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:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Still not answered the question I see Zwei!

How is a Penitent Engine being objectively poor in game good for the game as a whole?

I've answered it several times.

Not really, but I surmised your answer above. You claim we aren't even playing the game.

You are certainly playing your game.

The odd thing is... it's not the game the game designers propose, nor do you appear to be having fun, and yet you are blaming the Game Designers for the fact that you're not having fun.

But no, that wasn't related to the Pentinent Engine, or at best very, very, very broadly.

As I said in the other thread, who are you to tell ten of thousands of gamers they're playing the game incorrectly? There is a massive disconnect from the reality of how the game is played in the studio. The vast majority of gamers do not play the game how you (or even the game designers themselves) are suggesting. Most people will play 1500 to 2000pts in a pickup game at their FLGS or gaming club.

But, I'll get the same reply I got yesterday. Then you'll have that be refuted by several other people. See? Deja vu. It's like I'm psychic or something.

I don't have fun tabling my opponent. I don't have fun getting tabled. I enjoy having armies be generally a surprise when I sit down. I don't have fun with list tailoring as it takes away from building a theme and can result in tabling my opponent, see before.

In better designed games, these are not concerns. I may have a harder or easier game, but not typically not lopsided.

So what are you to propose people like myself should do? Either way have to accept the fact that to have one good game, we have to find the player with the right mentality on list design, to not swing too hard the either way, and accept the fact that many games are going to mismatched affairs that result in one player not enjoying themselves?

We all have different definitions of fun. Some people like sports, some like reading, some like singing, some like painting, etc. The same theory applies to wargames. A better designed game ensures that each concept of fun in army composition is still valid to play.

One player's Elysian themed Imperial Guard, decked to the nines with flyers, is another person's cheese spam list. My pure SoB couldn't even fight that army. The same with Cron Air and other flyer heavy strike forces.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Still not answered the question I see Zwei!

How is a Penitent Engine being objectively poor in game good for the game as a whole?

I've answered it several times.

Not really, but I surmised your answer above. You claim we aren't even playing the game.

You are certainly playing your game.

The odd thing is... it's not the game the game designers propose, nor do you appear to be having fun, and yet you are blaming the Game Designers for the fact that you're not having fun.

But no, that wasn't related to the Pentinent Engine, or at best very, very, very broadly.

Every narrative-based solution boils down to self-policing. Most players just aren't going to do that. They are going to field what they perceive to be power combos.

Deadnight wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I've literally never met anyone that plays with unequal points values.

What. World. Do. You. Live. In?

Point of order...

To be fair, a lot of games don't use points values either... There are other ways to balance, or organise games though. Things don't need to be equal, depending on what you're looking for. Should they be? Hmm...

That is correct, however GW chose to copy the idea of points values, troop types and army lists from the hardcore competition ruleset WRG Ancients to balance and organise 40K.

Various other historical rulesets use completely different methods to organise a game, that don't pretend to be balanced because it is not the purpose.

Can you give us an example KK, quite interested in non points determination (only played GW and PP games really).

I heard of a rules set called Stargrunt, I think does it that way. Free rules too, iirc...

I am hearing rumblings that Bolt Action is doing quite well. If the company that makes it can keep up with their plastics and make a Sci-Fi offering, I think you'll see fan loyalty tested when someone else offers a company scale sci-fi 28mm game.

There's a inherent myth associated with Warhammer 40k competitive, which is that it doesn't actually exist.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Perfect Imbalance is still a form of balance over the whole game and therefore cannot be held up as an example of imbalance as a whole being good.

Perfect Imbalance is not a form of balance. If it were, how could the makers of the video differentiate between a game designed for perfect imbalance (e.g. MtG) and one that is not (e.g Chess)?

And again, I never held up balance as being "good". Like "balance"; it is but one neutral variant. One like the other has advantages and disadvantages. Neither is inherently "good" or "bad".

Late but I need to say this. After how many pages upon pages of pointless arguments... I need to say this because I'm tired of you tossing up perfect imbalance then going on to praise imbalance. Here's the thing, perfect imbalance is a form of balance. It's odd, twisted, and, in a very literal sense, wrong, but that's how it works. In perfect imbalance, there is a natural flow where everything has a counter and answer that flows into another and another. It's like a really complex game of rock paper scissors axes swords donkeys lasers spock and nuke all have varying strengths and weaknesses and Rock doesn't always lose to Paper and two rocks can often defeat paper. It's complex, it is messy.... but it's conclusion is a form of balance that doesn't require mirror matches (chess). Anyways, I'm taking a break from this whole entire drama I think. The fact this spurred up in another thread is tiring and I think I've gained my right to a break from this rollercoaster.

Please direct me to the website that has a listing of rankings according to win loss ratio as well as a unified rule set for tournaments. Then I will acknowledge the existence of a actual competitive scene in Warhammer 40k.

If you are buying models to win tournaments or to specifically play in tournaments to win items or whatever you are functionally slowed. Sure 40k is a competition, that doesn't make it competitive. It's like throwing everyone from age 11 to 25 into a swim meet and saying that's a competitive enviroment. It functionally does not work.


Saying 40k is a competitive game is like saying you are a expert at back alley dice games.

Winning tournaments means nothing and is no indication of skill at the game only skill at playing a specific type of army to it's fullest. It's knowing how to specifically use that army that has a inherent advantage over your opponent.

I've stated it before, 40k is about as competitive as roulette.

Hollismason wrote:
Please direct me to the website that has a listing of rankings according to win loss ratio as well as a unified rule set for tournaments. Then I will acknowledge the existence of a actual competitive scene in Warhammer 40k.

If you are buying models to win tournaments or to specifically play in tournaments to win items or whatever you are functionally slowed.

Saying 40k is a competitive game is like saying you are a expert at back alley dice games.

K.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/

(Oh, and way to be a condescending donkey cave about it.)

 TheKbob wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Please direct me to the website that has a listing of rankings according to win loss ratio as well as a unified rule set for tournaments. Then I will acknowledge the existence of a actual competitive scene in Warhammer 40k.

If you are buying models to win tournaments or to specifically play in tournaments to win items or whatever you are functionally slowed.

Saying 40k is a competitive game is like saying you are a expert at back alley dice games.

K.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/

(Oh, and way to be a condescending donkey cave about it.)

Didn't GW used to have tournaments as well?

That literally means nothing as there is no underlying structure to any of those tournaments to have a baseline starting or rules requirement that match. It's like you making a ranking of your local tournament scene and saying you have a win ratio of 100% after winning 1 game. It's garbage ranking for garbage ranking statement. Or just ignore the top part where it says it's from a limited number of venues and tournaments.

StarTrotter wrote:Didn't GW used to have tournaments as well?

No, it's made by one guy, Chip. He's pretty awesome.

Hollismason wrote:That literally means nothing as there is no underlying structure to any of those tournaments to have a baseline starting or rules requirement that match.

Listen, if you're that inept, would you please stop flaunting it? I don't feel like explaining what the statistics mean. And since reading comprehnsion isn't your strong suit, I won't waste time further arguing with you outside of this statement:

The underlying structure is the poorly written rules of Warhammer 40k. Anything you level towards a group of individuals you obviously know nothing about doubles back to the root cause problem, a bad product from a company that doesn't support it. Every other game succeeds because they have the unifying voice of the company. Enjoy being a shallow jerk to people on forums when the game you love loses support due to these bad business decisions.

 TheKbob wrote:

StarTrotter wrote:Didn't GW used to have tournaments as well?

No, it's made by one guy, Chip. He's pretty awesome.

Hollismason wrote:That literally means nothing as there is no underlying structure to any of those tournaments to have a baseline starting or rules requirement that match.

Listen, if you're that inept, would you please stop flaunting it? I don't feel like explaining what the statistics mean. And since reading comprehnsion isn't your strong suit, I won't waste time further arguing with you outside of this statement:

The underlying structure is the poorly written rules of Warhammer 40k. Anything you level towards a group of individuals you obviously know nothing about doubles back to the root cause problem, a bad product from a company that doesn't support it. Every other game succeeds because they have the unifying voice of the company. Enjoy being a shallow jerk to people on forums when the game you love loses support due to these bad business decisions.

No no I meant, I thought that GW used to have tournaments, competitions, forums and all that jazz. I know that internet site is not made by GW considering how much they try to avoid even thinking of competitive.

I think you you should reread what I wrote, that the structure and rules of those tournaments do not match, to have an across the board true ranking you have to have the same format structure and rules.Ranking a system like that is basically as if you ranked Marathon and Relay Running in the same ranking system.With no similar structure it's not at true ranking system. A great example of a real ranking system is the system WOTC uses.

All the formats have specific rules and structure and only those formats are played with some deviation. There are clarified rules and FAQs in order to insure universality among those tournaments.

Without that, the ranking is garbage and means nothing.

Another great thing to point out that if you are building a army to travel to LVO , to win LVO , you are literally cutting your own throat. Tournaments are great ways to get together with other 40k players and play some games. It means nothing on who wins as honestly you are already spending several hundred dollars to go if you are anywhere not in a 1 state or drive able distance of the tournament.

There is no such thing as a competitive 40k player because every 40k player is competitive. You're all trying to win, you're just doing it in different ways.

So, basically, you're just arguing semantics?

Ok.

It's not just semantics it's a philosophy of the game to be competitive that's why there are winners and losers, the only thing that seperates players is how they play the game and why.

If you play to be competitive and win tournaments in order to be the "best" at a system that doesn't really exist it's just stupid.

There's nothing wrong with playing the game and being competitive it's just dumb to say " I am a competitive 40k player, or I am a tourney player" ; that's dumb.

You're not playing in a competitive environment, the environment is broken. It's like if in football one team was allowed to go offsides all of the time, and no one else could.

So, yeah, semantics.

If someone plays the game as a means of testing their ability to play against others in an organised and structured environment, as opposed to someone who merely plays for laughs amongst a social group, how else would you like to define it that doesn't take for fething ever to type to keep everyone happy?

Hollismason wrote:
It's not just semantics it's a philosophy of the game to be competitive that's why there are winners and losers, the only thing that seperates players is how they play the game and why.

If you play to be competitive and win tournaments in order to be the "best" at a system that doesn't really exist it's just stupid.

There's nothing wrong with playing the game and being competitive it's just dumb to say " I am a competitive 40k player, or I am a tourney player" ; that's dumb.

You're not playing in a competitive environment, the environment is broken. It's like if in football one team was allowed to go offsides all of the time, and no one else could.

But winning a tournament does make you the "best" at that specific tournament does it not? If you say a tournament player, that means that you are most looking forward to attending tournaments to fight challenging opponents and prove, hopefully, that you are the top dog.

I can agree that it's playing a broken game though. But the game is so horridly non-optimized it's built for nobody besides the ones that just want to paint and build but not play.

Or the concept that no matter the "format," meaning compisition restrictions, FAQs, and mission, we always see the top certain armies meaning that they are flat out better not only in strength, but adaptability.

And the theme is all the same: Deathstars.

Also, way to take a complete dismissive tone to the tournament crowd.

The way someone wins 40k is to better your odds of success through manipulation of those odds.

Now at first people think " Well that's just like Poker or Texas Holdem , or Blackjack" ; well it's not because those games have a universality to them. Every player at the table can manipulate those odds because they are all starting at a base line.

If this were true at 40k then any army would have a equal chance of winning based on skill. It doesn't there's no functional skill to 40k other than knowing which army has better odds of winning and is able to manipulate the odds more.

This idea of competitive play is like describing people who are competitive Gamblers at Texas Hold Em but one player is dealt one less card than the others if he decides to have that done.

Hollismason wrote:
The way someone wins 40k is to better your odds of success through manipulation of those odds.

Now at first people think " Well that's just like Poker or Texas Holdem , or Blackjack" ; well it's not because those games have a universality to them. Every player at the table can manipulate those odds because they are all starting at a base line.

If this were true at 40k then any army would have a equal chance of winning based on skill. It doesn't there's no functional skill to 40k other than knowing which army has better odds of winning and is able to manipulate the odds more.

This idea of competitive play is like describing people who are competitive Gamblers at Texas Hold Em but one player is dealt one less card than the others if he decides to have that done.

Welcome to the thread, circa 8 pages ago. It's inarguable that 40K is a horribly broken game in terms of balance. That's... not in question. However, you're dismissing the idea that two generals can play identical lists in a tournament. Such a scenario offers neither of them any advantage over the other, and now it is down to skill of the general and the luck of the dice to determine who wins.

Key word in that last sentence being Luck.

Hollismason wrote:
Key word in that last sentence being Luck.

Luck, random generations of chance. Dice rolls and number generators. By this standard, League of Legends can't be competitive because their are random criticals. Next.

Luck plays a part in everything you will ever do, often in ways that you have no conscious realization of. You could have an entirely terrible list and then, miraculously, roll nothing but 6s while your opponent's TauDar Rip-Wave rolls nothing but 1s all game.

You could have the absolute best 40k army ever built and are in the biggest-cash-prize-tournament in the history of games, but then are crushed to death by a Coke machine dropping out of the ceiling overhead as you step up to the table, crushing you and your models into a fine red paste, awarding your opponent a default win (and also probably requiring a new shirt, at least). Them's the breaks.

Luck is not something you can account for, it is only something you can attempt to mitigate.

Luck, Odds, Chance, are called something Gambling. It's a gamble, you can be a good gambler because you can play the odds and you can have skill at playing odds. It's not really semantic, 40k is built around odds. It's a game of chance, but it's a weighted game of chance because not everyone starts on a equal footing.

Sure you can have a perfect game of 40k when you have two of the same army player with players of equal skill or knowledgability of manipulation of odds , who match each other perfectly in height and weight. Then it just comes down to dice and that's not a competition. That's gambling.On the other hand there are games where it's just straight up player skill. Chess is a great example. Poker is a better example more inline with what 40k would be comparable to.

That doesn't mean 40k isn't competitive, it can be but won't ever be a real competitive environment because there is no structure to that environment to ensure that players start off on equal footing.A tournament player is only besting the tournaments level of skill and the odds associated with getting good match ups.

It's like if you have a golf tournament where 10 people were brand new, 10 were seasoned veterans, and you gave random handicaps to everyone and everyone played on different courses.

that's not skill to win that tournament, that's just getting good match ups, and a good handicap.

I will not stop making analogies.

No, gambling is wagering on the outcome of an event, often, but not always, with a random or chance based outcome.

40K, unless someone is running some sort of underground betting ring, is just probability.

Uh.. Poker and Blackjack specifically are about playing the odds of the long run of winning a over all set number of hands over losing.
Which is what I was using as my example and yes you can use gambling or a gamble interchangeable with probability, because that is playing probability. You know have a dozen of one half a dozen of another.


My whole point in regard to Competitive 40k is that it is a myth. Competition requires a inherent fairness. 40k doesn't have that. If your goal at being competitive at 40k is to be a generally knowledgeable player who understands each armies different facets abilities and odds of winning against other armies is your definition of a "competitive" 40k player then that is fine, but saying the only competitive players are people who play in tournaments or that the only competitive 40k play is tournament play. Is just false. I mean your just wrong.

It's a weird thing and it's damaging to the game as a whole to uphold this misguided virtue of being a "good" tournament player when in fact there is no such thing. If that were true then you would have the same odds as anyone else at winning a tournament than anyone else and it would come down to skill but ultimately it just comes down to luck and while most but not all competitions have a degree of "luck" or "chance" associated with them these organization try to minimize the aspect of that by having stringent rules and negating the "chance" involved in the competition as much as possible. This is why there's not a Competitive scene and ultimately why the idea of a "competitive" player fails at the definition of being a good player because there's no accurate way to track success.

I don't disagree with the idea of competitive play 40k in the terms of tournaments but I do disagree that they mean anything. They're vapor, fictions we're telling ourselves that matter because they don't matter. They don't matter in the sense that it's any divining sense of who is a good player, just someone who knows which army is most beneficial to that enviroment and has the ability to manipulate the odds of that army. It's why you see so many lists that mitigate specific odds in the game because it's powerful.

My whole point in regard to Competitive 40k is that it is a myth. Competition requires a inherent fairness. 40k doesn't have that. If your goal at being competitive at 40k is to be a generally knowledgeable player who understands each armies different facets abilities and odds of winning against other armies is your definition of a "competitive" 40k player then that is fine, but saying the only competitive players are people who play in tournaments or that the only competitive 40k play is tournament play. Is just false. I mean your just wrong.

Yes, that's true. That's the issue behind the current threads about game balance. 40K is, by the books, as written, an unfair game. The current term for this in games, whether a video game, an RPG or a table-top wargame, is "imbalanced'. And, yes, all 40K players are, to some extent, competitive. Everyone likes winning, but not everyone minds losing.