Posts Tagged game balance

It’s All Been Done Before

Right now, there seems to be a bit of turmoil across the 40K blogscape, and it’s mostly been kicked off by two factors. First, there’s the power creep perceived in the new Space Wolves codex. Second, there’s the big Imperial Guard win at the ‘Ard Boyz nationals. In response to these, there’s been a flurry of discussions online about the state of the game. Are people jumping on to the Space Wolves and Guard bandwagons in droves? Is the tournament scene dead for older armies? Is the hobby as we know it dead or dying and in need of yet another revamp?

Well, folks, the sky is not falling. The end is not nigh.

How do I know this? Because I’ve witnessed this particular kind of temporary panic before. It’s a regular occurrence in the collectible card game world. Any time a new expansion comes out, or a new faction/deck type wins a major tournament, the same conversations take place. Are people flocking to this new deck type? Are there any “real” players of that faction/deck left? Are the cards in the latest set overpowered or underpowered? If they’re overpowered, why do the designers want to destroy the game so much? Is there any point in playing anymore? Sometimes, it can get pretty nasty. Insults will be thrown around, people will quit the game, and it will seem that all hell is breaking loose. Eventually, though, cooler heads prevail, everything settles back down, and people get on with rethinking strategies and playing the game again. 40K isn’t that different. You’ve got new armies (or revisions of older ones) that come in and upset the current tournament balance. You’ve got players who jump from one netlist to another because they want to win. You’ve got the players who change what they’re playing just because they’re tired of their old armies just aren’t performing at the same level as they once did. It’s unsurprising that the same discussions take place here.

With that in mind, here are a few points to help you keep your head while those about you are losing theirs:

  1. The metagame is a constantly-shifting thing at all scales – local, regional, national, and international. Power lists will come and power lists will go. Often, what happens is that the environment isn’t ready for a new addition, because it’s never had to be. During that period of growing pains, it’s likely that the big new thing will dominate. Over time, though, players will adjust their strategies and tactics to deal with the new threat – whether it’s a new codex on the market, or just a new player at your local store – and learn to co-exist along with it… just in time for the next new thing.
  2. Design philosophies change. Armies designed for 5th Edition seem to be dominating right now, especially when compared to those armies with 3rd and earlier 4th edition codexes. I’m not so much convinced that this is power creep so much as it is a rethinking in how the armies are built. The downside is that older armies are falling a bit to the wayside, just because they were designed with a different mindset and for a different environment. The upside is that as these armies are revisited, they’ll be brought into line with the new way of thinking (and from the sound of things, GW has a five-year plan that includes all currently available armies getting updated codexes).
  3. People are going to play what they are going to play; don’t let that faze you. There will always be players who want to play the winning army du jour, especially in the competitive world of tournament play. For such players, it’s the win that’s paramount, rather than what they were playing to achieve it. That doesn’t mean that all players playing that army are that way, or that it’s even a bad way of approaching the game. It’s just how they play. If you have an army that you like, don’t feel pressured to jump to the latest codex if it’s not for you. That said, if what you have isn’t working for you, or if you’re just bored and looking for something different, don’t be afraid to try out something different. Trying to draw lines between bandwagonners and “true believers” is a fruitless effort, so just stick to your guns, play what you want to play, and enjoy yourself.

In the end, the landscape of the game may change, but the game, and the hobby around it, will survive. Change is often an uncomfortable process, but it’s also important for growth; a stagnant environment is a dead one. It’s true for CCGs, and it’s just as true for miniature wargaming. Just remember to play what you want to play how you want to play it, and to have a good time doing it, because that’s what really matters in the end.

, ,

Comments

Warhammer 40k, Statistics, and Power Creep

I just read an interesting piece that I found through TauOnline.org entitled “Is Warhammer Balanced?” This blogger has taken tournament data for both Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 for a particular set of tournament data and determined the mean score for each faction in order of codex release date. The purpose? To determine, as best as can be done with the data at hand, if any power creep has occured from codex to codex. Power creep, the ramping up of in-game power from one supplement to another, is a common issue in any sort of ongoing expandable game, whether it be CCGs, RPGs, or wargaming. The third edition of Dungeons and Dragons, for example, became increasingly prone to power creep as more and more books were released, with later character classes completely outshining those from the core rulebooks.

What the blogger in question has found reinforces some already-accepted assumptions, especially in regards to Warhammer Fantasy. Specifically, the answer to the posed question is, “No, Warhammer is not balanced.” Fantasy in particular had noticeable power creep in the newer codices. Warhammer 40k, on the other hand, had a much smoother, shallower increase. Granted, it doesn’t mean that one game’s factions are more closely balanced than the other; Fantasy and 40k play very differently, so options are available in the latter game that aren’t in the former, and those options can even the playing field somewhat.

Also, while the most popular armies in Fantasy tended to be the best performing, that did not play out in 40k. Space Marines were the second most popular army, but came in with the lowest mean score. Does this mean that there Space Marines are the weakest army? Or does it mean that there are a lot of really bad Space Marine players out there? I’m leaning towards the second explanation; they are one of the most popular starting factions in the game, so a lot of first-time players may be giving them a go. Unfortunately, the article (and the data it’s based on) isn’t clear as to whether these games were played before or after the new Space Marine codex came out. If not, the second-newest codex – Orks – comes in as the most powerful. That doesn’t necessarily bode well for power creep, but consider that the last pre-5th codex, Daemons, sits right in the middle of the pack. However, if they are post-Marine-codex games, then power creep doesn’t seem to be apparent (although again, the relative skill levels of the players may skew that). I’m not too worried, though. The next codex is Imperial Guard, and I’m highly suspicious that the IG are suddenly going to be the killer army du jour.

,

Comments