Below is a very interesting article on balance within games (specifically 40K and Infinity) and how it might be used by companies to influence sells.

The post puts a lot of points across that I agree with. Personally I think both imbalanced game rules and balanced game rules can be used as a tactic to generate sells. However on an individual level I strongly prefer a balanced game that gets me to buy more of the models that I can freely chose, rather than an imbalanced game that wants me to buy the latest super unit/army.

The post also touches on the topic of why infinity is a profitable game, even though technically you only need to spend very little to start. If you get into the game, you can easily start buying far more than the required amount (usually 10 or fewer models). I for one have done this for the enjoyment of using new tactics and more importantly to paint a fantastically sculpted model that I know will see the table!


A hot topic for me recently has been game balance. It’s the main issue why I’ve left 40K (not permanently as I’m about to take part in a narrative campaign) and found Infinity. I’ve also seen a fair number of other gamers involved in conversations on this subject. Seeing as GW is the big player in tabletop gaming they usually revolve around the warhammer systems, and as 40K is my flavour that’s the way it rolls for me.

So what about 40K game balance. Well for me there just isn’t any. When the top few army builds are all but unbeatable there is a serious issue. Now I don’t think the core rules for 40K have much of a problem, for me it’s down to the army rules. This is because I see a lot of army units either have multiple combinations of special rule or are able to break…

View original post 342 more words