40k The Balancing Act

[Wolfshade]

Preamble

There has been a lot said about the lack of balance in the new Tyranid codex and it got me thinking about the overall balance and how hard it is to achieve.

First, let us look at games with perfect balance. The three that immediately spring to mind are draughts, chess and go. Now these games also have the advantage of being turn based to help make the comparison, so why are these games so well balance? Well with draughts and go, the pieces have identical rules and are in identical numbers so you have balance made out of symmetry. Similarly, with chess, though chess is slightly more complicated as the pieces each have their own relative strengths and weakness. But again balance is made through mirror symmetry.

The idea of chess then brings us to the idea of different models having a perceived strengths. The queen is the most powerful down to the pawn being the weakest. Though in the right situation the pawn can be invaluable, be it becoming promoted (to a queen for instance) or if it happens to make the check mate. Indeed, it is all about having the right tool for the right job.

So the easiest way to achieve perfect balance in 40k is to have mirror armies, which quite frankly is boring.

Balance with a Codex

So is it possible to achieve balance within a codex? Yes. Although there are simple ways of doing this. You first of all need to define your base line and work from there. So a unit that is twice as good as the base unit should be twice the points. And you then build out from there.

The big trouble with this approach is that there is no point in buying one unit over another since they can do the same job with a varying degree of effectiveness.

Of course in the "good old days" every army had almost every option so you didn't need to consider balance because whatever one army did another one could do identically.

What is worth a point

This is hard to define. If every model had the same purpose then how effective they are at doing this can show how they should be costed. Sometimes this is measured in their offensive ability (MEQ kills), or perhaps their defensive ability. But then there are more intangibles.
Consider a terminator and a rhino they are similarly priced, the termy weighs in cheaper. Offensively at range the rhino and termy are the similar, the power fist is certainly more dangerous than the tank shock. So is the ability to transport worth 10 extra points? Especially given the much larger target area making it more vulnerable.

Then there is an issue that Jervis describes himself and that is that when you get used to someone's rules you start to play with the philosophy behind the rules rather than all of the options available which makes it more unclear.

The affect of local meta

With the advent of netlists, and the 40k community now being a truely global thing so local meta are now becoming slightly more global.

But if you are trying to work out the point costs of a single melta gun, first you need to factor in the effectiveness of the user the ability to take them and the likely numbers of those fielding them. You then need to work out their effectiveness. Imagine then that you are play testing in a meta that is very armour heavy, then suddenly melta guns are really important and really effective. This would not be observed if you were in a horde type meta.

So you might end up with a points costing that you believe to be balanced in the way your local community play it, but then when exported to globally there are some metas where the game play is that different from the test environment that the option suddenly becomes wrongly priced.

Perhaps this is an argument for a wider play testing community? (Though that has issues which I shall try and avoid discussion here).

The issue of varied armies

The biggest problem of all comes because of GW's very wide range. If there were two armies then it would be quite simple to balance them against each other, but the more armies with varied and different styles means that it is harder and harder to get balance.
Other things to consider are things like is a unit over costed or just under utilised? Are there just bad match ups? Because of the armies themes is it possible that the encounter would not be balanced? For instance an heavy anti-tank army full of single shot weapons like meltas could potentially be at a disadvantage against say foot-slogging green tide. That isn't to say that the anti-armour army is over-costed and the green tide is under-costed, it is an issue with the list.

Then owing from the initial point costings you might get an effect that armies are better or worse at certain points levels, this is especially difficult when you consider the game is targeted for 1,500 - 3,000 points. This isn't even taking into account the affect of apocalypse.

Then we need to do that all over again taking into consideration allies, a double FOC, allied formations et al.

Closing thoughts

I think we all would love to see a balanced game regardless of the points/match up. But I think we also need to acknowledge that some lists will work better or worse against others. We also need to consider what the effect of experience has. Though the results of the LVO tournament might help mitigate the effects of poor list construction/in experience of gaming/ poor playing, so perhaps those results it does show a trend where some areas need to be addressed. Though whether the issue is the list itself, the units within the list, how the list interacts with allies/detachments etc. Would need some careful consideration, so the right aspect is tweaked.

This is all taken out of context with the fact that GW's job is to sell models, so there is an argument that new big expensive kits are under point costed in order to get people to splash out on large kits.

As we look set to have more new varied units/detachments it is a very exciting time to play 40k, but on the flip side each new unit/option makes balance that much harder.

[daboarder]

All that would be acceptable if it at least looked like GW was trying. But they're not therefore it is not.

[Gleipnir]

You forgot to mention you are working within the constraints of a single d6 result as well in most cases, which while the predominant medium of dice rolling for war-games and tabletops minis originally, they largely constricts balance options artificially that could be expanded with d8, d10 or d12 for example, in what is a fairly mechanics heavy game.

[Dalleron]

I've wondered in the past as to whether or not a D6 is sufficient for 40k anymore. I don't know how you'd go about changing things, but i just feel that a D6 isn't enough.

I think an issue of balance comes from this. I do not know if there is someone who is in charge of the game side of the business. Someone who has final say in what goes into a codex, or the rulebook in general. It appears that codex authors have free reign to do as they please, and you get redonkulousness that is the Tau or Eldar. If I'm wrong on this, then that person/people just suck at their job.

Just my 2 cents.

Plus I agree with daboarder. I dont think GW give a hoot about balance.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Decent little piece that, Wolfshade, thanks for your thoughts.

[Anggul]

Yeah, there's a great big list of units that no-one with a hint of care about balance could possibly have thought were well-priced, whether too much or too little. Even without play-testing it's easy to see that some units are just bad and don't do anything worthwhile. Now when you consider they're being paid to write this stuff, they should carry out extensive playtesting and listen to the playtesters.

The worst thing, as I say, is when you can obviously tell a unit isn't worth it or costs too little without even having to play a game with it. Things like Mandrakes which are obviously awful and don't do anything useful for the army for their cost, and definitely don't reflect the deadly creatures that they're meant to be.

[DarkLink]

What's even worse-er than that is when you have a unit that's terrible, has been terrible for a while, and anyone with half a brain should know that it's terrible, yet the new codex comes out and they don't fix it.

[Wolfshade]

I hadn't considered the effect of the D6, but I shall give it some thought:

Probability on balance
Random actions are the enemy of balance. Or rather the observations of the results resort in observed balance issues.

Imagine you have a weapon that costs 50pts and drops a S10 AP2 Large blast, 36” Range. Which hits on a 4+, in a game where you are facing tightly blocked infantry and you are “lucky” (urgh I hate that word) and it works every turn (like the game when my vindicators never scattered) then at 50pts it might seem a bit over powered.
Now translate the same thing into a game where the enemy is much more spread-out and you can only hit up to 1 model each time and then you are unlucky and it never works, the response is that it is massively over costed.

With most games we don’t roll enough dice to have average rolls (well maybe if you run a CC green tide..) so we don’t see how things balance out. Or at least we realise how they do but how we feel is based on the observed reality.

So the D6 introduces an element of instability and random chance. Unlike Chess and Draughts, those pieces will always take the piece they are trying to do so, (hmm imagine chess with a combat mechanism). The greater the spread of results the more difficult it is to try and balance it. Although it certainly could be used to fine tune some of the probabilities. Though I think some of the complaints we are seeing are less fine-tuned “this should work 3 times in 10 rather than 2 times in 6” and more fundamental. One of the things that irritates me about D&D is natural 20s those effects can be bizarre.

Outside of this discussion of balance, I personally, prefer the D6/D3 mechanism better than the old D3, D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D24 etc. mechanism. I think it is far simpler, though a more simplistic approach can sacrifice balance and the ability to fine tune. It is a game philosophy and I think it is less of case of trying to form improvements for existing players, but to make it more accessible to non-players.



I think it is a bit disingenuous to say GW doesn’t care about balance. I agree that it does look like there are cases where it is poorly executed, which may end up being the same thing ultimately and could just be me getting caught up in semantics.

It also seems strange that GW do seem to leave some units “broken” or at least less useful than other units in the codex. Especially when you consider they have fairly regular tournaments and games at GW HQ and have all those data points to work from, the lists, the results, how different armies interact with each other. There is some vast amounts of data to be mined to highlight potential deficiencies that could be incorporated going forwards.

I am hoping that with the new weekly WD that this marks a more agile and rapidly responding GW. Whether or not it will be I don’t know. But there are things that can and should be done quicker, like FAQs, consistent responses to rule questions via email (every so often we see a rule interpreted in two different ways by two different staffers). All of those sorts of rule queries could be banded together added to a DB and a new FAQ published monthly.

Though I am not sure how comfortable I feel about point changes being introduced via FAQs/errata. On the one hand, I think it would be good and shows a rapid response to the issue of balance (since points is the main mechanic to adjust balance). On the other it would be frustrating to have to check for the latest FAQ every time you write a new list.

Hmm, that was slightly longer than I had expected it to be. But I now have the idea of chess with a combat system!

[daboarder]

I think it is a bit disingenuous to say GW doesn’t care about balance. I agree that it does look like there are cases where it is poorly executed, which may end up being the same thing ultimately and could just be me getting caught up in semantics.

It also seems strange that GW do seem to leave some units “broken” or at least less useful than other units in the codex. Especially when you consider they have fairly regular tournaments and games at GW HQ and have all those data points to work from, the lists, the results, how different armies interact with each other. There is some vast amounts of data to be mined to highlight potential deficiencies that could be incorporated going forwards.

I am hoping that with the new weekly WD that this marks a more agile and rapidly responding GW. Whether or not it will be I don’t know. But there are things that can and should be done quicker, like FAQs, consistent responses to rule questions via email (every so often we see a rule interpreted in two different ways by two different staffers). All of those sorts of rule queries could be banded together added to a DB and a new FAQ published monthly.

Though I am not sure how comfortable I feel about point changes being introduced via FAQs/errata. On the one hand, I think it would be good and shows a rapid response to the issue of balance (since points is the main mechanic to adjust balance). On the other it would be frustrating to have to check for the latest FAQ every time you write a new list.

Hmm, that was slightly longer than I had expected it to be. But I now have the idea of chess with a combat system!

look wolf you've got some really good point on the limitations of designing a system using both a wide range of possible permutations where each permutation is constrained by a very limited set of variables, particularly when small changes in those variables drastically change the final outcome.

But your opinion on what GW is trying to do is just something I cannot agree with. This is the company that not only left the trygon tunnel unchanged (it doesn't work and has never worked in a non-FW book) but also repeatedly stripped that same army of any of the benefits they gained from an edition change at one time or another (yes nids have at one time or another been refused access to ANY of the positive changed from 6th, be it allies, fortifications (practically) or now psychic powers.). That is straight up not caring about balance and there's no way to realistically claim different.


As to your hope that the changes in the last 2 months will lead to a changed GW, well let me put it this way.
You know how you and eldargal have that point you make (and its a fair point) that those who go on about GW's financial demise year in year out. Well the hope that any change they make will be consistent and positive and lead to an era where they actually work with the community and give feedback is just as old and just as naive.

Ultimately theres probably some social scientist or psychologist floating around getting off on this community, because regardless of your viewpoint, be it positive or negative, we all expect different results from the same situation day in, day out.

[Wolfshade]

Sorry dab, I didn't want it to sound like I was totally disagreeing with what you say. I think you make some very good points and it is very frustrating how these sub-par units get carbon copied into the new dex without any reason to take them (either through a rule change or points reduction), certainly they are not balanced either internally within the codex or externally with the rest of the game, otherwise there would be reasons to take them/not take them (depending if they are op or up).
I think this lack of improvement shows a deficency in the current play testing regime, either that or they have run out of ideas of how to balance a unit/rule out and so have just given up.

I think that the hope may be a case of hope over experiance :(

As I say, perhaps the issue is over semantics and the use of literal rather than functional usage, for which I appologise, unfortunately this is something that permeates all aspects of my life not just being a keyboard warrior.

[stuciferthemighty]

I'm really surprised to find that GW doesn't playtest new rules as much within the community. That's a given when crafting a game system. I think Warmachine is going to run into the same problem further down the line, since it becomes harder to balance once you start adding new factions (something they've mitigated somewhat by also updating each faction with a model or two when they release a new army).

I think true balance is not quite possible, since the meta with always get bent to favor certain builds. It happens MUCH quicker now because of copy-paste lists. I think it's not a bad thing to work towards though.

[DarkLink]

Warmachine has as much stuff as 40k does already. If you don't count Space Marines as multiple factions, which you really shouldn't even though they do play slightly differently, Warmahordes only has like two fewer factions than 40k, and each faction actually has more units, characters, and solos than any 40k codex. The games are of similar scale in that regard, yet Warmahordes, while not perfect, is far better balanced than 40k is. Point is, it doen't matter if "true balance" is possible, because regardless of that, GW can do a much, much better job balancing the game than it currently does.

[Denzark]

All that would be acceptable if it at least looked like GW was trying. But they're not therefore it is not.

When you say trying, do you mean trying at all, or trying to find balance? The former I would say they do. The latter isn't as clear - but are you more worried about what they look like they are trying to do, ie the amount of smoke being blown up our respective posteriors because we are the almighty customer and should be listened to, or the end result?


I'm really surprised to find that GW doesn't playtest new rules as much within the community. That's a given when crafting a game system. I think Warmachine is going to run into the same problem further down the line, since it becomes harder to balance once you start adding new factions (something they've mitigated somewhat by also updating each faction with a model or two when they release a new army).

I think true balance is not quite possible, since the meta with always get bent to favor certain builds. It happens MUCH quicker now because of copy-paste lists. I think it's not a bad thing to work towards though.

Stucifer - Why would you be surprised that GW doesn't playtest in the community? It would only allow third party leeches a la CHS to start their rip-offs early. Also, why do you say it is a 'given' when crafting a gaming system if GW - hardly virgins in this area - don't do it?

[DarkLink]

Because if you want to make balanced rules, you must playtest. Most of the balance issues in 40k come from the fact that GW doesn't do much playtesting. They're not concerned, they don't feel balanced rules are very important as they think that players either don't take the game very seriously and just play beer and pretzels, or they just collect minis and don't even play at all.

[Denzark]

Ah, they do playtest though. But internally. To stop disclosure far out. There is a direct cause and effect with CHS and their IP theft here.

You are right about not being concerned, because what they are concerned about is the bottom line and that is not causing them worry. We're going round in circles on several threads here. They have had nothing that concerns them that their business model is failing and needs changing. There is no evidence 'balancing' the rules any better will punt more models. You only need 2 rulebooks minimum to play the game - your army's codex and the BRB. Once you have those, rules are almost nugatory, and no one has given any evidence that better rules shifts more models. Probably the bloody opposite - under-costed over powered rule shift models!

[DarkLink]

Even internally they don't playtest very much, as I understand. But, yes, their current strategy only requires rules to exist, not to be balanced, and it is profitable. That said, I'm pretty confident in saying they have a lot of growth opportunity if they put a little more energy in that direction.

[Wolfshade]

I'm really surprised to find that GW doesn't playtest new rules as much within the community. That's a given when crafting a game system. I think Warmachine is going to run into the same problem further down the line, since it becomes harder to balance once you start adding new factions (something they've mitigated somewhat by also updating each faction with a model or two when they release a new army).

I think true balance is not quite possible, since the meta with always get bent to favor certain builds. It happens MUCH quicker now because of copy-paste lists. I think it's not a bad thing to work towards though.

In another thread this was touched upon. The old GW intranet used to have the results of the latest playtesting and GW managers being fans would share the results with those in the shops and so people would respond to the latest rules and buy stuff, then when the actual rules came out it wasn't like the rumour so people would be mighty annoyed. That and it allows competition to get stuff to market first.

[daboarder]

In another thread this was touched upon. The old GW intranet used to have the results of the latest playtesting and GW managers being fans would share the results with those in the shops and so people would respond to the latest rules and buy stuff, then when the actual rules came out it wasn't like the rumour so people would be mighty annoyed. That and it allows competition to get stuff to market first.

It also blew up in there face when WD had a pitcure of the Witch hunter playtest being done with only 20 or so games......yeah solid.

Speaking of "balance" this idea of changing things on facebook, my god thats going to be a mess. How hard is it to host a PDF of that same text on a god damned website thats not social media, this is getting ridiculous.

[GrauGeist]

You forgot to mention you are working within the constraints of a single d6 result as well in most cases, which while the predominant medium of dice rolling for war-games and tabletops minis originally, they largely constricts balance options artificially that could be expanded with d8, d10 or d12 for example, in what is a fairly mechanics heavy game.

With d3s, re-rolls and Thorpian 6s, it's really not bad. Especially as there are typically 2 or 3 rounds of die-rolling.

[GrauGeist]

I hadn't considered the effect of the D6, but I shall give it some thought:

Outside of this discussion of balance, I personally, prefer the D6/D3 mechanism better than the old D3, D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D24 etc. mechanism. I think it is far simpler, though a more simplistic approach can sacrifice balance and the ability to fine tune.

D3 and D6 mechanics, with re-rolls, forces the designer to make real choices, versus fudging with a d8 or d4 . Or d100/d1000 tables. Ugh. Generally, when I see other than 6-siders being used, I often have to wonder just how hard the designer worked, because those non-standard dice allow for a lot of kitchen sinking, vs cutting the fat to get to the core of the simulation.

[Arkhan Land]

def agree on dice expansion Ide either want to see a D12 to double the current stats versus D6 relationship, or a D10 to mirror percentages but that would require a more intense re-working and maybe... gasp... math

I also want some sort of weight/threat/build limitations similar to Fanatsy/Historical Battles/PC Mech-Games like Mechwarrior and Heavy Gear (If you guys remember threat/weight limitations) where there would be caps on how much armour/flyers/ammo you would need or take in relationship to eachother. In a more realistic space-faring game, people would think twice about taking so many tanks if it meant your troops could only dish out three rounds of real firepower and that it could limit your flyers ability to zoom due to lack of fuel needed to get back for transportation.
Realistically speaking I dont think you would need to go that far into it, but essentially imagine that there is a limit on the amount of wounds/hull points you can take, Flyes/Skimmers/Bikes etc weighing an extra wound or hullpoint due to the need for fuel/support and suddenly you have yourself a real classy situation, or admittedly a real classy mess. In the Heavy Gear/Mech-Warrior series games its easier because those are PC games where the calculations are done for you, in a Tabletop strategy this same process would take so long it would mean people would probably be able to do very little list adjustment right before battle unless they were willing to brave the numbers! (probably not hard program for me to make as an TI-8X Program, or a basic text only App) but you see thats a lotta goshdarn work!

[Wolfshade]

I totally disagree :)

The more sided dice you have the more range of results you roll. Therefore the more dice you need to roll to experiance "expected results", conseuqently you could get a collection of good or bad rolls that lead to issues with balance.

The FoC is an attempt to balance forces out in a rather crude way, perhaps the fantasy % version is better. Though this might need the point price of Elites to fall back a little to get them into a force.

There was a tabletop strategy game where there were myriad different computations, so you would register all of your units into the system and then when you played a game you would log what action was taking place and against whom, then the server would churn away and pop out a result of what the result of an action was, like shooting close combat etc. It suffered from 2 big issues, 1) the servers went down for months at a time, 2) secondhand models that were still registerd couldn't be re-registered to a new owner. Without the servers there was no way a game could take place and unsurprisingly the game died off.

[Dave Mcturk]

when i was a 'serious' wargamer i steered away from 'games' like 40k, the dice bucket mechanism seeming very clumsy and time consuming, dabbled with early 40k and epic was great, played a lot of 4th, but since 5th havent played anything else {weekends away not an option !], think the green wombles missed a chance to really sort 6th out ... but ce la vie... and thats another thread... but 2d6 gives a range from 1:1 to 6:6 and is plenty for a table top generator, the numbers crunch quick and the visual is easy [simple if you like]... the D8/10/12/20 just, imo, make things even more clunky !

the standard single dice multi resolution is very often easier {if opponent agrees of course} to average down to one roll,

for example if 30 orc choppies charge in giving 120 attacks on a four, and at ST4 they need 4's to wound, we either roll 60 to wound or 30 saves depending - at lower dice volumes where averages may break down more then we return to the dice bucket !

[Veteran Sergeant]

D3 and D6 mechanics, with re-rolls, forces the designer to make real choices, versus fudging with a d8 or d4 . Or d100/d1000 tables. Ugh. Generally, when I see other than 6-siders being used, I often have to wonder just how hard the designer worked, because those non-standard dice allow for a lot of kitchen sinking, vs cutting the fat to get to the core of the simulation.LOL at the idea of tabletop 40K being a "simulation".

It's one of the most ridiculously abstract tabletop games out there, where the focus is on the ease and speed of play over any other individual considerations. Any and all complexity inherent to most wargames has been bled out of the game over subsequent editions. This isn't a bad thing necessarily. It makes the game more accessible to beginners and people looking for a more casual gaming experience. But at no point is it a sign of sophisticated game design, lol.

In not all cases is this a bad thing, but it will always suffer the drawbacks of a d6 system. Warhammer's struggles with the D6 system is the variance of the abilities of individual models. You have a system based on 16.6% changes of probability, but where the statistics often exceed the total of 6, and the baseline model, the Space Marine, is a 4 in most "rollable" stats, which makes the measure between "bog standard" and "elite" 16.6%. D6 can work in simpler games. If you're talking WW2, and everyone is a human being, the weapons are effectively comparable, and nobody has any real personal armor to speak of, the 16.6% gap is less of a problem because it can represent the more gradual differentials between, say, poorly trained Soviet conscripts and elite German Fallschirmjäger and a lot of stats don't actually need to be differentiated at all.

Ultimately, to be a "better" game, 40K needs to move away from its d6 mechanic. However, will that make it a better selling game? When you talk about 2nd Edition, you get plenty of complaints that it was too complicated and took too long to play. So I think the gaming demographic has really spoken as to what they want. They want to complain about how crappy the mechanics are, but they want them to remain easy and quick to play, with as much abstraction as possible.

[Veteran Sergeant]

The other problem 40K has with balance is trying to be everything at once. Trying to figure out how to balance the value of a model with no ranged ability against one with a ranged weapon, but at the same time, keeping the rules as simple and easy to play as possible. 3rd Edition is really the culprit here, as the drastic refocus on getting models into hand to hand combat to facilitate single-turn combat resolutions. This created armies which were hand to hand focused in a game with guns.

The problem is that hand to hand has varied in power from ruleset to ruleset, to where 6th Edition's return to a "shooty" focus leaves a lot of players crying "nerf!" because their hand to hand units are less powerful. The slow downward creep in point values again make the differentiation between units difficult to measure. There are so few points difference between individual infantry models that it is easy for something to quickly become over or undercosted in comparison to one of its near-peers in another list. In other game systems, because they have a narrower focus, it is also much easier to determined equivalency. If we're playing Ancients, maybe you've got one side playing Romans, and the other side playing Gauls. Ultimately while there are ranged units in the game, it's a game which is going to revolve around the maneuver of infantry and cavalry units attempting to close distance and poke eachother with sticks. A game set in WW2, Vietnam, or Modern is going to revolve around maneuver warfare of infantry and armor attempting to shoot one another where close combat is going to be short and brutal for everyone involved. It might have rules for flying units, but they're going to recognize the scale of the battlefield as opposed to 40Ks extremely slow moving flying aircraft (that are still ridiculously hard to hit, lol). 40K's attempt to be everything at once (easy to play, simple ruleset, lots of models, radical mix of unit capabilities, focus on making sure people get to use all their toys as much as possible) is a huge barrier to creating a "balanced" game.

[Dave Mcturk]

i think i have to disagree with the above poster, ok the swing shift on a single d6 is always 16% per pip, but the multiple points values, the variation in movement and weapons, and the other variable stats are the 'core' of the game - even if they are abstract, the 'dice bucket' is just a resolution mechanism, the fact that the green wombles continually fail to balance or play test or to correct flaws by faq is what affects 'balance' not the resolution mechanism, one of the biggest flaws is the fact that even extremely high WS and ST units/characters still need a 3 to hit in cc, that is a 16% flaw that they seem incapable of correcting ... [but low WS and =ST gets a re-roll to wound if poison against all T ?] .... oh my...

and tbh the 'biggest' abstraction' in 40k is the failure to get any sort of scaling right... but as with any game ... it is the same for both players ... so a level playing field

[DarkLink]

The game is not ill balanced because it uses D6s.

[Wolfshade]

The game is not ill balanced because it uses D6s.
Worryingly, I agree with you DL. :)