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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
There is some argument that many other games have a smaller player base and/or smaller pool of factions/subfactions/options. I am not saying that my subjective feeling of 40k's balance is equal or better than most other miniatures war games I played. It's not. I am just saying that all the other mini war games I have played did have less people playing and therefor less discussed online about balance and a smaller pool to find any imbalances. Not to mention have far less 'spinning plates' in options so to speak.

40k is not a special snowflake that and it's player base is not particularly large either. It's fairly safe to assume that 40k does not have vastly more than 1 million players, if they have that many at all. That still is a lot (DotA2 has similar numbers), but not exceptional: WoW still has five times as many, MtG has at least 40 times as many players, League Of Legends more than 100 times as many.

<miniature games>

You need to accept that miniature games are not special in any way in regards of game development. The main aspect which distinguishes them from regular table top games, TCG, P&P and video games is the hobby part, which has zero impact on the game itself or its balance.

Some Video games do this too. COD “oopsies” every new weapon they introduce to pvp only to “fix” it next patch.

Even if GW was special or miniature games were special, it is still demonstrable that they have managed periods of fairly acceptable balance in the past, so it is not impossible.

Pancakey wrote:
Some Video games do this too. COD “oopsies” every new weapon they introduce to pvp only to “fix” it next patch.

I think we are discussing separate things. But yes, LoL, for example just threw its entire balance out the window on purpose, MtG regularly rotates its sets and WoW keeps releasing expansions to make the game interesting again, as things tend to get stagnant if they remain unchanged for too long, even if they are reasonably well balanced.

GW never has reached that point though, and they honestly have failed to "oops" a new kit as often as they have succeeded. Essentially they are trying major league plays at a school match.

 Da Boss wrote:
Even if GW was special or miniature games were special, it is still demonstrable that they have managed periods of fairly acceptable balance in the past, so it is not impossible.

With record earnings they are only going to double down on the “oopsie” strategy.

I'm beginning to think that you are just in this discussion to keep posting "oopsie".

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm beginning to think that you are just in this discussion to keep posting "oopsie".

I will cut it out. Haha. It just pains me to see the apologist attitude when GW is so hostile towards the health/balance of the game and its players.

I'm not an apologist, I think they are not competent enough to consistently manufacture imbalance in a way that benefits new releases.

I think that is probably more insulting than not!

Pancakey wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm beginning to think that you are just in this discussion to keep posting "oopsie".

I will cut it out. Haha. It just pains me to see the apologist attitude when GW is so hostile towards the health/balance of the game and its players.

And there is your problem. You interpret the results of GW actions to mean they are hostile to game balance and players.

I always say never assume malice when incompetence is an adequate explanation. In GW's case, I feel they are not great at balance and are not the best at communications. When GW blames the players for "playing the game wrong" what they should be saying is "we didn't design or test it that way". Same idea without blaming the players.

The biggest barrier to balancing 40K is army construction allows to much freedom. They allow you to take just about anything you want in your army. That is impossible to balance with as many choices as even a small army like Custodes or Harliquins have. Add in the bazillion units for Space Marines and they are lucky to get as much balance as they have.

It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.

Its stupid they ever went away from it.

Would I like it to be balanced? Yes, of course. Do I expect it to be be? No, not really.

Thanks CCS and JNAP, I appreciate your responses.

@ Hecaton: I’m not trying to make an appeal to authority, just stating that my subjective experience goes back to 2nd edition 40k, shortly after the Chaos Terminator with Reaper Autocannon came out. That was the model that got me to take a dive from WHFB into 40k. With such background stated, I hope the notion that I “just got into the game” can be dispelled, I’ve played WMH, and recently-ish gotten into a game called Godtear. A game so well balanced that exactly 2 Champions are considered to be outside “standard tier “. One below, Morrigan, and one above, Raith. The remaining 16 champions, ish, are considered to be on par with each other. The game has near-immaculate balance. So I do have experience with well balanced, and near-perfectly balanced games.

My regular opponents and I have been garage gaming for 20 or more years together. We agree that the game is fundamentally better balanced than it has been for many years. Which is our subjective experience.

A person can *feel* that a game’s balance is off, and then find facts to support that. I don’t *feel* the game is unbalanced inside my fishbowl *to a degree I feel is unacceptable*. Anecdotal, but I can truthfully feel that the game is in an acceptable state for my purposes. My motive for saying that is that other people reading this can understand that, if they take a step back from focusing on cherry-picked details, the game may be acceptable to them. They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun.

And, on top of that, the designers are putting some degree of effort into improving that balance.


Attacking the qualifications of an arguer, rather than the merits of an argument, is considered poor form, and indicative of a weak argument by the attacker. You’re using logical fallacies to do that, from assumption of correctness, to appeals to authority, to dismissing a statement without addressing the merits. If you wish to create a stronger argument, you will need to avoid those pitfalls.

 greatbigtree wrote:

My regular opponents and I have been garage gaming for 20 or more years together. We agree that the game is fundamentally better balanced than it has been for many years. Which is our subjective experience.

If it's your subjective experience, then it's mostly meaningless without numbers to back it up. Above you said that "I win about 40% of my games" which is an argument that rests on objective evidence, so even you acknowledge that subjective "feelings" aren't the be-all end-all. Of course, it's a *bad* numbers-based argument, because it's relying on one player, but it's there.

 greatbigtree wrote:
A person can *feel* that a game’s balance is off, and then find facts to support that.

That's pretty much the definition of confirmation bias.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I don’t *feel* the game is unbalanced inside my fishbowl *to a degree I feel is unacceptable*. Anecdotal, but I can truthfully feel that the game is in an acceptable state for my purposes. My motive for saying that is that other people reading this can understand that, if they take a step back from focusing on cherry-picked details, the game may be acceptable to them. They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun.

The issue is that the game *isn't* balanced that well. If an Astartes player takes the units that "feel right" they're going to run roughshod over the GSC cult player who takes units that "feel right." That creates a bad play experience.

 greatbigtree wrote:
And, on top of that, the designers are putting some degree of effort into improving that balance.

Sure, but the goal seems to be manufactured discontent i.e. purposefully imbalancing the game to a certain point to drive sales, rather than a balanced game.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Attacking the qualifications of an arguer, rather than the merits of an argument, is considered poor form, and indicative of a weak argument by the attacker. You’re using logical fallacies to do that, from assumption of correctness, to appeals to authority, to dismissing a statement without addressing the merits. If you wish to create a stronger argument, you will need to avoid those pitfalls.

I did fine. You argued from your own subjective experience, from your own "feels." I pointed out that your feels aren't necessarily correct or representative of reality. You don't get to make the "feels" argument and then say a critique of that argument is an ad hominem; you've made your being part of the argument.

 greatbigtree wrote:


They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun.

And, on top of that, the designers are putting some degree of effort into improving that balance.

Interesting, I didn't know I could get angry at a post. You really think that someone playing GK in 8th or tau in 9th, would be in a good place if they just glaze over a few details? I at least get the argument, that people with bad armies can find fun in painting or converting, if they happen to both like and be able to afford it, but this just shot over my head. But I ain't a smart person, and my english isn't that well, plus there are cultural difference, so maybe it is just that.

But yes, LoL, for example just threw its entire balance out the window on purpose, MtG regularly rotates its sets and WoW keeps releasing expansions to make the game interesting again, as things tend to get stagnant if they remain unchanged for too long, even if they are reasonably well balanced.

Only the cost of playing WoW or LoL, specially casualy, is hard to compare with the cost of a 2000pts army. Unless we count the cost of the rig in to the cost of the game, and make a huge assumption that it is only used by one person and only for the purposed of playing only LoL or WoW.

MtG rotates stuff out, and is not cheap, unless someone plays with reprints from China, which I guess mirrors the recast problem GW has. So I guess there is that. There is that one problem though MtG is run by Hasbro, which is one of those companies on the not-nice list. Also in MtG no one picks a colour and decides I will play white till the rest of my life, and will never buy anything else. A DA death wing player who may not have the option to switch to the new thing, if the new thing doesn't include DeathWing models for him to buy and play with.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm curious, do our forum members actually expect a balanced game from Games Workshop?

No.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.

The precise reason I went back to 3rd edition 40K and 6th edition WFB

 greatbigtree wrote:
...My motive for saying that is that other people reading this can understand that, if they take a step back from focusing on cherry-picked details, the game may be acceptable to them. They might enjoy their hobby more if they glaze over a few details and focus on the bigger picture. A game that’s balanced well enough to get together with a friend or stranger and have a good game. I hope to explain that by keeping the holistic view in mind, 40k is in a good place where it’s easy to have fun...

I'm really not following you here. Is the game well-balanced because you're having a good time, and other people who aren't having a good time should step back, take a look at the big picture, recognize that other people are having fun, and stop grumbling? Is that all there is to it? Once we accept and internalize that our own enjoyment is not important enough to care about, we will have achieved enlightenment and will be able to have fun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
...Interesting, I didn't know I could get angry at a post. You really think that someone playing GK in 8th or tau in 9th, would be in a good place if they just glaze over a few details? I at least get the argument, that people with bad armies can find fun in painting or converting, if they happen to both like and be able to afford it, but this just shot over my head. But I ain't a smart person, and my english isn't that well, plus there are cultural difference, so maybe it is just that...

I don't think it's cultural or linguistic; I live pretty near Canada and I speak quite good English, and his post is gibberish to me too.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.

Paying for wargear, also... no combo whambo aura baloney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It's true notable that many of the periods with best balance were when there were limits on force selection.
I really like the Force Org chart and the limits on Core, Special and Rare units in older editions.

Its stupid they ever went away from it.

This is true^^

I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.

I’m saying that yes, there are some outliers, but the game’s balance is good *enough* to not detract from my experience playing. I think a lot of people focus too intensely on a handful of bad units or matchups and miss the fun of playing the game. I hope to sway the opinions of the observers of this argument, to take a step back from focussing on a few details, to take a look at the big picture. Are your games close? Do you feel like you have a decent chance to win at the start of the game, and your opponent does too? Are your losses due to bad decisions you’ve made?

A salient point. I’ve been able to trace the causes of my losses to decisions I made, not to having insurmountable odds. I wasn’t beaten by math, or luck. I was beaten because I made mistakes and my opponents were savy enough to take advantage of them. That’s what good balance rewards. Good play leads to good results. Poor play leads to poor results.

The games I won were the same, I judged the resources I needed to accomplish my objectives better than my opponents. When necessary, I changed my strategy and tactics to regain an upper hand. When I did that successfully I won.

It’s late here, and I got myself (perfectly legally) into the green zone earlier. Given the events of the past few days, I’m not surprised that my neighbour to the south has trouble making sense of things. Seems to be a common plight down there. (That’s meant to be a bit of humour, in case anyone takes that to be hurtful, it’s not meant that way.)

 greatbigtree wrote:
I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.

I’m saying that yes, there are some outliers, but the game’s balance is good *enough* to not detract from my experience playing. I think a lot of people focus too intensely on a handful of bad units or matchups and miss the fun of playing the game. I hope to sway the opinions of the observers of this argument, to take a step back from focussing on a few details, to take a look at the big picture. Are your games close? Do you feel like you have a decent chance to win at the start of the game, and your opponent does too? Are your losses due to bad decisions you’ve made?

A salient point. I’ve been able to trace the causes of my losses to decisions I made, not to having insurmountable odds. I wasn’t beaten by math, or luck. I was beaten because I made mistakes and my opponents were savy enough to take advantage of them. That’s what good balance rewards. Good play leads to good results. Poor play leads to poor results.

The games I won were the same, I judged the resources I needed to accomplish my objectives better than my opponents. When necessary, I changed my strategy and tactics to regain an upper hand. When I did that successfully I won.

It’s late here, and I got myself (perfectly legally) into the green zone earlier. Given the events of the past few days, I’m not surprised that my neighbour to the south has trouble making sense of things. Seems to be a common plight down there. (That’s meant to be a bit of humour, in case anyone takes that to be hurtful, it’s not meant that way.)

If the humor is what I assume it to be, I can safely say maybe people should avoid certain topics on a forum for toy soldiers. Isn't there enough annoyance and anger to be stirred up talking about balance and GW ? Even if its meant to be a joke, I'm not sure it's going to taken that way by everyone considering the times.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.

Again, the statistics don't agree with you. What kind of missions are you playing?

Hecaton, you do understand that both of you can be right?

If he won 4 out of 10 games, that means his win rate is 40%, which is almost exactly what goonhammer has on record for tau. Data actually does agree with him.

You are just having different opinions on the current state of game, while you actually agree what that state is.

Those data also refers to tournament games, which aren't what he's playing.

A sample size of 4 across a specific local meta is nothing. It's entirely plausible he has won 40% of his games.
Perhaps his meta his comprised of mostly bottom tier factions, perhaps he's the best player of the group, perhaps he plays super sweaty and no one else does.

IMO balance is a reasonably objective measure.
How balanced is balanced enough is very subjective though. Some people don't even slightly care about balance, others care very much.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
A sample size of 4 across a specific local meta is nothing. It's entirely plausible he has won 40% of his games.
Perhaps his meta his comprised of mostly bottom tier factions, perhaps he's the best player of the group, perhaps he plays super sweaty and no one else does.

Could also just be that the only Tau players who show up to the tourneys you all measure things by just aren't very good Tau/40k players....

 greatbigtree wrote:
I’ve only played Tau in 9th edition. I play in an environment where exploiting the cheese is common. We play hard, for a week’s worth of bragging rights. My experience is that where I’ve lost, I made key mistakes that I learned from. I’ve won 4 ish out of 10 ish games, but I had a lot of learning to put into a new faction, in a new edition, and one where they’re a “weak” faction. I’m 2/4 in my last 4 games. I’m playing the boogeyman faction and don’t find it’s an insurmountable obstacle. So if I’m playing the worst faction, and I’m inexperienced with that faction, playing against people with “good factions” that are experienced with those factions, I’m in a hypothetical worst-case scenario for finding bad balance... but I don’t see a doom and gloom scenario. It’s not that bad.

I’m saying that yes, there are some outliers, but the game’s balance is good *enough* to not detract from my experience playing. I think a lot of people focus too intensely on a handful of bad units or matchups and miss the fun of playing the game. I hope to sway the opinions of the observers of this argument, to take a step back from focussing on a few details, to take a look at the big picture. Are your games close? Do you feel like you have a decent chance to win at the start of the game, and your opponent does too? Are your losses due to bad decisions you’ve made?

A salient point. I’ve been able to trace the causes of my losses to decisions I made, not to having insurmountable odds. I wasn’t beaten by math, or luck. I was beaten because I made mistakes and my opponents were savy enough to take advantage of them. That’s what good balance rewards. Good play leads to good results. Poor play leads to poor results.

The games I won were the same, I judged the resources I needed to accomplish my objectives better than my opponents. When necessary, I changed my strategy and tactics to regain an upper hand. When I did that successfully I won.

It’s late here, and I got myself (perfectly legally) into the green zone earlier. Given the events of the past few days, I’m not surprised that my neighbour to the south has trouble making sense of things. Seems to be a common plight down there. (That’s meant to be a bit of humour, in case anyone takes that to be hurtful, it’s not meant that way.)

Your opinion is worth reading mate, not a fan of the pile ons that are becoming more prevalent on this forum. This covid stuff is really making folk more irritable I suspect.

We’re playing missions out of the rulebook. *shrug* We’ve played a couple 500 point games, a few 1000 point games, and we’re playing 1500 points lately... which will probably be our normal. They play quick, and force tough choices in list building.

I don’t think I have anything more to add to this discussion. I’ve said my piece.

Be well, Dakka!


PS: I acknowledge that my joke was in bad taste. I apologize for that, and for bringing up politics on a forum I actively try to keep politics out of. That was hypocritical of me.

ccs wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
A sample size of 4 across a specific local meta is nothing. It's entirely plausible he has won 40% of his games.
Perhaps his meta his comprised of mostly bottom tier factions, perhaps he's the best player of the group, perhaps he plays super sweaty and no one else does.

Could also just be that the only Tau players who show up to the tourneys you all measure things by just aren't very good Tau/40k players....

The probability of a single group of players beinf below average in skill or just Les competitively minded *substantially* higher than the chance of hundreds of people sampled in competitive 40k games.

40K can't be properly balanced even if you take the best rules designer of the planet and set him to work.
The only instance when two armies are balanced is when there are identical units on both sides and both forces have the same objectives.
Terrain needs to be addressed too. Structures would need to be placed in a symmetrical fashion on each board side.

Does this sounds like fun? Maybe for a few matches but it would become tedious soon.

It can be a lot better. We all see the leaks each time and within minutes have identified the feth ups and what's good (underpriced, OP) and what's bad (niche, overpriced, random) Goonhammer etc have articles up swiftly breaking it down.

Why do these threads always go this way?

"Perfect is impossible so don't try"
"You'd have to strip out all the options and flavour so don't try"
"If you want balance play chess"
"lol even chess isn't balanced so don't try"

It's not wrong to expect better, it's just sad there are so many legions of people giving them no reason to bother.