The hunt for balance!

[Mr Ogre]

How do! Another question intended to be open, which no doubt by the time I'm finished typing this up will appear to be weighted!

But, anyway. Balance. Balance balance balance. Is this something genuinely achievable? Is it an objective, or subjective matter? Is it both? Is it doomed to forever be a kind of compromise?

So for my take...in terms of GW games, it is improving. Well, it's rapidly improving in Fantasy at least. The first 5 army books are much of a muchness in terms of overall power. The new rulebook has also managed to even things out to a noticble degree with the older books.

But I don't think we will ever see absolute balance. Every army has it's own play perks, and as such, is likely to have it's nemesis army it will have a harder time against (for instance, my Ogres have to work harder against Skaven). But I don't see this as being a problem big enough to make the game unplayable.

So, for you?

[iamfanboy]

There are several possible ways to achieve balance in a wargame.

1) Make sure both sides are perfectly equal, with identical sides - as in classic chess or checkers. This leads to... well, boring games from a nowadays' standpoint, because chess is already there. Why reinvent the wheel?

2) Use a points system that fairly weighs one unit against another and gives a points value for that unit; more expensive if the unit is better and cheaper if the unit is nothing but fodder.

2) Impose unit selection restrictions. While one unit might be an uber-badass, you may have to take three or four not-so-strong units to make up for it.

3) Have scenario restrictions in place; while it might be nice to have the ultimate head-crunching unit, it does you little to no good if the scenario requires you to run across the field, grab something, and run back to your side of the table.


Generally, GW does 2); the only problem is that they have no consistency or transparency in how they evaluate points value. Why does a Space Marine cost 15 points when an Imperial Guardsman costs 6? Why does a Greater Daemon cost what, 150 points where an Avatar costs 80?

If there was a solid, consistent formula to how they figured points value that was repeatable across all the armies, then the game would be 'fairer'. Just as an idle thoughts, WS+S+T+I+(Ld-7)+(6-Sv)+A^W= base points value. Ranged would be something like BS+S(of weapon)+AP(turn it into a positive value)+(Range/12)=ranged value. Base+Ranged+Special=Final modifier. Special abilities would be + or - to the end equation, or even multipliers if they were something like Winged or Cavalry that dramatically added to their effectiveness.


The problem with an equation like that, from Games Workshop's point of view, is that it's capable of being reverse-engineered. In other words, people other than GW could create their own units that balanced well against the official GW ones... leaving a hole in their moat.

So instead they try a half-assed approach, not realizing that it just makes them look like - well, an ass.

So if you're wondering why GW doesn't balance their units effectively, it's because they don't WANT to. Not only does imbalance drive sales (nerf an old unit and buff a new one! Unit isn't selling well, add a 5+ Invul save to it! Entire army isn't doing well, change the rules edition so that army CAN do even better than the popular one!) but true 'balance' would create a vulnerability in their IP from their point of view.

[Asp]

Generally, GW does 2); the only problem is that they have no consistency or transparency in how they evaluate points value. Why does a Space Marine cost 15 points when an Imperial Guardsman costs 6? Why does a Greater Daemon cost what, 150 points where an Avatar costs 80?

this is what they do, and this is *more fun* than mirrored armies as in chess. but the reason GW will never be succesful in achieving a well balanced wargame is because they update too seldomly. they should have all army lists as free pdfs and update them every 60-90 days on the basis of competitive player feedback

as long as they pussyfoot around the way they do now, warhammer will never be more than a beer and pretzils game

[zoggin-eck]

"Balance" in a toy soldiers game makes sense, but isn't what 40k of WHFB have ever been about. I do feel that the 8th ed. books aren't crazy out of balance, but then they go and make it a point of releasing campaign books and expansions where it's meant to be played for "fun" (I know, many find totally balanced games fun, too) where the scenarios and armies aren't necessarily even.

Take a look at Rick Priestly. The moment he left, he went even further and made games where there are no point limits, trusting the players to just get on with playing the game. Historical battles were not even, so I don't see why Warhammer should be any different!

His whole "gentleman's agreement" type attitude to games is still in Warhammer today, even if Warhammer hasn't been "his" for a few editions.

they should have all army lists as free pdfs and update them every 60-90 days on the basis of competitive player feedback

Why should they, exactly? This doesn't seem to match their target audience or business model. It actually is one of the most bizzare ideas I've heard of for a toy soldiers game.

as long as they pussyfoot around the way they do now, warhammer will never be more than a beer and pretzils game

That's what it is, anyway.

[Mirbeau]

this is what they do, and this is *more fun* than mirrored armies as in chess. but the reason GW will never be succesful in achieving a well balanced wargame is because they update too seldomly. they should have all army lists as free pdfs and update them every 60-90 days on the basis of competitive player feedback

as long as they pussyfoot around the way they do now, warhammer will never be more than a beer and pretzils game

With all due respect, so long as remains a game that involves a large degree of collaboration and trust (in measurements etc..) between players, it will remain a 'beer and pretzels affair' - no matter how much they strive for balance. Which I'm glad about. I don't belive precision possible in a table-top game (or neccessarily desirable, though I doubt many would share that view).

Besides, they don't seem to have the same vision for warhammer that you do, they produce rules for miniatures, rather than miniatures for rules, for better or worse.

[ForgottenLore]

You can never achieve complete balance with a miniature wargame for a simple reason. There are elements of the game that are beyond the designer's control. For example, how effective a model/unit is is determined, in part, by the make up of the terrain it fights in. If you are trying to create a master formula for calculating points for a unit there is no way to take terrain into account. How much do you value a Tau pulse rifle? Well, it depends on how much LoS blocking terrain gets used. The designers can set guidelines for this, but they can't really control it and so the point values derived for any given unit are always going to be slightly off.

[DeeKay]

In a game that is played using tape measures to determine range, balance is almost impossible as it is. In a game using squares or some other form of grid as a playing field, it would be easier.

Regarding unit choices, it cannot be done unless every army has access to exactly the same type of unit, with exactly the same points cost. As a side note, Privateer Press has streamlined their points system for Mk2 and by and large they've done a good job. Having said that, I'll be the first to say that there are still options that are not worth the points, or simply cannot compare to options available for the same cost in other factions, even mercs available to said faction. The Gun Mage Captain Adept being a good example.

If vehicles took damage in the same way as infantry, that would be a step in the right direction. At present, we have a mechanic for infantry (roll to hit, then to wound, then roll saves) and a different one for vehicles (roll to hit, then to penetrate, roll cover saves if applicable, then roll damage). Maybe if some weapons did multiple wounds and vehicles came with a damage and armour profile to bring them mechanically closer to infantry? Perhaps even having some weapons specifically listed as antitank ala Epic?

If we wanted to make 40k or WFB a completely air-tight system, it probably wouldn't be fun for the people that joined in having experienced the more roleplay elements of earlier editions. I suppose it depends on what sort of game GW decide to make it.

With regards,
Dan.

[Trasvi]

I think it is a hard problem which is exacerbated by GW's rules release strategy. If you look at high-profile RTS games (Starcraft), the developers rapidly release patches and bug fixes when they decide that a particular unit or strategy is too powerful. Granted, they only have three factions, but there is still immense variation between the factions.

Another part of the problem is GW's insistence on costing everything on a per-model basis, when this often doesn't make sense. A unit of 12 Firewarriors is not twice as useful as 6 firewarriors. Three railguns is more than three times as good as one railgun. Privateer Press and others get away with this in their tiered pricing: 5pts for 6 models or 8 points for 10.

Atop that, we have balancing unit rules against sales. The oft-cited example is the Tyranid codex: this may not have been done on purpose, but Carnifexes went from being the staple unit of many armies to playing tervigon-counts-as.

GW also does a lot of balancing for theme. Dark Elf Warriors are deliberately undercosted because GW think that the DE army should be built around big blocks of warriors. Sometimes this makes a lot of sense - a strong close combat unit is worth much more to a Tau army than it is to a Tyranid army.

And finally, some abilities are inherently difficult to cost. A powersword is worth its weight in gold against a Deathwing army but its pretty useless against Guardsmen. A markerlight increases the value of OTHER units. How do you cost Lash Princes or Jaws of the Wolf? A cost formula only works for the very simplest of cases, and we know that GW doesn't leave too many of them in the game anymore.

[ModelCalamity]

I think the more important question is if perfect balance is needed a all?

The most fun games I have had have been massive free for all games with wacky and story based scenario rules. They are like many historical war-games imbalanced from the start. Is this a real problem? I don't think so. History only really remembers the generals that pulled of wins despite bad odds. Very few are remembered for winning when their odds are stacked in their favour.

I know that not everybody sees games in the same light as me and that is fine. But as the second post in this thread already says. Balance seems to come at a cost. The underlying theme to those costs is a lack of freedom to do certain things in a game.

A good example of this is LOTR. In many ways LOTR is the most balanced game in GW. However the difference in units and abilities is very minimal. A gondor army compared to Easterlings is very much alike. Whilst this creates some real tactical games. There is little room for the real wacky stuff to build your army around like in WFB.

Could GW balance some armies better? Maybe. It seems like they are doing that nicely with the latest WFB books. If 40k goes the same route we are in for a really fun time. I still think the current system is not in as bad a shape as some people say. I drew against a GK WAAC list 4 times with my new necrons. And that was against a veteran tournament player. But my main point is still do we really need perfect balance?

[lanrak]

Hi all.
There are wargames that are historical refights.
There are wargames that are narrative driven that do NOT us any sort of PV.They just rely on the experiance and co-operation of the players.

And there are those games developed for competative play.Where the is the requirement to have provalble levels of (im)ballance.
These use PV limits to determine the size of game and allocate PV to elements within the game.


And of course there are those games that have a narrative element AND PV to get 'ballanced ' senario play.

GW plc is NOT bothered about the game play of WHFB or 40k.The game devs might be but they are not in charge .
(Possibly why so many have left GW plc behind and are doing what they do best elswhere?)

IF GW plc WAS interested in game play, they would cost the elements at the level of interaction .EG PV for a UNIT as 40k/WHFB games are about unit interaction.
Not cost at the individual model/equipment level ,(micro manage,) then even things out at the army level,(macromange.)And totaly miss out the point of interaction the unit level.

But as GW plc ''...is in the buisnes of selling toy soldiers to children...''acording to the Chairman of the board.(Mr kirby.)
Having 'inspiring rules' to sell new minatures short term , is more important then balanced rules to sell ALL minatures long term, according to Mr Kirby.
Possibly why other game companies seem to be growing while GW plc keeps loosing sales volumes?

Anyhow back in the day of RT, there was a points allocation system.It was basic and not very accurate, but could have been improved.(EG paying for balistic skill even if the model didnt have a ranged weapon!)
But rather than modify the PV allocation system , they just threw in loads of additiaonal rules to make clear and easy PV allocation practicticaly impossible.

Now we are left with subjective development that can not be proven at any point only subjectivley assessed.(I think its OTT you think its nerfed, type of debate.)

There are lots of ways to build armies using more subtle methods that dont scream 'this should be ballanced better.'And if 40k is a narrative game then less emphasis on PV and more emphasis on narrative would be seen as prudent perhaps?

If people wanted actual provable levels of (im)ballance in 40k, then more suitable game mechanics and resolution methods would be needed to get proportional results from in game interaction. EG move away from using dice in a deterministic way.

[Shamutanti]

warhammer will never be more than a beer and pretzils game

Don't see anything wrong with that in truth - there's 'competitive' games out there for those that want it. I wouldn't even say games like Malifaux or Infinity are competitively driven either to be fair. But then I would argue there's a bigger trend of people who just play for the fun, kicking back with some mates, drinks and having a laugh than any other group.

Having 'inspiring rules' to sell new minatures short term , is more important then balanced rules to sell ALL minatures long term, according to Mr Kirby.
Possibly why other game companies seem to be growing while GW plc keeps loosing sales volumes?

Inspiring rules and inspiring background (coupled with inspiring models) are food for the imagination.

I rarely encounter people who discuss the problems of balancing and rules in the general GW world. Heck, I've heard more squabbling over PP game rules (even though they're obvious tested far more) than over GW ones. Additionally it does seem to be that the only people who do tend to kick up a stink concerning rules/balance/etc. are those who frequent online forums or mingle with those who do (funny that :P )

Heck, most the kids I've met who play are only interested in drilling their opponents eyes out with the nastiest **** in town regardless of how that makes their opponent feel. If it happens to look fricking cool and have some sweet background all the better, so at that point Balance is out of the question because it's just youth has a way of being truly remorseless :P

[xxRavenxx]

With regards to balance, the thing to look at is where you place the fulcrum.

Do you balance Side A vs. Side B? Do you balance Unit A vs. Unit B? Do you ignore balance entirely, but make sure you top up the good stuff in one army whenever it falls behind?

People often claim that PP do balance well, but they actually ignore a huge portion of their models. I remember during the beta test of hordes mk2, their designers specifically stated that one faction was fine because it had a single powerful tournament build, so could always compete. Each faction now has 30-40% unusable stuff lurking about, either surpassed by newer (And thusly better) models, or by just being plain garbage compared to the good units. Ballance is achieved purely because once everyone has optimised their army, some semblance of balance ensues.

WotC address power on a completely different level. They deliberately make a spectrum, wherin some MTG cards are deliberately better or worse, and expect a player to sift a set for the good items, and combine them into an efficient playset. This adds extra layers in that simply throwing all the good items into one deck wont make it good, but a selection of "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" cards carefully blended will do so.

GW balance army vs. army. They slipped up with GKs a fair bit, but overall if you take any singular army in warhammer or 40k, and match it to another, without spamming powerful choices, and simply selecting "cool stuff", a reasonably fair game will ensue. Games such as Warmachine cannot claim this, as if you randomly select an army (via picking nice models, or just not knowing "what works") you will be CRUSHED by an opponent who got lucky in their choices, and ended up with a much more powerful unit or warcaster than you, or simply more synergy.


In the end GW aims for balance based on the players behaving themselves. PP aim for it by assuming players won't do anything but powergame. Neither approach is right or wrong, but both approaches break down if the wrong sort of player attempts to play the game.

[Trasvi]

So you're saying that if both people in Warhammer/40k pick equally stupid lists with no strategy, they game should be balanced? Or at least, you're saying thats the way that GW designed it? I feel that is a terrible way to 'balance' an army - once you progress to a decent list of any sort, the balance will go out the window. Expecting both players to 'behave themselves' is pretty optimistic. In a game marketed towards teenagers, where the overriding theme in many armies is 'kill them with prejudice and fire!', you don't have a hoope in hell of both players behaving. In 40k, if both people build the best possible list for their faction and both players are equal skill, certain armies have huge advantages. 40k might not be marketed as highly competitive; but it is a game where the result is that one player will win, so competitiveness is bound to show up sooner rather than later.

Balance isn't an impossible thing to achieve. I think it is inevitable that there will always be some Rock-Paper-Scissors matchups, but overall it shouldn't be too hard to find out what is right and wrong with a particular army and adjust the points as required.

[xxRavenxx]

So you're saying that if both people in Warhammer/40k pick equally stupid lists with no strategy, they game should be balanced? Or at least, you're saying thats the way that GW designed it? I feel that is a terrible way to 'balance' an army - once you progress to a decent list of any sort, the balance will go out the window. Expecting both players to 'behave themselves' is pretty optimistic. In a game marketed towards teenagers, where the overriding theme in many armies is 'kill them with prejudice and fire!', you don't have a hoope in hell of both players behaving.

I'm saying that if two people in warhammer or 40k put together a list based on things in the book they think have cool rules or models, not much goes awry. Similarly, it is entirely possible for two people to play against each other while "behaving" (ie. not trying to cheese it up.)

Under those circumstances balance is pretty good.

Under the circumstances of mech guard, purifier spam and the like, the game takes on a very different tone. GW could have done a little better to ballance out some of these things, but its not so big an issue in a game played to a more casual pace.

[-DE-]

I'm saying that if two people in warhammer or 40k put together a list based on things in the book they think have cool rules or models, not much goes awry. Similarly, it is entirely possible for two people to play against each other while "behaving" (ie. not trying to cheese it up.)

Under those circumstances balance is pretty good.

Under the circumstances of mech guard, purifier spam and the like, the game takes on a very different tone. GW could have done a little better to ballance out some of these things, but its not so big an issue in a game played to a more casual pace.

Let's see... one player takes a fluffy mechanized Steel Legion force supported by LR's and some artillery. The other takes a fluffy foot Alaitoc force (or, heck, a foot Orc list!). Guess which one wins?

Another example - one player takes a fluffy GK force comprised of several 5-man Strike squads in razorbacks with psycannons, a Stormraven with Termies, a dreadnought, and a Librarian. The other takes a fluffy vanilla SM list that includes a Captain with lightning claws, some tactical squads in rhinos, a sniper scout squad, and heavy support in the form of predators and landspeeders. Guess which one wins?

Let's not even consider a Carnifex-heavy Tyranid list against any GK or DE force...

Lack of balance becomes evident during casual play too, not just tournaments. It's not fun to play with your friends if your opponent has a 66% likelihood of winning, whereas yours is capped at 33%... Sure, you will win one in three games, but how does that make up for the fact that two times out of three you're going to get pounded based not on your skill, but the army you chose to play?

[Galfinnan]

On a side note golf has a the par system to balance players against one another. It would interesting to see if it would be possible to use a similar system to balance games perhaps based on win/loss. Although I do think such a system would be so open to abuse it might not be worthwhile.

[Galfinnan]

Perfect balance is a dream to be honest. Blizzard can't balance world of warcraft with very regular updates and massive resources compared to GW and the constant tinkering is probably more annoying than being almost permanently at a slight disadvantage. I played WoW for 5 years as a Paladin. In that time I went from being a DPS god to completely garbage and back again so many times it got unbearable. Believe me you don't want GW to start putting out regular Faq's to army's in an attempt to tinker balance. I think the best approach would be to that when a new edition comes out everyone gets a new codex, all written in the context of the new rules. I really don't think it would impossible to do this, difficult yes and would hurt GW in the pocket over a longer term but it would, however, allow them to shift their focus onto other things.

[Trasvi]

Perfect balance is a dream to be honest. Blizzard can't balance world of warcraft with very regular updates and massive resources compared to GW and the constant tinkering is probably more annoying than being almost permanently at a slight disadvantage. I played WoW for 5 years as a Paladin. In that time I went from being a DPS god to completely garbage and back again so many times it got unbearable.

Considering that in those 5 years you went through 4 'editions', had at least 3 re-imaginings of your class, and had to be balanced against 30 other class/spec combo's in all areas of tank/dps/healing in solo/pvp/5-man/raid over 85 levels, I think blizzard did a reasonably good job. No matter which phase of the cycle you're at in the current WoW meta, you're a hell of a lot better off than you were as a pally in molten core raiding...

Given the limitations of the medium of 40k over WoW, 'frequent' errata to keep balance probably isn't the way to go, but scheduled on a yearly basis might work.
However, a lot of the hassle could be cut out with some simple balance tests, not even playing games:
1) Write up the rules for a unit. Give the single unit rules to 5 tournament players and ask them to evaluate the different options the unit has. Are there certain choices which always make sense because of cost ratios?
2) Similarly, after all units are done individually, check between units in a single FOC slot. Does it always make sense to take particular units?
3) Check all FOC's against each other, in particular paying attention to where certain types of abilities (anti-tank, power weapons) come from.
4) Build a few army lists.
With a few hours of mathhammer you could probably identify the major causes of internal unbalance. Before even putting a unit on the table, you can identify which units are must-haves and which will never see the light of day, and this can be fixed either by adjusting points costs or by rethinking the army design. And then a scalar multiplier helps you get within balance range of the other armies.
At least, thats how I would do it and thats how I've balanced fan-made codices in the past...

[Tarax]

However, a lot of the hassle could be cut out with some simple balance tests, not even playing games:
1) Write up the rules for a unit. Give the single unit rules to 5 tournament players and ask them to evaluate the different options the unit has. Are there certain choices which always make sense because of cost ratios?
2) Similarly, after all units are done individually, check between units in a single FOC slot. Does it always make sense to take particular units?
3) Check all FOC's against each other, in particular paying attention to where certain types of abilities (anti-tank, power weapons) come from.
4) Build a few army lists.

This I like. And I'd like to add: If a unit has several weapon options, start with one and see at what point-level they will switch to another. Eg. Necron Immortals have a Gauss Blaster. They can have a Tesla Carbine. Will they switch at 10 ppm? No. Will they switch at 5ppm? No. Will they switch for free? Maybe, depends on preference. So a Gauss Blaster and a Tesla Carbine are of equal value. (FYI, in the Codex they are.)

"But your basic 20-points Tomb Blades still pack a heavier punch than a Necron Immortal yet also benefit from increased manoeuvrability." WD389, May 2012.
yep, they know when something is balanced.

[Mr Ogre]

This I like. And I'd like to add: If a unit has several weapon options, start with one and see at what point-level they will switch to another. Eg. Necron Immortals have a Gauss Blaster. They can have a Tesla Carbine. Will they switch at 10 ppm? No. Will they switch at 5ppm? No. Will they switch for free? Maybe, depends on preference. So a Gauss Blaster and a Tesla Carbine are of equal value. (FYI, in the Codex they are.)

"But your basic 20-points Tomb Blades still pack a heavier punch than a Necron Immortal yet also benefit from increased manoeuvrability." WD389, May 2012.
yep, they know when something is balanced.

Neatly overlooking the inferior save (that costs more to match), the smaller unit size available, and that Immortals have far less competition for their slots.... Immortals can win me the game, Tomb Blades can't. All would have to be factored in. And frankly, I haven't the foggiest where to begin.