It is impossible to balance 40K

[Lexington]

Not when you look at other EU market sources outside of the wargames hobby industry

Why bother going outside of the wargaming industry? After all, Corvus Belli's located in the EU, but I guess [URL="http://www.infinitythegame.com/article.php?id=106"]no one told them[/URL] they should be doing poorly. Really, given that GW and their competitors operate internationally, locality should only figure into it so much. If there's really a worldwide slump that's cutting the market leader's sales by a fifth, you'd expect to see smaller competitors dropping like nobody's business. But, there they go, ignoring the facts of things, launching an unprecedented number of products in the same space, running highly successful Kickstarters, and seeming to just grow like weeds.

Really, someone needs to sit the market down and explain to them that they can't be doing well when GW's not. It's just rude.

but hey, you wouldn't want to let the chance to try and dig at GW would you. Nothing makes you look cooler than having a go at a company that makes toy soldiers. It's not at all increasingly sad and pathetic of you.

He tries so hard, folks.

[Havik110]

And in those 20+ years there is still a large following, maybe not the biggest but its there, which means lots of people have made their peace with it. Nothing is truly balanced in anything really, yet people hold GW up to impossible standards every day/release. As I always say: I don't blame them a bit for not doing social media or communication, its impossible to please all of ya, so why bother. Same thing with the rules.

Im not asking for perfect balance but there are some glaring problems and DE has most of them when compared to ther books and looked at based on THIS EDITION OF THE GAME.

1. A ravager gets 3 st 8 ap2 lance shots or 9 s4 AP 2 shots. but the current game (since 6th) you kill vehicles by hull pointing them down not blowing them up and it is inferior at killing armor to anything with a few more shots and less strength (because you no longer need to blow stuff up)

2. In this edition, non deathstar CC is DEAD. so our CC unit that needs to be in CC to survive or it is dead and usless is more useless than it has ever been. It cant even be a suicide tank killer unit any more. 3rd edition wyches that used to cost more points were MUCH MUCH better...

3. Think of every marine dex EVER and how their veterans can take whatever weapons they want...Vanguard vets, take as many power weapons as you want...blood brides? you can take 1 more useless wych weapon (WT actual F)...(HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?)

4. The raider is the easiest way to see they dont have any idea how the changes in their MAIN RULE BOOK affects a game. Why is a raider 70 points in 7th edition the same it cost in 5th and in 3rd when 7th has more shooing per turn than 3rd had in a game? in 3rd-5th my raiders were more survivable because if you moved and then shot your bolter you could only shoot 12 inches, so i stayed away from bolters and so my speed was my defense, now an armor 10 vehicle that needs to get close to get anything done is USELESS because it dies to bolters because there is no way to make 24 4+ cover saves...

5. why does a plane with armor 10 and 2 ST9 not even twin linked lances cost 245 points?

Once again, no one is asking for full 100% balance, they are asking them to look at the units and say, wow, that doesnt work...or wow, it would take DE 30 lance shots to kill 1 of these things...or wow, why do we even bother with DE any more with as good as we built eldar...

[Alaric]

Well. Lets pretend they change all 5 of those things. Cool. Now the next guy us gonna have problems. So then he makes a list of 5 personal gripes. They change it. Oh but wait! One of those 5 things the other guy has a problem with is something you like.

Do you see where im going there? What are problems to you may not matter a whit, which in my case is your whole list.

1.hullpoint gripes with lances...really?
2.deathstars are always a danger, the tau will have a shooty one now. Step yer game up.
3.Yes. Because every single marine player uses as many vets as they can. I have seen tons of articles on BalLs saying "tone down the vets!"
4. Its a fu#king RAIDER. They have never been tough. Why should they be now. Use cover and play like u got a pair.
5. Points cant reflect every eventuality. I wish their were a better way to make an army...like pick as many models as you want and just throw down..im sure a game with no points would work.

K so obviously just havin fun there but the point is: nobody will ever agree on what balance is.

[Charon]

I think you do not really understand the problem here.
This is not about 5 random things that irk him, this is about DE beeing not remotely valid at the moment.
When everyone got buffed, DE got nerfed hard. They lost a ton of characters and special rules. The codex was not strong before. The stronger codices got rewritten later... and they got buffed.

I would really like to see you share your wisdom with all us incompetent players instead of only throwing catchphrases like "step up your game" in the room.

1.hullpoint gripes with lances...really?

Yes, really. As Lances are one shot, not twin linked and not cheap it is pretty hard to get enough together (especially as the same units that carry lances also carry the anti-meq weapons)

2.deathstars are always a danger, the tau will have a shooty one now. Step yer game up.

Do you care to elaborate which Deathstar DE got or how to "step yer game up"? Because either you are the best player in the word, or you are just talking hot air.

3.Yes. Because every single marine player uses as many vets as they can. I have seen tons of articles on BalLs saying "tone down the vets!"

So vets are not good? Fair point. And now imagine that they are still an extremely valuable, valid and cost efficent unit in comparison what DE got.

4. Its a fu#king RAIDER. They have never been tough. Why should they be now. Use cover and play like u got a pair.

"ignore cover". And even in cover... how many 4+ do you roll? There is no difference between a raider in cover and a leman russ in cover. Oh wait there is. The leman russ gets the better cover save as the camo netting is better than DE tech. Another pointless cathphrase from somebody who has no idea what to actually say.
And you really dont get the point. Raiders have been tough. I do not know where your expert analysis comes from that they never have been, but there were different rules in place that made it pretty tough.
Just to name a few: rapid fire range, Nightshield, glancing, there is no escape, S3 explosions. So please... if you really have no idea what people are talking about feel free to ask instead of posting so such an obviously wrong statement. It only shows that you know nothing about the topic you try to discuss.

5. Points cant reflect every eventuality. I wish their were a better way to make an army...like pick as many models as you want and just throw down..im sure a game with no points would work.

Please go and troll your AoS friend. You have made no point (get it?) but we can do this. You can throw down DE and I throw down CWE. Im totally sure you will have the most fun in your life when you surrender in turn 2.

nobody will ever agree on what balance is.

As a hint. If you there is a point where you need double the points of your army to remove a single enemy model (which is at the cost of 1/6 of your army) you can imagine that there is something very wrong.
People would not agree on finer nuances. But they pretty much agree on overall balance. However I can see that you have actually no idea what you are talking about.

[Mr Mystery]

K so obviously just havin fun there but the point is: nobody will ever agree on what balance is.

This.

And now to elaborate....

There are thousands of gamers. Therefore, there are thousands of opinions. Naturally I don't have time, info nor if I'm honest inclination to present a study into these, so bear with me whilst I heft my biggest brush for some very broad strokes indeed.

Stroke 1 - FIGHT!

For some, balance should be everything worked out to five decimal points etc - absolute perfect balance where it's down purely to player skill.

Stroke 2 - FIGHT!

For others, every Codex should work against any other codex - each should have their strengths and weaknesses, and every list from each Codex should have a reasonable chance on the field (as in not 'oh. I see. I'll just pack up now, shall I?)

Stroke 3 - FIGHT!

My army should be the besterest evar and nevar evar loss any matches.

Stroke 4 - FIGHT!

Every Codex should have it's speciality warfare, which by necessity leaves it vulnerable to certain other Codecies which present its natural nemesis.

With the clear exception of Stroke 3 - none of the above are exactly unreasonable expectations of any given game. None of them. Some are taller orders than others (Stroke 1 essentially describes Chess, a game which achieves it through a general lack of variables. Both players have the same pieces and identical restrictions). Me? I probably fall mostly into Stroke 4. I take my choice warts and all and just sort of accept there'll be some armies that are going to turn me into splutchy little pancakes in no time at all.

But, here's a caveat....Warhammer 40,000 is none of the above.

And next, a revelation....Warhammer 40,000 has never been any of the above. And that doesn't bother me, personally, at all. I mean, how can it? 40k has always been a slightly shonky, thrown together game - ever since I started to seriously play back in the mid-90's. If that state of affairs was high up on my needs list, I would have switched games ages ago.

I play largely for the hell of it. When I come up against a Nemesis list or something intentionally beardy, I get my fun out of trying to eke out a draw, or at least make my opponent sing for their supper - but don't get me wrong. This isn't a sermon, it's just my opinion.

As for getting the game perfectly balance? Well, after 20 odd years of playing, it's abundantly clear GW aren't fussed for that. And to echo Yorkie's opening post, given the sheer number of variables out there, it's amazing there's anything even resembling balance in the game.

Yes, some armies are boring snoozefests (Gav Thorpe's take on Dwarfs - custom designed to park on a hill and blast you into oblivion before you run into some of the best combat troops in the game, or perhaps the 5 Knight list when you've gone for a more rounded force able to tickle most types of armies). But in my experience that has always, always been GW. It's not a recent thing.

If it's not your bag, then absolutely fair enough. I can see why it gets up people's noses so much. But, y'know.....maybe it's time for you to move on. The Leopard isn't going to change it's shorts any time soon, so go find a game which gives you what you're craving.

[Path Walker]

Lex, we don't know how well Corvus Belli are doing, they don't publish any figures for people with no understanding of them to pour over. People thought Dropzone Commander was doing well until the owner of Hawk Wargames revealed last week that they're tens of thousands of pounds in the red and operating at a massive loss. Corvus Belli could be too for all you know, I'd be very surprised if they were making much money at all to be honest but we don't and won't know that unless they choose to tell us. Sales doesn't mean profit but a lack of profit does mean an end to operating. GW sales are down, yup, like every luxury product in the Eu (from where GW generates at least 50% of its sales so yeah, that's going to have a big impact) but it's in profit and has been for years, which is what a business needs.

I know there is no point trying to explain is, you've proven time and time again that unless it's echoing the idea you've held for years that GW are going out of business because they're not doing things the way you like them, you won't let pesky things like facts or evidence get in the way.

The point is, a few people might complain about balance, you've seen here that someone is saying Dark Eldar are useless because you can't use them like Space Marines, but most players want their armies to be different and play in interesting ways. We could easily have a game where identical armies fight each other and get more balance but people don't want that and, more importantly, GW don't want to make that game and as Mystery says, they never, ever have. (Cue someone saying "well what about GWs tournaments?!" ) They weren't competitive events in the sense players mean it now, they were scored based on hobby, fluff and sportsmanship scores more than winning games, the idea of competing to win a hobby just wasn't thought of as important back then at least not in Nottingham. The objective of the game is the won, the aim is for two or more people to have fun, if you ignore the second to ensure the first, you're not playing the game GW made, that's fine if that's what you care about and your opponent feels the same but don't complain when you've chosen to make the game something it isn't and are finding it isn't working properly.

[Morgrim]

It would be nice to be able to build an army using any codex in the book and be able to face a player of a similar skill level and have at least SOME chance of winning. Or having a fun game. Or having a game, period. I haven't played 40k in over a year because pickup games against 1k of Dark Eldar are apparently not worth setting up for.

Perfect game balance may be impossible, but I don't think it's too much to ask for enough balance that people are willing to play an army instead of saying it's so bad that it's not worth the effort of kicking my teeth in.

[Lexington]

The point is, a few people might complain about balance, you've seen here that someone is saying Dark Eldar are useless because you can't use them like Space Marines, but most players want their armies to be different and play in interesting ways.

No, the point is that you claimed GW does better when 40K is less balanced, and I pointed out that GW's current sales slump dovetails nicely with a widely-recognized crash in 40K's game balance. You can blame GW's problems on whatever you like, but the fact is that 40K's definitely less popular than it was when it was better balanced.

I know there is no point trying to explain is, you've proven time and time again that unless it's echoing the idea you've held for years that GW are going out of business because they're not doing things the way you like them, you won't let pesky things like facts or evidence get in the way.

Bull, I've never said any such thing. GW's a publicly-owned company with valuable IP to be had, they're not going to just shut their doors like some mom-n-pop dime store. Companies like GW don't just up and die, they just shrink, get sold and watch their IP devalue to the point of irrelevance. That's where GW's heading right now, long-term.

[Andrew Thomas]

Lex, we don't know how well Corvus Belli are doing, they don't publish any figures for people with no understanding of them to pour over. People thought Dropzone Commander was doing well until the owner of Hawk Wargames revealed last week that they're tens of thousands of pounds in the red and operating at a massive loss. Corvus Belli could be too for all you know, I'd be very surprised if they were making much money at all to be honest but we don't and won't know that unless they choose to tell us. Sales doesn't mean profit but a lack of profit does mean an end to operating. GW sales are down, yup, like every luxury product in the Eu (from where GW generates at least 50% of its sales so yeah, that's going to have a big impact) but it's in profit and has been for years, which is what a business needs.

I know there is no point trying to explain is, you've proven time and time again that unless it's echoing the idea you've held for years that GW are going out of business because they're not doing things the way you like them, you won't let pesky things like facts or evidence get in the way.

The point is, a few people might complain about balance, you've seen here that someone is saying Dark Eldar are useless because you can't use them like Space Marines, but most players want their armies to be different and play in interesting ways. We could easily have a game where identical armies fight each other and get more balance but people don't want that and, more importantly, GW don't want to make that game and as Mystery says, they never, ever have. (Cue someone saying "well what about GWs tournaments?!" ) They weren't competitive events in the sense players mean it now, they were scored based on hobby, fluff and sportsmanship scores more than winning games, the idea of competing to win a hobby just wasn't thought of as important back then at least not in Nottingham. The objective of the game is the won, the aim is for two or more people to have fun, if you ignore the second to ensure the first, you're not playing the game GW made, that's fine if that's what you care about and your opponent feels the same but don't complain when you've chosen to make the game something it isn't and are finding it isn't working properly.

And herein lies the problem: the Tournament Standard Faction is an Elite army, not the Game World Average. Space Marines are not and should not be considered basic infantry, and basing your appraisal of how an army functions on how close they match Space Marines is never going to give you a fair impression.

If you want balance at the Tournament level, you need to limit the presence of Elite Factions.

[Path Walker]

No, the point is that you claimed GW does better when 40K is less balanced, and I pointed out that GW's current sales slump dovetails nicely with a widely-recognized crash in 40K's game balance. You can blame GW's problems on whatever you like, but the fact is that 40K's definitely less popular than it was when it was better balanced.


Bull, I've never said any such thing. GW's a publicly-owned company with valuable IP to be had, they're not going to just shut their doors like some mom-n-pop dime store. Companies like GW don't just up and die, they just shrink, get sold and watch their IP devalue to the point of irrelevance. That's where GW's heading right now, long-term.

Except that "balance" is entirely subjective, some people say 7th is more balanced that 6th (especially if they don't do what ever they can to avoid the maelstrom missions being part of the game).

I wish they'd just rip off the band-aid like with Age of Sigmar, get rid of the worst elements of this hobby.

- - - Updated - - -

And herein lies the problem: the Tournament Standard Faction is an Elite army, not the Game World Average. Space Marines are not and should not be considered basic infantry, and basing your appraisal of how an army functions on how close they match Space Marines is never going to give you a fair impression.

If you want balance at the Tournament level, you need to limit the presence of Elite Factions.

Space Marines are fine, its just that they tend towards a very simple play style and so most competitive players don't bother to learn any of skills they need to play say, Dark Eldar and just complain when the army they bought painted off of eBay because they heard it was OP isn't easy for them to win with. Thus internet rage.

Hint for Dark Eldar, you shouldn't be visible to your opponent on their turn, either you're not moving enough or there isn't enough terrain on the table. Tournaments hardly ever have enough terrain.