetency of the rules team.

I used to believe GW made rules to push model sales. Then the new Nids came. All new models (so GW probably wanted to sell)'and yet all but one had pretty bad rules (not good by any standard).

what you have said isn't mutually exclusive, because codexs seem to be made in a vacuum the writers don't talk to each other, so for example you tell the writers to make the dark talon a good kit and give it kick ass rules, but because they don't know how to play the game they give it rules that they THINK are good but are infact... crap

As my girlfriend just said who is watching me write this over my shoulder, they are not "gamers" and haven't a clue how to do it properly.

Which is why I added at the end of my statement that if that were the case, it only shows the true depth of their ineptitude.

I still find it highly unlikely they're being directed by sales to make awesome rules for new units.

and I don't disagree sails, its monstrously incompetent, and its quite easy to see that they are directed (to an extent) by sails as every edition you get the staple books rather quickly.

Right, I just don't think sales micromanages them to ensure that model 'X' gets good enough rules. I'm sure there's some macro level direction.

Regardless, it reeks of incompetence either way you cut it.

Which makes me sad.

The good news for GW is that while they've lost much of my interest in the core game, I still regularly keep an eye on the HH stuff, and the new Solar release is shaping up quite nicely. I've always liked the FW Russ patterns better than the GW ones, and the Dracosan is a straight up pimp wagon. And the Russ arty looks so much better than the standard bassies.

Its a toss up where my vehicle budget will go to; FW or Vic Minis when the Matilda finishes up.

Dude I play with always goes on and on about the 30k goodness.

 Formosa wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think one reason 30k is better balanced than 40k is because 30k is devised in these fixed volumes. The majority of all the armies were written at the same time; even if they aren't released all at once they're released several at a time. This keeps 30k tighter with few things going too far from the norm. 40k on the other hand is released and revisited one army at a time so there is no way to account for balance. It is especially when you consider that sales of an individual codex perform better the less balanced it is.

Once again, 30k is balanced because the people writing the rules actually give a feth about balance. 40k is not impossible to balance. It's only impossible to balance if you write rules solely to sell models without any regard for game balance, you're lazy or you're incompetent. GW checks all 3 of those boxes.

your both correct and seem to be arguing the same point from different directions.

1: its true that as each army in 40k is written in a vacuum it seems, that no attempt at balance is made
2: these writers are told or motivated by the sales department to make good rules to sell the models, but because of number 1 above, they screw it up sometimes (my poor poor land speeder vengeance)

30k Is balanced (mostly, looking at you pre FAQ dual plasma toting moritat) because the rules team have A: sat down together with the fluff writers and hashed it all out, and B: done it all at the same time.

I agree with Toofast. I just don't think its laziness or incompetence, its more likely institutional/office culture as to whats important. GW tries to sell the "latest and greatest," so they aren't as fixated on the stuff they've previously done. FW is selling something more experiential and are looking are greater totality of their game.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 tommse wrote:
With all the hassle people have with 40k, there´s always someone saying that Forgeworld did a great job with their HH stuff and there never is anyone argumenting against it.
What makes people view 30k as a better system?

As other's have said. 30K is exactly as balanced as 40K would be with only Space Marines.

Add more armies to 30K, it becomes closer to 40K.

Take away even more options from 30K, and it becomes "more" balanced".

Hell, if you reduce 40K to only 2 factions with only 5 or 6 different models/options aside, you'd have X-Wing
If you reduce 40K to only mirror matches of one army with identical miniatures each side, you're getting close to chess,

What people perceive as balance is simply lack of diversity and what people perceive as lack of balance is simply variety.

There are games out there that feature completely different factions and are still ballanced. Diversity and variety makes ballancing difficult (if you don't have variety, ballancing becomes kind-of obsolete anyways) but it does not mean that asymetric factions are automatically ballanced or imballanced or whatever. GW does a horrible job at ballance while Forgewold tries to offer a decent game. For now i think it's fairly ballanced, even with the two oddjob factions. I don't know if FW will be adding more (Arbites? Xenos? Something entirely new?) but for now it's ok.

I want pre fall eldar. Instead of primarchs they could do the original phoenix lords (the current ones are just some guy stuck in a suit that has the spirit stone of the original).

They've said they definitely aren't doing Xenos though. Also, the Fall is way before the Heresy.

I think they're doing Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I don't know what other armies there is.

 ImAGeek wrote:
They've said they definitely aren't doing Xenos though. Also, the Fall is way before the Heresy.

Not that much actually.

Eldar Codex puts it slightly ahead of 30K, but not hugely so.

The list design for 30k is much better; you have a lot more flexibility in how you feel like playing your army thematically. You can't do an all-jump force, or an all-armour force, or an airborne force in 40k anywhere near as easily; the Consuls setup gives you a lot of options without taking up a lot of space; you can actually give your commander a bodyguard geared like he is. The internal balance is much better, since everyone's using very similar lists the external balance is also much better. The variety of units makes fights more visually interesting than Marines v. Marines in 40k, you don't have quite the same level of box-fights when armour is involved. You don't have to deal with some of the more inane extremes 40k's Codexes go to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
They've said they definitely aren't doing Xenos though. Also, the Fall is way before the Heresy.

Not that much actually.

Eldar Codex puts it slightly ahead of 30K, but not hugely so.

They keep changing it around. Last I checked the current state of canon is that the Fall was the cause of the Warp storms that cut Earth off from the rest of the galaxy and cued the Emperor in that the time was ripe to unite the stars, the Great Crusade kicked off after the Warp calmed down.

 ImAGeek wrote:
They've said they definitely aren't doing Xenos though. Also, the Fall is way before the Heresy.

I think they're doing Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I don't know what other armies there is.

There is also the Imperial Army to do. The Solar Auxilia are just the elite elements of the Imperial Army.
We should also get Demons at some point, too.
And , of course, Dark Mechanicum, as well as just more Mechanicum in general.

Ah okay, sorry. I thought the fall was like millions of years ago. Still, was before the Heresy though

But yeah I remember them saying they're definitely not doing Xenos. I completely forgot about the Imperial Army.

Don't forget, 30k is about the Heresy and the battle between all SM until they went to Terra, not about xenos. All the gaming system is about a lot of SM again a lot of SM. If you dont like that, 30k is not for you. ....

I wouldn't rule out a u-turn on xenos.

Xenos were a part of the heresy back in Space Marine 1st edition, and Forge World is taking some inspiration from those days (Paramar for example).

Even if its something as simple as "Loyalists can take allies from Codex Eldar, Traitors from Codex Orks" (as Word Bearers can already do with Codex Daemons)

 Gashrog wrote:
I wouldn't rule out a u-turn on xenos.

Xenos were a part of the heresy back in Space Marine 1st edition, and Forge World is taking some inspiration from those days (Paramar for example).

Even if its something as simple as "Loyalists can take allies from Codex Eldar, Traitors from Codex Orks" (as Word Bearers can already do with Codex Daemons)

I don't see that happening, why would SM ally with Orks who they've been trying to wipe out for so long? Even traitors, they don't need orks, especially with their Daemon allies.

I don't see them doing a you turn on the Xenos because Xenos aren't a part of the heresy.

Truth be told, there is really little need for them to do a "u-turn" on Xenos. Orks are still Orks, no matter the millennium, so the current Ork Codex would work just fine. The Tau Codex can easily represent any of the technologically advanced races encountered during the Crusade. Even a Necron Tomb World or two might have been disturbed. And, would the Eldar of 40K really be that wildly different from the Eldar of 30K?

Johnnytorrance wrote:
I know people will blast me but look at World of Warcraft. Video game MMO that has had a fair share of balance issues.

They respond to fix one issue but greatly break another. Make two classes seem somewhat alike or balanced and the players throw a fit about how they don't want to play a style similar to another class.

Or complain that the new ability is the same as another ability.

When you try to give everyone a little of their own flavor you end up with this problem.

That's because Blizzard is busy listening to players, and every dev has a preferred class... rather than taking an objective look at the balance between classes.

 ImAGeek wrote:

I don't see that happening, why would SM ally with Orks who they've been trying to wipe out for so long? Even traitors, they don't need orks, especially with their Daemon allies.

Waste not want not. It takes time and blood to wipe out orks, why spend both when you can point them at your enemy instead and let them kill eachother? Certainly it goes against Imperial doctrine, but so does burning your own worlds and slaughtering innocents to summon daemons - which didn't become standard issue to all traitor units as soon as the heresy erupted, it took time for the corruption to spread.

 ImAGeek wrote:

I don't see them doing a you turn on the Xenos because Xenos aren't a part of the heresy.

No?

White Dwarf 110: Lugganath Craftworld and Imperial Cockatrices Titan Order ally against rebels during the Battle of Balthor Sigma (complete with an Eldar Phantom flying an Imperial banner - miniature painted by Forge World head honcho Tony Cotrell)

White Dwarf 110: Iyanden Craftworld vs Rebels during the Scouring of Arten's World.

White Dwarf 110: "Make no mistake human, We do not fight for your Emperor, we fight against Horus." ~ Lord-Phoenix Madaillath, Biel-Tan Craftworld

Codex Titanicus: Iyanden vs Emperor's Children on the Moon of Balthon.

Codex Titanicus: Lugganath vs rebels on Yarant I (One of the 'recent' Horus Heresy artbooks makes reference to the Space Wolves recieving aid from 'an unexpected quarter' on Yarant)

Orks had less specific examples but were also available to traitors as allies.

Now, you're thinking WD110? That's so utterly ancient as to be completely irrelevant, and I'd have agreed with you before Forge World decided to devote 13 pages of Book 3: Extermination to the First Battle of Paramar V, a throwaway Heresy era battle not mentioned in print since WD109.

The better question is why bother making HH-era units for xenos when they all fought and were organized in the exact same way as they are in 40K? There's no difference between 30K Eldar and 40K Eldar aesthetically, socially or in military doctrine/organization. Same with Orks and all the other 40K xenos they encountered during the crusade. Meanwhile, the entire Imperial hierarchy was flipped upside down. The Imperial Army looked completely different from the Guard of the 41st millenium, and used all kinds of technology that was lost during the Heresy- Space Marines looked different, fought different and also used all manners of technology no longer in service after the 31st millenium.

I wouldn't mind seeing some short-stories and maybe even some mission types centered around Xenos-Astartes interaction in the HH books, but I don't think an alternate model line and/or set of rules for xenos armies is justified.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The better question is why bother making HH-era units for xenos when they all fought and were organized in the exact same way as they are in 40K? There's no difference between 30K Eldar and 40K Eldar aesthetically, socially or in military doctrine/organization. Same with Orks and all the other 40K xenos they encountered during the crusade. Meanwhile, the entire Imperial hierarchy was flipped upside down. The Imperial Army looked completely different from the Guard of the 41st millenium, and used all kinds of technology that was lost during the Heresy- Space Marines looked different, fought different and also used all manners of technology no longer in service after the 31st millenium.

I wouldn't mind seeing some short-stories and maybe even some mission types centered around Xenos-Astartes interaction in the HH books, but I don't think an alternate model line and/or set of rules for xenos armies is justified.

I can agree on a lot of this but that just means that 40k xenos are covered. The hrud, for example, would be a pretty badass addition IMO. Not to mention any number of now extinct xenos who could be wrote in as being caught in the cross fire.

I realize they aren't 40k xenos, but didn't the Chaos aligned Dark Angels have a xenos ally?

They had Chaos allies didn't they?