Is Warhammer Balanced? Study says no

[Kefka]

Found this article, though it doesn't go too in-depth into the game, it does shed some obvious light on a subject GW should take a look at (or maybe they already know.)

http://confoundingblog.wordpress.com/20 ... -balanced/

Comments? Ideas? It'sn ot a "full investigation" but still interesting.

[Rork]

The downside is that it uses tournament data - as the author recognises, this is a biased data set. There are even a few armies snapping at the heels of the Big Three with this data.

It's difficult to achieve true balance with warhammer just because of the shear number of variables involved. Even if armies were much closer in terms of balance (which they do need to be), those armies that are a few percent easier to use/more dangerous will always gain favour with tournament players.

It's interesting. We also see that some people still suck with DE, DoC and VC .

[Red...]

I'm not convinced that warhammer is balanced, but:

- I think that's what makes the games fun in many ways: too much balance in a game starts to make them resemble chess
- Balance problems can be offset by people playing the game fairly (not bringing a 2k DE army of Malekith on a Dragon, 2 hydras and a hero on a manticore to battle, for example). Opponents who play 'power armies' often find themselves either with no players in friendly games or that their opponents start to power play themselves ("monster ruck!!!")
- Balance is fundamentally more difficult to achieve than most gamers think. Just one tiny change can upset the balance completely. Think about how much of a difference it would make to a game if Executioners had say 2 attacks rather than one - a very minor change, but it would completely transform Dark Elves and their role in a game, or if Cold Ones didn't have stupidity, etc.
- Games Workshop has spent years trying to make itself commercially successful (it has now finally turned the tide and is doing okay again I understand). Part of their success is based on a deliberate policy of 'power creep' (where each new army book is better than the last). Hate them for it all you want, they do have to make money. It would be worse for many of us if they just went bust instead...
- Most people know generally which armies are really powerful and which are weak. It's therefore more satisfying to win a game playing as Beasts of Chaos against VC than vice-versa and both players know that.
- This is scarcely a new problem and, looking at the 40k entry, it actually looks like some progress has been made. Back when I used to play 40k in the early 90s, your choices really were along the lines of "play space marines or lose".

That's just my two cents

[Kefka]

You know what Deathknight27, I really like your points there (except for that last one on 40k, My Dark Eldar have always known how to take out Space marines, except for that unfair 3rd edition starter).
However, there is a sense of unbalance, and then there is outright unbalance. The Terror Bomb (or monster mash, or whatever) DE list at least takes a moment to think up and a little skill to use. Same with summon spam vampires. But you get lists like Demons, who can have little to no strategy but to run forward, and they can still outplay an Ogre army that has an extra 500 point handi-cap. My point is, there are over-powered lists, and there are over-powered books.
I make reference to my random demon army generator a few months ago, where we were randomly generating choices from the book and still having demons win games with absolutely no pre-strategy to the army.

http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=60708&highlight=

[Arellion sapher]

There was some rather erudite discussion on Ulthuan.net on the same subject, but I'm pretty sure that study hasn't come up yet.

Deathknight27 is correct inasmuch as he highlights that 'unbalance' isn't too much of a problem in a fantasy game. At the end of the day, competitive gaming for its own sake is a somewhat unsatisfactory experience... I prefer scenario-based play these days. If the story allows for ridiculous invulnerable blood knights, then fine. If Aenarion is throwing down with the Daemons then I'd still put him at the head of a few units of phoenix guard and a legion of dragon knights.

In random, one-off engagements, I'd expect a Daemon Horde to win! That would be fluff-reasonable (except for the Elves or Lizardmen, I guess.)

[Dante valentine]

At the end of the day, each army must have stronger certain things than others, to make each army play unqiue and have character.

I know Warhammer is about as far flung as you get from real warfare, but you look at pretty much any conflict and some regiments and armies have stronger points than others. Carthage had its elephants, Rome his disciplined legionaires, britannia its mad druids.

Combined Warhammer can never be truly balance, the almost infinite amount of variables that has to be taken into consideration during a standard 6 turn game means that it is impossible to perfectly balance it. Even if you fielded a perfectly identical list on open terrain, the fact that dice are used to determine results mean that it is entirely random (we have all seen Cold One Cavalry be beaten in combat by a ten man unit of goblin archers!).

So yes, the game as a whole can never be perfectly balanced. It is just some lists have the option of having much more potential than others, an issue that game workshop obviously have to addres ultimately, while retaining the individual flavour of an army.

Also compare the pre-thought that goes into some lists that are run by competent generals, they tend to do well regardless of what comes up (bad luck, failed stupidity tests, rubber lance syndrome), compared to when someone throws a list together at the last moment and throws his troops into a conflict hap hazard. These can do well, but if coming across somthing half difficult and well planned, will flounder quickly.

All in all, balance is integral to the game, but it will never be achieved. Thus representing life.....

Regards

Dante

[Bounce]

I think its pretty clear that Warhammer isn't balanced. On average some armies do better than others.
However on the whole I think it isn't too bad, or more it wouldn't be easy to make the game more balanced without sacrifcing variability.
I think its good that not all armies have Cavalry, or Magic, or Shooting etc This makes each race unique and means we have to come up with more strategies and tactics than a simple, do this than that, combned with scenery and dice, warhammer is pretty random and this is what allows good generals to come out on top because they use all this variability and randomness to back their chances. Yes Beastman will always have a hard time and Vampires will win more often and not but this is clearly due to power creep and time constraints I think

[Sulla]

I think its pretty clear that Warhammer isn't balanced. On average some armies do better than others.

The biggest problem is that the basic mission suits armies that kill stuff. If the basic mission had objectives spread across the field the winning armies now would struggle more.

For example, if vp's are accumulated every turn for holding each of 4-5 terrain pieces, deathstars and gunlines could lose you the game because they just can't hold enough pieces to rack up vps. Gunlines would struggle because they couldn't just shoot you to death and then send their combat elements to crush the weakened remainder. The combat elements would have to move forward to hold objectives which would leave the guns more exposed to attack. If some of the objectives were houses, cav and large monsters would be unable to contest them, while ogre sized monsters and elite infantry would be even more useful.

It wouldn't solve the 'all or nothing' of magic, but many of the ills of army composition would evaporate overnight. Balanced armies would be rewarded instead of punished.

[Rork]

Even that is fraught with difficulty. Take and hold ends up favouring armies like VC and DoC who just don't run away (and can easily get units to objectives).

The scenarios that are in the rule book, for the most part, would work, particularly those that expect the army to move across the table. But since Warhammer has widely divergent movement rates (Dwarfs being so low) you'll still get armies that play defensively and manage to win.

Scenarios just alter the problem slightly rather than addressing the fact that there is a Big Three.

[Sulla]

Even that is fraught with difficulty. Take and hold ends up favouring armies like VC and DoC who just don't run away (and can easily get units to objectives).

The scenarios that are in the rule book, for the most part, would work, particularly those that expect the army to move across the table. But since Warhammer has widely divergent movement rates (Dwarfs being so low) you'll still get armies that play defensively and manage to win.

Scenarios just alter the problem slightly rather than addressing the fact that there is a Big Three.

The thing about multiple objective is that it at least nerfs deathstars, which are a problem of all armies, not just 'the big 3'. Play in my area has definately devolved to deathstars to the point that corsairs, spears etc are not worth it. At least if you had to play the entire field, that deathstar has much less influence. If you made it so that monsters and ridden monsters couldn't hold objectives, that would help out too. Then players might think harder about that bloodthirster or dreadlord on dragon. The VC player would still keep his lord in the unit with the regen banner, which would mean the rest of the army has so much less support because most of it would be playing outside of 'vanhels spammed flank charge of uberdoom' range of that big GG +2 characters unit. Dwarves would be rewarded for playing those quirky miners and rangers.

I completely agree that some armies could still win by playing defensively (or by rushing and just killing everything). But it would take more skill and/or luck; they would basically be surrendering vp's every turn. The game would encourage movement and more balanced armies.

p.s. The problem with daemons (and to a lesser extent DE) is that the power army is a balanced one with shooting, tanks, magic defence and strike power.

[Danceman]

If you're looking for tournament play I think that study has a good validity. For friendly play though, its very hard to assess anything as the envoirment changes so much depending on where you go.

Though I wasnt really suprised. Warhammer has never been balanced and probably will remain unbalanced for a very long time. As stated before, too many variables in the equation and for every book released it changes, which then has to be taken care of in the next edition, or its a new edition entirely and things that were balanced where unhinged due to trying to balance some other aspect of which some army suffered for and another army gained something from. It's a balancing act on a burning rope.

While I express what I think is wrong with the game doesnt mean I like any less. I think the game would get dull once it would get balanced as it would mean it being dumbed down and streamlined.

[Arellion sapher]

Again, most of these problems can be solved if you subject the game to a real-life treatment. Get off the old-world grass field, put away the woods. Stick down a white snow field, perhaps, and then bisect the board with a frozen river. This was one of the more amusing ideas which came up in the General's compendium... there's a one-in-six chance that anything crossing the river gets sucked under. The higher the armour save, the worse the result is, and even Daemons can't get out.
Or, amaze the board with rock formations. One stubborn unit of Black Guard then becomes unflankable, unbreakable etc.
Maybe tackle 'em in deep Lustria. No fliers? Too bad, you're stuffed by the enemy woodsmen.
The desert? Suddenly your troops can barely stand upright for thirst. And if you're really tired of those Chaos gits, a great campaign wrap-up would have to include a monolithic banishing ritual where Daemonic Entities have to suffer an Irresistible RIP spell whenever they enter the ring. I'm sure the ladies of Ghrond could think something up.

Basically, dig out all the campaign material GW wrote before 7th edition made players lazy. Make your opponents fight their way across the Warhammer World and put the fear of Isha into them.

And if they won't play ball, why are you still playing them at all?

[Rabidnid]

Warhammer is not even faintly balanced, but differing levels of competence, the level of intent of the players, and the dice gods, conspire to hide this most of the time.

[Dalamar]

There are many kinds of balance.
Anything can beat anything is a type of balance that's hardly realistic and extremely hard to pull off.

Warhammer has RPS Balance, where every army has at least 1 nemesis. And if an army doesn't have one, GW will soon update another army to fill that slot.

[Greatescape_13]

Basically, dig out all the campaign material GW wrote before 7th edition made players lazy. Make your opponents fight their way across the Warhammer World and put the fear of Isha into them.

Absolutely correct. Scenario objectives and creative terrain favor the general rather than the army. And makes for better games overall. Great post Arellion.

Cheers.

[Dreadlordhauclir]

Something that has always made me wonder.
Does GW actually have a mathematical formula to calculate the cost of a unit, or do they just give it an arbitrary number. Then adjust the cost based on practice games?

Getting back to the topic at hand though...Given the fact that if GW had an army that ALWAYS lost (please forgive my theoretical moment here) Then that army wouldn't sell, and GW would loose money. Wargaming like this is a business of having people enjoy your product(s). Given that, I think GW has balanced WFB the best they are able.

[Weenth]

Something that has always made me wonder.
Does GW actually have a mathematical formula to calculate the cost of a unit, or do they just give it an arbitrary number. Then adjust the cost based on practice games?

It seems to me that they:

1. use the formula first (it's not very complicated - you can 'break it up' in parts yourself if you want to - just compare details in different books and check what 'sub-price' for pieces usually works)

2. adjust it for different reasons:

- sometimes balancing, the formula mentioned is quite simple and doesn't take context of specific list into account (playtesting feedback probably goes here)

-...but it seems to me that other factors are the reason more often. Why's the Hydra so cheap? so the new shiny model can sell better. Why is it possible to spam Stegadons in Lizardmen list? Because the set is plastic and with these you have to sell many to get good income... etc.

Getting back to the topic at hand though...Given the fact that if GW had an army that ALWAYS lost (please forgive my theoretical moment here) Then that army wouldn't sell, and GW would loose money. Wargaming like this is a business of having people enjoy your product(s). Given that, I think GW has balanced WFB the best they are able.

'the best they are able' - only if you mean 'giving best income' by that.

It's more important to sell minis for new army. It's obviously easier if the new army can attract the crowd of 'OMG I want the ubberz guyz!' - once you've got cash from them the power/usefullness of specific army can decline, being trumped by the next book...

Still, it looks like GW realised that they pushed the power creep too far with the daemons and indeed try for a kind of balanced... although it's not 'no broken/unfair pieces' but rather 'You can get broken/cheesy/underpriced things in any new book' - this way WAAC-additude people can provide broken lists with their book of choice (while still having the POV of 'we're not broken, just look at what others have) and those who want to play for fun rather than competition can restrict themselves voluntarily...

the only ones who get it hard in this situation are players who want both competition and fun - because there is no 'objective fair' to the rules - you either judge that by yourself (or more probably - your playing group does that) or go by 'what the rules allow is allowed'... which, with competitive approach easily leads to no-fun games.

Still, the cash flows, and that's what matters, eh?