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.

I've been thinking about the idea of balance a lot lately, especially related to the size of model ranges and the size of companies themselves. In terms of my views about game balance, I find that I can only play a game if it has a somewhat higher degree of balance between factions, rather than between units. I am fine with having a few dud units in the army if said army is able to stand up to any other given army and have a fair, balanced game, but if each unit in a given army was perfectly balanced with each other and said army wasn't balanced with the rest of the game in general? I'd be a lot less interested straight off the bat.

I've found that the larger companies tend to be the ones who have far worse balance, and I have a few theories about why. One is that they're far more focused on selling miniatures and rules to players, while smaller companies tend to be small garage businesses on the side of regular work, and that a constant shifting meta based off of unbalance is a great way to push that. Rather than promoting models that look nice for the sake of hobbying, they're ever larger and more expensive centrepiece kits that bloat their respective games and mess with the scale of it. See 40k and AoS as the examples that first come to mind, but Warmachine/Hordes is just as guilty, if not more, with their increasing focus on Battle Engines and large structures to add new features to competitive armies. Larger centrepiece models can work even with becoming a large focus of the game (30k Primarchs as one example, Arena Rex with its Living Hazard rule is another) but they don't have to be 10 times the size of a standard infantryman and dripping in special rules to do so. They just need to be thematic and visually striking, not half the cost of an army and simply huge for the sake of it. Of what I would consider the "big 3" in terms of wargaming today, Warlord is easily the best when it comes to the centrepiece argument, as their games are largely still stuck in the old-40k mindset of a big tank being a big thing. Tigers and Panzers are a significant investment on the table, and scary to face, but they're a $50 model because its just a tank. Back to the point of selling models, when Warmachine Mk3 rolled around they massively revamped the idea of how their theme lists worked, and everyone with a theme was able to add 2-3 free models to their lists just for playing those (in addition to theme benefits, roughly like a 40k 7th formation). This, however, led to a big issue where themes that had a theme list were massively overpowered in comparison to the ones who didn't (or just playing a regular army) and so competitively only very specific subsets of models were played until themes began to roll out more. This meant people were forced to either buy an entire new army (great for PP) or buy more models to fit into an existing army because the theme gave them more models than it previously did (so PP get more money). Now they're in a cycle very similar to GW, where the latest army to get focus is the one who is top dog, and people who keep up with the game are forced to cycle armies to keep up.

The companies with better balance I've found are also mostly the ones with smaller model ranges, and thus a smaller potential to have unbalanced combos present. Arena Rex is one of the tightest rulesets I've ever played, but it also has a very small potential combos in it. There are some strong synergies, but this is by design and with counters, and each faction only has between 6-12 options total. This means adding 1-2 new models per release has far less potential to massively shake up the game, and simply adds freshness to the game and prevents stagnation, while still making the company money. Malifaux is experiencing the end of this phase as well, as it is facing potential model bloat and the balance issues that come along with it (if model x is 3 years old and does its job well, why would I buy new release y that does the same thing unless it's flat out better?). It's even now gone through 9 months of playtesting for a new edition to fix this issue, and there's still issues with balance because there's just too much to test. Infinity is probably the outlier in terms of model range related to balance, as it is remarkably well balanced for how many permutations are possible, but its also facing a big issue with new rules bloat as they try and differentiate things, and is desperately in need of streamlining. Middle-earth is another that is seemingly at odds with its model line, as the rules are now very old (almost my age) but they've been tweaked very little and remain very good, and the team in charge of them are even going so far as to buff less powerful armies to match the standard, which is great. Sure, some newer releases are strong, but they're not so strong as to invalidate existing options in most cases(like Hurin is a good beatstick for Gondor, but he's no Boromir or Aragorn)

My favourite game, Batman Miniatures, is probably in the middle of the road when it comes to balance. It has good balance between factions, and anyone can comfortably win games and tournaments with any crew provided they know what they're doing, but there are still some dud choices in the range, and with the age of some models there are many cases where new models are just better. This has been amended with a "standard" format very similar to BMG, where only models updated to the 2nd edition ruleset are tournament legal unless otherwise stated by a TO, and this has done wonders for game balance. A lot of the outliers are gone the way of casual games with opponent permission, and tournaments are far more skill based than ever, which is a great move IMO. They are facing a new proliferation of larger models, but this is also partly due to changing from metal to resin and being able to do more with their sculpts as a result

In all, this is just my 2 cents. I tried to portray as non-GW a perspective as possible as that is what I mostly play, but also because it's something that's not as publicised on dakka in general (this is a GW forum after all) and I would rather keep on topic than complain about my gripes with 40k and AoS

An interesting takeaway, and this is usually true for this type of poll, at least from the past three years of me asking it, is that the majority of players typically are ok with poor balance. They'll still play regardless of balance, which is a good indicator for why the big companies also dont' care much about balancing their systems; their customers will still buy their stuff and play their game regardless.

Somewhat important in the sense that destroying a weak list or getting steamrolled is not fun, but otherwise I just want to roll some dice with friends and have fun.

Yes, sometimes people like the notion of being rewarded for playing the 'right' stuff, and other people like me like being the under-dogs. Hard to do with a balanced game.

That assumes a 100% balanced game, which is not really possible.

So even in a tighter balanced game, there will be underdogs.

But there is a difference between being an underdog, and not bothering showing up.

I think imbalanced games can work as long as there's a public acknowledgement of the imbalance that's worked into the game.

Blood Bowl is a great example. The community knows for a fact that teams like Wood Elves, Undead and Lizardmen are far and away better than Halflings, Ogres, and Vampires. But that's public knowledge. Anyone choosing a low-tier team is going to be aware that they're going to be working uphill a lot of the time. And in some cases, it can be extremely rewarding, like coaching Halflings (you beat a Flings team? Big whoop. You won with a Flings team? Your a gawddamn hero).

Tournaments will also try to bridge the gap between the tiers by awarding the lower tier teams with more skill/money when players are creating their roster, but the gap is still usually too inherently large.

Though player knowledge is still important. I'd bet on a veteran Blood Bowl coach playing a low tier team they know well rather than a new coach who's got a top tier team.

Blood Bowl is one of those games with obvious imbalances but the disparity makes it where most of the factions are viable.

A veteran coach playiing halflings though (the worst faction) will have a challenging game against a fairly new coach playing say dwarves or orcs.

A veteran coach playing halflings against veteran coaches will undoubtedly be demolished.

But the number of viable factions in that game is high enough where you have a lot of meaningful choices .

Unlike other games where half or more of the factions can't really do much against the top of the pile.

Balance only matters if your primary mode of play is pick-up games or tournament games.

If that is not your primary way to game, then balance does not matter nearly as much.

I think internal army balance is really important, just as important as faction/army balance. Taking the SM codex as an example, because I know it well, some units are just plain non-picks competitively such as the vindicator, which is a shame, because why have them if they're never ever worth taking.

Balance is important to me, but I've come to appreciate that its not a black and white issue and sometimes the state of a game's imbalance can be more important than how balanced it really is. I'm not wildly fond of David Sirlin's ethos when it comes to playing to win in a lot of cases, but his analysis of the difference between "balance" and "competitive diversity" is insightful and helpful for appreciating the state of a game.

Generally speaking, I want every faction to have something to play at a competitive level. That's something of a minimum standard, but even there I recognize that its tough to surpass 90% on that kind of scale. From there you get into the internal diversity debate, but its also kind of where balance discussions get stuck as the more equal options you have the more it comes down to preference and more those preferences are determined by top players. Things that are slightly inferior generally only show at the very top levels and it gets hard for multiple variations on one faction to each develop a champion to "prove" their equality.

At this point, I'm mostly happy to see developers showing an active strategy for improving balance. I'm personally rather fond of the "subfaction" trend, as it seems to help companies organize their factions into something that they can focus to ensure there's something competitive at a faction level and also really roadmap what's fallen behind. Generally speaking, I'm finding it a lot easier to be a faction loyalist in games these days, as there's usually something I can look to as a competitive option, and stuff I feel I can safely shelf with the promise it will see the table sooner or later.

Imho its probably 2nd or 3rd priority.

After playable game mechanics and setting.

But really just needs to be good enough. perfect game balance will never happen. Even if it could, some one would complain, you cant please everyone.

 Desubot wrote:


But really just needs to be good enough. perfect game balance will never happen. Even if it could, some one would complain, you cant please everyone.

It's fairly remarkable how much how players view what is powerful determines what is actually powerful. Generally speaking, when a new game/edition/etc is released, there's something viewed as OP that the meta usually figured out pretty quickly, but those early counters generally wind up sticking around a lot longer. The most overpowered stuff tends to be what tends to counter the things that are statistically the most powerful.

I've played Battletech for the better part of 30 years and it's one of the best balanced games out there since all players have the same options under it's core rules. Some of the individual pieces of weapons or equipment might be more effective than others but all players pick their designs from the same pool of mechanics. To shake things up for variety you can divide things by clan and inner sphere technology and there are some optional rules for individual factions but those aren't required and with 3025 era being the most popular format everyone is using the same tech and rules base.

Even though the mechanics are largely even for everyone there's plenty of factions with a deep history behind the game so IMO it doesn't suffer from feeling flat and I think it makes for a tighter game as it's determined primarily by player skill vs using some broken combo or underpriced powerful units. It's a dice based game so of course a player's luck can sway games heavily but each player has equal odds.

The other thing I like about it is that it's a hex map based game, some people might consider that passe but it eliminates movement and measuring shenanigans as you can always determine distances exactly and verify a movement phase if needed. There's no worries about that crucial half inch range or people moving their models front to back or "bumping" them for illegal advantage. The drawback is that the game can take an incredibly long time to resolve damage, but due to having the hex grid positions numbered it can be stopped mid game put away then resumed at a later point which isn't possible with games like 40k where you would need to leave the table set up and untouched during any sort of break.

Like everything the game system has some bumps and warts but it's a survivor, the internal balance is part of why it's been around so long.

 Desubot wrote:
Imho its probably 2nd or 3rd priority.

After playable game mechanics and setting.

But really just needs to be good enough. perfect game balance will never happen. Even if it could, some one would complain, you cant please everyone.

No, you can't write a game that everyone loves. But that does not mean a person or company shouldn't write the best ruleset they can. Perfect balance would be boring for any game. There's a reason why we like playing with our action figures instead of chess or checkers, or go or whatever. We enjoy the visual aspect, and the variety that is possible with each faction possessing a different look, background and playstyle. I think "perfect imbalance," or "balanced enough that the worst army has a shot against the best because the gap between them is narrower and skill matters" is the general consensus and desire.

Blastaar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Imho its probably 2nd or 3rd priority.

After playable game mechanics and setting.

But really just needs to be good enough. perfect game balance will never happen. Even if it could, some one would complain, you cant please everyone.

No, you can't write a game that everyone loves. But that does not mean a person or company shouldn't write the best ruleset they can. Perfect balance would be boring for any game. There's a reason why we like playing with our action figures instead of chess or checkers, or go or whatever. We enjoy the visual aspect, and the variety that is possible with each faction possessing a different look, background and playstyle. I think "perfect imbalance," or "balanced enough that the worst army has a shot against the best because the gap between them is narrower and skill matters" is the general consensus and desire.

 Desubot wrote:

But really just needs to be good enough.

its also why i have balance about or after setting (which is where i consider visual aesthetics to reside) in importance

It's impossible in a game like 40k one factor that makes it impossible is that dice are random.

Honestly the only way to make the game more playable,is to increase the amount of random zanny crap, like orks. Otherwise everyone in every possible iteration of 40k, will continue to build net lists.

So what do you do? Make every army the same? I don't think that's the way to fun..

8th edition for example isn't fun for me or my friends . We play older editions of 40k 4th to 7th, and we play 3 way games.

No one complains because anyone could win, and it's the most fun we have ever had. We also use a lot of house rules.

For example we are currently running a game with Unstable Gravity on a cracked moon. I took a bunch of Shipping containers and foam and made floating ice rocks and shipping containers that bounce around the map. Every move is a dangerous terrain check.

And it's glorious.. No one ever feels cheated. Everyones having fun. No balance in sight To conclude I feel that 40k should embrace that it's the mario Kart of wargames.




Oh if you're interested in playing this mission here you go.

Special Rules. Cracked moon : This moon has unstable gravity. All movement and shooting is decreased by one inch.

Every move a unit makes must take a dangerous terrain check. If they fail it is assumed they float off into the distance, are crushed like a pop can or implode.

Scattered debris:. Each floating object scatter 3d6 at the end of every full round after everyones gone.

If the floating debris hits something it's strength 10 ap 2. Small blast template ( you can modify for 8th)

Lucky deployment: All reserves come in as normal without the dangerous terrain check.

You need 7 scattered objectives all equal one victory point. You get one victory point for slaying the warlord. You likewise need 2 to 4 players.

1500 points (we're not playing 8th so adjust as needed)

One last edition to the rules for 3 way and 4 way games. As long as it's not your unit in close combat fire away.

Like everything the game system has some bumps and warts but it's a survivor, the internal balance is part of why it's been around so long.

Battletech is one of my favorite games.

Blastaar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Imho its probably 2nd or 3rd priority.

After playable game mechanics and setting.

But really just needs to be good enough. perfect game balance will never happen. Even if it could, some one would complain, you cant please everyone.

No, you can't write a game that everyone loves. But that does not mean a person or company shouldn't write the best ruleset they can. Perfect balance would be boring for any game. There's a reason why we like playing with our action figures instead of chess or checkers, or go or whatever. We enjoy the visual aspect, and the variety that is possible with each faction possessing a different look, background and playstyle. I think "perfect imbalance," or "balanced enough that the worst army has a shot against the best because the gap between them is narrower and skill matters" is the general consensus and desire.

I agree to some extent.

 LunarSol wrote:

It's fairly remarkable how much how players view what is powerful determines what is actually powerful. Generally speaking, when a new game/edition/etc is released, there's something viewed as OP that the meta usually figured out pretty quickly, but those early counters generally wind up sticking around a lot longer. The most overpowered stuff tends to be what tends to counter the things that are statistically the most powerful.

I'll sound a note of caution here. Saying "this is fine because counters exist" is less relevant to a wargame than, say, a video game. In Overwatch, if the enemy Pharah's running rampant, someone can switch to Widowmaker to deal with her with a couple of clicks. In a wargame, getting the counter can be expensive and time-consuming, not to mention needing to physically bring it down to every games night.

Love the post about eh Cracked Moon- That gets it. Balance is ma made-up issue by tourney and pick-up games. Mates in a basement do not have the same problem.

Some of my favorite games were whacky, multi-player games with weird special rules. Very memorable.

I think a 6 player, random deployment from reserves game was the best. Units were coming in all over the place, and the center of the 8x8 board had the objective.

 Elemental wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

It's fairly remarkable how much how players view what is powerful determines what is actually powerful. Generally speaking, when a new game/edition/etc is released, there's something viewed as OP that the meta usually figured out pretty quickly, but those early counters generally wind up sticking around a lot longer. The most overpowered stuff tends to be what tends to counter the things that are statistically the most powerful.

I'll sound a note of caution here. Saying "this is fine because counters exist" is less relevant to a wargame than, say, a video game. In Overwatch, if the enemy Pharah's running rampant, someone can switch to Widowmaker to deal with her with a couple of clicks. In a wargame, getting the counter can be expensive and time-consuming, not to mention needing to physically bring it down to every games night.

Sure. My point is just that what is played has a lot to say in what is good assuming you want models to have purposes and roles. Even if you point things "appropriately" the market value depends a lot on what's actually out there. For example, the value of having 1, 2, or 3 wounds varies greatly depending on how popular damage 2 weapons are and to a degree, the value of damage 2 weapons tends to vary based on the popularity of models with multiple wounds. Stuff like that is pretty hard to account for and is generally why balance is a constantly moving target.

The Allfather wrote:
It's impossible in a game like 40k one factor that makes it impossible is that dice are random.

Honestly the only way to make the game more playable,is to increase the amount of random zanny crap

...

8th edition for example isn't fun for me or my friends . We play older editions of 40k 4th to 7th, and we play 3 way games.

No one complains because anyone could win, and it's the most fun we have ever had. We also use a lot of house rules.

Have you tried playing 8th edition with open war twist cards or the battlezones rules at the back of the BRB - I imagine they accomplish the same sort of effect? I'm planning on using them in some upcoming games to see what they're like...

I love the open war cards.

Balance is pretty important - as is the company actually working on balance, and not The New Army Wins! Buy It!

I have two leagues running for KoW and Vanguard - one for grown ups, one for kids and tweens.

Balance is more important in a league than it is in a game played just between friends.

The Auld Grump

Hmm....So 46%(as of writing) basically say they don't play GW games? Other game forums here don't seem active enough to make that sound believable claim.

That or they are not being honest putting answer they don't play game where are broken factions yet playing GW games that are clearly games where overpowered or too weak factions exist.

That's a huge leap.

Firstly, there are currently GW games that the first statement applies to.

Secondly people may be voting because they generally don't perceive the game they play as having those issues, even if it's 40K. If one thing is clear from these debates it's that 40K means different things to different people.

Finally, yes there are people who don't currently play GW games that voted for that option. I'm one of them.

Like what games GW has? Even Adeptus Titanicus that's fairly well balanced clearly has top and underdogs.

And if people don't realize...Sheesh. What 1 month miniature newbies are voting in mass? GW games don't even require particularly high skill to spot huge imbalances. Kindergarden kid can do that with little bit of reading.

Interestingly enough if I take the pool of wargamers in my city, it is about 45% of them that won't touch GW games for the balance reason.

tneva82 wrote:
Like what games GW has? Even Adeptus Titanicus that's fairly well balanced clearly has top and underdogs.

So, fairly well balanced? Not "extreme OP or underpowered factions?" People also frequently cite Shadespire and ME:SBG as being pretty decently balanced too.

And if people don't realize...Sheesh. What 1 month miniature newbies are voting in mass? GW games don't even require particularly high skill to spot huge imbalances. Kindergarden kid can do that with little bit of reading.

Perhaps you don't remember wargaming in a pre internet age? I do, and while retrospectively it's been shown that 2nd was hideously off kilter, in my little gaming bubble it never felt like that, because we didn't approach the game with that mindset. People may still feel the same way. Despite self evidently being online to discuss wargaming, they may take no particular interest in competitive gaming and feel balance problems are something that happens elsewhere and doesn't cause them an issue in their own gaming.

Either way, this isn't a poll based on objective fact but personal opinion about what is fundamentally a nebulous concept that won't mean the same thing to everyone, but I'm much more comfortable attributing votes to a wider range of possibilities than "you don't play GW or you're liar."

tneva82 wrote:
Like what games GW has? Even Adeptus Titanicus that's fairly well balanced clearly has top and underdogs.

And if people don't realize...Sheesh. What 1 month miniature newbies are voting in mass? GW games don't even require particularly high skill to spot huge imbalances. Kindergarden kid can do that with little bit of reading.

You have to realise not everyone is playing tournament meta games all the time. For a very large number of gamers the games they're playing don't see the huge discrepancies in power level and balance that you get at the very top level of competitive 40k. The reality is most games I see are usually mono-Codex and where soup exists it's often more for fluff-based reasons than trying to min-max and break the system. If you don't experience the sort of imbalance that is possible then to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for that person or that gaming group.

There's also the much more likely possibility that polls conducted on Dakka aren't the most reliable!