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.

 Blackie wrote:
...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.

This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.

This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.

You're right, but what I'm arguing is that if a handful of units, among the thousands of available choices, are actually broken and taken in every list the game IS balanced. Everything can also be improved, and I agree with that, I just don't think current 40k is the mess some guys think it is. Having all units equally useful would be absolute perfection, but I'd settle with cycling the effectiveness of the units: scouts for example had their moment of glory not long ago when they were absolutely useful. Shuffling the meta by enhancing and nerfing IMHO is a good thing, it adds variety and prevents chasing the flavour of the month. It's hard (impossible?) to write a full internally balanced codex with 50+ (if not 100+) datasheets.

Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

 Blackie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.

This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.

You're right, but what I'm arguing is that if a handful of units, among the thousands of available choices, are actually broken and taken in every list the game IS balanced. Everything can also be improved, and I agree with that, I just don't think current 40k is the mess some guys think it is. Having all units equally useful would be absolute perfection, but I'd settle with cycling the effectiveness of the units: scouts for example had their moment of glory not long ago when they were absolutely useful. Shuffling the meta by enhancing and nerfing IMHO is a good thing, it adds variety and prevents chasing the flavour of the month. It's hard (impossible?) to write a full internally balanced codex with 50+ (if not 100+) datasheets.

Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.

 Blackie wrote:
...Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

In my experience if you're not playing the cheesy combo tournament lists you're entirely at the mercy of a bunch of really bad decisions GW made when writing the Indexes in 8th (badly-assigned Damage stats, badly-assigned Wounds stats, hugely generous AP stats, hugely generous move rates/ranges and trivial move-and-fire, blasts-as-rapid-fire) that they've never bothered to fix, and if you happen to be a unit that was unlucky when the stats were getting handed out (ex. any Eldar infantry) you're at a huge disadvantage. 9th works great in a tournament setting with optimized lists, and the tournament stats definitely prove it, but I think it's the worst 40k has ever been in terms of the bring-minis-you-like pick-up game.

 Blackie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.

This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.

You're right, but what I'm arguing is that if a handful of units, among the thousands of available choices, are actually broken and taken in every list the game IS balanced. Everything can also be improved, and I agree with that, I just don't think current 40k is the mess some guys think it is. Having all units equally useful would be absolute perfection, but I'd settle with cycling the effectiveness of the units: scouts for example had their moment of glory not long ago when they were absolutely useful. Shuffling the meta by enhancing and nerfing IMHO is a good thing, it adds variety and prevents chasing the flavour of the month. It's hard (impossible?) to write a full internally balanced codex with 50+ (if not 100+) datasheets.

Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

I agree, the current balance is acceptably good. I would obviously like to see a general nerf to Eradicators and Multi meltas, but that is because you can always do better.

Personally, this "good balance" that is being spoken of so many times, I've yet to see it.

Past editions of 40K didn't have it.
Past editions of WHFB didn't have it.
First edition of AoS didn't have it (didn't play second edition yet).
Warmachine/Hordes didn't have it.
X-Wing didn't have it.
MtG didn't have it.
I've never played Infinity or Malifaux, but the ones that did tell me that you still have cookie cutter builds.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.

But this way only a very few people will chase the meta. Only WAAC dudes are willing to constantly invest money to buff their army. The majority of people doesn't put hundreds every 3-4 months to improve their army, and if a unit is good now they'll think twice about buying multiple boxes of it because they know they won't last forever.

If meta doesn't change frequently more people will be tempted to improve their army with buying in large amounts whatever is more powerful at the moment, because it would be a safe investment for a long period.

Take eradicators, without FAQs or Chapter Approved released every 6-12 months they'll saturate the meta. They already are common but lots of players are settling with 3-6 of them, not 12-18 because they know that skew lists don't last forever. Thankfully.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Balance is not that hard.

Balance is incredibly hard. If it was as easy as you claim, it would have been solved decades ago.

 kirotheavenger wrote:


GW deliberately makes it hard by restarting the edition every couple of years in order to sell players new rulebooks.
They then make it worse by intentionally buffing up new units so that players buy the new rules and units.

I don't think keeping the same edition alive necessarily solves anything either or represents any kind of improvement. I've never seen a set of rules from any company that didn't have flaws and couldn't be manipulated or broken.

New editions are a requirement and every company in the game does this. It's just business.

 kirotheavenger wrote:


Better balanced just requires the writer to actually care, rather than seemingly doing everything in their power to avoid balance.

Wrong. Firstly most of the folks at gw care greatly about the game. And unfortunately 'caring' about things doesn't solve the unsolvable equation that is balance. And balance requires a lot more than 'caring'.

 kirotheavenger wrote:


And they're only aided by their customers saying it's not GW's responsibility, it's other player's to go out and buy more stuff until they have the right stuff!

Im.not aiding them. I'm being a realist and acknowledging the reality on the ground. What I'll say is it's also our responsibility, both to ourselves and our peers.gw unfortunately can't do everything. They're not gaming Jesus capable of miracles. The game you want can't be made.

AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
...We're not playing chess, armies are very different and with a huge set of rules/combinations. With that in mind it's flat out impossibile to have perfect balance, we can only have reasonable balance.

This is an awful argument. Balance doesn't require symmetry, balance requires you write army lists such that there are no trap options that are always pointless in every circumstance (e.g. SM Scouts), units that are always taken in every list (e.g. Eradicators). That can always be improved without making anything more symmetrical by fixing statlines, costs, and rules.

He's not wrong though. Perfect balance is impossible, better balance can be done, but there is a price to be paid and better will never be good enough for a lot of people.

Fixing statlines, costs and rules only goes so far. They're numbers and words on a page. Context matters. Things might be balanced in one scenario and utterly broken in another. Unless you can have an algorithm that can correct for context and account for game content (what's fielded, what's fielded against it, synnnergies and force multipliers), game size, mission type, terrain (amount, placement, type etc), player skill and list familiarity, then any discussion about how easy balance is doing less than scratching the surface.

Tldr it's a lot more complex and complicated than you state - it's not as simple as 'for solution pull this lever'.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.

Probably not the same thing, but look at wmh. MK2 is what I was most familiar with. Multiple lists, multiple win conditions, circular balance (things were good in some scenarios, easily countered in others). Having a game state where things cycle in and out of usefulness can be done and it can make for an interesting game.

 Blackie wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

How does "shuffling the meta" by nerfing and buffing units constantly prevent chasing the flavor of the month? That's exactly what fuels the meta chasers. Constantly nerfing previously solid units while simultaneously buffing weak ones is merely a way to sell more models to the meta chasers.

But this way only a very few people will chase the meta. Only WAAC dudes are willing to constantly invest money to buff their army. The majority of people doesn't put hundreds every 3-4 months to improve their army, and if a unit is good now they'll think twice about buying multiple boxes of it because they know they won't last forever.

If meta doesn't change frequently more people will be tempted to improve their army with buying in large amounts whatever is more powerful at the moment, because it would be a safe investment for a long period.

Take eradicators, without FAQs or Chapter Approved released every 6-12 months they'll saturate the meta. They already are common but lots of players are settling with 3-6 of them, not 12-18 because they know that skew lists don't last forever. Thankfully.

But wouldn't it just make more sense to make units more balanced to start with? Nobody can look at the stats and abilities of Eradicators compared to the new loyalist vehicles and think that the two are correctly balanced internally, much less externally. And nerfing large swathes of units at a time can have the side effect of making large percentages of people's collections suddenly weak. If you've been playing for a long time and have a large collection of models it doesn't hurt as much, but it can hurt newer players. Gw's pendulum has a tendency to swing too far.

Is perfect balance realistic? Not really.
Is better balance than we have now realistic? Easily.

You don't need to completely upend the entire ruleset every two years to create a fun ruleset.
Bolt Action and Flames of War have both had 2 editions in the time 40k has had 4.

Getting better balance is as trivial as sticking with the same core rules, and amending points/abilities closer to the middle each time, whilst refraining from deliberately releasing new content outside that median.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Is perfect balance realistic? Not really.
Is better balance than we have now realistic? Easily.

You don't need to completely upend the entire ruleset every two years to create a fun ruleset.
Bolt Action and Flames of War have both had 2 editions in the time 40k has had 4.

Getting better balance is as trivial as sticking with the same core rules, and amending points/abilities closer to the middle each time, whilst refraining from deliberately releasing new content outside that median.

That would be true if points were the sole factor in balance.

They are not.

Sometimes, you need to completely rework some interactions.

Spoletta wrote:
Sometimes, you need to completely rework some interactions.

A complete overhaul is never necessary, although minor rules changes can be better.
You balance things within the context of your ruleset.
In fact, completely reworking interactions means you have to throw out anything you learnt about relative performances within the scope of the last ruleset. That's why changing editions and adding more codexes and supplements is detrimental.

Regarding balance, I am certainly finding 9th to be an improvement in that area. Its early days in terms of Codexes, but Space Marines went down a little and Necrons have certainly moved up. I certainly don't see tabling on a regular basis, and nothing like the Turn 1 or 2 tablings that happened in 8th Ed Index Hammer. I've had terrible matchups in every edition. At least with 9th I get the feeling they will continue to adjust when they see stuff way out of whack.

I reviewed the pamphlet GW published just before 9th dropped with Nine things that are Great about the New Edition. I think the promise about Terrain has certainly come to be. The changes to CP certainly leveled the playing field for Stratagems and has effectively killed Soup. Blast Weapons are much better than before, but I am not seeing them as the game changer some feared. Tanks being back on Track is a bit of a mixed bag. They now behave more like tanks, manoeuvering around and not hugging their foot-borne leadership. The Harlequin Meta, though, is tough on vehicles...Crusade is a bit of a non-event in my community but maybe this a local phenomenon. Strategic Reserves and the changes to Flyers are fine, but their effect on the game is not huge. I do think, though that the number 1 promise of Clear and Concise Rules has been primarily achieved. Folks will always find loopholes, but the rules language is indeed tighter and we should see it continue as Codexes roll out.

As someone who started in 2nd, disliked 6th, walked away for 7th and came back for 8th this new edition is certainly enjoyable. Is it the most? Nostalgia for gaming days past hampers my objectivity, but its a fun edition. I will say its better than 8th, and way way better than 6th/7th Ed.

 Blackie wrote:


Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.

You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.

Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.

You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.

Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.

Orkz do have a lot of options on how to build lists...almost none are competitive or even casually competitive but yes. We do have a lot of different ways to build lists.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Tournament data shows that right now it's probably the most balanced edition ever competitively speaking and in friendly games it's super easy to avoid those few cheesy combo and play fairly balanced matches with tons of different builds.

Try building a harlequin army and not end up with something that looks like a tournament list. You don't even have to try that much. Same with custodes or orks. And all those are solid lists. IH in 8th could be made out of a few starter sets of infantry, and while lacking the FW stuff, were still almost the same in efficiency. there is also the flip side of thinks to it too. Because it is one thing to play an almost tournament list with a good army, it is another to try to play a non tournament list with an army which is bad. What gaming expiriance do you think a tau player would have if he didn't pick the best of the best units tau have? Sometimes a combo is the only thing that hold a codex a float.

It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.

Our harlequins player has always owned two units of bikes, and the only real way to tune down his army is by chucking in random characters or bringing those void reavers which are just the same as bikes but less efficient.

The notion that orks can't build in a way that isn't competitive is just hilarious.

Better than 8th, but still pretty bad.

Crusade is great tho!

SemperMortis wrote:

Orkz do have a lot of options on how to build lists...almost none are competitive or even casually competitive but yes. We do have a lot of different ways to build lists.

Yeah, but they worded their comment in a way that said that Orks have only one build and that this build is the competitive one. Basically that you cant not build a competitive list due to the lack of options.

Its really hard for harlequin to not take troupes in transports with bike support because these are literally the only options they have. The most creativity you can have at the listbuilding stage is what masque youre gonna play and what pivotal roles youre gonna give your Characters.

Shadowseer,
Troupe Master,
troupe x3,
Bikes x10,
Starweavers x3

is the core of any list honestly

Although I don't play Orkz, I refuse to believe that wether tourney or casual, they lack at least one competitive build.

Not even semper said that, and he is the most doomsaying ork player in all of dakka

ccs wrote:
Although I don't play Orkz, I refuse to believe that wether tourney or casual, they lack at least one competitive build.

Thats not what i meant. Orks do have competitive lists for sure

Karol seemed to think that its Impossible to build orks as anything else than competitive right now, saying Ghazkull and boys is the literal only possible list, comparing Orks to Clowns and Bananas.

You can also easily make "Thrakka and the boyz" a decent casual army for playing with friends by just not bringing kommadoz/stormboyz and spending those points on a Gorkanaut or something.

ccs wrote:
Although I don't play Orkz, I refuse to believe that wether tourney or casual, they lack at least one competitive build.

No one said that, orks have definitely multiple competitive builds.

But it's easier to field a trash ork army than a competitive one, unlike SM which are at least decent no matter what. That was the point.

9th has been mostly great for me. In the least it's made me more active on the painting table. Loving Crusade and my only issues with it are that army specific ones aren't widely available. This will be addressed over time and we'll probably have to restart our Crusade Games a few times. Still looking forward to the Maelstrom Mission pack and secretly hoping it's removed most of the CA19 crap. The Open War mission pack has been quite fun in the meantime.

My only disappointment with 9th is end of Competitive 40k. Kudos to those who can play the same Matched Play mission over and over. Looks like we're going to have to wait another edition for it to come back, maybe even several editions until we get a functional one.

 Blackie wrote:


It's very easy with all three factions you mentioned. With orks it's actually harder to field a competitive army than an absolute trash one. Custodes and harlies can definitely be played at casual levels without bullying people: the former just need to avoid FW stuff, which is something you typically don't see outside tournaments, and the latter just need to avoid some of the cheesiest combos the army can bring. WYSIWYG troups will unlikely have the most effective loadout due to the available bitz in their kit for example and you also don't see 12-18 bikes outside tournaments.

okey, but then you are just building a bad army. And I am not saying that people never play bad armies, I played a termintor based army all 8th ed. But in reality why would someone build a non 24" move harlis, or non goff orks. Maybe you don't always can or want to take ghaz, specialy before you could get his model as a separate one. But max fusion gun, always mounted all the time for harlis, jet custodes is as basic as tanking melta weapons in marine armies or running nurglings and slanesh stuff in chaos soups.

You have a point about harlequins and Custodes because these codex have like 3 options each.

Orks on the other hand have probably the most variety of possible lists after marines. Saying they can only build one thing is ridiculous.

My entire army is build around 4 kits, termintors, NDK, strikes and dreadnought. Termintors can make all GK characters, and paladins, the strikes can make everything else. So I could be biased that is true.

You build a "bad" army to ensure that both sides on the table have fun. Believe it or not, that actually is a common thing.

Also, not everyone buys stuff because it's competitive, or can afford to revamp their list every time the winds of meta change direction.
You may well have started a Speed Freeks army because they're cool and you like them.
Too bad I guess? You should just buy Ghaz and his Boys or you're not welcome?

Karol wrote:

But in reality why would someone build a non 24" move harlis, or non goff orks.

I started collecting orks more than 20 years ago, at some point I had over 10k points of models, they're by far my favorite faction and yet I'd never play goffs or a green tide. I simply dislike both the clan rules and the list archetype. And I have lots of other combinations that work equally, if not even better.

Do you want reasons why not to play goffs greentides? Because they're good now, they weren't before. So unless you belong to those meta chasers that constantly burn a lot of money into miniatures you may not have the exact models to play such lists, even if you dispose of a collection that worths thousands of points.

If you start now you may consider boring painting 100+ infantry models, that's another reason to build another kind of list. Or you may simply dislike that style of playing, like I do.

Totally random thought ....

But I kinda wish that the "Primaris" had been a completely new and separate codex from "Space Marines" - and that new a new assortment of 20 chapters (or however many) had been founded with their own emerging lore.

Something about the cross-pollination of old and new style marines just rubs me the wrong way. And granted the stats are more equalized now, but in lore terms, I can't see most chapters being all happy to welcome in these totally different (larger, stronger, better?) "brothers" into their chapter and traditions.

It just feels wrong to me. Granted, this isn't a 9th edition gampelay thing, but still....