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.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:


Also, the meta constantly changes. Just cos the army the kid loves best happens to "suck" in Autumn 2019 doesn't mean it's going still be so in Spring 2020 when they've finally gotten it all built and painted and ready to go!

But hopefully we can agree that that is kind of a sucky way to even out unfairness? The meta really shouldn't change that much to begin with

Sure. But it's still weird to think it's wise to actively discourage a new player from getting the army that appeals to them most because they happen to currently not be that great in competitive play.

I mean… a new player isn't even going to be playing competitive games right off the bat anyway! They're going to need to learn the game in a forgiving environment first!

Grey Knights haven't been good outside the quick stint of their 5th edition codex. I'd tell anyone to avoid them at all costs outside grabbing 1 box each of the Strikes and Terminators for bitz. That's really it. I did that for my Deathwatch Terminators with Swords and the Storm Bolters. They ain't painted but I'll get a pic of them later. For all they do wrong, GW created a lot of great stuff if you play Marines!

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?

Come on...

Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.

Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.

We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?

Come on...

Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.

Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.

We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.

And that's a bad thing why?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?

Come on...

Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.

Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.

We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.

And that's a bad thing why?

Because fewer options and rules clearly means the game isn't as fun or enjoyable

I don't think he's saying it is. Just that balance can require a move to the centre, but that doesn't necessitate boring gameplay.

JohnnyHell wrote:Blastaar, try including every Codex and not pretending some are the same different rules requires balancing, so they’re not able to be counted as one.

Space Marines (and 6+ Supplements, increasing complexity)
Dark Angels
Blood Angels
Space Wolves (all these three have their own Codex)
Chaos Space Marines
Death Guard
Thousand Suns
Adeptus Custodes
Imperial Knights
Chaos Knights
Adepta Sororitas
Inquisition (albeit just the White Dwarf footnote that they are)
Assassins
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Tyranids
Genestealer Cult
Craftworld Aeldari
Drukhari
Harlequins
Ynnari (again, these are separate and balancing requires treating each separately, and Ynarri as another for balancing purposes)
T’au
Orks
Necrons
Daemons

That’s 24 books, not 14, plus supplements, Vigilus, PA etc.

The GW we store lists 35 factions/subfactions. Again, not 14.

...and if being super picky all the Kill Team/Blackstone etc pamphlet Codexes, Titans, DKoK, RaH... but no one uses those sooooo.

And because, among other things, GW tries to make so many different flavors of space marine super special and unique, we have major balance issues. Roll them into one massive codex, use alternate Force Org charts for the chapters with unique units or weird organization and their gear and have done with it. Chapter tactics, doctrines, etc. make the game worse, not better.

JohnnyHell wrote:Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

8th ed is not complex for having many rules that are nearly identical in ways that don't really contribute to the gameplay experience, it is bloated. At least as much as 7th was. You mistake quantity for quality.

JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.

Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.

That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.

Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.

You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?

Come on...

Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.

Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.

We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.

And that's a bad thing why?

I get the feeling that you are more out looking for a fight than you are reading what people are writing. No. It is a good thing in my eyes. But it is still the lay of the land.

Blastaar wrote:

I think your definition is just colored by personal opinion just a tad.

No. historically speaking, Nou is more or less correct. The term has mutated since, but Nou more or less has the right of it.

Blastaar wrote:

CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).

It's merely one definition that has crystallised from the ether, amongst others.

With respect, the person you describe is not someone I would like to play against, but I've also seen that very same definition used as a scathing and condascending term of derision for people like Nou and myself, or generally anyone who simply isn't interested in playing an army that is anything other than built at the bleeding edge of competitiveness, or who dares to suggest the idea of talking to the other guy before a game.

Blastaar wrote:

At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.

With respect, it really isn't. Caac and Waac are very nebulous terms and often mean different things to sifferent people. Just because you have an idea in your head as to what they mean, and probably share this definition, with posters you respect, it doesn't mean that this definition is universally shared. I've seen Waac used disparagingly a lot of times, and sometimes, quite accurately to describe a broad range of attitudes and approaches. Similarly, with caac, as pointed above, I've seen it hurled about, more often than not as a nasty, condescending expletive, or as something like a gaming equivelant of the 'n' word. But it's misplaced. It gets thrown around a lot, but it seems actual presence is pretty damned small. And it's a boogeyman term, very heavily built on projection rather than substance, often nothing more than an 'other-ing ' to try to scare people into line By stoking fear and hate because 'those people' are going to ruin their game. I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.

Cheers

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...

Could they make it balanced enough to actually satisfy people. Sadly, I think the answer to that one is no.

There's things that can be done to help, but let's face it, every support structure you build in has an associated cost, and I've never come across one that didn't have its detractors or legitimate faults. Magnify that by the size of the 40k community and regardless of whatever decision gw does, you have the never ending cycle of both hostility and complaint. Similarly. I've never seen a 'better balanced wargame' (and I've played my fair share!) that has been balanced enough that couldn't be twisted into a weapon and turned into an NPE.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Aestas wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?

Come on...

Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.

Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.

Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.

Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:

Each crew must be led by a named special character.

M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.

Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.

Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.

And by all reports is pretty well-balanced.


It can be done. It has been done.

To (fellow) narrative oriented players out there who's afraid that simplified, streamlined and less distinct rules leads to a less narratively gripping and fluffy gameplay. Try to grab the Song of Blades and Heroes ruleset (shouldn't set you back much), and knock back a few skirmish games using that ruleset modified to, let us say a 40k. scenario with two distinct factions, and see how much fun it can actually be, even if the gameplay is as simple as it can get. Don't worry about learning curves, you get it in the first try.

I'm not saying 40k. should be just as simple, only that you don't need to be so opposed to a simplified ruleset. But again, I highly doubt we will see GW go in that direction.

Deadnight wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

I think your definition is just colored by personal opinion just a tad.

No. historically speaking, Nou is more or less correct. The term has mutated since, but Nou more or less has the right of it.

Blastaar wrote:

CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).

It's merely one definition that has crystallised from the ether, amongst others.

With respect, the person you describe is not someone I would like to play against, but I've also seen that very same definition used as a scathing and condascending term of derision for people like Nou and myself, or generally anyone who simply isn't interested in playing an army that is anything other than built at the bleeding edge of competitiveness, or who dares to suggest the idea of talking to the other guy before a game.

Blastaar wrote:

At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.

With respect, it really isn't. Caac and Waac are very nebulous terms and often mean different things to sifferent people. Just because you have an idea in your head as to what they mean, and probably share this definition, with posters you respect, it doesn't mean that this definition is universally shared. I've seen Waac used disparagingly a lot of times, and sometimes, quite accurately to describe a broad range of attitudes and approaches. Similarly, with caac, as pointed above, I've seen it hurled about, more often than not as a nasty, condescending expletive, or as something like a gaming equivelant of the 'n' word. But it's misplaced. It gets thrown around a lot, but it seems actual presence is pretty damned small. And it's a boogeyman term, very heavily built on projection rather than substance, often nothing more than an 'other-ing ' to try to scare people into line By stoking fear and hate because 'those people' are going to ruin their game. I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.

Cheers

And this is why labels can be problematic. We can't even agree on what they mean!

In gaming it's especially stupid. The idea that some people are playing "wrong" or for reasons other than fun is.... laughable, really. I would think just about everyone plays outside of organized events, or the off game just to "see what happens." Why couldn't that same person also like building lists to crush their buddies? Who would spend a full day, or two, playing with action figures in a tournament if it wasn't fun?

Tbf quite a lot of non gw tabletops do balance a lot better.

Blastaar wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.

You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?

No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.

Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted. This thread is dancing all over and the post I was responding to was simply evasion. “There are 14 factions” “erm, there are more...” “Well there shouldn’t be!” Ahem.

All the pre-labelling of people to try and undermine positions through derision is also completely disingenuous. Maybe instead of trying to pin down definitions peeps should stop using this ‘tactic’ in arguments? We could have much more chill and useful discussions if they refrained.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.

You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?

No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.

Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted.

I'm still not understanding you. Discussing the state of, well, anything involves not only what is, but what was, and what could be. It isn't merely a matter of personal opinion, but of analysis. Understanding the strengths as well as the flaws, and what to do about those flaws, or even how to maintain that strength.

There are a load of rulebooks in 8th. There don't seem to be too many players who really enjoy this. GW attempting to justify those books, or applying a band-aid to deeper issues of lack of interaction and substantive diversity by giving armies unique rules has led to a high variance in power. Sticking only with "what is" doesn't focus the discussion, but stifles it.

Without what was, or what could be, this thread would be one OP along the lines of "There are too many books! Balance sucks!" and everyone else saying "Yeah, balance sucks! I can't even play X army/unit/whatever" ad nauseam. Hardly a conversation.

Deadnight wrote:




Could they make it balanced enough to actually satisfy people. Sadly, I think the answer to that one is no.

There's things that can be done to help, but let's face it, every support structure you build in has an associated cost, and I've never come across one that didn't have its detractors or legitimate faults. Magnify that by the size of the 40k community and regardless of whatever decision gw does, you have the never ending cycle of both hostility and complaint. Similarly. I've never seen a 'better balanced wargame' (and I've played my fair share!) that has been balanced enough that couldn't be twisted into a weapon and turned into an NPE.

Even taking that at face value, there is still a gap between deliberately pursuing something broken, and balance being so egregious that you trip over it.

Still, "some people won't ever be happy" isn't a reason not to try, the closer you get to the target you'll at least probably make more people happy.

Blastaar wrote:


Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.

Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:

Each crew must be led by a named special character.

M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.

Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.

Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.

And by all reports is pretty well-balanced.


It can be done. It has been done.

Isn't comparing Malifaux to 40k a bit like comparing a handful of oranges to a bushel of apples? There are a lot of factions, a lot of units, and a bajillion possible builds within each of the 276 codices in 40k. No matter how balanced the CSM and IG codices are between one another when choosing balanced, take all comer lists if you try to take World Eaters vs a melee IG build (I don't know, lots of ogryns and power swords on ever Sgt) the IG may as well be strung together like Christmas lights given how fast they'll be taken off the board.

X-wing was pretty tight and overall balanced between factions but not necessarily balanced between builds. Try taking just bombers with torpedoes vs an all fighter list. Try taking all fighters vs 3 TY1300s...

Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.

(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)

 Azreal13 wrote:
Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.

(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)

But it's a legal build in each book, just simply squeezing the best possible min/max list out of each possible detachment for competitive play is going to be pretty hard in a game with the scale and history of 40k.

Seriously, you higher level players should get together and build a basic take all comers list from each codex (say 2 HQ, 4 troops, 3 elites, 2 FA, 2 HS) and I wonder how balanced they'd come out. It'd be a neat exercise.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Blastaar wrote:


Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.

Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:

Each crew must be led by a named special character.

M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.

Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.

Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.

And by all reports is pretty well-balanced.


It can be done. It has been done.

Isn't comparing Malifaux to 40k a bit like comparing a handful of oranges to a bushel of apples? There are a lot of factions, a lot of units, and a bajillion possible builds within each of the 276 codices in 40k. No matter how balanced the CSM and IG codices are between one another when choosing balanced, take all comer lists if you try to take World Eaters vs a melee IG build (I don't know, lots of ogryns and power swords on ever Sgt) the IG may as well be strung together like Christmas lights given how fast they'll be taken off the board.

X-wing was pretty tight and overall balanced between factions but not necessarily balanced between builds. Try taking just bombers with torpedoes vs an all fighter list. Try taking all fighters vs 3 TY1300s...

I don't really think so. The 32 or whatever factions are in name only, marines especially aren't actually all that mechanically unique from chapter to chapter. There may only be 8 factions in Malifaux, one of which isn't filled out yet, but each of the faction's masters play quite differently from one another, leading to pretty diverse builds within those factions, and different builds for each master.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.

(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)

I think the trick for something like WE is to give them tools to support the berserkers- transports, ways to cause suppression to the enemy other than shooting, etc. Melee is so integral to 40k lore that a melee list should be just as TAC as the traditional mix of shooting, tanks, fast stuff, and melee. At least for the appropriate armies.

Blastaar wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.

You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?

No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.

Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted.

I'm still not understanding you. Discussing the state of, well, anything involves not only what is, but what was, and what could be. It isn't merely a matter of personal opinion, but of analysis. Understanding the strengths as well as the flaws, and what to do about those flaws, or even how to maintain that strength.

There are a load of rulebooks in 8th. There don't seem to be too many players who really enjoy this. GW attempting to justify those books, or applying a band-aid to deeper issues of lack of interaction and substantive diversity by giving armies unique rules has led to a high variance in power. Sticking only with "what is" doesn't focus the discussion, but stifles it.

Without what was, or what could be, this thread would be one OP along the lines of "There are too many books! Balance sucks!" and everyone else saying "Yeah, balance sucks! I can't even play X army/unit/whatever" ad nauseam. Hardly a conversation.

The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game? It was simply a diversion attempt. It served no purpose and still doesn’t. Hence my comment. I’m out of ways to explain this comment to you by now and you’ve expanded your miscomprehension into a whole post that doesn’t actually apply. You can talk about ways to balance without posters misrepresenting how many factions there are or wishing for amalgamations GW aren’t going to do. No point in this dead ends. No one is stifling anything. And tbh the last few pages have been largely tangents and ad hominems so there may not even be a coherent central topic running through it anymore!

The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game?

Because that's kinda the point of the thread? 40k is hard to balance given the number of factions and possible builds. They can't please everyone balance-wise to meet the competitive needs of those who really demand it and they really aren't going to try given their current commercial success.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.

(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)

But it's a legal build in each book, just simply squeezing the best possible min/max list out of each possible detachment for competitive play is going to be pretty hard in a game with the scale and history of 40k.

Seriously, you higher level players should get together and build a basic take all comers list from each codex (say 2 HQ, 4 troops, 3 elites, 2 FA, 2 HS) and I wonder how balanced they'd come out. It'd be a neat exercise.

That’d be outright impossible for Custodes to do at any reasonable points value.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.

You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?

No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.

Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted.

I'm still not understanding you. Discussing the state of, well, anything involves not only what is, but what was, and what could be. It isn't merely a matter of personal opinion, but of analysis. Understanding the strengths as well as the flaws, and what to do about those flaws, or even how to maintain that strength.

There are a load of rulebooks in 8th. There don't seem to be too many players who really enjoy this. GW attempting to justify those books, or applying a band-aid to deeper issues of lack of interaction and substantive diversity by giving armies unique rules has led to a high variance in power. Sticking only with "what is" doesn't focus the discussion, but stifles it.

Without what was, or what could be, this thread would be one OP along the lines of "There are too many books! Balance sucks!" and everyone else saying "Yeah, balance sucks! I can't even play X army/unit/whatever" ad nauseam. Hardly a conversation.

The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game? It was simply a diversion attempt. It served no purpose and still doesn’t. Hence my comment. I’m out of ways to explain this comment to you by now and you’ve expanded your miscomprehension into a whole post that doesn’t actually apply. You can talk about ways to balance without posters misrepresenting how many factions there are or wishing for amalgamations GW aren’t going to do. No point in this dead ends. No one is stifling anything. And tbh the last few pages have been largely tangents and ad hominems so there may not even be a coherent central topic running through it anymore!

So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.

And I misrepresented nothing about the number of factions there are. Just how different are BA from my DA, or Smurfs, or IH? Chapter tactics, doctrines, half a dozen units and wargear? A distinction without a difference. Marines are one faction, sold in too many volumes.

Blastaar wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Blastaar wrote:


Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.

Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:

Each crew must be led by a named special character.

M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.

Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.

Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.

And by all reports is pretty well-balanced.


It can be done. It has been done.

Isn't comparing Malifaux to 40k a bit like comparing a handful of oranges to a bushel of apples? There are a lot of factions, a lot of units, and a bajillion possible builds within each of the 276 codices in 40k. No matter how balanced the CSM and IG codices are between one another when choosing balanced, take all comer lists if you try to take World Eaters vs a melee IG build (I don't know, lots of ogryns and power swords on ever Sgt) the IG may as well be strung together like Christmas lights given how fast they'll be taken off the board.

X-wing was pretty tight and overall balanced between factions but not necessarily balanced between builds. Try taking just bombers with torpedoes vs an all fighter list. Try taking all fighters vs 3 TY1300s...

I don't really think so. The 32 or whatever factions are in name only, marines especially aren't actually all that mechanically unique from chapter to chapter. There may only be 8 factions in Malifaux, one of which isn't filled out yet, but each of the faction's masters play quite differently from one another, leading to pretty diverse builds within those factions, and different builds for each master.

Similar with a game like Warmahordes. 40k has the illusion of having all this complexity and a vast number of factions, but all of that variety isn't really variety and there are only a handful of really significant decisions while other games have a lot more interaction.

So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.

To be fair, when it wasn't selling and they got a sound financial newspaper across the nose with a stern "No" from their customers, all they did is release a new edition with much muttering about balance and competitive games, then more or less carried on as before within about 6 months, with an excuse to rerelease all the codexes again.

The only way to win is not to play. Quite literally in this case.

 Azreal13 wrote:

So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.

To be fair, when it wasn't selling and they got a sound financial newspaper across the nose with a stern "No" from their customers, all they did is release a new edition with much muttering about balance and competitive games, then more or less carried on as before within about 6 months, with an excuse to rerelease all the codexes again.

The only way to win is not to play. Quite literally in this case.

That is an accurate characterization. Could they finally learn from another downturn? Maybe, if players aren't persuaded by the 2nd Great Warhammer PR Offensive. Not trying is even worse.

 Azreal13 wrote:

So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.

To be fair, when it wasn't selling and they got a sound financial newspaper across the nose with a stern "No" from their customers, all they did is release a new edition with much muttering about balance and competitive games, then more or less carried on as before within about 6 months, with an excuse to rerelease all the codexes again.

The only way to win is not to play. Quite literally in this case.

Sadly. The players HAD the power, and fell for it. 8th was promised to be a new direction and we've gotten basically 7th edition with at least a better core that isn't 20 years old. But while the core rules are actually quite good, it's just been bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat again, as bad as or worse than 7th edition was. And with record sales, there won't be any reason to change. Last time it took what, like at least 6 years for people to start to get tired (after 5th, 6th and 7th editions were pretty hated although I think 6th started out with promise)? So we're looking at at least that amount of time again, if not longer.

I think the worst part is that like I said, the core rules of 8th are actually pretty well done. It's just the codex creep and stratagem/CP creep which is bad. If armies were designed differently and with proper inter and intra unit balance along without stratagems being such key pieces of the list and maybe with 30k style Rites of War (pick XYZ and get benefits/drawbacks that change up the org chart) then we might have a solid game on our hands.

For instance let's say if only the base stratagems in the rulebook are available (with missions adding extra but not codexes), not the extraneous ones (these would ideally be rolled back as abilities but that's getting too detailed for this), with only Patrol, Battalion and Brigade detachments (that correspond roughly to like sub-1000, up to 2500 and then above that but not using Apoc) and Rites of War which is where you can change up what counts/doesn't count, that seems pretty solid. It does have an affect on things like Knights but honestly Knights don't belong in the game anyways at the normal level, and exceptions could be made anyways via the rites of war system.

Deadnight wrote:


... I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.

I wonder if we're thinking about the same person. Around four years ago there was this guy active here, I don't recall his nick - played an absolute thrash Marine list consisting of Tacs, Assaults, Devastators and lead by Pedro Cantor. He made "X unit is OP" threads like once a week for months, and tried to convince everyone, that his vision of playing only basic infantry lists was fun "because fun is when things happen". A lot of lenghty threads revolved around him back then (he is the only poster whose list I remember to this day because of how central he was). It was long before CAAC was coined and the most common insult phrase back then was "gitgud or gtfo". This guy most certainly met all cryteria for CAAC as presented by Blastaar.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.

(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)

But it's a legal build in each book, just simply squeezing the best possible min/max list out of each possible detachment for competitive play is going to be pretty hard in a game with the scale and history of 40k.

Seriously, you higher level players should get together and build a basic take all comers list from each codex (say 2 HQ, 4 troops, 3 elites, 2 FA, 2 HS) and I wonder how balanced they'd come out. It'd be a neat exercise.

That’d be outright impossible for Custodes to do at any reasonable points value.

Almost makes you wonder why Custodes are their own codex without either Sisters of Silence or IG as basic troops? (See my post a few pages back)

nou wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


... I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.

I wonder if we're thinking about the same person. Around four years ago there was this guy active here, I don't recall his nick - played an absolute thrash Marine list consisting of Tacs, Assaults, Devastators and lead by Pedro Cantor. He made "X unit is OP" threads like once a week for months, and tried to convince everyone, that his vision of playing only basic infantry lists was fun "because fun is when things happen". A lot of lenghty threads revolved around him back then (he is the only poster whose list I remember to this day because of how central he was). It was long before CAAC was coined and the most common insult phrase back then was "gitgud or gtfo". This guy most certainly met all cryteria for CAAC as presented by Blastaar.

Wait, he was playing marines and ONLY used tac, assault, devastators and Kantor? Like… no rhinos or landspeeders or bikers or dreads or anything???

Did he take the lore on what the battleline companies consist of WAAAAYYY too literally or something?