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.

Some people have a different opinion, as not all a taking copy and paste lists from the web and local meta has an effect too.

But we can see the same attitude on other games were part of the community say the game is boring if every compination of units is viable and player skill is more important than list writ

I didn't know anyone that wanted the game to have imbalance either, until I put Azyr out. When you put forth a system where it didn't matter what you built, your opponent would have an equal chance at beating you if he had the same number of points, it made a lot of people angry.

Edit: as noted below, this is a common issue with Kings of War as well. Listbuilding is very much not as prominent and there is a large swathe of people that are not interested in a game where they can't win in the listbuilding phase.

 AduroT wrote:
I don’t think I know anyone that wants a game to be unbalanced because balanced is boring.

It is a common complaint about KoW.

auticus wrote:
. . . balance the game...

. . . unbalances the game . . . community that loves imbalance . . .

. . . what is and is not unbalanced will differ from person to person . . .

. . . the gw team intentionally imbalances things . . .

. . . If everything is really balanced . . .

. . . I think I just realized who was behind auticus' account this entire time. Someone get the Avengers on the phone!

Blanced is boring only the most extreme cases.

Better balance is good for the game. But not everything that is goog for the game is good for balance.

And if you wanna go really philosophical: "what is balance?"

Might make for an interesting discussion.

For me, balance is a point value representing itself accurately.

If I build a 2000 point list, it will have the same shot at beating your 2000 point list.

I’d like to have that discussion. I’m sure everyone has their own interpretation of what balance is. For me, balance is simply not being able to table your opponent in 2 turns because everything you have abuses what should be a rare mechanic of the game whilst simultaneously shrugging off everything your opponent throws at you due to ridiculous durability. Case in point, Stormcast hurling out mortal wounds like they’re confetti whilst having 1+ rerollable saves.

auticus wrote:
For me, balance is a point value representing itself accurately.

If I build a 2000 point list, it will have the same shot at beating your 2000 point list.

I'll put myself out here and say that I am a person who doesn't like this. I love list building, I love tech-ing and tinkering with lists, and I don't really enjoy KoW for the exact reason that list building is a boring affair. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong Auticus, just volunteering that I am of the mind set you're talking about.

I think that having powerful units is fine- so long as you pay proper points for it.

The problem with stormcast in general is a lot of their units are under cost for where they sit on the damage and resilience bell curves.

So they are essentially getting 3000 or more points for their 2000 points and you are only getting 2000 points. Which leads to negative play experience because you didn't listbuild properly to AOS competitive standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

auticus wrote:
For me, balance is a point value representing itself accurately.

If I build a 2000 point list, it will have the same shot at beating your 2000 point list.

I'll put myself out here and say that I am a person who doesn't like this. I love list building, I love tech-ing and tinkering with lists, and I don't really enjoy KoW for the exact reason that list building is a boring affair. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong Auticus, just volunteering that I am of the mind set you're talking about.

I hear ya and thats cool.

The problem with this deliverable is that I don't see how you can ever have a truly balanced game when this is the primary output goal... a game where listbuilding is first and foremost. To achieve that... you have to bake in imbalances and as such ... it is impossible to find a point where you will also have a balanced game.

Basically from my experience, you can't have both balance, and heavy listbuildiing outputs. The two do not coexist well together.

What that means to me is that since that is the direction the designers at GW have embraced since the end of 6th edition in 2004 or 2005 ish, that talk of imbalance in the game should be taken with the grain of understanding that the game is intentionally designed to be imbalanced, and that if balance is what one is seeking that a GW game is not where one should look.

I think that this has been a very volatile point of contention on forums since forums were a thing in the 90s because those arguing for balance are actively going against GW's design ethos which I believe is intentional. The designers of course don't give their insight so this can only be speculation. But this is why I don't think the GW designers are truly inept like a lot of comments will say. I don't think they are inept because I think they are intentionally doing what they are doing, not accidentally doing it and not knowing how to fix it.

My idea of "balance" is that two like-minded individuals can play a game, and each has a reasonable expectation of victory. I would be okay with tournament-caliber lists existing so long as they stayed in tournaments or tournament prep matches. I have an issue when tournament lists show up for an average Saturday gaming session against the guy who brought his Free City fluff list. What is the tournament player even gaining in that situation?

 EnTyme wrote:
My idea of "balance" is that two like-minded individuals can play a game, and each has a reasonable expectation of victory. I would be okay with tournament-caliber lists existing so long as they stayed in tournaments or tournament prep matches. I have an issue when tournament lists show up for an average Saturday gaming session against the guy who brought his Free City fluff list. What is the tournament player even gaining in that situation?

I’m often that free city guy. I actually hate how most tournament lists look. They often don’t look like a coherent force, but just a collection of random misfits designed to squeeze out as many mortal wounds as possible.

 EnTyme wrote:
My idea of "balance" is that two like-minded individuals can play a game, and each has a reasonable expectation of victory. I would be okay with tournament-caliber lists existing so long as they stayed in tournaments or tournament prep matches. I have an issue when tournament lists show up for an average Saturday gaming session against the guy who brought his Free City fluff list. What is the tournament player even gaining in that situation?

I'm the same way. THe problem is there is nothing in the rules that stop a guy from bringing a tournament list to a saturday casual game because there are no rules for a saturday casual game. Which is why I harp so hard on better balance. If the game didn't cater as much to listbuilding, then the tournament lists wouldn't be so grotesquely different from your saturday afternoon casual games.

Its a massive pain in my *** to try to run public campaigns because of that very issue. "Bring a casual list" means 1000 different things to 1000 different people. To some people it means taking their tournament nasty list and then like bumping a guy out for something that is also powerful but not as powerful, resulting in a list that is still grotesquely OP vs casuals, but to that player its now "gimped" because in a tournament setting its not as strong.

 EnTyme wrote:
My idea of "balance" is that two like-minded individuals can play a game, and each has a reasonable expectation of victory. I would be okay with tournament-caliber lists existing so long as they stayed in tournaments or tournament prep matches. I have an issue when tournament lists show up for an average Saturday gaming session against the guy who brought his Free City fluff list. What is the tournament player even gaining in that situation?

I don't think a rule set can ever fix this honestly. This is about 2 different people having 2 different interests and never finding a way to meld them.

Thing is "Casual" lists don't really exist. There are only good and bad with varying levels inbetween. For the same reason there's no such thing as a tournament list either.

That the communty tries to differ the two is telling that there is clearly too much imbalance within the system. It is one thing to have to build a good list; quite another when there's vast differences in the raw power level between a well made and a decently made list.

For this reason alone getting closer to near perfect balance is better since it reduces this divide in the community; that means more potential games and gamers getting on board.

auticus wrote:I strongly oppose the sentiments that were shared with me before my banning in this regard, because to me this is just GW trying in a way to emulate magic the gathering design by having little timmy, spike, and johnny builds, which I also don't agree with in the first place since all that does is put johnny and spike at each others' throats when they have to share a table at the FLGS.

I think this is a very good point. I'm just not sure where I stand on it.

I like that different people can get different things out of the game and think the magic model of obviously better cards go in obviously better decks (I'm not too familiar with magic deck building, but there's probably more built on that starting point) has some merit for a game that's supposed to be broad.

What I disagree with though, is the opposition towards an accurate points system where a given number actually says something about the level of power of a collection of units. I understand why people are opposed to it. As soon as you start putting in points costs for synergy or adjusting the points costs of things based on other things in the army, things get complicated. And if you don't do that then the power of a given unit changes depending on what else is in the list but with no change in points. An accurate point system is probably too complicated for most people and certainly too complicated for the real point of them: to sell models. To give people a list of products to buy to build a given list. You just don't need an actually accurate points system if the point is just to provide people some purchasing guidance and get things sort of in the same ball park provided they are playing against others with the same approach.

As for Johnny and Spike at each other's throats, I've found the social solution seems to be working. When i run a narrative event at a local store and put in the event description that this is not a tournament and tournament style lists are not appropriate and people who regularly play competitively should take the opportunity to play things they wish were better but are not, people show up with reasonable stuff. People actually do take their sub optimal stuff and put it in lists. Or they don't put the synergy/combo pieces together to push drones up to 11 attacks each just because they can. Staunch Defender doesn't get picked every time.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is "Casual" lists don't really exist. There are only good and bad with varying levels inbetween. For the same reason there's no such thing as a tournament list either.

I disagree entirely, this ignores a key factor when building a list which is intent. I regularly play with a guy who's goal when building a list is to take cool models - that is by definition a casual list. There can entirely be a tournament list and a casual list based on the intent when writing.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

auticus wrote:
For me, balance is a point value representing itself accurately.

If I build a 2000 point list, it will have the same shot at beating your 2000 point list.

I'll put myself out here and say that I am a person who doesn't like this. I love list building, I love tech-ing and tinkering with lists, and I don't really enjoy KoW for the exact reason that list building is a boring affair. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong Auticus, just volunteering that I am of the mind set you're talking about.

In this same vein, I don't think that any list should automatically be able to beat any other list.

There's always going to be weird extremes on one end or the other. A good example of this is Idoneth--if you and I go to play a 2k points game and I say "I'm running Idoneth" and you prepare to fight a Fue'thain Eel Armada(turns 2+4 equal everything on the board running+charging) but then get caught fighting a Mor'phann Namarti Horde...should you really have your tailored list automatically shifted to be super effective?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

auticus wrote:
For me, balance is a point value representing itself accurately.

If I build a 2000 point list, it will have the same shot at beating your 2000 point list.

I'll put myself out here and say that I am a person who doesn't like this. I love list building, I love tech-ing and tinkering with lists, and I don't really enjoy KoW for the exact reason that list building is a boring affair. I'm not suggesting your view is wrong Auticus, just volunteering that I am of the mind set you're talking about.

In this same vein, I don't think that any list should automatically be able to beat any other list.

There's always going to be weird extremes on one end or the other. A good example of this is Idoneth--if you and I go to play a 2k points game and I say "I'm running Idoneth" and you prepare to fight a Fue'thain Eel Armada(turns 2+4 equal everything on the board running+charging) but then get caught fighting a Mor'phann Namarti Horde...should you really have your tailored list automatically shifted to be super effective?

I agree 100% and I don't mean to suggest that I want list building to be the only factor. More that I do love to build lists and I love trying to squeeze out new efficiencies and I've seen how list building like Auticus likes works out in KoW. Again I don't mean denigrate anyone who enjoys that, it just isn't for me. I gave KoW a good try and could never really get myself involved in a meaningful way. I think that GW could do a better job by all means but I'd never want them to shift a hard 'lists don't matter' school of thought.

I've done polls in the past on this. It comes out to be about 75% people polled prefer their wargames to have listbuilding have a heavy influence in the game.

Its definitely something I have to consider for my own projects because it will run opposite to trying to also have balance. Games that stick more toward balance and less toward list building also tend to have a lot fewer players.

There's a slider there, where balance is wanted, but only minimally so. Its trying to figure out what that point is.

There are also two axes (at least) in this dilemma. Power and synergy.

A game where all units are fairly costed can still have a major list building component if a lot of the game depends on unit roles and synergies. See early Warmachine for an example. Such a game requires a coherent army list where lots of different combinations might work, but you do need to consider them and a randomly selected force of the appropriate points value might not function well.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There are also two axes (at least) in this dilemma. Power and synergy.

A game where all units are fairly costed can still have a major list building component if a lot of the game depends on unit roles and synergies. See early Warmachine for an example. Such a game requires a coherent army list where lots of different combinations might work, but you do need to consider them and a randomly selected force of the appropriate points value might not function well.

The issue is - do you point them based on maximum synergy or none? Both have major issues.

Correct. And then there's the whole if we're going to find that grey area where the goal is to break balance with a strong list but we want balance.

Balance what?

Balance power?
Balance synergies?

I took the route of pointing them based on a notch or two below their max synergy with azyr. But I don't think there's really a correct answer. Some liked it. Others hated it because their preferred models cost a lot more and they werne't guaranteed full synergy.

Its definitely a tough nut to crack.

That is the tricky bit, yes. Maybe that's why so many companies are experimenting with Formations - paying for the synergy seperately from the units.

I don't think the goal for balance should be for every possable list to have equal chance at victory. It's not feasible and even then it was it would make list building boring.

Rather than making every army equal it should be to make every unit viable.

kodos wrote:GW is learning and improving
But they are still not there were they once were regarding rules writing/game design

You are wrong here. GW is at where they are rules wise right now. That might change in a month or two. Thing is GW have great rules IT'S THE COMMUNITY who doesn't want to play them. If people actually played the game instead of saying it was crap and ironically best prices at the time, GW could have used these rules for 40K and Age of Sigmar. I was hoping Age of Sigmar was going to use these rules but didn't.

So GW makes rules that the community wants. It does seem the community wants these rules. I am not saying ALL people want it but in general it seems more want it this way. The rules I am talking about is Lord of the Rings. I never played The Hobbit but I believe the rules are basically the same. There is also LotR mass battle as well which is a great rule set but people didn't play it either. Again prices were great. It's what people have been asking for at the time, great rules, BALANCED rules, and good prices. LotR offered this but the community balked at it for one reason or another. Why do I say GW might not be there in a month or so? Depending on the new rules for LotR since it's adding the "keyword" system that is 40K and AoS, we don't know what else is changed. Until that comes out, GW has great rules right now. It is just the Games Workshop community who doesn't want it.

So GW does do good rules, sadly it's us the community who refuses them.

I don't see how to make every unit viable when on the other hand imbalance is also our goal to promote the concept of listbuilding.

If every unit was viable that would mean that listbuilding would suffer.

Agreed you'll never make "every" list viable. The key is to give every unit a role and viability of it own and then let the player build lists that have varied composition, but which have a generally decent chance to victory. Something that GW appears to have done a LOT more of with the new edition of 40K and Sigmar than in the past.

In the past many armies relied on almost one or two big tricks and nothing else; with whole blocks of their models being near useless or just "not as good as something else that is better". Right now there's a lot more diversity present and its good. It's good for GW because now players have more reason to buy more models. Sure the power-gamer might only build one army; but many others are going to build varied armies - valid compositions that have a decent chance of winning.


Varied army builds comes with increased balance to the game. Mono-builds comes with decreased balance because reduced balance means more inclination to find the best and only go for that because the power difference between best and decent is going tobe big.

LOTR fails for the same reason KOW fails. The listbuilding phase in LOTR isn't interesting. The rules ARE great, probably to me the greatest set of rules GW ever did. But because its not a game about combos and synergies, it will forever be a game that is ignored by the bulk of players.

Listbuilding is more difficult in a balanced game, not non-existent. Having the right balance of front line, support, hammer, anvil, etc will still crush an army of randomly selected options. People know this. But some are afraid that without being able to get a dramatic advantage by making an overpowered list they won't be able to win as many games. Saying this sounds petty so there are other reasons brought up as a cover.

In regards to Azyr, I encourage Auticus & others to remember that people will readily reach out with complaints but rarely do the same with compliments. That's human nature. It's entirely possible if not plausible that there were as many or more people very pleased with the balance. If it actually weren't balanced there probably would have been more complaints on top of less people playing.

To say that the community of AoS wants imbalance and GW caters to that is to disregard that GW wants to expand the game. Players in AoS are skewed towards those who desire or at least tolerate significant imbalance, but those who aren't playing at all are the ones GW is aiming to recruit. The sales to powergamers are simply dwarfed by sales to casuals; the latter is the vast vast majority of players and is best harnessed by having reasonably good balance. From a pragmatic sales perspective as well as a community one GW is better off improving. I find it more plausible that GW tries for balance but is bad at it than it trying to make things imbalanced intentionally. Though I won't deny that certain elements push my view.

As a sidenote on KoW; back when I tried it things weren't all that balanced but listbuilding was still bland. The reasons for why armies feel stale in KoW is a discussion of itself but balanced options isn't the reason.

That is correct people tend to not send compliments, but I coupled that experience with all of the polls I had done that are always heavily skewed toward listbuilding needing to play a heavy hand in the game's outcome.

It could easily be that the people that want balance either dont frequent boards and facebook groups, or they don't care enough to vote in polls more so than the guys that want listbuilding to be highly influential.

This is true even in the pc strategy game world, where I spend a lot of time as that is where most of my game development lies.

Thats simply what sells more.