A Commentary on Contemporary Balance in 40K

[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

[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.