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.
Vector Strike wrote: A balanced core rules set would leave equal opportunity to melee and ranged, msu and big units, psykers and 'nulls', etc to shine.
Not necessarily. In a game like 40k shooting should dominate, because this is not WHFB in space and guns tend to beat swords. The whole concept of a "melee army" shouldn't exist at all. But you can still have balance between the various shooting-focused armies, even if melee is only present as something you do to finish off the last survivors of your shooting and melee specialists are a tiny part of the game.
Completely untrue.
If you look to the sci-fi operas (cinema, videogame, litterature, etc...) you'll certainly notice that there are a lot of factions/races that are melee oriented if not melee only.
After all the most iconic weapon of the most iconic sci-fi saga is actually a melee weapon:
Desubot wrote: A balanced game should be a game where two people of equal "skill" should have equal chances of winning with any list.
realistically 40k is not a balanced game as its full on rock paper shotgun.
It should never be any list, as was pointed out it should be any well built list. All units should be viable, but not all combinations of units.
For instance a pyrovore should be a good choice for an anti-infantry unit, and should be able to be used as such. An army of all pyrovores on the other hand should not necessarily be able to win any game at the same rate as a balanced army.
As for all those saying "shooting should be better than melee" this is untrue in a game where there are units and even armies that are designed to be melee centric. The idea that shooting > melee means that such units/armies can never be good. The fluff of the 40k universe supports melee as a common occurrence in combat, as such the table should represent this as an option.
Now "no shooting at all" may not be a super viable option in the game, but armies should be able to be balanced and melee centric.
Quite the contrary. Warhammer40k has been a "Sci-fi" setting that has pride himsellf in having meele as a substantial part of their universe. You know, knights in space killing giant orks that have axes with their power swords and thunder hammers.
Most of others Sci-Fi settings have meele as a small thing. Star Wars is 95% shooting, with the sith and jedi being the meele special snowflakes. Mass Effect is 99% shooting with meele just as a small thing you do when you are desesperate.
Halo is full shooting, with meele as more of a honour/traditional style for some alien races like Elites and those hairy pseudo-gorillas.
What Peregrine said was that, as others Sci-Fi settings give much more relevance to Shooting, Warhammer40k should too. Thats, of course, an error, because theres a ton of universes for shooting-focused action. Isn't good to try to change a universe when theres many other universes that focus on what you want.
Is like saying that Warhammer should have much more romantic sub-plots because those are much more popular in other settings.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 19:57:50
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I have to agree, melee drew me to the 40k universe. Pretty much all the box arts feature melee, or close combat.
This was the first box I bought:
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If 80% of the game decision is based on list making, it ain't balanced.
List making SHOULD have impact, but it shouldn't be as large as it is.
Right, for balance list making needs 2 things
1.) Restrictions/built in factors that prevent super skew lists in the most competitive settings, allowance for such lists ensure that the game can never be truly balanced because a TAC list with a bit of anti-tank, a bit of anti-horde etc. Cannot really compete when faced with a list comprised of say only hordes. This could either be by building in restrictions where taking such lists is impossible, or building in factors where certain types of units have a hard time defeating a wide variety of units. I think the restrictions on list building provides a wider variety of unit types to be available.
2.) Good in faction balance between options to fill certain roles - if one choice is the obvious choice for anti-tank in every army build it leads to list building being a large factor.
Galas wrote: Oh look, a space knight with a power sword killing a giant ork with an axe
Right?
I mean seriously aside from Guard players who has fun out of not moving any miniatures, throwing a wad of dice on the table, and declaring "i win"?
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
I'm a Tau player and my favourite lists are mechanized squads of Firewarriors with Carbines or Breachers and a ton of short-range shooting with a little support from Hammerheads
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
On the topic of "realism" I have thoughts. The short version is I think that 40k's technology makes forces like space marines with a focus on close range/melee ability far more realistic than the long range shooting gallery guard. The rest is spoilered because kinda off topic.
Spoiler:
In 40k it does make sense that melee combat would come back into vogue to a degree though. First, personal mobility is much higher. Jet packs, drop pods, and personal/squad teleportation are both somewhat common. Defensive technology has also leap frogged offensive technology as well, for context even cutting edge body armor struggles somewhat against basic infantry weapons, it certainly can't tank such shots but might stop a few lucky rounds from killing you, while power armor and personal can do exactly that, often even able to shrug off heavier weaponry, without bringing into the durability improvements of the various super soldiers/non humans.
If you combine improved mobility and deployment with defensive technology that outstrips or matches offensive technology, you have more drawn out conflicts and less time before enemies close with one another. It's actually going to have more in common with a medieval Europe where longbows/crossbows are rare or unheard of than it would modern warfare. At least in a hypothetical ground armies clashing situation which in an of itself doesn't make that much sense.
Some of this is a bit of artistic license of course. You can justify having to roll to wound with a boltgun vs a marine or orc with the whole stronger than a normal human thing, but reasonably speaking getting hit by even a heavy stubber should be an auto wound for a normal human, and for all we joke about guardsmen wearing tshirts the fact they get a an armor save vs a heavy stubbers means flak must be better than almost anything we have today.
As a last point, I'd argue that the idea of our modern military in 40 k is actually kinda silly. Look at the way modern combat is shifting already, with ground troops mainly regulated to urban combat and acting as a security force. Their simply isn't a pressing need for a traditional army with tanks and the like at this point, and trends seem to be pushing that even further. If we take it to the logical extent in 40k, what exactly is the role of the IG?
If all you need to do is indiscriminately slaughter a large army in an open conflict, you have orbital bombardments or even titans. Ground troops are going to be used more surgically, like marines for boarding actions or assaults on fortified enemy headquarters, places where close range engagements are likely, particularly given the improved mobility/durability discussed above. For dealing with insurgents and cultists you have militarized police, which I guess usually falls to guard even if it by rights should probably fall to the arbites/pdf/inquisition doing that. Logically the only place an actual guard style military would make sense is in permant base sitting duty, which again would encourage a style of training and formation somewhat different than the IG, we know. More focus on close range and even melee engagements over things like long range shooting and tanks, given how unlikely they are to be able to dispose of the enemy at a distance.
In short, not only do I think that melee focused armies and units make sense, I think they make far more sense than long range focused ground troops and tanks, who by rights don't really have that much of a usage. Maybe you can justify some artillery regiments with troops to defend them, but even those are more due to technological shortfalls than being an actual ideal solution.
As far as balance goes, I'm not even sure why people treat this as such a hard topic. Most armies should have viable builds, most units should have some legitimate use, most reasonable play styles should be represented in at least one army.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 20:36:27
I watch a a fair bit of wushu, so the lightsaber fighting is extremely weak (awful and terrible, really, except for Darth Maul, who actually moves like he knows how to fight).
The various Death Stars are what drive the movie plots, and a lot of what the subsequent movies attempt to rebuild upon. Kind of like how so many Star Trek movies try to remake TWOK.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I watch a a fair bit of wushu, so the lightsaber fighting is extremely weak (awful and terrible, really, except for Darth Maul, who actually moves like he knows how to fight).
I fence, so pretty much all movie swordplay is cringe to me
JohnHwangDD wrote: I watch a a fair bit of wushu, so the lightsaber fighting is extremely weak (awful and terrible, really, except for Darth Maul, who actually moves like he knows how to fight).
The various Death Stars are what drive the movie plots, and a lot of what the subsequent movies attempt to rebuild upon. Kind of like how so many Star Trek movies try to remake TWOK.
Yet the build your own lightsaber setup is such a huge hit at disney world that when they open star wars land they will have a more advanced setup. No more chunks of plastic. The death star is... xmas ornaments. The death star was a plot device, the lightsaber is the iconic weapon, and sound, of star wars.
As for the original post, balanced is only achieved when both sides are identical. Checkers, chess, rock scissors paper. As soon as my opponent can bring something different than I have, I've opened my the game to perceived imbalance. War is not balanced, war is not fair. I don't expect warhammer to be balanced, because balanced is boring.
MagicJuggler wrote: Balance is a fairly qualitative metric that measures the relative correlation of an army's chance of victory with pre-game inputs such as army selection, and whether a player goes first.
The stronger the correlation between odds of victory and said external inputs, the weaker the balance. The weaker the correlation, the stronger the balance; a balanced game is one where generalship should matter more, relative to what units your army has.
I'm going to disagree at when balance has to be achieved, 40K is an army and list building game therefore it is part of the balance: every faction should have in their codex all the tools needed to deal with any other tools anoher list can have. The random chance of dice and/or other external factors have to prevent/lessen the difference between lists in specialisation. What tools to bring to what kind of scenario is a part of the game. in your scenario every unit has to be equal to any task in equal measure across both armies.
Note that while this does translate to better balance , it does not alone make for a better playing experience. No one wants to play rock paper sciccors so perfect balance does not exist.
It has been shown that Chess is not balanced. White has the advantage.
Ponder that.
If Chess isn't balanced, how is WH40K going to be.
Lack of question mark is intentional.
Nothing is perfectly balanced, but that doesn't mean you should throw balance out the window. It's an unachievable goal but striving for it anyways makes for a better game.
It has been shown that Chess is not balanced. White has the advantage.
Ponder that.
If Chess isn't balanced, how is WH40K going to be.
Lack of question mark is intentional.
Nothing is perfectly balanced, but that doesn't mean you should throw balance out the window. It's an unachievable goal but striving for it anyways makes for a better game.
I dunno, pistol dueling is pretty balanced. at least if played by the rules.
Blackie wrote: After all the most iconic weapon of the most iconic sci-fi saga is actually a melee weapon:
LOL, not even close...
Spoiler:
That is.. *cough*... just a VERY big lightsaber...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 23:45:55
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
MagicJuggler wrote: Balance is a fairly qualitative metric that measures the relative correlation of an army's chance of victory with pre-game inputs such as army selection, and whether a player goes first.
The stronger the correlation between odds of victory and said external inputs, the weaker the balance. The weaker the correlation, the stronger the balance; a balanced game is one where generalship should matter more, relative to what units your army has.
I'm going to disagree at when balance has to be achieved, 40K is an army and list building game therefore it is part of the balance: every faction should have in their codex all the tools needed to deal with any other tools anoher list can have. The random chance of dice and/or other external factors have to prevent/lessen the difference between lists in specialisation. What tools to bring to what kind of scenario is a part of the game. in your scenario every unit has to be equal to any task in equal measure across both armies.
Note that while this does translate to better balance , it does not alone make for a better playing experience. No one wants to play rock paper sciccors so perfect balance does not exist.
Different avenues to power. Truly balanced games don't exist and even if they did it's not like players would ever agree that it is. Even if every army in the game won 50% of their games 100% of the time players wpuld still THINK their army was trash and everyone else's were busted and needed nerfs. It's not worth the 2 decades of simulations and playtesting you'd need to fail adequately.
Give each army different avenues to power and that's enough. A handful of wildly different builds that can all be competitive. Like 7th ed craftworld Eldar. You coulda wrote a list throwing darts at that book and won GTs. Tone it down so it doesn't break the rest of the game and voila, not balance, but as close as it will ever matter.
Come on, that's only part of the first movie, and there's something similar only in the spin off. It cannot be the most iconic weapon of the saga. Think about all the duels among the heroes and villains, are they fought with that thing? Or with the swords?
The thing that most of these "balance" arguments are actually about is the degree to which your buying choices should determine how the game goes. The ideal is for a customer to be able to walk into a GW, buy some models just because they look cool, and be able to then take them to the table and not get utterly disassembled.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
