Balance in 40k

[Constyx]

Hey everyone! For the past year I've been watching a 40k channel called Arbitor Ian. I've been enjoying his channel a lot because he makes videos on topics not common to other content creators in the community. His most recent video (as of this post) covered balance in competitive play. It was interesting to see all of the different variables to take into account when attempting to find said gameplay balance. 

As someone who has studied and practice game design, having to balance over 4000 variables sounds like a nightmare. Just based on that sheer number alone, I don't think the game could ever be balanced "perfectly" in any sense. However, it does give me new appreciation for the work that GW puts in to reach some semblance of it. For those of you who are into matched/competitive play, what are your thoughts?  

 

Video Link: 

 

[Sgt. Rock]

I'm not into competitive play, but even when I have enjoyed 40k in the past, I've never believed it belonged in the same sentence with the word balanced. As long as they continue to use the army book/supplement model, the game will be in a permanent state of imbalance. There are over 4600 options to balance (by this fellow's count) because GW insists on putting out book after book after book with more and more things that only manage to break balance and muddy the water. Here we are, well into 9th, and how many armies are still operating on 8th edition codexes? Yes, they're FAR better about updating armies in a timely fashion than they used to be. But the problem persists, just because they insist on updating the armies one at a time. Every time a new codex or supplement comes out, it completely breaks the meta and requires immediate rebalancing. You have armies in different tiers of competitiveness because some of them just flat suck and others are hopelessly overpowered. Having a second shell company with its own set of units and rules that it puts out for the game (Forge World) only exacerbates matters, especially since FW's models are so expensive that they become out of reach of a lot of players simply due to cost. It's been this way since the dawn of 40k, and will continue to be so for as long as they feel the need to keep selling codexes and supplements. In games that don't update only one faction at a time, there's significantly better balance; a rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak. Corvus Belli does this, Privateer Press does this, Fantasy Flight does this, Catalyst does this. All of these games update rules and units across the board for all factions at the same time. Is there less variation in the game? Sure. But the games are (in most cases... looking at you, Privateer) considerably more balanced. And those games also have a tendency to either make the rules free, included with the models, or simply in one main book. But GW is stuck in their ways, because locking rules behind a dead tree paywall makes them money. As a result, people will continue to either chase the new hotness or get their asses whipped by it, because 40k is a game that simply can't be balanced under the current game design model. 

Now, all that said, 40k can still be a lot of fun, if you're willing to accept from the get-go that you're playing an unbalanced game that will never *be* balanced. If you're okay with that, and you can still have fun with the game, that's fantastic, and I'm jealous. I wanted so badly to enjoy 9th edition, but it has this terrible combination of being hopelessly unbalanced *and* overly complicated. Either one I could deal with, but not both.

[Ish]

I believe many of the mechanical problems with WH40k stem from an internal schism in the design team. Some of them seem to be trying to design a complex-but-tightly-controlled system optimized for MtG style tournament circuit play, some of them seem to be trying to design a narrative-focused-but-complete system for organized play, and a few still seem to be clinging to the old school  “let the players fill in the blanks” design ethos from the Eighties.

Basically, one team wants a CCG, one team wants a Eurogame board game, and a small minority of old guard wants mode railroading with rules.

These are not compatible design philosophies. 

[Casiarius]

As complicated as 40K is, competitive players still manage to break it within days of a new codex or FAQ coming out, so clearly GW could do a far better job of balancing things if they bothered to do serious playtesting. So, either:
A) GW is too lazy or incompetent to playtest their flagship product, or
B) GW knows exactly what they are doing, and codex creep is the carrot-on-a-stick that keeps old players buying new armies.

[Torg]

GW is a marketing ran machine - money is in constantly rolling out new and better stuff - and constantly angling for that monthly disposable income. It hasn't been about a great game system in a long long time. 

I listened to a couple interviews of old GW game designers whom have moved on over a decade now ... the battle with game systems vs marketing has always been a thing - and eventually as GW has grown has been more and more dominated by marketing and the bottom line - over game balance.

GW knows what it is doing... they have been doing it a long time. Things are right where they want them.

[Ish]

I’m just waiting for someone at GW to figure out how to incorporate Loot Boxes and pay-to-unlock Keys. 

[Romans832]

9 hours ago, Ish said:

I’m just waiting for someone at GW to figure out how to incorporate Loot Boxes and pay-to-unlock Keys. 

QED

[Sgt. Rock]

20 hours ago, Ish said:

I’m just waiting for someone at GW to figure out how to incorporate Loot Boxes and pay-to-unlock Keys. 

Space Marine Heroes. 

[Constyx]

On 11/28/2021 at 5:25 PM, Sgt. Rock said:

I'm not into competitive play, but even when I have enjoyed 40k in the past, I've never believed it belonged in the same sentence with the word balanced. As long as they continue to use the army book/supplement model, the game will be in a permanent state of imbalance. There are over 4600 options to balance (by this fellow's count) because GW insists on putting out book after book after book with more and more things that only manage to break balance and muddy the water. Here we are, well into 9th, and how many armies are still operating on 8th edition codexes? Yes, they're FAR better about updating armies in a timely fashion than they used to be. But the problem persists, just because they insist on updating the armies one at a time. Every time a new codex or supplement comes out, it completely breaks the meta and requires immediate rebalancing. You have armies in different tiers of competitiveness because some of them just flat suck and others are hopelessly overpowered. Having a second shell company with its own set of units and rules that it puts out for the game (Forge World) only exacerbates matters, especially since FW's models are so expensive that they become out of reach of a lot of players simply due to cost. It's been this way since the dawn of 40k, and will continue to be so for as long as they feel the need to keep selling codexes and supplements. In games that don't update only one faction at a time, there's significantly better balance; a rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak. Corvus Belli does this, Privateer Press does this, Fantasy Flight does this, Catalyst does this. All of these games update rules and units across the board for all factions at the same time. Is there less variation in the game? Sure. But the games are (in most cases... looking at you, Privateer) considerably more balanced. And those games also have a tendency to either make the rules free, included with the models, or simply in one main book. But GW is stuck in their ways, because locking rules behind a dead tree paywall makes them money. As a result, people will continue to either chase the new hotness or get their asses whipped by it, because 40k is a game that simply can't be balanced under the current game design model. 

Now, all that said, 40k can still be a lot of fun, if you're willing to accept from the get-go that you're playing an unbalanced game that will never *be* balanced. If you're okay with that, and you can still have fun with the game, that's fantastic, and I'm jealous. I wanted so badly to enjoy 9th edition, but it has this terrible combination of being hopelessly unbalanced *and* overly complicated. Either one I could deal with, but not both.

You bring up a good point on how having the rules spread through so many books. I remember a couple months ago when I was looking at making a Custodes army, I was told in order to play matched play up to date and at events, I would need to get the Core Rules, Custodes Codex, Psychic Awakening, and Chapter Approved. Not to mention on top of four books, I would need to consult Errata and FAQs. I wouldn't be annoyed by it if it was easier to sort through the Errata and FAQs, or if there was one place online to look everything up. However, I do think it is reasonable that they have army rules in separate Codexes. I don't even mind Chapter Approved as it focuses on just one specific way of playing the game. What gets me are series like Psychic Awakening and the Warzone books currently being released is that they have rules and points values that effect Matched play (or at least form my understanding). But even if I am wrong about that, it does go to show how confusing all of this is for a new player. 

I do think they should release new codexes for all factions at the start of a new edition. I think this would help with gameplay balance as well as updates to point values and rules clarifications. Ultimately, I don't think the game needs to be balanced perfectly, but the current system is just too much to even have a chance at patching up some of the ways the game/factions/units are broken. 

[Constyx]

On 11/28/2021 at 9:20 PM, Ish said:

I believe many of the mechanical problems with WH40k stem from an internal schism in the design team. Some of them seem to be trying to design a complex-but-tightly-controlled system optimized for MtG style tournament circuit play, some of them seem to be trying to design a narrative-focused-but-complete system for organized play, and a few still seem to be clinging to the old school  “let the players fill in the blanks” design ethos from the Eighties.

Basically, one team wants a CCG, one team wants a Eurogame board game, and a small minority of old guard wants mode railroading with rules.

These are not compatible design philosophies. 

The game does seem like it is trying to appeal to all types of players at the cost of losing focus in its actual design. While I haven't played many games of 40k, from reading the rules it seems like there's a genuine effort by the designers to cater to competitive and narrative gameplay experiences. I think something like Kill Team is better suited to tournament style play while the Crusade system is better for large wargames. But my experience in wargames is limited to only GW IP, so I may be wrong hahaha 

[Constyx]

On 11/29/2021 at 9:50 AM, Torg said:

GW is a marketing ran machine - money is in constantly rolling out new and better stuff - and constantly angling for that monthly disposable income. It hasn't been about a great game system in a long long time. 

I listened to a couple interviews of old GW game designers whom have moved on over a decade now ... the battle with game systems vs marketing has always been a thing - and eventually as GW has grown has been more and more dominated by marketing and the bottom line - over game balance.

GW knows what it is doing... they have been doing it a long time. Things are right where they want them.

I think the battle between design and marketing is a source of tension in every game company. While GW isn't perfect by any means, I don't think they've disregarded the gaming experience to such an extent that they only care about the money. But profitability will always come first at the end of the day to a company. I feel modern AAA video game studios/publishers are more in that vein of abandoning any concept of game design (or new ones at least) for the sake of cash.    

[Sugarlessllama]

Thinking over the age old question of balance in 40K, I would remember my normal answer was "Why bother? Want balance and a competitive scene, that's Warmachine dude."  But now that Warmachine seems to have gone into that good night, I have no idea what to think. I play the game like an RPG. But this also leads me to getting stomped. A lot. But I have no idea where to even start balancing the game.

[Ish]

If you want perfect balance, play Chess or Go.

If you want something sci-fi themed, miniatures-based, and grimdark and close to balance, then WH40k is usually pretty good for the first two, maybe two-and-a-half, years after a new edition drops.  

If you want something sci-fi themed, miniatures-based, and grimdark and much closer to balance, throughout its entire edition life, then you should play BattleTech.

[Brother Glacius]

<cough> Clans <cough> 😉

[Ish]

8 hours ago, Brother Glacius said:

<cough> Clans <cough> 😉

I did say closer to balance. It ain’t perfect, but the BV2.0 system does at least make the maths used to build all the ‘mechs in the game kind of “open-source.” The system does probably undervalue some tech and overvalue some stuff, but at least everyone is working from the same maths.

Plus, if you base campaign play around a combination of both C-Bills and BV, than they fancy-schmancy Clanner tech quickly looses a lot of its luster.  Just buying replacement parts for a modestly damaged Mad Cat or Thor after a battle can nearly pay for a completely new Inner Sphere ‘Mech.

Redde Creditori Tuo, Scortatores. – May 20th 3052