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.

Orkz are not supposed to work, didn't you get the Memo?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Orkz are not supposed to work, didn't you get the Memo?

Tracking shows the memo is currently at the delivery center on Cadia and will be delivered soon.

100% yes, balance = more options and the players shifts the meta on its own without point changes.

If the game was (its impossible tho) perfectly balanced, you'll see many different lists all the time.

But note balance mean equal points for equal levels of power, balance doesnt mean a tough transport tank can shoot as well as a one made to shoot, it means the options to transport units is equally desirable as to have a tank shooting and if you had a Gunline of tanks vs a Rhino rush army, each would be equally viable and able to win.

happy_inquisitor wrote:
I understand what he wants, the only answer would be a radical overhaul of mission design and a move away from fixed predefined missions. I am extremely doubtful that there is much appetite for that in the wider competitive community.

I don't think you understand what he wants at all. 'Make Ork bikes, buggies, transports, and tanks not horrendously overcosted for what they are' has nothing to do with mission design.

They are not poor units because they are suited for specific missions. They just don't offer enough on the table to justify their cost.

Right now the only tournament-viable Tyranid list is Swarmlord, Flyrants, a unit of Hive Guard, and as many Genestealers as I can take, under the Kraken hive fleet. That's it. If I want to take Hormagaunts, Termagants, Warriors, or Carnifexes- you know, the basic units of the army that are staples in the fluff- am I building an overly-specialized fluffy army that deserves to lose in take-all-comers games? What's the niche mission that this army composition is tailored to win?

This tournament mindset that it's balanced if each codex has just one viable build is hurting the game. There are standout units and a lot of crap- not 'only useful for a specific mission type', but actually never worth taking- and it diminishes the idea of meaningful choice in listbuilding.

I figure horde-stuff like Tyranids, Orks, and so on needs to be able to recycle models/units back onto the table. It de-values the super-OMG-elite stuff in SM, CSM, and Aeldari to make it better, and making it cheaper is ludicrous when it's so damned expensive. I think the Mek Gun is the most expensive model per point in the game, for example. Plus the tables aren't big enough. Better to have a horde constantly recycling back onto the board.

I think asking people if they want "balance" is like asking if they want "world peace"; everyone wants it but it means different things to different people.

Before you can really discuss wanting 'balance' I think you have to actually define it. Some think balance is 1:1 equivalency, either in points or some other measure. However in a lot of ways its a lot more abstract and should be thought of as less exacting and more of a tolerance or some measure of acceptable variability. Two nearly identical units don't need to be exactly the same number of points to the exact decimal point they just need to be a hypothetical nominal value +/- some percentage of that nominal value and you have 'balance'.

The balance of the game can then be visualized as a distribution curve taking stated cost and performance into consideration, where the smaller the standard deviation the more balanced the game is.

I think the greatest difficulty in imposing balance on the game is that people want point efficiency. Point efficiency is in direct opposition to a balanced system. Point efficiency is indicative of a greater than normal deviation from the nominal value of the unit. And any manipulation of point values by game developers that intentionally puts units on the less efficient extreme while simultaneously putting similar units at the efficient extreme, to sell more, creates greater deviation, variation, and imbalance. You have to eliminate any intentional point efficiency to achieve balance.

This issue of balance is most problematic where you have rules that have no point cost associated with them as it imposes a greater abstraction between what units do and their point costs.

Expecting that 400 points of guard should perform similarly well to 400 points of Imperial Knight is kinda at the heart of it. However where the balance of the system is strained the most is where you a lot of very similar units with point unaccounted rules being priced similarly. This sort of cramming into a point value creates greater variability and standard deviation between their point costs and nominal point costs. MEQs are a good example of that. The game was designed around the Marines because they're the protagonists and so ubiquitous relative to other armies. The nature of the point system forces rounding on a low level and on a higher level it can quickly translate to two armies more significantly apart than their stated point values would imply.

This comes down to two types of granularity, one in the capability of units and one in point values. The granularity of units is simple, being based on a game that uses d6 with stats in a particular range means their is statistically a point where unit can't get any weaker relative to what they can achieve. You see it with the horde units like Guard, Cultists, etc... where even if you make them weaker after a given point they really don't get any worse.

You then have the granularity of the point system in general, where significance is rounded to the nearest whole point. This is where point efficiency, the glut of like units, and the relative cost of the weakest units really start to compound. All this is the long term consequence of GW dropping point values to get us to play larger games. We still typically play 1800-2000 pt games after all these editions using a system rooted and built off of earlier editions of the game that would have valued our current armies as ~3000pts. 3000pts is now 2000pts and 2000pts is now 100PL... but what is 1PL what is 1pt? For the game to be 'balanced' it means up to the point deviation can be reigned in, the smallest significant element should be accounted for.

As made apparent with horde units, that simply isn't the case. The first step to balancing the game would thus be to rebase the entire point system around the weakest model and base all other point costs relative to that, where in the past the game has been costed and 'balanced' around the more ubiquitous MEQ.

Asymmetrical balance is either going to be by feel and prone to bias or it has to be based on some sort of statistical modelling and a more direct relationship between point costs and unit performance... with an acceptable and unmanipulated tolerance. That tolerance as whole could be dialed in based on feel but once set any manipulation would make it necessary to redetermine all point costs.

I used to think the players wanted balance. That seemed obvious to me.

Oh how wrong I was.

I had the privilege of writing one of the Age of Sigmar fan comps that was used by a good many tournaments before GW official points killed all of the fan projects off.

One of the biggest complaints sent to our playtest group was that the points were way too boring because they were too balanced and list building didn't mean as much.

That list building didn't mean as much.

List building.

You can't have list building be impactful if the game is also balanced, because if you look at balanced, you see multiple load outs would be equal in value, which removes the value of list building.

People attracted to GW games want list building to be a major impact.

Which means you require less balance to pull off.

catbarf wrote:
This tournament mindset that it's balanced if each codex has just one viable build is hurting the game. There are standout units and a lot of crap- not 'only useful for a specific mission type', but actually never worth taking- and it diminishes the idea of meaningful choice in listbuilding.

I don't think this is intentional. You need some sort of measuring stick to check whether you have balance or not. Getting one viable build for every army is a good start since you can't really compare units across codices - no matter how much some people want to.
Once you have one viable build, you can identify and adjust other archetypes to match the performance of that build. I think the Space Marines codex tried to do this by nerfing the Gulliman gimic and improving other chapters and options.

 auticus wrote:
I used to think the players wanted balance. That seemed obvious to me.

Oh how wrong I was.

I had the privilege of writing one of the Age of Sigmar fan comps that was used by a good many tournaments before GW official points killed all of the fan projects off.

One of the biggest complaints sent to our playtest group was that the points were way too boring because they were too balanced and list building didn't mean as much.

That list building didn't mean as much.

List building.

You can't have list building be impactful if the game is also balanced, because if you look at balanced, you see multiple load outs would be equal in value, which removes the value of list building.

People attracted to GW games want list building to be a major impact.

Which means you require less balance to pull off.

I'd like something like that for 40k.

But then all the meta chasers would burn me

 auticus wrote:
I used to think the players wanted balance. That seemed obvious to me.

Oh how wrong I was.

I had the privilege of writing one of the Age of Sigmar fan comps that was used by a good many tournaments before GW official points killed all of the fan projects off.

One of the biggest complaints sent to our playtest group was that the points were way too boring because they were too balanced and list building didn't mean as much.

That list building didn't mean as much.

List building.

You can't have list building be impactful if the game is also balanced, because if you look at balanced, you see multiple load outs would be equal in value, which removes the value of list building.

People attracted to GW games want list building to be a major impact.

Which means you require less balance to pull off.

List build and balanced points are 2 different things tho.

Lets say everything is equally perfect in balance with regards to points. That means you can make a viable melee army, a viable mix army, a viable shooting army, a viable tanky army, a viable horde army, etc.. etc.. That means you have MORE list building options.

But players like uniqueness with that list building, if you are just raw stats and points then yes it is boring, but having characters buff melee, then some buff shooting, some give 0 buffs and are just cool (like Sly Marbo for example) or some are just beat sticks (like Smash Captains) then players, also players needs to bee able to put something personal into it, something they like.

List building and balanced points are indeed two different things, but they conflict with each other.

You cannot have both meaningful list building and truly balanced points at the same time. You have to sacrifice from one to get the other.

 auticus wrote:
You cannot have both meaningful list building and truly balanced points at the same time. You have to sacrifice from one to get the other.

Why do you think that?

The decision to take adequate screening units for artillery, or to take complimentary units that can move at the same speed to work together, or the choice between generalist and specialist units are just a few examples. Unless you consider list building to equate to taking purely the most points efficient units.

Because in every instance of my life where points have been very close to balanced (in a variety of games) the #1 complaint is always that that level of balance is boring and that it negates list building, and that list building is what those people desire most.

This same phenomenon happens in video game design as well, where several projects that I have had to work on had a lot of user complaints of "its boring because everything is balanced and we dont want chess."

For many, meaningful list building means that if you don't take the most optimal list, that you should be at a significant disadvantage over someone that does.

The more lists you can build, the more unhappy those people get because you are lessening what they consider to be impactful choices. If I can make 10 different competitive builds from a codex, then the most optimal list isn't as powerful.

Now I'm not saying everyone thinks this, but I have found a great number of people feel this way in both tabletop gaming and video gaming when it comes to building forces.

If 2000 points really meant 2000 points, it would cause a lot of angst. It causes angst in games that get close to that mark, caused angst in the fan comp days of AOS, and causes angst in the video game world for similar reasons.

Yeah no. "I can take three broken units instead of two" is not "impactful" decision making no matter how you want to spin it.

Well to some people that is precisely what impactful listbuilding is.

I don't like or agree with that personally but there are a lot of people that do.

More pointedly, rooting out the broken units themselves is what they find to be fun, figuring out that they are optimal / undercost is what they find to be fun, and building a list that gets the most juice for the squeeze is why they play.

Balanced points ruins that.

The question that we cannot answer is just what is the ratio of people that want that vs the people that want real points balance.

I cannot answer that question and localized polls won't give you the answer either. The only one that could answer that would be GW in their annual global polls, and they don't share their data.

I think you are thinking about it the wrong way, you are not talking about real balance, you are still talking about netlists that has a clear winning list, that is still not balanced.

We havent seen true balance in 40k, and we never will, its impossible. But look at other games like Chess and Go, their are what some masters call "Life time knowledge of strategy" and they still study other players b.c each person has a different way of playing, and yet those games are as balance as you can make a game.

So no, i completely disagree with that you are saying and a perfectly balance game will make MORE fun and viable lists, it will make even more meaning full list building, especially when a player can make his army literally HIS WAY, if he wants all bikes, its viable, if they want all flyers, its viable, etc...

And rooting for the underdog units might be a few peoples idea of fun, but thats still not the same thing, that is making the game more challenging or being know as "that guy that won with the bad units" i dont agree that is part of list building fun, ut more for social recognition. If someone truly wanted to be challenged in a balanced game they would go after better players like what all sports do.

Well that still doesn't address the numerous complaints from more balanced games or past fan comps of

"the points are too balanced that they are boring and make list building not as important". which were numerous enough to make us have to rethink how we were doing things, and is something that game design in the videogame sphere has to also wrestle with.

What more balanced games have complaints? What are you talking about?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think you are thinking about it the wrong way, you are not talking about real balance, you are still talking about netlists that has a clear winning list, that is still not balanced.

We havent seen true balance in 40k, and we never will, its impossible. But look at other games like Chess and Go, their are what some masters call "Life time knowledge of strategy" and they still study other players b.c each person has a different way of playing, and yet those games are as balance as you can make a game.

So no, i completely disagree with that you are saying and a perfectly balance game will make MORE fun and viable lists, it will make even more meaning full list building, especially when a player can make his army literally HIS WAY, if he wants all bikes, its viable, if they want all flyers, its viable, etc...

And rooting for the underdog units might be a few peoples idea of fun, but thats still not the same thing, that is making the game more challenging or being know as "that guy that won with the bad units" i dont agree that is part of list building fun, ut more for social recognition. If someone truly wanted to be challenged in a balanced game they would go after better players like what all sports do.

Yes, but auticus's point is precisely that - if you have a huge variety of viable lists, you won't be able to make accurate predictions of your chances at winning a game simply by building a list and comparing it on paper with the various viable lists an opponent might bring. And that's what a fair share of players seem to want listbuilding to be: a means to produce as much control over the game as possible before the armies have even hit the table. If list A is viable as lists B through P, your impact on the game doesn't really start until you're actually deploying units.

I want balance in so far as we don't have 2 units that do exactly the same thing with one being so much obviously better while even being cheaper...that is just unacceptable. I am okay and actually want for some imbalance to exist...Like certain factions should have better premier units that go with their main idea ie - Eldar should be the fastest/ tau should be the shootiest.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I think you are thinking about it the wrong way, you are not talking about real balance, you are still talking about netlists that has a clear winning list, that is still not balanced.

We havent seen true balance in 40k, and we never will, its impossible. But look at other games like Chess and Go, their are what some masters call "Life time knowledge of strategy" and they still study other players b.c each person has a different way of playing, and yet those games are as balance as you can make a game.

So no, i completely disagree with that you are saying and a perfectly balance game will make MORE fun and viable lists, it will make even more meaning full list building, especially when a player can make his army literally HIS WAY, if he wants all bikes, its viable, if they want all flyers, its viable, etc...

And rooting for the underdog units might be a few peoples idea of fun, but thats still not the same thing, that is making the game more challenging or being know as "that guy that won with the bad units" i dont agree that is part of list building fun, ut more for social recognition. If someone truly wanted to be challenged in a balanced game they would go after better players like what all sports do.

Yes, but auticus's point is precisely that - if you have a huge variety of viable lists, you won't be able to make accurate predictions of your chances at winning a game simply by building a list and comparing it on paper with the various viable lists an opponent might bring. And that's what a fair share of players seem to want listbuilding to be: a means to produce as much control over the game as possible before the armies have even hit the table. If list A is viable as lists B through P, your impact on the game doesn't really start until you're actually deploying units.

But you are missing my point, if everything is equally balanced then only skill matters, it doesnt matter what your opponent brings only that you have your movements/turn/target priorities right for his list/mission.

If players wnat to list tailor then they dont want a game, thats not a player that cares about balance, fun, or rules, they only want to win, and then it doesnt work out all the time anyways.

The Meta isn't the same everything b.c it shifts all the time, within my own local tournament of the same 20 people, they all bring something different each time to focus on that "one" player that got 1st or beat them, but that 1 player isn't always taking the same list, or isn't always going to be their opponent.

We see this at tournaments all the time, someone makes a counter meta list and doesnt go against any of those list, b.c believe it or not, not all players play netlists, then they get mad and say they are underpower or the opponent is over power and come onto the internet to complain when it was their own fault.

The meta shifts on its own, that is my point, when all units are balanced equally you'll still have players will a more balance list put together (AKA not all walking slow troops with no melee) you'll still have tac lists and still need to focus o the missions, but with the units being equal you dont need to worry if your opponents biker is stronger than your biker, they might have different roles, aka his is a shooting biker (SM) and mine is a melee biker (Orks) at least you feel good in knowing they are equal in power level and it comes down to who players better.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
What more balanced games have complaints? What are you talking about?

I have heard that the game / points are too balanced and therefore boring because listbuilding is not as important in fan comp for AOS before official points, in Kings of War regularly, in Saga, Warlords of Erehwon, and in Antares. I have also seen it many times in 40k forums, though only in discussions about balance (since 40k has never had balanced points).

 auticus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
What more balanced games have complaints? What are you talking about?

I have heard that the game / points are too balanced and therefore boring because listbuilding is not as important in fan comp for AOS before official points, in Kings of War regularly, in Saga, Warlords of Erehwon, and in Antares. I have also seen it many times in 40k forums, though only in discussions about balance (since 40k has never had balanced points).

Find those posts because that's a load of crap.

Yeah I'll get right on that for you tough guy.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah I'll get right on that for you tough guy.

You're the one that made the claim, not me. If this is a rampant train of thought people have, and is happening a lot, it should be easy to find LOTS of examples of it.

You're a professional trash talking contrarian. Getting into a mixup with you is like trying to nuke a hurricane and expect it to do anything. You move goalposts everywhere.

I provide an example, you say its not enough.

I provide multiple examples, you come back and pedantically argue that it could mean something else - to the contrary for the sake of being to the contrary.

I pay my mortgage off of game design. This is a topic that game designers have to wrestle with because its a recognized thing.

Thats all I have to say to you, because no matter what I can come up with, you're going to have something to say on the contrary. There are certainly a lot better ways to spend time doing than trying to argue with a contrarian who has boasted in the past about enjoying being a contrarian.

Just chiming in to say I have seen versions of what Auticus describes over the years, particularly in Kings of War when compared to Warhammer Fantasy, and more recently to some extent in the thread about competitive 40K.

People like the listbuilding phase as a puzzle to solve, it is also a solo activity that you can do without any hobby materials other than the book. I get why it is popular. I used to do a lot of messing around with lists in 5e. No judgement from me on those people that enjoy it.

Now I am more interested in getting a reasonably fair game out of any models I choose to use (given a bit of effort toward making a combined arms force). 40K seems like a bit of a crapshoot and a lot of money and effort for that, so I am looking elsewhere.

 auticus wrote:
This same phenomenon happens in video game design as well, where several projects that I have had to work on had a lot of user complaints of "its boring because everything is balanced and we dont want chess."

Not much you can do about this - some people want a level playing field, some don't. Can't please them both.

 auticus wrote:
For many, meaningful list building means that if you don't take the most optimal list, that you should be at a significant disadvantage over someone that does.

Optimal list building should be about taking a sensible selection of units to carry out a playstyle, choosing how much outright power to sacrifice for redundancy, picking areas to be weaker in order to have areas where you are stronger, fitting your unit selection to your playstyle, to the game objective structure, and to other factors such as turn time limits and list building restrictions.

Of course all of that actually requires someone who wants meaningful list building in the sense that their choices are meaningful, rather than those who want 'meaningful' list building in the sense some unit or another is poorly balanced enough to give them a meaningful advantage.

A.T. wrote:

 auticus wrote:
This same phenomenon happens in video game design as well, where several projects that I have had to work on had a lot of user complaints of "its boring because everything is balanced and we dont want chess."

Not much you can do about this - some people want a level playing field, some don't. Can't please them both.

While this is true, there is a difference between asemetrical balance (StarCraft is a good example of this) vs homogenizing everything to being closer copies of the same thing (see the class iterations over a few expansions in WoW). 8th did a lot of that when everything went to the indexes and you end up with a lot of weapons, units, abilities that are different basically in name only with extremely similar if not exactly the same stats, rules, etc.

Its not bad to have units that have different purposes. The issue is when some units are just plain better than others. when you look at a codex adn say well X Y and Z will make oturnamnt lists, A, B, and C have some limited use, meanwhile Units L, M ,N, and O tough luck maybe they will get better rules in another 12 months during chapter approved, until then they are garbage and will not see play.