Interesting Game Balance Study

Discuss!

http://confoundingblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/is-warhammer-balanced/

Seems to confirm that WH Fantasy is lame.

The power creep in Fantasy was horrible. The Demon book is so over the top it is retarded. DE and VC are super powerful too, but they look really weak next to the Demon book. I actually hung up my dice not that long after as the Demon book ruined everything. You have to try and take weaker stuff from that book just to offer your opponent some sort fo game rather then steamrollering him.

But I heard similar things about Orks, IG, and Space Wolves seems to have picked up some griping as well. I think as a whole there was about a one year period where GW just sort of dropped the ball on a lot of game balance issues.

Fantasy as a system is good, but the demon book really messed up everything. Skaven is up next, I'd like to see what they do there.

I guess we'll find out about Space Wolves soon enough. IG are solid, but not broken by any means. I think they are a top tier army. Orks I don't really know. I have yet to play against a 5th edition tournament Ork army that is really min/maxed. I suspect it would be really good, but it's all conjecture.

That's a really stupid analysis considering his sample size was so small and can't account for approximately a thousand of the variables that determine victory other than the army book.

Also, for fantasy, I think every single army in the latest edition except Orcs and Goblins and Empire have been on the same page. I have come to the conclusion that Daemons don't overperform. I would gladly take High Elves, Dark Elves or Warriors against Daemons any day.

The new books are significantly more powerful than the 6th edition books, that's for sure. They're also heads and shoulders above Empire and Orcs and Goblins, which are real stinkers.

The problem is just that so many of the books are out of date now.

Beasts of Chaos, Bretonnia, Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, Skaven, Tomb Kings and Wood Elves are all still waiting for their books. Throw in the Orc'n'Goblin and Empire duds and that's 9 out of 15 armies that are getting =I=censor=I=-kicked.

The other 6, Daemons, Dark Elves, High Elves, Lizardmen, Vampires and Warriors, are all actually clustered in a very tight "power level" spread in my opinion. It's just a totally different cluster than the other 9. Once the other 9 get their edition remake the game will be better than it's ever been before.

GW has moved towards allowing combo's and having incredible internal balance, so that every choice in the new books is a great choice (except possibly Silver Helms for High Elves and Forsaken for Warriors of Chaos). Now this does mean that the new books are at an advantage against the old books - but that's because of a fundamental shift in design philosophy.

I agree that this study is rubbish. You take a total sample size of 72 people to represent all the 40k army books and possible lists?

Well, it's the only way of getting concrete results. Using samples from people reporting through the internet would be full of lies.

What he is saying is that the sample size is too small for the conclusions he reached.

Maybe after 100 tournaments of this size, with an even distribution of armies, where every army has faced every other army at least 60 times you can start making conclusions. Before that, it's just one guy talking out his ass.

The only thing this thread does is confirm that Tim is lame. EAT IT, MILLER!

Remember when Tim owed me that 100$? Man that was some funny =I=censor=I=.

I crack myself up.

Well the idea of having a narrow sample size could apply to us aswell. Perhaps there are some ideas for some armies that may performs better against power armies.

However, I think a Schizophrenic, blind monkey can win 90% of his games (and I stand by that statistic!) with a Tzeentch daemon list. The other 10% are when the casters get eaten alive by the miscast table, play another Tzeentch Daemon list.

Lord_Commander_Stash wrote:Well the idea of having a narrow sample size could apply to us aswell. Perhaps there are some ideas for some armies that may performs better against power armies.

However, I think a Schizophrenic, blind monkey can win 90% of his games (and I stand by that statistic!) with a Tzeentch daemon list. The other 10% are when the casters get eaten alive by the miscast table, play another Tzeentch Daemon list.

Yep. I felt bad for you as you were playing an army you liked, but in Storm fo Chaos it was waaaayy to powerful. Then they made it better and even more unplayable (for the opponents!). It was just retarded. I even quit playing my nurgle boys as they weren't the best demon army by a long shot, but it was stupid how little skill it took to play with them and be competitive. WHo wrote that book?

Timbo wrote: WH Fantasy is lame.

This part of Tim's post is spot on however you look at it though.

ScottRadom wrote:

Lord_Commander_Stash wrote:Well the idea of having a narrow sample size could apply to us aswell. Perhaps there are some ideas for some armies that may performs better against power armies.

However, I think a Schizophrenic, blind monkey can win 90% of his games (and I stand by that statistic!) with a Tzeentch daemon list. The other 10% are when the casters get eaten alive by the miscast table, play another Tzeentch Daemon list.

Yep. I felt bad for you as you were playing an army you liked, but in Storm fo Chaos it was waaaayy to powerful. Then they made it better and even more unplayable (for the opponents!). It was just retarded. I even quit playing my nurgle boys as they weren't the best demon army by a long shot, but it was stupid how little skill it took to play with them and be competitive. WHo wrote that book?

It says Mat Ward wrote it...whoever that is. Compare the credits section with another army book. There is only one writer for the daemon book, no additional material by other guys, etc.
Special thanks to The Geeks Playtesters. (so many things to say about them, but I am speechless)