As I put off writing other article series I have already committed to, I think its time to chase a specific butterfly that has been agitating in my mind for a while: Stat Creep.
In many ways stat creep has been a thing ever since Eldar Guardians started hitting on 3+. Furthermore, some form was always going to be inevitable when 8th edition ditched armor profiles for vehicles in favor of toughness and wounds. In my opinion, I think that this could even be a good thing. By adapting a scale that goes past a 1-10 system GW has given itself a lot of room to maneuver and create gradients of toughness that were lacking in the old system. However, if handled poorly it can turn into a battle of escalation wherein the scale loses any sense of meaningfulness.
The Past:
As with most things I think it is enlightening to look at how GW balanced their game in the past. In the earlier editions of 40k, in which I played, the game seemed to be balanced around majority T:3 models wielding S:3-4 guns and weapons, mostly hitting on a 4-5+, with a 4-5+ armor save. Now, when I say most units, I refer to the number of types of units that existed not the number of most-played units. It’s easy to see why Marines felt special in this environment as their 3+ to hit BS and 3+ armor felt unique. This did get chipped down over time as more units started to get these benefits. Eldar were one of the big changes with their bikes getting a 3+ save and their non-aspect warriors getting an upgraded ballistic skill. As we get further into 9th edition, it seems the game is starting to settle on majority T4-5 models hitting on a minimum of 3+ with S5+ weaponry and needing a 2+ save and/or some form of durability buff (transhuman, -1 to hit, no re-rolls etc.). Slightly more troubling is the increased buffs to unit stats. Some of these buffs make sense such as a number of vehicles and monsters going up to T8 and Orks getting T5. While others I am scratching my head at (Fleshborers going to S5??) In fact, many of these buffs are required to keep pace with the meta. As the number of units with defensive buffs is increasing creating a death-defying race that keeps tipping the competitive world on its ear.
My Thoughts:
My concern with these stat boosts is that GW doesn’t seem to have a vision for their implementation, and these buffs seem more reactionary based on the existing power of the current top armies. Thus you run the risk of further inflation, where in certain weapons have abilities that are similar for the sake of balance, but make no sense within the setting (why is a Fleshborer the same strength as a heavy bolter? Why are the Death Guard just as tough as normal Orks?) While the story may not matter for competitive players, it does affect the feel of the game, and it might be harder to attract new players if they pick up on the mindless differences. Furthermore, these stat buffs widen the gap between armies without a rulebook, at the current pace it feels like (unless you get very lucky) armies have 3-4 months of viability before becoming almost useless unless you are a very good player. This works well for people with big collections or deep pockets but will also increase player burn out. This is especially true for narrative and casual gamers that cannot escape these buffs and so you need local comp or gentleman’s agreements not to use certain armies or units (even if you think they are fun and fluffy).
In my opinion, GW has two main options that both have their benefits and drawbacks:
- A: Start reversing the buffs, re-balance the game to make it harder for units to hit, and make S3-4, and T:3 the norm
- B: Blow out the doors on the stat increases
Option A:
This would be the easiest and simplest option, as it mainly involves rolling back stat buffs and increases. While I think many of us more nostalgic players would like something along these lines there are several drawbacks. The first of which is that it would be hard to do via releases, as new books would become instantly non-competitive and create a reverse-meta experience (where each new book is weaker then the previous one). Additionally, this approach increases the least fun aspect of the game (beyond failing saves): that of trying to shoot or fight only for nothing to happen. Now they can balance the game such that S4-5 weapons are the norm both to combat light vehicle spam and to increase killiness, but players may still be annoyed at needing 5-6’s to hit given the prevalence of defensive buffs. Additionally this approach buffs marines as they excel in this environment (something they need now) but could make them too strong.
Option B:
This is my preferred option but is also full of risks. I think if GW tried to use the Toughness scale more radically it could solve a lot of issues faced in the meta. Seeing a proliferation of mid-strength weapons that make dedicated anti tank options nonviable? Kick the toughness of vehicles up to T10-12 and brightlances, meltas etc to S11-13. Are Blight Lords the same toughness as Orks? Make the Death Guard majority toughness 7-8 and keep Orks at 5-6. Now some other weapons will need to go up in strength to compensate, but it avoid the half-existence we are trapped in where infantry is max T-6 and weapons keep rising in strength and lethality. This method also has a lot of issues. As above, if you tried to solve this via incremental release new armies will utterly dominate old ones, this would require a massive FAQ and possibly annoy players of whichever army got the latest release (as their books will be maybe 2 months old). I think this approach would be the more sustainable one as by adapting a wider scale you will make it easier to introduce new units that have more options for intermediate states, and provide unique utility (plus you can create some interesting differences between factions).
Conclusion:
Ultimately building and balancing a game is hard. This is especially true when you are also committed to make 15-20 new models for that game, and re-writing the rules for specific factions each year. If the unit isn’t powerful enough no one will buy it, if it is too powerful people will complain. While I understand this dilemma it does raise the ever-growing specter that players begin believing that GW’s vision for the game isn’t one that places faction balance at the center. I think the current approach is rudderless and is going to aggravate players across the spectrum unless provide every army increasing buffs to toughness, or lower the points cost on many units to make them disposable (something that has plenty of other negative ramifications). I think my proposed options may help a bit, though both of them have some serious implementation issues. Furthermore, these aren’t solutions as, without a specific vision, they will just slow down the power creep and not limit it. What do you think? Am I exaggerating the issue of stat creep? Do you have any recommendations? Let me know in the comments!
And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
