Board Game Arena

I think modern games have gone overboard with the asymmetric powers thing. 14 different factions in Terra Mystica and Gaia Project. 20 different factions in Apiary. I think Terraforming Mars has 40 corporations if you count all the expansions. What's next? At the beginning of the game you do a cheek swab and it makes a custom faction based on your DNA profile?

Yes, yes, yes. I know the mantra is "replayability," but isn't it harder to balance them all the more buckets of asymmetric abilities you have?

Meeplelowda wrote: ↑20 January 2026, 01:58 I think modern games have gone overboard with the asymmetric powers thing. 14 different factions in Terra Mystica and Gaia Project. 20 different factions in Apiary. I think Terraforming Mars has 40 corporations if you count all the expansions. What's next? At the beginning of the game you do a cheek swab and it makes a custom faction based on your DNA profile?

Yes, yes, yes. I know the mantra is "replayability," but isn't it harder to balance them all the more buckets of asymmetric abilities you have?

How has it been in your experience?

I would say, yes, personally, but we all have different tastes.

I don't want replayability to come from content, I want to come from emergent strategies.The players themselves provide the variety. But that's not the trend. There's a joke in there about modern games having all those factions and set-ups in an era when people only play their games a couple times each (if that).

And I want balance come from interaction. Let the players fight over the stuff in the game. It doesn't need to be "balanced".

I'm an old school "play the players, not the game" guy, shouting at clouds, perhaps.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑20 January 2026, 02:59

Meeplelowda wrote: ↑20 January 2026, 01:58 I think modern games have gone overboard with the asymmetric powers thing. 14 different factions in Terra Mystica and Gaia Project. 20 different factions in Apiary. I think Terraforming Mars has 40 corporations if you count all the expansions. What's next? At the beginning of the game you do a cheek swab and it makes a custom faction based on your DNA profile?

Yes, yes, yes. I know the mantra is "replayability," but isn't it harder to balance them all the more buckets of asymmetric abilities you have?

How has it been in your experience?

In my experience there are diminishing returns. Yes, a few asymmetric starting choices spices things up a bit compared to games from the last century. But when you keep adding more and more you run into the issue that it becomes impossible to play test all the combinations. So once the game nerds get their hands on it people realize, "oh, faction X combined with player board Y is irrefutably overpowered" and the rules have to be officially revised by the publisher (e.g., Scythe) or unofficially revised by people hosting competitions to ban certain combos.

I agree. I play several games that have very obviously imbalanced and overpowered cards. I find it frustrating.

The possibilities for inadvertently creating a lack of balance increase with different factions, that’s true. At the same time, Wingspan, which I guess FrankJones alluded to, shows that you don’t need factions for creating a lack of balance so severe that house rules had to turn into near-standard rules, not only for competitive players but also for many regular players. There are not many games that had factions banned. Normally, regular players are fine with the factions and competitive players want to bid on factions anyway. I think Gaia Project is a good example for that. There are factions that are strong, there are generally weaker ones and some highly situational ones, but none is considered clearly OP afaik, not even Taklons or Ivits. I think having to live with that is ok, given the massive variety that comes with the factions in GP.

Personally, I don’t like games with extreme asymmetry like Root or Ahoy, but that’s just me, I see many people enjoy these a lot. I think it’s a good thing that while asymmetry is clearly on the rise, both in the GP way and in the Root way, there are still new and complex games that only have slight asymmetry. I wouldn’t like it if asymmetrical factions would become a new standard. Variety is great, not only in a game, but also in regard to the board games market in general.

Edit: Some of that OP talk can also be misleading. I've recently started playing Watergate, an asymmetric 2p-game. On BGG, you'll find nearly as many posts saying playing the editor is OP as posts that say playing Nixon is OP.

I agree that bidding is a good way to deal with faction imbalances.

Or bidding for other things as well. In the game "Aquatica", player 1 has a huge advantage. I think the easiest fix is to have players bid for being player 1. Then, each individua player or gaming groups can make their own assessments of the value of being player 1.

Hi everybody,

while it makes sense (for at least certaines games) to have asymetrie it increases the risk for huge imbalances (as it is impossible to test all strategies in all settings) AND it makes it far more difficult to find players (capable to play that game at a satisfying level), leaving you (and your gaming group) with the choice of
just playing one game over and over again, to get a feeling of all the differents factions and associated strategies
or
(if you don't want to play the same game over and over again) be in an eternal state of first discovery, spending a lot of time to re-explain the basic mechanisms of the game and all the available factions. Explaining factions which aren't chosen in that game is -- in some way -- a waste of time.

Scythe is a good example.

The game designer underestimated several things, resulting in balance problems:

1) The value of the recruit and deploy actions compared to the other two bottom row actions.
2) The value of the move action.
3) The value of going first in a game that does not have equalization of turns.

As a result, some faction-mat combos became considered "broken".

It's frustrating to play a thematic strategy game and be at a severe disadvantage before even making the first move.

I just realized the unfortunate timing of my use of the idiom in the thread subject as it was originally worded.