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.

Tyel wrote:
I think you guys are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Yes - the amount of terrain on a table will impact the wider meta of units. But "Dudesman with a rocket launcher" can be compared against other "Elfman with a Lascannon", or "Fishman with a multimelta" - either in codex, or across codex. And if he's significantly off the pace, he's probably bad, and should have his points changed so he isn't.

You might get a game where *all* anti-tank is weak versus armour, and this encourages an armour meta. But in that case all anti-tank should be buffed (or all armour nerfed).

In theory the amount of terrain on different tables would favour certain armies. Yes. But that's again, not a huge problem - it just means you'd have a slightly divergent meta depending on the terrain you may encounter. Frankly if points were close enough that this was the main kicker, I think it would be hard not to think 40k was actually a fairly balanced game.

I think the "understanding gap" is that some of us are trying to explain that if "dudesman wiht a rocket launcher", "elfman with a lascannon", and "fishman with a multimelta" are considered to be "off pace", thereby encouraging an armor meta, and we adjust their points costs to compensate (presumably by cutting their cost), you aren't successfully balancing the game, you're essentially just pushing some sliders to the point that the armor meta is no longer viable and in the process you create the horde meta where your opponent seeks to overwhelm you with lots of small guys that devalue the anti-armor weapons. In response to that, people complain that hordes of regular infantry are too powerful, so either their points costs need to be brought up or anti infantry weapons made more effective, or hey maybe we need to drop the price on tanks to try to encourage people to field them again as an effective anti-infantry deterrent. And then when you make that adjustment, the meta shifts again and you're stuck in another "what adjustment do I need to make to resolve this" scenario. Its ouroboros endlessly chasing its tail, you will never have "balance" by pushing points around, because all you are doing by changing points within an asymmetric game construct is encouraging something to be fielded at the expense of something else.

"Balance" only exists within the context of the game as it exists in the moment. Not just in terms of things like terrain layout and mission design of a specific game, but in terms of the broader meta as well. Meta itself is a function of emergent gameplay and is defined and shaped by the points system taken in conjunction with accepted gameplay norms (i.e. the commonly used mission designs and terrain layouts, etc). The rules and game mechanics are designed to provide a certain gameplay experience, but it is the points system (or other balance/shaping mechanisms) and gameplay norms which truly produce the meta which may or may not align with the experience intended. In effect, "meta" is more or less synonymous with "dominant gameplay experience", though it is best to think of a meta as being a "spectrum" of gameplay experiences rather than as a fixed and finite point - when you have an "armor meta" this does not mean that other metas do not or cannot exist alongside it, only that the points system and gameplay norms have heavily favored a specific experience and with it a dominant playstyle. The moment you change the gameplay norms or the points system, you change the meta - this could mean that armor is more or less dominant within the existing armor meta or that the meta shifts away from armor entirely towards shooting or melee or something else. When you change the meta, no matter if it is a shift within the existing meta (i.e. shifting the dominance of armor but keeping the armor meta otherwise intact) or towards a new meta, you change the context within which balance exists and thus you change what is considered balanced in the process - as such "balance" is not a fixed reference point, but a moving target. This is, I think, where some of those in the discussion are struggling, where they assume that balance is a fixed point where everything is essentially equally capable, etc. and that it will never change.. But it is not.

I think a lot of people get tripped up here. When people think of balance on a macro scale, they do so within the context of the current dominant meta, which exists within the context of a dominant meta "spectrum", i.e. armor vs infantry, or armor vs hordes, or armor vs anti-armor, or armor vs whatever. One of these spectrums will always be dominant, and that is often the crux around which discussions of balance exists. When a points change is made to try to balance this meta, what you are essentially doing is moving a slider on that spectrum, but what happens when you approach the "balance point" of that spectrum is that the existing dominant spectrum becomes no longer dominant and a different spectrum rises to take its place. In practice, this could mean a shift from armor vs infantry to armor vs anti-armor, or it could be a shift from armor vs infantry to melee vs shooting. What the shift is is largely irrelevant, what mainly matters is that your meta has changed, and as such you have a new gameplay experience with a new concept of what balance looks like, and what could have been perceived as overpowered before is now suddenly underpowered because the game itself is being played differently.

On a micro scale, things get a little more complicated because considerations about whether a specific unit is balanced exist not just within the context of the meta (i.e. "external balance") but also within the context of the army in which they exist (i.e. "internal balance"), but otherwise much of the same considerations apply. In general, our understanding of any given factions playstyle is primarily driven by points costs - we define armies in which infantry are relatively cheap and everything else relatively expensive as being infantry heavy, and armies in which vehicles are relatively cheap and everything else relatively expensive as being vehicle heavy, etc. Our discussions about balancing these armies within the context of the meta generally revolve around how we perceive these armies should play based on the playstyles defined by their points costs (though sometimes we think the playstyle is wrong and argue points adjustments based on a different set of viewpoints, for example those that want balance changes made to orks to make them an infantry horde vs the current popularity of speedwaagh), as such we perceive the balance of a given unit within an army, and indeed internal balance as a whole, to be based on the role a unit is intended to fulfill. Using Orks as an example, if we accept speedwaagh as being the faction playstyle de jure, then we will be discussing what points costs of things like buggies and boyz are within the context of an internal balance that sees buggies as the core of the army and boyz as a supporting function - this would mean buggies are relatively cheap compared to boyz being relatively expensive, with the "relative" part meaning "in relation to the meta" - presumably with a goal of a 50% faction winrate. On the other hand if green tide is the playstyle de jure then we would want to see boyz as being relatively cheap and bugggies as relatively expensive instead, with boyz forming the core and buggies serving as the supporting function. Cutting to the chase and assuming a 50% winrate in both scenarios and pulling numbers out of a hat because I'm too lazy to check actual costs, within the context of speedwaagh we might consider 50 point buggies and 10 point boyz as being balanced, but 60 point buggies and 8 point boyz as being unbalanced, whereas in the context of the green tide the reverse might be true. In other words, the points costs at which we perceive these two units as being "balanced" can differ wildly depending on the context within we are discussing them in.

Generally speaking, points changes can be made to a specific unit in isolation (meaning you are only adjusting points for one specific unit and nothing else, this is a rarity as most points adjustments come as part of a package of changes across one or more factions, which is a huge problem) without impacting the meta. Even if it did impact the meta (for example, a squad of 5 tempestus scions with 2 meltaguns goes from 65 points to 20 points), you would generally think of this in terms of a balance issue within the context of the existing meta rather than as redefining the meta (if on the other hand every army had similarly cheap access to close range anti tank weaponry, the game would shift to being played heavily by large amounts of infantry with armor being only a supporting function). On the other hand, those points changes within the context of internal balance will result in certain units being more or less commonly fielded than others. This in turn impacts our perception of the roles that various units fill within an army and what our perception of "balance" within the army looks like (as demonstrated previously) and more dramatically, can redefine an entire armies playstyle - if you had a green tide army with 60 point buggies and 8 point boyz, and you dropped buggies to 40 points instead while keeping boyz at 8, you might suddenly see the army playstyle shift to speedwaagh instead of green tide, for instance. In essence, just like how at the macro scale changing points of certain types or categories of units changes the meta/external balance situation and redefines our understanding of what the "balance point" is for how we perceive the game should be played, at the micro scale changing points of a specific unit does the same within the context of the army/internal balance situation and redefines our understanding of what the "balance point" is for how we perceive a specific faction should be played. As changes on the macro scale impact the micro (making anti-infantry weapons cheaper across the board will force factions that are infantry heavy to rely more heavily on vehicles, thereby altering playstyles and internal balance considerations), changes to the micro impact the macro (by changing points for a specific unit in a specific army to make the faction more/less competitive you change the relationship of that faction to all the others and in turn the relationships between those factions directly - by lowering the win rate from one faction from 60% to 48% you are in turn going to alter the win rates for every other faction in the game, and not always proportionally as those changing win rates will result in certain factions becoming more/less common which further impacts win rates and faction popularity, etc. until a new meta settles in).

Another factor that we haven't touched on is that the intended gameplay experience and the emergent gameplay experience are not always synonymous. What the playerbase considers to be balanced is defined by the meta, but what a designer would considers to be "balanced" is defined by what they intended players to experience when playing the game. When these two things differ, the designer either has to acquiesce and accept the experience as it exists or make adjustments to drive the experience towards the parameters of the design. If the emergent experience is well-ingrained within the collective consciousness of the community while the designer is trying to push towards a different experience, this can result in a sort of cognitive dissonance where players attempt to continue playing to the experience that they are familiar with even while they are being encouraged to play differently. In such cases, a players perception of "balance" is being colored heavily by what is essentially an "aberrant" play construct, which potentially results in perception that the game is more/less balanced than it might otherwise be. This divide can also exist within a game community wholly within the context of the emergent experience, independent of the designer. To an extent this is where the divide between the casual/competitive community comes from, as both communities have differing (and competing) perceptions of what gameplay and balance should look like (one/both/neither of which may be what the design studio intended) and the adjustments being made to the game may or may not drive the game state towards a result that differs from that perception.

Long story short, its entirely subjective and constantly changing, you're not going to get there by increasing granularity and changing points (unless you make every table and mission and terrain piece exactly identical to remove any variance/data jitter, at which point you have a board game) to try to get a better approximation, but you can get there by losing granularity and doing away with listbuilding to put more control into the hands of the player ala Warcaster. A less granular system is better able to account in variation in effectiveness based on opponent and terrain, whereas the more granular system is going to rely on a lot more assumptions on both in order to produce a number determined to be a "closer" estimate of the units "average" effectiveness within the designers playtest construct/idealized environment. By eliminating listbuilding (and freeing the game from the constriction of ITC mission packets and terrain layouts) and allowing players to field varying lists on the fly in response to changing context (preferably "as the game evolves") you'll get much closer to balance by giving players a reason to take units with niche application or situational utility instead of relying on fielding things which are considered optimal under all scenarios.

Points work because you just need to be close enough. If a unit *should* be 100 points - its not going to break the game if its 95 or 105. Sure competitive players will stuff their lists with the units at 95 - but someone taking a few 105 units isn't throwing the game. The problem is that GW usually end up with units that *should* cost 100 points being 80 or 120. And that sort of gap means someone stuffing 80 point units in their list gets 100-200 points up, and can therefore bring whole extra units - which makes a massive difference.

If a unit *should* be 100 points but is costed at 95 or 105 instead without breaking the game, then playing the same unit at PL5 isn't going to break the game either.

It's on an ouroboros if you overcorrect when you change pts costs, otherwise, both vehicles and infantry will be viable as you reach a decent cost. If a unit is worth 3,5 PL then how do you balance it in PL? You don't because PL is gak, any change for a unit with a PL of less than 10 will almost inevitably be gak. Now you're trying to get rules changed because your gak pts system cannot balance low-value units or upgrades, so now a plasma gun cannot be any better than a lasgun and Guardsmen have to become BS2+ to account for their current PL. Pts could be changed 4,5 or 4,237 per model if GW wasn't so enamoured with simple PL.

To further expand on why you should balance via Competitive meta rather than the aforementioned Meta A-Z or whatever you wish to describe it as, its because local metas will favor whatever you happen to own rather than the extent of a factions power. I made up an example of leman Ruses being balanced in Competitive play (Not a real life example calm down IG players ) and being broken in one of the meta's because nobody in that Meta brings anti-tank. So lets correct for it. if we use Meta A-Z or whichever to justify nerfing Leman russes because Players in that meta don't want to bring or don't own anti-tank, well than all you have done is correct a single problem within a single meta, while simultaneously nerfing a competitive option or even an ok option into the ground. It doesn't make any sense. especially since you aren't playing competitively which means you could have just approved said IG player and politely informed them "Sorry IG Player, I don't own/Didn't bring any Anti-tank options, would you mind toning down your list to not be armor heavy? Thanks"

Look at that, I just fixed Meta A-Z's problem with Leman Russes by simply using common sense rather than forcing a ham fisted game company to make changes which will impact everyone, usually in a negative manner.

The biggest problem with this correction method is as I said, the GW rules writers are inherently biased towards their faction, units, codex etc. And sadly a lot of factions don't get equal representation in the rules writing realm which leaves them broken. Either as OP or as utter garbage. And worse, the competitive meta players, when faced with something new, will tend to cry nerf instead of having to adjust their lists to deal with the "new" problem.

The GT where orkz tabled the DE player for the championship, the ork player brought a speedwaaagh, the DE Player had little to no Anti-tank weapons and was relying rather heavily on his S7 and below CC weapons to do multiple dmg to his targets, this worked really well, right up until he ran into a Speed Freakz ork player who had Ramshackle (-1dmg to S7 and below) on all his vehicles. DE player bum rushed Orkz, got into Dakkarange of basically everything, failed his charges and then got wiped out. Based almost exclusively on that 1 event GW pushed out an immediate nerf to flyers and Ork buggies. Keep in mind, DE had been sitting comfortably with a 60%+ W/L ratio in GTs and had been walking away with multiple top 4 finishes in each event for months with no mention of a nerf.

So yes, GW absolutely makes stuff up as they go along. They listen to those screaming loudest and longest and as a result we don't really get a balance as much as a select few players/testers getting their way.

Essentially you have put it on the players to balance the game, which I thought had already been debunked multiple times?

Or are we back to "gw can feth up as often as they want, it's the player's fault for unfun games"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Essentially you have put it on the players to balance the game, which I thought had already been debunked multiple times?

Or are we back to "gw can feth up as often as they want, it's the player's fault for unfun games"

GW "WILL" feth up as often as possible, and with that said in Non-competitive play it is in fact the players fault for "unfun" games. Eldar/Necrons/Tau/Marines were busted in 7th. They were OP to the most ridiculous levels possible, Eldar could legitimately blindly pick units and come out with a very strong list. Against that level of shenanigans I still had fun playing my Orkz against those people. Keep in mind in 7th Orkz were arguably the worst codex in the game. I just let my opponents know in advance to tone their lists down and if they said "no" i just chose not to play them because it would be a slaughter otherwise.

2 or more things can be right at the same time, in this case its that competitive balance is likely the best balance, that GW doesn't do a good job with this, and that non-competitive players can actively influence the level of fun they have by simply talking with their opponents before hand.

Yes, I agree that it is necessary.

The difference of course is GW could not feth up balance. Balancing around competitive play still feths up balance for the casual players. That's the discussion.

Re: Points.

The discussion in this thread reminded me of a piece written by The Maker, Rick Priestley, in the pages of Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy magazine issue 71 (2013). In it he talks about how most of his gaming is scenario-based these days. Points only come up when he's going to a tournament which isn't all that often. in the most relevant section he talks about how points values are tied to the scenario:

So where do points values come into all that? Well, army lists and points values are a great way of working out forces if you know how the scenario will affect the basic utility of the different elements. To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the combination of fixed points values and scenarios designed for points balanced armies creates a kind of circular self-sustaining mind-set. For points to be 'balanced' the scenario must fall within very narrow limits. Once those narrow limits are accepted as a standard, the exact points value of a unit becomes a critical factor in picking an effective army. Thus the structured army lists encourage players to adopt the same narrow parameters for scenarios time after time, and focuses players' minds on the cost/competitiveness of units within those parameters. It is wargaming - it is perhaps one of the most popular and enduring kinds of wargaming - but it isn't the be all and end all of what a wargame can be. For one thing, it has absolutely no reference to history or actual warfare. In real war fairness and balance of outcome are things to positively avoided where possible! It is also an approach strongly focussed on the one-on-one game - a kind of toy soldier equivalent of chess - in which the wargame is seen as a kind of intellectual match between two individuals. That kind of game might suit some players - perhaps a pair of regular opponents of comparable aptitude - but it works less well for games between multiple players, teams or games between experienced players and novices.

I think he's spot on when talking about the homogenization of the competitive side of the game. We've seen this play out since 5th when terrain became a more significant part of the game because TLOS was introduced. It took a while for tournament tables to catch up from the abstracted terrain concepts of 4th to the LOS-blocking requirements of 5th. Back then there was a lot of gnashing of teeth about the relative balance between melee and shooting. When the 5th edition guard codex brought the leafblower to tables, this contrast was brought into high relief. It was around this time when GW told us we weren't using enough terrain to break up LOS as indicated in the 5th ed rulebook with its 25% rule. TOs began to adapt and standardize terrain layouts and also standardize objectives beyond the three basic mission in the BRB at that time. This process continued in 6th when GW introduced secondaries like Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker.

So now with the ascendancy of the ITC we have a uniform competitive environment in which to evaluate the utility of units so in theory balance should be better, but only in that ITC context. Which, I think, it what the casual vs competitive debate is all about.

ccs wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Why are narrative players worried about "nerfs" to their armies?

Because we don't like being 'd over rules wise by GW anymore than you tourney players do?

Crusade, for ex,, is narrative. But unless some rules change indicates which of the 3 ways to play it applies to (such as the new flyer restriction), it applies to us as well.

Fair point, but the 40K Balance Dataslate states that the Flyer restriction is a Universal Matched Play rule.

There is nothing stopping two players agreeing to ignore restrictions or apply their own, except each other. Two hard-core Narrative players can do what they want as long as they share a common vision, or at least can agree on a workable compromise. That's usually the rub. I can have great narrative games with my son on our basement table. Showing up at the FLGS on Saturday and wanting my super cool story of the plucky Inquisitor fighting his way out of an ambush on the Governor (who was actually a Demon!)? Nope - Matched Play GT2022 and get playing!

I still struggle to understand why so-called Casual players worry about nerfs to their armies? So they lose Core on their Talos. They are now less effective. So? They are Casual.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, I agree that it is necessary.

The difference of course is GW could not feth up balance. Balancing around competitive play still feths up balance for the casual players. That's the discussion.

Except it doesn't....Rules are rather strictly enforced in tournament/competitive play. There is literally nothing stopping you from talking to your opponent before a game and asking for rules exceptions. "I have 3 Burna Bommers, you ok with me taking all 3?". The only "Feth up" is points, but that is fethed up on both sides by GW not being able to write coherently and or intelligently price things. Case and point, Nobody....literally nobody is taking the Stompa in competitive play, they gave it a 200+ point drop since 8th and still nobody plays it. Is that because competitive play? is that because casual play? Nope, its because GW sucks at writing points costs/rules often

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, I agree that it is necessary.

The difference of course is GW could not feth up balance. Balancing around competitive play still feths up balance for the casual players. That's the discussion.

The goal of casual players is not to win when they build lists and some don't even play to win, how do you get any data from that? If GW sees that nobody is taking X unit in competitive play they can buff that unit, the only players taking the unit is casual players, casual players benefit from GW improving competitive balance.

Depends on how you are defining casual. Casual, much like tournament player, cannot be boxed into the same attributes.

Casuals that don't care about outcome and just go to socialize and pew pew and roll dice likely don't care about rule changes.

The same can be said about tournament players that also go to tournaments for pew pew and socializing and rolling dice and not caring about the outcome though.

Except it doesn't....Rules are rather strictly enforced in tournament/competitive play. There is literally nothing stopping you from talking to your opponent before a game and asking for rules exceptions

This is also largely true. But also largely ineffective from my experience because you are asking to house rule the game, so that will depend on who you are talking to. I am not used to very many 40k players at all being open to this, and some will get downright hostile and aggressive if you suggest house ruling in any way or deviating from whatever is official rules in any way.

casual players benefit from GW improving competitive balance.

Also very true and I agree. But for me at least thats never been an argument, its more the statement "that thing is fine at the top tables so fine overall" when it absolutely runs rough shod over narrative campaign nights unless the players are also rocking top table ITC builds.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, I agree that it is necessary.

The difference of course is GW could not feth up balance. Balancing around competitive play still feths up balance for the casual players. That's the discussion.

The goal of casual players is not to win when they build lists and some don't even play to win, how do you get any data from that? If GW sees that nobody is taking X unit in competitive play they can buff that unit, the only players taking the unit is casual players, casual players benefit from GW improving competitive balance.

Kind of hinting at it. But you absolutely have those WAAC, TFG players who only play casually and show up with meta net lists against Johns fluffy Tau Fire warrior list etc

I personally knew of a few guys who would Table their opponents in casual games running meta lists, the worst offender was a Triptide player and a Scatbike player in 7th that I knew. The two of them NEVER went to tournaments though. Why? because they honestly sucked at the game and would routinely make basic mistakes. That type will ruin the fun for casual players and give a bad name to competitive players who for some reason are judged by a WAAC/TFG player bringing a net list to a casual pickup game.

Without multiquotes, as it would be too tedious this time to manage so much references.

@TangoTwoBravo (and to lesser degree @SemperMortis): I couldn't care less for "nerfs" because, as I've repeatedly wrote in this thread, I work with effective values of units within a context of any given matchup/scenario/terrain instead of "god given magical number" that even designer of the game himself tells you makes little to no sense outside of a very narrow context. What I do care about is that this perpetuating myth that "2000pts matched is the only fair way to play and everything else is a powerplay between players to dominate the community" actively drives people away from the game, while at the same time being fundamentally wrong. I've met a lot of ex 40k players, who were driven away by "busted balance" or "cutthroat churn and burn", because there were exactly zero room for any communication between players SemperMortis pointed to as an "obvious and straightforward" method of "solving the local meta problem". Not because this "local meta" was so tournament oriented in the first place, but because everybody has been made to believe and then furiously kept in this false belief by their peers that points are the be-all and end-all way of making the game fair, which then inevitably leads to chasing the white rabbit of meta and you either enjoy this very narrowed approach to 40k, you leave the game entirely, or are fortunate enough to find a group like mine, where the only reasonable approach to balance, as in the quoted above words of the designer of the game himself, is acknowledged and cherished. This in turn sterilises the local meta and leads people to believe, that "tournament attitude" is dominant approach to the game, that tournament players create the biggest share of GW income and that the game should revolve around their needs only, because their needs are the needs of majority. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

@chaos0xomega: I fear that this wall of texts was written in vain, but nevertheless have a well deserved exalt

@Arshbombe: a very good find, but that is just one of the many quotes from prominent designers that gets repeatedly ignored by sworn point balance believers since the times immemorial. As was repeatedly attempted in this thread, no exaggerated nor "IRL" example of where balance through points fails miserably is enough to open some peoples eyes, not even showing them why "good enough" point balance and list building for advantage are mutually exclusive desires.

@Auticus and @thread: this has been indeed a good thread, but I think that we're going in circles for the last couple of pages, so it's the high time for me to stop spending my limited hobby time "allowance" on it. After all, the games won't play themselves and my pile of shame won't assemble and paint itself.

Good day to you all, and till the next, inevitable balance thread in a couple of months. Cheers!

SemperMortis wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, I agree that it is necessary.

The difference of course is GW could not feth up balance. Balancing around competitive play still feths up balance for the casual players. That's the discussion.

The goal of casual players is not to win when they build lists and some don't even play to win, how do you get any data from that? If GW sees that nobody is taking X unit in competitive play they can buff that unit, the only players taking the unit is casual players, casual players benefit from GW improving competitive balance.

Kind of hinting at it. But you absolutely have those WAAC, TFG players who only play casually and show up with meta net lists against Johns fluffy Tau Fire warrior list etc

I personally knew of a few guys who would Table their opponents in casual games running meta lists, the worst offender was a Triptide player and a Scatbike player in 7th that I knew. The two of them NEVER went to tournaments though. Why? because they honestly sucked at the game and would routinely make basic mistakes. That type will ruin the fun for casual players and give a bad name to competitive players who for some reason are judged by a WAAC/TFG player bringing a net list to a casual pickup game.

It pains me to admit that I know one guy in the local scene who is like that. He takes a screwy and skewed combo and then brings it in to curb stomp people who are not wishing to compete. At best he goes to a single tourney a year, if he bothers at all.

Never understood that mindset.

 Eldarsif wrote:


It pains me to admit that I know one guy in the local scene who is like that. He takes a screwy and skewed combo and then brings it in to curb stomp people who are not wishing to compete. At best he goes to a single tourney a year, if he bothers at all.

Never understood that mindset.

The mindset is "I WANT TO WIN!". Which I can understand. The problem is that the person in question generally isn't good at the game or just wants a ridiculous advantage over their opponent so they don't have to worry about who is going to win. Sometimes bad matchups can happen, but when its constant and its the same meta net list you see on FLG and other places then you have to realize...yeah this guy is just in it to win it.

Which btw, There is nothing wrong with! Just make sure your opponent knows before hand. I help friends prep for tournaments, if they ask me to bring a meta ork list I do. And I know going in that my opponent is going to be going balls to the wall. Problem i've seen with TFG/WAAC players is that if you bring your own competitive list against theirs, it typically ends 1 of 3 ways. 1: Them complaining about your list and being a "tryhard". 2: They throwing a tantrum and borderline (sometimes actually) flipping the table or 3: They have a hard fought match and choose not to play against you again regardless of outcome for fear of losing.

Players that bring curb stomp lists to for fun casual games without that type of game being asked for but whom avoid tournament play are usually players that love winning and how it feels to win, but don't like challenges and like to play their games on easy mode. (nothing wrong with playing easy mode, but in the case of tabletop games, the other person may not appreciate you using them to play on easy mode).

That type of player generally doesn't flourish / exist in games where the list isn't as impactful since they are relying on the list to steer them to victory without having to do much thinking (and why they avoid tournaments because they know they will face similar lists but also piloted by players that are actually pretty good and too challenging for what they are after)

So this has been a pretty fascinating discussion to watch unfold - and it's given me a lot to think about.

In particular, the notion that "balance" can really only be understood or sought within the broader context of an individual game and/or format of play. And also that "adjusting balance" by way of changing points or PL is really just shifting around what's optimal within a given context. Something is always going to be meta regardless of how many points you shift around. And thirdly, that balance really needs to be viewed holistically with respect to the army, rather than individual units.

So what then do really wish to achieve with balance? I think are few objectives and specific things we might mean when wanting a more balanced game

(1) That there is a build and a compelling use for any given unit in the codex, such that there no "poor" choices and that what a player has purchased doesn't set them up to loose.

(2) That armies of roughly equal size / points are similarly competitive regardless of how "tuned" or not they are.

Reflecting on where 9th edition is, irrespective of theories about GW's motivations, the problem is that trying to achieve the above with the mechanics employed is working against itself. What do I mean by this?

Part of the 8th/9th design paradigm is, at a basic level, that everything can wound everything. This is because of changes to vehicles and also the wound table (and stat lines). And also with saving throw modifiers. This means that there really isn't as much differentiation between weapons as there used to be. Volume of fire can regularly be substituted for high strength/damage. Weapons lack defined roles - and as such list building hinges ever more around taking the units that maximize raw, calculated damage output.

There's always been an incentive to maximize damage, but there are two things that compound this to the extreme in 9th.

One is that the force organization system means you can basically take whatever units you want with the right type of detachment, so can spam those maximally efficient damage units.

Second is that the default matched play mission set is 95% the same set of mission parameters. Having fixed mission parameters means that lists can be optimized for exactly those parameters in conjunction with maximizing damage output.

One might say that being able to optimize and have a higher degree of control and predictability is GOOD for competitive play. And if everyone is able and willing to build such armies, then you can end up with close games where nuances of tactics can start to matter.

But if your list falls short of this threshold it can be a stomping. Hence many units NOT being competitive or viable in a lot circumstances.

In older 40K editions, both with the way that damage and vehicles worked, force organization, and more diverse missions (especially in say 4th), lists were built around making sure you had tools to deal with specific enemy unit types and certain mission objectives. It was a bit more Rock Paper Scissors-like and you needed all three instruments in a list.

For example, you couldn't mass small arms fire to deal with AV13/14 vehicles - you needed a plan and units for dealing with heavy armor. And those units often were NOT great at dealing with hordes - so you needed other units to cover that need, etc. The fixed FOC also forced everyone into situations where you couldn't easily spam optimal units easily.

The result is that some (better?) level of balance and homogeneity was achieved between armies by virtue of each army needing to fill a certain range of battlefield roles and weapon types. And when funneled through the FOC and point limits there was the potential for more units in a codex to have value in performing a specialist role and a bit more overt clarity in building a modestly competent list that wouldn't get stomped.

All of this then creates a greater opportunity for tactics in how you position units to counter threats - as opposed to everything countering everything like we have in 9th. Lists were less about damage maximization and more about well-roundedness, and you got at more balanced armies that way.

This got way longer than intended! So I'll shut up now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think a lot of people get tripped up here. When people think of balance on a macro scale, they do so within the context of the current dominant meta, which exists within the context of a dominant meta "spectrum", i.e. armor vs infantry, or armor vs hordes, or armor vs anti-armor, or armor vs whatever. One of these spectrums will always be dominant, and that is often the crux around which discussions of balance exists. When a points change is made to try to balance this meta, what you are essentially doing is moving a slider on that spectrum, but what happens when you approach the "balance point" of that spectrum is that the existing dominant spectrum becomes no longer dominant and a different spectrum rises to take its place. In practice, this could mean a shift from armor vs infantry to armor vs anti-armor, or it could be a shift from armor vs infantry to melee vs shooting. What the shift is is largely irrelevant, what mainly matters is that your meta has changed, and as such you have a new gameplay experience with a new concept of what balance looks like, and what could have been perceived as overpowered before is now suddenly underpowered because the game itself is being played differently.

I think this is the core issue I have with your view.

If the game was balanced then yes - you'd have a meta spectrum, of armour vs infantry, or elites vs hordes, or armour vs anti-tank etc.

Generally speaking though, you don't. Because 40k isn't "balanced" - and therefore the meta is about getting as much points efficiency (i.e. imbalance) into your list as you can.
Its not entirely independent of such considerations - factoring in gatekeeper lists for instance - but by and large the power lists in any given period of 40k are powerful in the context of the game as a whole. If everyone for instance decided they should spam "inefficient tanks" at tournaments, it would change the meta. But we know those tanks are inefficient - so they tend to lose versus efficient lists. And this would continue to be the case. If you look at the top lists in current 40k I'm not sure what archetype as defined above you'd describe it as.

So when we look at buggies and boyz - Buggies aren't popular just because everyone wants to go fast. They are popular because they are (or were pre-nerfs anyway) points efficient. You get a lot of power for your points. Green tide lists by contrast are not popular because Boyz are weak for their points. What works is tested in tournament after tournament. There is perhaps a point that "how" you run Boyz matters. Its possible to imagine a scenario where they were somehow "worth it" as a few 10 man units supporting a Speedwaaagh list - but not packing 150 into your list (although this is not the case at the moment). But again, this seems to speak to things being a lot closer to par than is usually the case.

And what this points to is that there is a sort of "40k standard" around which point totals turn. And if you are getting a lot more for your points, you are going to be overpowered - and the reverse if you get a lot less. And by bringing everything closer to that standard you get a more balanced game.

If the meta is "armour" I can stack anti-tank weapons. The issue is that if you have say "Custodes meta", I usually can't stack anti-Custodes weapons to go beat them. The fact you have that meta is because they've passed through that test already. Something, be it points or rules, has to change.

 vict0988 wrote:

The goal of casual players is not to win when they build lists and some don't even play to win, how do you get any data from that? If GW sees that nobody is taking X unit in competitive play they can buff that unit, the only players taking the unit is casual players, casual players benefit from GW improving competitive balance.

There are definitely casual players who like to win but can't win games in a competitive setting, so stick to playing with their casual group.

Tyel wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think a lot of people get tripped up here. When people think of balance on a macro scale, they do so within the context of the current dominant meta, which exists within the context of a dominant meta "spectrum", i.e. armor vs infantry, or armor vs hordes, or armor vs anti-armor, or armor vs whatever. One of these spectrums will always be dominant, and that is often the crux around which discussions of balance exists. When a points change is made to try to balance this meta, what you are essentially doing is moving a slider on that spectrum, but what happens when you approach the "balance point" of that spectrum is that the existing dominant spectrum becomes no longer dominant and a different spectrum rises to take its place. In practice, this could mean a shift from armor vs infantry to armor vs anti-armor, or it could be a shift from armor vs infantry to melee vs shooting. What the shift is is largely irrelevant, what mainly matters is that your meta has changed, and as such you have a new gameplay experience with a new concept of what balance looks like, and what could have been perceived as overpowered before is now suddenly underpowered because the game itself is being played differently.

I think this is the core issue I have with your view.

If the game was balanced then yes - you'd have a meta spectrum, of armour vs infantry, or elites vs hordes, or armour vs anti-tank etc.

Generally speaking though, you don't. Because 40k isn't "balanced" - and therefore the meta is about getting as much points efficiency (i.e. imbalance) into your list as you can..

I think you have a disconnect that view because 40k's balance problems are rarely unit types. They're balance problems with a codex as a whole (minus the 'bad units') the issues is rarely armor vs infantry, but 'dark eldar.' Or Harlies or Iron Hands or whatever. The mishmash of bloat rewards specific mixes that a given codex can do in a way that no one else can. And then the next 'winning' book hard counters (or at least challenges) that.

Hecaton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The goal of casual players is not to win when they build lists and some don't even play to win, how do you get any data from that? If GW sees that nobody is taking X unit in competitive play they can buff that unit, the only players taking the unit is casual players, casual players benefit from GW improving competitive balance.

There are definitely casual players who like to win but can't win games in a competitive setting, so stick to playing with their casual group.

Or casual players that play to win but realize that playing in a competitive setting means a lot of money spent chasing after armies every year and having to buy new forces, many that they may not even really enjoy playing.

Hecaton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The goal of casual players is not to win when they build lists and some don't even play to win, how do you get any data from that? If GW sees that nobody is taking X unit in competitive play they can buff that unit, the only players taking the unit is casual players, casual players benefit from GW improving competitive balance.

There are definitely casual players who like to win but can't win games in a competitive setting, so stick to playing with their casual group.

There's also definitely casual players who can win competive games - but don't play in tourneys for whatever reason. Schedules, $, family obligations, no interest in playing in that environment, etc.

ccs wrote:
There's also definitely casual players who can win competive games - but don't play in tourneys for whatever reason. Schedules, $, family obligations, no interest in playing in that environment, etc.

Sure, but I'm more talking about the kind of person who avoids tournaments, still netlists, and decries any list that can beat theirs as cheese.

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
There's also definitely casual players who can win competive games - but don't play in tourneys for whatever reason. Schedules, $, family obligations, no interest in playing in that environment, etc.

Sure, but I'm more talking about the kind of person who avoids tournaments, still netlists, and decries any list that can beat theirs as cheese.

The term you are looking for us "that guy" best way to deal with them is just not play them. Hell you can play a net list and still have fun with it and it not be broken

Great example of this is in HH if you take guard of the crimson king. You can be a that guy and run cataohractii sehkmet telepathy terminators and get a 3++ invuln, or you could run either another sect/another Terminator suit and not min max cheese it.

Now if a guy runs that kinda list and says oh it's totally not over powered there is not much you can do but avoid them

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
There's also definitely casual players who can win competive games - but don't play in tourneys for whatever reason. Schedules, $, family obligations, no interest in playing in that environment, etc.

Sure, but I'm more talking about the kind of person who avoids tournaments, still netlists, and decries any list that can beat theirs as cheese.

The term you are looking for us "that guy" best way to deal with them is just not play them. Hell you can play a net list and still have fun with it and it not be broken

Great example of this is in HH if you take guard of the crimson king. You can be a that guy and run cataohractii sehkmet telepathy terminators and get a 3++ invuln, or you could run either another sect/another Terminator suit and not min max cheese it.

Now if a guy runs that kinda list and says oh it's totally not over powered there is not much you can do but avoid them

"That guy" could mean a lot of things. I describe those players as scrubby, they shy from a challenge.

Hecaton wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
There's also definitely casual players who can win competive games - but don't play in tourneys for whatever reason. Schedules, $, family obligations, no interest in playing in that environment, etc.

Sure, but I'm more talking about the kind of person who avoids tournaments, still netlists, and decries any list that can beat theirs as cheese.

The term you are looking for us "that guy" best way to deal with them is just not play them. Hell you can play a net list and still have fun with it and it not be broken

Great example of this is in HH if you take guard of the crimson king. You can be a that guy and run cataohractii sehkmet telepathy terminators and get a 3++ invuln, or you could run either another sect/another Terminator suit and not min max cheese it.

Now if a guy runs that kinda list and says oh it's totally not over powered there is not much you can do but avoid them

"That guy" could mean a lot of things. I describe those players as scrubby, they shy from a challenge.

It's not the challenge I'm declining.
There's nothing out there list-wise that I can't beat or at least have a decent game against.
But life's too short to waste time playing with some of the assholez pushing models around. Doesn't matter if they're playing the top tier tourney list or a single grot.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Re: Points.

The discussion in this thread reminded me of a piece written by The Maker, Rick Priestley, in the pages of Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy magazine issue 71 (2013). In it he talks about how most of his gaming is scenario-based these days. Points only come up when he's going to a tournament which isn't all that often. in the most relevant section he talks about how points values are tied to the scenario:

Spoiler:

So where do points values come into all that? Well, army lists and points values are a great way of working out forces if you know how the scenario will affect the basic utility of the different elements. To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the combination of fixed points values and scenarios designed for points balanced armies creates a kind of circular self-sustaining mind-set. For points to be 'balanced' the scenario must fall within very narrow limits. Once those narrow limits are accepted as a standard, the exact points value of a unit becomes a critical factor in picking an effective army. Thus the structured army lists encourage players to adopt the same narrow parameters for scenarios time after time, and focuses players' minds on the cost/competitiveness of units within those parameters. It is wargaming - it is perhaps one of the most popular and enduring kinds of wargaming - but it isn't the be all and end all of what a wargame can be. For one thing, it has absolutely no reference to history or actual warfare. In real war fairness and balance of outcome are things to positively avoided where possible! It is also an approach strongly focussed on the one-on-one game - a kind of toy soldier equivalent of chess - in which the wargame is seen as a kind of intellectual match between two individuals. That kind of game might suit some players - perhaps a pair of regular opponents of comparable aptitude - but it works less well for games between multiple players, teams or games between experienced players and novices.

I think he's spot on when talking about the homogenization of the competitive side of the game.

Spoiler:

We've seen this play out since 5th when terrain became a more significant part of the game because TLOS was introduced. It took a while for tournament tables to catch up from the abstracted terrain concepts of 4th to the LOS-blocking requirements of 5th. Back then there was a lot of gnashing of teeth about the relative balance between melee and shooting. When the 5th edition guard codex brought the leafblower to tables, this contrast was brought into high relief. It was around this time when GW told us we weren't using enough terrain to break up LOS as indicated in the 5th ed rulebook with its 25% rule. TOs began to adapt and standardize terrain layouts and also standardize objectives beyond the three basic mission in the BRB at that time. This process continued in 6th when GW introduced secondaries like Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker.

So now with the ascendancy of the ITC we have a uniform competitive environment in which to evaluate the utility of units so in theory balance should be better, but only in that ITC context. Which, I think, it what the casual vs competitive debate is all about.

It is difficult for me to understand why this passage from Priestley didn't receive more attention here.

In that discussion, there is an implicit fix to all this "balance" business: let the players see the table, understand the mission objectives (together adding up to the "scenario", Priestley's focus) and THEN let them assemble their forces using standard points values according to how useful they feel that the selected units might be in achieving mission goals given tabletop terrain.

If such a process were adopted as standard, there would be no danger of homogenisation due to tourney organisers levelling tables down to standard vanilla cardboard, and no room for endless debates about fairness of points allocations.

GW would be free to assign points as they see fit, ideally with faction specialties in mind e.g. elder grav tanks are reasonably costed because the tech is common for the eldar and so on, while restartes grav tanks should cost an arm and a leg because... well, they shouldn't have them at all but that is beside the point. IFF the above process were accepted, then it would be up tot he players to evaluate usefulness prior to assembling the force and deploying the forces on the tabletop at game time. Yes, this would also reduce the netlisty bs and "deck-buildiness" that I frankly find too card-gamey to embrace as essential to the hobby. It may also move talk of the "meta" to discussions about which units are useful in different contexts, so we would expect fewer fixed points to emerge due to standardisation while rewarding actual tactical play, adapting to context, knowing how to command one's forces, and so on... indeed, put the war back in the wargame.

Maybe I have missed something, but... has this idea come up already?

So, in summary, the process would look like this:
1) Along with opponent select mission, establish board setting and terrain. Optional depending on mission would be to place objective markers and so on.
2) Afford each player say 15 minutes to assemble forces and calculate points - should encourage a WYSIWYG model collection with fixed profiles and standard GW points for units to make calculation quick and easy as forces are assembled in full view of terrain and mission objectives.
3) Deploy forces.
4) Optional depending on scenario, place objective markers and so on e.g. if the mission is to recover something but the location of that thing is not known exactly prior to force deployment because someone on the ground must locate it or something like that...
5) Game on, command and deal with the consequences of unit selection, exposing perhaps limitations in model collection (ideally, again, WYSIWYG) thereby motivating new purchases, conversions, etc., in order to build out that collection in preparation for similar scenarios in the future.

Additional comment re tourney play: seems that if people see the mission pack, and with it the table top layouts prior to the tourney, then they may assemble their forces prior to the tourney, submit army lists for inspection by organisers and so on. IFF terrain and missions are variable enough, then there should be no two scenarios that reward the same sorts of forces, e.g. one mission will have much impassable terrain so tanks are less useful, one mission will have dense cover limiting effective range of weaponry thereby rewarding h2h type forces and units with short range weapons with lots of overwatch potential, one mission will have cloud cover and smog and other factors that may inhibit effectiveness of weapons that do not require line of sight, one mission might be mostly bare table thereby rewarding a gun line type force while exposing that army to dangers of infiltrators and charges from the side margins, etc...

Malifaux has you assemble your crew after you've drawn you objectives and set up the table etc. Someone mentioned Warcaster lets you bring in units from your collection as the game progresses.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Malifaux has you assemble your crew after you've drawn you objectives and set up the table etc. Someone mentioned Warcaster lets you bring in units from your collection as the game progresses.

Seems to me that this sort of process would end these sorts of problems, and would improve the game for both casual and for competitive players...
Thoughts?

 jeff white wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Malifaux has you assemble your crew after you've drawn you objectives and set up the table etc. Someone mentioned Warcaster lets you bring in units from your collection as the game progresses.

Seems to me that this sort of process would end these sorts of problems, and would improve the game for both casual and for competitive players...
Thoughts?

I know we often disagree on stuff but warcaster NM has some very interesting features. I've said it in the pp boards but it does feel in some ways to have taken 15 years of lessons from wmh )of what was done right and what wasnt) and applied them to a new, smaller game since due to the size/bloat/inertia of wmh they can't easily be applied there...

There was also some of it in wmh where they had 2 or 3-list formats and an integral sideboard (20% of your lists total could be swapped out). For it to work in gw's space you'd need some changes though. Far less granular points costs and a massive reduction in internal-unit options at a start.