The heavy hand of GW balancing returns...

[Kasper]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The thing that gets kicked back a lot is that some groups only run optimal lists, so casual players have to hope for other casual players lol.  

At my local the meta started out rather casual, people brought all kind of dumb ****** for fun and giggles. However people got tired of losing eventually and started to look for how to improve their lists. Its almost inevitable that lists eventually start to get towards the more competitive end. 

As much as I like to throw dice and have a laugh, who doesnt want to win?

[Vakarian]

49 minutes ago, Kasper said:

At my local the meta started out rather casual, people brought all kind of dumb ****** for fun and giggles. However people got tired of losing eventually and started to look for how to improve their lists. Its almost inevitable that lists eventually start to get towards the more competitive end. 

As much as I like to throw dice and have a laugh, who doesnt want to win?

This is fundamentally the issue with GW not taking balance seriously. Most people aren’t tournament-level competitive players... but I haven’t met *anyone* that actually likes losing every game. 

[Skreech Verminking]

9 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

This is fundamentally the issue with GW not taking balance seriously. Most people aren’t tournament-level competitive players... but I haven’t met *anyone* that actually likes losing every game. 

This is basically the reason why I stopped playing 40k with my mono Khorne and Rubric sons marines for a while.

they are both great armies, but when you literally can only take of models from the table without ever reaching combat, while dying in droves which will mean total loss every time you play a more shooty army, will make the game rather pathetically boring.

Now halve of those loses probably are my fault for being an idiot in the strategic use of scenery, or basically owning some.

Now considering how aos is working I guess you can call it a big step ahead.

there were times when there was literally a single army with a single list on the top of the so called competitive environment.

I still remember the day when I was taking part on a local Tournament where literally every single player was using the same Daughter of khaine list, just because it was the best out there.

That was horrifying!!

the fact that I was playing mixed skaven with the terrible grand allegiance that doesn’t fit the skaven at all. (Thank god they changed that), made the gameplay experience from horrible, to a extrem Nightmare.

Now at the beginning of 2.0 I wasn’t really that hope-full, for a better balancing of the main problem(s).

But I was literally wrong!

Not to late after they started to announce how they will try and bring as many factions up to date, and with all the battletomes and factions we have gotten so far the balance and competitive environment has changed a lot.

sure some Factions or armies might be a bit weaker than other,

and the balance issue isn’t at a level, where we could call it a day,

but considering how it has been for a long time, before the second edition arrived, and the poster-thing or storm-things player were almost suffocating under their huge pile of uncountable units, I would probably call it a much better system than before.

Yeah I do agree that there are always a few problems, and uncertainty roaming the internet, but looking at the tournament scene right now, I actually think it has gotten so much better.

unlike before where we had almost 70-90percent of the player base using the same faction over and over again, the diversity of those factions have become so much better.

In total I think Games workshop is going towards an interesting goal, although unknown.

 

[Nos]

48 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

This is fundamentally the issue with GW not taking balance seriously. Most people aren’t tournament-level competitive players... but I haven’t met *anyone* that actually likes losing every game. 

This is just a hunch and I wont defend it as anything other than that, but I honestly dont think many people who buy GW things play games with them.

I think if they did it would be a huge issue, because their games are poorly balanced and maintained and GW make no pretense to change this, relying instead on a mutual attitude between players which seems unlikely to me.

I can only see two scenarios in which GW can maintain the popularity it does in the face of these elements:

A) the majority of customers do play the games and just dont care about the imbalance of it all/find a way to create their own balance, and do indeed meet the expectations GW has that people will basically get along 

B) the majority dont even play the games and thus never encounter these issues to begin with. They're happy to buy the stuff for what it is and feel theres enough value in them as models, toys and in the lore. They probably intend to play with them too but the investment required in having or finding the set up to do it is too much. But the pleasure of collecting, painting, just owning even such cool models is perpetual and so long as they're being made, people will continue to buy them.

Strongly suspect its B.

 

[NJohansson]

Internal balance and losing games are different things. The big problem in this thread IMHO is that a lot of people has the attitude of “I should be able to play and win with any model that I like” - that is chess level of balance, it won’t happen. I have played Malifaux, Warmahordes, Infinity, Starwars and a dozen other army based war games - unless the units are identical there are always some units more point efficient than others. What we can hope for is a semi balance between armies - we are not there yet but it is not as bad as it used to be.

Edited January 18, 2020 by NJohansson

[DerZauberer]

This topic will be with games in general as long as the internet exists and i'm amazed people have the time, energy and will to discuss it every. damn. time. Balance does not exist. In no game ever created. I won't talk about chess and white having 52% win-percentage because this was done like a miriad of times. Why are people in warhammer so angry about every imbalance? Because they can't switch from black to white as easily as in chess (that's how meta's form).

But: What i want to state is the immense hyperbole in online discussion today. Theres a lot of people out there doing all the maths and state that e.g. ardboyz are 4.724728% better then brutes point for point in fancy excel sheets. One week later everyone is like "brutes are TRASH" and "avoid them at all costs", "spam ardboyz, so op LMAO".

People pick this imformation up and on TGA, Reddit, Facebook, Club, Store, etc. those informations are caried further. Three weeks after the new tome ardboyz are sold out. Everyone states that ardboyz are the only viable option, brutes are just utterly, horrific trash. People sell all their brutes and make "was it a mistake to buy 10 brutes?" topics on reddit. Each list posted for discussion is critized for taking brutes.
Interesstingly, six weeks later a well-known TGA celeb takes second place in a two day tournament running 25 brutes and 0 ardboyz...

So yes, there are huge imbalances - internal and external - but i remember times playing with a 3rd edition codex against a 6th edition codex in 40k (and both were up to date) and people had fun with it. With 22 factions having 3+ entries in the LVO i assume the game is as healthy as never. There is progress and people who deny it don't know the dark eras of GW. And if this is not enough, we all are allowed to chase the meta.

The community would be better off to point imbalance out, discuss it, but allways make sure to not label everything trash or op immediatly. Because when people only stick to all the OP Stuff - as the internet and netlists told them to - they will compare everything to OP stuff and we never get something simliar to balance.

[JackStreicher]

10 hours ago, DerZauberer said:

This topic will be with games in general as long as the internet exists and i'm amazed people have the time, energy and will to discuss it every. damn. time. Balance does not exist. In no game ever created. I won't talk about chess and white having 52% win-percentage because this was done like a miriad of times. Why are people in warhammer so angry about every imbalance? Because they can't switch from black to white as easily as in chess (that's how meta's form).

But: What i want to state is the immense hyperbole in online discussion today. Theres a lot of people out there doing all the maths and state that e.g. ardboyz are 4.724728% better then brutes point for point in fancy excel sheets. One week later everyone is like "brutes are TRASH" and "avoid them at all costs", "spam ardboyz, so op LMAO".

People pick this imformation up and on TGA, Reddit, Facebook, Club, Store, etc. those informations are caried further. Three weeks after the new tome ardboyz are sold out. Everyone states that ardboyz are the only viable option, brutes are just utterly, horrific trash. People sell all their brutes and make "was it a mistake to buy 10 brutes?" topics on reddit. Each list posted for discussion is critized for taking brutes.
Interesstingly, six weeks later a well-known TGA celeb takes second place in a two day tournament running 25 brutes and 0 ardboyz...

So yes, there are huge imbalances - internal and external - but i remember times playing with a 3rd edition codex against a 6th edition codex in 40k (and both were up to date) and people had fun with it. With 22 factions having 3+ entries in the LVO i assume the game is as healthy as never. There is progress and people who deny it don't know the dark eras of GW. And if this is not enough, we all are allowed to chase the meta.

The community would be better off to point imbalance out, discuss it, but allways make sure to not label everything trash or op immediatly. Because when people only stick to all the OP Stuff - as the internet and netlists told them to - they will compare everything to OP stuff and we never get something simliar to balance.

A lot of words and you actually missed the point.
First off: It's not about competetive play. The comp. scene deals rather well with imbalanced.
The issue is that the "balancing" or let's say "relative powerlevel" of armies is sometimes worlds apart which ruins CASUAL games.

The argument "It's better now than it used to be" is no argument at all, without evolution everything dies. Justifying bad relative powerlevels and bad rules due them having been even worse back in the day is rubbish. GW does too little and them being just the worst a few years back doesn't make the situation now good or something we have to be thankful for.

With these topics we rathert clearly point out imbalance otherwise we would not be posting, would we?

 

Edit: I agree however about swiftly labeling units trash or op.

Edited January 19, 2020 by JackStreicher

[Mcthew]

11 hours ago, DerZauberer said:

This topic will be with games in general as long as the internet exists and i'm amazed people have the time, energy and will to discuss it every. damn. time. Balance does not exist. In no game ever created. I won't talk about chess and white having 52% win-percentage because this was done like a miriad of times. Why are people in warhammer so angry about every imbalance? Because they can't switch from black to white as easily as in chess (that's how meta's form).

But: What i want to state is the immense hyperbole in online discussion today. Theres a lot of people out there doing all the maths and state that e.g. ardboyz are 4.724728% better then brutes point for point in fancy excel sheets. One week later everyone is like "brutes are TRASH" and "avoid them at all costs", "spam ardboyz, so op LMAO".

People pick this imformation up and on TGA, Reddit, Facebook, Club, Store, etc. those informations are caried further. Three weeks after the new tome ardboyz are sold out. Everyone states that ardboyz are the only viable option, brutes are just utterly, horrific trash. People sell all their brutes and make "was it a mistake to buy 10 brutes?" topics on reddit. Each list posted for discussion is critized for taking brutes.
Interesstingly, six weeks later a well-known TGA celeb takes second place in a two day tournament running 25 brutes and 0 ardboyz...

So yes, there are huge imbalances - internal and external - but i remember times playing with a 3rd edition codex against a 6th edition codex in 40k (and both were up to date) and people had fun with it. With 22 factions having 3+ entries in the LVO i assume the game is as healthy as never. There is progress and people who deny it don't know the dark eras of GW. And if this is not enough, we all are allowed to chase the meta.

The community would be better off to point imbalance out, discuss it, but allways make sure to not label everything trash or op immediatly. Because when people only stick to all the OP Stuff - as the internet and netlists told them to - they will compare everything to OP stuff and we never get something simliar to balance.

Too true. I was close to writing a lengthy opinion on this myself, but realised that would eat into good gaming time.

Instead I'm going to play an imbalanced battle (from the Firestorm campaign) facing off 1300 points of Skaventide vs 1500 CoS, expect to be beat, and yet enjoy being the underdog. It's why we watch Zulu, enjoy reading Gates of Fire, and all those other 'against the odds' adventures.

For the record, as an StD player I welcomed the much needed FAQ. The rules were written by someone new and not written how they were meant to be. IMHO, the FAQ is about as heavy handed as Apple rushing out an IOS patch* because the update was faulty.

*disclaimer: I don't use Apple stuff anymore because it never works, but I still play AoS, so go figure.

[Phasteon]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

A lot of words and you actually missed the point.
First off: It's not about competetive play. The comp. scene deals rather well with imbalanced.
The issue is that the "balancing" or let's say "relative powerlevel" of armies is sometimes worlds apart which ruins CASUAL games.

The argument "It's better now than it used to be" is no argument at all, without evolution everything dies. Justifying bad relative powerlevels and bad rules due them having been even worse back in the day is rubbish. GW does too little and them being just the worst a few years back doesn't make the situation now good or something we have to be thankful for.

With these topics we rathert clearly point out imbalance otherwise we would not be posting, would we?

 

Edit: I agree however about swiftly labeling units trash or op.

Ok so here are some fewer words that for sure dont miss the point: 

He is RIGHT about everything and you* are WRONG. 

The premise of this thread that „GW has bad balance“ is wrong and hyperbolic. 

Its just the gap between more competitive and less competitive players playing together at local stores etc. that create an image of armies not being balanced. 

I win 99% of games at my local store and I neither play the best armies nor the best lists. 

*You being all the people that discussed the very same topic for as long as threads about this hobby exist.

[JackStreicher]

Just now, Phasteon said:

He is RIGHT about everything and you* are WRONG. 

The premise of this thread that „GW has bad balance“ is wrong and hyperbolic. 

Its just the gap between more competitive and less competitive players playing together at local stores etc. that create an image of armies not being balanced. 

I win 99% of games at my local store and I neither play the best armies nor the best lists. 

*You being all the people that discussed the very same topic for as long as threads about this hobby exist.

Sorry I am right and you are WRONG XD

Who exactly claimed that GW games were ever balanced? XD

You are funny 😛

[Phasteon]

17 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Sorry I am right and you are WRONG XD

Who exactly claimed that GW games were ever balanced? XD

You are funny 😛

Then define balance properly. 

Units are imbalanced to each other but because every unit/ army composition has strengths and weaknesses other units/ army compositions can exploit the game is balanced in general.

You all are simply wrong about what he and I just pointed out. 

I am objectively right, not funny at all. 

Its sad how negative and toxic the community is, everyone constantly complaining about imbalance instead of upping their game being a part of the problem. Not GW. 

Nothing more to say about this topic. 

 

Edit: Actually, nothing more to say to people like you @JackStreicher, as you will just continue disagreeing anyway. 

Just made this post to support @DerZauberer, as his post was the most reasonable thing I ever read about this painfully overdiscussed topic. 

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Phasteon

[JackStreicher]

25 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Then define balance properly. 

Units are imbalanced to each other but because every unit/ army composition has strengths and weaknesses other units/ army compositions can exploit the game is balanced in general.

You all are simply wrong about what he and I just pointed out. 

I am objectively right, not funny at all. 

Its sad how negative and toxic the community is, everyone constantly complaining about imbalance instead of upping their game being a part of the problem. Not GW. 

Nothing more to say about this topic. 

 

Edit: Actually, nothing more to say to people like you @JackStreicher, as you will just continue disagreeing anyway. 

Just made this post to support @DerZauberer, as his post was the most reasonable thing I ever read about this painfully overdiscussed topic. 

 

I just find you funny since you haven't even read what I wrote but you are making wild claims which have nothing to do with what I said XD but okay be cute

[Phasteon]

6 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I just find you funny since you haven't even read what I wrote but you are making wild claims which have nothing to do with what I said XD but okay be cute

Make an example for those „wild claims“. All you do is calling me random things, so go on being a cyber bully. 

[Phasteon]

I cant understand why Admins let discussions like this continue for so long. There is nothing constructive just people forever disagreeing on the same points over and over again getting personal sooner or later (as @JackStreicher beautifully shows) because they are unable to convince either side. 

After all its the player that enjoy the game that win this discussion because everyone crying about imbalance on the internet is definately just wasting his/her time, creating a place where trolls and toxic people can ****** out rants about GW failing at their job or whatever. 

[JackStreicher]

5 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Make an example for those „wild claims“. All you do is calling me random things, so go on being a cyber bully. 

Easy: Everything you claimed. And now I advice you to read the posts first before you write anything.

This discussion is over now.

[Phasteon]

Just now, JackStreicher said:

Easy: Everything you claimed. And now I advice you to read the posts first before you write anything.

This discussion is over now.

Thanks, this shows exactly what I just wrote 😊👍🏻

So we can surprisingly agree on something: The discussion is over now. 

 

[JackStreicher]

Let's take this to a more focussed approach, shall we?
I opened another thread that is not supposed to be a rambling thread but a collection on opinions.

The Constructive AoS Feedback Thread

[Kamose]

17 hours ago, Vakarian said:

This is fundamentally the issue with GW not taking balance seriously. Most people aren’t tournament-level competitive players... but I haven’t met *anyone* that actually likes losing every game. 

Hi!  I'm Kamose.  I don't mind losing; I just enjoy the chance to play with my toys.  To be fair though, I haven't lost EVERY game I've ever played.  In a dice game like Warhammer where I have the freedom to pick my opponent I'd have to be a ****** or the unluckiest person in history to lose EVERY game!   

3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

First off: It's not about competetive play. The comp. scene deals rather well with imbalanced.

I'm gonna assume you mean tournament play since if you really don't care about being competitive then you, almost by definition, don't care if you lose.

3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

The issue is that the "balancing" or let's say "relative powerlevel" of armies is sometimes worlds apart which ruins CASUAL games.

I would say that if the imbalance between units is ruining casual games then the responsibility for adjusting your gaming experience falls on the players.  GW makes a game that can't satisfy everyone "out of the box".  Its not possible so don't expect it.

At a tournament there are certain expectations and balancing factors that are set and controlled by the tournament organizers.  The players generally have little say in the matter.  They have to accept what's given and decide whether or not to attend.

In a casual game, however, the only people who can adjust their experience and expectations are the players.  If two people are playing casual games and one continues to curb stomp the other, then its the responsibility of the players to adjust their game so that it is enjoyable for both of them.  If one person refuses to change how they play because they might lose, then that person is selfish and rude.  That person needs to learn some empathy.  No different than the kid who plays too rough on the playground and refuses to stop when asked.

Its unfortunate that GW backed off on this idea, but when AoS was released there was an explicit expectation that players would discuss and work together to "balance" their own game and make sure both players have fun.  Even with points, FAQs, balance adjustments, Errata, and the General's Handbook those conversations are still just as important as ever. 

Also pick-up games with strangers kinda suck.  If that's the only way you can ever play AoS...I'm sorry.   

[JackStreicher]

21 minutes ago, Kamose said:

I would say that if the imbalance between units is ruining casual games then the responsibility for adjusting your gaming experience falls on the players.  GW makes a game that can't satisfy everyone "out of the box".  Its not possible so don't expect it.

Partly true. Yet the following is the case:
My friend simply fields all the units he has for his Big Waagh! So he can't adjust anything there. Buying new models just to "play down" feels really wrong to me.
I could simply switch to let's say Daughters of Khaine but I doubt he would have any fun against them since I'd simply wipe him off the board.

Imo the balancing is a responsibility of the Product and therefor of the company producing the product in order to be a good (premium) product.

Edit: I do not expect perfect balance at all. I'd just like that powerlevels across all factions were more normalized. (my standard example is Slaves to Darkness VS The Big Waagh: Slaves are worse at everything while costing more and while having worse Allegiance abilities.)

cheers

Edited January 19, 2020 by JackStreicher
spelling - mobile phones don't support my big fingers :D

[Kirjava13]

I think there needs to be at least some expectation of being able to play a balanced game out of the box, as it were. A game of Warhammer is no small affair. It can take time to set up (if you have to travel to a friend's place, or a shop) and definitely takes time to play. If you are lucky enough to be able to play with someone regularly and have a conversation with them about expectations, then yes, AoS is the sort of game where you can sort out some sort of balance by yourselves.

Unfortunately these circumstances don't always exist, be it for reasons of time, social pressure or unfamiliarity. As such, people frequently end up making a list and popping it down versus someone who has done the same. If it becomes clear by turn 3 that one player has a shockingly appalling power advantage, it's rarely possible to just rerack and start again. When my Nighthaunt get to the halfway point of the game and I'm busy being slaughtered by Hagg Nar witch aelves, yeah, that's dependent on my attitude to a degree, but a one-sided slaughter isn't fun for anyone in my opinion, and that's potentially hours wasted in what is supposed to be a fun hobby.

[DerZauberer]

6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

The issue is that the "balancing" or let's say "relative powerlevel" of armies is sometimes worlds apart which ruins CASUAL games.

Interesstingly, you missed my point, too. I've marked my points in bold so i can leave that topic for good:

"balancing" and "relative powerlevel" are defined by the community. Immense hyperbole in online discussion done by the community creates a pressure on players to allways pick the strong and op stuff. I've never seen another Witch Cult then Hag-Naar and i'm 99% certain said opponents did not figure out them self what the best Hag-Naar list looks like. If i want to compete in a casual environment today, the risk is high i encounter net lists, so i need to take one myself if winning is my goal. Prior to online communitys people were as competetive as they could be, as everyone had to figure out options and op stuff on their own. I've never did a mathematical research on damage output ardboyz vs. brutes, and i'm brave enough to say that 95% of the playerbase doesn't.

Balance doesn't kill casual games, players which list building ideas are formed by third-person online oppinions to make their own list Inbalanced do. I could give you a myriad of example lists from OBR, HoS, BW, ... which are perfectly balanced. 

6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

The argument "It's better now than it used to be" is no argument at all, without evolution everything dies. Justifying bad relative powerlevels and bad rules due them having been even worse back in the day is rubbish.

Again, i did not state the status quo is a super duper great one, i've never said that and made clear that there is inbalance in warscrolls and allegiance abilites. I only stated that there is progress, which equates your evolution synonym.

Edit: A small anecdote: The father of a very good friend of mine has a beatiful stormcast eternals army. He loves the game and doesn't take part in any online community what so ever. Its so unbelievable refreshening to play him. He looks at his collection, picks units he wants to play today, creates a list around it and i - with my spoiled internet knowledge - try to match it and have just amazingly fun. Ofcourse i could run a netlist as the internet tells me to, but neither he or i will have any fun out of it. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by DerZauberer
Story time!

[Phasteon]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

Edit: I do not expect perfect balance at all. I'd just like that powerlevels across all factions were more normalized. (my standard example is Slaves to Darkness VS The Big Waagh: Slaves are worse at everything while costing more and while having worse Allegiance abilities.)

cheers

Pls make some actual examples about how StD are worse at everything while costing more compared to Big Waagh. 

If you refuse to, everyone can pretty much do the same: 

StD have a very good external balance compared to Big Waagh, which makes for general fun games. 

You sound like the kind of player that takes a 880* point unit of 20 buffed up Evocators and run them into a 600 point buffed up Hearthguard unit (pre FAQ), losing all your Evocators while maybe killing 10 HGB complaining about bad balance when in reality you just made a ****** play. 

 

Just because something works for army A doesnt mean that the exact same strategy must work out for army B too to make it a balanced game. 

*Which is not even the whole picture, as „buffed up“ implies that there are hundreds of points added for Heroes/Battalions

Edited January 19, 2020 by Phasteon

[Kirjava13]

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

You sound like the kind of player that takes a 880* point unit of 20 buffed up Evocators and run them into a 600 point buffed up Hearthguard unit (pre FAQ), losing all your Evocators while maybe killing 10 HGB complaining about bad balance when in reality you just made a ****** play.

Imagine complaining about admins and other posters letting conversations get personal and then posting this.

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++
 

I think this topic has reached its end as it’s going round and round in circles and I’m going to lock it.

 

Firstly, generally the discussion has been great in this topic but I just need to remind some of you that TGA is for everybody and we should be nice to each other. Not everybody is going to agree on some things but there is no need to act childish or rude towards them. 
 

Secondly, this discussion has been going on for years. I remember going back to 96 and my first visits to Internet forums and people were saying the same thing. I remember playing DBM around the same time and people were saying the same thing then. It’s all a matter of perspective 😉

 

But I do need to point out that what we have now with GW with everything they do is a million times better than it used to be. So whilst some things may never be perfect for you, enjoy what we have now as it’s never been this good. Also don’t forget AOS (and many GW games) are just a framework for you to meet up with somebody and play a game against them. If you both agree something isn’t quite right, tweak it. Want to do something with matched play as well? Tweak it. As long as you all know what is happening, it’s fine.