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.

See title and poll question.

I, for one, voted yes.

Let me know if I should add more options.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

Good definition of balance, right there.

Yes.
Fight me

I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

Added this quote to the OP, to (hopefully) preclude arguments.

Thanks!

 Desubot wrote:
I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Same here. I'll take a fun game over a perfectly balanced one, but I'm not a national level competitive player.

Lol, I'm sorry but what kind of question is this, regardless of how you play balence is for the best in every kind of and style of play in 40k, and I play mainly narrative games and have never played competitively.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Same here. I'll take a fun game over a perfectly balanced one, but I'm not a national level competitive player.

so far 8th is the closest. only 2 games and both were fun and fairly close. (1 game was an absolute gak show though but that was my list being exceptionally gakky and the other being a VERY mobile list that i had no answers for. can only play more games to see how it goes but its looking quite exciting)

Yeah I hate games where I table someone as much as I hate getting wiped out.

There's nothing better than a close game that could go either way right up to the last turn.

I can count on one hand the games I lost in sixth and I played weekly, it was dire and it wasn't just one army.

And it wasn't because I'm some gaming god its because my opponents played weaker armies and even toning down didn't work.

I played melee cron for fekkes sake using triarch praetorians when they were crap and lost once.

So yeah I crave balance above all.

 Desubot wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I want it to be close enough but im not asking for absolute perfection. that aint happening.

Same here. I'll take a fun game over a perfectly balanced one, but I'm not a national level competitive player.

so far 8th is the closest. only 2 games and both were fun and fairly close. (1 game was an absolute gak show though but that was my list being exceptionally gakky and the other being a VERY mobile list that i had no answers for. can only play more games to see how it goes but its looking quite exciting)

Agreed. It's been fun so far, and it doesn't feel like games drag.

hobojebus wrote:

There's nothing better than a close game that could go either way right up to the last turn.

100% agree with this, my top three favourite games I've ever played have been decided by the last dice roll. And I lost two of them.

In x-wing I never concede cause you never know if your last ship can pull off that against all odds win.

More than once it has, quite often it won't but never say die never surrender!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

This is a little vague, is the problem. I am not sure it is coherent to want it to be the case that units are very different from each other with different strengths and weaknesses and yet you can take any random unit, put it in your army, and not have it badly underperform relative to other choices you could have made.

But if you're saying that every unit should be a significant contributor to some competitive lists, I'd agree with that. If I want to use Unit X, I should be able to come up with an army where Unit X is the best possible choice for completing it, and then the army works out really well on the tabletop. Really this would ideally be the case for every set of options each unit could take too -- units and their options should be priced such that they are desirable in a generally-small fraction of high-performing lists. It is a very small problem when some of a unit's options are almost never or never desirable, but this isn't really any worse than the option not existing. It is a problem when a unit, regardless of its options, is almost never or never desirable. And of course it is a huge problem when a unit is basically always desirable, essentially because this warps what a high-performing list is and ends up making lots of other units undesirable.

in 40k there will never be true balance. there just cannot be. really the devs are already comically off base with a lot of entries over or undercosted and this is looking to be close o the most balanced 40k has been in the past decade i have played.

hell there is even thigns that would in theory be worth more vs certain other armies. a flamer would be great against orks and tyranids but less good against terminator heavy space marine lists but there is no real way to balance the specific army vs army. I would be happy with a set... T3 costs x points, toughness 4 costs x points, armor save 3+ costs x points vs armor 6+ should cost x points; The issue is I think GW will never do that. marines, elder and tau (the good guys) always have to have more efficient points per unit than the perceived bad guys (everybody else)

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 40k there will never be true balance. there just cannot be. really the devs are already comically off base with a lot of entries over or undercosted and this is looking to be close o the most balanced 40k has been in the past decade i have played.

hell there is even thigns that would in theory be worth more vs certain other armies. a flamer would be great against orks and tyranids but less good against terminator heavy space marine lists but there is no real way to balance the specific army vs army. I would be happy with a set... T3 costs x points, toughness 4 costs x points, armor save 3+ costs x points vs armor 6+ should cost x points; The issue is I think GW will never do that. marines, elder and tau (the good guys) always have to have more efficient points per unit than the perceived bad guys (everybody else)

one of the best ways to ballance that out is to write missions and the basic game to encourage a Variety, and that each faction has the basics to provide the variety in there makeup.
They do not have to achieve it all the same, But they should be able to build to match what the game Design is creating.
One of the big issues we see with 40k, is that the devs do not seem to know what scale the game is at, and will often take a kinda AVG Idea and run it into the ground.
I hope that this attitude has changed, Or may as well write this edition off as well.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
in 40k there will never be true balance. there just cannot be. really the devs are already comically off base with a lot of entries over or undercosted and this is looking to be close o the most balanced 40k has been in the past decade i have played.

hell there is even thigns that would in theory be worth more vs certain other armies. a flamer would be great against orks and tyranids but less good against terminator heavy space marine lists but there is no real way to balance the specific army vs army. I would be happy with a set... T3 costs x points, toughness 4 costs x points, armor save 3+ costs x points vs armor 6+ should cost x points; The issue is I think GW will never do that. marines, elder and tau (the good guys) always have to have more efficient points per unit than the perceived bad guys (everybody else)

To be fair, Flamers were always designed for chaff. but at least most armies have the option to deal with different threats like melta for tanks and stuff but now all the weapons have a little cross over.

people that build mono focused lists are going to have trouble i think vs all comers or a balanced list. but we will see i dont think it will take long for "gamers" to figure out the most broken garbage.

No, I enjoy getting schooled every time I play because I've chosen the loser wrong army.

Balance is a subjective term, but yes I want balance. I want to win a game because I outplayed my foe and not because the scenario gave unwinnable objectives or gave random victory points for accomplishing the same tasks.

"I killed your Rhino for...*roll*...1 Victory Point."
"I killed your Rhino for...*roll*...3 Victory Points. I win, I am such a great commander!"

As close to even as can be.

I can't answer this thread poll fairly, because I am not worried about BALANCE in the traditional sense, as I am more worried about having a relaxed time that is fun for both me and my opponent. That said, the conversations everyone is having on the forums these days (today in particular) are giving me some ideas on what people are actually trying to say. Let me ramble for a bit and paraphrase what I wrote on another thread...

[]

Points and Power Levels are both "guidelines" to figuring out an army's size and relative power. Due to the variety in terrain, discrepancies in the analog nature of how models are moved around and can be bumped or finagled into and out of optimal positions, and inconsistencies in standard base sizes, conversions, and modelling for advantage/disadvantage, you will never be able to have an empirically balanced game. Unless the game moves to preset terrain and boards, and a hex-based or grid-based map for movement and range checking, and the players share from a common pool of dice free from being weighted, then you won't be able to have a truly "balanced" game.

In Warmachine & Hordes, the points became more granular from Mark 2 to 3, with army sizes roughly and almost doubling what they were in Mark 2. Back a few years ago I kept hearing from Warmahordes fanboys that Mark 2 is "super balanced" and "better than anything GW has ever done". But once I got into the game, I found that this was not true at all, and that it was just different. Not better and not worse as a game system, just different. I dropped out of the game before Mark 3 hit, but I have heard as much (if not more) complaining about the lack of balance and playtesting in Mark 3 that it is a mess of a game. And guess what? Mark 3 uses more granular, larger points numbers to calculate army size and strength. Sure, the lack of playtesting is an entirely different issues (that may or may not be an issue for 8th Edition 40K), but the benefits of a more granular points system versus a less granular point system is not something that in itself makes a game better in the case of Warmahordes.

I am willing to try the game without the super granular points that we have become used to, because the points won't be perfectly balanced either. Maybe I'm lucky in that I have enough local players that are untainted by the WAAC attitude that has plagued our local area for over 4 years now, but I have no problem asking any of my friends if they would want to try the game without Points OR Power Levels. Why? Because we can make the game fair for each opponent by coming up with something to weaken ourselves or boost our opponents. This may take some effort and a little bit more time, but it can be just as effective as the points system for making our games more even.

Age of Sigmar is selling better now that the General's Handbook is released, and I was one of those who never really tried the game without points before hand. That is partly due to the fact that so many players were afraid of the "pay-to-win-and-fill-the-board" and "infinite-summoner" players (of which I was concerned to face, given the WAAC attitude of several local players). But the idea that a game could be played without an official structuring system is completely foreign to so many players because they are worried about something beyond having a good time. In hindsight, it was a gutsy move on part of GW to do that, and I applaud them for trying to do something completely new and original compared to their game systems.

If you want a perfectly balanced game, then play an identical army to your opponent, on a 2-Fort style (perfectly mirrored terrain) board, sharing a common pool of dice and measuring tape, and see who wins. Heck, let's do that for tournaments - every player bring a pre-determined army designed by the tournament organizers. (Actually, this sounds like a pretty cool idea!).

[/ ]

So in summary, I have a new thesis statement for you all to ponder over: People aren't so much worried about BALANCED games, but FAIR games.

And what is considered fair is not always going to be based upon Points or Power Level, but on the subjective views of the players and what kind of game they are wanting to play, which comes down to the attitudes and desired experiences of the players - Casual or competitive, Narrative versus Matched versus Open, story based games versus going "pew-pew-pew" with your models.

Mark 2 had notable balance issues too with more than its share of no-brainer choices. Nobody used Trenchers as their main shtick was nullifiable by any spray or cover-ignoring unit, while almost every Menoth build went for the Reckoner as the go-to heavy Warjack due to superior speed, range melee, and an Assault gun that could actually be usable vs hard targets in a pinch. Likewise, so many army/tech gimmicks could be shut down with these four words: "I brought Examplar Errants." ("They remind me of Tactical Marines.")

I'm gonna refrain from answering this one because questions of this nature is inherently flawed and triggers huge (and often not very friendly) debates. Reason being:

1.) It goes without saying that everyone, at least on the outside, wants balance. We all want the idea that you're going into a completely fair game and not one where it's heavily skewed towards one particular faction or player. Which means that this question is a loaded one; anyone who says they don't want balance will be, at least implicitly, seen as the "bad guy".

2.) Everyone inherently wants to win. Even if you are just playing for fun, on some level you do want to win. You also want that win to be with the units of your army. But to win means to be better than someone, and more often than not this comes about as a result of an imbalance. Now this imbalance *should* be created by the player skill, but let's all admit it; if you somehow found the army you own has an inherent imbalance in favour of you, you'll want to use it. This is because you are invested in your own army, which creates an inherent bias for your units, your army, and ultimately your faction. And that is just for people who say they're all for balance and don't care about the win. The people who are unashamed WAACs will obviously not want this at all, since their entire purpose is to win and to achieve that goal through the easiest way possible. They *might* say they want balance but they don't, and it's very obvious from their tone and the things they complain about that they don't.

So with both in mind, I would like to say that this poll is perhaps best left alone, as I'm sure people will use it as a thinly veiled way to rant about the changes to their army and how other people are being unreasonable one way or another.

On a related note, even perfectly symmetrical games can become unbalanced. Extra Credits actually did a segment on this where in GO, the advantage afforded by simply going first was so good that, in the event of a tie, the second player wins by default. Same goes for chess now that I think about it. Unless a game is both symmetrical and allows for both players to act at the same time (say, many sports), even a game with identical sides can be unbalanced. Which is again why I think this question is very loaded and one that probably shouldn't have been asked.

Yes I want balance. I want every army to be viable and every unit to have a role or place.

Vague question; do I want balance in the game, or balance in fun between players?

Those two have different answers I think.

In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

What about narrative games that are often inherently unbalanced?

 General Annoyance wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In the game. You can't balance fun by removing it from both players like a Handicapper-General of fun.

What about narrative games that are often inherently unbalanced?

An unbalanced-in-points game can be made fair. It will take the effort of the players to figure it out, but is entirely doable. I am of the mindset that every Narrative Game needs a GM to design or manage the game as well in case things get too one-sided.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Vague question; do I want balance in the game, or balance in fun between players?

Those two have different answers I think.

I don't think they do. The only people that would benefit from unbalanced gameplay are WAAC players. But a balanced game in my mind leads to more fun, as players can play more how they want to and less "what can I take that wont severly handicap me"

BunkhouseBuster wrote:An unbalanced-in-points game can be made fair. It will take the effort of the players to figure it out, but is entirely doable. I am of the mindset that every Narrative Game needs a GM to design or manage the game as well in case things get too one-sided.

A GM is always a great idea, however I don't think a game where you get crushed necessarily has to be a bad experience. Campaign games would be a good example of this, where your opponent outnumbers you by incredible odds, yet you can still play and enjoy the game as you try to cause as much loss within their forces before yours is wiped out.

However, unbalanced games usually suck because:

- They take most of the control away from you

- Your own moves and strategies have little to no effect

- There is a significant end game consequence, such as losing a large chunk of your forces pointlessly in a campaign setup, or just feeling like crap after

It's a tricky one to explain, but I don't think balance is the be all and end all of enjoyable TT gaming, although that should be no excuse to have a poorly balanced game.

TheLumberJack wrote:I don't think they do. The only people that would benefit from unbalanced gameplay are WAAC players. But a balanced game in my mind leads to more fun, as players can play more how they want to and less "what can I take that wont severly handicap me"

Balance is important, but you could have the perfectly balanced game and it could still suck, either because it's boring or mechanically all over the place. Evidently 40k is still a fun game despite being horrifically unbalanced, as people still play it regularly, "competitively" and "casually"

 JNAProductions wrote:
See title and poll question.

I, for one, voted yes.

Let me know if I should add more options.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Every time this discussion comes up it always devolves into an argument about the definition of "balance". Detractors love to point to symmetrical games (e.g. chess) and claim that individual armies would loose personality if the game were more "balanced".

I'm working off an interpretation of "balance" wherein there's a good reason to use all armies, units, and options, as opposed to a game where you'd never play a certain army or use a certain unit because it's bad. And in that sense I would vote "yes". I want to play a game where I can pick up any arbitrary unit, think "well, this looks cool", put it on the table, and be able to find a way to make it work, not a game where there's a chunk of stuff that's not worth using and I have to be penalized for thinking some of it's cool.

Good definition of balance, right there.

Should probably add/change a Yes option to something like "within reason" they are never going to achieve perfect balance and I don't think very many people think that is the case.