PDA

View Full Version : Ballence Question



Conotor
12-04-2008, 12:14
Does GW ballence the game for all comers lists, or spacific battles where you know you enemy's race?

exe
high elves and vamps are better at all comers, as they won't be overpowered with shooting/dispell dice.
empire are better at spacific battles, as they arn't very predictable, and have lots of options to counter an enemy force.

Von Wibble
12-04-2008, 12:47
I disagree with your examples - I rarely change my empire army much but have to really adapt my high elves- my army for facing vampires is very different to my army for facing dwarfs.

I don't know the answer to the question - certainly some armies (wood elves, empire for example) are better than others for mot having to adapt.

Dux Ducis
12-04-2008, 12:50
Every race can have an army tailored towards a specific foe, or have an all-round list that can be designed to engage every threat.

Conotor
13-04-2008, 02:46
Every race can have an army tailored towards a specific foe, or have an all-round list that can be designed to engage every threat.

Yes, but some are more adaptible/predictable then others. As I said, empire can do almost anything, so they are very hard to counter.

zealot!
13-04-2008, 03:08
its spelled balance

IronBrother
13-04-2008, 03:20
I agree with zealot!, it is spelled "balance". In my opinion the game is built mostly for one on one's not so much for all comers. Armies can be built for all comers, but the large array of options given to each can counter at least every army specifically. Also specific is spelled "specific".

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
13-04-2008, 03:21
its spelled balance

Not only is it spelled "balance," there's also "specific," "aren't," and "match-ups." Not to sound terribly mean, but you can take a little time to spell check before you post and it will make a world of difference for people being able to understand you and think about the meat of your post.

I think that each list can be tailored to fight in different ways. Even though Orcs and Goblins can't put together as hard-hitting of an all-cavalry list as Bretonnians, they can still created an all-mounted list. Or magic-heavy. Or horde. Or specialists. Every army can do this. Now, the effectiveness of these different lists may be debatable, but they're still an option.

larabic
13-04-2008, 03:50
I chose for all comers, with the addendum that people aren't trying to play super lists or abuse the hell out of the rules. I love warhammer but boy do some of the players and the things they try and get away with bug me... but overall i think it is a great game.

Gobbo Lord
13-04-2008, 04:22
To everyone who has called the OP on their spelling of the word balance. The phrase you should have used is "it is spelt balance". Not "it is spelled balance" which is just bad English. If your going to have a go at someones spelling then make sure your own use of grammer is perfect first.

dvdhwk
13-04-2008, 04:42
"Spelled" is the British variation of "spelt." Both are considered acceptable usage. I hope you're not making some snide implication about American usage and spelling.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
13-04-2008, 04:56
To everyone who has called the OP on their spelling of the word balance. The phrase you should have used is "it is spelt balance". Not "it is spelled balance" which is just bad English. If your going to have a go at someones spelling then make sure your own use of grammer is perfect first.

No, you're wrong. Congratulations, though. That may be a convention in ENGLISH English, but it's not over on this side of the pond. And no one who corrected him did it in a mean way, so I don't see what your problem is.

ReveredChaplainDrake
13-04-2008, 05:49
Why rag on the poor OP's grammar when he made a completely legitimate point that deserves to be answered? What, nobody wants to admit that GW doesn't care about the balance of their games and are just out to maximize their profit?

GW defenitely seems to be up to its old tricks again, ever since 40k's 'redone' Blood Angels, and since Fantasy's Dwarfs. Army Creep is very real, and if Dark Elves aren't overwhelmingly, brutally powerful compared to the new Daemons (something like an army-wide ASFEWYSIDSFISDSDWI: Always Strike First, Even When You Say I Don't Strike First I Still Do So Deal With It), then I'm out of this stupid hobby. But even then, I don't know what's more depressing about this hobby: the way GW has to make money is by making each rulebook more powerful in the last, or the fact that as gamers we put up with it.

Army Creep has doomed many an army / army list / army book to the shelves. Case in point: remember back when Tau were thought as competetive? Well neither do I. Second illustration, and this one's to all you Fantasy Vets: anybody remember when Wood Elves first came out and were thought to be the Uber-Broke Army of Death? If anybody here were to go a year back in time and tell everybody about the horrors of the new VCs or the new Daemon codex, nobody would believe you. Yet here we are. I can only imagine how much more broken things will get in the future. (Overpowered DEs, overpowered DEs, overpowered DEs... please GW, don't remedy the Army Creep before my beloved Druchii are redone... we've been so sub-standard for so long, we deserve a boost, darnit all!)

Earlier today, I played against a Tomb Kings player who said he refuses to play VCs because they're so horridly broken. (He also said there's no way he'd ever play Dwarves in his life because they're also horridly broken.) I also played a 40k game of 1500 pts (based on 4th ed rules) vs the pride and joy of the new Daemon Codex: the Epidemus list, and I got slaughtered relentlessly, which hasn't happened to my Chaos Marines since the one and only time I faced the new Orks and got mauled by them, too. Unless 5th edition flips the game on its head, the whole concept behind the Epidemus list is full of crap on soooooo many levels. Mind you that I still haven't gotten over the Ork creep yet, which was completely ridiculous in its own right.

mikec_81
13-04-2008, 06:58
Competitive warhammer has been, and will most likely remain rock paper scissors. We know they don't playtest extensively. They have out and out said it. We also know they put stuff in books they think is "cool".

Think about the direction of the 7th edition army books. Total wipe out of all 0-1 unit choices and they said that this was because they wanted variety and allow players to build what they wanted.

Variety is the natural enemy of balance. There is just so much **** out in the warhammer world that you can always trick up some retarded list that can only be beaten by a counter list.

So everything is "balanced" in a sense that you can generate a list from any book to beat any other specific army list from another book but if you are going into an open tournament, good luck. Bring your tricked out army and hope no one built a counter army or that you don't meet them.


Also, grammar and spelling matters. The odd mistake is ok but when your 15 word poll has 2 mistakes for commonly used words, there a problem and you won't be taken seriously since you are a kid, or a retard.

Bac5665
13-04-2008, 16:36
I have not voted because there wasn't an option for "not Balanced." Warhammer is almost as bad as Magic as balance, particuraly of late as the power creep seems to accelerate while the grammar and clarity of army books goes down. I want a game where I can make a true all comers list with any army and have a 50 -50 shot against an opponent of even skill.

Warhammer is not close to this option. VC verses TK is a joke right now. DE versus HE, TK versus WE, Ogres and Brets, not necessarily against each other, but neither list is balanced for take all comers in any way. Warhammer is better than 40k in terms of balance, but neither is close at all.

theunwantedbeing
13-04-2008, 16:48
You can gear any list to face any specific threat, so it's balanced.
Certain races to far better as all comers lists though....specifically those who have been part of the current power creep (lets pray that the dark elves are the last of the uber armies and we go back to something a little more reasonable).

zealot!
13-04-2008, 16:53
I have not voted because there wasn't an option for "not Balanced." Warhammer is almost as bad as Magic as balance, particuraly of late as the power creep seems to accelerate while the grammar and clarity of army books goes down. I want a game where I can make a true all comers list with any army and have a 50 -50 shot against an opponent of even skill.

Warhammer is not close to this option. VC verses TK is a joke right now. DE versus HE, TK versus WE, Ogres and Brets, not necessarily against each other, but neither list is balanced for take all comers in any way. Warhammer is better than 40k in terms of balance, but neither is close at all.

DUDE QUIT CRYING. you obviously dont like fantasy so laeve it alone

blackcherry
13-04-2008, 17:07
For all of those ragging on spelling of any kind, remember this fun fact. Its been found that as long as the first, last and middle letter of a word are in place, as long as it is placed in context, people often read it fine without actually realizing that there is a spelling error:D so please don't do it.

Now on to the actual topic. Warhammer can be as balanced or as unbalanced as you want it. Of course there will be people who try to abuse the gaming system, but i find that usually a balanced force will win through, especially when compared to the 'power gaming' lists that the internet creates. A case in point- a supposed 'OMG that is really broken' high elves list (used by a competent player it must be said) was beaten by an all close combat dwarf force (read that internet!- a close combat dwarf force that does well:p)

lanrak
13-04-2008, 17:36
Hi all.
I appear to have totaly misunderstood the OPs question.:eek:

WH can be 'ballanced' if both players discuss the game before hand and self impose restrictions on unit-army choices .

GW have been 'mucking about with ' WH for a quater of a century now.
In less than a third of that time , Thane Games has developed a wargame suitable for ballanced play, with provable levels of ballance.Armies Of Arcana.
With an formula for calculating ACCURATE PV.
So any army selection vs any other army selection is equaly viable.:D

GW can not even get all the units in one army to be equaly viable.
(Thats why some units are far more popular than other units.)

Whats the point in giving wide amount of variety in armies, if some units are percieved 'that underpowered' they are rarely taken.
UNLESS GW are only concerned with marketing , and dont care about game ballance?:angel:

Draconian77
13-04-2008, 19:40
"they can still create an all-mounted list. Or magic-heavy. Or horde. Or specialists. Every army can do this."

Oh really? Next time you are defeated by the all mounted Dwarf force feel free to give me a PM.

Just saying that not all armies can do everything. The whole game of WHFB is rock-paper-scissors. When all-comer armies meet the RPS armies it comes down to dice and tactics.

blackspring
13-04-2008, 20:49
WH can be 'ballanced' if both players discuss the game before hand and self impose restrictions on unit-army choices .

Sure, but first you're going to need to come down to my gaming group and convince everyone I play with that they should play like this. Unfortunately, most people I know who play the Warhammer games tend to enjoy the 'variety' of building their lists...meanwhile they use the same-old-tired power lists that keep them winning while using the excuse of "variety". I think this may be what you were getting at, so in a way I agree and felt the need to reiterate.



Whats the point in giving wide amount of variety in armies, if some units are percieved 'that underpowered' they are rarely taken.
UNLESS GW are only concerned with marketing , and dont care about game ballance?

I wholeheartedly agree with your insinuation.


You can gear any list to face any specific threat, so it's balanced.

I'm not sure how this works out. In my mind this is a big part of what makes the game unbalanced. In a tournament environment or under similar circumstances where you must use the list you came with and are not allowed to change it, the game may come down to what gear you take. If, on the other hand, all units were to be made static, I think we would see more balance in the game.


The whole game of WHFB is rock-paper-scissors.

True. I see it more as 3D rock-scissors-paper, at least that is, on a metaphysical level, if that makes sense.

Also, to all posters to whom this applies: while spelling is important, to rag on someone because of minor spelling errors really is very petty...grow up.

Havesome
13-04-2008, 21:22
I went for all comers. Tailoring lists is retarded.

blackspring
14-04-2008, 05:45
I went for all comers. Tailoring lists is retarded.

I don't think the intention of this thread is in regards to your preference but more so has to do with how the game has been built.

Also, be careful using words like 'retarded' as I've seen large chunks of a discussion removed for using a word which likely only offends those who are not "retarded". Is that ironic, I don't know, I'm American (<that's sarcasm.)

Ixquic
14-04-2008, 12:05
I don't know how anyone could think the game doesn't have certain matchups that are pretty much decided before the game even starts. Beasts of Chaos have no chance versus the new Demon army, bringing etheral units against a Dwarf anvil army is just giving your opponent points, Vampires are just going to dance all over any army that just has 4-5 dispel dice and Kurt Hellborg is just going to beat a Wood Elf army all by himself if you don't have someway of forcing him into a challange with Nettlings. I understand that the 7th edition armies are "balanced for 7th" but it's becoming more and more obvious that there is very little actual playtesting being done by people trying to game the system and just by people that say "this is cool let's do it and hope no one figures out that the banner of -2 to cast anywhere on the board along with 9 dispel dice is going to just destroy certain armies like Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, Wood Elves or any other army that has to rely on a single magic lore."

It's starting to get to the point where if you don't take a cheesed out list you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage by going for a balanced army. Better to figure out what breaks the game (Vampires with Red Fury and Eternal Hatred, Karl Franz on horseback, Teclis in a unit with Caradryan, Thorek Anvil, tricked out Star Dragon Lord, War Altar with the Von Horstman's Speculum and Mace of strength 10 D6 wounds) and center your army around that.

Defender of Ulthuan
14-04-2008, 14:47
In 6th edition, the game was built with great balance (regardless to one or two minor, not game-breaking flaws).

In 7th edition, one of two things is occurring.. Either all the armies are getting crazier to balance with one another in this new edition, or GW is looking for bigger sales increases, and is making every army increasingly better to try and make a big sell-off before they disband the company...

Hoping it's the first situation....

Defender

Ixquic
14-04-2008, 14:56
In 6th edition, the game was built with great balance (regardless to one or two minor, not game-breaking flaws).

In 7th edition, one of two things is occurring.. Either all the armies are getting crazier to balance with one another in this new edition, or GW is looking for bigger sales increases, and is making every army increasingly better to try and make a big sell-off before they disband the company...

Hoping it's the first situation....

Defender

I'm pretty sure it's the first but not in a good way. The answer to High Elves being so expensive and squishy was ASF. Now it's starting to be handed out to every new army although on not quite as large a scale. The power creep is pretty evident in the new Nurgle now that it can get everyone else strikes last, effectively making their stuff faster than the fastest or most well trained troops which is just stupid.