The hunt for balance!

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

To me it seems very odd that a fun game is an unbalanced one. If it is indeed a 'beer and pretzels' game (who the hell eats pretzels with beer?) shouldn't the objective be that you can pick it up an have a game with anyone with a fair chance of winning?

Haha, good question - who does eat pretzels with beer?

Anyways, I suppose I can't speak to others' use of the term but at least when I say a "beer'n'pretzels" game I don't mean so much to do with the actual game mechanics themselves as the incoming attitudes of the players. If you're sitting down for a low-key, casual gaming session that to me is a "beer'n'pretzels" game and in that type of setting I find players are less likely to worry about balance issues, to a point. Of course massively uneven sides are still no fun (usually for either player, although obviously less fun for the disadvantaged player), but if no one came to the table with a WAAC list and instead both built what they thought were just fun and fluffy armies, I think there's less of a chance that one is going to a) stumble upon a killer army, b) play that army terribly efficiently, and/or c) be as hung up on how well the army does.

Obviously, as has been pointed out in this thread, some fluffy armies in some games are more competitive than others, but that doesn't mean that the player has necessarily realized it or that the player is going to use highly competitive strategies. Depends on the players and the atmosphere.

So it's not that a fun game is an unbalanced one, but rather that an unbalanced game can still be fun if it's not a particularly competitive game, again to a point. Huge discrepancies in balance would of course still throw that off.

I have no experience with WM/H, but as I understand it that's not really a game where you build your list based on which models you like the look of, and if you're not playing competitively you're probably not going to have a lot of fun because you'll get hosed every time. In a game like that, balance is a lot more important, because it's the balance that allows highly competitive play to be fun. And of course that's the issue with GW games - there are a lot of balance issues and at the same time a lot of people do enjoy playing them competitively.

A beer and pretzels game can be balanced, too - that doesn't give a free ride to excuse GW's laziness. And what could be more beer-and-pretzels (well, OK, soda-and-cookies) than Pokemon? Yet it's remarkably well balanced; there's no one team build that can ruin every SINGLE other team build out there even at the highest level of play (and we're talking obsessed Pokenerds who make even the beardiest git of GW games look like a player who's just picked up his first Space Marine).

Yeah I'm not giving GW a free pass, and I kind of get the impression that balance is maybe worse off now than when I was playing regularly. On the flipside, I don't think of pokemon as beer'n'pretzels/soda'n'cookies at all, it seems like something that people play almost exclusively in a tournament setting (maybe just my perception of ccg's?).

I'm not saying that beer'n'pretzels games can't be balanced, but rather that noticeably unbalanced games are almost doomed to only be beer'n'pretzels games, since you can't be too serious about winning or losing and still have fun. And as before, some semblance of balance is still important. The magnitude by which one force is just plain better than the other has a lot to do with how well you can just sit down and enjoy a game. If one army has a clear, but small, advantage that's not such a big deal.

Now, admittedly the problems with 40k and WFB stem from their, shall we say, obsolete nature? The basic mechanics are rooted in gameplay that works on a small scale (20-30 models at most on a side), a statement amply proved by the playability of Necromunda/Mordheim. 28mm minis are just not MEANT for large-scale games.

Funny you should bring Mordheim up because, while a lot of fun (and my favorite GW game by far), it is definitely not what I would call a balanced game. I do agree, though, that with the amount of stuff going on with any one figure in a game of WFB/40K they would be much better suited to 20-30 models per side.

Also for what it's worth I'm definitely not opposed to competitive gaming or playing to win. I think my post kind of reads that way, which isn't the case. Just where my opinion falls on balance issues - balance is crucial to the enjoyment of a more competitive game and without finely tuned balance a game is better off in the "beer'n'pretzels" category because it can still be enjoyable. Just depends on what you want out of that gaming session.

[Inquisitor Kallus]

GW even admits their lack of vision: each book is written by a different person, with different editorial orders, and tested by different people.

How on earth do you see that as them admitting a lack of vision, its simply a matter of giving others an opportunity. All the games companys have visions as do GW, and its not all just about making money though all the miniatures companys have that somewhere in their aggenda.


Things will never be totally balanced and to be honest that doesnt bother me. Sometimes I enjoy unbalanced games (scenarios etc) but overpowered/strongly undercosted units are not so good. A little bit of tweaking here and there every so often would be good. This may also help placate the tournament players (who are in the minority compared to casual gamers). Also feedback from gamers that is taken on board would probably help out

[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.

[paddyalexander]

I have no experience with WM/H, but as I understand it that's not really a game where you build your list based on which models you like the look of, and if you're not playing competitively you're probably not going to have a lot of fun because you'll get hosed every time.

Actualy its the exact oppisite. There are so few bad model/unit choices in the armies for Warmachine and Hoardes that you can take pretty much anything you like, its just that certain models and units work well with each other that is common to see them in many lists. Out of 11 unique factions there are maybe 12-14 models or units that are very poor. I'm not being punished by the game for taking certain units/models I enjoy the look of or background to, let allow for entire factions/armies/races. I've found that many models or units that get maligned online work very well with my playstyle and that many of the more praised models/units don't click with me.

PPs' games aren't perfectly balanced but they are close. The nature of wargaming is competitive. Two or more players are playing a game to see who will win and have fun while doing so. A clearly/well writen and balanced ruleset allows for this much better than a badly balanced game with a poorly writen/defined ruleset. Two or more players getting together to tell a story is role playing, which is also fun but very different.

Where PPs' systems tend to fall down is that players, especialy new ones, tend to focus on one or two aspects of a list creating a rock paper scissors aspect where they will do well against some lists but not others. Experienced players who know to include counters to the different threats they will face in their lists will usally do better but this can leave an incorrect impression with a player as to the natue of the game. It is also a game where experience and knowllage is rewarded. An inexperienced player can take a "netlist" and not win a single game against an experienced player using less popular choices. Taking elements that work together is important but so is knowing how to use them.

The problem of adding any balance to WHFB or 40k is that right now the entire system is horribly imbalanced. There are entire armies in both systems where you are punished for playing them and there are armies where you get punished for taking anything but a very small selection of the choices available to you. Even if you release a perfect core ruleset the army books/codexes are still all horribly imbalanced both externaly & internaly. You would have to update all of the armies/factions/races over a short period of time, with a lot of playtesting involved (something that gwPLC currently doesn't do according to interviews with their former games developers).

Many would say that's impossible but PP released a new army or core rule book a month (there was a delay in the middle from a ship being imponded by customs) over the course 14 months when they did their edition update. Why can't gwPLC?

To me "Beer & Pretzels" games are fun short party games that I can play with my brain switched off and swimming in stout or ale. I own many games that fall into that catagory. I play wargames because I like to be engaged intellectualy both by the game I'm playing and my opponent. gwPLC games fail to provide either of these to me, being too clunky and expensive to justify being a party game and too one dimensional, poorly writen and imbalanced to provide any sort of intellectual stimulation.

[Miredorf]

A difference in learning curve is an acceptable cost for a more characterful ruleset, but if you are specifically looking for a more difficult challenge, you should just field a smaller army (1,500 points to their 1,750) or use some other self-imposed challenge. Someone who likes Eldar more than Space Marines (or vice versa) should not be penalised just because GW has arbitrarily decided that one is for veterans only.

Agreed, completely.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

Actualy its the exact oppisite. There are so few bad model/unit choices in the armies for Warmachine and Hoardes that you can take pretty much anything you like, its just that certain models and units work well with each other that is common to see them in many lists.

Sorry, ought to have elaborated because this is more or less what I meant. Not that there are crummy models, but that picking haphazardly based on what you like is unlikely to have any synergy, and WM/H is about have a list that works well together more-so than having a single beatstick unit with filler (as can be the case in some games, and strikes me as a mark of poor balance).

[Trasvi]

Sorry, ought to have elaborated because this is more or less what I meant. Not that there are crummy models, but that picking haphazardly based on what you like is unlikely to have any synergy, and WM/H is about have a list that works well together more-so than having a single beatstick unit with filler (as can be the case in some games, and strikes me as a mark of poor balance).

I'm curious as to what games DO work well like this? A lot of 40k is about synergy as well, or at least making sure you have all your bases covered. Picking a 'random' Tyranids army is going to fail against nearly all other 'random' armies because you probably won't end up with anti-tank (as an example).

[aenimosity]

I really can't fathom how 40k can be as imbalanced as it is - it's as if the codex designers develop their rules in a bunker somewhere with with no thought for pre-existing (and future) codexes. I once read in a MtG article that the designers specifically add certain cards which aren't particularly powerful in themselves, but act as "pressure releases". These cards help prevent certain builds from being to powerful or provide a solution to a colour being completely dominated by another.

I suppose the advantage that MtG designers have is that each colour receives new cards and rules at the same time, but even still, It's this level of thinking that GW rules designers should utilise for external balance. Unfortunately, as it is you end up with situations like GK vs Tyranids: an uphill slog the whole way.

[Kaptajn_Congoboy]

I'm curious as to what games DO work well like this? A lot of 40k is about synergy as well, or at least making sure you have all your bases covered. Picking a 'random' Tyranids army is going to fail against nearly all other 'random' armies because you probably won't end up with anti-tank (as an example).

Very few miniature games work well just throwing something together against well thought-out compositions. I believe Whitwort Stormbringer is confusing his attitude to the game with the game mechanics - WM/H is just as well suited to casual gaming as any other miniatures game, because that depends on the players' attitude rather than the rules. Games that rely a lot on randomness, however, will see less experienced players doing better against more experienced players more consistently when the numbers even themselves out. They will, however, also create a lot of frustration for both experienced and inexperienced players.

When it comes to GW games and the question of balance, I believe it depends heavily on their entire structure for getting out new books, the cycle system (which is used both for editions and army books/codexes). It is potentially a perpetual motion machine for their games...or a machine that drives their games into the ground in intervals. While one author gets the "credit" for army books, I doubt one can blame it all on him - unless the design process has been designed by complete gerbils, there must be input coming in from the other designers as well.

[xxRavenxx]

Sorry, ought to have elaborated because this is more or less what I meant. Not that there are crummy models, but that picking haphazardly based on what you like is unlikely to have any synergy, and WM/H is about have a list that works well together more-so than having a single beatstick unit with filler (as can be the case in some games, and strikes me as a mark of poor balance).

This is absoloutely true. Also, there are some heavingly bad models in the WM/H range. Notably the old ones, of cause.

But yes. If you just assemble a nice looking army in warmachine, you have huge odds on having assembled something useless. Every army has power choices, synergies that are required, etc. You were right in your assertation that if you don't tool up, you'll just lose. I remember playing a dozen crushing losses with my menoth, before switching a unit, and redoing the arms on a plastic jack to get some specific items into the list, and then moving from autolosing to putting up a good fight. (I'm still sure too, that were I to abandon my "crusade" theme, I'd do 5x better again for using more of the power units.)

Very few miniature games work well just throwing something together against well thought-out compositions. I believe Whitwort Stormbringer is confusing his attitude to the game with the game mechanics - WM/H is just as well suited to casual gaming as any other miniatures game, because that depends on the players' attitude rather than the rules.

I disagree with this. When our local group started on warmachine, the casual players loathed it. Especially since one random casual list would absoloutely crush another based on the random choices made. Compare say, the player who starts with Gaspy and thralls vs. the player who starts with Rhyas and 4 shredders. Its horribly lopsided.

[Kaptajn_Congoboy]

I disagree with this. When our local group started on warmachine, the casual players loathed it. Especially since one random casual list would absoloutely crush another based on the random choices made. Compare say, the player who starts with Gaspy and thralls vs. the player who starts with Rhyas and 4 shredders. Its horribly lopsided.

And this (I presume there were other models in those lists) cannot happen in other game systems? Of course it can. And it does. And when I write "casual", I do not mean "random".

[Trasvi]

And this (I presume there were other models in those lists) cannot happen in other game systems? Of course it can. And it does. And when I write "casual", I do not mean "random".

My thoughts exactly... when I first started playing 40k, my entirely-firewarrior and XV15 list got trampled by my friend's ultramarine list...
(well actually, that never happened, but it seems an equally ridiculous statement. if you go into a game with no semblance of list balance or strategy you get what you put in).

[Kaptajn_Congoboy]

My example of that would be in the hoary days of...the WHFB edition with the magic cards and goblins vs high elves in the starter. A single casting of Assault of Stones (move a hill Xd6 inches, make an I test or suffer a wound if you are in contact with the hill at any point during the movement) wiped out something like three-quarters of an O&G army. And this was with armies built around the starter box.

[2ndCompanyVeterans]

@aenimosity
What you are refering to in MTG is a silver bullet and they are caused by poor design and are used to neuter un fun decks. The game Versus both Marvel and DC were games that displayed where magic should have gone in design and balance. Until the swan song set it was quite a well balanced game. Unfortunately the game is no longer in sale..... which says something about good game balance and longevity. Reality is people like new and improved.

[Kijamon]

The main problem with the balancing of the games is that GW can never account for the players!

Look at the Space Wolf codex and blood claws. People instantly say "Not worth it" and go for grey hunters. They build entire armies without sticking one unit of blood claws in. Then they look at the HQ choices, wolf priest - not worth it, rune priests are better.

Actually, if you put both of those units in and run them together, they are quite deadly on the battlefield

If the internet didn't exist I'm sure that the average joe wouldn't complain about balance nearly as much.

[Inquisitor Kallus]

There is quite a big difference when comparing MtG and Warhammer games in that MtG is basically set up all around winning. True there are some similarities in that you play against an opponent, but Warhammer and indeed most tabletop games are a lot more open than the confines of a card game. Theres also the point that it is not just a game, its a lot more than that which for me gives it more lee-way in the rules not being perfect.

Warhammer was never designed with tournament play in mind as such and a lot of other peoples comments on here are very true. Though it would be nice if there was more for some of the more OTT things.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

I'm curious as to what games DO work well like this? A lot of 40k is about synergy as well, or at least making sure you have all your bases covered. Picking a 'random' Tyranids army is going to fail against nearly all other 'random' armies because you probably won't end up with anti-tank (as an example).

A lot of GW games I've played have felt this way, to be honest - a couple of heavy hitters are the clear mvp's while other units obviously aren't entirely ineffectual, but don't necessarily pull their weight either. I used to play some of the clix games and they often had that feel as well.

Very few miniature games work well just throwing something together against well thought-out compositions. I believe Whitwort Stormbringer is confusing his attitude to the game with the game mechanics - WM/H is just as well suited to casual gaming as any other miniatures game, because that depends on the players' attitude rather than the rules.

I'm sure that's the case - like I said I really don't have any experience with the game so it's just based on what people have told me or games I've observed at the local store. I assume any game can be played casually, it just seems that that's not most people's approach to WM/H and that the game rewards experience and competitive list-building moreso than most games.

Naturally, I don't mean to imply that a truly random "units drawn blindly from the army book" armies are likely to do well against an army that someone put together, but beyond the basic framework of an army (in very broad terms something like leader/grunts/monster/war machine), some games are more forgiving than others regarding how synergistic your units are, and two players who have each built an army of units they like within that kind of standard framework, rather than units that they've considered based on their synergy, can be reasonably well matched. I've been out of the GW loop for a couple years now, so maybe synergy is a bigger part of those games than it used to be.

I also think Kaptain_Congoboy made a good point about random elements - more random elements obviously takes some control out of players' hands, giving you less to plan for and probably rewarding inexperienced players moreso than a game where you can heavily rely on strong builds and synergistic lists to consistently do well.

[Avatar_exADV]

The thing about Warmachine and newbies is that its balance is very different from the balance of 40K, which is mostly dependent on stat line - small changes in the S, T, armor save, etc. have a significant change on the performance of the unit, and there are relatively few things which radically change unit performance (say, "everything has a power weapon") and those interactions are fairly easy to understand ("well, no armor saves").

In Warmachine, small changes to most of the stat line are relatively meaningless - a DEF 11 unit is only a little bit more difficult to hit than a DEF 10 one. The key to the game is changing the probability equations by creating situations where you add (or occasionally, subtract) dice. WG and Kovnik Joe - a unit that's relatively inaccurate but hard-hitting cheap infantry becomes a veritable doomscythe with the addition of that extra die to hit (on 10-12 guys!) THAT sort of thing is harder to model intellectually, especially given that a rookie won't have heard of most of the combinations he'll be running into which warp that probability equation. By comparison, orks vs. marines are a lot easier to figure out.

As for balance, WM has a lot of different "you can't hurt this" modes. High DEF, high ARM, incorporeal, horde, anti-magic, not to mention funky stuff like damage transfers... All of these things have a high potential to break your list if you don't have the troops to deal with them, yet there's so many different types of this that you simply CAN'T make an all-around list that has the tools you need to deal with everything. With 40K, writing a list and then buying that army can be perfectly valid if you write up a pretty good all-comers list (and assuming your chosen army's competitive, which all of 'em aren't, to be sure.) With WM, to be competitive, you change your list like you change your underwear.

Let's put it a different way - WM is balanced just fine IF you're constantly listing against your opponent, which is generally considered grossly impolite among 40K players. But within that restriction, it is a well-balanced game.

[aenimosity]

@aenimosity
What you are refering to in MTG is a silver bullet and they are caused by poor design and are used to neuter un fun decks.

That's sort of the point I was going for. I wouldn't consider the 40k ruleset to be excellently designed - the thing is that the MTG designers recognise that when a new card set reaches the playerbase, there will be many more people working on how to get the most out of spamming and exploiting cards and their effects. Even though they playtest until they consider a set to be fairly solid, they put in those silver bullets as a safety net. In contrast, the GW rules often seem to be not only poorly thought out - but created in a vacuum.

I don't think the silver bullet method is the answer for GW because they release rules for armies individually, but more a reverse style of thinking: Will codex X have a solution/counter to the unit/rule being written for codex Y? The solution can be thought of in more broad concepts such as: "well weight of numbers in codex X will balance out the superior CC ability of codex Y" - but this would have to take into consideration the more specific rules of the BRB - such as No Retreat wounds and the spillover effect of this being applied to all units on the losing side.

I think the designers need to pull their heads out of their asses and do some real work instead of taking the afternoon off each day after spending the morning writing average rules.

There is quite a big difference when comparing MtG and Warhammer games in that MtG is basically set up all around winning. True there are some similarities in that you play against an opponent, but Warhammer and indeed most tabletop games are a lot more open than the confines of a card game. Theres also the point that it is not just a game, its a lot more than that which for me gives it more lee-way in the rules not being perfect.

Warhammer was never designed with tournament play in mind as such and a lot of other peoples comments on here are very true. Though it would be nice if there was more for some of the more OTT things.

I don't actually agree with this. I know that in MtG there's not as much thought put into fluffy lists by players (although I still have a soft spot for a slowly evolving old Lorwyn Goblin deck) and that it is primarily about winning - but just about every single game that anyone plays is about winning - whether it's playing against a person or a computer, you as a player are seeking to try and get the upper hand on your opponent. You may have devised a fantastic storyline or scenario where one side is outnumbered or outgunned but both players are seeking a (depending on the side) crushing victory or glorious well-fought defeat. I don't think it takes away from narrative to be trying to win a game - that's the whole point. Though it's not the be all and end all, there's no point in playing a game if there's no challenge. I like that challenge to be on my own terms though. Purposefully taking less points than an opponent is a very different scenario to having an army that is much weaker even with equal points levels, not through poor personal unit selection - but with poor units to choose from in contrast to your opponent.

40k would be viable for tournament play if they could tighten everything up. I'd probably still never play in a tournament setting, but I'd definitely appreciate playing a ruleset that doesn't throw in a wtf moment every time I play.

[J.P. Biff]

Rules and army books are only as balanced as the players that use them.