Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Lanrak wrote: The game developers not being idiots really should regulate the game enough for anyone.
Players imagination and creativity allow them far more freedom to let rip, than poorly defined and implemented sales pamphlets.
ftfy.
Ask 1000 40k players to develop a cool new unit for their army, and a fun scenario or two to use them in.
And you get 100 s of cool new units, and 100 s of cool new scenarios to try out.(Subjectively speaking.)
Ask 1000 40k players to write a clearly defined intuitive and engaging rule set for 40k, and you get 100s of arguments about what a 40k rule set should be.
Any group of competent gamers can make up stuff,(rules and unit profiles,) and play fun narrative games.
Players that rely on random pick up games need a decent level of game balance, that 40k fails to provide.
This is what PV and FOC are supposed to support in 40k.Enough balance to facilitate fun pick up games.
Except that, having played in 4th and 5th edition 40k, that isn't how it works.
You don't get to make up 'cool, new units and scenarios.' You get to play what's in the rulebook, because it's 'balanced.' So if your faction's precious superheavy tank isn't in the rulebook, then sorry, no go.
EDIT: The idea the competitive players will be happy AND casuals will be happy in a balanced rules-set is bollocks. Casual players get shouted down by the competitive players when they try to develop narrative elements. For example, if you say "In this campaign game, the tau have 2000 points attacking from all sides against 1000 points of fortified Space Marines because of an ambush," then you've made a cool scenario. However, if the Space Marine player is less casual, he will say "No, thanks. I prefer to have a chance of winning." and turn the game down.
So really, casual players get stuck in a corner, were 'you and your little casual friends go to play toy soldiers, while we real men play real 40k real competitive-like!' I do not wish to return to that environment.
When its said that both casual and competitive players would benefit from a balanced game it means that a casual player won't be punished for bringing a fluffy list. If Casual player A brings a Blood Angels assault army, he stands a good chance of winning as opposed to the game being decided before the first dice throw. It also keeps competitive player B from bringing a super OP list that stomps A's list flat. It brings them both into a relative similar area where the power difference isn't so great.
It's not impossible and in fact, other games do it rather well. Yes, list building is still important, but what should be more important is how one uses them and not "I bring wave serpents and/or riptides, therefore I win." It should be I bring Waveserpents and/or Riptides, but I better use them as effectively as I can or I lose.
In fact, some games actually give the player bonuses for playing fluffy lists.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Lanrak wrote: The game developers not being idiots really should regulate the game enough for anyone.
Players imagination and creativity allow them far more freedom to let rip, than poorly defined and implemented sales pamphlets.
ftfy.
Ask 1000 40k players to develop a cool new unit for their army, and a fun scenario or two to use them in.
And you get 100 s of cool new units, and 100 s of cool new scenarios to try out.(Subjectively speaking.)
Ask 1000 40k players to write a clearly defined intuitive and engaging rule set for 40k, and you get 100s of arguments about what a 40k rule set should be.
Any group of competent gamers can make up stuff,(rules and unit profiles,) and play fun narrative games.
Players that rely on random pick up games need a decent level of game balance, that 40k fails to provide.
This is what PV and FOC are supposed to support in 40k.Enough balance to facilitate fun pick up games.
Except that, having played in 4th and 5th edition 40k, that isn't how it works.
You don't get to make up 'cool, new units and scenarios.' You get to play what's in the rulebook, because it's 'balanced.' So if your faction's precious superheavy tank isn't in the rulebook, then sorry, no go.
EDIT: The idea the competitive players will be happy AND casuals will be happy in a balanced rules-set is bollocks. Casual players get shouted down by the competitive players when they try to develop narrative elements. For example, if you say "In this campaign game, the tau have 2000 points attacking from all sides against 1000 points of fortified Space Marines because of an ambush," then you've made a cool scenario. However, if the Space Marine player is less casual, he will say "No, thanks. I prefer to have a chance of winning." and turn the game down.
So really, casual players get stuck in a corner, were 'you and your little casual friends go to play toy soldiers, while we real men play real 40k real competitive-like!' I do not wish to return to that environment.
When its said that both casual and competitive players would benefit from a balanced game it means that a casual player won't be punished for bringing a fluffy list. If Casual player A brings a Blood Angels assault army, he stands a good chance of winning as opposed to the game being decided before the first dice throw. It also keeps competitive player B from bringing a super OP list that stomps A's list flat. It brings them both into a relative similar area where the power difference isn't so great.
It's not impossible and in fact, other games do it rather well. Yes, list building is still important, but what should be more important is how one uses them and not "I bring wave serpents and/or riptides, therefore I win." It should be I bring Waveserpents and/or Riptides, but I better use them as effectively as I can or I lose.
In fact, some games actually give the player bonuses for playing fluffy lists.
The problem in 40k, though, is that everything is fluffy. If I want to bring 10 Leman Russ tanks, that's fluffy. Of I want to bring 500 screaming conscripts with no upgrades, that's fluffy. How do you make a game in which the tanks have a chance to lose against the conscripts without making dumb artificial rules like Combined Ranged Attack?
Lanrak wrote: The game developers not being idiots really should regulate the game enough for anyone.
Players imagination and creativity allow them far more freedom to let rip, than poorly defined and implemented sales pamphlets.
ftfy.
Ask 1000 40k players to develop a cool new unit for their army, and a fun scenario or two to use them in.
And you get 100 s of cool new units, and 100 s of cool new scenarios to try out.(Subjectively speaking.)
Ask 1000 40k players to write a clearly defined intuitive and engaging rule set for 40k, and you get 100s of arguments about what a 40k rule set should be.
Any group of competent gamers can make up stuff,(rules and unit profiles,) and play fun narrative games.
Players that rely on random pick up games need a decent level of game balance, that 40k fails to provide.
This is what PV and FOC are supposed to support in 40k.Enough balance to facilitate fun pick up games.
Except that, having played in 4th and 5th edition 40k, that isn't how it works.
You don't get to make up 'cool, new units and scenarios.' You get to play what's in the rulebook, because it's 'balanced.' So if your faction's precious superheavy tank isn't in the rulebook, then sorry, no go.
EDIT: The idea the competitive players will be happy AND casuals will be happy in a balanced rules-set is bollocks. Casual players get shouted down by the competitive players when they try to develop narrative elements. For example, if you say "In this campaign game, the tau have 2000 points attacking from all sides against 1000 points of fortified Space Marines because of an ambush," then you've made a cool scenario. However, if the Space Marine player is less casual, he will say "No, thanks. I prefer to have a chance of winning." and turn the game down.
So really, casual players get stuck in a corner, were 'you and your little casual friends go to play toy soldiers, while we real men play real 40k real competitive-like!' I do not wish to return to that environment.
When its said that both casual and competitive players would benefit from a balanced game it means that a casual player won't be punished for bringing a fluffy list. If Casual player A brings a Blood Angels assault army, he stands a good chance of winning as opposed to the game being decided before the first dice throw. It also keeps competitive player B from bringing a super OP list that stomps A's list flat. It brings them both into a relative similar area where the power difference isn't so great.
It's not impossible and in fact, other games do it rather well. Yes, list building is still important, but what should be more important is how one uses them and not "I bring wave serpents and/or riptides, therefore I win." It should be I bring Waveserpents and/or Riptides, but I better use them as effectively as I can or I lose.
In fact, some games actually give the player bonuses for playing fluffy lists.
The problem in 40k, though, is that everything is fluffy. If I want to bring 10 Leman Russ tanks, that's fluffy. Of I want to bring 500 screaming conscripts with no upgrades, that's fluffy. How do you make a game in which the tanks have a chance to lose against the conscripts without making dumb artificial rules like Combined Ranged Attack?
Like I said, list building is still important. You make an all anti armor army and go against an armored list, you're going to lose. This in turn actually encourages well rounded lists and within those lists it can specialize, but it should still have the basics covered. Spam lists are thus discouraged because with rare exceptions they're not really fun to play against anyway. (for me at least.) Also, play the scenario instead of straight meat grinder?
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Lanrak wrote: The game developers not being idiots really should regulate the game enough for anyone.
Players imagination and creativity allow them far more freedom to let rip, than poorly defined and implemented sales pamphlets.
ftfy.
Ask 1000 40k players to develop a cool new unit for their army, and a fun scenario or two to use them in.
And you get 100 s of cool new units, and 100 s of cool new scenarios to try out.(Subjectively speaking.)
Ask 1000 40k players to write a clearly defined intuitive and engaging rule set for 40k, and you get 100s of arguments about what a 40k rule set should be.
Any group of competent gamers can make up stuff,(rules and unit profiles,) and play fun narrative games.
Players that rely on random pick up games need a decent level of game balance, that 40k fails to provide.
This is what PV and FOC are supposed to support in 40k.Enough balance to facilitate fun pick up games.
Except that, having played in 4th and 5th edition 40k, that isn't how it works.
You don't get to make up 'cool, new units and scenarios.' You get to play what's in the rulebook, because it's 'balanced.' So if your faction's precious superheavy tank isn't in the rulebook, then sorry, no go.
EDIT: The idea the competitive players will be happy AND casuals will be happy in a balanced rules-set is bollocks. Casual players get shouted down by the competitive players when they try to develop narrative elements. For example, if you say "In this campaign game, the tau have 2000 points attacking from all sides against 1000 points of fortified Space Marines because of an ambush," then you've made a cool scenario. However, if the Space Marine player is less casual, he will say "No, thanks. I prefer to have a chance of winning." and turn the game down.
So really, casual players get stuck in a corner, were 'you and your little casual friends go to play toy soldiers, while we real men play real 40k real competitive-like!' I do not wish to return to that environment.
When its said that both casual and competitive players would benefit from a balanced game it means that a casual player won't be punished for bringing a fluffy list. If Casual player A brings a Blood Angels assault army, he stands a good chance of winning as opposed to the game being decided before the first dice throw. It also keeps competitive player B from bringing a super OP list that stomps A's list flat. It brings them both into a relative similar area where the power difference isn't so great.
It's not impossible and in fact, other games do it rather well. Yes, list building is still important, but what should be more important is how one uses them and not "I bring wave serpents and/or riptides, therefore I win." It should be I bring Waveserpents and/or Riptides, but I better use them as effectively as I can or I lose.
In fact, some games actually give the player bonuses for playing fluffy lists.
The problem in 40k, though, is that everything is fluffy. If I want to bring 10 Leman Russ tanks, that's fluffy. Of I want to bring 500 screaming conscripts with no upgrades, that's fluffy. How do you make a game in which the tanks have a chance to lose against the conscripts without making dumb artificial rules like Combined Ranged Attack?
To me it is more than one thing. I would have selected at least two of the options in the list. Balance would involve all of the following:
1. Most units in any given codex could be fielded and effective in most games, and no option in the codex is so powerful that it is an auto take. (I am fine with a few quirky units that aren't worth their value but are fun to take in fluffy, casual games)
2. Shooting and assault based armies have roughly equal chances of winning any given game.
3. In a game involving evenly matched players, any codex can be used and have a chance of success no worse than 33%. (I don't mind having some weaker armies as some like the challenge, but if you can't win around 1 out of 3 games against an equal player, balance is lacking.
4. TAC lists can be expected to beat focused lists about 50% of the time, i.e. a list with balance between anti-infantry/anti-armor capabilities shoould be able to beat tank or infantry spam.
MWHistorian wrote:
Like I said, list building is still important. You make an all anti armor army and go against an armored list, you're going to lose. This in turn actually encourages well rounded lists and within those lists it can specialize, but it should still have the basics covered. Spam lists are thus discouraged because with rare exceptions they're not really fun to play against anyway. (for me at least.) Also, play the scenario instead of straight meat grinder?
So why can't that be said now? Why can't you just say "if you make an all Ork Boy list and go against a Titan, you're going to lose?" It's the same argument - the good stuff is still good, and if you can't deal with it, it wrecks you. And Spam lists are fluffy - why would you want to discourage them? And sometimes the scenario IS straight meatgrinder.
Selym wrote:
Give 'em fething meltabombs.
There. Meatgrinder. Chance to win.
Conscripts can't have meltabombs. I mean, I guess you could ignore the rules, and that'd be fine with me, but competitive players wouldn't like that much.
Because there are very clear and obvious under and over performers.
Just like there would be in a game of 500 conscripts vs anything. The conscripts would clearly lose to almost anything at the same points level. Except, perhaps, more conscripts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/26 18:37:52
MWHistorian wrote:
Like I said, list building is still important. You make an all anti armor army and go against an armored list, you're going to lose. This in turn actually encourages well rounded lists and within those lists it can specialize, but it should still have the basics covered. Spam lists are thus discouraged because with rare exceptions they're not really fun to play against anyway. (for me at least.) Also, play the scenario instead of straight meat grinder?
So why can't that be said now? Why can't you just say "if you make an all Ork Boy list and go against a Titan, you're going to lose?" It's the same argument - the good stuff is still good, and if you can't deal with it, it wrecks you. And Spam lists are fluffy - why would you want to discourage them? And sometimes the scenario IS straight meatgrinder.
Selym wrote:
Give 'em fething meltabombs.
There. Meatgrinder. Chance to win.
Conscripts can't have meltabombs. I mean, I guess you could ignore the rules, and that'd be fine with me, but competitive players wouldn't like that much.
Conscripts need 130 pts of platoon before they can be taken. Can't really make an army full of naught but conscripts.
Just like there would be in a game of 500 conscripts vs anything. The conscripts would clearly lose to almost anything at the same points level. Except, perhaps, more conscripts.
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating a game where anything can kill anything without any thought on list construction.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
MWHistorian wrote:
Like I said, list building is still important. You make an all anti armor army and go against an armored list, you're going to lose. This in turn actually encourages well rounded lists and within those lists it can specialize, but it should still have the basics covered. Spam lists are thus discouraged because with rare exceptions they're not really fun to play against anyway. (for me at least.) Also, play the scenario instead of straight meat grinder?
So why can't that be said now? Why can't you just say "if you make an all Ork Boy list and go against a Titan, you're going to lose?" It's the same argument - the good stuff is still good, and if you can't deal with it, it wrecks you. And Spam lists are fluffy - why would you want to discourage them? And sometimes the scenario IS straight meatgrinder.
Selym wrote:
Give 'em fething meltabombs.
There. Meatgrinder. Chance to win.
Conscripts can't have meltabombs. I mean, I guess you could ignore the rules, and that'd be fine with me, but competitive players wouldn't like that much.
Conscripts need 130 pts of platoon before they can be taken. Can't really make an army full of naught but conscripts.
Just like there would be in a game of 500 conscripts vs anything. The conscripts would clearly lose to almost anything at the same points level. Except, perhaps, more conscripts.
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating a game where anything can kill anything without any thought on list construction.
Then how will it be different from now? List construction determines games now as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/26 18:41:36
Then how will it be different from now? List construction determines games now as well.
Because there are very clear under and over performers, as I just said earlier.
To expand on that, look at a unit and determine its role. If another unit can do the same role better, for cheaper, or more roles, there's an issue.
I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm trying to demonstrate that variety in lists will not increase as balance increase (as some have claimed) because unless you achieve a balance where every unit is equal individually, then there will always be 'better lists' and 'worse llsts' and in the competitive environment, the 'better lists' will be ubiquitous and the worse lists will remain unplayed.
I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm trying to demonstrate that variety in lists will not increase as balance increase (as some have claimed) because unless you achieve a balance where every unit is equal individually, then there will always be 'better lists' and 'worse llsts' and in the competitive environment, the 'better lists' will be ubiquitous and the worse lists will remain unplayed.
In black and white terms of better and worse, sure, but that gap in a balanced game would be much, much smaller than it currently is.
If I throw down a platoon of rough riders, I shouldn't be immediately at a disadvantage.
Better balance would promote more variety, as players would be more inclined to play with a certain style or set of models to achieve the same list balance.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Then how will it be different from now? List construction determines games now as well.
Because there are very clear under and over performers, as I just said earlier.
To expand on that, look at a unit and determine its role. If another unit can do the same role better, for cheaper, or more roles, there's an issue.
I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm trying to demonstrate that variety in lists will not increase as balance increase (as some have claimed) because unless you achieve a balance where every unit is equal individually, then there will always be 'better lists' and 'worse llsts' and in the competitive environment, the 'better lists' will be ubiquitous and the worse lists will remain unplayed.
Ideally, every unit would have a job to do. Some units may have only one job that lends its self to a limited type of list, but still, it does it. Unit A may not be chosen very much, but not because it's job is performed by much better units, but becuase its role doesn't come up very often.
Example: Chaos codex. Mutilators are cc only, but they stink at it. They're slow, can't shoot, don't have grenades, etc. Their job can be done better by several other units and usually for a lot cheaper. Warp Talons, same thing. They're CC but are way over priced for what you get, so no on fields them. 1KSons are very limited with what they can do but cost as much as terminators. Unless someone's a masochist, they're not going to see a lot of play.
Look around. Most of what you see from chaos armies are plague marines, Obliterators and Heldrakes. It's become predictable and boring. Why? Because those are the best units and if you want to win you kind of have to take them or you're putting yourself behind the 8-ball. If the internal balance was better and everything was worth taking even if only in certain circumstances, you'd see a much greater variety of Chaos marine armies.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
MWHistorian wrote:
Like I said, list building is still important. You make an all anti armor army and go against an armored list, you're going to lose. This in turn actually encourages well rounded lists and within those lists it can specialize, but it should still have the basics covered. Spam lists are thus discouraged because with rare exceptions they're not really fun to play against anyway. (for me at least.) Also, play the scenario instead of straight meat grinder?
So why can't that be said now? Why can't you just say "if you make an all Ork Boy list and go against a Titan, you're going to lose?" It's the same argument - the good stuff is still good, and if you can't deal with it, it wrecks you. And Spam lists are fluffy - why would you want to discourage them? And sometimes the scenario IS straight meatgrinder.
Selym wrote:
Give 'em fething meltabombs.
There. Meatgrinder. Chance to win.
Conscripts can't have meltabombs. I mean, I guess you could ignore the rules, and that'd be fine with me, but competitive players wouldn't like that much.
Conscripts need 130 pts of platoon before they can be taken. Can't really make an army full of naught but conscripts.
Just like there would be in a game of 500 conscripts vs anything. The conscripts would clearly lose to almost anything at the same points level. Except, perhaps, more conscripts.
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating a game where anything can kill anything without any thought on list construction.
Then how will it be different from now? List construction determines games now as well.
Except that conscripts are not a separate unit choice. THey're like dedicated transports, you need the main unit to take the extra one.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm trying to demonstrate that variety in lists will not increase as balance increase (as some have claimed) because unless you achieve a balance where every unit is equal individually, then there will always be 'better lists' and 'worse llsts' and in the competitive environment, the 'better lists' will be ubiquitous and the worse lists will remain unplayed.
Except you're missing two important things here:
1) Balance doesn't mean that deliberate bad lists are viable. There will always be bad combinations (like taking a list with no anti-tank weapons in a game where tanks exist), and that's fine. Balance means that individual options are all viable in the right situations and all major archetypes have a roughly equal chance of winning, not that you can't make stupid decisions. Improving balance will never make the all-conscripts list viable because it's a stupid list, but it can increase the number of top-tier lists. And list diversity will be greatly improved if you can succeed with any reasonable strategy, not just a small number of strategies that exploit blatantly overpowered rules.
2) Diversity improves when the gap between list tiers is smaller. If list A is the clear dominant list (because it abuses overpowered rules) and list B is significantly weaker then obviously you play A, there's no reason to play B. But if the gap between them is much smaller you're giving up a lot less by taking the "weaker" list and you might even find some advantages. You might prefer its fluff, you might think it's a good choice against the current metagame even if its theoretical power is less, you might hope to exploit the fact that opponents aren't as familiar with it, etc. Or you might even decide that the community is wrong, and list B is actually better than list A. And of course in reality you have a lot more than just two lists to compare. Improving balance means replacing a metagame dominated by a few overpowered lists with a metagame where there are a lot more options for the "better list".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I think a contributing factor in the poor game balance in 40k is its near complete focus on physical damage at the exclusion of everything else.
Most players view units along the lines of 'what can they kill, what do they cost.'
Where as other games , include suppression, recon, digging in /hull down, smoke (LOS blocking,)etc .
So units can have more diverse tactical in game functions.
I agree that in the current game play some units are 'useless' .However if the depth of game play /tactical options were increased this could mitigate this .
As Peregrine pointed out , all permissible lists vs all other permissible lists , should have a reasonable chance of winning .(Between 40% and 60% of the time.)
IF the game developers are doing their job properly, in reguard to PV allocation and force composition.
(The current F.O.C is not really optimum for achieving game balance, but it is a good sales tool.)
The point I was trying to make in my last post was if the game developers define what a balanced game is,then those that want to play random pick up games can simply use this .
But those wanting to 'game in the gaps' 'make stuff up because its cool' have a solid base to work from to develop their own narrative games.
GW plc could support narrative play with 'Campaign Books' full of scenarios and 'special units for narrative play.'
You don't get to make up 'cool, new units and scenarios.' You get to play what's in the rulebook, because it's 'balanced.' So if your faction's precious superheavy tank isn't in the rulebook, then sorry, no go.
EDIT: The idea the competitive players will be happy AND casuals will be happy in a balanced rules-set is bollocks. Casual players get shouted down by the competitive players when they try to develop narrative elements. For example, if you say "In this campaign game, the tau have 2000 points attacking from all sides against 1000 points of fortified Space Marines because of an ambush," then you've made a cool scenario. However, if the Space Marine player is less casual, he will say "No, thanks. I prefer to have a chance of winning." and turn the game down.
I think you’re misrepresenting the facts on the ground. Your example above is less about “casual versus competitive (and casual losing)” and more about one player wanting a PUG (pick-up game) and the other wanting a narrative home brew scenario. I don’t see casual or competitive as being a feature, since casual players also want PUGs and competitive players are not adverse to narrative scenarios. In any case, your scenario can be fixed with proper communication between the two players.
Firstly, PUGs require a “common ground” approach, and a universal set of instructions and defined principles in order to function. Its less about “competitive” players wanting it, and more about PUG games needing it in order to function. Your example here doesn’t offer that because you essentially made up the mission because of reasons. Cool scenarios can work. You just have to build them right.
In any case, balanced rules won’t necessarily affect either approach. Whereas now, with the situation we have at the moment, the ambushed army is bound to lose because their codex is horribly out dated, whilst the ambushing party brought a dozen riptides and a knight, and blew everything apart on turn 1. Shake hands good game. the marine player is right in principle – it wont be fun for him to get blown apart in a single turn. His role in the game should amount to more than being just shot off the board for your amusement. He should be a participant as well. If he has win conditions that he can strive for though, and balanced rules that allow him a decent chance of achieving them, then I’m sure he’s fair game for playing a “scenario” mission type as opposed to a “PUG” mission type.
What we have in the above scenario is a poorly thought through, and functionally clunky rules set that really only caters to one group of players out of three. And i use that term "caters" only loosely. the narrative players will be happy to discuss what to put on the board, and regulate via self policing. This is fine for a small group of friends by the way. The same set of rules is extremely unwieldy for PUG players and also for tournament players. thats a significant portion of the playerbase. A balanced set of rules will cater for all three groups, at the same time. there is no reason that one set of well-written rules can't be applied to multiple functions. If anything, i would even argue it may be possible to break down the artificial "walls" that GW and its playing community have created with their defined tribes of players.
At the end of the day, I don’t see any reason why balanced, clearly written rules are incompatible with scenario play, narrative play, or campaign play. Define the principles in the rulebook, just as they do with Deadzone, and have rules for having a set “strike force” of (say) 3,000+ pts, from which a “strike team” is launched. Apply rules for experience, casualties, re-inforcements, repairs and maintenance etc. Done. Clearly define things. Campaigns are not favoured by a lot of people, not because they’re not competitive, but because so many are poorly made and poorly designed and thought through. They’re also extremely arbitrary, and again, lack any kind of common structure necessary to make them work as a project. It doesn’t have to be this way though. Some discipline in the design process, with clear goals and objectives, and a proper well designed structure, and you’ve got everyone on board.
So really, casual players get stuck in a corner, were 'you and your little casual friends go to play toy soldiers, while we real men play real 40k real competitive-like!' I do not wish to return to that environment.
Not really. See above. 40k is the only game that divides players into these artificial camps.
The problem in 40k, though, is that everything is fluffy. If I want to bring 10 Leman Russ tanks, that's fluffy. Of I want to bring 500 screaming conscripts with no upgrades, that's fluffy. How do you make a game in which the tanks have a chance to lose against the conscripts without making dumb artificial rules like Combined Ranged Attack?
Combined ranged attack is far from “dumb”. Its an in-game mechanic to represent a number of soldiers co-ordinating their actions rather than fighting as individuals. GW would have you roll leadership tests, and have each participant roll on a dozen “minor assist” and “major assist” tables to represent the same thing.
So why can't that be said now? Why can't you just say "if you make an all Ork Boy list and go against a Titan, you're going to lose?" It's the same argument - the good stuff is still good, and if you can't deal with it, it wrecks you. And Spam lists are fluffy - why would you want to discourage them? And sometimes the scenario IS straight meatgrinder.
Incorrect. “good stuff is still good, and if you cant deal with it, it wrecks face”. Don’t mistake this for being OP/UP. There is a difference between things being unbalanced and “poor tactical planning”. you seem to be making the mistake in thinking units can only be "good" or "bad", and that means balanced cant be acheived. I disagree. I would argue you should have well designed units from the very start. And its less of a case of "good" units or "bad" units and more of a case of them being used right.
Secondly, with regard to your example, currently, not all things are equally “good”. Some shooting options are clearly superior to other shooting options. So why take the latter?
And again, you are misrepresenting the facts on the ground. Think less “everything should be useful against everything”, and more “everything has a role to play, and can be factored into a strategy”. Even in warmachine, not everything is good against everything else. Everything has a role to play though. Its not about 500 conscripts beating down everything from bloodthirsters to titans, its about those 500 conscripts being an awesome tarpit, and being as obnoxious to remove as a phalanx of terminators, for example. Its about having a lot of “viable options”. Its about your faction having access to a variety of “questions” with which to ask your opponent, whilst also having a variety of different “answers” available to your opponents “questions”. Not all questions need have the same answers when asked. You should be able to tackle a problem by asking a variety of different “questions”, and similarly, you should be able to answer a question with a variety of different “answers”. Not all need to be identical. Do you clear out a tarpit with melee options, or ranged options? Its about not having one single list “that rules them all”.
In your case, with your 500 conscripts. In a balanced game, i can ask myself "what questions do they ask of my opponent?". I can also ask "what answers do they bring to the table"? And i can build those questions and answers into a coherent strategy. there is no reason why they cannot be part of a greater plan. there is no reason they should be better or worse than another option, merely different. best thing is that different options, and different set ups completely change what is asked and answered. It becomes a case of "how do i solve the puzzle". And everyone can do it a different way. thats variety. and thats what balance brings to the table.
Conscripts can't have meltabombs. I mean, I guess you could ignore the rules, and that'd be fine with me, but competitive players wouldn't like that much.
I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm trying to demonstrate that variety in lists will not increase as balance increase (as some have claimed) because unless you achieve a balance where every unit is equal individually, then there will always be 'better lists' and 'worse llsts' and in the competitive environment, the 'better lists' will be ubiquitous and the worse lists will remain unplayed
Not really. Not everything needs to be “equal individually” to be balanced. Just viable. If option A is used for function X, and option B is also used for X, but costs half as much, with added ability to do function Y, why would you use A?
It goes back to your “better” or “worse” list. Surely its fairly to look at it in the sense of having a tactical application? A unit has to be effective at its role. Fine. Its OK for a dedicated anti-tank unit (lets call it a Bear) to not be great against infantry, for example (just as its OK for 500 conscripts to come up short (ha!) against a titan)-that doesn’t make it bad. So what happens when my Bear comes up against infantry, and fails to perform? Is it an example of a “better” or “worse” list? Is the Bear “underpowered”, or is it merely “poor tactical planning” on your part? Personally, I think it’s a lot less about “better” and “worse” lists, and a lot more on “poorly utilised”. That’s a thing too. Would the Bear have been better being deployed in another position? What makes it balanced as an option is when its not far and away superior to other anti tank options, and the meta then devolves into lines of Bears facing off against each other. This is the state of play with 40k – each edition comes down to a handful of builds spamming a handful of units that are head and shoulders above the rest. No thanks.
I’d argue further that your conscript example, in an army that is “just” a human wave, is a skew build. Skew builds are outliers, and are by their nature self- limiting, as they’re extremely prone to hard counters. And while they do one thing extremely well, by definition, they’ll be extremely limited in other tactical endeavours. As such, a system will naturally self-balance towards the middle and away from them in terms of planning for tactical flexibility. TAC in 40k, DASH in WMH. A balanced game, however would allow both for the presence of those skew builds, but also have a built in flexibility that they don’t either unfairly dominate, or unfairly suffer. For example, privateer press’s two-list format allows me to run my all melee screaming horde of doom reavers (epic butcher: mad dogs of war tier list). This list has severe match up issues however, and whilst its brilliant fun, its foolish to field it against some lists. I have my other list available should my opponent have something that hard-counters it. As such, I get to play my favourite skew list, but at the same time, I’m not necessarily penalised or suffer for taking it. Same with your 500 conscripts. Take that list when there isn’t a hard counter.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
Its not possible to ever balance anything, there are too many variables like the llayers experience, codex configuration and dice for example. Thats the fun, its who can shift the balancing to their use so they can beat the other person.
I think you're missing the point of balance. If you give the same player a chaos space marine army or an eldar army and he has average dice rolls, they should have about the same chance of winning. If I played 10 games with a good eldar list against various armies I would win 8 or 9 games. If I played 10 games with a good CSM list against those same armies I would win 2 or 3 games. Dice luck and player skill can't be accounted for when balancing a game. The problem is even when you take away the variables you mention, the game is horribly imbalanced almost to the point of being completely broken. It's imbalanced to the point where a weaker list from 2 or 3 books can still stomp the best lists possible from several other books. That's bad external balance. It's also imbalanced internally when the majority of books have auto include units and other units that no player with half a brain would ever take in a competitive setting. The new 7th edition codexes have improved this greatly, and hopefully the trend continues. However, I don't see how taking 6 riptides or wraithknights with minimum troops and HQ to "shift the balance in your favor" can be considered fun by anyone. That's not fun, it's repetitive and boring. I also don't see how it's "fun" to have 75% of the armies at top tables in GTs come from 2 books.
acidlemon wrote: Its not possible to ever balance anything, there are too many variables like the llayers experience, codex configuration and dice for example. Thats the fun, its who can shift the balancing to their use so they can beat the other person.
You do not understand the argument. You're referring to perfect balance, which everyone knows is basically impossible. What is very much possible however is close balance that still allows asymmetric gameplay. That is where the fun is - being able to take one of a number of factions each with multiple different viable builds and have winning being based mostly on skill and partially on luck, NOT due to which army you brought.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 03:34:02
Not really. Not everything needs to be “equal individually” to be balanced. Just viable. If option A is used for function X, and option B is also used for X, but costs half as much, with added ability to do function Y, why would you use A?
It goes back to your “better” or “worse” list. Surely its fairly to look at it in the sense of having a tactical application? A unit has to be effective at its role. Fine. Its OK for a dedicated anti-tank unit (lets call it a Bear) to not be great against infantry, for example (just as its OK for 500 conscripts to come up short (ha!) against a titan)-that doesn’t make it bad. So what happens when my Bear comes up against infantry, and fails to perform? Is it an example of a “better” or “worse” list? Is the Bear “underpowered”, or is it merely “poor tactical planning” on your part? Personally, I think it’s a lot less about “better” and “worse” lists, and a lot more on “poorly utilised”. That’s a thing too. Would the Bear have been better being deployed in another position? What makes it balanced as an option is when its not far and away superior to other anti tank options, and the meta then devolves into lines of Bears facing off against each other. This is the state of play with 40k – each edition comes down to a handful of builds spamming a handful of units that are head and shoulders above the rest. No thanks.
This is a really good point, and one that's not really reflected in the original poll because I honestly didn't think of it at the time (or at least, didn't think of it in quite the right way). Balance in this sense means that every unit has a role to play within a list, at least theoretically. That there are no "auto-includes" or "auto-excludes", and that units are balanced power-to-points against other codices and against other units within the same codex. In some ways this ties in with list-tailoring (a unit might not have a place in a TAC list but might be a good hard-counter to something in the other codices that also rarely features in a TAC list but might show up in a tailored list, and so on). In that sense, I don't think there are any completely useless units; just units that aren't flexible enough for their points to feature in a TAC list.
I've been fascinated by the discussion, which has almost universally been constructive and interesting. What I find surprising is that, with nearly 600 votes cast, there is no clear winner among the balance options; the highest score is less than a third, and it goes to "balance between take-all-comers lists". It has easily the highest vote tally, but nowhere near majority support. If this were a parliament, we'd be trying to form a coalition government. There is clearly no real consensus on what exactly constitutes "balance" within our gaming system. Most of the options have a fair amount of support (except for deathstars, everybody hates deathstars).
A few people continue to insist that balance isn't possible, which leads me to believe that they may not have understood the purpose of the thread. They are defining balance in a narrow way, declaring impossible something that nobody else is asking for. People's definitions of balance are achievable, but maybe not all at the same time. I think this goes a long way to showing the divide within the community, and that the best you can really hope for with balance is to make 31% of people happy. I'm content to let there be no consensus on this issue, diversity of opinion makes the community richer after all, but it does give the lie somewhat to those who claim that they speak for the silent majority when they expound on the balance problems in 40k and how to fix them.
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
I think it is a mistake to narrow the concept of balance to one thing. Balance should involve several of the things you have listed. I would have voted for multiple options if I could and wouldn't consider the game balanced if the option I voted for had balance while the other important factors didn't.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I think it is a mistake to narrow the concept of balance to one thing. Balance should involve several of the things you have listed. I would have voted for multiple options if I could and wouldn't consider the game balanced if the option I voted for had balance while the other important factors didn't.
Agreed, I think the polling results come more from a confusing poll that doesn't quite cover the subject. I think office_waaagh has the right of it in his definition.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
For me personally, balance is for units to be relatively close to each other in power level, so picking Unit A over Unit B is an interesting tactical option (e.g. maybe I like how Unit A looks or the fluff of Unit B fits better with my army concept) without giving up effectiveness. You should never be penalized simply for picking Unit B instead of Unit A, because Unit A is better in every way.
For me that's one of the major issues with 40k; if you pick the wrong unit choice you are basically screwed right out of the gate because you made the wrong choice, your army concept or fluff be damned. That's wrong. If I want to play let's say a fluffy Iron Warriors CSM army, I shouldn't be punished for not playing Nurgle or be told creative ways to take the Mark of Nurgle and make it apply; I should be able to field the units I want that fit my fluff and do just as well as an all-Nurgle army, albeit likely with different tactical applications.
By the same token while there will always be "superior" choices due to probability and math, there doesn't need to be a huge gap between units. There shouldn't be a "one true way" to play a particular army (e.g. all bike SM being better than most every other choice, and a fluffy Battle Company being ineffective), there should be several options that are viable with a handful of course being the "most competitive" option.
This is where a game like Warmachine (which is what I currently play) stands head and shoulders above 40k in regards to unit and faction balance; for example, the Man-o-War Shocktroopers are a largely lackluster unit compared to other choices, but they aren't bad, there are ways to make them work effectively on the table and other than high-end tournament lists (and even then sometimes a great player will take "bad" units) you will never be told when asking about them "That unit sucks, pick <Unit X> instead it's better".
Another example would be a game like Bolt Action, where you aren't penalized for taking say regular infantry versus elite paratroopers; both choices are viable based on the kind of army that you want to do.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/31 01:12:52
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I think it is a mistake to narrow the concept of balance to one thing. Balance should involve several of the things you have listed. I would have voted for multiple options if I could and wouldn't consider the game balanced if the option I voted for had balance while the other important factors didn't.
You can actually pick multiple options. I agree; balance for most people probably includes several of the features listed in the poll, which is why you can select as many as you like. For that reason, it's not accurate of me to say that less than a third of people picked "balance between TAC lists" since it's actually a third of the votes cast; maybe everyone picked that one and two others, and unanimity is closer to reality. I don't think this is the case based on the discussion, though. I do think that this demonstrates that when people say they want balance, what they're actually asking for in practical terms varies considerably from person to person.
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
The most powerful builds from each codex should have equal chances of beating one another.
Don't really like this because it implies poor internal balance in a codex, or that you only have one or very few options within the codex that work.
A typical "take all comers" list another from any codex should have an even chance to beat a similar list from any other codex.
This is important.
Each codex should have a "death star" unit of equal power.
Don't care about this at all.
Every codex should have a unit that provides a counter to anything you can find in another codex.
Hmm, not exactly sure about his. Every codex should have some way to counter whatever is in another codex. Whether the counter is a single unit or a combination of units doesn't matter to me.
An army that contains a balance of infantry, armour, characters, and flyers, should be the most viable build in any given codex.
Don't really agree with this one being important exactly as written. You shouldn't be forced to take flyers if you don't like them, or armor or whatever. I would phrase this in almost the opposite way. You shouldn't be overpowered by focusing on one of these options to the exclusion of others. Moderately competitive when doing so, but not dominate.
Two players that tailor their lists against one another should have even odds of winning regardless of what codex each of them uses.
I more or less agree with this, but not necessarily so. I tailor against ork foot swarm, then have nothing to deal with his vehicles and battlewagons is my problem for not being adequately prepared, not a balance problem.
An army geared for shooting and an army geared for close combat should have equal chances against one another.
Absolutely! Both aspects of the game should be able to succeed as well as a good mix of both abilities. One caveat is I don't think simple, static gunlines should be anything more than marginally competitive. Game should force some sort of movement even if nothing more than get away from that uber cc unit so it doesn't engage us immediately after destroying the other dudes, or sorry lads you need to run out there and die so that cc monster unit doesn't get to the main lines as quickly.
It was meant to be more of a "what is sufficient for the game to be considered balanced". Not necessarily what the definition of balance is in general so much as what exactly are people asking for. Is it enough that each codex can theoretically compete against every other, or should it go further and require TAC lists to be balanced against each other? If it is enough for each codex to be able to beat the others, should it require some foreknowledge of what your opponent is likely to take or should it be enough to just know what codex s/he's using? How important is internal balance vs external balance?
The point of the poll was to establish the necessary and sufficient conditions, the minimum, that people want when they ask for balance. I hope that it's at least stimulated some discussion on the matter, even if it hasn't provided a resolution. Obviously, I don't consider the poll exhaustive. It was supposed to be the starting point for discussion, not the end.
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
