I was talking with a guy at my FLGS and he was saying that he thought more factions actually make a game more interesting and help to balance a game out better as well. He was using 40K as an example.

I guess the idea is that if you have a faction that currently is underpowered, you can give it something to help it out WITHOUT helping out things that don't need help.

I don't know if I necessarily agree, but I was curious what you guys thought.

I think that it’s technically true that with more factions it is easier to tweek a smaller amount of things with a buff.

However, the trade off is its much harder to balance a game as you add factions to it. The more factions the easier it is to miss something and let some slip ahead of the others

I completely agree.

A. Variety, pure and simple.

B. Compartmentalization. This allows faction-specific abilities that do not need to be balance across the whole spectrum of the game. This allows for more interesting ideas that can be play tested better in a smaller pool of the game.

C. Abilities that reference subfactions or units. Cards for Mercenaries, Bounty Hunters, et. al. Again, this allows for a better ability to balance abilities and upgrades, as allows "micro-abilities" to exist that are only potent if you are using a given subset of the game.

Basically, it is a layer of complexity that actually decreases the complexity of balancing the entire hill of beans all at once.

Definitely agree and I hope to see more of it as the game continues.

40k is a horrible mess because it's got so many factions and they keep adding more.

Whole armies are worthless atm like grey knights, orks and ynnari are only good in soup forces.

The problem is they only get love if the devs play that army otherwise they get the bare minimum of work and it's shitshow.

The more factions you have, typically the harder it is to balance the game.

But this will depend on what notion of "balanced game" we are discussing. The more factions you add, especially the more 'odd-ball' they get, the more risk there is for lopsided match-ups to be brought to the table creating a game that is hopelessly skewed against one of the players. So the chance for on-table imbalances to occur are increased. This is generally true as you move away from perfectly symmetrical starting positions (Chess, Go, Stratego, etc.), as the more variation and variety that is added, the more risk there is of one player's starting force being disadvantaged against the other's. And >factions means >diversity, so >risk of lop-sided match-ups.

Now, if what you mean by "game balance" is actually something like "List X won't ever become entirely unbeatable because Faction Y can always build to beat List X by min-maxing this niche option they have" then I guess you could argue for improved overall balance, but it's a weird notion of balance that I wouldn't personally hold. The mere fact that Faction Y can build to hard-counter List X doesn't do anything to help Faction A, B, C, .... etc. have a means to beat List X when they set up across from it.

depends on the game

in x-wing's case, they don't nearly have enough models to justify and support more factions

12 minutes ago, Hobojebus said:

40k is a horrible mess because it's got so many factions and they keep adding more.

Whole armies are worthless atm like grey knights, orks and ynnari are only good in soup forces.

The problem is they only get love if the devs play that army otherwise they get the bare minimum of work and it's shitshow.

Ok, but the game doesn't need to go 40K crazy. For example:

5 Factions (and probably never a need for more):

Republic, Confederacy, Rebels, Imperial, Scum

Possible subfactions:

FO, Resistance, Jedi, Mercenaries, Bounty Hunters, Corporate Sector Authority

Unlike the current MO, subfactions could cross faction borders: every faction might have Bounty Hunter pilots, but certain cards might only affect that class of cards, again limiting the chance of a OP interaction with the game as a whole.

Well it is hard to use 40k as an example. For one with the modeling you can't jump factions as easy as you can in X-wing. In X-wing if you get just about every expansion (and a few multiples) you could play just about any list out there. So if Imperials are now having a hard time and scum is taking the lead switching sides is as easy as switching out some cards and maybe buying another blister pack (in addition to the next wave/release you were already going to buy).

However in 40k ,you need to get a new codex, possibly a new army box (starter set) some new models, not to mention glue and paint the models (at least I hope you paint the models I hate seeing table with grey or undercoated models). So faction switching to match the meta just isn't that viable of an options. Instead you see what the meta is dominated by (range, close combat, tanks) and then buy supplements to your current faction and adjust that faction to match that weapon (fast close combat guys, long range anti-tank units, flyers), all you need to do is write up a new list, swap models, and maybe buy a new squad/vehicle/blister to add to your collection.

If I were to make a comparison X-wing is like Overwatch. You can switch your character any time even in the same match, lost a tournament playing Scum, try Rebels for a while. 40k is like DOTA, once you pick a character you are that character for that entire match, you can only make adjustments through traits and items. Get killed by armor 14 tanks, put some high strength anti-vehicle weapons from your faction codex into your list.

Having played more than my fair share of miniature games, I would argue that more factions is definitely not better. As Hobojebus mentioned, 40k is a colossal mess. And much of the deciding factor on whether a faction is “good” or not, depends entirely upon how much the dev/writer likes said faction. Worse yet is company mandate on which factions should get a boost, and what factions or subfactions should get attention. Orks are arguably the biggest eyesore right now, because they routinely get skipped during entire edition-cycles, and have been made less enjoyable to play every update since 3rd ed. Meanwhile the biggest marine subfactions get their own books, line of miniatures, and can be expected to receive a codex update sometime during each edition.

X-Wing has only 3 factions, and it generally has a lot less of the faction bias seen in more faction-heavy miniature game systems. Instead the focus is less on “let’s make an update and then ignore the faction for 5+ years”, and more of a “here’s the next wave of ships for all 3 factions.” It keeps things fresh, and allows a quicker update process, without leaving any group too far behind. The real issue X-Wing has, is that the upgrade card system is difficult to balance, and some ships tend to fall out of favor as the game ages. It can also lead to unexpected side effects where playtesting fails to notice potentially game-breaking combos (Triple Torp Scouts). Or cards that are originally meant to nudge the balance may quickly become no-brainer upgrades (TLT). But overall I much prefer X-Wing’s system. The imbalances are far less static, and factions don’t get left behind in a previous edition for 8 years at a time.

I would rather see the differences between the current X-Wing factions more highlighted instead of bringing in more factions.

Right now each faction has its unique thing but they all can do other things well too. Imperials used to be the 'swarm, aces or swarm + ace' faction, rebels were the 'synergy/regen mid ps **** faction' and scum used to be the 'big ship bounty hunter' faction. Now everyone has good aces and good points fortress' and good big ships. There is practically no playstyle difference between factions other than pilot abilities.

Contrasted with 40k where armies vary WILDLY in playstyle and abilities.

7 minutes ago, AngryAlbatross said:

I would rather see the differences between the current X-Wing factions more highlighted instead of bringing in more factions.

Right now each faction has its unique thing but they all can do other things well too. Imperials used to be the 'swarm, aces or swarm + ace' faction, rebels were the 'synergy/regen mid ps **** faction' and scum used to be the 'big ship bounty hunter' faction. Now everyone has good aces and good points fortress' and good big ships. There is practically no playstyle difference between factions other than pilot abilities.

Contrasted with 40k where armies vary WILDLY in playstyle and abilities.

And yet there is a thread asking for a rebel version of Krennic already.

There is no playstyle differences between factions because there is only one end-point for the game regardless of faction.

In broad strokes, Scum gets illicits, rebels get shields and regen, and imps get the evade action. But all of those abilities are only geared toward kill-or-be-killed, so in the end equation, it doesn't matter much.

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

depends on the game

in x-wing's case, they don't nearly have enough models to justify and support more factions

I think this is where i’m at. There is basis for more factions for more nuance, but keeping all the factions sustained is difficult since some will only have a few ships.

I think there could be a healthy middle ground in X-Wing. The sub factions need more love and distiction.

And once that is done a system similer to Dust 1947 would be nice. That game gives you bonuses depending on how you build your army or if you stay within your sub faction for the vast majority of your list

3 is about right if you define what each faction is and their game play style.

(AKA Star Craft)

it absolutely does, but X-wing has passed that point as a game.

if first order and resistance were each their own factions, and scum was divided into "free agents/civilians" and "criminals", then maybe we could change things.

the problem i see is that factions need identity... for example in MTG blue is utility and manipulation, or in starcraft zerg swarm. right now in x-wing the faction identity is mostly blurred with a few exeptions(rebel regen, imps being junk, etc) in a way where it would be hard to redifine them without reworking certain ships entirely.

It depends on lots of things, not just the number of factions.

It's not like 40k is a beacon of balance atm, unless you count spamming Flyrants/other HQs as balanced. GW is currently approaching game balance in a better way than FFG does(n't). They're releasing 'draft' rules for an army, seeing how they perform in the meta, then refining the rules to make a more balanced and interesting codex.

Hordes/Warmachine has about 8 major factions split between two core mechanics (mechanical Warjacks work quite differently from monstrous Warbeasts), and a few lesser factions, but the thing which really sets them apart is a willingness to rewrite large chunks of the stats and abilities of the factions. Constant revisions and community included in the development process.

That said, I HATED Hordes. Bought in on Trollbloods, and it takes a large chunk of money to field anything remotely resembling an actual army. X-Wing adds up, but I feel like it's easier to get something reasonable (particularly if willing to proxy). Anyhow, Hordes/Warmachine felt like, to me, such a heavy Alpha-strike game. My experience playing was typically move up a turn or two, perhaps bounce a few attacks off something, then get 2/3rds of my stuff killed in a single turn, and bounce the attacks from my remaining stuff off things the next turn. I never had a feeling of even being remotely competitive in any of the games I played, really, without any idea of how to change that. All of that is going to be partly a function of time and experience, but I have a sense in X-Wing of how to try to win against different opponents. Anyhow, I traded my army to someone into Hordes for their X-Wing collection and some cash to balance the numbers.

But on paper, I liked the willingness to revise, to create bonuses for themed armies with a little wiggle room for mercenaries. I like in theory the tournament structure, which is kinda like Hangar Bay, in that you bring two lists and chose between them for each opponent, but you also have a semi-random set of objectives so "just kill" isn't the only way to win a match, although potentially a good one.

strongly disagree. No factions is the best: it's still generally asymmetric, as everyone still constructs their own team. No factions means the greatest number of options and combinations, and balance takes care of itself.

BUT, it has to make sense with the theme. So I'd rephrase the above slightly and say the best is the minimum number of factions that make sense thematically. For this game: two.

Don’t Join.

except GUNBOATS. Always play GUNBOATS.

9 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

depends on the game

in x-wing's case, they don't nearly have enough models to justify and support more factions

As usual, FGD gets straight and succinctly to the point...

... though I might further refine it to also say dependant on the background source material and desire on how strictly to adhere to it (eg with regards to chronology).

I don't think having more factions is necessarily better for balance, its just when the pool is bigger the fish seem smaller.

It does however allow more design space for faction specific mechanics without the potential for that mechanic to spill into a combo it wasn't intended for. Specifically sub-faction mechanics like Krennic and Crossfire Formation are what I think will be a great advancement for X-wing.

More is better. This game needs a kick in the pants, something that really shakes things up. Adding new factions would do that.

I think FFG was hoping to have the First Order and Resistance sub factions become their own factions someday, but with TLJ only adding 2 new ships (if you count the a-wing as new). It's making it hard to expand their factions.

Maybe Episode 9 will give more ships for those two factions. But in the meantime this game is past due to add Republic and Confederacy factions to the game.

More factions probably doesn't make inter-faction balance easier. It does probably make intra-faction balance easier to manage with less moving parts.

I'd prefer more factions because it gives more room to flesh out an archetype. With 2 or 3 huge catch-all factions the differences start to get cosmetic particularly if very similar ships or, increasingly, the actual same ship get shared between factions. Rebels have TIE fighters, Nym is dual faction, etc. Compartmentalising will keep more flavour per faction, even if ships are shared.

It seems possible for FFG to move towards a 5 faction system but they still need to flesh out Resistance and First Order and that might be hard to do with more ships in the original trilogy era coming out for Solo or whatever.

20 hours ago, Hobojebus said:

40k is a horrible mess because it's got so many factions and they keep adding more.

Whole armies are worthless atm like grey knights, orks and ynnari are only good in soup forces.

The problem is they only get love if the devs play that army otherwise they get the bare minimum of work and it's shitshow.

Always with the 40k hate; you'll get an ulcer old bean.

Cheers
Baaa