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.

 Zweischneid wrote:
A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.

Which is why nobody has mentioned a "truly 100% balanced game" in this thread, or ever in the related threads that I've seen. I don't think anyone is against the idea of this "perfect imbalance", the argument is that 40k is about as far from that as pitting a soapbox racer against a Nascar driver and claiming that it's a fine comparison because both are "cars".

The original argument of the thread was if the "problem" with 40k is taking it too seriously, and this was quickly refused by the idea that the problem with 40k is the gross imbalance of the factions and units within the same faction, which then turned into the current discussion of perfect imbalance, which really is a moot point because 40k isn't 100% balanced (ignoring whether or not this is a viable design) nor is it perfect imbalance. It's almost gross negligently imbalanced, and that is the problem with 40k. Things aren't balanced for what appears to be no reason at all (whether laziness or ignorance), or at worst things are imbalanced to coerce players into buying new/better units on a rotating basis.

Barring the typical complaints about prices, I don't think there would be half as much issue with 40k if it actually *was* trying to reach perfect imbalance. The issue is that it's not, and is pretending in the same breath that it is while its defenders claim that 40k's style of balance is a good thing.

No matter how you slice it, 40k needs to be more balanced than it currently is. Whether that's a move towards 100% balance or "perfect imbalance" is irrelevant, just the fact that it needs to NOT be grossly imbalanced while in the same breath pretending that it is.

We're talking in circles, and Zwei, you have yet to address the flat out broken nature of many units. If the game is so beautifally designed as-is, this does not address the glaring flaws in many units.

The way the game is designed itself, using a points system and force organization, suggests the game is shooting for balance. Otherwise it would simply be a narrative framework of bring what you want. However, Games Workshop business model isn't supporting this, either. It's noted in much of the fluff that Imperial Knights have fallen to Chaos in the past, yet Chaos cannot have them. It would make sense that if you gave Chaos the knight, they'd buy it, thus more sales. So what reason would Games Workshop pull this? It's either an ignorant decision, which is neglegence to the players, it's incompetance, or it's a choice of game design. A game design that is aiming for what... balance. And failing.

The game design for Warhamm 40k is bad. I have seen three areas across this country over the past several years dropping off the game because of the gross mismanagement of the ruleset coupled with increased costs. They were all dropped for one of the major skirmish games appealing to local community at that time; the skirmish games featuring better support. Any support is better support than the next to none Games Workshop provides. We can split hairs on what we mean by "balance" as is being done, but it's a waste of time at this point. A local tournament draws in a much larger crowd (up to 60+ players and not "WAAC" folks, but all types) when comped. When your player base has to manage the rules you sell at a higher cost than any other game AND have the audacity to claim you're just a model company, you're dellusional.

We have many folks here claiming to be casual players and saying the game doesn't work for their narrative forging. We have many competitive players saying it doesn't workt there, either. We have the entire spectrum reprsented saying it's busted. Can you play it? Yes. But how much fun is a game win on a rules dice-off? If this was a narrative driven game, it would be a cooperative setting like that of a traditional RPG. Or, if it is to be narrative driven like historical miniatures, settings would be given with asymmetrical conditions that allow both players a "win". Warhammer 40k offers neither but symmetrical victory conditions with direct player vs player confrontation. Narrative? Marketing term, nothing more.

Warhammer 40k is not balanced and not by intetional design. The FAQs alone prove this when you have comments such as "WOW WE DIDN'T INTEND THIS BUT I GUESS IT'S LEGAL SO WHATEVS". Yeesh.

WayneTheGame wrote:


Which is why nobody has mentioned a "truly 100% balanced game" in this thread, or ever in the related threads that I've seen.

Not true...

Martel732 wrote:


Balance is better. No amounts of imbalance are necessary or desirable.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I don't think anyone is against the idea of this "perfect imbalance", the argument is that 40k is about as far from that as pitting a soapbox racer against a Nascar driver and claiming that it's a fine comparison because both are "cars".


Barring the typical complaints about prices, I don't think there would be half as much issue with 40k if it actually *was* trying to reach perfect imbalance. The issue is that it's not, and is pretending in the same breath that it is while its defenders claim that 40k's style of balance is a good thing.

Again. I never pretended 40K aims for what the video presents as "perfect imbalance".

I linked to the video as one example for why "true 100% balance" isn't a goal of game design, as some people claimed. If you already agree that "true 100% balance" isn't the goal, and a little imbalance serves an important purpose, linking the video would've only told you what you already know.

Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.

I agree with Redbeard. The whole M:TG hobby is very different to tabletop wargames and what is appropriate to a card trading and collecting game is not necessarily appropriate to a tabletop wargame.

However, I still don't understand what people mean by balance, imbalance and perfect imbalance.

It seems to me as if Zweischneid is arguing that both sides should not be the same. I agree with that, however I believe that both sides should have the same chance to build effective armies from different lists.

 Zweischneid wrote:


A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.

This encompasses everything that's wrong with what you're arguing in a nutshell, and unless you really are substantially more stupid than you appear, can only be a result of your wilful ignoring of everyone who has tried to explain the opposite viewpoint in every one of the many, many threads you've derailed with this facile argument.

Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."

Balanced is much easier to type.

Martel732 wrote:
Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.

Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".

I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.

All we need is consensus that "balance" isn't everything and that alterantive approaches exist. "Perfect Balance" being one of them, not necessarily the one 40K pursues.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.

Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".

I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.

Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.

Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".

I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.

Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?

One that doesn't place a lot of emphasis on balance, I would argue.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with Redbeard. The whole M:TG hobby is very different to tabletop wargames and what is appropriate to a card trading and collecting game is not necessarily appropriate to a tabletop wargame.

However, I still don't understand what people mean by balance, imbalance and perfect imbalance.

It seems to me as if Zweischneid is arguing that both sides should not be the same. I agree with that, however I believe that both sides should have the same chance to build effective armies from different lists.

My definitions of the three are something like this:

Balance: Unit A is the same as Unit B, no difference between the two (likely cosmetic only); skill is the only deciding factor (no idea on an example of this?)

Perfect Imbalance: Unit A is better at X, Unit B is better at Y, or Unit A is better than Unit B but Unit B can defeat Unit A with the right tactics/additional choices; Skill is not the *only* factor, but is the biggest factor (e.g. Warmachine). Also for the record I think this should be better referred to as "imperfect balance", since it's striving for overall balance without individual choices being balanced.

Imbalance: Unit A is better than Unit B in every way possible; there is no rules-based reason to take Unit B; taking Unit B actively hurts your opportunities for winning, regardless of skill, because Unit A is flat out better. (e.g. 40k)

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.

Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".

I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.

Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?

One that doesn't place a lot of emphasis on balance, I would argue.

That's very obvious. I don't understand why they would write such a system and invalidate a third of their model line.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.

This encompasses everything that's wrong with what you're arguing in a nutshell, and unless you really are substantially more stupid than you appear, can only be a result of your wilful ignoring of everyone who has tried to explain the opposite viewpoint in every one of the many, many threads you've derailed with this facile argument.

Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."

Balanced is much easier to type.

Also this, pretty much. Few if any of us want perfect balance where Unit A is equivalent to Unit B except for the models. But none or almost none of us want the current trend where Unit A outshines Unit B to the point where not only is there no rules reason to field Unit B, but Unit B is basically a trap that costs you games because it's so bad.

This whole "perfect imbalance" concept is really just wanting things to be balanced overall, even if at the individual level A > B.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.

Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".

I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.

Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?

One that doesn't place a lot of emphasis on balance, I would argue.

Indeed it doesn't. Nor does it work with imperfect balance. It functions on pure imbalance to its detrament.

 azreal13 wrote:

Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."

Balanced is much easier to type.

Can we just spam this for the rest of the thread anytime Zwei posts?

I would love it that many of my friends didn't feel disparraged when playing their Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marine armies. I saw 4 of said players at my last local all either quit 40k or dump their armies for something else because of this disparrage and they weren't competitive gamers. I saw a fifth be resolute in at least being the best painted punching bag he could be (which his stuff was awesome, he had like several companies painted!), but even as narrative driven as he was, he wishes the book wasn't a steaming pile. Are these fine folks all wrong? Are they not the intended audience?

Inversely, I saw several people almost forced to shelve their Tau and Eldar armies because people just would not play them. They would not be bringing triptide, broadside spam, serpent spam, jetseer, etc., but the given stigma those armies had meant that people just didn't want to play them.

So you had people on both sides of the power curve feeling marginalized. And marginalized after spending hundreds of dollars on their armies, some over a thousand dollars on their collection. The new Tau book is amazing in terms of internal design save a few units still be "never takes" (e.g. Vespid, Flyers, Devilfish, Named ICs, etc.). But the mere idea that the special rule "Interceptor" should only cost 5 points on a gun platform model is a joke. Now look at something like the Firestorm Cadre, which literally sells you special rules, allows you to take these already powerful units, but take them outside of force organization and free rules that makes already powerful units even more powerful.

I'm sorry, but the argument that "it's a narrative game" is an excuse. It's a marketing term that covers up the shoddy design. And I wouldn't blame the designers as I imagine their hand is forced by middle and upper management. Hell, I miss Mat Ward codecis... they might be powerful, but almost every unit was something you would consider. Make Ward EIC. If everything is a powerhouse, then we'll at least be closer to a playable game.

 TheKbob wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."

Balanced is much easier to type.

Can we just spam this for the rest of the thread anytime Zwei posts?

Will do.

Though I'm pretty sure we'll just get spammed with that same useless Youtube video...

 StarTrotter wrote:

Indeed it doesn't. Nor does it work with imperfect balance. It functions on pure imbalance to its detrament.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I find the "amount" of imbalance in 40K to be just right. The amounts of imbalance in games like Warmachine to be insufficient.

But that is, I guess, where subjective tastes come into the equation.

 StarTrotter wrote:

I'm sorry, but the argument that "it's a narrative game" is an excuse. It's a marketing term that covers up the shoddy design.

Not anymore than the argument of "it's a balanced game" by PP is an excuse to cover up their shoddy narratives.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Indeed it doesn't. Nor does it work with imperfect balance. It functions on pure imbalance to its detrament.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I find the "amount" of imbalance in 40K to be just right. The amounts of imbalance in games like Warmachine to be insufficient.

But that is, I guess, where subjective tastes come into the equation.

 StarTrotter wrote:

I'm sorry, but the argument that "it's a narrative game" is an excuse. It's a marketing term that covers up the shoddy design.

Not anymore than the argument of "it's a balanced game" by PP is an excuse to cover up their shoddy narratives.

So again, how does units not working and both types of playstyles being marginalized a good design? Please, explain with details and facts.

And I know plenty of folks who love the narrative of Warmachine more because it advances and changes characters/creates new ones. And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Indeed it doesn't. Nor does it work with imperfect balance. It functions on pure imbalance to its detrament.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I find the "amount" of imbalance in 40K to be just right. The amounts of imbalance in games like Warmachine to be insufficient.

But that is, I guess, where subjective tastes come into the equation.

 StarTrotter wrote:

I'm sorry, but the argument that "it's a narrative game" is an excuse. It's a marketing term that covers up the shoddy design.

Not anymore than the argument of "it's a balanced game" by PP is an excuse to cover up their shoddy narratives.

You truly have no idea what you're talking about do you? You're just refuting people's points for the sake of it. It's like some kind of game isn't it?

Tell ya what, lets try to trap you in a loop- "Boy, I sure do love disagreeing with people on the internet. It's like my favourite thing to do."

 TheKbob wrote:
And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."

As does 40K.

Straight from the rulebook. (emphasis mine).

Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."

As does 40K.

Straight from the rulebook. (emphasis mine).

Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

That's great, but trying to get people to agree is like herding bunny rabbits. I want the Riptide to be T3. Anyone willing to agree to that?

A lot of the 40k balance issues could be resolved if it was treated more like a narrative game, such as a historical one, and introduced asymmetrical missions so that each army could be constructed based on player liking and then play to their strengths on the table top.

As it stands, 5/6 game types favors going second on Turns 5, 6, & 7 for objective capture and denial. When you have near impervious untis, such as the Jetseer Council, that can break apart and contest the entire table while also scoring any objective they please with their troops choices, you get this disparity.

So either way you slice it, Warhammer 40k fails as a narrative game because the design does not reflect this in conjunction with other narrative wargames and it fails as a competitive one through unit and codex balance.

In a balanced game, however, no play style is marginalized and everyone has an opportunity to succeed without worrying about choosing the :"right" models to play with.

 Grimtuff wrote:


You truly have no idea what you're talking about do you? You're just refuting people's points for the sake of it. It's like some kind of game isn't it?

Tell ya what, lets try to trap you in a loop- "Boy, I sure do love disagreeing with people on the internet. It's like my favourite thing to do."

Well, I don't get why people complain about the "Forge the Narrative" boxes being a dishonest marketing ploy, only to turn around and complain again when the rules actually do what the "Forge the Narrative"-boxes claim the rules-writers set out to do.

If you don't like the "Forge-the-Narrative"-approach... 40K probably isn't for you. If the game-rules were obviously some balanced tournament-style thing that contradict the "Forge-the-Narrative" declaration, it would make sense to dismiss it as a marketing gag.

But since the rules do what the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes claim they do, I fail to see how people feel "betrayed" by GW's rather explicit and open declaration of intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
A lot of the 40k balance issues could be resolved if it was treated more like a narrative game, such as a historical one, and introduced asymmetrical missions so that each army could be constructed based on player liking and then play to their strengths on the table top.

As it stands, 5/6 game types favors going second on Turns 5, 6, & 7 for objective capture and denial. When you have near impervious untis, such as the Jetseer Council, that can break apart and contest the entire table while also scoring any objective they please with their troops choices, you get this disparity.

I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement. The Guerrilla-warfare Dark-Angels-vs.-CSM-Missions in the Crimson Slaughter supplement, etc..

The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.

Also, another 63 missions right here http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40-000-Altar-of-War

 Zweischneid wrote:

Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

Okay, I'm running my fluffy White Scars army that tables you by turn three. Did you have fun? I love giant robots and want to run Triptide. I buy, build, and lovingly paint three models... and no one wants to play me. I'm not having fun...

Here's the problem, you cannot evoke "spirit" with rules. You invoke permissions. A framework to enjoyable game is one where both parties have an reasonable outcome for success. We aren't all WAAC and we all know losing all the time is not fun. However, getting curb stomped/curb stomping is fun for no party, save a few donkey caves.

I tell you what, having D weapons vaporize my units, as GW intends to happen in normal games of 40k now, is not fun for anyone.

 Zweischneid wrote:


But since the rules do what the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes claim they do, I fail to see how people feel "betrayed" by GW's rather explicit and open declaration of intent.

How do the rules achieve that though? The colossal imbalances actually do more harm to narrative gaming than competitive.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."

As does 40K.

Straight from the rulebook. (emphasis mine).

Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

You get that quote is treating the reader as a wargaming novice right? That they'll never have encountered a game like a tabletop wargame of any flavour and "other games" in this context is more likely referring to Monopoly than Warmachine.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.

The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.

Also, another 63 missions right here http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40-000-Altar-of-War

I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.

Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.

Keep trying.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.

The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.

Also, another 63 missions right here http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40-000-Altar-of-War

I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.

Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.

Keep trying.

Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.

It's obvious the game doesn't subscribe to any particular metric of balance, and my overall point is that the game is better (read: more entertaining or unique each game) because of it. In other games the pieces mean very little; the football and field upon which the players themselves test their skills at running, catching, tackling, etc. In 40k it is more like a controlled show, and they know this and place heavy emphasis on this. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they are ball-parking most stuff and calling it even, but are these things really as broken as people make out? I don't even slightly think so.

I mean, the complaints are even more suspect once you accommodate the fact that you can have allies. Are the Tau or Chaos unbalanced because of the Riptide, when in fact many more of the armies in the game can also have the Riptide or Heldrake as an Ally? Again, no one thinks of this aspect, just the units in a vacuum against other comparable units.

Most really did not get my earlier post, thinking I was advocating for some kind of chaotic mess. I wasn't. But the truth is with 40k you are not supposed to emerge talking tactics with your opponent. You are supposed to emerge with some cinematic story moments, and we remember those moments and enjoy them more than we do any brilliant card combo in MtG or any brilliant plays in Warmachine, generally -- that is what we as humans like. 40k realizes those moments, not competitive mastery and balance, are its' strong points (remember, we are talking about a game where people used to go, "I threw a vortex grenade and it landed on my leader and him and his whole squad died, it was awesome!"). Knowing this, GW plays to its' strengths -- those very moments.

What I don't understand is why if everyone here are such masters of game design principle, why they don't just play another game? 40k is, to my knowledge, the only game that is criticized this much for its' quality. Why not just stop?

Also, I mean there is the obvious elephant in the room...that each codex cycle the good things might become worse while bad things become must-haves, thus keeping GW's business going strong. Rather than incompetence, it is likely a marketing strategy which leads to these things. Say what you want about the Heldrake FAQ -- it moved a lot of models. And you can't really criticize that business practice; it is not much different than MtG's business model, really.

I don't know why so many people want to make Warhammer 40,000 something it is not. Or why, exactly, it being what it is makes it a bad game, instead of just a different one. Is Cards Against Humanity a bad game because points aren't decided objectively? Is Twilight Imperium a bad game because some races have different starting bonuses? Is D&D a bad game because you might fight an enemy that is too powerful if your GM makes a mistake? No, of course not. But this game...THIS game...is somehow terrible. Why? Because of the degree of imbalance? What, it doesn't make sense that the degree be a little wider in a game with ~17ish factions each comprising of numerous wildly different units made out of everything from child-sized snotlings to building-sized titanic war machines?

And this "it hurts the casual players the most" thing. Casual List and Hardcore List are not the only two kinds of lists in the game, it's much more granular than that, and no one ever seems to consider that. As long as you are somewhere in the ballpark you have a fighting chance, and if you don't, there are plenty of people who accept that and play anyway just to see how things pan out (sometimes even winning). To hear you lot tell it, no Riptide or Heldrake ever lost, and anyone without one is doomed to the point of simply quitting the game. I guess I should retire because I have a squad of Blood Claws in my Space Wolf army, then. And surely my Daemons should just be a display army since I don't have any hope of winning without a Screamerstar or a Lord of Change in my list.

I maintain what I always have -- the problem is the playerbase, not the game. The game is NOT balanced, it puts being entertaining before being competitive, and a lot of people just can't make peace with this. It does what it sets out to do -- forges a narrative, the entire intent of the game plastered all over the book. I don't get why people claim the game is trying to be one thing and failing when it clearly is not trying to be that thing in the first place. There is a game for people who want balance and competition -- newsflash: this ain't it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.

The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.

Also, another 63 missions right here http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40-000-Altar-of-War

I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.

Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.

Keep trying.

Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.

Being tournament based is superior to many folks, not idiotic. Why makes a narrative game not "iditoic"? If the result is 40K, I'd have to beg to differ.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.

Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?

And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.

And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?

Or does logic hurt the person trolling?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris Frost wrote:


...40k realizes those moments, not competitive mastery and balance, are its' strong points (remember, we are talking about a game where people used to go, "I threw a vortex grenade and it landed on my leader and him and his whole squad died, it was awesome!"). Knowing this, GW plays to its' strengths -- those very moments.

...Also, I mean there is the obvious elephant in the room...that each codex cycle the good things might become worse while bad things become must-haves, thus keeping GW's business going strong. Rather than incompetence, it is likely a marketing strategy which leads to these things. Say what you want about the Heldrake FAQ -- it moved a lot of models. And you can't really criticize that business practice; it is not much different than MtG's business model, really...

I spent over a hundred dollars lovingly acquiring my command squad and hero, dozens of hours building and painting, and then I played them only to be evaporated with no save of any kind. That's so awesome!... Again, this mentality does not address the situations I have presented of many, non-comeptitvely focused players being marginalized from having any sort of fun because their armies are either too weak or percieved as too powerful. This wasn't just one or two folks. This wasn't just one local meta. I have insight of at least traveling for work and seeing many different play areas. My local scene enforces heavy comp on organized play because having units automatically deleted isn't fun.

And that is the elephant in the room, GW is a business. We're all cool with that because they make something we like. However, regardless of the game and how you feel about other games, the customer service they provide for their product, more so as the market leader, is abhorrent. Game balance and design is one thing. When you have situations of absolutely "no-win" in terms of rules conflicts, busted or underpowered units, or codecis that are flat-out non-functional as stand alone products, you're doing something wrong.

You can cry "narrative" all you want. It doesn't seem to be working unless you put a lot of effort into the game to make it work. Most gamers I know and have met would much rather be able to choose the models they like, choose a point level of play, and sit down to what they know will be an enjoyable game of strategy and tactics. And most of readily agreed that 40k is too for that to take place.