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.

If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?

My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)

But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??

even if they had perfect balance it would still be mucked up after the first few books

think as with most GW games its a case of strap in, hang on and stick with it for the ride

there are flat out too many combinations to have a single point value system "balance" them on a unit by unit basis, at best you could do army by army if all armies have the tools to deal with all other armies

Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.

Balance, not important. Fun, important.

I don't think imbalance in 40k is particularly a function of it being complicated or there being too many combinations to understand.

The issue is feature creep. GW will think up new rules (or existing rules but re-packaged). These will then often be undercosted relative to everything that already exists. These will therefore be more powerful than everything that already exists.

I can't believe GW is going to make codexes a non-event in terms of faction abilities. They are therefore likely to be a source of imbalance. As has happened effectively every edition.

mrFickle wrote:
If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?

My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)

But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??

No. Shifting imbalance is a feature. Not a bug.

As long as rules and models comes from same company when they are incentivized to do shifting imbalance no point hoping for balance.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.

The question is exploring a change in the pattern

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.

This, sadly. I've been around the block since 1997. GW isn't capable of balancing, even if they wanted to. They claim that's the goal, but do nothing to really take the proper strides towards it, and even if they do it ends up lasting a few months before inevitably a codex comes out that breaks the mold and sets a new standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrFickle wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.

The question is exploring a change in the pattern

There is no change in pattern, because GW has no reason to change. They remain profitable, even more than before, despite having a game that's a huge mess and probably the worst wargame rules out there.

mrFickle wrote:
My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them

GW already made the game much simpler in 8th, yet balance was never achieved

it is rather the opposite, the less restrictive the base is, the harder it is to balance additional content. So the more complex the basic structure is the easier it is to find balance as long as you stay within that structure
GW switched to a simpler base because they did not want to stay within a structure they wrote some years ago yet they were also not ready to handle the freedom of a simple system
This is also a reason why they switch back to a base that is more complex

if we get better balance with 10th simple depends of the designer understood the problems from the past or are making the same (as laying down the structure of the game with everything needed or the future or feeling the need to leave the basic structure with each new codex)

Index era 8th was about as basic as 40k has ever been and it wasn't balanced and everything just went downhill from there.

As someone who's been playing since 2nd, late 9th is the most balanced the game has ever been - but balance wasn't a major design consideration for most of its life.

With 10th being more steamlined and the same analytics-driven design team, the tournament win-rates for various factions will probably generally fall within their 45-55% sweet spot - if that's how we choose to define to balance.

mrFickle wrote:
If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?

My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)

But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??

Nobody can really say at this moment as we do not have the full ruleset or the new datasheets.

 Asmodai wrote:
As someone who's been playing since 2nd, late 9th is the most balanced the game has ever been - but balance wasn't a major design consideration for most of its life.

With 10th being more steamlined and the same analytics-driven design team, the tournament win-rates for various factions will probably generally fall within their 45-55% sweet spot - if that's how we choose to define to balance.

Speaking of pattern recognition - people should see the input to the game is far more restricted, which CAN allow an easier path to balance. Where they screw it up is anyone's guess, but if they stick to the 2 pager model then - again - different pattern and less variables.

40k rules are controlled obsolescence. Arguably the reset helps mitigate the bloat of the last edition only to go bonkers as the edition's life goes on and then after 3 years apparently here is a new set to rinse and repeat. This is how it has felt with 8th and 9th, from what others have told me it is more or less the case for older editions as well.

mrFickle wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.

The question is exploring a change in the pattern

Sure, somewhere in the multiverse there exists a world where GWs pattern changes & balance improves.

You are not living in that version of the world.

All your going to get with 10th is a an unbalanced game that's been (temporarily) streamlined.
Just a different flavour of imbalance.

I would say that a 45%-55% win rate is balanced enough as long as all of the armies fall into that range. I mean this isn't chess where each army has the exact same amount/type of pieces.

I don't think it will happen but that would be my goal if I ran the zoo.

mrFickle wrote:
If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?

My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)

But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??

Not really. They're not changing much, just stripping out a bunch of minor flavor, and rearranging deck chairs by putting BS on the gun instead of the unit etc.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.

Pretty much this.

GW will change their design philosophy halfway through the edition, just like every other edition that came before it, and feth it all up. It's the age-old fable of the scorpion and the frog. GW's the scorpion and we're all the frog.

isnt 9th currently pretty well balanced tho?

the main downside of the edition isnt the balance but how boring and complicated it is

I've been playing 8th edition books, the 9th edition rulebook at home, and I feel bad using so many Marine rules against my Ork player....

Oh wait, my SUPER Doctrine is now active! I get +1 attack for charging and when I'm charged! My rapid fire rule works diffently from Bolter Discipline. And I don't even use the broken Stratagems...

I had to stop using Armor of Contempt because it just felt wrong. I'll be alot happier with an even playing field.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I've been playing 8th edition books, the 9th edition rulebook at home, and I feel bad using so many Marine rules against my Ork player....

Oh wait, my SUPER Doctrine is now active! I get +1 attack for charging and when I'm charged! My rapid fire rule works diffently from Bolter Discipline. And I don't even use the broken Stratagems...

I had to stop using Armor of Contempt because it just felt wrong. I'll be alot happier with an even playing field.

Prob should of stuck with 8th's 1.0 marine dex.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
isnt 9th currently pretty well balanced tho?

the main downside of the edition isnt the balance but how boring and complicated it is

By now maybe but balance as an edition is ending isn’t great. For most of 9th SM had 2 wounds but CSM only just got that essential balancing update

mrFickle wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
isnt 9th currently pretty well balanced tho?

the main downside of the edition isnt the balance but how boring and complicated it is

By now maybe but balance as an edition is ending isn’t great. For most of 9th SM had 2 wounds but CSM only just got that essential balancing update

I'd argue that balance at the end is the most important as anybody who doesn't want to move to the new edition gets something that needs minimal house ruling and balance changes to work for years to come. The rules and minis don't become useless just because GW publishes something new.

45-55% tournament win rate, would be decent balance if all the options not being taken are cut from the books

simple because everything not contributing to that balance is bloat and just there to add the illusion of options and value, as well as be a trap for newcomers buying stuff that is worthless as it will never see play


but if we want to keep that options, internal balance is added as well and this means, no matter the units taken, this 50+/-5% win rate does not change
because as soon as the "not popular" units are on an the winrate is down to 30% there is a problem, that is just ignored with "most balanced edition so shut up"

Breton wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
If the th is going to be that much simpler to learn and play do you think the game will become more balanced aswell?

My logic is that GW made the game so complicated with too many data point to adjust that creating balance was too difficult for them to achieve balance so they created the cycle of making armies OP and then nerfing them (this also seemed to help sales)

But if they got an easier job then balance might be achievable??

Not really. They're not changing much, just stripping out a bunch of minor flavor, and rearranging deck chairs by putting BS on the gun instead of the unit etc.

I guess some people never liked the 'spot the difference' puzzles when they were kids. Buckle up folks- this is going to take a while.

Let's look at Terminators.
OLD:


- Chainfist no longer needs to declare it's unwieldy malus as it is built in to the WS. Additionally, instead of declaring the AV bonus it is encompassed entirely in [Anti-Vehicle 3+].
- Chainfist AP reduced by 2 and damage reduced by 1
- Powerfirst AP reduced by 1 and it is no longer unwieldy
- A separate sarge listing is no longer required as the power sword represents the extra attack and the LD bonus was made irrelevant
- Assault Cannon AP reduced and granted [Devastating Wounds]
- Heavy Flamer text stripped and placed behind USRs
- <CHAPTER> keyword removed
- ADEPTUS ASTARTES keyword made a Faction keyword
- CORE removed and OC added as a state
- Angels of Death removed
- Combat Squads removed
- Bolter Discpline gone
- Teleport Strike placed behind Deepstrike USR
- Toughness and Invuln increased by 1
- Oath of the Moment grants full rerolls on one unit per turn
- Other sources of external rerolls potentially removed - you now need a character to join the unit to gain abilities
- Characters than can join are restricted in type and ability
- Deathwing and Wolfguard clauses removed
- A stratagem providing +1 to hit at any time was converted to an ability that only applies when targeting the unit under OoM
- Doctrines were removed eliminating extra AP for Heavy in Devastator, RF in Tactical, etc thereby reducing total AP

- Eliminating faction specific traits, which become a single trait in the chosen detachment -- these included, but not limited to : +1 to hit when standing still, ignore cover, exploding 6s, +1 to hit vs small units, +1 to hit when charging / charged, 5+++ vs MW, fallback and shoot, ignore AP1, reroll a wound roll, 6+++, cover when 18" away, dense cover when 12" away, rr 1s with bolters, +3" to RF/Heavy, +1 to advance and charge, -1LD in 3", reroll one hit roll, 2s fail to wound, fallback and charge,

Eliminating super doctrines - +1A, increase AP, Increase AP in Heavy, +1 to wound for flamers, +1 hit and wound vs Characters, move and shoot w/o penalty, etc

Stratagems terminators could previously benefit from ( many of these lines condense multiple different stratagems into one line ) :
- Shoot at a unit arriving from deepstrike
- Apply all doctrines to the unit
- Remain stationary
- Perform an action and shoot
- Revive a model
- Receive rerolls from a dreadnought
- +1 to hit ( converted )
- Reroll hits vs CSM in melee
- Granting a relic to the sarge
- Redeploy
- 6s to wound increase AP
- Fall, shoot, and charge without penalty
- Overwatch as a group
- 6" pile-in
- +1 to wound
- Heal D3
- Heroic intervention
- Ignore charge mods
- Deny as psyker
- Deny on 4+
- +1sv vs D1
- +1S
- Flamers cause mortals on 4+
- Flamers become pistols
- infiltrate move
- reroll charge
- cause mortals to unit moving close
- 6s to wound double wounds
- 5+++


Ok I'm 1/4 of the way though and I can't even take it. This doesn't count the prayers, spells, and warlord traits they can benefit from.

So what do they have access to now? A MAX of six strats that may or may not be useable on them ( and 12 other universals ). Up to two characters that need to be a specific type and that grant a specified buff. A MAX of six 'Enchancements' ( relics / traits ) given to characters that may or may not affect terminators.

- Over 29 stratagems able to affect terminators down to 6 or less.
- 6 to 18 WL traits ( per marine army ) and dozens of relics down to 6.

And this doesn't really encompass everything that is changing broadly with weapons and vehicles.

If someone thinks the new version isn't easier to balance then I don't want what you're smoking.

if you want to make a fair comparison you would not to take the 2 Index profiles and not 1 Indexx profile and 1 Codex profile

That's a fairly disingenuous attempt to dismiss that actual real consequence of rules changes from 9th to 10th - especially in light of the comment I replied to.

You also indirectly infer the detachment method, which only ever provides the same number of strats and enchancements, will be perverted when they've pretty explicitly stated that is the dynamic they're using for this edition.

The 8th index terminators is almost no different than 9th other than listing less of the weapons on it and not containing clauses for Deathwing or Wolfguard. The datasheet they gave for terminators in 10th is functionally complete.

mrFickle wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Anybody who believes that 10th ed. will be balanced has very poor pattern recognition abilities.

The question is exploring a change in the pattern

Here's secret that will blow your mind:

To explore change　in pattern there has first be change in pattern.

Amazing! O_o

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's a fairly disingenuous attempt to dismiss that actual real consequence of rules changes from 9th to 10th - especially in light of the comment I replied to.

first we don't know if the Terminator one for 10th is complete or how it will change with the Codex coming up
so it is rather difficult to say that 10th is simpler than 9th, because comparing a 7th Edi Codex Terminator entry with the 8th Edi index entry is showing us the same result

Index 8th and Index 10th look similar, so if you want to make the point that 10th is easier to balance because there will be an Index instead of Codicies, this is valid
we just don't know if it stays that way as if the datasheets changes too much, like they did in the past, we end up with the same problem again

I don't think the terminator datasheet will change. It's more complex than any before it. I'm more worried that marines and nids were fleshed out like this and the rest of the armies are lackluster until codex.