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.

There is a distinct difference between poor balance, bad match ups and poor decisions.

Throwing all anti infantry weapons on your heavy weapon choices is a bad decision.

Taking an arc dodger list against a turret list in X Wing is a bad match up.

Taking a decent well rounded force with anti infantry, anti tank, speed and durability all featuring somewhere and still getting your arse handed to you by a Codex which just flat out has more efficient choices is poor balance.

 Azreal13 wrote:
There is a distinct difference between poor balance, bad match ups and poor decisions.

Throwing all anti infantry weapons on your heavy weapon choices is a bad decision.

Taking an arc dodger list against a turret list in X Wing is a bad match up.

Taking a decent well rounded force with anti infantry, anti tank, speed and durability all featuring somewhere and still getting your arse handed to you by a Codex which just flat out has more efficient choices is poor balance.

A decent well-rounded force with a little bit of everything will get crushed by a list that has a lot of one unit type. Try playing a TAC against Adamantium Lance or whathaveyou. You just don't have enough AT to stop it. No one ever will except another extreme list.

Or, for a converse example, try taking Adamantium Lance against all-airplane *anything*. Without AA guns, you'll get outmaneuvered and killed easily.

So...

Bad match ups?

Very true. The fact that I hate to play against GK and lose against them every time. Does not make the GK codex OP, nor does it mean that the AM codex suddenly doesn't suck for 7th ed, just because GK are bad match up.

Oddly enough the most balanced and good army books were those were seen as super OP. Eldar right now. GK back in 6th. If it doesn't realy matter what you take out of a codex and it still works, then the codex is good. Other wise you just pray to avoid getting a DA or chaos style codex, and try to be happy with the kind of a stuff GK or nids got.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But the problem is, then, that it is subjective.

No, not really. The minutiae may be, but the big picture is most assuredly not. The IG book being pretty low on the totem pole is not subjective opinion about its balance. Ratlings, Ogryn, and Sentinels being terrible while Wyverns and Pask are nearly auto-include is not subjective opinion about balance. These are things we can breakdown, analyze, test, and collect data on. The details or debating a 5pts increase or decrease is where things start getting subjective, but I'd argue if you're debating about a change that small, its impact won't be too noticeable and the unit is likely fairly balanced.

"Balance" becomes a line in the sand where the game is now "balanced enough." For some people, the game is Balanced Enough(tm) now, for others, when Knights are removed. For others, when Wave Serpents are toned down. For others, when Necrons no longer get Decurion. For others, when Flyrants have to walk. For some, all of these things and more.

All of which can be explained by people liking or disliking things, and not understanding game mechanics and likewise how to balance something. Most people simply don't care enough the mechanics to form an informed opinion about what needs help and what doesn't. Even more people take a single anecdote or two about an army they lost against and claim its broken. These are opinions you dismiss.

I'd argue that balance would be everything you said just above, and many others. I could see Knights staying, but changed to be more reasonable in standard game sizes, but that's neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion and my point.

The game may or may not need more balance, but to simply assert that it "does" while claiming such a subjective measure of balance is a bit silly. It's like saying "America should be more moral."

There's nothing subjective about saying the game needs more balance. It does. Whether or not you like it as it is is irrelevant to the claim that 40k is not a balanced game. You're conflating two arguments/points. The first being that 40k is not balanced and how/should they balance it, and the second being whether or not you're currently enjoying the game as it is. For some, like myself, the issues are connected, as my enjoyment and motivation for this game has dropped off in the face of the continued power creep and swings in balance, while others, as evidenced in this thread, are quite content to play as is and not concern themselves with balance issues.

To be honest I think that GK are a poor match up for most armies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"

There isn't a magical line obviously, but anything better than what there is now, anything that makes it seem like they put a modicum of thought into game balance, FAQs, erratas, consistently powered Codexes would all be an improvement.

SGTPozy wrote:
To be honest I think that GK are a poor match up for most armies.

Only matchup I don't particularly favor with GK is eldar and interestingly daemons and tyranids. I can't bully them with psychic as they can shut down a lot of my spells. Daemons and tyranids just fly over me making me take a lot of saves (if I don't get cleaning flame it's a tough match to win.) Eldar I just can't beat - bladestorm just ruins GK.

See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.

A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.

That seems reasonable and thematic to me.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

I'll come and watch the Black Ogrun boarding parties lead by Mortenebra with a single Bonejack dominate your average Haley2 tournament build any day. The gap is just as bad.

The game in question is played with multiple lists for one very specific reason - certain matchups have no chance whatsoever against some. Ask any TO, that's what the double lists are for in this case. And occasionally the whole team doesn't have the tools to beat a certain opponent in a team tournament - that's when a player is, to quote the common term, thrown under the bus.

I almost guarantee that match will be a lot closer than pitting a casual all-Terminator player against a "casual" Eldar player with WS spam.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.

A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.

That seems reasonable and thematic to me.

The game isn't well balanced. That's an objective statement. Whether it's balanced enough for you to enjoy the game still is where it becomes subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

I'll come and watch the Black Ogrun boarding parties lead by Mortenebra with a single Bonejack dominate your average Haley2 tournament build any day. The gap is just as bad.

The game in question is played with multiple lists for one very specific reason - certain matchups have no chance whatsoever against some. Ask any TO, that's what the double lists are for in this case. And occasionally the whole team doesn't have the tools to beat a certain opponent in a team tournament - that's when a player is, to quote the common term, thrown under the bus.

I almost guarantee that match will be a lot closer than pitting a casual all-Terminator player against a "casual" Eldar player with WS spam.

And the fact that they use a double list format is evidence that they are aware of some balance issues in the game and are trying to mitigate it. GW just ignore it and often make it worse with each release.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.

A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.

That seems reasonable and thematic to me.

The game isn't well balanced. That's an objective statement. Whether it's balanced enough for you to enjoy the game still is where it becomes subjective.

Which objective measure are you using for balance? What units does said measurement use, and how many units off of "balanced" is WH40k?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"

When an army can be chosen trough personal preference over maximizing a list, when a army no longer contains auto include/exclude, when the army points represent their performance compared to a similar priced other army.

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"

When an army can be chosen trough personal preference over maximizing a list, when a army no longer contains auto include/exclude, when the army points represent their performance compared to a similar priced other army.

So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?

Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?

Yes.

Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?

Yes.

Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.

Yes, providing they have anti tank weapons. Why should they not? Sentinels would be much more nimble and hard to hit, so it's not like even fluff wise it would be an easy victory for the tanks. Also if it was balanced you'd have far far more sentinels than the tanks, it's not like we're talking 1 on 1 here... It would be like packs of Warhounds hunting bigger Titans, which is exactly what they do, just on a smaller scale.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I almost guarantee that match will be a lot closer than pitting a casual all-Terminator player against a "casual" Eldar player with WS spam.

The claim that every other game literally doesn't have equally bad matchups remains obliterated, as some in WM are even worse. Fact.

And the fact that they use a double list format is evidence that they are aware of some balance issues in the game and are trying to mitigate it. GW just ignore it and often make it worse with each release.

And ? Next to that, you have no evidence GW is ignoring the issues, even if they are doing a bad job at trying to fix them. Next to that it was stated by Azreal that balance and bad matchups are two different things.

Unit1126PLL has all valid points and is pretty much correct. Lastly, having nigh perfect balance and fair matchups with all combinations ever possible in a game is next to impossible. Period.

But keep chasing the dream. ( Or believing you won't get crushed in Warmachine with a bad list against a good one, or simply picking the wrong Warcaster against one that completely counters you. Because you will, and that's that. )

Now, I haven't played 40k since Jan of this year, so some of my information may be out of date. I've watched games, but I think everyone here can attest this isn't quite the same as playing.

Generally, when I think balance I think that every codex should have a chance against every other codex if both players are trying to win.
By trying to win I don't mean a hyper competitive environment, but I do mean not taking a severe skew or extremely fluffy list. Partially this is due to the fact I really don't like allies (indeed, it is the greatest reason I have yet to return to 40k. The other being Cryx is so much fun)

I think we can all agree this is currently not the case. Compare Necrons to CSM, or AM for example. A slanted match up is fine (I would argue Cygnar is 60:40 against Cryx, for example) but in 40k these can go 80:20 or worse, depending.
If a certain list has a slanted match up, alright. I can deal with that, but my entire army shouldn't struggle with an entire codex.

In WMH, it's hard to find a unit that doesn't work well with any caster at all. There are a few, nobody who makes that complicated a game can expect to get everything perfect, but in most factions these are a small percentage of lists. Some of them are waiting for a solo or UA to be good (Man-o-Wars need a UA, Ret got a UA that made them go from crap to great with their core infantry). But you can't make sweeping statements like "Cryx Jacks are all terrible" because a few casters can run them, or "Cygnar infantry is craptastic" because a few of their casters can let them get work done. This is true for the majority of units. Some are better then others, sure, but you won't lost by taking them...most of the time. Even drudges!

It's hard to find a way to get CSM to compete with Necrons unless the Necron player severely handicaps themselves. That's not a list issue, that's a entire codex issue.
You can argue allying helps alleviate this issue, and you'd be right. But a lot of people like one codex, and want to collect one codex. I own a bunch of armies and still don't like allying them, but some of my armies don't function well on their own at all. It feels like wasted money.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.

And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.

Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.

So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"

When an army can be chosen trough personal preference over maximizing a list, when a army no longer contains auto include/exclude, when the army points represent their performance compared to a similar priced other army.

So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?

Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?

A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?

Yes.

Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?

Yes.

Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.

I am unsure about that - the fluff on Marines is wildly all over the place. We could certainly have a fluff discussion about that though if you would like!

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:

A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...

I would not play this game, then. If 2000 points of (insert anything here) can beat 2000 points of (insert anything here), then my immersion would be totally broken.

It'd be like if 2000 points of armored cars beat 2000 points of King Tiger tanks in Flames of War. My immersion would be totally crushed.

I would be the one complaining about 40k, then, and I think theme (and therefore fluff) should precedence over balance.

In your specific example of sentinels vs superheavy tanks, fluff precedence has been established. They even had a formation.

The Armageddon Stompa Hunters were sentinels used entirely to seek and destroy superheavy Ork vehicles. Sounds reasonable and pretty immersive if you ask me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.

A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.

That seems reasonable and thematic to me.

But not the point.

Firstly, this is a game not a war simulator. If you start pulling at the thread of what should and shouldn't be feasible then you'll never stop.

Secondly, you're conflating poor decisions on the part of the player with poor balance. Because it is a game, putting all your eggs in one basket, no matter how well armed and armoured the basket is, should result in some very easy matches and some hopeless defeats. That's the risk/reward element of investing all your resources into one element.

If instead one is more conservative in one's choices, investing your resources in a wider range of options, you're better equipped to deal with whatever you may face, but subsequently run the risk of being overwhelmed by a list that specialises.

This is all well and good, this is part of the art and fun of list building.

The issue we have in 40K is that frequently there are units which represent such efficiency of flexibility, they remove this choice. Waveserpents are essentially good against almost everything, so why take something that is only good against infantry in their place? (I know WS are DTs so aren't competing for a slot as yet, but the point is still the same) Why take something for relatively fragile but with excellent anti-light armour capability when a (6th Ed) Heldrake could handle both light armour and essentially all infantry? Why bother taking Necrons as anything other than Decurion organisation?

Items that offer a tangible benefit with no drawback are a symptom of poor balance, or items which are objectively better or worse at a given role than units competing for the same slot, and 40K is riddled with both.

You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.

Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.

Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.

Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant

I'm not a super-long time player (started with Dark Vengeance). My 2 cent is: Enforcing a strict army building structure is key to a balance game. Of course, having no boundary when you make your list can be fun too, but you don't need rules to tell you that.

I disagree with the Unbound arrival in the game. I disagree with the Less restrictive ally list. I also disagree with super heavy being include as part of the base game (however, I can see them fit somewhere in the game because I can see why people like to face big things against big things).

My solution: Strict CAD that give decent bonus if Unbound is still around (it will), and Stict ally rule (let's say: can't ally with the same faction, so no double or triple CADS shenanigan)

Good example

Bringing up Warmachine without properly addressing the context is asinine, as in the example software Runic et al. The game is designed, ground up, with the competitive context in mind. The idea of two list minimum formats with specifically designed scenarios shapes not only the game's meta but us a basis for model design. Yes, you can be absolutely stupid and build a Cygnar army around Sturgis and six Ironclads and get utterly curb stomped. However, you can also build fluffy, thematic armies and absolutely curb stomp if you don't meet your bad match up (Wold War, Machinations of Shadow, Runes of War, etc.).

Privateer Press is engaged with their audience, maintains errata, actively engages in developing scenario play, and at minimal cost to the consumer. The buy in for competitive lists is lower than 40k armies if you do it right and such lists can still compete over many years of rules updates with requiring little to no updates on the player. Our local meta has a top player who has been playing the same pairing, which cost him $250 to build, and has been winning first place in our events for over a year. With no concern that his army will be made invalidated by the next annual rules cycle. The worst case scenario is that some match ups will become worse and the lists my need tweaking.

Inversely, GW does not support tight, thought out game play. They have poor errata support, choosing to issue costly rewrites at "premium" pricing. Poor army match-ups are frequent and the entire meta is dominated by several key elements, which will always be flavor of the month unless they are so ridiculous resilient or overpowered to withstand rules iterations until finally their own rules are rewritten to make the garbage again. So not only is initial cost usually higher than any other game, upkeep and management cost is insanely higher.

Any game with winner and loser, or opposing players, will fall to the hands of those looking to optimize. It's game theory at its basest form. Actively working against that (GW) makes for a bad player experience and supports this rift that 40k experiences versus working with it (PP). I can play Warmachine nation wide (worldwide dare I say) and as long as I plan a balance pair for play, or for a specific meta, I can succeed as such for my player skill level. The same cannot be said for 40k as the rules are in such shambles requiring an obscene amount of ad hoc fixes on top of the asinine cost, that I have to be acutely aware of the special cases of each event.

So please, stop comparing the design choices of PP's game to the lack there of in GW's game.

Also, scrubs will always poison a game more than those playing to win. Go Google "Game Theory Scrub" and read the first link (on a phone, sorry for the implied laziness) to see I'm not using it as an insult, but as a defined term. Scrub mentality will kill any game, but 40k is far more prone given the companies ability to actively destroy their game.

Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list.

And they still run the dakka tyrants and cent starts. Those units worked, because basic rules were changed and stuff like invisibility was nerfed. If it was different we would have seen those units used sooner in to 7th. And it hardly helps that play outside those one per year tournaments.

Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible.

I can see all those people that bought ad lance, are using invisibility etc to suddenly drop those units just that others have good time .Totaly, what is next house ruling and bringing back units removed from codex or telling them not buy unit X, because it may not be fun for people playing army Y ?

Yoyoyo wrote:
You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.

Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.

Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.

Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant

Big words from a guy who's been playing since January.

See how you feel when you've invested hundreds of currency and dozens of hours into an army, only for an update to arbitrarily not modify, but utterly change the way your army plays, not just in a negative sense, but perhaps suddenly make it so OP that people either don't want to play you or mock you for cheese all the way through a game.

Don't get me wrong, players who chase the meta in a casual environment because they're over-invested in winning at toy soldiers deserve all the mockery one can muster, but I'm thinking more the likes of a local player who loved the new Necron book when it dropped, put together a list, had it all painted and then 6th turned his Bakery into one of the first broken lists of the new edition, and he suddenly found it much harder to get a game.

Or, see how you feel when you're in an environment when your options for gaming aren't friends and family, where you're not free to modify and adjust things at a whim. Sure, most guys I know, in a friendly environment, are going to be ok with small tweaks here or there, but equally there's a guy at my local club who won't even drop mysterious objectives, despite nobody else worrying, and has even tried to argue that our woods can't be considered as such (and therefore act as area terrain as per the data sheet in the BRB) because they're home made and not Citadel.

40K still works, essentially, in a casual environment amongst a regular social group who are free to select which items from the "menu" they do or don't want in their games. It is no coincidence that this is how Jervis Johnson clearly feels the game should be played.

The downside is it doesn't work in any other environment that gamers occupy, it isn't fit for pick up games, it isn't fit for competitive play, it just barely works in a looser social setting such as a club, where not everyone is necessarily the best of friends, but certain checks and balances can be introduced.

Certainly, what you say makes sense on a lot of levels, but when 40K represents years, or even decades, of investment of time and money for some people, the decision ceases to be purely rational, there's a substantial emotional component too. It's easy to say "if I stop having fun I'll walk away" after 3 months, it's less easy to follow through on that after 20 years, especially when it isn't so much a case of "I'm not having fun" so much as "it would only take a number of relatively small changes to make this game much better, why the feth don't they pull their finger out and do it and build a game that people are excited to play again?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?

Yes.

Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?

Yes.

Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.

I am unsure about that - the fluff on Marines is wildly all over the place. We could certainly have a fluff discussion about that though if you would like!

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:

A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...

I would not play this game, then. If 2000 points of (insert anything here) can beat 2000 points of (insert anything here), then my immersion would be totally broken.

It'd be like if 2000 points of armored cars beat 2000 points of King Tiger tanks in Flames of War. My immersion would be totally crushed.

I would be the one complaining about 40k, then, and I think theme (and therefore fluff) should precedence over balance.

Thats fine you don't want balanced games at all, you prefer games that are highly skewed in your favour so atleast be honest about it, this was your example afterall, and using your example as an example.

If 2000 points of shadowswords are dominating 2000 points of sentinels, im going to keep it simple for simplicities sake here, then the shadowswords are to cheap for what you pay for them and thus they are overpowered for their cost and that has nothing to do with immersion.

If you throw a 4000 point worth but (2000) point cost army and crushes a 2000 point cost army it has nothing to do with balance and nothing to do with immersion.

Your immersion is to utterly devastate an opponent that payed an equal amount of points for his army as you did yours.

Look at the point about Warmachine above. 40k isn't designed the same way.

As you say, "40K still works, essentially, in a casual environment amongst a regular social group who are free to select which items from the "menu" they do or don't want in their games."

What makes it so hard to read the writing on the wall when you yourself understand this?