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.

Something I often wonder about balance, is how would they take 23 different factions (counting up the tick boxes on the GW website under the 40k armies tab, which yes, does include variants of the same army ie, Dark Angels / Blood Angels etc) and make them -

1) a fluffy standalone faction
2) a faction that is in it's own right strong, yet balanced against the other factions which may have similar strengths / weaknesses to each other
3) completely balanced against those other factions whilst retaining their own unique identity
4) not make one factions weaknesses so easy to exploit for another faction whose strengths directly target those weaknesses, that army a will never play army b due to a - you guessed it - balance queries.

"Balance" to me (a none tournament gamer if it matters to anyone) is a bit of a misnomer, as all that balance implies is that everyone is stat level 4, with the only difference being the appearance of the model and the background written in to the Codex.

I'm not saying that people are wrong for hunting balance, I just genuinely can't imagine how much work would have to go in to seeking balance for every faction. It'd surely mean that GW would have to revisit and release every codex at the same time, all with updated rules, which would take them years to do, and cost the end user a ridiculous amount of cash or frustration as they strive to get every codex for every army that they collect before realising that they can't afford to do so there "feth you GW for making this goal unattainable"...

Do you think that the way to fix the issue then, would be to do away with standalone Codex's, and roll every single formation, army entry, background story in to one super codex, the approximate size cost and weight of the big rule books? That way for - for example - £60, every gets every unit for every faction all updated at the same time which have all been playtested against eachother and balance can never be called in to query because they've all been released and play-tested on the same rule set?

To the OP: You know, I'm kind of with you. Earlier this year I went through a phase of wanting to get back into 40k, so much. I loved my 7th edition Necron codex, and wanted to start expanding my collection by a ton. I started painting a lot of my stuff, trying new lists, ext.

Then, of course, my morale starts to fall again. Another supplement for Imperial ponies with more psychic powers they don't need. Eldar and Imperials getting more stuff from Forgeworld, while Necrons remain in 5th edition as far as Forgeworld is concerned (and all of that stuff is pretty bad now. Definitely not worth the price). Tau getting, what, 2 or so supplements? The Ork supplement that was a joke, as well as the Daemon one. I'm still waiting on a Necron supplement.

Then, to further add to it, we have Death from the Skies. Two factions that either A. Have plenty of fliers (Orks) or B. Have really, really good Fliers and formations (Space Marines) both get another model that they'll try to push. Then, you have bloated rules added to a bloated game, at the cost of another 60 bucks.

Then, of course, they finally release an FAQ. Granted, some good came out of it (people can stop whining about Praetorians). But, Ghost Arks are useless and Conclave got an unnecessary nerf.

I'm sorry, but, what's keeping me into this game? Everyone at my store now has 1 or more Imperial Knights, or if their xenos, 2-3 Wraithknights/Stormsurges. We even have a few new people who seemed cool until they dropped Triptide + Doublesurge on the table. Meanwhile, I get to remember the times when I had a GC.

Seriously, though. Every day I grow closer to shelving my models again for awhile. X-wing has proven to be a lot more entertaining.

 kitch102 wrote:
I'm not saying that people are wrong for hunting balance, I just genuinely can't imagine how much work would have to go in to seeking balance for every faction. It'd surely mean that GW would have to revisit and release every codex at the same time, all with updated rules, which would take them years to do, and cost the end user a ridiculous amount of cash or frustration as they strive to get every codex for every army that they collect before realising that they can't afford to do so there "feth you GW for making this goal unattainable".

Other games manage it just fine. This is 40k seventh edition for feth's sake. They had seven editions and almost 30 years. There is no excuse.

You know, the same was said about Fantasy. Community-driven rulesets as Ninth Age have already proven the traditional excuses by GW and their apologists are a load of bull.

 Korinov wrote:
Other games manage it just fine. This is 40k seventh edition for feth's sake. They had seven editions and almost 30 years. There is no excuse.
You know, the same was said about Fantasy. Community-driven rulesets as Ninth Age have already proven the traditional excuses by GW and their apologists are a load of bull.

A good algorithm for points and some means of containing the powers or special rules within the various formations.
I see too many models that are priced completely out of line with their capabilities (good or bad).
If even a token attempt was made, it would have a huge impact.

 kitch102 wrote:

"Balance" to me (a none tournament gamer if it matters to anyone) is a bit of a misnomer, as all that balance implies is that everyone is stat level 4, with the only difference being the appearance of the model and the background written in to the Codex.

Then I think you're going off the wrong idea of what balance entails. Balance does not mean everything is the same on the tabletop, it means that every unit has a role or function and is appropriately costed for that role and their abilities. A glance at literally any other game shows not only that it can be done, but can done quite well with a lot of variety.

I'm not saying that people are wrong for hunting balance, I just genuinely can't imagine how much work would have to go in to seeking balance for every faction. It'd surely mean that GW would have to revisit and release every codex at the same time, all with updated rules, which would take them years to do, and cost the end user a ridiculous amount of cash or frustration as they strive to get every codex for every army that they collect before realising that they can't afford to do so there "feth you GW for making this goal unattainable"...

Yeah, it'd take work. Quite a lot. I'd estimate it'd be the amount of work that a multi-million dollar studio with a team in the dozens all working on rules with a massive community for feedback and a few decades of experience to pull from could probably work through.

And, again, looking at literally any other game not only demonstrates that it is perfectly attainable, several offer their rules for free.

There's nothing special about 40k that makes it exempt from the basics of game design that every other game seems to get right, hilariously enough, even other GW games are examples of this.

Do you think that the way to fix the issue then, would be to do away with standalone Codex's, and roll every single formation, army entry, background story in to one super codex, the approximate size cost and weight of the big rule books? That way for - for example - £60, every gets every unit for every faction all updated at the same time which have all been playtested against eachother and balance can never be called in to query because they've all been released and play-tested on the same rule set?

No need to roll everything in one codex. One book, sure, divided internally appropriately. Separate books could work too. But the idea of balancing against eachother simultaneously is one of those things GW should have been doing two decades ago.

GW could also just offer their codices for free as rules only versions in PDFs, then sell a nice bound book with pictures and fluff and rules for the collectors or for people who want to support the company further.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I wish they were competitive

Why? Tau and Eldar are competitive, but no one wants to play against us anymore because of our "OP" books, so our armies gather dust on shelves right alongside the bad, unplayable ones. What good does being competitive do you when you're not even "allowed" to play the game anymore?

Being a top-tier army is a fething curse, just as bad as being bottom-tier. Maybe even worse, because at least with a bottom-tier army you can still participate. Hardly anyone would turn down a game with Orks or Tyranids like they would Tau or Eldar.

I was thinking about this post when I work up this morning (yea, I need a life) and I agree. If Orks got moved into middle-teir status I would be happy.

If you want to win tournaments, take a tournament list.

Remember the 4th ed rulebook? It had stats for major units for most of the factions, so you could play the game without any codices. It didn't have all the options, and probably not all the units, but it was a nice, simple set of stats. I miss that simplicity - it's hard keeping track of all the rules changes and updates. I like the idea of extra datasheets for new units, but the death from the skies, which apparently supersedes the rulebook, is really annoying.

I do too, but GW found a way to make more money off you, in particular the 7th edition way of doing thins.

£50 for the rulebook and some photos/story that I doubt many people will have bought the purchase for, £30 for your Codex, £45 for your supplement (again with a fluff book that isn't the main reason you buy it for). So, £125 or so if you find deals, just for the rules of the game.

Not gonna lie, with that amount of money, my Infinity 300 pt army (as is standard for ITS tournaments) could be just about completed. Maybe 2/3 if I also bought the rulebook.

I was thinking about putting on my QQ mask and leaving the hobby too. It's certainly my most expensive interest and doesn't really provide me with much satisfaction.

The galaxy is a big place.

You will not be missed...

( - shame, but I can see why people would leave. I've decided to stick it out, since I play only with my housemate and a select few mates, and I feel GW are moving slowly in the right direction at the moment... )

 corpuschain wrote:
Remember the 4th ed rulebook? It had stats for major units for most of the factions, so you could play the game without any codices. It didn't have all the options, and probably not all the units, but it was a nice, simple set of stats. I miss that simplicity - it's hard keeping track of all the rules changes and updates. I like the idea of extra datasheets for new units, but the death from the skies, which apparently supersedes the rulebook, is really annoying.

They did this in 5th as well if I remember right, one of the Eldar vehicles was typoed in the little book with one of it's armour facings as 2.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
There is only one solution!

Oh the humanity!

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
There is only one solution!

Well, there goes $50-$100

 Sidstyler wrote:

 greenskinned git wrote:
I guess long story short, it has always annoyed me that army balance is so terrible in 40k. Some guys seem to have the attitude, "hey Orks are just cannon fodder, you picked that craptactular army, you need to play for fun, not wins" Funny it doesn't say that on the boxes for any ork products.

Yeah, but that's GW's attitude in regards to Orks. They don't care what state Orks are in because not only do they give no gaks about army balance in the first place, but Orks are also the "fun" army so they put even less effort into it.

which is hilarious because they are so popular as an army. They are literally destroying their own sales by making Orks terrible.

Im still looking for a 3rd party website so if anyone has any suggestions feel free to PM Me

For whatever reason, GW cannot get Orks right these days, the last phoned-in codex all but killed my interest in 40k (fortunately 30k came along and has been winning me over, but Jesus, what a crock that ork codex was, a lazy, shoddy book).

It's a shame the powers that be failed to get the ork flyer right, but it's far from a surprise, the current game is a mess of bloat and churn and I could not imagine possessing the patience to play it, let alone try and add in the new (additional bloat) flying rules. They just have zero passion for orks, zero interest beyond 'show up and get shot to pieces by the other guy'. I used to BREAK space marine armies at the end of 5th, I didn't even fear the GK because the principals of taking on power armor were mostly the same...mostly...

My remaining 40k armies gather dust for now, awaiting the potential for growth and update in a new edition and unless we see some radical return to the playability of late 4th, early 5th edition, then that won't happen either.



I have two Xenos armies, Orks and Dark Eldar, I have spend thousands on them, I will not invest thousands of dollars more to play as someone else's NPC. It's an insult to me as a customer to offer me a subpar set of rules because my models do not sell in the numbers the other guy's does.

It continues to amaze me how GW does the bare minimum any company should do and people get all hopeful.

If new releases were coming out at a reduced price that would be a good sign, if they released an erreta actively changing stuff to buff some armies and nerf others that would be a good sign.

Putting older kits into army deals and doing faqs is what they should of been doing all along.

Until the games balanced and prices are slashed they remain on the same track to bankruptcy.

They are working as fast as they can to shovel themselves out of a giant pile of kirby-doo. There is no way Roundtree can just snap his fingers and have a balanced game without making it worse.

He HAS to get the rules fixed, and that is an enormous task. Once that's done he can address balance. Will he do so? Unknown, but give him a chance. Almost every week we hear about some improvement or another. Why rag on him now?

 kitch102 wrote:
Something I often wonder about balance, is how would they take 23 different factions (counting up the tick boxes on the GW website under the 40k armies tab, which yes, does include variants of the same army ie, Dark Angels / Blood Angels etc) and make them -

Playtesting would be a good start.

 JimOnMars wrote:
They are working as fast as they can to shovel themselves out of a giant pile of kirby-doo. There is no way Roundtree can just snap his fingers and have a balanced game without making it worse.

He HAS to get the rules fixed, and that is an enormous task. Once that's done he can address balance. Will he do so? Unknown, but give him a chance. Almost every week we hear about some improvement or another. Why rag on him now?

to be fair, he's been in the position a while and GW is still releasing garbage rules and overpowered stuff like crazy.

 corpuschain wrote:
Remember the 4th ed rulebook? It had stats for major units for most of the factions, so you could play the game without any codices. It didn't have all the options, and probably not all the units, but it was a nice, simple set of stats. I miss that simplicity - it's hard keeping track of all the rules changes and updates. I like the idea of extra datasheets for new units, but the death from the skies, which apparently supersedes the rulebook, is really annoying.

It was actually third edition that had reasonably complete army lists in the core rulebook. It was done since third was such a radical change from second, and no codexes would be available in the launch window; they all had to be completely redone. Other versions may have had stuff, but third was the one with army lists in the Big Black Book.

 jreilly89 wrote:
You play Orks or CSM or DEldar or Guard because you like them, not because they're actually competitive. You play SM, Necrons, Eldar, or Tau if you want to be competitive.

You want to know a really, really funny thing?

Orks were competitive through 4th and 5th.
CSM were competitive in 3rd and a significant chunk of 4th.
Dark Eldar were competitive through 5th and a fair chunk of 6th.
Guard were moderate in 3rd and 4th, strong through 5th.

These armies were all top tier armies at one point with very different and distinct playstyles.

With the exception of Guard they've all also been starter box armies too - people's first introduction to non imperial in 40k.

It's possibly to have multiple top tier armies existing at the same time. It's not an alien concept. Through most of 4th edition this was the case - Eldar, Guard, CSM, SM, Tau and Tyranids were all fairly solid top tier armies at that time.

In 5th you had SM, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Dark Eldar and Tyranids .

6th is really the only edition where the Holy Trinity of Power Creep truly came in - you could see the difference in codex writing - almost like they started off weak (CSM, DA), got carried away with power ramping (Eldar, Tau, SM) and then got promptly told off and told that was not the planned design direction - resulting in sub par codexes following the Trinity. Then they decided to change their direction altogether around the same time that 7th dropped - generally, the post-7th Decurion codices have all been equally as strong as one another...with KDK being the only strange glitch (because it did nothing to address the problem with the majority of the CSM units - I mean, sure Mark and Daemon rules stacking are nice and a good patch to some units...but not the answer we need.).

Deleted do to lack of concern.

 Selym wrote:
I would suggest holding a GW vook burning, but GW would profit...

Only if they were purchased and removed from the store first...

To the OP- If your looking for a auto-win button with Orks, your not getting it. Play Mealstrom, use Ghaz, use allies, stop playing WAAC players. Start asking your opponents to let you plus up your army points wise. Find the/a way to fun. Forge your narrative harder. Or don't, GW isn't going to fix it.

I think a lot of players are like this, missing the point entirely. I DO NOT WANT AN EASY WIN BUTTON! What I want is a "Give me a chance" button!!

The fact that you even suggest using Ghaz is hilarious, can you think of another LoW that can die to sweeping advance? For that matter can you think of a single LoW that still swings at Initiative 1 without having a D weapon?

I don't want to use allies because I have invested a lot of time, money and effort into my Ork army, I shouldn't have to purchase a 2nd army to be competitive.

I don't play against WAAC Players if I can help it. When I am playing friendly games if it isn't against Tyranids, CSM or DE I know that I am in for a rough ride. They don't have to be Net LIsting and min maxing to kick the crap out of me if they are Eldar/Tau/SM or Crons.

When I play in tournaments I get my butt handed to me because the only competitive list the Orks have at the moment involves Zhadsnark's biker boyz and is easily beaten by simply having access to flamers or other Ignores Cover weapons (IE Every Tau Weapon)

I just want to play a game that I love on an equal footing with everyone else, is that really so much to ask for from a company that makes millions?

Most of you by my count are a bunch of hypocrites, you complain about leaving and you moan about the codecies and suppliments yet you still use them, and your still here. If you don't like it then you have all the right to bugger off instead of moaning and ruining the community for other people. Although on the other hand the people at my local store have a good laugh at how silly threads like this become, so I guess your good for something.

If you want to make things better then activley do so, complaining does nothing but make the community toxic, and I imagine thanks to you GW think that their main consumer base consists of whiny teenage girls.

Atleast the whiny online community is very differant from those at local stores. If you contribute constructive critisism its great! And I applaud you, don't get me wrong. But those people are not the most vocal of the group

Reavas wrote:Most of you by my count are a bunch of hypocrites, you complain about leaving and you moan about the codecies and suppliments yet you still use them, and your still here. If you don't like it then you have all the right to bugger off instead of moaning and ruining the community for other people. Although on the other hand the people at my local store have a good laugh at how silly threads like this become, so I guess your good for something.

This! haha. 100% This! And @ the OP: As I said in my first reply to this thread:

What exactly were you expecting from this thread? Sympathy? Shows of support? Uproars of agreement followed by similar pledges of boycotting GW?

You want to boycott GW because they have no apparent interest in balancing the army you invested in any time soon? Fine, go ahead; but how does that concern us?

You want a level playing field? Fine, I get that and totally agree. You think GW isn't doing anything to help Ork players? I can agree with this, too. But what good was starting this thread ever going to do for your current situation? (The answer to this question is obviously "Nothing").

SemperMortis wrote:I just want to play a game that I love on an equal footing with everyone else, is that really so much to ask for from a company that makes millions?

Not, it isn't. But think about this:

The (relatively) recent additions to the Ork army include a pretty gakk flyer and a supplement which (depending on who you ask) is also gakk. This should tell you that GW has no immediate plans to buff the Orks. With that in mind, what it your whinging going to do about the situation? (The answer is absolutely nothing).

This brings me back to my original advice with a bit extra kicked in:

House rule things. I know it's a lot of effort, but there are a whole bunch of ideas out there (including many on this website) that you could draw from, and if you look hard enough, you might even find someone's (preliminary) attempt at a new Ork codex. Even if the rules you choose to use as house rules are gakk and/or unfinished, can they really do much worse than the current rules for them? As for people refusing to play House Rules, I can definitely understand that at Tournaments and it's not unreasonable at FLGS's. But: If it's your friends that are refusing to play with your house rules that are there for no other purpose than to make the game more fair, then I'd question them on this.

If there's absolutely nobody that will play house rules with you, then ignore the above point.

If it's really that bad, stop playing or be selective about which opponents you face. Don't go to tournaments to play with your Orks. Don't play people who run cheese lists. In other words, don't put yourself in a position where you know you have no chance of winning (or even having a game remotely representative of a close game). For example, I don't play against Tau armies anymore (for the most part) because the models I have prevent me from taking a list that's competitive against Tau. I know that's not quite the same thing as your situation, but I think it makes my point.

Deleted do to lack of concern.

The cries of whiners as usual.

If this was any kind of competitive fighting game and a character/faction is still low tier even after a sequel, you don't see people giving up the entire game because of balance.

Don't kid yourself. Complaining here isn't going to do jack. You don't want balance, you just want to feel more special as if a company owes you anything about how to handle your own personal satisfaction.

I am an IG player. I have frustrations like anyone else. Death from the skies just outright makes valkyries suck. Almost on par with rough riders. Loss of skyfire, no amendment to the terrible hellstrike missiles, and basically auto-losing my valkyrie in a dogfight vs. Eldar? Awesome. But they gave me ObSec on the valk so it is okay, right?
Trust me when I say I feel your pain.

 Byte wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

To the OP- If your looking for a auto-win button with Orks, your not getting it. Play Mealstrom, use Ghaz, use allies, stop playing WAAC players. Start asking your opponents to let you plus up your army points wise. Find the/a way to fun. Forge your narrative harder. Or don't, GW isn't going to fix it.

I think a lot of players are like this, missing the point entirely. I DO NOT WANT AN EASY WIN BUTTON! What I want is a "Give me a chance" button!!

The fact that you even suggest using Ghaz is hilarious, can you think of another LoW that can die to sweeping advance? For that matter can you think of a single LoW that still swings at Initiative 1 without having a D weapon?

Kinda hard to be swept when you have a 2++ rerollable with FNP and fearless with Graznik and two other warbosses and a luckystick. I can see trying to "help" you is pointless. Just give up the game. Try checkers, its balanced.

Also, thanks for "laughing" at me for trying to help you out. My mistake. Welcome to my block list. Lol. Makes Dakka a better place.

Well for starters, Ghaz NEVER has a 2++ rerollable. It is physically impossible for him to get that, so whomever you play that has this is cheating you. Ghaz can get a 2++ however if you are willing to spend around 1,200 points to give him that save. Your obviously suggesting the Ghazcurion which is laughable at best. I'm sorry that by pointing out how broken the rules are for the Ork army I have offended you. If you already blocked me then ohh well, it was good talking to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
The cries of whiners as usual.

If this was any kind of competitive fighting game and a character/faction is still low tier even after a sequel, you don't see people giving up the entire game because of balance.

Don't kid yourself. Complaining here isn't going to do jack. You don't want balance, you just want to feel more special as if a company owes you anything about how to handle your own personal satisfaction.

Wow thanks for putting words in my mouth. Here I was thinking I was mad at a company that has taken hundreds if not thousands of my dollars for a game, and instead of providing me with decent rules to play that army with they instead phone it in for the Ork faction. But hey im sure you know what im thinking far better then I do.

As a Side note, I have written several letters and e-mails to GW and I have called once to ask if there was anyway we could talk with the Ork developers in order to understand wtf they are doing. Guess how much good that did?

As far as the point of this thread? Really there isn't one, mostly I was just venting having reached my limit of idiotic ork supplements and codices. So for those handful of people who decided to read all of those posts just to get to the point where they could say "BYE!" To bad for you, as I pointed out in the original post, I am not quitting I am just boycotting GW in the vain hopes that one day they will lose enough customers to understand they need to make a balanced game.

Did you take my advice?

Did you write a letter?

If so, how, in Gork's name, do you think Roundtree will know about your magic boycott?