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.

 BertBert wrote:
Your argument boils down to the false dichtomy that is armies can be either super good or super bad. The degree to which something like Deathwing will differ in strength to an all comers Space Marine list is determined by several factors, each of which can be adjusted to produce a reasonably equal chance of winning for both sides. Core rules, missions, terrain, individual ability and dice luck are all factors here that need to be considered. That being said, I do find it reasonable to balance the game around those all comers lists to have a solid base to work from.

If an army book offers all those options, let's take space marines as an example, then a generalist approach should on average outperform a skew list if internal balance is good. Custodes don't have these additional options, so their army needs to be designed in a way that the few units they have do cover all important facets, just scaled back onto fewer, relatively stronger models. Knights will have problems (they were absolutely op not too long ago btw.) in some ways, because they are the single most extreme outlier and as such, difficult to tweak to the same standard as generic armies.

As for Timmy, he should be made aware by the nice people working in their LGS that Deathwing is an "advanced" army that requires more finesse than others, because they are specialised. The notion that you should just be able to pick up any legal constellation of units and have the same chance at winning as everyone else is utopic.

The game you're proposing isn't balanced then. It might or might not be more balanced than 40k is now, but current 40k is already pretty well balanced if the nice people at the LGS point you to a top tier army and a tournament netlist. There are also members of this forum that would hate this kind of balance because it would likely be broken at some level of optimization be that at the tournament level or the level of two players ordering used armies online and getting an unbalanced pair level.

This is what I mean when I say that 40k can't be balanced.

 Canadian 5th wrote:


This is what I mean when I say that 40k can't be balanced.

And I do largely agree with that notion, because there are just too many armies and units at this point, but balance is a spectrum and there are still a lot of gains to be made from where we are now to what would be considered perfect balance.

 BertBert wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:


This is what I mean when I say that 40k can't be balanced.

And I do largely agree with that notion, because there are just too many armies and units at this point, but balance is a spectrum and there are still a lot of gains to be made from where we are now to what would be considered perfect balance.

Now that we agree what specific steps need to be taken to fix 40k? As I've said before, saying a thing should be done is easy, setting a framework for what needs to be done is much harder.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Now that we agree what specific steps need to be taken to fix 40k? As I've said before, saying a thing should be done is easy, setting a framework for what needs to be done is much harder.

Off the top of my head:

- increase stat/dice granularity to better differentiate unit and weapon profiles
- drastically reduce the number of stratagems and change the way they work from damage multiplier towards tactical utility
- implement a turn system that allows for more interaction, reducing the likelihood of getting crippled or tabled early in the game
- change missions in a way that doesn't emphasize any unit type disproportionally OR give all armies equal access to said unit type (which is probably more difficult to do)

They used to try to truly balance their games (See the Dark Elf overhaul for 6th edition fantasy) and I think they still do for current models.

I suspect that they make models that need a replacement (anything finecast or truly ancient) less powerful and the new releases always seemed to be too good in some way for their points back when I was paying attention to this stuff a year ago.

Nowadays I don't bother with anything new they sell and just buy old stuff on second hand sites for 6th edition fantasy (although I did buy 80 zombies new from my FLGS if that counts?)

Someone like that Matthias guy doing the 9th age ruleset needs to fix the points costs if we want true balance. Bring the points up, way way way higher than the current points system to allow for better granularity. GW didn't go far enough when they tried this and now it's pretty much meaningless. Intercessors went back to being 20 points again which they weren't good enough at originally (from what I've heard) but that should make them amazing again now afterwards anyway since this points rebalancing made everything else go way up in price too. It's like instead of making primaris worse, they just made everything else way worse? This stuff puts me in a bad mood so I'm gonna go back to my 6th edition army books now...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
snip

The game you're proposing isn't balanced then. It might or might not be more balanced than 40k is now, but current 40k is already pretty well balanced if the nice people at the LGS point you to a top tier army and a tournament netlist. There are also members of this forum that would hate this kind of balance because it would likely be broken at some level of optimization be that at the tournament level or the level of two players ordering used armies online and getting an unbalanced pair level.

This is what I mean when I say that 40k can't be balanced.

Could you give a concrete definition of balanced (from your perspective) please? Because I don't see many people in this thread advocating for a game where any list has a 50/50 chance against any other list. And even netlists can be greatly unbalanced between factions. To have a reasonable winrate range, you would have to restrict the factions those nice people point to as well.

 BertBert wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
There is a lot of room between "forever bad" and "so good it makes list building trivial". Imo skew lists should generally be disadvantaged, though.

So that means Knights will always be bad and to an extent that Custodes and Harlies who are skew by virtue of not having unit variety should be bad because they always skew. Is this fair to players who own those models and want to play on an even playing field?

If you heavily lean into one aspect of your army instead of bringing a well balanced force, that should be a risk and not a boon.

So little Timmy who spent his hard-earned allowance and Christmas money on a pure Terminator DW force should just suck it up and lose because he picked a skew list and his buddy had help from his dad and built a semi-competitive TAC force of some other army. Is this going to keep Timmy playing 40k long term?

Your argument boils down to the false dichtomy that the result can only be armies that are either super good or super bad. The degree to which something like Deathwing will differ in strength to an all comers Space Marine list is determined by several factors, each of which can be adjusted to produce a reasonably equal chance of winning for both sides. Core rules, missions, terrain, individual ability and dice luck are all factors here that need to be considered. That being said, I do find it reasonable to balance the game around those all comers lists to have a solid base to work from.

If an army book offers all those options, let's take space marines as an example, then a generalist approach should on average outperform a skew list if internal balance is good. Custodes don't have these additional options, so their army needs to be designed in a way that the few units they have do cover all important facets, just scaled back onto fewer, relatively stronger models. Knights will have problems (they were absolutely op not too long ago btw.) in some ways, because they are the single most extreme outlier and as such, difficult to tweak to the same standard as generic armies.

As for Timmy, he should be made aware by the nice people working in their LGS that Deathwing is an "intermediate" army that requires more finesse than others, because they are specialised. The notion that you should just be able to pick up any legal constellation of units and have the same chance at winning as everyone else is utopic.

Soooooooooo if the people familiar with 40k aren't working the day Timmy buys Deathwing, what happens?

Man, imagine blaming the kid that purchased the models instead of the company writing the rules for them! And seriously, intermediate? That's the word you really want to use?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...Now that we agree what specific steps need to be taken to fix 40k? As I've said before, saying a thing should be done is easy, setting a framework for what needs to be done is much harder.

*Large-scale rework of the concept of CP/stratagems. Put stratagems that affect a unit on their datasheet and stratagems that affect another unit on an HQ unit's datasheet. Instead of "no duplicate stratagems" to control people blowing through their whole CP allowance in one turn move to 1CP at the start of the game and 1CP/turn.

*Revise the to-wound table, make intermediate Strength less effective against high-T.

*Revise stats more generally, reduce W on non-vehicle units, add W to vehicles, reduce speed on loads of things, reduce spammable mid-power D2/Dd3, reduce rate of fire and AP on approximately everything.

*Revise terrain, vehicles need to be able to benefit from cover and 18+W models need somewhere to hide.

*Snipers: Distribute high-power sniper weapons more broadly so that armies currently stuck with 4/-/1 crit-mortal "sniper rifles" can interact with characters.

*Revise LOS to reference the "center" of a model instead of any point on the model to make LOS more predictable.

*Delete all double-action abilities.

*Revise Reserves; make them appear at the end of your turn so your opponent has a chance to react rather than giving you free invincible alpha-strike units.

(There's way more but that as a starting point might help explain how badly broken 9th is right now.)

SturmOgre wrote:
Could you give a concrete definition of balanced (from your perspective) please? Because I don't see many people in this thread advocating for a game where any list has a 50/50 chance against any other list. And even netlists can be greatly unbalanced between factions. To have a reasonable winrate range, you would have to restrict the factions those nice people point to as well.

My ideal would be that every faction would have equally viable lists at the top tier of play with a balance no worse than 52-48 between the best and worst possible matches, as you slide into more chaotic casual lists the balance would be fine if it stayed in the 57-43 range so nobody is too roughed up. I'd want to see a mix of lists all viable at the same time in those top tiers as well high toughness large models with low model counts, mid-range TAC, first turn charges, reserve shenanigans, and hordes all within that 4% slice. I'd also desire that as many factions as possible have more than one viable strat and that each viable strat be flexible enough that you'd see changes between events as people try to game the meta.

To achieve this I'd want to gather more data from events. Things like the end of turn/round scores, lists of CP spent, and models killed from rounds 3 and up in tournaments. I'd also push hard to launch an official 40k simulator app so the data can be gathered in a far less intrusive fashion. My business model would be to price units in the app at 25% of the cost of a physical kit and include codes for kits in every new box shipped. For long term players, I'd give them credit for any purchases within 12 months of the launch from official GW stores.

From there balance changes would depend on what the data was giving my team.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Soooooooooo if the people familiar with 40k aren't working the day Timmy buys Deathwing, what happens?

Man, imagine blaming the kid that purchased the models instead of the company writing the rules for them! And seriously, intermediate? That's the word you really want to use?

Man, you must be imagining things. Please read more carefully.

 BertBert wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Soooooooooo if the people familiar with 40k aren't working the day Timmy buys Deathwing, what happens?

Man, imagine blaming the kid that purchased the models instead of the company writing the rules for them! And seriously, intermediate? That's the word you really want to use?

Man, you must be imagining things. Please read more carefully.

When you're saying that the people in the store NEED to warn any newcomer, regardless of age, how bad a unit or army is, there's a discrepancy on holding the company accountable. You're blaming Timmy for all intents and purposes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

When you're saying that the people in the store NEED to warn any newcomer, regardless of age, how bad a unit or army is, there's a discrepancy on holding tgr company accountable. You're blaming Timmy for all intents and purposes.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

 BertBert wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

When you're saying that the people in the store NEED to warn any newcomer, regardless of age, how bad a unit or army is, there's a discrepancy on holding tgr company accountable. You're blaming Timmy for all intents and purposes.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

He's making perfect sense. If a game is so unbalanced that certain units need to come with warning labels to avoid new players making mistakes that cost them games you're essentially saying that there is a wrong way to play and that players playing in that incorrect style should be punished with an army that's going to win fewer games than your ideal TAC list which your propose we balance around. This is exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to point out by making the points I've been making.

At the other end of the spectrum players must also be warned if their choices will be too oppressive or derail their fledgling groups enjoyment. Especially in a fandom that vilifies the players of overtuned factions instead of the design studio who produces the imbalance.

I think that the variance in lists needs to be toned down. I'd be in a favor of "matched play" lists or whatever being required to use a single battalion detachment. Limits how much you can skew your lists and forces players to work around some more constraints in list building. Seems like it would still provide a pretty large range of different list types.

Let's also warn people who play armies that are just unfun too. So hordes are out they take too long to move, Knights are also out because they don't let your opponent get the joy of removing your models from the table the way a more balanced force would, Tau are even more out because we can't have that anime style in our game.

To be clear this is tongue firmly in cheek but also 100% fitting for how toxic the 40k community can be.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If a game is so unbalanced that certain units need to come with warning labels to avoid new players making mistakes that cost them games you're essentially saying that there is a wrong way to play and that players playing in that incorrect style should be punished with an army that's going to win fewer games than your ideal TAC list which your propose we balance around. This is exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to point out by making the points I've been making.

And it is based on the false premise that GW has any obligation to make sure people are winning games consistently - and if they don't they somehow devalue their product or "punish" their customers, which is frankly ridiculous.
First of all, the game is and always has been very much an afterthought and vehicle to sell their miniatures. The miniatures are the main product, which is also why GW will never release a battle simulator or go the extra mile to improve balancing.
This is something people tend to forget, so they apply standards to 40k that GW is never going to meet. That line of reasoning is rooted in a fundamental misconception about the product.

If they were to balance it according to my suggestion, however, my point would be this:

Units within a codex need to be balanced against each other, so that they all remain useful to a reasonable extent. Timmy buying a box of Terminators would be fine, since Terminators are a valid choice among many. Timmy buying a second box, because Terminators are really cool, would also be fine, because there is still enough space to cover the other unit archetypes in his list while tilting the list only slightly towards the specialisation of whatever Terminators provide.

Timmy buying five boxes of Terminators would result in his list being skewed to an extent that naturally deprives him of certain options, because he now cannot fit both Outriders and Eliminators into his list. He might like the idea of teleporting 80% of his force behind enemy lines and unleashing a hail of bolter shots, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to pull that trick off to the same degree of success as a list with more flexibility and opportunity to adapt to various situations. He will, however, sometimes completely annihilate his opponent, if he is presented with the right set of circumstances. It's a self explanatory result of overspecialisation. I said people should make him aware of that fact, since little Timmy with his measly allowance is obviously a child, who might not yet understand this dynamic.

If all units within a codex are sufficiently diversified and useful in their own role, heavily skewed lists are at a disadvantage on average. I believe that's a reasonable and intuitive drawback to have and, believe me, I'm exactly the kind of Timmy who buys 5 boxes of Terminators.


Again, I don't believe it's reasonable to assume it will ever be possible to balance all list constellations across all factions against each other to a degree that produces the results you are looking for. Not because it's a technical impossibility, but because GW has no inclination to go the extra mile.

 BertBert wrote:
Again, I don't believe it's reasonable to assume it will ever be possible to balance all list constellations across all factions against each other to a degree that produces the results you are looking for. Not because it's a technical impossibility, but because GW has no inclination to go the extra mile.

Given that your changes are equally unlikely as mine why should we take your objections seriously?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
Again, I don't believe it's reasonable to assume it will ever be possible to balance all list constellations across all factions against each other to a degree that produces the results you are looking for. Not because it's a technical impossibility, but because GW has no inclination to go the extra mile.

Given that your changes are equally unlikely as mine why should we take your objections seriously?

You asked me about my perspective and I gave it to you. You are free to do with it whatever you like. I'm just not going to be accused of blaming children for picking the "wrong" faction with what is the most impressive display of mental gymnastics I've seen in a long time.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I think that the variance in lists needs to be toned down. I'd be in a favor of "matched play" lists or whatever being required to use a single battalion detachment. Limits how much you can skew your lists and forces players to work around some more constraints in list building. Seems like it would still provide a pretty large range of different list types.

It may also make current collections literally unplayable which should be avoided where possible.

 BertBert wrote:
You asked me about my perspective and I gave it to you. You are free to do with it whatever you like. I'm just not going to be accused of blaming children for picking the "wrong" faction with what is the most impressive display of mental gymnastics I've seen in a long time.

You're literally saying that we should design the game such that Timmy will require outside advice to build a list that doesn't suffer because you arbitrarily value some types of lists over others. That you can't see that Timmy is being punished via losing more games than his peers is your own failing and not that of Slayer and myself.

You also, in essence, said that GW has no obligation to provide a balanced game which is an interesting position for you to hold given that you seem to desire a balanced game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
Again, I don't believe it's reasonable to assume it will ever be possible to balance all list constellations across all factions against each other to a degree that produces the results you are looking for. Not because it's a technical impossibility, but because GW has no inclination to go the extra mile.

Given that your changes are equally unlikely as mine why should we take your objections seriously?

Because we know you don't actually play this game?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
[
You're literally saying that we should design the game such that Timmy will require outside advice to build a list that doesn't suffer because you arbitrarily value some types of lists over others. That you can't see that Timmy is being punished via losing more games than his peers is your own failing and not that of Slayer and myself.

What you call "outside advice" was called "Force Organisation chart" when I was little Timmy. It also helped that armies on display in the White Dwarf and any other publication were built around that very same concept, with step-by-step guides on how to start and expand your army. These things obviously go hand in hand with a design of that nature.

 BertBert wrote:
What you call "outside advice" was called "Force Organisation chart" when I was little Timmy. It also helped that armies on display in the White Dwarf and any other publication were built around that very same concept, with step-by-step guides on how to start and expand your army. These things obviously go hand in hand with a design of that nature.

That doesn't exist in current 40k though so how is Timmy supposed to follow it? Also, why assume that Timmy would read a hobby adjacent magazine rather than simply buying the rules relevant to his army and grabbing a free copy of 9ths quick start rules?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
What you call "outside advice" was called "Force Organisation chart" when I was little Timmy. It also helped that armies on display in the White Dwarf and any other publication were built around that very same concept, with step-by-step guides on how to start and expand your army. These things obviously go hand in hand with a design of that nature.

That doesn't exist in current 40k though so how is Timmy supposed to follow it? Also, why assume that Timmy would read a hobby adjacent magazine rather than simply buying the rules relevant to his army and grabbing a free copy of 9ths quick start rules?

Force Organisation Charts were also included in the codices, but that's because they were part of the core rules. These are hypothetical thoughts, not changes I would implement tomorrow with the current product range. Maybe I didn't make that point clear enough for you.
The modern day equivalent of the WD would likely be some sort of Facebook Community or the Warhammer Community site. Why would Timmy not engage in other hobby related media? That's what people tend to do with things they are passionate about.

 BertBert wrote:
Force Organisation Charts were also included in the codices, but that's because they were part of the core rules. These are hypothetical thoughts, not changes I would implement tomorrow with the current product range. Maybe I didn't make that point clear enough for you.
The modern day equivalent of the WD would likely be some sort of Facebook Community or the Warhammer Community site. Why would Timmy not engage in other hobby related media? That's what people tend to do with things they are passionate about.

Why assume Timmy is passionate? He might just have friends that play and have picked up some plastic toys so he could be included in the game. Don't assume that every gamer cares about their game the way you do.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
Force Organisation Charts were also included in the codices, but that's because they were part of the core rules. These are hypothetical thoughts, not changes I would implement tomorrow with the current product range. Maybe I didn't make that point clear enough for you.
The modern day equivalent of the WD would likely be some sort of Facebook Community or the Warhammer Community site. Why would Timmy not engage in other hobby related media? That's what people tend to do with things they are passionate about.

Why assume Timmy is passionate? He might just have friends that play and have picked up some plastic toys so he could be included in the game. Don't assume that every gamer cares about their game the way you do.

Don't you assume then that every player puts a high win ratio at the center of their hobby experience either, to the point that they are suffering if the numbers don't add up. Johnny is perfectly happy winning one in three games with his Terminator strike force.

 BertBert wrote:
Don't you assume then that every player puts a high win ratio at the center of their hobby experience either, to the point that they are suffering if the numbers don't add up. Johnny is perfectly happy winning one in three games with his Terminator strike force.

No, I only have to assume that some players will do that and some are all I need to prove that your idea of balance is punishing to at least some players and is thusly unsuitable for 40k.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
Don't you assume then that every player puts a high win ratio at the center of their hobby experience either, to the point that they are suffering if the numbers don't add up. Johnny is perfectly happy winning one in three games with his Terminator strike force.

No, I only have to assume that some players will do that and some are all I need to prove that your idea of balance is punishing to at least some players and is thusly unsuitable for 40k.

What would be a reasonable alternative then to make every single player happy?

 BertBert wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
[
You're literally saying that we should design the game such that Timmy will require outside advice to build a list that doesn't suffer because you arbitrarily value some types of lists over others. That you can't see that Timmy is being punished via losing more games than his peers is your own failing and not that of Slayer and myself.

What you call "outside advice" was called "Force Organisation chart" when I was little Timmy. It also helped that armies on display in the White Dwarf and any other publication were built around that very same concept, with step-by-step guides on how to start and expand your army. These things obviously go hand in hand with a design of that nature.

I didn't realize the original FOC stopped Deathwing from becoming Troops with Belial or somehow make Terminators effective in the elite slot. Almost like none of this garbage being said is true and the Terminators are a terrible unit regardless! So what's the point you're really trying to make?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
[ So what's the point you're really trying to make?

The Terminator example was an abstraction to illustrate my point about internal balance and the effect it would have on skew lists. I also expressly mentioned factions that are inherently skewed, like Deathwing.

I'm honestly surprised why you appear to be so worked up. Maybe you should take a break for a bit.