A Commentary on Contemporary Balance in 40K

[Denzark]

40K is a hobby that generates a lot of discussion. Whether this is about modelling, gameplay, rules, the latest releases, or the seemingly inscrutable GW modus operandi, someone somewhere is mulling it over especially on the interwebs. But recently one aspect has to my mind come to the fore and is a constant source of debate, and that is balance. Is it balanced or not?

Why balance?

40K – playing the actual game – is something we do (ostensibly) for fun. I have not heard of anyone whose exclusive employment from which they make a living, is ‘professional 40k player’. So when you throw down those models and roll those pesky dice, I can only assume it is for fun. And when humans have fun, and that fun has a competitive edge (a defined winner/loser) they also want to be treated fairly. Unfair is not fun. There may be caveats to this. Now and again you may play an ‘Orks Drift’ or re-spawning Tyrannid horde scenario where the defender cannot win. This might not be fair on the face of it, but when it’s the whole point of the game it is probably for fun. So the question is, beyond the individual not being a cheat, what is inherent in the game itself (ie the rules) to ensure fairness – ie what brings the balance?

Balance – a matter of points.

The biggest single arbiter of balance within the rules is the points cost of various models. The whole raison d’être behind the points cost is to try and match approximate force strengths between 2 disparate army entities made up of different units. I have referred elsewhere to my contention that the points cost is the equivalent of 18th Century doctors using Latin as a common language between brothers in medicine worldwide. In 40K terms, no matter where you go, 1000pts of army x should be roughly as powerful as 1000pts of army y. I contend here, that if you don’t think this is the case (I acknowledge it is not exact), you probably shouldn’t expect ever to have a balanced game unless you are using an identical force to your enemy.

Are points allocated scientifically?

In the past, it could be argued that they were and actually, Rogue Trader detailed the methodology, providing the breakdown on Page 58. The picture here details it, but in short, the basic human profile was worth 5 points. Against every characteristic there was a modifier so, take WS. For every point over 3, add ¼ of a point. For every point under 3, subtract ¼ of a point. There was even multiplying factors for larger creatures.

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy257/denzark/IMG_0812_zps6r2o09d9.jpg

But does this apply now? If you take away the points for additional characteristics long gone (M, Int, Cl, WP totalling -2 pts) and apply to cultists, you are in the same bracket – before you add the cost of flak armour (6+ save) and an autopistol and hand weapon – so a cultist on the RT system should be base 7pts. By comparison today’s Astra Militarum come out at 9pts base each from RT, and a Space Marine comes out at 21pts base in RT. You can see how costs have degraded to ‘allow’ us to field bigger armies – obviously at greater RL financial cost.

Fast forward to 3rd Ed, and the design philosophy changed. Page 272 in the Annex talks about points cost, and how higher BS and Squads full of heavy weapons are more effective – therefore the points of that weapon will cost more to balance that skew. This is a departure from RT/2nd Ed where points cost reflected the availability of that equipment to any given army. But also, turn back a page. Under a paragraph entitled: “The Hand of Fate” no lesser personage than Andy Chambers has something to say on ‘tight’ rulesets:

“The first and most fundamental principles of wargaming rules: They are loose, wooly affairs which never detail exactly what you want to know in any given situation. “Why” I hear you chorus, “Isn’t that your job you charlatan?” (you may want to use stronger terminology here). It’s because wargaming isn’t played on a gridded-out playing area with a set number of strictly defined pieces. Wargaming is about colour, movement and breathing life into the armies you lovingly amass and then drive headlong into your opponent. The number of variables in a normal miniatures game is simply staggering if you consider the diversity of terrain, armies, playing area, dice rolls, points values and all the rest of it.”

So – the date is 1998, and the Overlord Andy Chambers is telling you you won’t get a fully boxed off airtight ruleset. Hold that in mind – we may have forgotten that over the years...

Now look at the fabled Vehicle Design Rules. Once upon a time (4th ed), the VDR was published and such things encouraged. It was often commented upon that all of the ‘stock’ GW vehicles were costed cheaper than they came out using the VDR. And the retort I recall was that GW felt the enhanced cost of home-built vehicles was considered ‘fair’ against the benefit of tailoring a vehicle to your exact needs. Here we see an element of subjectivity being accepted as an inherent concept in design. Just pause and think about that a sec. SUBJECTIVITY IS AN INHEHRENT CONCEPT IN 40K DESIGN. And Andy Chamber hinted at this a whole edition before.

What else can skew balance?

Points are not enough to maintain balance. One has to consider the effects of I go, you go (IGYG). The winner of first turn can have a massive advantage and depending on which way you play, you could have separate rolls for table edge, deploy first/second and go first/second – and one role allowing the high roller to choose edge, deploy first or second and go first or second. Randomness can skew balance. This is massively prevalent in Maelstrom missions – depending on how your deck falls and which mission you are playing, the game can literally be won in turn 1’s movement phase. But the main thing that skews balance for me, is rules that operate outside the BRB – most normally army or codex special rules.

Special rules – the worst offenders.

If one accepts that the points of a given unit have some sort of pseudo scientific method, how can one empathise that the Design Team costed various special rules? Any time someone acts against the core rules; that for me is the biggest game changer in effecting the performance of their army. Let me tell you my own perceived worst offenders – I fully acknowledge YMMV:

Gauss. The ability of massed gauss fire to degrade armour is a huge bonus. Nearly everyone in the necron army therefore has a chance to affect the heaviest armour. A marine plasma gunner will likely carve though terminator armour that the gauss allows full save for – but the plasma bounces off a landraider like a pebble.

Tau – marker lights and mutual overwatch. I can’t begin to describe how much this frustrates me. Tau technology should be less advanced than Eldar and Tau fighting skills are less that Space Marines. But neither of the latter can gang up on poor old berzerkers coming to make friends up close and personal. How was that ability costed?

Drop Pods. Ignore grav. The ability to get within rapid fire range for an alpha strike turn 1 is epic. And now, some of your buddies can bring empty pods as fast attack – so the ‘only 50% arriving turn 1’ isn’t quite so bad because you maximise how many boots you get on the ground. And the cost of a Rhino a pop.

Wyverns. 3 of them cost only just more than a stock tac squad. They can can’t be damaged from the front arc by less than S6 (except for my old pal gauss) and their damage output is immense especially next to said tac squad. And they are now scoring units.

And now we approach the epoch of Eldar bringing D in spades…

Back to balance…

With all of the factors above, is it possible to have truly balanced game of 40K? Well actually even if you took the top boys from Privateer Press and FFG, bathed them in the blood of Mat Ward and then let them have free range on the ruleset, terrain and IGYG can render the tightest ruleset an irrelevance if one side is unlucky. In fact even if both players had identical armies on symmetrical terrain with an even number of objectives, first turn would still be a factor. But don’t forget Andy Chambers told us 17 years ago the rules would not be the final answer to everything...

Re-balancing – pick up games.

If we accept 100% balance is impossible, how can pick up/club gamers mitigate against the inherent imbalances of ruleset and (U)SRs? Crucially, pre-game discussion. You need to have that chat to make sure that where one person brings a beautifully painted FW space marine army all in MkII armour with accompanying back story, and the opposition has an unbound summoning monster with D, FMCs and a half built grey horde to practise for a cutthroat tournament, that expectations don’t actually totally miss each other. I have been to numerous clubs in the UK and I always find I will impart 3 pieces of information to my opponent: Do I have any fliers, Do I have any super-heavies and is my army a tournament tuned nasty? In 99% of cases the opponent will reciprocate with this information and where it is not clear I would like to know what to expect in return hey – guess what – I ask them!

Re-balancing – Tournaments.

I respect the hell out of TOs, I really do. But in the same way I have demonstrated a level of subjectivity in 40K, TOs are naturally subjective. What you think is an improvement to the problems may not be. Why should we trust your house rules are better than the shambles the design team has come up with? Too much tinkering is counter-productive. What you can do is this: Firstly, place terrain symmetrically so it doesn’t matter which side gets which. Secondly, make sure each side has an equal number of objectives if the game is objective based (if you have an odd number and the players are placing, the gunline player who is lucky to have 3 objectives to place behind his ADL and tank park is already at an advantage. Next, ensure that whatever happens both sides get an equal number of turns (leave time between rounds in case of run over). Lastly, ensure you use a swiss progression system so that the naturally stronger players/armies face off against each other (you may think this point is obvious – but GW use random table selection through all rounds of their in-house GTs). Finally, consider not playing Maelstrom because it is just too random if you are trying to claim balance with your house rule nerfing of ranged D and invisibility.

Balance – final thoughts.

‘But wait’ I hear you cry – ‘If your saying the game is inherently unbalanced then by your rational the game is inherently unfair!’. OK. This is a difficult concept to reconcile. We know that x points from the Dark Angels Codex gets you less bang for your Imperial Solari than y points from the Codex new kid on the block with infantry at 3.5 points and FMCs with twin D at 34 points. There is an imbalance in the codexes. If this imbalance is beyond your ability to deal without serious mental angst I haven’t got much to suggest. Have you tried using the battle missions? Have you tried planetfall? Have you thought about a fortification or an ally? Is there a super heavy that fits in your army fluff so you are not doing some unlikely fist bump with the necrons?

You see the reason I ask this is that the designers and GW seem to be doing something we wanted back at the time of 5th ed. Yes, you heard me, GW is doing what its customers wanted. We wanted a quicker release schedule, et voila. The sandbox of 40K has never been so varied so, to mix my metaphors, if you are like the French at Waterloo, and as described by Lord Wellington ‘come on in the same old way’ then in all likelihood you are going to be ‘seen off in the same old way’. If eternal war 1.5k isn’t floating your boat, change it up.

Embrace the inherent unbalance of 40K. It is not balanced, it never has been balanced and it never will be – neither is it intended to be and we were told this almost 2 decades back. But you know those square things with little dots on? Those are dice. There is a random aspect to 40K and there is a random aspect to war. The randomness and imbalance of 40K equally affects your opponent, so look for ways to mitigate and risk manage this aspect. You will find then that balance is just your starting point, to make sure bantam weight doesn’t fight super heavy weight. It is the handrail before jumping off into the grim dark future of the 41st millennium and if you can’t accept this I hope you are more fulfilled by pre-paints with 3 factions and the flat table space of a galaxy far far away, or using your super combo to kill the opposition warcaster. I for one will be trying to smash Eldar warts, D and all. In the nightmare future of the 41st millennium, there is no time for peace. No respite. No Balance. There is only War.

[daboarder]

Denzark, I think you've pointed out the reasons balance is inherently important to a two player game. You've also elaborated very well on why GW games do it so poorly (The fact that they think subjective balance is appropriate is laughable).

Therefore it really pains me that the conclusion to all this is "who cares"
Of course people care, this is a 3-4 hour game (Excluding, buying building painting etc), nobody in their right mind wants to consistently waste 3-4 hours a week because a company operates under a fundamentally flawed concept of game design.
There is no good or logical reason for the poor design in 40k, NONE. Balance does not require the removal of options or even a slower release schedule, it requires the consistent design concept being applied equally across the codexes and a flexibility and willingness to respond to unforseen issues on GWs part.

Thats all, it doesn't mean that you have to loose the fluffy rules or even the powerful rules, it only means that said rules need to be appropriately valued within the context of the game, both in terms of availability (Thats the major problem with the new jetbike design) and/or points (The major problem with the Wraithknight)

[Lord Manton]

Denzark, I think you've pointed out the reasons balance is inherently important to a two player game. You've also elaborated very well on why GW games do it so poorly (The fact that they think subjective balance is appropriate is laughable).

Therefore it really pains me that the conclusion to all this is "who cares"
Of course people care, this is a 3-4 hour game (Excluding, buying building painting etc), nobody in their right mind wants to consistently waste 3-4 hours a week because a company operates under a fundamentally flawed concept of game design.
There is no good or logical reason for the poor design in 40k, NONE. Balance does not require the removal of options or even a slower release schedule, it requires the consistent design concept being applied equally across the codexes and a flexibility and willingness to respond to unforseen issues on GWs part.

Thats all, it doesn't mean that you have to loose the fluffy rules or even the powerful rules, it only means that said rules need to be appropriately valued within the context of the game, both in terms of availability (Thats the major problem with the new jetbike design) and/or points (The major problem with the Wraithknight)

I think the conclusion is less "who cares" and more of a "deal with it and move on to enjoying the game", hence his comment about x wing and warmahordes maybe being a system more suited to those needs.

This seems like a crass point, but it seems integral to people's enjoyment of the game. I hate to spout the trolls' nonsense, but no one is forcing you to play 40k competitively or at all. And the argument of investment falls away when Denzark's evidence suggests that the game was never balanced properly, nor had they tried, knowing full well what a monumental task it would be. In 5th Ed the complaints ran rife about Codex Creep and the farcical imbalance between different armies (remember 5th Ed BA and GK? Those dudes were obscenely OP compared to CSM, DA or the other, ancient books). Now we have the same debate, just with different armies sitting on top of the pile.

IMO, if you want a truly balanced, yet fluffy rules set, you really do need fewer factions. When you take all the supplements into account there is a ridiculous number of options for army choices. It would be a phenomenal task to put all those factions together and truly balance them so that each would have the same chances against the other. Even with a standardised points system this would be hard as some armies would naturally fare better against others. Eg in 7th, you can't just take weapons and stats into account because the different ways those things interact with the core rules really determined how valuable they are. A typical example is BS being (arguably) more valuable than WS.

I like your suggestions about tournament balance, Denzark. This is pretty important but basic stuff IMO. You need to accept the inherent imbalance in the game (much in the same way we accept that Man Utd was objectively better than City up until recently purely because they had more cash) and try to mitigate that imbalance as much as possible. This has to be done through clever mission design and standardised terrain. An important note is that standardised terrain doesn't mean boring terrain. A forest and an equally sized meteor scattering can operate the same way in the rules, as a ruined church or ruined Tau sensor array would.

Basically, I agree. The game is not, nor has it ever been, balanced. The trick is to decide if it's worth playing despite that. For the narrative gamers it definitely is. The background, scope and visual beauty of 40k makes it a perfect vehicle for narrative play. Competitively, I would argue it holds up as well. There are so many factions, and so many ways to play said factions that it is a goldmine of opportunity to test your skills as a strategist or list builder.

[daboarder]

The thing is people like me are fluff gamers at heart, but thats not mutually exclusive with a desire for a nice tight ballanced rules set.

For example, and this is a personal anecdote only, I've tried the other games, Warmachine just couldnt draw me, I couldnt find myself caring in the least about it from the fluff perspective and therefore i never actually bought any miniatures. x-wing was fun and I'd like to get into it more, but I havent yet. And Infinity managed to hook me line and sinker.

THe big draw for infinity, the fluff is really cool and interesting, the models are ace and the game is extremely well balanced in N3.

Now all that aside, 40k is still one of my major loves because I see a game that SHOULD be better than it is, there is no real good reason for the poor game balance particularly when you factor in the cost of playing it in comparison to the cost of other games.

On a side note: I dont think you need to lose factions or options to balance this game, particularly as 40k does not have nearly as many factions as it appears at first because most of the options are just variations on a theme. For example in infinity (its the other game I am most familiar with is all) there are 8 Major factions and 14 extra sub factions that play distinctly from their parent factions due to different troop availability. If CB can do it with their significantly limited resources, GW certainly should be able to.

[Lexington]

Do people really think the new Eldar Codex was just a freak accident, like someone in the Studio just slipped on a spot of spilt coffee, and suddenly everything had D weaponry?

[Denzark]

@DAB - Manton has my point and I admit - it seems crass when it is bolied down to 'deal with it and move on'. There is no reason why GW shouldn't be CAPABLE of tightening the ruleset, but what I have tried to show is that nowhere in time has 40K been balanced. So why do we have this expectation now? It would be nice but we've never really been used to it.

Actually the more I think about it, the more variance from BRB there is, the less balanced the game is for me.

@Lexington - I have absolutely no idea what the Studio were thinking. The only thing which makes a kind of logic is that they wanted to punt more WK kits and hope the fallout will be more super heavies sold to combat it or more people buying WK and going unbound.

The only thing from a game design point of view I can think of is that they expect us to come up with a social contract and go bound, CAD or houserule to limit these boyos - and they expect the tournament scene, which already publically nerfs invisibility, will do similar against massed ranged D/WK. This is shoddy/lazy at best, but I literally cannot empathise with any other scenarios.

[Charon]

Perfect balance is impossible.
In fact it is not even needed. Dice rolls muddy the water enough to make minor inbalances insignificant.
Cou can play Marines vs Marines with the same lists where one player pays 1 point less per marine than the other and you will still have a balanced game as the odds may be in favor of the player with cheaper marines but only by such a little that it does not really matter over a full game.
Having the first turn is a huge thing, but was mitigated in previous editions by not allowing assault in the first turn or mechanics like night fight reducing your weapons range, thus limiting the alpha strike.
I also think that if everything is OP, nothing really is.


Warhammer is miles away from any form of balance. They change their design style every 2 books (remember when everyone said "Dark Eldar was only nerfed because they want to bring all codices down at the same level.. believe me Necrons and Eldar will be gutted next." The opposite happened.) and do not really shed a thought how the new hotness will affect other armies.

One of the big probles are army themes. Because army themes limit design freedom. And that leads to one dimensional armies that are hardcountered on default.

Imagine 3 themed armies in a game.

One armie relies on evasive maneuvers for protection and their firepower is strong against tough opponents.
The next army relies on toughness for protection and has good firepower against evasive targets.
The last army has no protection but is a huge horde and has quite low firepower but has an absurd amount of guns.

All 3 would be roughly balanced. 1 vs 2 would result in fast games where both are able to thrash the other one in a massive bloodbath.
1 or 2 vs 3 would result in longer, more tactical games as neither 1 or 2 has weapons to quickly thin the horde, while 3 has to dedicate a lot of firepower to the evading or tough targets to bring them down.

Now we release a 4th army and theme it with:
Horde army which is very good against evasive targets.

Suddenly Army 1 has to fight a very one-sided uphill battle because this theme ignores the strenght of army 1 and inherently exploits it weaknesses.

That should never happen.

[Haighus]

I'm sigging that last line. Brilliant.
"In the nightmare future of the 41st millennium, there is no time for peace. No respite. No Balance. There is only War."

[Ssyrie]

The only thing from a game design point of view I can think of is that they expect us to come up with a social contrac

I think that's what GW expects. If enough of your local players play moderate and balanced lists, game balance isn't that big a problem. Mostly because people who bring cheesy WAAC lists should quickly find that nobody will play them. Those players will either leave to find others like them or start questioning why nobody will play them. At this point you need a level headed person to calmly explain why nobody wants to play against their list and try to offer suggestions on how to tone down the cheesiness to make a more moderate list. Unfortunately this doesn't work as well if too many of the players are WAAC's and there aren't enough moderate players to play against.

And forget about balance in tournaments, you'll always have people gaming the system to get an advantage. I think the only way to have a truly balanced tournament would be for the organizers to come up with one army list, probably Space Marine, and everyone has to play that list. That way everyone has the exact same troops, vehicles, wargear, etc... and deployment, tactics, and lucky of the dice will determine the winner. But I don't have high hopes of ever seeing that happen.

[Charon]

If enough of your local players play moderate and balanced lists, game balance isn't that big a problem. Mostly because people who bring cheesy WAAC lists should quickly find that nobody will play them. Those players will either leave to find others like them or start questioning why nobody will play them.

We keep hearing that for decades and this has not ever happened. That is mostly because nobody can ever objectively judge what a cheesy list is.
People who get sunned are people with a bad sportsmanship. These people exist on all sides of the spectrum. Nobody wants to play someone who throws a tanrum every game no matter if it is a supposed WAAC player or a fluff bunny.


At this point you need a level headed person to calmly explain why nobody wants to play against their list and try to offer suggestions on how to tone down the cheesiness to make a more moderate list.

There you are at the core of the problem. What do you do if this calm and reasonable person talks to YOU because he thinks your army is OP. And when you point out that it is no cheese list and indeed is a very fluffy arme, he tells you "compared to my army book, EVERY of your units is extremely undercosted and strictly better than everything I have in my codex."


And forget about balance in tournaments, you'll always have people gaming the system to get an advantage. I think the only way to have a truly balanced tournament would be for the organizers to come up with one army list, probably Space Marine, and everyone has to play that list. That way everyone has the exact same troops, vehicles, wargear, etc... and deployment, tactics, and lucky of the dice will determine the winner. But I don't have high hopes of ever seeing that happen.

Won't happen because it is ****ing boring to watch SM vs SM (if you like that sausage party, there is HH) and not everyone likes to play them. And the more serious problem is that it would put a big strain on tournament organizers... who do you think will buy and paint 50+ space marines armies for them? Or are you gonna donate yours to a stranger?

[Mr Mystery]

I pretty much agree with Denzark.

Like it or hate it, 40k is what 40k is. That's the design philosophy GW have gone with, and pretty much always have (ref the 1998 Chambers quote).

If it's not for you, then it's not for you. Shame that, but constantly banging on and on and on and on ad infinitum about it isn't going to change that, not one iota.

There are other games, give them a whirl. If you find them to your tastes, then bully for you, have a great time (genuine, non-sarcastic comment).

Me, I really like X-Wing. It's far from balanced too (seriously, who flies a TIE Bomber?) but it is fun. The game mechanics do a bang up job of representing a 3d dogfight in a 2d environment. I've spent hundreds on it already, and probably will continue to do so (even if Wave 7 has me worried about shark jumping).

Warmachine? Not really my bag. Not a fan of the KillerKombo style, to my mind it makes every game too predictable. Doesn't make the game bad, poorly written, lame, inferior or superior - it's just not to my tastes.

40k and Warhammer? Love them to bits. They suit my playstyle of slightly anarchic nonsense. Prices I'm ok with - I either can or cannot afford X in a given month. If I can, I'll get it. If not, I'll save for it. Easy peasy.

Seriously. If you're not enjoying a given activity, why continue to do it? If you used to love Game Y, but now find it a bit staid/imbalanced/boring/terribad/dull/expensive/meh....well, welcome to life. This happens. As I've said before, I'm about to hit 35 in a few weeks, and there's plenty of things I used to get a real kick out of that just don't interest me anymore. For me, that hasn't included my wargaming tastes - they're the same as they've ever been. But for you, well that might be the taste that changed. It's not the designers fault, it's not your fault. It's not your opponents fault. It just sort of happens.

[Path Walker]

GW have never written games for the tournament competitive set, they're always written with the idea that players respect their opponents and communities enough to self regulate, to not abuse the broken units, to play in the spirit of the game, most players embrace that, some don't and choose to moan online about it as if its not them that are the problem.

When William Webb Ellis wanted to carry the football to the goal instead of kicking it, he didn't stand around moaning that the Football Association were ruining the game, he picked that ball up and made up his own game, leaving the people that wanted to kick the ball along the ground to play Football.

Complaining about 40K not being what you want it to be is fruitless, GW doesn't care, most of its players don't care (even if you insist it'd be better for them) so no one is going to change it, if you want a more balanced game, write one, if you think eldar shouldn't have D Weapons, write a codex where they don't and use that.

[daboarder]

GW have never written games for the tournament competitive set, they're always written with the idea that players respect their opponents and communities enough to self regulate, to not abuse the broken units, to play in the spirit of the game, most players embrace that, some don't and choose to moan online about it as if its not them that are the problem.

When William Webb Ellis wanted to carry the football to the goal instead of kicking it, he didn't stand around moaning that the Football Association were ruining the game, he picked that ball up and made up his own game, leaving the people that wanted to kick the ball along the ground to play Football.

Complaining about 40K not being what you want it to be is fruitless, GW doesn't care, most of its players don't care (even if you insist it'd be better for them) so no one is going to change it, if you want a more balanced game, write one, if you think eldar shouldn't have D Weapons, write a codex where they don't and use that.

If you hate people tallking about enjoying the game the way they want, why dont you do us all a favour and **** off

(I mean that is basically the advice you're constantly pushing)

Seriously, for a bunch of people that are constantly *****ing ranting raving and posting extended justifications for why competitive players are terrible people for not taking others feeling and desire into account you sad hypocritical sacks off **** seem more than willing to disregard others if someone else express the desire to play the game in a different way to yourselves.

If you so tired of the "constant moaning" that you seem to think pervades this forum please take your own advice and LEAVE.

EDIT: Denzark, that wasn't directed at you or your article man, I just sick fed up of the hypocricy and bull**** pervaded in the name of holding up the flag that 40k is a game that requires a social contract and understanding about what both players want (and then promptly ignoring said understanding) that is constantly perpetuated by the same people.

On topic I'd like to make a suggestion.

Balance and the game being designed for beer and preztels are two separate concepts, the game can be beer and preztels social contract all it wants to, that doesn't mean BALANCE is not important. Furthermore, it is not a compelling or valid argument to make that being a beer and preztels game is a significant justification for not having that important balance.

[Path Walker]

Its balanced as much as it needs to be for a social, narrative game, GW are happy with it, most customers are happy with it, a few people aren't. Balance is an impossibility, as I believe you had to concede late time you tried this whole attacking me directly thing, so, the resources can be spent of further pursuing an impossible ideal that most don't care about, or making rules and models that people do care about. GW choose to do the latter as it gets them the most return on investment and keeps the majority of customers happy.

You are one of the minority, I'm happy with my hobby, I like, and am good, at painting and converting, I enjoy games with my friends and playing campaigns. I like reading the fluff and being part of a group of friends that share the hobby. I have nothing to complain about, so I do it and talk about how I enjoy it.

The social contact is there, its part of the game and always has been, we arrange games and respect each other enough to ensure that games are fun for all playing, people don't use netlists or spam because they don't want to be the player that people don't like playing against. We're all notionally well adjusted adults. Not believing that a social agreement is in place when you play a game with them is either willfully ignoring the spirit of the thing or a sign of social issues in the individual.

The game suits the type of play I like. I want to play a game like that with people that also like that type of game.

You constantly complain, cry and moan that things aren't they way you want them, that the things that you think are important aren't catered for. You want it "balanced" (although you can never actually seem to explain what that means in any real sense), suitable for competitive play and all sorts of things that Warhammer 40,000 has never tried to be. You bring up tournaments GW ran 20 years ago that you never played in (without realising that the social contract was very much a part of them with sportsmanship and army composition being more important than results), you want Warhammer 40,000 to be something it isn't, never has been and won't ever be. You don't talk about playing the game the way you enjoy it because you won't ever admit that you enjoy anything to do with Games Workshop, its really sad that you have to do that to feel validated.

I'm not telling people how to enjoy their hobby, I never have, I've said I enjoy mine and that if you're not enjoying yours, then you should find another hobby rather than try and change mine.

So, why exactly should I leave then? If I'm the one playing the game that I enjoy, written for people who want to play that game, why should I?

[daboarder]

The game is not suitable for a "social contract" game anymore than it is for competitive.

Lets say that player X wants to run a Knight lists. they are nice models, fancy and really cool.

Player Y wants to run a list built around tactical squads because thats what marine armies are supposed to be like. Maybe he wants to take some dreadnoughts or something, whatever.

Neither players are competitive, neither players are dickheads. They agree to have a nice casual friendly match using the armies they both have chosen purely out of a desire to play EXACTLY what they want.

Player X inevitably smashes Player Ys face into the ground.

Under the "social contract" excuse that is so pervasive, Player X must undertake pains to ensure that Player Y has a good time, because unfortunately for player X the army he has chosen is inherently unbalanced. Player X is being let down by the concept of a "social contract" combined with piss poor game balance.

THAT is why balance is important even in a social setting, so that people CAN run what they want.

Just look at the eldar players, so many of them are justifiably up in arms because people looking for a "fun" game have no interest in playing against them, because despite choosing their army for almsot any excuse but power they have found that unless they deliberately put one hand behind their back they are inherently in violation of that "social contract" that is held in such high regard.

That right there is why balance is still important and using the idea of social contract is not a justifiable reponse.

[Path Walker]

I don't think you understand how people who respect each others enjoyment act. Perhaps you're just incapable of not being "that guy", so you can't picture a world where one player wouldn't hold back to allow the other to enjoy themselves? Maybe thats the issue, you're so socially stunted that the idea of a social contract is alien to you.

Also, your specific example only works if they ignore the idea of talking to each other about the game they're about to play, despite it being part of the rules (that all competitive advocates seem to ignore), in your example, the players would come to some agreement about the game to ensure it's more fun for both, changing victory conditions for example. That is what is meant by a social contract

[Denzark]

DAB - I'm not trying to say 'casual good tourney bad' or anything like that. Nor would I say Games workshop couldn't or shouldn't tighten a few things - nor that in doing so would probably please their customers. Nor am I saying it is entirely reasonable of them to expect us to fix their SNAFUs - we pay for a product, it should work, right?

What I am trying to postulate is that balance is lacking, the game scene is likely to be batsh*t crazy for the forseeable future and, looking back on it - always has been. And intentionally so.

I don't know what 'golden era' of balance people are referring to - possibly early third, not Rhino rush fourth surely?

Also, whilst I know it is ironic for me to try and be the voice of reason, any chance you could tone down the direct attacks on people?

[Mr Mystery]

Rhino Rush was 3rd duder :p

[vonDietdrich]

Its balanced as much as it needs to be


Balance is an impossibility,

Pick one.


Seem to have touched a nerve there then, so I guess thats the answer.

Or resorting to ad hominem attacks is tasteless and insulting. Keep it classy, dude.

As far as the topic goes... okay, so "Balance is impossible", whatever that means.

I was getting ready to significantly add to my Eldar collection with this Codex release. And then I saw the rules. 40k obviously doesn't try to be balanced, but let's briefly consider. Eldar now have BS5 Aspect Warriors, the cheapest effective Gargantuan, a whole collection of ranged D including on infantry choices and barrage artillery, the only effective anti-flyer infantry (and two different options, at that), a cheap flyer with Ranged D templates, upgraded jetbikes, guaranteed 6" runs, and all without any corresponding increase in ppm. The old codex was already considered overpowered, and almost across the board it got better. Even Wave Serpents are better at turn 1 alpha striking now (which is when you really need them).

Let's say we're playing a game called 'bar room brawl'. You get to pick from an assortment of weapons: knife, glass bottle, barstool, pool cue, and fully automatic assault rifle with a few extra mags.

Spoilers: the dude with the assault rifle wins unless he is criminally incompetent.

Codex Eldar Craftworlds basically introduced assault rifles to a knife fight.

Balance might be impossible, but can we at least agree that certain things have no place at the table? If 'cruise missile' is suddenly an option for a street fight, nobody is gonna show up because fist vs explosive device is pretty one-sided.

This isn't about 'having the courage to play against Eldar' or 'taking your lumps with class and style' or whatever. This is about GW putting out an absolutely overpowered book because /they need to sell models/ because their sales are failing and the only way they think they can do that is if suddenly EVERYTHING IS AMAZING OMG ELDAR OP. Et cetera.

And us Eldar players are going to suffer. 'I wanna beat the overpowered Eldar!' is a happy refrain.. for a couple of games.. and then it starts to sink in. 'Wow, he has enough firepower to erase half of my army on turn 1." "Wow, I can't even bring tough units and heavy vehicles because Strength D takes them right off the table." "Wow, he just hit with 30 out of 30 twin-linked BS5 dire avenger shots from just one squad." "Wow, I just spent an entire turn shooting his 3+/5++/FNP T8 Wraithknight and didn't even kill it, doing absolutely no meaningful damage to his army at all. And now he gets to shoot me with everything again."

I have no illusions about how OP this codex is. I've played Eldar and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate the buffs on top of my past gaming experiences.

After a few months, nobody's going to want to player Eldar because free time is valuable and why waste time when the game's result is practically a foregone conclusion? Besides ridiculous handicaps (letting your opponent take double points, taking on two players at once, taking a large Victory Point handicap on turn 1), there's no way this codex can even begin to approach 'socially acceptable'.

So to the initial message of this thread, I respond with this:

Balance Is About Context.

Nobody is trying to prove they're a martial arts champion by shooting their opponent in the face with a nine millimeter when the match starts.

In the same way, if one codex has obviously superior tools that, assuming both players are of roughly equal competence, one player will win a statistically significant portion of the time on the merit of the codex, it is Unbalanced.

Is Balance impossible? Maybe. People can argue the merits of different types of knives all day when wielded against each other, the martial training heritage of the particular fighter, etc. There will never be a perfect 1:1 value between opponents.

But nobody will try to say that testing a guy with a knife against a guy with a gun is a fair match.

Games Workshop has thrown out the rules of a fair fight altogether now and is just writing anything in a codex that they think will sell models. This codex is totally out of step with every other book published previously. It's broken the context of the game. We've moved from a game about knife fighting to mostly knife fighting and one dude with automatic firearms. Maybe it will take some people playing competent Eldar players (those of us who don't cringe when they see the new rules, anyway) to really make this point sink in. But I have no doubt that it will, because it's amazingly self-evident.

[Path Walker]

"As balanced as it needs to be" and "Balance is impossible" are not mutually exclusive.

And, I'd add, you don't know that the Eldar Codex is broken, you haven't read it. People cried that Nercons were broken at this stage and they're strong, but not overly so, and the fluffier Detachments are very popular.

[daboarder]

DAB - I'm not trying to say 'casual good tourney bad' or anything like that. Nor would I say Games workshop couldn't or shouldn't tighten a few things - nor that in doing so would probably please their customers. Nor am I saying it is entirely reasonable of them to expect us to fix their SNAFUs - we pay for a product, it should work, right?

What I am trying to postulate is that balance is lacking, the game scene is likely to be batsh*t crazy for the forseeable future and, looking back on it - always has been. And intentionally so.

I don't know what 'golden era' of balance people are referring to - possibly early third, not Rhino rush fourth surely?

Also, whilst I know it is ironic for me to try and be the voice of reason, any chance you could tone down the direct attacks on people?

Yeah, I get it Denzark, Thats why I added that edit to my post, so you know I wasn't address ing you (just the charmer)

I can agree with teh statement that the balance in the game is currently borked, and you're right, it is likely to stay that way. And you know what, if that means the only response left is too take a break form 40k, well I hate to say it but I'm at that stage as well.
I haven't had a game of 40k in almost 6 months now, part of that has just been being massively busy with the PHD but another part was the fact that my gaming group shrunk to 4 people (great people I admit) and that jsut led to the games getting kinda stale. I'm running on an inifinity high at the moment but Im keeping my finger on the 40k pulse so to speak, I did completely lose track of things during the cron release, but then from what I saw it didn't actually phase me much (though I've heard it is farily rough in hindsight)

I dunno, part of the problem is that its just so sad to see something that I've put so much effort into fall to the wayside because a company cant get its act together.

edit: as to golden era of balance, nah, you're right, there has never been one, some have been closer than others though, except for a few codexes (my own I freely admit and I hated it) and overly powerful boxes 5th was pretty good. Part of the down turn in 6th and 7th is often attributed to the fact that people wanted a tweaked 5th ed which fixed the flaws in that edition and instead we kinda god the lol-random reboot instead. That being said I like 6th, I actually liked 6th considerably more than I am liking 7th. But the staggered codex/rulebook schedule means that there is always an inherent disconnect between early edition codexes and later edition codexes, with the ones in the middle of the cycle inherently able to use the BRBs strengths to the greatest advantage as they have no learning curve or edition cushioning to deal with.

[Lord Manton]

I think one thing that people forget in these arguments is the reason people play the games they do. I like X wing. It's a great little game that I can pick up and squeeze a quick game in with my pal. The pre-painted miniatures are pretty fricking good (for pre painted). They're so full of detail and really have a Star Wars character to them. To boot, the game is toight like a toiger, it's a great representation of a dog fight and all three factions have a good chance in a scrap with the others. I also like Malifaux, the miniatures are incredible. The new plastics should come with a change of underwear; they really capture victorian horror-cowboy-hillbillies perfectly. Once you get past the novelty of the card system, you see that it's a great system and as skirmish games go, it's sweet as. The reason I don't play Warmachine is because I don't get into steampunk so much. The models don't interest me, nor does the setting. Can't comment on the rules.

40k has arguably the best background in the business. The grimdark is beautifully crafted. The depth and detail of the universe is staggering. This gives a great opportunity to play narrative battles. The game is also supported to some great miniature kits, filled with detail and character.

Let's imagine a game called BattleAxe 3000AD. It's a perfect system. There are heaps of distinct factions with tons of build options and a wealth of unit options. Problem is, the models are junk and the background is "Jon swung his axe and killed a guy... 500pts". You wouldn't bother. Not if you're a wargamer.

A wargamer wants a game that has aesthetic appeal, whether it sets the imagination flying or just looks sick on the table. So why shouldn't the guys and girls who like 40k for what makes it great expect a rule set that's tight? Imperial Knights are an awesome idea for a Sci-Fi army. Giant robots with laser cannon arms. Just think about that for a second. Fighting on a blasted moon somewhere against hordes of aliens with razor claws and acid spit. In reality, those Knights are going to stomp those Nids, because they don't stand much of a chance. Not if you pictured termagants. Now that's not to say the 'gants should be able to bring down a knight, but the Nids shouldn't be set to lose from the outset.

Personally, I don't care so much about the rules. The game is as tight as I need it to be for what I want out of it. But that's not to say that it couldn't be more balanced. We talk about how GW is evil and stupid and losing customers, but imagine if they could make both camps happy. They would be unstoppable. It would be obscene how big GW would be. It would be worse than when they were virtually the only guys in town. We're lucky these days that we can play so many other games that are challenging and great. But they ain't 40k, dudes.

[40kGamer]

Ah Denz... bringing out the old points value calculator and the VDR rules sure takes one down memory lane! Simpler times... :)


@DAB - Manton has my point and I admit - it seems crass when it is bolied down to 'deal with it and move on'. There is no reason why GW shouldn't be CAPABLE of tightening the ruleset, but what I have tried to show is that nowhere in time has 40K been balanced. So why do we have this expectation now? It would be nice but we've never really been used to it.

There's no doubt that things have never been truly balanced although I think we've hit a high water mark in 7th. One would think the point of releasing rule set after rule set would be to actually "improve" the core product. Also, one would think that a corporation that identifies itself as a "model company" would not place so much focus on selling rules when said company has made it clear that it doesn't give a tinker's damn about them. So why do they even bother releasing new rules when they obviously don't care about improving anything?

The new Eldar codex is a shining example... there are literally zero new units so there is literally no valid, defensible point as to why this book was released by a "model company". It replaces the old unbalanced crap with new unbalanced crap, so why did they bother? It's corporate hypocrisy at it's best.



@Lexington - I have absolutely no idea what the Studio were thinking. The only thing which makes a kind of logic is that they wanted to punt more WK kits and hope the fallout will be more super heavies sold to combat it or more people buying WK and going unbound.


I'm also not sure what they were thinking with this change but it definitely had nothing to do with improving the game.



The only thing from a game design point of view I can think of is that they expect us to come up with a social contract and go bound, CAD or houserule to limit these boyos - and they expect the tournament scene, which already publically nerfs invisibility, will do similar against massed ranged D/WK. This is shoddy/lazy at best, but I literally cannot empathise with any other scenarios.


I think you're right. It's a stupid, lazy way to write rules but this is the way the game works now. In order to make things work you really need to have that up front discussion. Which is why I have stated before "RIP pick up games." When you have to set down and discuss the layout of your army with your opponent ahead of time it's no longer a pick up game but a planned game. I guess bad product is guaranteed when a corporation has a pseudo-monopoly in their niche.

[Charon]

Fighting on a blasted moon somewhere against hordes of aliens with razor claws and acid spit. In reality, those Knights are going to stomp those Nids, because they don't stand much of a chance. Not if you pictured termagants. Now that's not to say the 'gants should be able to bring down a knight, but the Nids shouldn't be set to lose from the outset.

The fallacy in this is, that in the books they publish that scenes DO happen and over time the Termagants DO overpower that knight because "they swarm him like ants and their dead bodys are grinding gears and acid burns into some wiring and some small beasts manage to squeeze themselves into the Knight and eat the pilots face who is helpless on his throne... ect... ect"
It just doesnt happen in the game...

[Denzark]

Rhino Rush was 3rd duder :p

God I'm old...

I really liked 5th. My primary codex, CSM, wasn't OP - I never ran the Dual Lash/oblits crutch cos I go Khorne/Nurgle. I didn't think it was top tier, but there was no-one repeat no one I feared going up against.

HP making my vehicular support less effective has chipped away at the efficacy, as has the degradation of assault. For a little while I had the crutch of D3 vector strikes and the dirty torrent flamer on the drakes, but that has gone.

I can see how Eldar is nearly autowin and I like Von Dietrich's comment about assault rifles in bar fights.

I guess to carry on that metaphor - if you go down a pub and you have no idea what the locals like to fight with, you may find yourself somewhat under-equipped - applies to playing 40K 'blind'. Whereas if you have a semi-formal 'duel' the rules - be it pistols, rusty knives or poisoned sausages - are at least agreed by both parties before hand.

[Sly]

This codex is totally out of step with every other book published previously. It's broken the context of the game. We've moved from a game about knife fighting to mostly knife fighting and one dude with automatic firearms. Maybe it will take some people playing competent Eldar players (those of us who don't cringe when they see the new rules, anyway) to really make this point sink in. But I have no doubt that it will, because it's amazingly self-evident.

This wins the thread.

Really, people aren't screaming and flipping out because the game just became unbalanced. Are you who argue that we shouldn't expect perfect balance so unaware that you've missed all of the complaints from players about DA or CSM being weak, DE being weak and limited, Eldar and Tau being strong, White Scars being better than Imperial Fists, etc? There has always been a reasonable and justifiable argument to make that the game is not all that close to being nicely balanced, and nobody has ever made a serious argument that the game is perfectly balanced.

The screaming and flipping out now is that the game, which was unbalanced before, just changed from "unbalanced" to "dead broke". Sure, there were codices and builds in the past that were clearly amongst the top lists, but the key word is "amongst". Another key word is "chance", wherein you could beat a Taudar list with Codices that are generally considered inferior. Now, take a player who is good enough to contend at tournaments and have a good chance to win there... and give him Eldar. Who is going to beat him other than with another Eldar, or else with a list specifically tailored to beat Eldar? If such a thing can even be made, outside of the Eldar codex.

The problem is not that all of a sudden the game is unbalanced. It has been unbalanced forever, and that's been good enough. The problem is that unbalance just went from 9 to 99. If, before, the gap between the best and the worst was 2:1, where the best codex would win 2/3 of the games and the worst 1/3... it's now probably 10:1. Not only can I see Eldar smashing Dark Eldar 90% of the time with both players being good, I'm not even sure if DE will manage to win 10% of the time. This is no longer a minor problem that we put up with in order to play in a great universe with great miniatures, but instead it's major enough to risk breaking the game.

And I have never said anything like this even when ranting about Psyfleman Dreads or Firebase Cadre or Screamerstar or any other previous top-line units or builds. We are seeing an order of magnitude increase in imbalance, and it's terrible for the game. And for Eldar players, and for anyone who plays against Eldar.

[40kGamer]

40k has arguably the best background in the business. The grimdark is beautifully crafted. The depth and detail of the universe is staggering. This gives a great opportunity to play narrative battles. The game is also supported to some great miniature kits, filled with detail and character.

No doubt 40k has a rich background (Of course they've had over 3 decades to craft it.) And GW has the best large scale multi-part plastic kit technology. It's telling that we all compare the new up and coming products to GW as well. They are the current standard of measure.



But that's not to say that it couldn't be more balanced. We talk about how GW is evil and stupid and losing customers, but imagine if they could make both camps happy. They would be unstoppable. It would be obscene how big GW would be. It would be worse than when they were virtually the only guys in town. We're lucky these days that we can play so many other games that are challenging and great. But they ain't 40k, dudes.


My biggest worry is that if GW keeps shedding customers they will no longer be special.

The main reasons I've collected their products have been:

1) The Setting
2) Model Quality
3) A Thriving Community

The setting will always be brilliant.
Other companies are giving the model quality a run for the money.
The Community is shrinking. Anecdotal evidence is all I have for this but it's pretty obvious if you contrast their price hikes & rapid fire releases against stagnant to falling sales. The community is still strong and I don't think it will disappear anytime soon but it has definitely taken some hits.

- - - Updated - - -


Games Workshop has thrown out the rules of a fair fight altogether now and is just writing anything in a codex that they think will sell models. This codex is totally out of step with every other book published previously. It's broken the context of the game. We've moved from a game about knife fighting to mostly knife fighting and one dude with automatic firearms. Maybe it will take some people playing competent Eldar players (those of us who don't cringe when they see the new rules, anyway) to really make this point sink in. But I have no doubt that it will, because it's amazingly self-evident.

I used to love the fact in 5th/6th that I was one of the only people crazy enough to bring Eldar to an event. Now I expect events will be overwhelmingly Eldar centric in the future. As someone who has played Eldar since RT I literally hate the new book for what it is and I'm really pissed that they bothered releasing such a steaming pile of pooh and invalidating a book that wasn't even two years old. there is literally no point to the new codex at all.

[Lord Manton]

I used to love the fact in 5th/6th that I was one of the only people crazy enough to bring Eldar to an event. Now I expect events will be overwhelmingly Eldar centric in the future. As someone who has played Eldar since RT I literally hate the new book for what it is and I'm really pissed that they bothered releasing such a steaming pile of pooh and invalidating a book that wasn't even two years old. there is literally no point to the new codex at all.

Where are you 40KG? My wolves will stomp your pointy eared nancies.

I agree that there wasn't much point to the update. At least they should maybe have toned down Wave Serpents, but you'd need something like Chapter Approved for that. There's even less sense in a new book for that. I think most people are pissed because they got so much more stupidly powerful. Then again, we don't have the book in our sweaty little hands yet. So there's hope I guess.

[40kGamer]

Where are you 40KG? My wolves will stomp your pointy eared nancies.

I love me some Space Wolves. It's hard to beat up on one of my other favorite armies but sometimes a pointy eared freak has just gotta do what they gotta do. Do you use 'Puppy power!' as your army battle cry? :p

[Erik Setzer]

Now, take a player who is good enough to contend at tournaments and have a good chance to win there... and give him Eldar. Who is going to beat him other than with another Eldar, or else with a list specifically tailored to beat Eldar? If such a thing can even be made, outside of the Eldar codex.

There's a local guy, darned good, does well in tournaments, who I hate playing in WFB because he can game his army and just roll over people. He decided to get into 40K with Harlequins (which he can have more fun painting) and then decided to add some regular Eldar to them (including, I believe, a Wraithknight with a few modifications to make it fit in with Harlequins). That guy running a new Eldar force terrifies me, even more than the other guy who actively looks for ways to break any game he touches.

[Denzark]

One unit I will always throw caution, battle plans and good sense, to the winds of Fenris, in order to kill in them in the face, is those tricksy little cowards Warp Spiders.

Jumping in and out like lunatics.

[Erik Setzer]

One unit I will always throw caution, battle plans and good sense, to the winds of Fenris, in order to kill in them in the face, is those tricksy little cowards Warp Spiders.

Jumping in and out like lunatics.

I played in a four-way match once, using the four-player "capture the center" scenario, using the old Eldar with my mostly foot-slogging list, and my unit of Warp Spiders managed to make a complete circuit of the entire table by the time the game was over. Literally a circle around a 6x4 table, just blasting stuff everywhere.

(On a semi-related note, I managed to win that battle, taking out most of the other three armies with my own army. One of the things that made me feel like playing Eldar might not be something I should do.)

[completeHook]

A massive +1 to Denzark's OP.

A thought provoking article stripped of the myopic utopianism that colours so much of this debate, a debate that all too often stubbornly refuses to take account the animal nature of human beings and flaws in the systems they create.

[Denzark]

Cheers CH!

(PS I am now going to try and use the term 'myopic utopianism' at least once at work tomorrow)

[difsta]

Hi Denzark,

interesting read, and on the most part I agree. One of the things I have noticed about the tournament scene in Australia is that if left to GW to balance the game our tournament scene dies. In the southern states of Australia we historically had lots of tournaments with a composition score, to try and curb the power level in attendance. During the end of 5th and most of 6th we started to remove that. With the changes in 6th, and the constant release of new toys and rules we found our attendance dropped. People were not showing up due to the fact that the game was too unbalanced. Along came a system called Community Comp (www.communitycomp.org (http://www.communitycomp.org/)). Without messing with the rules a team of 15-20 people wrote a set of scores that were constantly tweaked based on community feedback. And in the last 12-18 months we have seen our attendance sky rocket in numbers, and veteran players who had left the scene are coming back due to the introduction of this system. I would recommend having a read.

[Mr Mystery]

Yarp.

Though not exactly innocent myself, we all need to remember everyone has their own hobby when it comes to wargames.

Me, I really like building the models - there's just something satisfying about it. After that it's the gaming, because I enjoy the social element (indeed, every friend I have is, directly or indirectly, through my local GW store. Ex-staff, fellow gamers, my former manager etc). I love a win as much as the next gamer, but as long as I get to play and give a decent account of myself, I'm happy. And a distant third is the painting. I'm reasonable enough at it, just very, very, very, incredibly lazy when it comes to breaking out pot and brush.

My gaming is typically at a social level. I'll go with the guys to a tournament once in a while, but it's not especially my scene - I'm kind of awkward around new people socially anyway.

It's not the right way to play. It's not the wrong way to play. It's just my way.

If you don't like me or my tastes, well. Fair enough, your call. Just try to respect we all have own bizarre takes on everything in life.

[Psychosplodge]

Cheers CH!

(PS I am now going to try and use the term 'myopic utopianism' at least once at work tomorrow)

Did you manage it?

[40kGamer]

It's not the right way to play. It's not the wrong way to play. It's just my way.

If you don't like me or my tastes, well. Fair enough, your call. Just try to respect we all have own bizarre takes on everything in life.

You do know that there's only one way that's the right way don't cha?

- - - Updated - - -


Did you manage it?

That's a tall order! I'm anxious to see the reaction received if it was worked into a conversation.

[Mr Mystery]

Knobber :p

Just because I respect your take on the hobby, doesn't mean I respect you :p

[40kGamer]

Knobber :p

Just because I respect your take on the hobby, doesn't mean I respect you :p

http://budapestbeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/there-can-be-only-one.jpg

and the sequels prove my point. :p

[Denzark]

Did you manage it?

Did I bollocks. But only because I was languishing in myopic utopianism and by the time I saw this reminder most people had sloped off home!

Ach well there is always tomorrow.

[vonDietdrich]

And, I'd add, you don't know that the Eldar Codex is broken, you haven't read it. People cried that Nercons were broken at this stage and they're strong, but not overly so, and the fluffier Detachments are very popular.

Necrons were primarily buffed in the defense department and certain things were made nigh unkillable (except to the now-plentiful Strength D weapons). While certain mechanics in the army are quite strong, they didn't hand out Strength D to everything and their offense is generally on par with other armies. Even the White Dwarf acknowledges that the Necron equivalent of the Wraithknight can't compete in the same weight class mechanically. Necrons also do not have psykers or Battle Brothers, which balances out things like Gauss a bit.

Eldar, on the other hand, have the absolute best overall offense in the game now while also being quite difficult to kill if played competently, two books of Battle Brothers (three once Corsairs get an update), and a very powerful stable of psykers.

As to the second point.. I have read it, although I had to brush up on my Spanish a bit. And even when I posted this, I was only using sources who had taken a picture of their possession of the Codex and were vetted as credible (since then, everything that they posted has been verified as the truth by other owners of the codex and then the inevitable pictures). This is the internet, y'know. You can't stop the signal.

Edited out some sneaky typos.

[Grand Master Raziel]

Well, that was a big pile of GW-apologist trash. Accept the game for what it is? No. As long as the game is as flawed as it is, we as a community should continue calling GW out on it until they actually do something about it.

Can the game be perfectly balanced? I'll admit, probably not. That said, GW could be doing a much better job than they currently are. Employing basic math to come up with prices based on statlines would be a good start - they may need to use a different formula than they did in 2nd ed, but there's no reason they can't do things that way. That would clear up a lot of criticisms all by itself.

Second, they could emulate other companies and be a lot more responsive to player concerns about balance. One would think this would be in their own interests - if a unit is seriously underpowered/overpriced, it's going to languish on shelves. Word of mouth is going to work against those units. You'd think they'd at least buff underpowered units, but instead GW has shown those units will languish in mediocrity until the next codex, and then there's no guarantee they'll get fixed because GW doesn't pay attention to their customer base.