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.

GW's idea of balance has the subtlety of starting or stopping a chainsaw. "One Codex is too popular, better nerf the hell out of it. Another Codex is too unpopular, better give them something virtually unstoppable without fixing their other units."

So if I hypothetically gained complete creative control over GW, and I wanted each codex to be perfectly balanced both internally and externally, where would I start?


Prompt: If you could perfectly balance your Codex internally so that every single unit in it were equally viable, what would you change?

Make formations mandatory. Give everyone formations.

Make sure that all of the formations are thoroughly playtested against each other before release to ensure that the win to loss ratio for each codex is roughly 1 to 1, assuming equal player skill.

 Bill1138 wrote:
GW's idea of balance has the subtlety of starting or stopping a chainsaw. "One Codex is too popular, better nerf the hell out of it. Another Codex is too unpopular, better give them something virtually unstoppable without fixing their other units."

So if I hypothetically gained complete creative control over GW, and I wanted each codex to be perfectly balanced both internally and externally, where would I start?


Prompt: If you could perfectly balance your Codex internally so that every single unit in it were equally viable, what would you change?

Firstly we need a baseline. The codex i use is Necrons, as every unit in that book has been used in good competitive lists, so that says something right there. Secondly their Decurion is not an Auto Take as it is not automatically better than Objective Secured. I've seen high ranking tournament lists that are CADs and Decurions and one recently that used 3 Monoliths and another that spammed Flayed Ones.

Basically every Unit in the Codex needs a job and it needs to be able to do its job. Now its fine if something else does its job better, but then it should be cheap enough to make it a consideration over the other thing. Take Nobz for example. Nobz used to be a viable option because they where cheaper than Meganobz even with 'eavy Armor and a PK. Now that that isn't true there is literally no reason to take them.

Traditio wrote:
Make formations mandatory. Give everyone formations.

Make sure that all of the formations are thoroughly playtested against each other before release to ensure that the win to loss ratio for each codex is roughly 1 to 1, assuming equal player skill.

Thats really hard to achieve, a 40% Win rate with a TAC list should be the goal, as that is far easier.

For the MFDs (or Decurion style Detachments) they need to be as good as Ob Sec, as the CAD should always be a valid option, and the Formations that make them up shouldnt be frelling awesome (this is Eldar's big problem).

As for Codex to Codex Balance? Everything should cost about the same. If a Meganob is 40 Points a Terminator should be 35 as he doesnt have a second wound and that 5++ doesnt really compensate. Eldar Windriders are like 27 points or something goofy and an Ork Deffkopta is 30. Yes the Deffkopta has Scout but that doesnt mean he should cost more than a bike with a 3+ armor!

 Grimmor wrote:
Thats really hard to achieve, a 40% Win rate with a TAC list should be the goal, as that is far easier.

Part of the difficulty is the plurality of options. The easy way to get around this is, again, forcing everyone to use formations (and getting rid of unbound; let's not omit that).

At that point, it's encumbent upon GW to make sure that every formation has exactly an equal chance of winning.

Traditio wrote:

 Grimmor wrote:
Thats really hard to achieve, a 40% Win rate with a TAC list should be the goal, as that is far easier.

Part of the difficulty is the plurality of options. The easy way to get around this is, again, forcing everyone to use formations (and getting rid of unbound; let's not omit that).

At that point, it's encumbent upon GW to make sure that every formation has exactly an equal chance of winning.

I do agree with you, but even Kings of War, which is extremely well balanced, cant achieve a perfect 1:1 Win ration, and thats because we are playing a game that involves a fair amount of luck. Thus why i feel a 40% win ration is a good goal to strive for, and if you hit higher than that, thats excellent.

Grimmor wrote:I do agree with you, but even Kings of War, which is extremely well balanced, cant achieve a perfect 1:1 Win ration, and thats because we are playing a game that involves a fair amount of luck. Thus why i feel a 40% win ration is a good goal to strive for, and if you hit higher than that, thats excellent.

Eh, I'll not quibble about the point.

But you know, I do think it's humorous that people are so down on formations. In principle, formations have the strongest potential actually to balance the game. The problem currently is that: 1. the formations are not properly balanced and 2. not everyone has them.

With respect to the former:

What unthinking nitwit at GW thought it would be a good idea to give Eldar formations which would enable them to spam scatter bikes and have a wraithknight on the table to boot?

Traditio wrote:

Grimmor wrote:I do agree with you, but even Kings of War, which is extremely well balanced, cant achieve a perfect 1:1 Win ration, and thats because we are playing a game that involves a fair amount of luck. Thus why i feel a 40% win ration is a good goal to strive for, and if you hit higher than that, thats excellent.

Eh, I'll not quibble about the point.

But you know, I do think it's humorous that people are so down on formations. In principle, formations have the strongest potential actually to balance the game. The problem currently is that: 1. the formations are not properly balanced and 2. not everyone has them.

With respect to the former:

What unthinking nitwit at GW thought it would be a good idea to give Eldar formations which would enable them to spam scatter bikes and have a wraithknight on the table to boot?

The biggest issue with the Eldar formations, as i see them, is that they have no "Tax" and the bonus they grant is to general.

Aspect Warriors for example. Take 3 Squads, get +1 BS. What was the downside again?

Khorne Daemonkin is another example of a well written MFD, as most of its problems are with its units, not the Formations. The Slaughtercult makes you take a unit of Possessed, but you get a second Boon when you use your Blood Tithe points. Thats awesome, and all for the price of one Possessed unit, which arent even all that awful, they just look awful because they are fighting for slots. Ok they probably are a bit overpriced, but thats easy to fix.

You'd start with the core rules.

You'd figure out what scale of game you want and decide how detailed the interactions will be based on that. Then you streamline certain aspects, re-work the USR system, and fix how armies are constructed. Decide on one common method. I'm personally a fan of the FoC, where you can offer a variety of generic FoCs for all armies to pick from.

From there, you pick a baseline. Make that codex. Then, every other codex gets designed with a particular design goal and balanced by the standard. Play test vigorously with all units at all point levels. Do it dozens of times with a number of different people. Then open it up to the public. Get thousands of people testing your game. Get the feedback. Go back and revise. Repeat. When feedback gets down to people bitching about 5pts differences in what the ideal cost should be, you're good.

Change the release schedule to update models for most factions on a monthly basis. Release all the codices together so each one is balanced against the other, without the huge lag from the first to the last codex.

Also, separate the Sales department from the game design department. That itself would help a lot with the power pendulum.

Gradually tweak the game to favor rank-and-file infantry over monsters, bikes, and deathstars.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Gradually tweak the game to favor rank-and-file infantry over monsters, bikes, and deathstars.

I agree with this, except for the "gradually" part. Rip the rug out from under them!

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Gradually tweak the game to favor rank-and-file infantry over monsters, bikes, and deathstars.

You wanna be careful with this, if you go to far youd make those things useless, and that sucks.

Hence "gradual." Since a lot of 7th Maelstrom (and modified scenarios) awards points for capping pre-determined objectives at randomized locations, there's more emphasis on zipping forward and capping objectives for the scope of a single turn, and less emphasis on being able to "hold" over a series of turns. Last year at ITC, not a single Tactical Marine made the "Top 8" armies. Bikers, Gravstars, Podding IG Vets, and Flyrants, sure. But podding Grey Hunters were the closest thing to a Tacmarine.

Besides tweaking points costs/having rules for infantry to "resurrect/reinforce", allow "Running" models to move at fixed bonus speed. There's a dramatic difference between Move 6+D6, vs Move 12" + an additional 24" or an additional 36.

Likewise, some scenario play should be modified, that objectives grant points for every turn they are held, period (so you don't have "Shoot the enemy then tank shock the survivors off" aka Eldar in 4th and early 5th), and objective markers should be restricted to being placed in the center of the map outside of core deployment zones (to prevent pure gunlines from ruling the day).

I think the simplest fix would be to reintroduce structure. It might not fix all the problems, but it would go a LOOOOONG way towards balance.

I propose reintroducing a 6th ed style of organizing your armies. Bring back Force Organization, limit Formations. Unbound and Come the Apoc allies could be an option, but I would have the main rule book STRESS that those are only for casual play and have no business in "Organized" play. If both players want to play Unbound, both players lists must be Unbound

I would structure armies in 2 ways:
1) "Decurion" super formation Detachments. I know these are considered an issue, but they are the main detachments in so many books now that disallowing them would involve overhauling the whole system, which I would not be a fan of.

I would limit them by requiring your entire army come from this single "super" detachment. No allies, no additional CAD for Ob Sec troops. Your army has it's benefits because it is a well oiled military machine and other units outside of this would disrupt that synergy.

2) If not doing the above, the primary way to run an army would be 1 (and only 1) CAD or special codex detachment (read: no formations). This detachment is mandatory and your warlord must come from it. Afterwards, you can have 1 (and only 1) Allie detachment from a different faction.
Now you may add 0-3 Formations. These MUST be the same faction as either your Primary or Ally.
-------------------------------

I would also make a limit to 1 Super Heavy (GC or SHV) per ARMY. No Double WraithKnights, No Triple Imperial Knights. Any Formations or Detachments that require multiple Super Heavies will be relabeled as Apoc only.

A minor fix to D-weapons: the "6" result would only do D3+1 wounds/hull points with no saves. This will mean the average vehicle or MC will probably die, but anything with 4+ wounds or HPs has a chance to live. Otherwise D-weapons are fine

--

I like this, except for the Super Heavies restriction. While most GMCs and SHs would be fine this way, i feel its far to harsh to Imp Knights, who where kinda designed to be more toned down SHs anyway. Though i guess we could just retweak Imp Knights.

I wouldn't make the game a codex at a time. I'd make it one category at a time. I'd make all the troops first, and make sure there were no outliers. Then I'd do HQs, etc. Writing an entire codex in a vacuum is how we get the current codices.

I'll wholeheartedly agree with Martel here: all in one fell swoop is probably the way to go. New factions could be bolted on piecemeal, if necessary, but after every one, a rebalance and tweak pass would be made over everything, with errata and digital re-releases as necessary.

GWs biggest problem is they don't envision/playtest enough to come up with the worst combos. They will never balance anything until you have someone looking over the writers shoulder and pointing out how something could be used in an unintended way. I remember reading an interview years ago with one of the developers almost sheepishly admitting that no one thought lash of submission would be used in the manner that become the most common, (putting people in a cluster to be battle cannoned to death). They write rules that sound cool in their head but don't think about complex interactions. Allies and formations have only made this worse.

Starcraft has thousands of hours of metadata to sift through. Back in SC II beta, roaches had two base armor, which made them way too good. GW would never catch that kind of error.

Given that the 'worst' armies at the moment are the hoard based armies, (ignore CSM for now)... i'd rank the codex 'powers' as follows:

Eldar
Necron, Space Marine, Chaos Demons,
Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Tau
Blood Angels, Space Wolves,
Imperial guard, Orks, Chaos Marines (ignore for now)

Those with the most expensive models on average sit at the top, the cheapest models on average at the bottom (pretty linear?). Therefore, the simplist solution, seems to be to reduce every model by 1 pt. This would greatly benefit orks and imperial guard, and hardly impact the top armies whatsoever.

What we do for CSM not sure.

BA are inferior to IG for sure, possibly CSM and possibly Orks. Base meqs are fething terrible. And that's what the BA codex spams over and over.

I wish you people would stop buying GW's over priced codex and rule books. The more you buy the more you tell them it is ok to over charge us and write 200 pages of fluff in a 300 page rule book.

In an ideal world, the rules and point costs and what ever would be made available free online and updated regularly on their main website to shut down under costed and over powered unit exploits, but GW is a business so that is never going to happen.

If GW says they are a miniature modeling company first and foremost, and they insist that it is not their job to make a well balanced and fun game then it is time we treat them as such. Do not buy their rules. Don't pay or even use their garbage rules.

I wish I had the time and energy and experience and expertise to re-write wh40k from the ground up making it into a faster paced game that scales up with hundreds of models among all codex including forgeworld. And at the same time keep it relatively balanced and sport like. I would post it free here in the hopes that people become interested and actually adopt the rules and play it over wh40k. But not in my life time. Zagman made a huge effort to rebalancing all the codex points. We need more players who are that dedicated.

Martel732 wrote:
Starcraft has thousands of hours of metadata to sift through. Back in SC II beta, roaches had two base armor, which made them way too good. GW would never catch that kind of error.

I think a large part of the problem is they seem to develop every unit in a vacuum.

I'll use a strong unit as an example

Grav Cents are very good for what they do but they are expensive and do have weaknesses, as they are slow, mid ranged and have no invul. Great unit but not inherently broken. But add in a grey knight Lib or two and suddenly all those weaknesses go away.

Ffyllotek wrote:
Given that the 'worst' armies at the moment are the hoard based armies, (ignore CSM for now)... i'd rank the codex 'powers' as follows:

Eldar
Necron, Space Marine, Chaos Demons,
Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Tau
Blood Angels, Space Wolves,
Imperial guard, Orks, Chaos Marines (ignore for now)

I noticed that you didn't mention Grey Knights at all. Do they not even register as a factor any more?

Ffyllotek wrote:
Given that the 'worst' armies at the moment are the hoard based armies, (ignore CSM for now)... i'd rank the codex 'powers' as follows:

Eldar
Necron, Space Marine, Chaos Demons,
Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Tau
Blood Angels, Space Wolves,
Imperial guard, Orks, Chaos Marines (ignore for now)

Those with the most expensive models on average sit at the top, the cheapest models on average at the bottom (pretty linear?). Therefore, the simplist solution, seems to be to reduce every model by 1 pt. This would greatly benefit orks and imperial guard, and hardly impact the top armies whatsoever.

What we do for CSM not sure.

Honestly id move Chaos Daemons, Blood Angels and Dark Eldar down a level each. Chaos Daemons and Dark Eldar really only have one maybe two viable builds, and Blood Angels dont even have that.

Chaos demons have powerful builds, though. Move Tau up, though.

Martel732 wrote:
Chaos demons have powerful builds, though. Move Tau up, though.

Ya, like 2 of them. One is Tzeentch Summoning and the other is either the Screamstar or the Seekerstar and both of the last two are falling out of favor. And if we are fixing 40k Summoning has to go. Yes its cool and fluffy but its so god broken! You could fix it by letting you summon models that have been removed as a casualty, thereby preventing people from summoning like 500 points of free stuff.

Also ya, Tau can compete on SM and Necron teir

The single biggest issue with GW codices has almost always been that GW will not stick to the same design style for an entire update cycle...

In 3rd edition, when they were re-building the game in it's entirety, we got more simplified codices that were half the size they had previously been.
Overall, the only glaring issues were that Eldar (yet again) were a marked step above everyone, while Chaos Marines & Chaos Lite (aka: Dark Angels) were very noticeably underpowered. Otherwise, the power levels were mostly pretty even.

Then GW released the hallowed 3.5ed Chaos Marine codex, whish turned codex design on its head and went from 'keep it simple stupid', to 'super fluffy, unique & powerful!'
Guard quickly followed with their pre-4th ed Doctrines book, while we also had the likes of the Armageddon & Eye of Terror books that expanded further upon designing highly unique armies with 'oodles of options.
This left pretty much every early to mid 3rd ed book, bar Eldar of course, in the dust. The options just weren't there to keep pace with the newer & much more highly individualised and adaptable books.

Early 4th saw the coming of Chapter Traits for Marines, then an expanded Black Templars book, and a polished up Tau codex.

Unfortunately, about this time, Jervis decided to stick his nose where it didn't belong, and had the disastrous epiphany that the rules were getting too complex and needed the 'difficulty' level in the rules needed massive reigning in.
So, we got the "poopfecta" of 4th ed Chaos Marines, Dark Angels, & Eldar - all of which literally had their souls torn from them and left as bare, hollow shells of their former selves.
Orks & Daemons got in on the back end of this abysmal design style, though they at least were given a few more options than the above.

Then GW ratcheted everything up to the nines with the 5th ed Space Marine codex, followed by equally powering up Blood Angels, Space Wolves (not that they needed it), Guard & Dark Eldar (who really deserved it after being forgotten for so damn long!)
Necrons & Chaos Marines were of similar design, and had we stayed longer in 5th edition, the balance issues would have started to really even out.

Now 7.1ed, we had books that began to introduce the fluffier aspects of the old 3.5ed CSM codex, in the form of Formations & unique FOC's for each army.
Of course, it didn't last for long, as GW saw a way to generate added sales, and hence, starting with Necrons, we were introduced to the Decurion style of detachments. Too bad for the earlier books such as BA's/GK/DE+Covens/Orks/Clowns/Ad Mech et all.



If GW would just stick to one single plan and get every army designed on that level, balance overall would vastly improve!!

Yes, they'll always be a top dog and a bottom feeder. It's inevitable. However, if/once everyone gets their Decurion style update, the currently massive divide between the top vs. the bottom ends books won't be anywhere near as awful.

While Eldar for example are definitely the top dog of the 7.5 styled books, overall, the balance between the rest of them is pretty decent. Khornekin for example which is typically seen as the weakest, (due to the fact that none of the issue Chaos currently faces were addresses), it can still hang with the big boys.

What you say is true, but the Daemon, SW and Ork Decurions are absolutely awful. But i see your point. If those books had been designed with MFDs in mind this wouldnt be an issue

 Grimmor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Chaos demons have powerful builds, though. Move Tau up, though.

Ya, like 2 of them. One is Tzeentch Summoning and the other is either the Screamstar or the Seekerstar and both of the last two are falling out of favor. And if we are fixing 40k Summoning has to go. Yes its cool and fluffy but its so god broken! You could fix it by letting you summon models that have been removed as a casualty, thereby preventing people from summoning like 500 points of free stuff.

Also ya, Tau can compete on SM and Necron teir

I'd keep summoning, but change the mechanics a lot.