Musings on game balance

I'm kinda irked.

I played a game against 'Nids today and, unsurprisingly, my Eldar won.

While I like to think that pulling off a perfect pincer movement was responsible for my victory, the fact that the current meta has Eldar>'Nids puts an question mark next to the game. How much was my skill, and how much was the newer codex simply being more powerful?

I don't like the idea that my victory is not due to skill or even luck, both of which should I feel be the deciding factors for a game.

I know that GW is taking the line that balance isn't important, just have fun. Well if balance isn't important why are there point costs on units? The entire concept of points costs is a meta attempt to instill balance between two sides, by ensuring both are relatively equal.

However, let's look at the idea of ignoring balance for fun. It doesn't work. There's no pride to be taken in defeating an inferior opponent. There's no joy to be had in being beaten by a more powerful force. While winning despite the meta is entirely possible and can often be very satisfying, it's not the same as two roughly equal forces meeting in battle with the skill of the generals and the will of the dice gods being the prime deciding factors.

Without at least an attempt at balancing the game, it becomes less fun.

I've been playing Eldar since somewhere near the start of 5th edition. I don't have the cash to burn for multiple armies. Heck, I can barely afford to expand my existing army. So just switching to whatever's on an even footing with my opponent in the current meta isn't an option. Likewise, very few of my friends can afford to maintain more than one army and most of the ones that can have two related armies, often Guard/Marines. So having them switch up when they play me isn't really an option either.

So then you start thinking: Maybe a handicap? Give whichever codex is lower in the meta an extra hundred points or so to throw around. In other words, you're trying to do the balancing that GW should have done themselves when they were making the codex.

Sorry for the rant, I just dislike the thought that my ability to use my army is less influential on a game's outcome than what codex I use.

There's nothing (well except limited collections admittedly) forcing you to take the best units in any given 'dex. So if your group aggrees Seer Council or Serpents or WKs or whatever is too powerful, you might want to limit yourself in their usage and play "worse" things instead (of which a certain number has to have accrued over time I would think). Don't go so far that it feels like you're forcing yourself to lose or something, because then it's just a case of you not having fun instead of your opponents, but use the opportunity to try out wacky army builds that you think are sub-optimal but still fun.
Also, sometimes asymetrical scenarios can be both a ton of fun and a great way to balance things out. We once had a force of Templars and Wolves pincering a Tau firebase from both short board edges, drastically reducing their travel time and making for a very very exciting game for all involved. Even better if/when you have a "neutral" game master on hand who can design the scenario and take charge of any surprises that might crop up suddenly (like a small contingent of Necrons/Chaos/Orcs/Nids showing up in the middle of the action to mix things up and generally kill stuff)

Take different units, try for different objectives, play in a more Roleplaying/Fluffy way, come up with a mission/scenario that gives the Nids more of a chance, loads of ways to have fun and tell a story

Ah game balance.

The best way to denigrate your opponent's skill and remain blameless.

Had your arse handed to you? Game balance!

Opponent played to the mission? Game balance!

Opponent shown a good eye for exposed units? GAME BALANCE!

Certainly can't ever be you at fault.

Quote:

---

So if your group aggrees Seer Council or Serpents or WKs or whatever is too powerful, you might want to limit yourself in their usage and play "worse" things instead (of which a certain number has to have accrued over time I would think). Don't go so far that it feels like you're forcing yourself to lose or something, because then it's just a case of you not having fun instead of your opponents, but use the opportunity to try out wacky army builds that you think are sub-optimal but still fun.

---

That has in fact 2 dangers.
The first one (as you pointed out) is limiting your own fun. The 2nd one runs deeper. If the codices are so much apart in terms of powerlevel that even whacky builds and moderate point adjustments do not help (20 wins in Eldar vs Dark Eldar now even with RANDOMIZING my army and giving 250 points advantage) it makes players just want to quit.
More problems arise when the "ok... so now you can play all the stuff you want and I still have to play my best units to have an somewhat equal game.." argument comes up. Face it. It is plain unfair when one side can go wild with Storm Guardians and is still miles ahead of the guy who happens to like Hellions has to play another round of Venoms and Kabalites.

To be fair the last few codices are somewhat on an equal level (if you ignore Daemonkin).. but that is not helping armies that were released before the sudden power surge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

Ah game balance.

The best way to denigrate your opponent's skill and remain blameless.

Had your arse handed to you? Game balance!

Opponent played to the mission? Game balance!

Opponent shown a good eye for exposed units? GAME BALANCE!

Certainly can't ever be you at fault.

---

I agree. And there's always the chance - however tiny - that the powerbuild rolls mostly 1s.

:rolleyes:

Nice to see the usual suspects

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

Ah game balance.

The best way to denigrate your opponent's skill and remain blameless.

Had your arse handed to you? Game balance!

Opponent played to the mission? Game balance!

Opponent shown a good eye for exposed units? GAME BALANCE!

Certainly can't ever be you at fault.

---

Apart from the fact that he won in his example and wasn't denigrating the skill of victorious opponent at all. Sorry dude, but game balance is an actual thing, not just a strawman that nasty people use to hurt GW's feely weelies and feel better about themselves. I know people with Eldar armies that sold up and bought much weaker armies because, even when they handicapped themselves, they won every time and it just wasn't fun for them. How exactly is that okay?

Tell us how much D and how many Wraithknights you took, then we can answer objectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

Tell us how much D and how many Wraithknights you took, then we can answer objectively.

---

None of the above.

One each of:
Guardians in wave serpent.
Storm Guardians in wave serpent.
Shining spears with Exarch (who failed a 6-inch charge and were om-nom-nommed before they could do anything)
Swooping hawks
Dark reapers
Fire Dragons
Farseer
Warlock conclave
Unit of 3 Falcon Grav tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fueldrop

None of the above.

One each of:
Guardians in wave serpent.
Storm Guardians in wave serpent.
Shining spears with Exarch (who failed a 6-inch charge and were om-nom-nommed before they could do anything)
Swooping hawks
Dark reapers
Fire Dragons
Farseer
Warlock conclave
Unit of 3 Falcon Grav tanks.

---

Well that's about as soft as an Eldar list can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 40kGamer

Well that's about as soft as an Eldar list can get.

---

*shrug* It does what I want it to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fueldrop

*shrug* It does what I want it to do.

---

Undoubtedly. :) Just saying there isn't much more you could do to soften the blow to your opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 40kGamer

Undoubtedly. :) Just saying there isn't much more you could do to soften the blow to your opponent.

---

Maybe if I switched to nerf catapults...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

Certainly can't ever be you at fault.

---

Given that Games Workshop is obviously blameless for their own game design... ;)

https://highlatencylife.files.wordpr...if?w=300&h=238

The best way to play the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lexington

Given that Games Workshop is obviously blameless for their own game design... ;)

---

All are blameless when the design relies on a drunk monkey using a random number generator!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomgar

Apart from the fact that he won in his example and wasn't denigrating the skill of victorious opponent at all. Sorry dude, but game balance is an actual thing, not just a strawman that nasty people use to hurt GW's feely weelies and feel better about themselves. I know people with Eldar armies that sold up and bought much weaker armies because, even when they handicapped themselves, they won every time and it just wasn't fun for them. How exactly is that okay?

---

Not the point I was attempting to make.

If you thrash someone, there could be any number of factors at play. Did your opponent make a real blunder? Did you capitalise on his every mistake? And vice versa. How were the dice?

For instance, last game of X-Wing I played, I couldn't hit nor evade for toffee. My opponents dice? The exact opposite.

What's your average win rate against that particular opponent? Example - my Dark Elves are normally pretty damned good, and I'm pretty damned good. Except against Monica's bloody Wood Elves that I have never, ever beat. Ever. Does that make Wood Elves unbalanced against Dark Elves? Nope, I just cannot beat Monica. Come damn close at times, but still choked in the end.

My point is that many games which turn out one sided are quickly blamed on game balance by the losing side. Worst expression I hear? 'You diced me'....that's right, it had nothing to do with organising flank charges at either side of your line, and your decision not to break your line, resulting in me rolling straight up both flanks and having the game all my own way. Oh no. I must have diced you. It's the only possible explanation.

In order to give anything even vaguely subjective, we need much more information. What did the Nids field? Anyone's rolling obscenely above average? Was their much terrain? What was the mission?

The internet just ate my long and detailed reply.

Short and simple: Lots of MCs, Lots of psykers, lots of cover, big squad of genestealers outflanking. Weak right flank, which I exploited by drawing him out then deepstriking most of my force on his now exposed left flank. Most of his heavy hitters were fried by melta/missile/pulse laser before they could do anything.

If you exploited the flank and played to your strengths, I don't think it's the Eldar Codex that's at fault :)

if you both enjoyed the game, whats the problem? If you didn't because it was too easy for you, make some changes or suggest some for the opponent. Or write some custome missions, eldar covering an evacuation of an exodite world being overrun with swarms of nids or capturing a certain Synapse creature for use in forcing the hive fleet off course away from the path of a craftworld, into a sector of the Imperium. The missions in the book are a great starting point, but there are hundreds of other missions out there now rather than the 12 in the main rule book.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 40kGamer

Well that's about as soft as an Eldar list can get.

---

pmsl. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Mcturk

pmsl. :cool:

---

Considering that a weakened version of this list virtually tabled a wraith host with minimum casualties (I lost a squad of rangers, a wave serpent and most of a squad of guardians... who STILL managed to steal an objective from his last remaining unit... Vs an army in which almost everything was packing strength D...) I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "Soft" might be underselling it.

Requires tactics beyond "Hammer the enemy until they're dead"... I'll buy that.