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.
Jidmah wrote: Of course you can. You can also use a point system to create balance.
Sure. A point system can be used to create both balance and imbalance.
If that is true, logic would seem to indicate that the mere existence of a point system does not inform us as to which purpose it serves in a given game.
Correct?
....aaaaaannnnnddddd you twist that statement to your will. You are in the wrong job. You would make a fine politician.
Jidmah: Don't engage him. This is a game to him .Let him shout at the wall and tire himself out.
A point system doesn't promote anything positive if it is left to be imbalanced. It will support a regimented and static competitive environment with unequal armies that punish players for trying to have fun. A truly narrative game would cast aside points to be truly free to be imbalanced and promote narrative gameplay in its entirity. That is all.
I disagree, but even so. "Narrative" is but one of a million reasons why you might want imbalance.
Again. Is it possible to create imbalance with a point system (even if point-less systems can also create imbalance)?
Technically you can only create imbalance with a points system if first the points system is balanced, so that you can unbalance it. Otherwise what you have done is mash up a bunch of stuff and tacked some points on to pretend it is balanced. Why bother?
In fact GW have always tried to balance the points but they aren't very good at it, and it gets harder the more "stuff" (i.e. variables) are added. In 6th edition, more variables have been added, and various existing variables have been changed, compared to 4th and 5th editions. It's not surprising the thing has got out of hand.
Uh, maybe pick up a book on logic before using it as an argument?
A single counter-example suffices to prove a logic flawed, no matter how many positive examples you find.
Your argument was "If X can be used for A and B, it is impossible to determine if A or B is the purpose for X". I have proven that wrong.
I think you are using the principle of falsification wrong.
Nope. The four principles of logic dictate that any given argument can only be either right or wrong. If it is wrong in some cases, it has to be assumed wrong in all cases.
A single counter-example cannot disprove the existence of something. It can only counter the "non-existence" of something.
To use the classic example: A single black swan is enough to falsify the claim of "All swans are white".
A single black swan, on the other hand, does not disprove the existence of white swans as such.
The second statement should read "If there is at least one black swan, there are only black swans", and for that reason cannot be proven by finding a positive example.
Abstractly, this says:
"If not all A have quality X, and at least one A has quality Y, the number of A with quality X is greater or equal to zero". I'll call this [1]
Correct?
Considering the first part is wrong and the second part is right, no.
If we can agree on that, you will find that there are many things that serve multiple purposes.
Milk can be used to make both butter and cheese.
Water can be used for both drinking and bathing.
Etc...
Or, more abstract, "X can serve both purpose A and B". I'll call this [2]
Finding a single-purpose item does not disprove the existence of multi-purpose items.
Correct?
Correct, though irrelevant. I never assumed otherwise. However, going by [1] you stated above, the existence of multi-purpose items does not eliminate the possibility of single-purpose items existing.
Applied to the game example, this would mean that the statement of "All point systems are used to create balance" can be disproven with a single counter example.
Said example would not disprove that many/some/a lot/the majority of point systems might used to create balance. It would, however, prove that not all point systems are used to create balance.
Correct?
If it can be shown that not all point systems are used to create balance - by virtue of a single counter-example - the inverse deduction, that the existence of a point system necessarily means an attempt to balance things, is logically flawed.
Correct, assuming you can actually provide an example of the opposite being true, which would be "At least one point system is used to not create balance".
Again, you are claiming that all games strive for balance. (e.g. that all swans are white)
Nope, never did that.
I claim that "All games systems implementing a point system do not strive for imbalance", which is a completely different pony.
I then assess that point systems are a hindrance in archiving the goal of imbalance, since it's always easier to archive without "A game with a point system always takes more effort to imbalance than one without". This is [3].
Then when using your statement [2], I conclude that "Point systems do not serve the purpose of creating balance and imbalance". This is in direct contradiction to your previous claim and thus disproves it.
I am claiming that not "all" (only some) games strive for balance. (e.g. that black swans exist, along with white swans)
Claims without prove are completely irrelevant to logic and thus can be discarded. Even if you had prove, you're claiming the wrong thing. You have to prove that "There is at least one game that implements a point system that strives for imbalance". This is [4].
The principle of falsification works in my favour.
Logic works in no one's favor unless applied wrong. If anything, it works in my favor, considering that I get paid for programming logic.
Your argument was "If X can be used for A and B, it is impossible to determine if A or B is the purpose for X". I have proven that wrong.
But yes. That is almost my argument.
I would formulate it as "If X can be used for A and B, it would be foolish to assume that A is the purpose of X in all cases and without exception."
Foolishness has nothing to do with logic. I we eliminate the unnecessary bias, your new argument is
"If X can be used for A and B, A is not the only purpose of X."
Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Considering "X can be used for B", with X being a point system and B being imbalance has already been shown wrong, the entire statement becomes wrong. Since the If-condition fails, you can basically put anything behind the comma without it ever being true, even cake.
Conclusion:
Your core assessment of point systems being a tool for imbalancing games has been proven wrong, as well as everything that you conclude from this. Unless you can disprove [3] and prove [4], our little excursus into logic ends here.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
A point system doesn't promote anything positive if it is left to be imbalanced. It will support a regimented and static competitive environment with unequal armies that punish players for trying to have fun. A truly narrative game would cast aside points to be truly free to be imbalanced and promote narrative gameplay in its entirity. That is all.
I disagree, but even so. "Narrative" is but one of a million reasons why you might want imbalance.
Again. Is it possible to create imbalance with a point system (even if point-less systems can also create imbalance)?
Technically you can only create imbalance with a points system if first the points system is balanced, so that you can unbalance it. Otherwise what you have done is mash up a bunch of stuff and tacked some points on to pretend it is balanced. Why bother?
In fact GW have always tried to balance the points but they aren't very good at it, and it gets harder the more "stuff" (i.e. variables) are added. In 6th edition, more variables have been added, and various existing variables have been changed, compared to 4th and 5th editions. It's not surprising the thing has got out of hand.
Of course, it also doesn't help that the rules are scattered across multiple editions. When was the last time all armies had a current codex? Second edition?
However, what I was wondering is that if some armies are by their nature far more powerful than others, has anyone ever considered taking a page from the world of sports, and thought about introducing a handicap system?
I am not going to read through 10 pages of vitriol towards GW on this subject, but to the OP point. Isn't the points system of army creation supposed to act as a handicap system? I can take a bunch more Orks than I can take Space Marines for the same point value. Orks should die faster than marines so I pay less in points per model. This is exactly what is so frustrating. The points system as it stands does not seem to provide handicap as it should. There will always be odd ball units that don't follow the handicap curve, but they generally should. It just seems like 40k has so many outlier units (on both sides of the curve) that it drives play towards specific builds and units. It just does not seem like the points scale works correctly to produce the handicapping effect as it should. There should probably be some other game mechanisims (beyond points) that could provide a handicapping effect by preventing certain combos and builds that tend to disrupt the balance of the game.
Problem is there is a lot of history and investment from players over the years to be able to shake the game up by a tremendous amount.
Your core assessment of point systems being a tool for imbalancing games has been proven wrong, as well as everything that you conclude from this. Unless you can disprove [3] and prove [4], our little excursus into logic ends here.
That is not the "core assessment" I made.
I made a response to statements by people like Lanrak and other, that (i) point systems can only ever serve the purpose to create balance, (ii) therefore the existence of a point system in a game is proof of the intention to balance it (even if it contradicts the explicit written statements by the game-designers).
I much prefer it when we only really see you at weekends!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Zweischneid wrote: If that is true, logic would seem to indicate that the mere existence of a point system does not inform us as to which purpose it serves in a given game.
A fire hydrant can be used to extinguish fires... and also to keep your street party cool. Logic would therefore seem to indicate that the mere existence of the fire hydrant does not inform us of its purpose...
No. Actually, logic does inform us of its purpose. A points system is completely unnecessary in a system designed to be purposefully imbalanced. So if your choices are that the system has points because it is intended to be imbalanced, or the system has points because it is intended to be balanced, logic tells us that the latter is the more likely scenario.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: An insufficiently imbalanced game can stifle creativity ...
So you keep saying... and keep refusing to back up with an actual explanation as to how.
You noticed that too, huh? He'll restate what you said, but say that that somehow "proves" people want imbalance. But whatever happens, he'll never answer you question because he can't.
Zwei, here's the second thread about the same subject. You seem to misunderstand this whole 'balance' and 'imbalance' thing. You seem to think that you like 40k for "imbalance" but what you really seem to be saying is "variety." You like all the different units that do different things and you think that "balance" will somehow get rid of that. That's not at all the case. What we're talking about is getting rid of the things that are obviously too powerful and obviously too stupid.
So, second thread, but same question. Zwei, I'm going to consider you a troll unless you answer my question. I'll set it up for the benefit of others. The Penitent Engine is an open topped walker with 11 armor. It's an utterly useless unit that can't survive long enough to get into combat and once it get there will probably die anyway. Its 80 pts. If you take it you're handicapping your army and giving the enemy free kill points. So, anyone with a faint desire of winning wont' take it. It sure as heck isn't "Balanced."
So, Zwei, How is having a completely stupidly useless unit somehow good? Give your answer directly and specifically.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
I might be alone on this one, but I'm super happy that competitive 40k is so silly broken right now.
For once in my career of gaming in 40k, casual players in my area are having far more fun with the game than those that are competitive. And even then, since there are so many units/rules/expansions/semi-expansions that are added to the game....it forces people to have a civil discussion before the game to iron out any possible issues....which tends to make games more enjoyable for both when it does happen.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but this is my utopia of gaming.
Farseer Faenyin 7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)
Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds)
So, Zwei, How is having a completely stupidly useless unit somehow good? Give your answer directly and specifically.
Because the game as a whole is better if it is imbalanced, even if it sucks that your unit sucks.
It's like asking what is good about paying taxes. Nothing, if you just look at the taxes leaving your account. The merit of taxes is that it finances all the public amenities of the nation you live in, e.g. the system as a whole is improved.
So, Zwei, How is having a completely stupidly useless unit somehow good? Give your answer directly and specifically.
Because the game as a whole is better if it is imbalanced, even if it sucks that your unit sucks.
It's like asking what is good about paying taxes. Nothing, if you just look at the taxes leaving your account. The merit of taxes is that it finances all the public amenities of the nation you live in, e.g. the system as a whole is improved.
I didn't ask for an irrelevant analogy, I asked for a specific reason. "Because somehow the game is magically better" isn't an answer.
Why would the game be less fun if the PE was a little better?
I'm not letting you off the hook on this. You answer with a specific WHY or concede.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Your core assessment of point systems being a tool for imbalancing games has been proven wrong, as well as everything that you conclude from this. Unless you can disprove [3] and prove [4], our little excursus into logic ends here.
That is not the "core assessment" I made.
I made a response to statements by people like Lanrak and other, that (i) point systems can only ever serve the purpose to create balance, (ii) therefore the existence of a point system in a game is proof of the intention to balance it (even if it contradicts the explicit written statements by the game-designers).
That is, from a logical point of view, the exact same thing.
There is no reason for using a point system unless you have the intention of balancing, so (i) and the resulting (ii) are both true.
Whatever the designers declared as intention makes no difference because they could be 1) lying 2) incompetent 3) unable to express their intention.
They also never said that they have no intention of balancing at all.
I conclude that "Point systems do not serve the purpose of creating balance and imbalance".
Good enough for me.
Same end result: The existence of a point system as such does not always imply an intention to balance a game.
Which is exactly why I told you to read up on logic before. That statement above can be true at the same time as "Point systems serve the purpose of creating balance". it's a logic "AND", requiring both to be true at the same time.
So you're still wrong, even when tearing things out of context.
Point systems are a tool to balance a game. There is no reason to use a point system in a game that is not supposed to be balanced. Warhammer 40k is not inherently meant to be imbalanced, otherwise there would be no points and no FOC, since neither is needed for a narrative, quite the opposite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 15:43:58
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
So you're still wrong, even when tearing things out of context.
Point systems are a tool to balance a game. There is no reason to use a point system in a game that is not supposed to be balanced. Warhammer 40k is not inherently meant to be imbalanced, otherwise there would be no points and no FOC, since neither is needed for a narrative, quite the opposite.
Well, I am always happy to learn more about logic.
Which of the following statements are logically right, and which are wrong.
----------
(1) Point systems do not serve the purpose of creating balance and imbalance.
(2) Point systems only serve the purpose of creating balance.
(3) Point systems only serve the purpose of creating imbalance.
(4) It is impossible to intentionally balance a game.
(5) It is impossible to intentionally imbalance a game.
(6) It is impossible to intentionally balance a game with a point system.
(7) It is impossible to intentionally imbalance a game with a point system.
(8) A game using a point system must be balanced.
(9) A game using a point system can be balanced.
(10) A game using a point system can be intentionally balanced.
(11) A game using a point system must be imbalanced.
(12) A game using a point system can be imbalanced.
(13) A game using a point system can be intentionally imbalanced.
There is no reason for using a point system unless you have the intention of balancing, .
Sure there is.
At the absolute very least, if you don't believe the many advantages for imbalanced systems already forwarded, one reason would be the oldest reason of the human species to try anything new at all: To see if it can be done. Reason one.
A single counter-example suffices to prove a logic flawed, no matter how many positive examples you find.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 16:30:57
(1) Point systems do not serve the purpose of creating balance and imbalance.
True
(2) Point systems only serve the purpose of creating balance.
True - it is easier for imbalance to be achieved without a points system as you could accidentally balance your system, therefore the the points system does not serve that purpose.
(3) Point systems only serve the purpose of creating imbalance.
False - See (2)
(4) It is impossible to intentionally balance a game.
False
(5) It is impossible to intentionally imbalance a game.
False
(6) It is impossible to intentionally balance a game with a point system.
False
(7) It is impossible to intentionally imbalance a game with a point system.
False - But the points system does not make achieving imbalance any easier and therefore does not serve the purpose of creating imbalance (See (2) )
(8) A game using a point system must be balanced.
False
(9) A game using a point system can be balanced.
True
(10) A game using a point system can be intentionally balanced.
True
(11) A game using a point system must be imbalanced.
False
(12) A game using a point system can be imbalanced.
True
(13) A game using a point system can be intentionally imbalanced.
True - But see (7)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 16:32:10
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
(2) Point systems only serve the purpose of creating balance.
True - it is easier for imbalance to be achieved without a points system as you could accidentally balance your system, therefore the the points system does not serve that purpose.
That caveat is not really important, I believe.
I never claimed point systems were the best system ever to create imbalance, or that there couldn't be better ways.
Humanity uses sub-optimal tools for virtually everything it does, mostly out of habit, or because they co-opt older systems originally used for different purposes (say, using a point system formerly used to balance previous editions of a game), rather than inventing things from the ground up, when they change, invent and tinker with things. The inertia of historic path dependency.
Are you absolutely certain this is a - True - for now and all eternity?
How is it that you get to receive multiple answers to multiple questions, yet MWHistorian has been waiting for days for a single answer to a single question from you Zwei?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
azreal13 wrote: How is it that you get to receive multiple answers to multiple questions, yet MWHistorian has been waiting for days for a single answer to a single question from you Zwei?
I answered several times.
Because in imbalanced games, not all things can be equally valid. If they were, it wouldn't be imbalanced.
MWHistorian probably would have more fun if the game was balanced and his Pentinent-Engine for its points equally valid to everything else. He seems like someone who prefers balanced games.
"Fun" is subjective. No game can please everyone. Which is why it is important that we have both balanced and imbalanced games on the market.
For "why" imbalanced games are (to me, subjectively) superior (even if it means that some units suck), go back and read all our discussions on the narrative, on imperfect imbalance, on avoiding a "competitive-mindset" in the community, on encouraging pre-game communication and "non-standard" play, etc.., etc., etc.., etc., .
You disagreed with everything, and in your ego-centrist world, everything you disagree with is automatically "wrong". You, unfortunately, tend to confuse with "I don't like it" with "I proved you wrong". For you, there seems to be no place in the world for tastes and opinions that are different than your own. Unfortunately, there can probably be no "absolute" right or wrong on fun.
I can only encourage you to give it a try playing "the studio-way". You already have the models and you clearly hate the way you game at the moment. What do you have to lose?
Perhaps you'll be surprised when you actually have fun with your Pentinent Engine again when you play "the studio-way".
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:13:14
azreal13 wrote: How is it that you get to receive multiple answers to multiple questions, yet MWHistorian has been waiting for days for a single answer to a single question from you Zwei?
I answered several times.
Because in imbalanced games, not all things can be equally valid. If they were, it wouldn't be imbalanced.
MWHistorian probably would have more fun if the game was balanced and his Pentinent-Engine for its points equally valid to everything else. He seems like someone who prefers balanced games.
"Fun" is subjective. No game can please everyone. Which is why it is important that we have both balanced and imbalanced games on the market.
For "why" imbalanced games are (to me, subjectively) superior (even if it means that some units suck), go back and read all our discussions on the narrative, on imperfect imbalance, on avoiding a "competitive-mindset" in the community, on encouraging pre-game communication and "non-standard" play, etc.., etc., etc.., etc., .
You disagreed with everything, and in your ego-centrist world, everything you disagree with is automatically "wrong". You, unfortunately, tend to confuse with "I don't like it" with "I proved you wrong". For you, there seems to be no place in the world for tastes and opinions that are different than your own. Unfortunately, there can probably be no "absolute" right or wrong on fun.
I can only encourage you to give it a try playing "the studio-way". You already have the models and you clearly hate the way you game at the moment. What do you have to lose?
Perhaps you'll be surprised when you actually have fun with your Pentinent Engine again when you play "the studio-way".
But your argument has been up to this point that "changing the game to be more balanced would make it worse."
You're being asked in a specific scenario how better balance would make the game worse. Your response above is "my way of playing is better." That doesn't answer the question.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
So, Zwei, How is having a completely stupidly useless unit somehow good? Give your answer directly and specifically.
Because the game as a whole is better if it is imbalanced, even if it sucks that your unit sucks.
It's like asking what is good about paying taxes. Nothing, if you just look at the taxes leaving your account. The merit of taxes is that it finances all the public amenities of the nation you live in, e.g. the system as a whole is improved.
What? That literally makes no sense...
Why is it that the game is better when imbalanced? I have yet to see you offer a reasonable answer to that. You seem to somehow indicate that you think it has to do with variety, but I, for one, cannot see how that can be.
Consider, for a moment, this example:
Let's say that we have a very simple ruleset, containing only five units.
Suppose then, that the rules are badly balanced so that two of these units are bad, two are okay but not great, and one is so good that you'd be known as that guy among you friends if you took it.
A casual player then, would see just two choices. He does not want to handicap himself too badly so he's unlikely to take the bad units and he don't want to be that guy so he won't take the good unit. A competitive player then, would see just one choice. He will take as many of the good units as possible with not a single thought to the rest.
How's that good for variety?
Suppose now, that the rules were well-balanced so that one unit is slightly underpowered, three are okay, and one is slightly better than the rest.
A casual player then, would see five choices. The bad unit is not so bad that it cannot be compensated by the other units and the good unit is not so good as to be overpowered. A competitive player then, would also see five choices. The good unit is good but not so good as to be an auto-include and the bad unit is good enough that it can still serve a purpose in a competitive environment.
Is that not better for variety?
And furthermore, let's not forget that, in the imbalanced game, the casual player will tend to walk away when faced with a competitive army as the result of the game is given before the first dice is even rolled and, in any case, he doesn't want to play against that guy. Whereas, in the balanced game, they can easily play against each other as "casual" and "competitive" is now merely a matter of attitude, not relative power on the tabletop.
Is that not also better for variety?
In short, I simply cannot see how imbalance is better for a game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:26:03
So, Zwei, How is having a completely stupidly useless unit somehow good? Give your answer directly and specifically.
Spoiler:
Because the game as a whole is better if it is imbalanced, even if it sucks that your unit sucks.
It's like asking what is good about paying taxes. Nothing, if you just look at the taxes leaving your account. The merit of taxes is that it finances all the public amenities of the nation you live in, e.g. the system as a whole is improved.
Spoiler:
What? That literally makes no sense...
Why is it that the game is better when imbalanced? I have yet to see you offer a reasonable answer to that. You seem to somehow indicate that you think it has to do with variety, but I, for one, cannot see how that can be.
Consider, for a moment, this example:
Let's say that we have a very simple ruleset, containing only five units.
Suppose then, that the rules are badly balanced so that two of these units are bad, two are okay but not great, and one is so good that you'd be known as that guy among you friends if you took it.
A casual player then, would see just two choices. He does not want to handicap himself to badly so he's unlikely to take the bad units and he don't want to be that guy so he won't the good unit. A competitive player then, would see just one choice. He will take as many of the good units as possible with not a single thought to the rest.
How's that good for variety?
Suppose now, that the rules were well-balanced so that one unit is slightly underpowered, three are okay, and one is slightly better than the rest.
A casual player then, would see five choices. The bad unit is not so bad that it cannot be compensated by the other units and the good unit is not so good as to be overpowered. A competitive then, would also see five choices. The good unit is good but not so good as to be an auto-include and the bad unit is good enough that it can still serve a purpose in a competitive environment.
Is that not better for variety?
And furthermore, let's not forget that, in the imbalanced game, the casual player will tend to walk away when faced with a competitive army as the result of the game is given before the first dice is even rolled and, in any case, he doesn't want to play against that guy. Whereas, in the balanced game, they can easily play against each other as "casual" and "competitive" is now merely a matter of attitude, not relative power on the tabletop.
Is that not also better for variety?
In short, I simply cannot see how imbalance is better for a game.
Because in Zwei's magical fairy land, having that scenario would mean that people who want to play a narrative game which doesn't even use the points system could not play a narrative game which doesn't even use the points system.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:29:05
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
azreal13 wrote: How is it that you get to receive multiple answers to multiple questions, yet MWHistorian has been waiting for days for a single answer to a single question from you Zwei?
I answered several times.
Because in imbalanced games, not all things can be equally valid. If they were, it wouldn't be imbalanced.
MWHistorian probably would have more fun if the game was balanced and his Pentinent-Engine for its points equally valid to everything else. He seems like someone who prefers balanced games.
"Fun" is subjective. No game can please everyone. Which is why it is important that we have both balanced and imbalanced games on the market.
For "why" imbalanced games are (to me, subjectively) superior (even if it means that some units suck), go back and read all our discussions on the narrative, on imperfect imbalance, on avoiding a "competitive-mindset" in the community, on encouraging pre-game communication and "non-standard" play, etc.., etc., etc.., etc., .
You disagreed with everything, and in your ego-centrist world, everything you disagree with is automatically "wrong". You, unfortunately, tend to confuse with "I don't like it" with "I proved you wrong". For you, there seems to be no place in the world for tastes and opinions that are different than your own. Unfortunately, there can probably be no "absolute" right or wrong on fun.
I can only encourage you to give it a try playing "the studio-way". You already have the models and you clearly hate the way you game at the moment. What do you have to lose?
Perhaps you'll be surprised when you actually have fun with your Pentinent Engine again when you play "the studio-way".
That's not the answer to the question asked though, is it?
That's the answer to the question you want to answer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:27:05
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
azreal13 wrote: How is it that you get to receive multiple answers to multiple questions, yet MWHistorian has been waiting for days for a single answer to a single question from you Zwei?
I answered several times.
But your answers are completely empty of substance.
But your argument has been up to this point that "changing the game to be more balanced would make it worse."
You're being asked in a specific scenario how better balance would make the game worse. Your response above is "my way of playing is better." That doesn't answer the question.
No. Though I may not have always made myself as clear as I should have, that is not what I meant.
Making the game more balanced would make it different. It would make it different in ways that I - personally, subjectively, absolutely my bias - would find worse.
My way of playing is one way of playing,and 40K 6th Edition happens to cater to it perfectly. Which is why I spend money on the game. If 40K ceases to scratch that particular itch, or another game does it even better, I'll probably switch.
My way of playing is not better. But it is not worse than anyone else's either. If we can agree that everyone's way of gaming gets equal respect, we'd be golden.
Also, if you actually happen to not be enjoying 40K at the moment, yet already own the miniatures, I would recommend trying to play it "as the studio recommends"; Forge-the-Narrative-and-all, in a non-cynical, non-snarky way.
Again, what do you have to lose? What is the worst that could happen? If you still hate it afterwards, you've lost nothing. Are you afraid you might actually enjoy it?
I am surprised people are so adamantly convinced that something is broken which they never genuinely tried.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:40:50
You know what's remarkable, I genuinely didn't bother reading his post before I composed that reply.
It's so predictable at this point it's pitiable.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
@Zweischnied.
Just to clarify, if all of a sudden GW plc released well defined intuitive rule set for 40k , that delivered more balance and variety of game play than the current rules.
And made the game enjoyable for everyone.
Because those wanting to enjoy pick up and play games could.
And those who want to forge a narrative could just ignore anything they do not like, and make stuff up like they do now.
Why in the name of all logic would you not be able to ignore the rules you do not like, and make stuff up to include stuff cool ideas that appeal to you when you use the new 'balanced rule set.'
When you advocate everyone SHOULD HAVE TO do this to justify the imbalanced rule set that is 6th ed 40k?
Lanrak wrote: @Zweischnied.
Just to clarify, if all of a sudden GW plc released well defined intuitive rule set for 40k , that delivered more balance and variety of game play than the current rules.
And made the game enjoyable for everyone.
Because those wanting to enjoy pick up and play games could.
And those who want to forge a narrative could just ignore anything they do not like, and make stuff up like they do now.
Why in the name of all logic would you not be able to ignore the rules you do not like, and make stuff up to include stuff cool ideas that appeal to you when you use the new 'balanced rule set.'
When you advocate everyone SHOULD HAVE TO do this to justify the imbalanced rule set that is 6th ed 40k?
Because, in my experience, all games (and previous versions of 40K) with more emphasis on balance, have resulted in a "mind-set" in which rules and points and mindbogglingly inappropriate concept such as "legal" are considered sacrosanct and a final authority on almost everything, which in turn has led me to enjoy the games less than I do the current iteration of 40K.
"Balanced" rules have this odd quality of suggesting a "hard line", where everything "inside" the rules is fair game, and everything "outside" the rules is off-limit.
Only GW, to my knowledge, has managed to at least partially break this and create a "soft line", where there is a common understanding that not everything "inside" the rules is always appropriate in all games, and not everything "outside" the rules is by default off limit, for no other reason than that it goes against the rules.
And yes, people will say that you could, of course, go all the way to a game with "no line", no point values, no FoC, no nothing.
But I don't tend to believe in extremes. Between the extremes of absolute hard "legal" rules on one hand, and the extreme of absolutely "no" rules on the other, I prefer the golden "soft-line" middle-ground of contemporary 40K.
It has provided my with the the by far best wargaming experiences in nearly 20 years of wargaming. GW managed to turn (compliance with the) rules, again, in what they were (IMO) meant to be, a means to an end (among other means), whereas to many wargamers - in my experience - have come to consider playing in compliance with the rules a virtue in itself.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 18:34:37
Ah, so, reading between the lines, nobody would play you in the way you wanted, until the game degenerated to a point where they pretty much had to.
Consequently, you're happy and couldn't give a gak about the happiness of the player base in general and the general state of the game.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
You are in the wrong job. You would make a fine politician.
Farseer Faenyin 
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) 
