Balancing 40k

1550
IG

1700
blood angels
orks
csm
space wolves
witch hunters

1850
deamons
space marines
tyranids

2000
daemon hunters
dark eldar
necrons
tau

Do you just not have any good DE/Tau players, or DH players willing to heavily use guard allies, in your playing group?

Similarly, are your best players simply Guard / Sisters?

Also, why would you punish Chaos ... which is easily in the botom of competitive finishes on average lately (though this is more easily blamed on disenfranchisement / people using their csm for counts-as-sw/ba b/c of those two codices more closely reflecting fluff when built a certain way)?

The above list basically states: DE and Tau crush people if you have half a clue how to build and play their lists properly.


You wanna "balance" 40k, shift KP to VP (solves a lot of the problems DH and SOB w/ allies encounter, as well as Tau and DE --> obviously keep allies in), allow Demons to deploy normally instead of via forced random deep strike, and make all Necron gauss weapons AP1 when rolling on the vehicle damage chart [only].

Alo, for your assistance ...
Blood *ANGELS* (the geometric angles of death are quite fun though)
CSM (though the CHAOS MARINES OF SPACE certaily has a more comic book / fun feel)
Daemons (though screw that British spelling, let's just call them Demons already) --> alternately "Dameons" if they are Tzeentch oriented and are in reality bastard cheaty sneaky types with too many dice
Tyranid (the singular and plural, now served chilled or fried with only a single "i")


The rampant lol behind putting IG at 1550 has me entertained. TY for it.

If you want to actually improve an already-mostly-balanced game, and want to try my paragraph-o-problems-solved ... hey, let me know, I'd come play in THAT event. But with a 450 points advantage over Guard? Heck yeah, the Necron are coming out of the box. Say hello to treble monolith doom, puny guardsmen.

- Mike

The more I read this thread, the more I think that 40k is pretty balanced. There is out dated stuff for sure, but still competitive. Are some units too cheap for what they do, of course. But I think the real difference between armies is how forgiving they are to mistakes and really unlucky occurrences. I'm a Tau player and I think I'm pretty good. Most games that I lose its because I do something stupid like forgetting to jump out of assault range with my assault move or a poor deployment. One simple mistakecan be a game breaker for me. Other armies are better equipped to handle those situations (troops with hvy weapons).

All that being said, it looks like I'm the only Tau player at the ICGT this month. Maybe I missed the bandwagon but it should be fun to see how the Tau do against lots of SM and IG.

I think the Black Eye Peas wrote a song about that...

He's got them pew pew Tau
You Nids are jackin his style
They try to cap his Aun'va
He jumps to cover now

He's so 40,000 and eight
You're so 30,000 and late
He got that pew pew pew
That future plasma pew
Roll for armor save now



Ok, give me a break, its 3am and I'm still working out my vet/vendetta spam list for the tourny, just soooooooo many points to spend and soooo few slots available, you other players have it so easy.

Eldar not invited? Where's the rage!

the real problem with this discussion is that the people that own armies at the top of the power curve don't want to give up there unfair advantage

Or you don't realize just how many armies certain people own and have mastered. When you own and/or routinely play multiple armies you come to understand just how balanced the game really is. ;-)

Copout strawman arguments falter in the face of the truth.

Brent wrote:

the real problem with this discussion is that the people that own armies at the top of the power curve don't want to give up there unfair advantage

Fallacy of logic, and untrue. Throwing out red herrings when no one agrees with you will not win the arguement.

You're basically saying "I'm right and all of you are wrong".

Nothing you've shown will 'balance 40k'. Since it won't be balanced, someone will still be at the top of the curve. I do think there are some armies that are better than others. I also think some players are better than others, some people paint better than others, and that dice roll randomly, skewing events in a game that at times seems to favor one side or another.

I'm just not worried about all it. I play the game. I have fun.

http://www.biggunz-ne.com/


/whistles and walks away

Lots of positive community feedback re: your event Mike ... gj

The players were the great part of that event. Really good bunch of guys, and made my job a cakewalk.

***hangs his head in shame***

I only finished 9th... clearly I needed to have extra points...

Has nothing to do with the wacky dice in game 2, the mistakes I made, or better choices I could have made to counter my opponents...

again great event Mike

Had allot of fun can't wait for next year I hope there will be a next year that is.

Also I like your ideas Mike I'll use them when I start my Balancing of 40k.
I think the approach should be helping armies gain their natural advantages back
Necron Guns use to be good with always glancing making them ap 1 on the damage roll
might be good for them. ( for tanks)

Martin wrote:

Eldar not invited? Where's the rage!

Was wondering that myself.

Maybe Brent it should be more like this

1850
Guard
Blood Angels
Space Wolves
Sisters

2000
Everyone else.

That little bit goes along way.

But we will see I am going to help scooter with a cool way to figure out some balance.

why are sisters in the top weak i say weak

While not the exact game at issue, this author (who is one of the top competitive Street Fighter players in the world) has a lot to say about what "balance" is in games and how to achieve, seeing as how he's also, you know, a game designer, unlike some people.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-puzzle-fighter.html

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-1-definitions.html

Spend some time digging in his archives, he also has maybe the best deconstruction of WOW I've ever read:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml

Also, a great book on what it takes to be a competitive player of games (anything really) and how to break down systems to understand and excel in them:

http://sirlingames.squarespace.com/ptw

scooter wrote:

why are sisters in the top weak i say weak

you lie

I think it's funny that people punish sisters just because of Scooter. LOL seriously.... It's like ALL NEW Codexes, and whatever Scooter is playing. so funny... Orks can be better than Sisters, Eldar could probably be too.

Scooter - I double dog dare you to win with Daemonhunters. In fact I will buy you Los Portales for a week if you can win the next tournament with Daemonhunters. I am curious.... I tried once and couldn't, but maybe you can.

Sisters are good not because scooter plays them haha, they are just good anyways. I think most people will agree outside of our club, that sisters are one of the better armies.

Crapload of melta, and a three up invon save, yeah good

Any army in 40k or any system for that matter can win. Now this will strongly depend on the general and match ups. Most players do not play the scenario though, if its objectives they try and kill everything and when its kill points they are too reckless with units.

And sadly most players do not play ENOUGH GAMES. I have fallen victim to this as of late, the more practice games you get in the better you will be perform in tournaments.

just my 2 cents

Joe wrote:

Quote :

Any army in 40k or any system for that matter can win. Now this will strongly depend on the general and match ups. Most players do not play the scenario though, if its objectives they try and kill everything and when its kill points they are too reckless with units.

And sadly most players do not play ENOUGH GAMES. I have fallen victim to this as of late, the more practice games you get in the better you will be perform in tournaments.

Agree I still stand by my statement IMHO I think sisters are one of the best 3+ save armies out there. It's not just me; I will say that the person playing the army is what makes them great as well.

Quote :

And sadly most players do not play ENOUGH GAMES. I have fallen victim to this as of late,

Double agree when do you want to get some games IN Joe?

I do need to get some games in. My work schedule is rough, and have 2 new puppies at home keeps me and the wife busy

thats cool congrats on the new job

Brent,
You think 1550 of guard vs 2000 points of Tau or Dark Eldar is "balanced"?

-Mike

I think we need working definitions:

Quote :

A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable--especially, but not limited to, during high-level play by expert players.

--Sirlin, December 2001

A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.

--Sirlin, January 2002

I think what Brent means is that Guard isn't 'deep' not that they're not balanced, but that begs the question is it Guard that's not deep or is it Brent?

avatar8481 wrote:

I think we need working definitions:

I thought we were using the "fat kid on a seesaw" definition of balance.
Technically in equilibrium..

40k is very balanced. But you're all too young to notice...

Orks and IG were bottom tier armies forever, and I watched everyone paint up their Chaos, Marines, Tau, Nids, and trade off for who had the 'best army'.

Now after a decade of waiting, Orks and IG are suddenly 'good armies'.

So suck it up, take your beatings with a smile, and let some of us grognards that waited years for the wheel to turn and our armies get good enjoy it while we can.

Quote :

40k is very balanced. But you're all too young to notice...

Orks and IG were bottom tier armies forever, and I watched everyone paint up their Chaos, Marines, Tau, Nids, and trade off for who had the 'best army'.

Now after a decade of waiting, Orks and IG are suddenly 'good armies'.

So suck it up, take your beatings with a smile, and let some of us grognards that waited years for the wheel to turn and our armies get good enjoy it while we can.

Mike I love you, you know I do. But that statement alone proves that 40k isn't balanced. Do I like 40k more than 8th right now yes, yes I do. But it has its problems. I still don’t think we should try to "fix" 40k. I think we should just come up with a fun different version of it. For fun key word fun.

agreed

scooter wrote:

Quote :

40k is very balanced. But you're all too young to notice...

Orks and IG were bottom tier armies forever, and I watched everyone paint up their Chaos, Marines, Tau, Nids, and trade off for who had the 'best army'.

Now after a decade of waiting, Orks and IG are suddenly 'good armies'.

So suck it up, take your beatings with a smile, and let some of us grognards that waited years for the wheel to turn and our armies get good enjoy it while we can.

Mike I love you, you know I do. But that statement alone proves that 40k isn't balanced. Do I like 40k more than 8th right now yes, yes I do. But it has its problems. I still don’t think we should try to "fix" 40k. I think we should just come up with a fun different version of it. For fun key word fun.

Hint: Apocalypse with 10k points per player! Now that's fun.

And regular 40k has never, ever, been balanced. But, dice add such a random factor to the game, that usually that's been the factor to even things out.

Another one is having to use the correct models and paint the models. Anyone can post on the internet. Some of that group will make an unpainted army and proxy a bunch of stuff. Fewer still will get all the exact models, and 2/3 of those won't paint them.

Thirdly, I think scenarios that are something other than "Kill the opponent" actually balance the game. Planning an army to do one thing, or to win the 3 basic scenarios is simpler than having to deal with unconventional set ups.

No one likes missions that get unbalanced and favor some armies over others though, and they will !@#$. Same as they will !@#$ at comp, army restrictions, having to paint their models, and not use proxies.

I'm tossing crap at this thread at times, only because I don't see anyone really trying to balance anything, beyond "I hate IG, they need to be Nerfed".

Balancing would entail a detailed system to appraise each army, the combinations of troops and strategies available to it, and a way to value those things against other armies. In essence, a Mathematical Model that can approximate a game that is a set of rules and random dice rolls.

Having a Masters Degree is Stats Theory, I can get an idea of the amount of work that would have to be done. And I certainly don't want to do it. Especially if there is a chance some of the nutters that do the ETC rules will do it for me.

Getting off my soap box, heading to work. Have to get a tournament set up for this weekend.) See you guys on Saturday.

can't wait

Saint Omerville wrote:

Brent,
You think 1550 of guard vs 2000 points of Tau or Dark Eldar is "balanced"?

-Mike

not really, the dark eldar are still kinda behind the 8 ball, but what you gonna do?

Instead of hating the game, why not hate the player?

If you want more even games the best way might be with a player(+army) handicap system.

Works pretty well in Golf. Too many variables there to grade courses for relative difficulty but ranking players and penalizing them for being good has been standard practice for a couple hundred years.

Do we need a ranking system to hate the players? I've been doing it for years and years without the need for rankings.)

avatar8481 wrote:

I think we need working definitions:

Quote :

A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable--especially, but not limited to, during high-level play by expert players.

--Sirlin, December 2001

A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.

--Sirlin, January 2002

I think what Brent means is that Guard isn't 'deep' not that they're not balanced, but that begs the question is it Guard that's not deep or is it Brent?

I think you sir are correct i have grow disintersted with the 40k torny scene largly do to repetive list and the rock paper scicors nature of the game at that level a can see who will win the game before i play it and that is really boring, filling me with the disire to shake things up

Martin wrote:

Instead of hating the game, why not hate the player?

If you want more even games the best way might be with a player(+army) handicap system.

Works pretty well in Golf. Too many variables there to grade courses for relative difficulty but ranking players and penalizing them for being good has been standard practice for a couple hundred years.

i could see that working

Quote :

Martin wrote:
Instead of hating the game, why not hate the player?

If you want more even games the best way might be with a player(+army) handicap system.

Works pretty well in Golf. Too many variables there to grade courses for relative difficulty but ranking players and penalizing them for being good has been standard practice for a couple hundred years.


i could see that working

Wow so what you’re saying is because I’m a better player I should have points taken from me in a tournament. So it would stand to reason you want me to pay more money to play in a tournament too?

scooter wrote:

Quote :

Martin wrote:
Instead of hating the game, why not hate the player?

If you want more even games the best way might be with a player(+army) handicap system.

Works pretty well in Golf. Too many variables there to grade courses for relative difficulty but ranking players and penalizing them for being good has been standard practice for a couple hundred years.


i could see that working

Wow so what you’re saying is because I’m a better player I should have points taken from me in a tournament. So it would stand to reason you want me to pay more money to play in a tournament too?

Sure. if you want. just you though.
That's actually quite funny it becomes a problem when the individual is brought into the equation. Yet when you want to take points from an army that's ok, because you can still game the system and pick a different army.

I have no doubt you'd still do very well in that kind of environment. Eventually there'd be a ceiling, you couldn't just keep going until scooter's down to zero points for his army. And when folks catch up to you, you'll still beat them.

scooter wrote:

Quote :

Martin wrote:
Instead of hating the game, why not hate the player?

If you want more even games the best way might be with a player(+army) handicap system.

Works pretty well in Golf. Too many variables there to grade courses for relative difficulty but ranking players and penalizing them for being good has been standard practice for a couple hundred years.


i could see that working

Wow so what you’re saying is because I’m a better player I should have points taken from me in a tournament. So it would stand to reason you want me to pay more money to play in a tournament too?

Works for me. Scooter: You owe me 50.00 more for Saturday!

haha

I lick chilli

You know I'm still ever happy to beat on anybody w/ any codex they request I use ...

This convo is still fun to read.

Scooter you don't reply to my e-mails and it makes me sad and frustrated in the pants.

I'll do that right now I like your pants

*must resist the urge to troll*

MVBrandt wrote:

You know I'm still ever happy to beat on anybody w/ any codex they request I use ...

This convo is still fun to read.

Scooter you don't reply to my e-mails and it makes me sad and frustrated in the pants.

ok tau, 1750, any sunday

My god Brent were have you been I've missed you

Got two jobs scooter eats up a lot of time

were else are you working?

got a job working a a restrant in down town annapolis, call castelbay