MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
Didn't I just respond to it above.
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
Play with the narrative.
That still doesn't answer the question: how is such a useless unit good for the game? Also, those are specific scenarios that you'll never see in a normal game that are perhaps the only occasion where a PE wouldn't be completely useless. You'll never see that scenario.
Stop evading and just answer the question. How is such a useless unit good for the game? (A tabletop game of 40k, not Dark Heresy, not some made up game you just thought of, the actual game of 40k)
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Fluff or not, game wise this I'd consider a poor list.
Are you ing kidding me? I could give you credit for a Thousand Son army but two things. One, why is it that a Thosand Son army works less than a White Scar army? Explain to me this. Along with this, how is it that a Tzeentch list is a poor list. Explain to me this. Tell me how I should just give up on Tzeentch because his mark, his spells, his everything suck besides his daemon prince? Is this good balance? You know what, I hardly play it because it sucks. Then again, I hardly play CSM because I am not going to play Heldrakes. I vowed after two games to never play it again unless it gets balanced. I am not stomping on my friend's fun but the CSM codex is horrible. Stop that, quit that, why can't I play what I lvoe rather than deploying nurgle?
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
Didn't I just respond to it above.
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
Play with the narrative.
I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that. More than likely people will play 1500-2000pts in a pickup or prearranged game at their FLGS or gaming club. To think this is how 40k is supposed to work is just asinine. It's the same king-canute esq. attitude that stems from the studio that just hurts the game. Who are they (or YOU?) to tell tens of thousands of people they're playing the game incorrectly as cover for GW's sloppy game design?
That still doesn't answer the question: how is such a useless unit good for the game? Also, those are specific scenarios that you'll never see in a normal game that are perhaps the only occasion where a PE wouldn't be completely useless. You'll never see that scenario.
Stop evading and just answer the question. How is such a useless unit good for the game? (A tabletop game of 40k, not Dark Heresy, not some made up game you just thought of, the actual game of 40k)
There is no "normal" game of 40K. If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
Didn't I just respond to it above.
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
Play with the narrative.
But this requries a complex set-up and, if it were better constructed in the form of balance or perfect imbalance, it would do its job even BETTER and be also capable of being used in other games.
I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.
I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.
Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?
StarTrotter wrote: I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Fluff or not, game wise this I'd consider a poor list.
That's the whole point. Fluffy lists aren't even balanced. Hey, Star Trotter, how about you play against my fluffy White Scars all biker army? Or my fluffy, all Eldar Grav Tank Samm Hain army? Or my Fluffy Draigowing (that is a fluffy army)? Or my fluffy 9 Monstrous Creature Spam army (because any Nids army is fluffy, adapt and overcome!)?
So much fun!
Basically this. I can play different builds. there's a reason I only take out those units when I'm particularly missing them or I just really want to play them. Even then, I sometimes just take them markless and "pretend" they are mark of tzeentch. For the most part, I just gave up and moved to building chaos daemons and IG. Yet CSM still holds a place in my heart for being my first army and Tzeentch even more so. I just want my fluffy list to be able to fight against all these other fluffy lists. The reason they are poor lists are because the rules are terrible.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
Didn't I just respond to it above.
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.
I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.
Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?
Who are you to tell tens of thousands of other players who want to play a proper wargame that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your pointless crusade of acting like everything is fine?
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
Isn't the fact that there are such 'go to' lists within 40k part if the problem? Surly they're indicative of problems within the game? Surely they're indicative that only some things are worth taking, and everything else stays on the shelf - you say it yourself - you refer to bad units elsewhere. Why should that be the status quo?
In 40k, good players win with one of those 'net lists'. Comp makes no difference - I've never seen a comp system that helped the game, or that couldn't be broken in turn. All comp does is apply a skew, and create a new grade of good units and bad units.
Compared to warmachine: good players win. Everything can be built into a game winning strategy. I've seen popular lists win, and I've seen lists and units right out of left field and deemed all sorts of bad to figure a role in a big win. Jamie Perkins won a uk invitational with kossites. A chap in America won with assault kommandos. A guy took the Swedish masters with Cassius (or mohsar?) and grayle. Three examples of maligned, or unpopular, or easily dismissed choices. And yet played for big wins.
Sadly, you won't see the same in 40k. It's a shame really.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Definitely, people need to adapt and overcome. This is nothing new to humans, it's in our nature to do this.
But the thing is, adapting in 40k involves purchasing pricey models, building them, and then painting them. It's time taxing for a "beer and pretzel" hobby. On top of that, you are ignoring the people that love the game for its fluff and setting that want that vibe when they are playing the game. I can adapt, as mentioned, I have. But I'm sentimental, I'm human, and those are my favorite guys. When somebody asks me what is my real army, I say Tzeentch marines because that's the guys that made me finally go, I want to make this my army (techincally it was Ahriman).
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Definitely, people need to adapt and overcome. This is nothing new to humans, it's in our nature to do this.
How do you adapt and overcome either A) nearly invincible units or B) units that have every special rule in the game to ignore any save you have except invulnerable?
Think wisely before you answer. Because if you knock this one out of the park, you'll be a shoe in for the next winner of NOVA Open.
I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.
I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.
Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?
Tens of thousands?!!
Is this from the same user who brought us X Wing has 0.001% the number of units of Warmachine?"
I do believe it is!!
Stop pretending that your view is anything but a tiny minority, and that to cater to it doesn't harm the game at large.
Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"
Zweischneid wrote: If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.
So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules. just sit around a table with painted minitures and tell a story while pushing models and making pew pew noises. now thats forging the narrative.
I'm sorry, but practically zero people outside of the studio play the game like that.
I do. My club does. My former club at my University did. Plenty of people play that way.
Who are you to tell tens of thousands of people (and the Studio!) that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your personal pointless crusade for "balance"?
But you see, there are normal games. The normal games are the ones you see most individuals playing based on the rules. Yeah, there's tons of players that go the narrative way, in fact, I do as well. But I play more just normal games than anything else and then fluff them up. Most people play pick-up games here, that's in the majority. Narrative games are made for a bunch of friends to do.
Along with that, the studio also thinks that the battleforces are perfectly balanced and if we go by their "interpretations", SM should always win against everybody always.
Zweischneid wrote: If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.
So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules.
As this one says, at this point, why use the book, why buy any of the rules. Make your own! Don't even buy models. Buy some plastic guys and toss them on giving them S10 guns. Be free for the forging of narratives! No, want to know what the companie's forging the narrative is? Random spell generation, random warlord traits, and mandatory challenges.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"
And you are exactly what is wrong with the game.
This is what we are saying. If you have a terribly balance ruleset it is vastly easier to be abused by the TFG's of the world.
Who are you to tell tens of thousands of other players who want to play a proper wargame that they are playing the game incorrectly? Only for your pointless crusade of acting like everything is fine?
The hypocrisy in your post is staggering.
How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.
Sorry. I bought and play 40K the way it is because of the way it is. I like it the way it is. If 40K were somehow different, more balanced, whatever, I wouldn't have bought it.
If you blithely ignored all the Forge-the-Narrative boxes and all the design philosophy clearly spelled out by guys like Jervis Johnson, only to find that you don't enjoy what they do with the game, I am sorry. If I were rich, I'd refund you the money.
But it is hardly hypocrisy if you enjoy a game the way it is written and in the spirit of the game spelled out by the game designers themselves. If I wouldn't enjoy it.. I'd simply look for a different game.
There is no hypocrisy if you like strawberry ice-cream for tasting like strawberry ice-cream. If you prefer vanilla, go and get yourself vanilla. But stop hating strawberry ice-cream for not tasting like vanilla.
Well, it's been fun for the nostalgia, but Zwei has no new material, is still unable to address the gaping holes in his argument and when cornered, moves the goalposts or constructs the most convoluted justifications to try and wriggle out of it, so that's me done for now, I'll just leave everyone with this advice...
Zweischneid wrote: If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.
So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules. just sit around a table with painted minitures and tell a story while pushing models and making pew pew noises. now thats forging the narrative.
But you forget, if you just make up new ways of playing and ignore the rules, then the rules are awesome!
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"
Mim-maxing means nothing when the riptide is blatantly good, CSM, Nids, and Da are entirely inferior, and all the units costs chunks of money and even more time. How the hell is it not fair to you if I could bring my "fluffy list" and have it play on equal grounds? By that implication, it's also balanced and I likely min maxed it to be within my theme (much like the white scars biker army) whilst still having a diverse force that is min maxed for take all comers. BAM! Both of us win.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"
You play your fluffy whatever army, I'll play my fluffy White Scars Gravity Spam army and we'll see who has fun.
Further Clarification: If you are not picking up what's being stated, even "fluffy" armies are not equal. An all Nurgle army is far superior to anything else found in the Chaos Space Marines codex. Books aren't created with any thought of balance and armies, more so ones that follow canonicle fluff, are so off scale with each other, that you either have to work through a series of house-rule hoops or you have to be a "smarter" player and learn to guage a player and when to pull punches.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"
And you are exactly what is wrong with the game.
This is what we are saying. If you have a terribly balance ruleset it is vastly easier to be abused by the TFG's of the world.
I think you're what's wrong with the game. Dispatching thoughtful min maxers as TFGs is offensively ignorant
Zweischneid wrote: If you think there is, you haven't gotten the Jervis Johnson/Forge-the-Narrative-memo.
So Warhammer is a big circle jerk for men(and women) with money? why even bother calling it a game or having rule books or even rules. just sit around a table with painted minitures and tell a story while pushing models and making pew pew noises. now thats forging the narrative.
But you forget, if you just make up new ways of playing and ignore the rules, then the rules are awesome!
Now go pay for the overpriced 60-80 dollar toilet pap- rulebook, the 50 dollar codex, the 50 dollar supplement, multiple dlces, and hundreds of armies to make your army! Look at all the money you spent on such fine and well crafted rules.
Ha ha the fools! They didn't realize they could have just made their own and it would have been just as ballanced!
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Some people enjoy the min-maxing factor of the game. Thats one of my favorite parts of 40k. Its not fair to min maxing players yo bring a sub par "fluffy list"
And you are exactly what is wrong with the game.
This is what we are saying. If you have a terribly balance ruleset it is vastly easier to be abused by the TFG's of the world.
I think you're what's wrong with the game. Dispatching thoughtful min maxers as TFGs is offensively ignorant
Min-maxers that enforce blatant imbalances are bad. The good min-maxers that deserve some respect are the guys that maximize an army in a largely balanced game revealing new broken ways. Instead, you just copy everybody else probably and their lists.
Zweischneid wrote: How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.
So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?
Zweischneid wrote: How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.
So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?
He mentioned tailoring a game of cultists in a crowded city against a penitent engine to make the immolator good. Does that count?
Zweischneid wrote: How is it hypocrisy to buy a game like 40K for the things it promises in its pages (e.g. the Forge the Narrative stuff above all), and for the inspiration of "free-form" gaming articles like those by Jervis Johnson, only to be told that it is all wrong.
So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?
So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?
To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.
Oh.... you have no idea. So then, have you ever heard of my White Scar army? They are very... narrative. As per my daemons, why, would you like my FMC spam list? I have a fluffy explanation why! Those heldrakes? This is the vanguard assault. Always.
I understand what he's saying. I have a hard time accepting it, but based off what they publish, I have to admit that GW intends this to be almost a cooperative game. It's stupid, and makes traveling outside your play group VERY difficult, but it is the ONLY explanation for the way they do things.
I suspect that GW also would expect self-policing from players in order to "forge the narrative". Basically, they want you to do the work of making their game fair and interesting for them.
GW's unit balance is atrocious. Absolutely atrocious. Blizzard fans get pissed when a 200 mineral, 100 gas unit is undercosted by say 25 gas, because over many units, this adds up to a big advantage. GW isn't even the same ballpark on their units. A game with thousand sons also has the Riptide. Because fluff. Or author laziness. Or just random writing. Or something. GW obviously doesn't give a feth, just like Zwei. I have no idea how they find list construction interesting when they have to negotiate with their opponent, but I'm not British. Or something. The whole thing makes no sense, but it obviously makes perfect sense to Zwie and evidently thousands of others.
So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?
To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.
Oh.... you have no idea. So then, have you ever heard of my White Scar army? They are very... narrative. As per my daemons, why, would you like my FMC spam list? I have a fluffy explanation why! Those heldrakes? This is the vanguard assault. Always.
A White Scars Army isn't "fluffy" or "not fluffy". Whether or not it is depends on the opponent, the scenario, the table, etc..
As (presumably?) a Bike army, it wouldn't be very fitting for a Battle of Void Span Point Scenario for example, where all 3 players deploy by flyers and than move into a "space-hulk-style"-setting.
In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.
So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?
To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.
Oh.... you have no idea. So then, have you ever heard of my White Scar army? They are very... narrative. As per my daemons, why, would you like my FMC spam list? I have a fluffy explanation why! Those heldrakes? This is the vanguard assault. Always.
A White Scars Army isn't "fluffy" or "not fluffy". Whether or not it is depends on the opponent, the scenario, the table, etc..
As (presumably?) a Bike army, it wouldn't be very fitting for a Battle of Void Span Point Scenario for example, where all 3 players deploy by flyers and than move into a "space-hulk-style"-setting.
In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.
Ummmm..... a biker white scar list is basically the most fluffy thing possible. I don't even know what the heck you are talking on and on about now. Like, wah man? If they can't do that, then there's no real use to playing White Scars. That's basically their whole thing. It's like playing salamanders but taking away their flamers and meltas. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT MAAAAN!?
Also, moving scenery. And next you will roll for the time of day and if it is morning the SM will get a buff and if night Eldar shall get a buff. Fine then, battlesuit tau army is pretty good and will almost always best a tzeentch army especially when ti can take along Riptides and some pathfinders, maybe a buffmander for good measure. Fluffy. So what is your point?
And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.
Interesting to follow this. It is unfortunate that Zweischneid is being so directly attacked by so many posts, I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.
There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument.
And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.
You can't say in one breath "Oh screw you Zwei no one plays anything but the book scenarios at 2k points" and then in the next breath use armies and builds virtually no one uses to make your own points. You can't have a game with this much stuff in this many combinations and not have some falter. Can you talk about the majority of the game and not just the top 3 lists versus the bottom 3 lists?
Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues? It really is not hard to see Zewi's point that the game is clearly buiilt intentionally toward that guy, and neither of the two extremes.
I run a club full of these middle-of-the-ground types and we find little issue with powerful units or lists. Why? Well, for one, everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army. You can't claim the game is less balanced than ever while it is in a state where most of its content is available across more players than ever before.
And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing. Even if it does...explain exactly what "hurting the game" even means?
You want to talk about what's wrong with the game? Earlier I said the player base. As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game -- a bunch of people who think that THEIR way to play the game is the RIGHT way and the ONLY way and that anyone else is a fool.
Of course. Yes, 40k is an irreparably broken mess that can only be enjoyed by the most ignorant people who've ever wargamed.
Thanks for the update. I'm going to go back to enjoying the game now.
And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.
Dunno. I find Thousand Sons dull, sitting on the planet of sorcerers doing nothing (when they aren't chasing their arch traitor Ahirman).
Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).
Or perhaps use an old Space Hulk set to do an Ahriman vs. Harlequins, Prodigal Sons trying to get into the Black Library scenario.
Fenris Frost wrote: And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing. Even if it does...explain exactly what "hurting the game" even means?
Ignoring all my anecdotal evidence that points to the contrary...
You could try that... (Was referenced earlier, but here's the proof).
And you don't see this absurd/obscene armies or these rules concerns pop-up, you play in a very small group. I've played 6E across the country now. This stuff pops up. And it's not fun to deal with.
Fenris Frost wrote: Interesting to follow this. It is unfortunate that Zweischneid is being so directly attacked by so many posts, I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.
There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument. You can't say in one breath "Oh screw you Zwei no one plays anything but the book scenarios at 2k points" and then in the next breath use armies and builds virtually no one uses to make your own points.
Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues? It really is not hard to see Zewi's point that the game is clearly buiilt intentionally toward that guy, and neither of the two extremes.
I run a club full of these middle-of-the-ground types and we find little issue with powerful units or lists. Why? Well, for one, everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army. You can't claim the game is less balanced than ever while it is in a state where most of its content is available across more players than ever before.
And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing.
You want to talk about what's wrong with the game? Earlier I said the player base. As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game -- a bunch of people who think that THEIR way to play the game is the RIGHT way and the ONLY way and that anyone else is a fool.
As always -- the playerbase is the biggest downside to this game.
Yes, 40k is an irreparably broken mess that can only be enjoyed by the most ignorant people who've ever wargamed. Thanks for the update. I'm going to go back to enjoying the game now.
Wrong. I'm... I'm somebody that uses these models. I try. I TRY MAN! Tzeentch is like my man yo. Yeah, he might backstab me often but he's always got my back in the end. That's how we roll even if it hurts.
Actually, it is extremely easy. Want to know why? Ding ding ding the starter forces. Now then, when I was a new little lad we played DA versus CSM. We were too new to know that DA had more points nor did we realize DA were kitted out to always beat CSM in almost every match unless the dice gods really hated the DA player that day. It crushed my mood. There, the end. Along with that, there's still the fact that the CSM codex is still vastly inferior to a codex like Eldar (and so on). Finally, the average player says. HEY LOOK! The heldrake looks awesome let us use him. *Heldrake slaughters DA constantly that have worthless AA* Well time to shelf this model I guess.
Not every army has a super powerful unit and not all of those powerful units are equal. Along with that, not all of us can be Tau and ally with Eldar perfectly or be Imperial and ally with basically everybody. Some of us play Nids where we can't even ally to one army, not even ourself.
Look at it? You do know the last fiscal year showed them losing stock, even before then they were not gaining any wealth despite increasing costs, the 40k market is slowly shrinking as other games cannibalize it... Yeah it is hurting. It's just 40k is so popular the death will be a slow one much like WoW.
The reason people are so rabid is because he is the one guy that has been here for basically a day and is in a minority opinion that has spouted falsehood, faulty arguments, flawed conceptions, spouted that tailoring makes the game fair, and all sorts of other illogical things. We are human and eventually we all get tired. Plus, this isn't the first time for many of us that we have argued with him. I actually am fine with Zwei when we aren't in this argument. Much like how I'm usually fine with Peregrine whenever it's not a discussion about CC. But shove them in these places and I have already grown tired of it all.
Finally, 40k is a broken mess that can be fixed. It can also be enjoyed by anybody with a liking for it due to the diversity of its purpose from a building/conversion hobby, to a painting hobby, to a collector hobby, to a player hobby, to a bad competitive hobby, and is all washed in deep lore. If you ask people here, you'll find many play it still. I certainly do, in fact, I'm looking forward to going back to town and kicking up a campaign because I love them. That said, the rules are bad, the only real part of the game I truly dislike and I'd like to see them improved so I could actually use what I love.
Zweischneid wrote: In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.
So... if you play a completely different game instead of 40K, it's great for 'forging a narrative'...
Zweischneid wrote: Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).
But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.
Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.
And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.
Dunno. I find Thousand Sons dull, sitting on the planet of sorcerers doing nothing (when they aren't chasing their arch traitor Ahirman).
Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).
Or perhaps use an old Space Hulk set to do an Ahriman vs. Harlequins, Prodigal Sons trying to get into the Black Library scenario.
Etc...
No no I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how to make them actually worth using. Where they actually have a sense of purpose and use. Thousand Sons are deep. They aren't just sitting there doing nothing. They are planning their plots, sewing their seeds, and striking in the night. They are the plotters that only come out when they must. A Thousand Son army would often have cultists and standard marines as bodyguards as the sorcerer lords leads his fiersome automaton brothers to battle. My big problem is that the things you gave me for balance involve set piece games and mirror matches. I can create that, but I need it so I can play against any army. I want to make fluffy battles that follow a narrative that is balanced so we can have fun and weave our own story. Not have to limit ourselves drastically.
Zweischneid wrote: Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).
But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.
Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.
Oh what a tangled web he weaves. Getting caught up in your own arguments there Zwei?
Zweischneid wrote: In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.
So... if you play a completely different game instead of 40K, it's great for 'forging a narrative'...
I am not. I follow the 40K rules to the letter
...
MiniRuleBook p. 8 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. [,,,] What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job [is] also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. 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.
I have the suspicion that you aren't playing 40K, since you seem to ignore these rather specific prompts.
When was the last time you played proper 40K in compliance with the above writing, i.e. with adding something to the games mechanic that was entirely born from your own creativity? If you haven't in a while, you've not been playing 40K.
Zweischneid wrote: Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).
But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.
Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.
Oh what a tangled web he weaves. Getting caught up in your own arguments there Zwei?
Didn't I say I find Thousand Sons boring too? Yes I did. I was only offering suggestions for the more "Warmachine-minded".
I also recommended mirror-matches previously, for people who care about balance (e.g. not me).
Fenris Frost wrote: There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument.
Are you suggesting people should cite less effective examples to support their arguments when better ones are available in order to make the debate more even?
You really HAVE been spending too much time in GWland!
Fenris Frost wrote:Interesting to follow this. It is unfortunate that Zweischneid is being so directly attacked by so many posts, I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.
There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument.
And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.
[1]You can't say in one breath "Oh screw you Zwei no one plays anything but the book scenarios at 2k points" and then in the next breath use armies and builds virtually no one uses to make your own points. You can't have a game with this much stuff in this many combinations and not have some falter. Can you talk about the majority of the game and not just the top 3 lists versus the bottom 3 lists?
[2]Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues? It really is not hard to see Zewi's point that the game is clearly buiilt intentionally toward that guy, and neither of the two extremes.
I run a club full of these middle-of-the-ground types and we find little issue with powerful units or lists. Why? Well, for one, [3]everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army. You can't claim the game is less balanced than ever while it is in a state where most of its content is available across more players than ever before.
And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing. Even if it does...explain exactly what "hurting the game" even means?
You want to talk about what's wrong with the game? Earlier I said the player base. As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy [4] because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game -- a bunch of people who think that THEIR way to play the game is the RIGHT way and the ONLY way and that anyone else is a fool.
Of course. Yes, 40k is an irreparably broken mess that can only be enjoyed by the most ignorant people who've ever wargamed.
Thanks for the update. I'm going to go back to enjoying the game now.
[1] No-one plays these builds, because they are kinda horrible in-game.
[2] They will have issues in one of two scenarios (maybe more). A) They run into one of these units someone else has in a casual game, or B) They get shunned when they bring an overpowered unit they thought was cool.
[3] Please, tell me of these "Allies" I can take.
[4] I would be perfectly willing to discuss, if he actually had some valid arguments.
Also, you need to understand some rather thick sarcasm to recognize it, but here:
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
QFT. I mean, just look at Tyranids. As my troops rain from the sky in their mycetic spores, hidden Lictors and genestealers leap from their hiding places and rip apart the defenders before they can react. Infinity, however, is completely incapable of representing any kind of infiltrator/aircav force, despite being all futuristic. My commandos come on, and then they just stand their staring at the guy with a flamethrower as he burns them to death.
Zweischneid wrote: In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.
So... if you play a completely different game instead of 40K, it's great for 'forging a narrative'...
I am not. I follow the 40K rules to the letter
...
MiniRuleBook p. 8 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. [,,,] What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job [is] also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. 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.
I have the suspicion that you aren't playing 40K, since you seem to ignore these rather specific prompts.
When was the last time you played proper 40K in compliance with the above writing, i.e. with adding something to the games mechanic that was entirely born from your own creativity? If you haven't in a while, you've not been playing 40K.
Zweischneid wrote: Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).
But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.
Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.
Oh what a tangled web he weaves. Getting caught up in your own arguments there Zwei?
Didn't I say I find Thousand Sons boring too? Yes I did. I was only offering suggestions for the more "Warmachine-minded".
And I said how to play them and make them actually good. here's the problem. Ksons, and tzeentch for chaos suck. There's no answer, no solution. he just does, his icon is soul fire, his mark gives a +1 to invuln which either means a 6+ invuln that is overpriced or a highly pricey +1 to your invuln when it'd be better to take the mark of nurgle possibly even for cheaper. Ksons themself are worse at killing Tac marines than Chaos Marines that themself are inferior to Tac Marines. And thing is? Both Ksons and Chaos marines die at the same rate. How is this good? How can I "forge the narrative" when this is so?
Why should I roll for my tests when I could just "forge the narrative" explaining my psyker would know this already and my warlord would know what he is good at from the get go. At this point, why not script it, push it and kill models as I chose for a general "cinematic theme" with "epic" duels that totally go counter to the theme of a Tzeentch leader.
Fenris Frost wrote: I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.
People would be more likely to see both sides of it if one side took the time to actually explain their point of view in a way that makes some kind of sense.
Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues?
Yes.Absolutely. I have seen players come into the game, build an army based on what they thought looked cool, or on a cool story they thought up, and then give up in frustration when they continually lost games to armies that were vastly further up the power scale. I've seen players accused of being WAAC power gamers because they built an army based around some models they liked without realising that the wider community views those models as being hideously unbalanced. I've seen players lose patience with the game because their army that was a decent take-all-comers army when they built it is now practically unplayable due to everyone else being updated (in some case twice) while they get stuck with a codex that is 2 editions out of date.
None of that would be an issue in a more balanced game.
Well, for one, everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army
Yeah, the allies rules went a long way towards fixing the problems faced by Tyranid players...
As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game
People on forums assuming that because someone disagrees with someone else, that they are in some sort of frothing rage...?
Why should I roll for my tests when I could just "forge the narrative" explaining my psyker would know this already and my warlord would know what he is good at from the get go. At this point, why not script it, push it and kill models as I chose for a general "cinematic theme" with "epic" duels that totally go counter to the theme of a Tzeentch leader.
You probably should do that for a year or so, if only to wean yourself off that misguided mind-cuffed focus on "standard games".
Player A: "You can only move in a straight line!"
Player B: "You can bend the tape and move however you want!"
Me: "What does the book say?"
Player A: "It says you move 6 inches!"
Me: "Is bending the tape 'moving 6 inches'?"
Player A: "..."
Has that actually happened to anyone? Or was this an example of silliness from "weak" rules?
Why should I roll for my tests when I could just "forge the narrative" explaining my psyker would know this already and my warlord would know what he is good at from the get go. At this point, why not script it, push it and kill models as I chose for a general "cinematic theme" with "epic" duels that totally go counter to the theme of a Tzeentch leader.
You probably should do that for a year or so, if only to wean yourself off that misguided mind-cuffed focus on "standard games".
The hell? Have you not noticed me mention that I still occasionally play such a sub par army and have several house rules to improve Nids, DA, CSM, and even orks? Or have you noticed that I have mentioned my love of campaigns and creating narratives setting up cities with designs and all that jazz? Well, I didn't mention the cities and all but gosh darn it I love doing that a lot. I've built fortifications for the enemy where I got extra points and had to siege/break through it to slaughter the inhabitants and more. That said, we don't always want to plan things out in this grand context. Sometimes we just want a quick game or to just duke it out on a rather even playing-field with no real tweaking here. Along with that, by doing so, you disregard the attempt at balance by random dice rolls (even if it is flawed) and just pick the most optimal choice every time. I love narrative games, but a better balanced/perfect imbalance game would only make my love for the game more. At this point, what is the meaning to buying supplements or the main rulebook when I'm just going to tear it up for being terrible and create my own rules entirely?
Fenris Frost wrote: I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.
People would be more likely to see both sides of it if one side took the time to actually explain their point of view in a way that makes some kind of sense.
Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues?
Yes.Absolutely. I have seen players come into the game, build an army based on what they thought looked cool, or on a cool story they thought up, and then give up in frustration when they continually lost games to armies that were vastly further up the power scale. I've seen players accused of being WAAC power gamers because they built an army based around some models they liked without realising that the wider community views those models as being hideously unbalanced. I've seen players lose patience with the game because their army that was a decent take-all-comers army when they built it is now practically unplayable due to everyone else being updated (in some case twice) while they get stuck with a codex that is 2 editions out of date.
None of that would be an issue in a more balanced game.
Well, for one, everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army
Yeah, the allies rules went a long way towards fixing the problems faced by Tyranid players...
As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game
People on forums assuming that because someone disagrees with someone else, that they are in some sort of frothing rage...?
Personally I'm just trying to understand and getting very confused.
Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.
StarTrotter wrote: Wrong. I'm... I'm somebody that uses these models. I try. I TRY MAN! Tzeentch is like my man yo. Yeah, he might backstab me often but he's always got my back in the end. That's how we roll even if it hurts.
Actually, it is extremely easy. Want to know why? Ding ding ding the starter forces. Now then, when I was a new little lad we played DA versus CSM. We were too new to know that DA had more points nor did we realize DA were kitted out to always beat CSM in almost every match unless the dice gods really hated the DA player that day. It crushed my mood. There, the end. Along with that, there's still the fact that the CSM codex is still vastly inferior to a codex like Eldar (and so on). Finally, the average player says. HEY LOOK! The heldrake looks awesome let us use him. *Heldrake slaughters DA constantly that have worthless AA* Well time to shelf this model I guess.
Not every army has a super powerful unit and not all of those powerful units are equal. Along with that, not all of us can be Tau and ally with Eldar perfectly or be Imperial and ally with basically everybody. Some of us play Nids where we can't even ally to one army, not even ourself.
Look at it? You do know the last fiscal year showed them losing stock, even before then they were not gaining any wealth despite increasing costs, the 40k market is slowly shrinking as other games cannibalize it... Yeah it is hurting. It's just 40k is so popular the death will be a slow one much like WoW.
The reason people are so rabid is because he is the one guy that has been here for basically a day and is in a minority opinion that has spouted falsehood, faulty arguments, flawed conceptions, spouted that tailoring makes the game fair, and all sorts of other illogical things. We are human and eventually we all get tired. Plus, this isn't the first time for many of us that we have argued with him. I actually am fine with Zwei when we aren't in this argument. Much like how I'm usually fine with Peregrine whenever it's not a discussion about CC. But shove them in these places and I have already grown tired of it all.
Finally, 40k is a broken mess that can be fixed. It can also be enjoyed by anybody with a liking for it due to the diversity of its purpose from a building/conversion hobby, to a painting hobby, to a collector hobby, to a player hobby, to a bad competitive hobby, and is all washed in deep lore. If you ask people here, you'll find many play it still. I certainly do, in fact, I'm looking forward to going back to town and kicking up a campaign because I love them. That said, the rules are bad, the only real part of the game I truly dislike and I'd like to see them improved so I could actually use what I love.
I actually really liked this post because it isn't rooted in hyberbole like a lot of the other counterpoints, and believe it or not I feel similarly; we shouldn't have to say "0-1 Heldrakes 0-1 Riptides" to have a decently matched game. And I agree with a lot of the other sentiments, too; however, I don't think it is NEARLY as bad a problem as it is depicted. Playing across the country and seeing a lot of tough lists is one thing; this game obviously has the intent that you will be playing it with other people you know for the fun of the story it enacts, rather than other people you've never met on purely competitive grounds. So in ways, even though I agree with both sides of the coin, I take exception only because Zweischneid's point that the game is simply not meant to address any of these concerns is, in itself, a valid one.
Either way, I considered it a good post, as it makes a lot of points that are very relevant without being so "zOMG how could you be so stupid!" about it. So thanks for that.
@Crazy Carnifex, another good post that puts a lot in perspective. That is a much more valid way to say the game isn't fulfilling, to point out that the Nids don't actually do that on the table. I don't think that means the game is busted or unplayable but I'm not ignorant or blind to the fact that there is a big gulf in mechanics versus the fiction that leads to awkward stuff. That's a lot more valid than just saying "Guys who play three Riptides exist, the whole game is ruined." Or this whole "tell me why a Penitent Engine is good" thing, that's not really proving anything more than saying "tell me how often you can capture a queen with a pawn! What do pawns add to the game!?"
As for my comments about extreme examples, I'm not looking for anything literal; but think about it. We talk about power lists versus boned lists all the time in the 40k community. There's no middle? There are no guys that win some and lose some? No people who, with an uphill battle might beat a netlist, or who might lose despite having one? I'm just saying, we should step back a bit and consider where the majority focus of the game lies, for GW's attitude toward development (and our own, toward the state of the game) to have some context.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.
I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.
Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.
As soon as models have a comparable point cost in a game, the game designers have shown an attempt at "balancing" models/units.
If the game was all about narrative their would not be any point cost for units, only rules.
As for the rules for 40k, they are in many cases unclear or even incomprehensible, something that a company with the resources like GW should have caught before printing.
Then add in the lack of balance between the various codecies, topped with rules were units hardly ever resembles the capabilities suggested by their fluff.
Also the points costs that appears arbitrary with no real guideline, lots of units that have unique special rules when USR would do fine.
Overall the codecies appears to be made from people who take the "Beer" part of "Beer and Peanuts game" very serious.
If you want to play a narrative campaign you can, but you have to make up lots of rules yourself in order to make the models playable on the table.
Having a complete balance between the codecies would be more or less impossible because some units are simply fail by design from a fluff pov.
That said each codex could be made to have some units builds that could work in a competitive environment while still being able to make a varied fluff based army.
GW could simply invite some tournament winners from some of the larger non-comp tournaments for some "early testing" against a new codex with their tournament army and balance it based on those tests to make a few tournament builds.
Could also make for some good White Dwarf battle reports.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.
I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.
Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.
And many people have agreed with you that certain slight imbalances can benefit a game by promoting an always evolving meta-game.
His question is how does that unit (and many others) being so incredibly far from balanced benefit the game or it`s players?
I agree that perfect imbalance is where codexes/armies have weaknesses that don't relegate them to the shelf, because they have other strengths. However, GW does not do that well. Theoretically, Blood Angels should be able to be played just fine against Tau.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.
I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.
Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.
Yes, I understand what imbalance is, but what you've failed to explain is how having a useless unit is somehow funner than having a unit that actually doesn't punish you for using it. I'm not talking about a las-predator being maybe better than a dev squad, I'm talking about wildly useless units or units that are so OP they're not fun to play against.
StarTrotter wrote: Wrong. I'm... I'm somebody that uses these models. I try. I TRY MAN! Tzeentch is like my man yo. Yeah, he might backstab me often but he's always got my back in the end. That's how we roll even if it hurts.
Actually, it is extremely easy. Want to know why? Ding ding ding the starter forces. Now then, when I was a new little lad we played DA versus CSM. We were too new to know that DA had more points nor did we realize DA were kitted out to always beat CSM in almost every match unless the dice gods really hated the DA player that day. It crushed my mood. There, the end. Along with that, there's still the fact that the CSM codex is still vastly inferior to a codex like Eldar (and so on). Finally, the average player says. HEY LOOK! The heldrake looks awesome let us use him. *Heldrake slaughters DA constantly that have worthless AA* Well time to shelf this model I guess.
Not every army has a super powerful unit and not all of those powerful units are equal. Along with that, not all of us can be Tau and ally with Eldar perfectly or be Imperial and ally with basically everybody. Some of us play Nids where we can't even ally to one army, not even ourself.
Look at it? You do know the last fiscal year showed them losing stock, even before then they were not gaining any wealth despite increasing costs, the 40k market is slowly shrinking as other games cannibalize it... Yeah it is hurting. It's just 40k is so popular the death will be a slow one much like WoW.
The reason people are so rabid is because he is the one guy that has been here for basically a day and is in a minority opinion that has spouted falsehood, faulty arguments, flawed conceptions, spouted that tailoring makes the game fair, and all sorts of other illogical things. We are human and eventually we all get tired. Plus, this isn't the first time for many of us that we have argued with him. I actually am fine with Zwei when we aren't in this argument. Much like how I'm usually fine with Peregrine whenever it's not a discussion about CC. But shove them in these places and I have already grown tired of it all.
Finally, 40k is a broken mess that can be fixed. It can also be enjoyed by anybody with a liking for it due to the diversity of its purpose from a building/conversion hobby, to a painting hobby, to a collector hobby, to a player hobby, to a bad competitive hobby, and is all washed in deep lore. If you ask people here, you'll find many play it still. I certainly do, in fact, I'm looking forward to going back to town and kicking up a campaign because I love them. That said, the rules are bad, the only real part of the game I truly dislike and I'd like to see them improved so I could actually use what I love.
I actually really liked this post because it isn't rooted in hyberbole like a lot of the other counterpoints, and believe it or not I feel similarly; we shouldn't have to say "0-1 Heldrakes 0-1 Riptides" to have a decently matched game. And I agree with a lot of the other sentiments, too; however, I don't think it is NEARLY as bad a problem as it is depicted. Playing across the country and seeing a lot of tough lists is one thing; this game obviously has the intent that you will be playing it with other people you know for the fun of the story it enacts, rather than other people you've never met on purely competitive grounds. So in ways, even though I agree with both sides of the coin, I take exception only because Zweischneid's point that the game is simply not meant to address any of these concerns is, in itself, a valid one.
Either way, I considered it a good post, as it makes a lot of points that are very relevant without being so "zOMG how could you be so stupid!" about it. So thanks for that.
@Crazy Carnifex, that is a much more valid way to say the game isn't fulfilling, to point out that the Nids don't actually do that on the table. I don't think that means the game is busted or unplayable but I'm not ignorant or blind to the fact that there is a big gulf in mechanics versus the fiction that leads to awkward stuff. That's a lot more valid than just saying "Guys who play three Riptides exist, the whole game is ruined."
As for my comments about extreme examples, I'm not looking for anything literal; but think about it. We talk about power lists versus boned lists all the time in the 40k community. There's no middle? There are no guys that win some and lose some? No people who, with an uphill battle might beat a netlist, or who might lose despite having one? I'm just saying, we should step back a bit and consider where the majority focus of the game lies, for GW's attitude toward development (and our own, toward the state of the game) to have some context.
On a quick note, keep in mind anything I say here is only for this argument. Outside of here, I will likely butt head with some of you at some point but at the same time I won't really dislike you either. I kind of like debating. Sometimes a bit of hyperbole, sometimes a bit of silly humor. Heck, look above and I went a bit OTT. I'll admit, sometimes I just sincerely wish I could play the units I loved and which inspired me to really keep on pressing forth and finally grow to really enjoy this game. Also, doesn't help that debates such as this always end in polarization of individuals.
As per your final question, the problem with the middle is that it's still not the best. And that's really the biggest fault. The riptides still end up crushing the middle tier units. Yes, there will be a greater chance of a middle tier codex besting a top tier codex than a bottom tier, but that would only be due to some combination of the mid tier player being more skilled in the game, although this would make him usually more prone to deploy top tier lists, and the favor/scorn of the dice gods. The real problem comes down to competitive players will use the best choice as it increases their level, decreases chances of luck biting them, and use their skill to test it. Taking a weaker army means more randomness is required and gives an edge to the opponent. Then, you get to casual gamers whom will go all over the place. Some will opt for some pseudo-competitive build where they try to merge the two, often forming a middle tier list but the problem becomes that there are still those lower than them. Along with that, another problem comes down to the fact that as a casual game, one is more prone to play things because they like them. It can lead to unintentional scenarios that make it seem like they are power-gaming. I have a friend who players Tau. He loves Battlesuits, especially Riptides. Bam, he's already there with a force of pathfinders all he needs is a buffmander. Then you have my ork friend that is struggling as is to stand up. Then you have my IG/DE friend who has continuously shelved and un-shleved his DE and basically perma-shelved his DA (due to several games against fliers). Heck, I once got the idea to build an awesome Flying MC spam army because I created a concept of generals of chaos and didn't realize how could it could be. So many things, as a casual player that doesn't really know about the internet side of 40k can run into and ruin a game for others, not to say ruin the game for good.
My biggest critique for GW is that, as of their fiscal score, they are losing money and I truly don't want this game to fall. I like it, I like the world, and I love to play it with friends. I want this game to live on for as long as possible so I can ride this rollercoaster to the end yet GW's attitude is perplexing. It goes by narrative but then breaks it with things like Ahriman not having divination and the sorts. Minor little details yes, but they do stack up and I'm worried that, if things coneinue the way they are, 40k might really become like WoW. Slowly dying away.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.
I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.
Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.
But how does this make it good? The notion of perfect imbalance itself was to make certain things better and others worse on first glance but to reveal that worse unit was actually good at killing the currently good unit to create a natural cycle.
40K is entirely structured the same way as WRG Ancients, a competition ruleset that has troop types, points values and army lists, to ensure a "perfectly imbalanced" game as near as possible.
40K however, no longer even pays lip service to the idea of balance as it used to in previous editions. Instead, 40K tells players to "forge a narrative".
40K is not a narrative game, though. It doesn't contain any rules relating to narrative at all.
And many people have agreed with you that certain slight imbalances can benefit a game by promoting an always evolving meta-game.
His question is how does that unit (and many others) being so incredibly far from balanced benefit the game or it`s players?
How do you differentiate between "slight imbalances" and "incredible imbalances".
We agreed on the fact that certain imbalances help promote an evolving meta-game (and other things!). We disagreed about whether or not there is one non-subjective point of "perfect imbalance", or whether multiples exist, catering to a variety of demand in gaming.
Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in Warmachine is the right amount for their taste. For me personally, it is not nearly enough.
Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in 40K go to far. For me personally, they are just fine.
We've argued this over several time. I doubt there will be a consensus. I can only appeal to the virtue of diversity. If you think the imbalances in 40K are a step too far, but those in Warmachine are just right, you're probably better off playing Warmachine than 40K (possibly with 40K miniatures and 40K background, if you want to use your old collection and prefer 40K-background).
I cannot, and don't want to convince people who are dead-set in their opinion that 40K is doing it wrong. Pick the game that caters best to your vision of "perfect imbalance" and let other people pick the games that best match theirs. For me... 40K (including the Pentinent Engine, which I don't consider useless).
But how does this make it good? The notion of perfect imbalance itself was to make certain things better and others worse on first glance but to reveal that worse unit was actually good at killing the currently good unit to create a natural cycle.
Well, to start the cycle, people need to flock to the better-than-average unit (and abandon the worse-than-average unit). E.g. champion A in the video. If people don't pick up champion A, the circle doesn't start, even if champion A is overpowered.
If you cling to the weak stuff just to wallow in your misery, that is what you will do.
And many people have agreed with you that certain slight imbalances can benefit a game by promoting an always evolving meta-game.
His question is how does that unit (and many others) being so incredibly far from balanced benefit the game or it`s players?
How do you differentiate between "slight imbalances" and "incredible imbalances".
We agreed on the fact that certain imbalances help promote an evolving meta-game (and other things!). We disagreed about whether or not there is one non-subjective point of "perfect imbalance", or whether multiples exist, catering to a variety of demand in gaming.
Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in Warmachine is the right amount for their taste. For me personally, it is not nearly enough.
Several people have said the amount of "imbalances" in 40K go to far. For me personally, they are just fine.
We've argued this over several time. I doubt there will be a consensus. I can only appeal to the virtue of diversity. If you think the imbalances in 40K are a step too far, but those in Warmachine are just right, you're probably better off playing Warmachine than 40K.
I cannot, and don't want to convince people who are dead-set in their opinion that 40K is doing it wrong. Pick the game that caters best to your vision of "perfect imbalance" and let other people pick the games that best match theirs. For me... 40K (including the Pentinent Engine, which I don't consider useless).
You say that the imbalances are just fine but then there are things such as the Penitent Engine, Thousand Sons, Tzeentch marked marines, pyrocasters, flayers, and the flaming chariot of tzeentch. These guys are unavoidably broken in a, they are nigh on worthless way. They will never rise to any point of worth in a natural meta because the only way to make them flow is by breaking the rules, thus ensuring the game isn't flowing naturally. As an example, observe the flaming chariot of tzeentch. What should I do with it? It's a 100 point AV 10/10/10 thing that can either fire d3 lascannon shots that can possibly give fnp or have a S6 (I believe) ap 3 or 4 flamer. Problem is, it's a fast skimmer that can only fire d3 lascannon snapfire shots if it moves. When is this good? When is the pyrocaster worth it at all? When does it have a point? When will it fluidly rise up? When will Ksons rise up when it's proven standard chaos marines are better at the killy job agaisnt enemies even other SM and are equally squishy? If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now.
Thing is, playing Warmachine isn't what I want. Not only would not all my models transfer, but the basic theme wouldn't. It'd dissapear and mean nothing.
Well, to start the cycle, people need to flock to the better-than-average unit (and abandon the worse-than-average unit). E.g. champion A in the video. If people don't pick up champion A, the circle doesn't start, even if champion A is overpowered.
If you cling to the weak stuff just to wallow in your misery, that is what you will do.
Do you want to know how many years Tzeentch fans, especially Thousand Son fans have had to cling to this misery? Since before 3.5 edition. Yes, even in the BROKEN chaos space marine codex, Thousand Sons still sucked. There has never been a time, in over a decade that Thousand Sons were ever good. They've always been bad. How is this a part of the flow? How is there flow if the meta is largely stagnant and not diverse in what models are seen? Why does gw just keep on removing models?
StarTrotter wrote: If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.
StarTrotter wrote: If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.
I think you're on a wrong time-scale.
Problem is, that leaves multi-year periods where there is the frustration of the imbalances.
StarTrotter wrote: If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.
I think you're on a wrong time-scale.
Spoiler:
Well, to start the cycle, people need to flock to the better-than-average unit (and abandon the worse-than-average unit). E.g. champion A in the video. If people don't pick up champion A, the circle doesn't start, even if champion A is overpowered.
If you cling to the weak stuff just to wallow in your misery, that is what you will do.
Do you want to know how many years Tzeentch fans, especially Thousand Son fans have had to cling to this misery? Since before 3.5 edition. Yes, even in the BROKEN chaos space marine codex, Thousand Sons still sucked. There has never been a time, in over a decade that Thousand Sons were ever good. They've always been bad. How is this a part of the flow? How is there flow if the meta is largely stagnant and not diverse in what models are seen? Why does gw just keep on removing models? I'm not talking about them once being good. I'm talking never. Ever.
^ Posting here again because I updated it to respond to your message is for you Zwei. Just edited to respond and not sure if you would see.
Now then, I have to ask, what does all that matter? What does that mean? Here's the thing, 40k has always been horridly imbalanced. There's no denying that. Along with that, the fact Grey Knights are under-powered isn't a good thing. There should never be a time where an entire codex is underpowered. Not even in imperfect balance. That's like all of the top laners in league of legends being terrible. And onto that, yeah, those existed, but they were still stagnant for years upon years. There was no natural rise and flow. It was artificially produced by GW itself that kept on releasing rules to bring new broken choices that then stayed dominant forces before a new edition would crush them into being absolute garbage which yet again is GW forcing it. It's not a natural flow, it's a forced artificial system by GW that stays stagnant for years and even after a decade certain segments of entire armies are still terrible.
Do you want to know how many years Tzeentch fans, especially Thousand Son fans have had to cling to this misery? Since before 3.5 edition. Yes, even in the BROKEN chaos space marine codex, Thousand Sons still sucked. There has never been a time, in over a decade that Thousand Sons were ever good. They've always been bad. How is this a part of the flow? How is there flow if the meta is largely stagnant and not diverse in what models are seen? Why does gw just keep on removing models?
Let me guess. People who've wallowed in their misery for so long are ... miserable.
I have no idea why Thousand Sons didn't get a moment in the sun. Maybe they just sell even worse than Bretonnians. Maybe the studio-guys don't like em. Maybe it's just a stupid mistake on behalf of the game studio. Again, as pointed out time and and time again in this thread, I never said and never believed that GW has mastered the "perfect imbalance".
I quoted the "perfect balance" video to demonstrate that "balance" is not a universal, unmitigated good in game design. There are many reasons for game-designers to reject balance. "Perfect balance" is only one of these reasons at best. Emphasis on narrative is at least another. I didn't quote "perfect balance" to imply that 40K is the best example of it.
Do you want to know how many years Tzeentch fans, especially Thousand Son fans have had to cling to this misery? Since before 3.5 edition. Yes, even in the BROKEN chaos space marine codex, Thousand Sons still sucked. There has never been a time, in over a decade that Thousand Sons were ever good. They've always been bad. How is this a part of the flow? How is there flow if the meta is largely stagnant and not diverse in what models are seen? Why does gw just keep on removing models?
Let me guess. People who've wallowed in their misery for so long are ... miserable.
I have no idea why Thousand Sons didn't get a moment in the sun. Maybe they just sell even worse than Bretonnians. Maybe the studio-guys don't like em. Maybe it's just a stupid mistake on behalf of the game studio. Again, as pointed out time and and time again in this thread, I never said and never believed that GW has mastered the "perfect imbalance".
I quoted the "perfect balance" video to demonstrate that "balance" is not a universal, unmitigated good in game design. There are many reasons for game-designers to reject balance. "Perfect balance" is only one of these reasons at best. I didn't quote "perfect balance" to imply that 40K is the best example of it.
Okay then son time to begin. Problem number one, if they sell bad, why not make their rules better to increase their sales? How can you have over 3 editions of stupid mistakes that have never fixed them? A studio making them suck because they don't like them is flawed. All of this runs contrary to perfect imbalance. It shows no real sense of balance and no actual flow. Well then, so what was your point? The notion from what the video described was there was perfect balance and perfect imbalance. Perfect imbalance describes a system that we have gone over many times. Thing is, 40k is neither. It's a game that pretends to only go for the narrative but provides point systems that are somewhat standardized, even if illogically. It has no sense of perfect imbalance in it and instead is built all around pure imbalance.
Whilst the codices have always been flawed, I still can't help but the increased production rate might be hurting the quality of codices though in terms of diversity of models, fluff, and even, maybe, although probably not, rules. At this point, the answer I'm getting is you defends the atrocious failure at attempting either form of balance just because why not.
As per your reference, eh, I wouldn't say miserable just as much as bitter, disappointing, and a bit jaded.
StarTrotter wrote: If the game was in perfect imbalance, the reign of the screamerstar, taudar, tiptide spam, and waveserpent spam would be long gone and the Heldrake would be considered even under-powered now 4th Edition Cheese-Falcons, Lash & Blast, Leafblowers and Vulkan-Melta Drop-Bombs would be long gone, and Grey Knights would be considered even under-powered now.
I think you're on a wrong time-scale.
Two wrongs don't make right (your time scale shift) and previous editions saw meta lists last a few months usually related to a "new hotness" effect of everyone playing it. Only Grey Knights stuck out in 5E because they were designed for 6E in mind (the way the book was written itself suggests this). Ward, in his wisdom, made a book that sucker punched 5E but is appropriately mid-teir in 6E and is better than the first two actual books of 6E.
While there was a lot of power house builds in 5E, it was probably the closest the game has seen to what we want; perfect imbalance. I had a ton of close games with my "cheeseball long fang spam". I didn't just spam missiles, but I maximized my Greys and use Lone Wolves as denial units. Other Wolf players went all missiles. Some went Razorback spam. Some went all Thunderwolves. Some went Loganwing. All were playable and competitive armies. How many variants of Wolves do we see now outside of the obiligatory RP on bike within Super Best Friends? None.
Most of the new codecis have a power build, more often than not revolving around a deathstar involving allies. Adding more to the game isn't fixing it, either. Introducing D weapons, which are horrible by design, makes matters worse...
Okay then son time to begin. Problem number one, if they sell bad, why not make their rules better to increase their sales? How can you have over 3 editions of stupid mistakes that have never fixed them? A studio making them suck because they don't like them is flawed. All of this runs contrary to perfect imbalance. It shows no real sense of balance and no actual flow. Well then, so what was your point? The notion from what the video described was there was perfect balance and perfect imbalance. Perfect imbalance describes a system that we have gone over many times. Thing is, 40k is neither.
The thing the video showed is that there is more than one way to design a game (as has been claimed with respect to balance).
Does that mean there are now only two ways to design a game? Perfect balance and perfect imbalance?
Certainly not. If you think that you've missed the point of why I linked the video. There are probably millions of ways to design a game.
40K might be neither perfect balance or perfect imbalance,, but it is one type of game design. The one pursued by the games workshop design studio. You might not like it, but some people do.
I agree with the OP to an extent in that I think a lot of 'problems' only exist on the internet. They may argue in YMDC about whether they can field two Coteaz's in one army but would anyone really try to force that on someone else IRL? Also, I think there is a fallacy that it is now really difficult to arrange a game because of Escalation and Knights. Again, I don't think this problem really exists as all you have to do is ask your opponent beforehand what they will be willing to play. Do you want to play Escalation? Yes/No. Do you mind if I use my Knights? Yes/No. Both can technically be used in a normal game of 40k, but has anyone really brought out a list and said "Surprise! Warhound Titan!" I also think that a lot of the posts in YMDC are very situation specific, and despite some of the poor wording at times, FAQs and a bit of common sense really do clear things up. While we are waiting for FAQs though there is a problem [how do lasgun arrays on a chimera actually work?]
I have to admit that it is sometimes difficult to be objective about 40k when you're so deeply immersed, both in fluff and also in therms of the monetary commitment. However I've started to try out some different games [particularly X-Wing, a very different game I know] and they do highlight how clunky 40k is. The IGUGO system and all of the USRs make it feel a bit of a chore sometimes. I think the fact that a quick start guide would have to be pages and pages long says something about the need to overhaul the core rules. I also think that 40k has something of an identity crisis. Is it a skirmish game or a large battle game? Is it a shooty game or a close combat game?
Hopefully the next edition brings about a radical overhaul rather than the current model of clearing up some problems, ignoring others, and brining in rules that no-one wanted in the first place which create more problems. To get to a point where we are reasonably happy with the game my group has had to come up with a 6 point house rule system, which isn't ideal.
I feel like in 12-18 months we won't need to worry about this conversation.
GW will either get smart and course correct to put them on the path of their budding competition in terms of how to properly addres their consumers or they topple. After reading the wisdom imparted in the ICv2 thread I linked earlier, there's market data supporting this very notion. So now we play the waiting game. They won't be getting any money from me, probably, until they change their business practices.
And yes, that means I don't get to enjoy their gorgeous new Wood Elf models. Not being sarcastic. I love me some Treemen.
TheKbob wrote: I feel like in 12-18 months we won't need to worry about this conversation.
GW will either get smart and course correct to put them on the path of their budding competition in terms of how to properly addres their consumers or they topple. After reading the wisdom imparted in the ICv2 thread I linked earlier, there's market data supporting this very notion. So now we play the waiting game. They won't be getting any money from me, probably, until they change their business practices.
And yes, that means I don't get to enjoy their gorgeous new Wood Elf models. Not being sarcastic. I love me some Treemen.
Did you read the thread I previously linked that has two economic / market analysis types discussing the topic? Or the history that when companies fall, it's fast, not slow? GW has their eggs in one grimdark basket. And have shown a double digit decrease in their growth this past year. They certainly aren't doing anything that suggests this will turn around. TSR was rockstar for 30 years and then *poof*.
Go read that thread. I won't try to quote the data the folks there sited as they speak to it better. The separate analysis on Masterminis.net concurs with their reasoning, too. They are performing every act of a company under duress. Previously, they were doing action as a company looking to sell. After their last stock value drop, no one is going to be interested until they are certain that doesn't happen further.
I'm just a science type, myself. I listen to voices of reaso and with data. So far, the ones without reason and data are backing the "narrative horse." I'm betting that doesn't work out in the long run.
Did you read the thread I previously linked that has two economic / market analysis types discussing the topic? Or the history that when companies fall, it's fast, not slow? GW has their eggs in one grimdark basket. And have shown a double digit decrease in their growth this past year. They certainly aren't doing anything that suggests this will turn around. TSR was rockstar for 30 years and then *poof*.
Go read that thread. I won't try to quote the data the folks there sited as they speak to it better. The separate analysis on Masterminis.net concurs with their reasoning, too. They are performing every act of a company under duress. Previously, they were doing action as a company looking to sell. After their last stock value drop, no one is going to be interested until they are certain that doesn't happen further.
I'm just a science type, myself. I listen to voices of reaso and with data. So far, the ones without reason and data are backing the "narrative horse." I'm betting that doesn't work out in the long run.
They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.
They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.
So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.
They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.
So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.
True. But TSR only ever was a studio of guys (and girls?) writing books. Wound down, it was a bundle of licenses and perhaps the odd writer still on contract, passing along.
GW is still a full-blown retail chain, logistics company and manufacturer. It's a bit more .... cumbersome.
They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.
So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.
They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.
There's a difference between being the biggest slice of the pie and being dominant. The estimates in that thread do not put 40k anywhere near the 51% of the market realm for tabletop gaming and more like sub 30%.
And yes, TSR were the Kings of the RPG World. And *poof* very quickly. So "at least another decade" isn't very valid. And a public company showing decline is very different from a private one, from my limited understanding. A public company showing decline has to answer to folks and if the answers aren't good, then begins the toilet flush of reduced stock values, more selling, more reduction of stock values, etc. etc.
Again, science type, not a money type. Ask a money type this stuff. After having read their lengthy posts, and the Masterminis.net piece, I keep seeing concurrent independant money/business types forcasting a not too bright future for our girmdark friends.
Edit: And I can't speak to TSR's business model, but GW has very much downsized in-house production and moved a lot of product to outsourced models. And they are vertically stacked into essentially one IP at this point. The Hobbit isn't doing it. LotR is all but dead and probably just around because The Hobbit license is still active. Fantasy is no Spring Chicken (though, I still enjoy it, Banners of the World Dragon and what not be dammed). They are a 40k beast right now. One property. And I don't need a business degree to know that lack of diversity can be dangerous for a company.
They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.
So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.
True. But TSR only ever was a studio of guys (and girls?) writing books. Wound down, it was a bundle of licenses and perhaps the odd writer still on contract, passing along.
GW is still a full-blown retail chain, logistics company and manufacturer. It's a bit more .... cumbersome.
Man I like FFG but that 40k balance.... ouch
TSR crumbled and others have. A decade is overblown. Things can collapse very quickly.
And 40k has no PR, has understaffed employees in retail chains they are starting to cut back on, a small staff of game developers, few rule managers, etc. The comany might seem big to us but it's really not that massive.
I'm still waiting to hear how useless units make the game better.
(Basically, what I'm getting at here is that I'm asking for any kind of SPECIFIC EVIDENCE about how gross imbalances somehow work for the better. Several times you've admitted that GW isn't perfect balance, which means it has balance flaws, yet the next breath you claim nothing's wrong with GW's balance. You use using general statements and I'm looking for a specific answer related to the game itself. Because I don't think you can because your argument is ridiculous. Having a useless unit benefits nothing.)
I wouldn't hold your breath (and I doubt you are) because
A) As I have alluded to already, this isn't the first, or even the tenth, time Zwei has dragged a topic onto his pet 'debating' subject. You aren't the first person (or the tenth) to ask that question, and the first person is still waiting too. Basically he can't, but will do anything to avoid admitting it.
B) He's currently busy baiting the Creature Caster guy for creating generic demons that look something like some of the largely generic demons that GW made.
azreal13 wrote: I wouldn't hold your breath (and I doubt you are) because
A) As I have alluded to already, this isn't the first, or even the tenth, time Zwei has dragged a topic onto his pet 'debating' subject. You aren't the first person (or the tenth) to ask that question, and the first person is still waiting too. Basically he can't, but will do anything to avoid admitting it.
B) He's currently busy baiting the Creature Caster guy for creating generic demons that look something like some of the largely generic demons that GW made.
LOL! I'm fully aware that Zwei is incapable of proving anything remotely like specific evidence. I just want to make sure that he understands that I know that. I've seen him in other threads shouting the gospel of "Balance is boring" and he didn't make any sense in those threads either.
Zwei, if I had authority, I'd ban you from commenting until you answered my question.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm still waiting to hear how useless units make the game better.
(Basically, what I'm getting at here is that I'm asking for any kind of SPECIFIC EVIDENCE about how gross imbalances somehow work for the better. Several times you've admitted that GW isn't perfect balance, which means it has balance flaws, yet the next breath you claim nothing's wrong with GW's balance. You use using general statements and I'm looking for a specific answer related to the game itself. Because I don't think you can because your argument is ridiculous. Having a useless unit benefits nothing.)
I believe he answered this with his 'virtue of diversity' sophistry earlier on this page. Because he has no credible answer except to redirect the topic into murky waters.
Something that i was thinking about last night was this, and it was a rather tired mind it was wending its way through.
there is lots of units that are rubbish in 6th edition, we all know this, now some units being better now and worse now, is ok. because come 7th 8th edition before you might get a codex revamp, those units may become brilliant.
eg. helldrake considered devastating now, come new rule set could be rubbish but 1k sons become good.
remember the re-write of the rage USR, where it went from hopelessly follow, to just better.
now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....
So in this manor, the good and bad units ARE ballanced, over multiple editions.. just not all at the same time..
ps. this doesnt excuse some of the truly gak things eg, flamer chariot, etc and the daft typos and that kind of mess.. but it does in some way explain things.
even if you broke your codex's into 3 parts and expected 30% at a time to be good, and the rest bad to average, and rotate it around.
Zweischneid wrote: . well, to start the cycle, people need to flock to the better-than-average unit (and abandon the worse-than-average unit). E.g. champion A in the video. If people don't pick up champion A, the circle doesn't start, even if champion A is overpowered.
If you cling to the weak stuff just to wallow in your misery, that is what you will do.
The thing is, in a more balances system you can still have your cyclic metagame... you're just not forced into it by some units being useless.
In a more balanced game, people have more variety due to being able to freely select from their codex without having to worry about certain units being useless. And if you want to keep your game fresh, you're free to just change your army from time to time. You don't need to have the studio periodically shifting the bar to make your army useless and force you to change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: There are many reasons for game-designers to reject balance. "Perfect balance" is only one of these reasons at best. Emphasis on narrative is at least another.
You keep making this statement, but you still haven't explained how lack of balance helps narrative play more than a more balanced system would.
ausYenLoWang wrote: now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....
The problem is that even if this is true (and I doubt it's a deliberate decision like that) it's still inexcusably bad game design. We only have the problem of new editions invalidating stuff because GW has no consistent design goals for its new editions. Each new edition is just whatever random ideas the rule authors happened to have at that moment. Instead of converging on the perfect version of the rules like a better game might (MTG, for example) we just get lots of change for the sake of change. If GW's rule authors were doing their jobs properly then there wouldn't be wild swings in game balance with every new edition because 90% of your codex would work exactly the same as it used to.
They're the top selling system in a niche market. Maybe their sales have dropped but they will be around for at least another decade.
So was TSR... until they weren't. And then they changed hands several times in a very short period of time until they were finally purchased by Hasbro/WotC.
True. But TSR only ever was a studio of guys (and girls?) writing books. Wound down, it was a bundle of licenses and perhaps the odd writer still on contract, passing along.
GW is still a full-blown retail chain, logistics company and manufacturer. It's a bit more .... cumbersome.
General Motors was far more than that. If not for a government rescue it would have gone away rather quickly.
ausYenLoWang wrote: now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....
The problem is that even if this is true (and I doubt it's a deliberate decision like that) it's still inexcusably bad game design. We only have the problem of new editions invalidating stuff because GW has no consistent design goals for its new editions. Each new edition is just whatever random ideas the rule authors happened to have at that moment. Instead of converging on the perfect version of the rules like a better game might (MTG, for example) we just get lots of change for the sake of change. If GW's rule authors were doing their jobs properly then there wouldn't be wild swings in game balance with every new edition because 90% of your codex would work exactly the same as it used to.
which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.
and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months (type 2 i think it is.) and every time a new set comes out you dump the first in line of the old one. to compare i was recently looking back at mtg, iv played since 4th edition, its about what 10 editions on since then. now if i were to buy a semi competitive deck, and JUST the deck, id be looking at around 600$ + then when 2 new sets are out, im having to replace a bunch of stuff to keep up with the main tourney type. its release schedule and replacement rate is well ahead of 40k, and just as if not more so expensive. where as my CSM army i dont need to worry about replacing stuff that is totally non-useable every 6 months. because those exact models will be able to be used to a lesser degree, where as MTG, BAM. box them as they cant be used in a tourney anymore as its not that sets cycle. and i can expect that my CSM, aslong as GW dont actually fold 40k totally, will be able to be used for years.
ausYenLoWang wrote: now imagine that if all units were equal today, new ruleset comes out and changes how things are for everything and it ALL goes to gak... no ones gonna be happy, but if the good become weaker and the bad better... not all models are then invalidated. which goes with the release of rulesets and codex's. its not all dropped at once, some codex's span multiple editions, so need to be able to weather the changes that come along. and yeah sure you can say feth you GW, your see saw of units is crap, but we know they write rules to sell models.....
The problem is that even if this is true (and I doubt it's a deliberate decision like that) it's still inexcusably bad game design. We only have the problem of new editions invalidating stuff because GW has no consistent design goals for its new editions. Each new edition is just whatever random ideas the rule authors happened to have at that moment. Instead of converging on the perfect version of the rules like a better game might (MTG, for example) we just get lots of change for the sake of change. If GW's rule authors were doing their jobs properly then there wouldn't be wild swings in game balance with every new edition because 90% of your codex would work exactly the same as it used to.
So, Games Workshop is run by Tzeentch? If so, I think everything they do now makes sense.
ausYenLoWang wrote: which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.
The same could be achieved by adding new releases rather than invalidating existing models, and through the addition of campaign books adding options or changes specifically for those campaigns... and either of those alternate solutions avoids the problem of alienating a portion of your customer base by rendering their existing collection worthless.
and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months...
Only for certain game types.
They still run open tournaments that allow pretty much everything.
ausYenLoWang wrote: which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.
The same could be achieved by adding new releases rather than invalidating existing models, and through the addition of campaign books adding options or changes specifically for those campaigns... and either of those alternate solutions avoids the problem of alienating a portion of your customer base by rendering their existing collection worthless.
and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months...
Only for certain game types.
They still run open tournaments that allow pretty much everything.
point 1 i agree with, i dont think the method i mentioned is sensible at all... BUT it does save them on 1 other thing... development time, less time spent creating new models etc. agian the way you suggest is great, but imagine 10 years from now the codex bloat, you would have so many different models, rules, it would be buying the BRB as a codex just because of all the extra information required on an army by army basis.
point 2... yes iv seen those tourneys, iv seen the turn 1 kill decks in open tourneys iv played with them... thats not fun. its also the reason some cards used in those formats are worth $800 Each... and if you want to stay in a deck like that be prepared to spend upwards of 15-20 thousand to get into it.. those formats only exist in minor ways, you could turn up to a gaming store play 1 game have people go wooooow, then tell you to put it away after they have fingered your cards more than a hilton. because they dont see the point in shuffling up to lose in 45 seconds.
ausYenLoWang wrote: ... but imagine 10 years from now the codex bloat, you would have so many different models, rules, it would be buying the BRB as a codex just because of all the extra information required on an army
Releasing new models doesn't always have to mean releasing new rules. There are plenty of old kits always waiting for an update...
which would be GREAT for us, because then we could own the same models for 20 years and not need to look to other things. the wild swings is what motivates the competitveness inside us to look to new models etc. it may not seem intentional, and it may just be craziness on their part, BUT look what happens when 3-4 years on you need to replace half your army because it just doesnt work anymore. It definetley alienates some, most adapt. now as i said good swings would be a 30% swing. but leaving 90% exactly as it was, wont motivate anyone to go buy anything. 30% and you need to start looking for new options.
and MTG is a very tight ruleset, but the competitive side of it is totally invalidated every 6 months (type 2 i think it is.) and every time a new set comes out you dump the first in line of the old one. to compare i was recently looking back at mtg, iv played since 4th edition, its about what 10 editions on since then. now if i were to buy a semi competitive deck, and JUST the deck, id be looking at around 600$ + then when 2 new sets are out, im having to replace a bunch of stuff to keep up with the main tourney type. its release schedule and replacement rate is well ahead of 40k, and just as if not more so expensive. where as my CSM army i dont need to worry about replacing stuff that is totally non-useable every 6 months. because those exact models will be able to be used to a lesser degree, where as MTG, BAM. box them as they cant be used in a tourney anymore as its not that sets cycle. and i can expect that my CSM, aslong as GW dont actually fold 40k totally, will be able to be used for years.
This dovetails nicely with how much trouble the company is in. They've reached market saturation and are relying on exploiting their current customer base to stay afloat.
After reading this whole thread, I only have an inkling of an understanding for the term "perfect imbalance", I probably never will. The words used seem to indicate a state of being where one side is exclusively greater than the other, with this state remaining thus in perpetuity. But the way that the arguments are going that doesn't seem to be the case. Like I said, I don't get it.
What I seem to garner from the conversation is that Zweischneid (two tailor?) believes that the capricious and random nature of GW's points valuations assigned to units is great for the game and he thinks that consistency is at best superfluous and at worst unbearable. He also seems to equate balance with identical. Not directly, but it's the overall feel that I get from reading his posts.
Balance is a great term to use. Another great term, perhaps even better, is parity. When a unit that is twice as strong, twice as fast, twice as good it should be valued as twice as much. Now there is a bit of subjectivity involved with so many variables that go into the make up of the differing units, so there will be disagreements as to what level of parity is reached.
That being said, parity would have a negligible effect on the narrative nature of game play. The standard game would be based on each participant having a level playing field and opportunity to win. The deciding factor would be based on play style and preference. The narrative would be forged by the players. Is a large group of poorly equipped grunts going to run up against an smaller elite unit of technologically superior fighters? Is a group of blood thirsty berserk warriors hell bent on carnage attacking an entrenched army that also has help on the way? All of that is narrative.
If you wanted to "forge the narrative" even further and create truly desperate encounters then it would be up to the players. By playing the game with an established points/force org imbalance, by placing beneficial terrain features all on one side or by playing a scenario from one of the many supplements. You could do all of those things at the same time!
I've never played War Machine so I can't speak to that, but I have played X-wing and there is no loss of narrative in that game and it has a great deal of parity.
Edit: Man that was tough. It didn't want to quote properly. Took 4 edits to fix.
ausYenLoWang wrote: ... but imagine 10 years from now the codex bloat, you would have so many different models, rules, it would be buying the BRB as a codex just because of all the extra information required on an army
Releasing new models doesn't always have to mean releasing new rules. There are plenty of old kits always waiting for an update...
You have the right idea. There is another way to release new models with new rules and allowing other older models to die off slowly. They are too attached to their past methodology to change.
Simply having the rules for the unit in the box with the model and requiring that the rules card be present for games, would just about do it. They could still even drop basic codexes, just with slightly fewer base units in the codex.
After reading this whole thread, I only have an inkling of an understanding for the term "perfect imbalance", I probably never will. The words used seem to indicate a state of being where one side is exclusively greater than the other, with this state remaining thus in perpetuity. But the way that the arguments are going that doesn't seem to be the case. Like I said, I don't get it.
Think rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock, saltzman from accounting, dynamite, boomstick, etc.
Each unit has a certain weakness or each model has a certain ability that they excel greatly at. A few items within each book would be better. In a more balanced games, these items are limited in some fashion. GW chooses points level and uniqueness (named character vs. non). Privateer Press uses point cost and allotment allowed. So on, so forth. The idea is that the list building portion limits these highlights and all-stars, your riptides and farseers and what not. In a better balanced game, we'd see lists include these, but not revolve around them that we see now.
But each book would have a less than stellar unit, one not really limited in any fashion, not terrible costly, but they do something super damn good. Just one thing. It just so happens that it's the rock to that scissors, but not that lizard or spock or boomstick. The diversity is such that you can never take an answer to all threats. You will likely always be "down" on some elements, but you can leverage two rocks to kill that paper where only one would stand no chance.
Zwei states that what we have now is the closer to this concept when in practice it is not. Many of the powerful units we see are either not point costed correctly or not appropriately limited in some fashion. It's like having that 1000 pt tournament and that guy comes with 2 Land Raiders. In larger games, we know Land Raiders are super risky because we have more elements in a balanced list. In a 1000pt game? Yeah, maybe? The Land Raider guy is "putting it all on black" and hoping no one went, screw it, all in on melta-sternguard.
The other issues lie around the poor units that what they excel at are so worthless that they will never be taken as you cannot effectively implement without either luck or sheer incompetence on the opponents part. Normal examples are stuff like Pyrovores, Mandrakes, Repentia, etc. Mid tier examples are units like Blood Claws which are the same cost as Grey Hunters, but Grey Hunters are superior in every fashion. The player has no incentive outside of supposed narrative to ever take them. Then you get flat out broken units like the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch which cannot even function properly.
To round it out: Deathstars. Deathstars are the epitome of bad design and should not be a part of 40k except maybe Apoc, but again, because of poor limiting factors due to bad design, you can bring a Jetseer Council in a 1000pt game and absolutely faceroll to the bank.
That's my limited understanding. I'm not a game designer in any fashion, but it's easy to spot when things "don't work". While you don't have to like Warmachine, the game implements these concepts much better by having more restrictions on list building making 15, 25, 35, 50 points levels all viable and balanced settings (1000, 1500, 1750, 1850 kind of mentality in 40k). Infinity uses a restriction method of a dual point system. I am blanking on what Malifaux does, but I think it's primarily unique models and points.
Edit: I should add the other games state specifically "we balanced the game for this points level. You may play at others, but be aware that conflicts may arise." There's always been a discussion of what points level you should play 40k at, but since we have seen the authors in official battle reports have mismatched armies, battalion kits all of the place, and even the starter box being woefully lopsided, that mentality just doesn't work because the game devs themselves can't settle one something.
After reading this whole thread, I only have an inkling of an understanding for the term "perfect imbalance", I probably never will. The words used seem to indicate a state of being where one side is exclusively greater than the other, with this state remaining thus in perpetuity. But the way that the arguments are going that doesn't seem to be the case. Like I said, I don't get it.
Think rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock, saltzman from accounting, dynamite, boomstick, etc.
Each unit has a certain weakness or each model has a certain ability that they excel greatly at. A few items within each book would be better. In a more balanced games, these items are limited in some fashion. GW chooses points level and uniqueness (named character vs. non). Privateer Press uses point cost and allotment allowed. So on, so forth. The idea is that the list building portion limits these highlights and all-stars, your riptides and farseers and what not. In a better balanced game, we'd see lists include these, but not revolve around them that we see now.
But each book would have a less than stellar unit, one not really limited in any fashion, not terrible costly, but they do something super damn good. Just one thing. It just so happens that it's the rock to that scissors, but not that lizard or spock or boomstick. The diversity is such that you can never take an answer to all threats. You will likely always be "down" on some elements, but you can leverage two rocks to kill that paper where only one would stand no chance.
Zwei states that what we have now is the closer to this concept when in practice it is not. Many of the powerful units we see are either not point costed correctly or not appropriately limited in some fashion. It's like having that 1000 pt tournament and that guy comes with 2 Land Raiders. In larger games, we know Land Raiders are super risky because we have more elements in a balanced list. In a 1000pt game? Yeah, maybe? The Land Raider guy is "putting it all on black" and hoping no one went, screw it, all in on melta-sternguard.
The other issues lie around the poor units that what they excel at are so worthless that they will never be taken as you cannot effectively implement without either luck or sheer incompetence on the opponents part. Normal examples are stuff like Pyrovores, Mandrakes, Repentia, etc. Mid tier examples are units like Blood Claws which are the same cost as Grey Hunters, but Grey Hunters are superior in every fashion. The player has no incentive outside of supposed narrative to ever take them. Then you get flat out broken units like the Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch which cannot even function properly.
To round it out: Deathstars. Deathstars are the epitome of bad design and should not be a part of 40k except maybe Apoc, but again, because of poor limiting factors due to bad design, you can bring a Jetseer Council in a 1000pt game and absolutely faceroll to the bank.
That's my limited understanding. I'm not a game designer in any fashion, but it's easy to spot when things "don't work". While you don't have to like Warmachine, the game implements these concepts much better by having more restrictions on list building making 15, 25, 35, 50 points levels all viable and balanced settings (1000, 1500, 1750, 1850 kind of mentality in 40k). Infinity uses a restriction method of a dual point system. I am blanking on what Malifaux does, but I think it's primarily unique models and points.
That sounds an awful lot like...balance. Like I said, I probably won't understand that use of terminology. I despise buzzwords and newspeak. I find it double-plus-ungood.
I have never understood other posters' disdain for game balance. Certainly improved game balance, all other things being equal, would improve the gaming experience for all players. As many have pointed, good game balance would mean fluff players wouldn't be screwed by playing fluffy units that are terrible in game, casual players wouldn't suffer unfair advantages or disadvantages because the models they happen to like are excellent/terrible, and competitive players could use any of the models in their codices. Improved balance detracts from the game in no discernible way.
The only cost I can associate with improve game balance is that someone, in this case GW, would have to devote time and effort into achieving this end, which they would have to direct away from other activities. However, with as many as half of the units found in codices such as CSM and Blood Angels in an unplayable state do to rules imbalance, this would be a rather productive use of effort. A great many cherished units with rich backgrounds loved by dedicated fans could be restored to a usable state, and in the case of codices that suffer from a lot of poor and unused options, you are looking a doubling the number of playable units. Certainly this would be better use of GWs time than releasing supplements like Militarum Tempestus or Escalation, which nobody seemed to be asking for and which seem to be openly hated.
When you cut through the semantics, all people are really asking for when they are asking for improved game balance is the ability to play a fair game using the models they love and have invested time and money into. Nobody wants to look across the board, see a bunch of FMCs, and know they have lost before the game has begun. Its nice that some people have gaming groups that sort out many of 40k's balance problems, but a great many people play pick-up games, tournaments, in gaming leagues and in 40k campaigns through their gaming store, in which those problems are very much present. I see no reason to deny these people a fair game.
Those defending 40k's lack of balance because they are part of a gaming community that has managed to correct these problems need to understand not everybody has access to such gaming communities and can only play in far less controlled environments in which they are going to encounter the likes of spam armies and deathstar armies. Those who are limited to pick-up games are every bit as deserving of having a enjoyable experience as those in self-policed gaming communities, so why not improve game balance so everyone can have just as an enjoyable 40k experience?
In regard to this concept of "perfect imbalance", I viewed the hyperlinked Extra Credits and I don't think this is a game design concept. It is a marketing concept. They cited games like MtG and LoL as examples, whose business plan requires players to purchase new Cards and Champions respectively nonstop in order for the company to survive. I also don't see perfect balance as the cause of the static metagames associated with Chess or Starcraft. Chess has a static metagame because it is a many centuries old, deterministic strategy game with symmetric forces and no way to introduce variation into the game through things like missions and terrain. Starcraft suffers from a whole host of problems that have far more sway over its metagame than unit balance. If Starcraft games seem repetitive, perhaps you ought to look into the fact that most games end with a Zerg/Zealot/Marine rush before they even get started or the insane level of micromanagement required just to maintain a functioning economy in that game. Unit balance is not the source of its problems. In any case, the whole point of "perfect imbalance" is to fix a static metagame, which 40k does not have nor is ever likely to have, so its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
That sounds an awful lot like...balance. Like I said, I probably won't understand that use of terminology. I despise buzzwords and newspeak. I find it double-plus-ungood.
It's a form of balance, more specifically. Yes, it's mincing words, but that's what you find when you open up concepts for a further look. Perfect balance would be chess, essentially a mirror match. Perfect imbalance makes a "chase the tail" meta where almost every unit has a role within a time and place. I'm sure there are more different types, such as the concept of "one vs. many" or "engineered balanced" like in a tabletop RPG with a DM.
But Warhammer 40k, being a table top strategy game that appears to be a competitive game by design, despite what the creators say, doesn't seem to follow any set strategy. Perfect imbalance would be desirable, but we cannot even get proofread codecis, let alone actual game corrections.
*nods* That's an admirable goal we can all agree towards. Why would we actively want a unit that's so terrible and ineffective that taking it would be an actual detriment to our enjoyment of the game?
There are plenty instances when I look at a model and shake my head knowing that I could buy it, paint it, and have it ready to go, but actually playing with it would be an exercise in futility. If I buy models to paint, they are usually collectors models from actual model companies like Andrea Miniatures, Kingdom Death, and more.
I think the most frustrating thing associated with this hobby is playing with a new player in 40k as they develop what they want from the hobby and have to explain this disparity.
That sounds an awful lot like...balance. Like I said, I probably won't understand that use of terminology. I despise buzzwords and newspeak. I find it double-plus-ungood.
It's a form of balance, more specifically. Yes, it's mincing words, but that's what you find when you open up concepts for a further look. Perfect balance would be chess, essentially a mirror match. Perfect imbalance makes a "chase the tail" meta where almost every unit has a role within a time and place. I'm sure there are more different types, such as the concept of "one vs. many" or "engineered balanced" like in a tabletop RPG with a DM.
But Warhammer 40k, being a table top strategy game that appears to be a competitive game by design, despite what the creators say, doesn't seem to follow any set strategy. Perfect imbalance would be desirable, but we cannot even get proofread codecis, let alone actual game corrections.
Yeah it's a pet peeve of mine, as you may have noticed in other threads. Improper language. It's the unnecessary creation of an oxymoron to describe something rather straightforward that gets me every time.
I get why it was used, it was because you all were trying to prove a point to a zealot who equates balance with being identical. He's less likely to change his mind than the Pope is to take up Hinduism.
Yeah it's a pet peeve of mine, as you may have noticed in other threads. Improper language. It's the unnecessary creation of an oxymoron to describe something rather straightforward that gets me every time.
To be honest, I don't think "perfect imbalance" is a meaningful phrase. However, Zweisc posted a hyperlink back at the beginning of this thread to an episode of Extra Credits (which is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w ) describing the concept. While I agree that the phrase is probably BS and I also don't agree with Extra Credits that this is a valid game design principle (it screams marketing to me), to their credit Extra Credits does do a fairly explicit job of describing what they mean by this term. If nothing else, just treat the phrase as short hand for "what the Extra Credits guys were talking about."
The way I understand this "perfect imbalance" concept is that things are balanced as a whole, rather than individual. So Unit A is individually better than Unit B, but Unit B has a role to fill and can beat Unit A through a superior use of tactics or when used in tandem with Unit C; there is a reason beyond "I like how Unit B looks" to take Unit B, and more importantly taking Unit B doesn't reduce your chances of winning a game simply because Unit B sucks. This works the opposite of 40k where if you take a subpar unit, let's say a CSM squad, you actively hinder your chances of winning a game just because you made the wrong choice to pick a subpar unit over a superior unit, and no amount of tactics or usage is going to make that subpar unit function properly.
As I've said before this is roughly how it works in Warmachine and Hordes - every unit has a place in a force and has tactics that can make it work. Even the choices that are generally considered to be subpar for their points cost can be used in the right way (i.e. unlike 40k there's no "Don't take that unit, it's bad" it's "That unit isn't great but here's how you can make it work..."), with the right warcaster/warlock (army commander) and with the right supporting units, and a skilled player can win. There is nothing that is so bad that taking it instead of something else can cost you the game before you even start, and nothing that's so good that every list (especially in competitive games) must take it; there is of course still ways to "choose poorly" and lose with a low chance of winning (think picking units that have no synergy and don't work well together) but those cases are usually very few and far between, and in general there are ways to make any choices, even the subpar ones, effective via how you play. The big Warmachine tournaments usually have varied lists (although there are a few more common ones due to how they work around certain strategies), because there is no "one list to rule them all" like you tend to see in 40k where most every faction has one or more "winning" lists that always gets fielded. Case in point Warmachine's Colossals (big Titan-like guys) aren't an "I Win" button like they are in 40k, they're just another tactical choice that you have the option to field. You don't see everybody running around with one because they're just flat out better than everything else in the game, and a list without one can defeat a list with one in the hands of a skilled player who uses their force to their advantage.
In Warmachine, a skilled player with a "bad" list can still defeat an unskilled player with a "good" list via superior tactics; in 40k barring some extreme circumstances the good list will win regardless of player skill, especially in the case of the "point and click" lists.
Ailaros wrote: ... not everything that someone considers a glitch is, in fact, a glitch.
An excellent example of this is the veteran squads for the tank platoon army.
The book very clearly says only 2 special weapons can be taken. Everyone thinks it's meant to be 3, because it's 3 for every other form of veteran, but that's not the case here, and FW stuck to their guns.
In Warmachine, a skilled player with a "bad" list can still defeat an unskilled player with a "good" list via superior tactics; in 40k barring some extreme circumstances the good list will win regardless of player skill, especially in the case of the "point and click" lists.
I don't think that you can go that far in any game as a few of the deathstars require some tactical ability to pull off well. Some are blunt objects, though. Having played a Deathstar army now, they will crush less skilled opponents or less optimized armies for certain, but I highly doubt a novice player could take my Draigowing and use it effectively against something I gin up from my sisters as an optimized counter (not list tailoring, but I always bring three exorcists and Paladins HATE Exorcists).
Well, what is the major factor of the 40k balance issue? Is it the deathstars or the specific units that may or may not be a little bit good for the points? Even so how would the issues be solved would you nerf or would you boost the more underpowered choices so it could compete against the others.
spacemarinedude92 wrote: Well, what is the major factor of the 40k balance issue? Is it the deathstars or the specific units that may or may not be a little bit good for the points? Even so how would the issues be solved would you nerf or would you boost the more underpowered choices so it could compete against the others.
Personally, rebuild the rules from the ground up. At this point, it's just too much of a mess. The I go you go alone is a flawed premise. Imbalance is complex and at multiple stages from the rulebook to the models themself. Deathstars are nasty along with units like riptides and the sorts but its more subversive than just that. An example is assault vs. shooting. These are two big components of the game. Now then, at the moment, there's a very small number of units that can do the former. All around, shooting is superior and assault units tend to not be worth it. That said, there have been times (3rd edition) where assault was the better tactics and the pendulum was swung too far to the shooting side. The main rules themself are clunky and all the other rules simply make it more clunky. At this point the only fixes are bandages. Just nerfing the good units isn't enough because the underpowered choices are sometimes so bad that even the average things are vastly superior.
The first solution, bandaid style, would be repricing units and upgrades. Not all would be fixed, but this would solve many of the problems. Make re-roll saves more restrictive (a re-roll on invuln of a 2+ is fine. In fact, this goes for basically all re-rollable saves. A max of a 4+ seems fine. Still pretty tough but not god mode). Actually price the spells for the individual caster again like in the previous edition as well.
Well, what is the major factor of the 40k balance issue? Is it the deathstars or the specific units that may or may not be a little bit good for the points? Even so how would the issues be solved would you nerf or would you boost the more underpowered choices so it could compete against the others.
A lot of balance issues could be solve simply by costing units appropriately. For example, a Tau Sunshark, Eldar Crimson Hunter, IG Vendetta and CSM Heldrake all cost approximately the same amount of points (this include the Vendetta price hike in the new AM codex), but the Vendetta and Heldrake are far superior to the Sunshark and Crimson Hunter. One solution here is either to discount the Sunshark and Hunter, price hike the Vendetta and Heldrake, or some combination of both.
As for the deathstars, some control needs to be exercised over the rules interactions that result in these nigh invulnerable units. First thing I would do is bring rerollable saves under control. Make it so failed invulnerability saves can never be rerolled, I am sorry but if the enemy has already bypassed both armor and cover you should not be permitted two saving throws. Even on the weaker saving throws, I would still limit the reroll to a 4+, this would obviously have no effect on savings throws of 4+ of worse, would make a rerollable 3+ equivalent to a 2+ and a rerollable 2+ stupidly good but not unmanageable (1 in 12 instead of 1 in 36), and would be on the whole fair. Another measure that can be taken is to do away with battle brothers. If players want to build death stars, then at the very least they cannot be constructed using more than one codex. Getting rid of attaching ICs to Riptides while being very specific, would do away with O'vesa star, and is a needed change regardless.
Some minor changes need to be made on a unit by unit basis, either to salvage underperforming units or reign in broken units. For instance I am going to let a friend reuse hunting lances on his rough riders so he can actually field them without wasting points. Sometimes just thinking a model over and determining if it has the tools to do its job will reveal the fix.
Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.
spacemarinedude92 wrote: Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.
Problem is it still isn't a full solution. It'll certainly remove the current deathstars from their broken level as well as some other forces. Problem is it still doesn't really answer White Scar lists nor does it even touch upon the problem that is Waveserpent spam. Along with that, it brings in to questions allies, dataslates, wraithknights, and armies like the Inquisition that have no actual troops.
To the OP.
The problem with 40k is the GW corporate management do not take game development seriously.
People play games of 40k inspite of the rules, not because of them.
When Jervis says GW plc develop rules for their core demographic. Eg 'new players who never get around to playing a full game' , and 'collectors' who 'do not care about rules'.
It speaks volumes about how little GW plc think of the players.
If GW plc develop 40k for narrative games.
That is great,just Do NOT use point values in any part of the rules.As this implies a level of balance suitable for competitive play, eg random pick uo games.
And the rules are NOT suitable for this style of play.
Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.
I actually don't think the current force org chart is the true culprit here. I think the force org chart would prove to be more effective if GW would only let it. Currently, there are simply to many ways to get around it. Including:
Possessing similar entries in two or more different force org spots. The old Nidzilla was probably the biggest offender here, which allowed the Nid player to take Carnifexes in both the HS and Elite slots, as well as an additional two MCs in the HQ slot, resulting in 6 Carnifex, 2 Hive Tyrant armies. It looks like the new AM codex may be guilty of the same offense, enabling IG to take Leman Russ in both its HS and HQ slots. Riptides are arguably another offender (if more in Spirit) as they really belong in Tau HS, which would force Tau to choose between them, Skyrays, Hammerheads and Broadsides. And Necrons can take flyers in both their troops and HS slots, enabling 9 flyer builds.
Allies, which gives the player an extra free FOC slot. This is particularly exploitative when an army can essentially ally with itself, see Tau allying with Farsight to take 5 Riptides using a single FOC chart (number five is because of the above problem, O'vesa being an HQ version of a Riptide).
Squadrons of units like Leman Russ and Vendettas. These should not be squadron-able; nobody should have to face 9 AV14 vehicles or 9 AV12 flyers in a single FOC game. I think IG/AM is the only offender here, but it still needs to end.
Powerful units that can be taken as troops, enabling 6 copies of a powerful unit to be taken instead of 3, with scoring ability to boot. Nightscythes are case and point, enabling Necrons to run 6 AV 11 flyers using their troops alone and 9 total when combined with the overlapping FOC problem mentioned above. This is also what makes Waveserpents a terror in conjunction with their shield. 3 waveserpents are manageable, 6 typically isn't (although this is tricky because WS are currently Eldars only dedicated transport). Special characters that enable non-troops choices to be taken as troops can also bring about this problem.
Finally you have double FOC charts, although at least these serve a purpose and can't come into play below 2000 pts. I actually think double FOC might be ok if all the above problems are eliminated, perhaps a toned down version that add only a single FOC slot at 2000 and another every 1000 thereafter rather than doubling the number of slots.
If GW got rid of all the above nonsense so that players could only take three of any given powerful unit (and at the cost of everything else in the associated FOC no less), a lot of the above problems would become more manageable. 3 Night/Doom Scythes is far easier to handle that 9. 3 Leman Russ are perfectly take-able. Even 3 Riptides might be less of a problem as their would be no Skyrays or Broadsides to back them up, they probably still need a nerf, but it would be easier to fix Riptides in an environment where Tau cannot take 3 Riptides AND 9 Broadsides in a single FOC.
Don't forget about formations and allies that are taken in addition to normal allies. For example, that Tau player can take Riptides and Broadsides as formations that don't use up FOC slots at all, get extra bonus rules, and leave their FOC slots free for other stuff.
I think the way to improve 40k F.O.C. is to class units by how rare they are not function.
Eg HQ , Common, Specialized, Restricted.
Rather than HQ, elite,troops, fast attack, heavy support.
And use the simple proportional system like this.
HQ allows 2 to 8 Common unit to be taken.
For every 2 Common units a Specialized unit can be taken
For every 2 Specialized units a Restricted unit can be taken.
The HQ unit you pick determines what units are Common, Specialized and Restricted in that particular force.
(Based on HQ /force theme.)
This allows more diversity in army composition, but restricts counter theme units in the army in a intuitive way.
Thank for answering my questions StarTrotter and Phanixis. Finally seeing some progress instead of the back and forth of the meaning of balancing or whether 40k if balanced or not. Though I will say that probably the biggest way to fix the problems is for the force organization to go percentage. So you can't have an army that is over saturated in a certain section of the list.
I actually don't think the current force org chart is the true culprit here. I think the force org chart would prove to be more effective if GW would only let it. Currently, there are simply to many ways to get around it. Including:
Possessing similar entries in two or more different force org spots. The old Nidzilla was probably the biggest offender here, which allowed the Nid player to take Carnifexes in both the HS and Elite slots, as well as an additional two MCs in the HQ slot, resulting in 6 Carnifex, 2 Hive Tyrant armies. It looks like the new AM codex may be guilty of the same offense, enabling IG to take Leman Russ in both its HS and HQ slots. Riptides are arguably another offender (if more in Spirit) as they really belong in Tau HS, which would force Tau to choose between them, Skyrays, Hammerheads and Broadsides. And Necrons can take flyers in both their troops and HS slots, enabling 9 flyer builds.
Allies, which gives the player an extra free FOC slot. This is particularly exploitative when an army can essentially ally with itself, see Tau allying with Farsight to take 5 Riptides using a single FOC chart (number five is because of the above problem, O'vesa being an HQ version of a Riptide).
Squadrons of units like Leman Russ and Vendettas. These should not be squadron-able; nobody should have to face 9 AV14 vehicles or 9 AV12 flyers in a single FOC game. I think IG/AM is the only offender here, but it still needs to end.
Powerful units that can be taken as troops, enabling 6 copies of a powerful unit to be taken instead of 3, with scoring ability to boot. Nightscythes are case and point, enabling Necrons to run 6 AV 11 flyers using their troops alone and 9 total when combined with the overlapping FOC problem mentioned above. This is also what makes Waveserpents a terror in conjunction with their shield. 3 waveserpents are manageable, 6 typically isn't (although this is tricky because WS are currently Eldars only dedicated transport). Special characters that enable non-troops choices to be taken as troops can also bring about this problem.
Finally you have double FOC charts, although at least these serve a purpose and can't come into play below 2000 pts. I actually think double FOC might be ok if all the above problems are eliminated, perhaps a toned down version that add only a single FOC slot at 2000 and another every 1000 thereafter rather than doubling the number of slots.
If GW got rid of all the above nonsense so that players could only take three of any given powerful unit (and at the cost of everything else in the associated FOC no less), a lot of the above problems would become more manageable. 3 Night/Doom Scythes is far easier to handle that 9. 3 Leman Russ are perfectly take-able. Even 3 Riptides might be less of a problem as their would be no Skyrays or Broadsides to back them up, they probably still need a nerf, but it would be easier to fix Riptides in an environment where Tau cannot take 3 Riptides AND 9 Broadsides in a single FOC.
Pardon me but how do you equate squadrons of Leman russ tanks to taking 5 riptides?
Sorry tanks do die to a fart and really the IA:ABG squadrons are only really worth running due to the fact they are 1-3 as a choice without the crap squadorn rules coming into play (hence the reason why most use 1 or 3 russes and vendettas). The runner up being the new HQ squadron that a least has split fire. And your suggestions would only make most guard armies look like copies of each other, oh sorry they already do...
The real serial offenders here are MCs/FMCs due to their inherently higher survivability than vehicles (unless you bump into Dark Eldar of course) and even then that is dependent upon which army you are talking about.
I do concur that flyer squadrons should be removed, but i've only ever seen them once. Taking mutliple vendettas is still perfectly viable and many will continue to do so, even if now the cost is "about right".
Plus GW went directly away from 0-1 choices due to the fact that it restricts what players can do with their armies, are we really saying here that army variety should be neutered even more just because squadrons are OP? When they are horribly usless for Leman russes anyway as you waste their firepower.
However the overriding point here is that everyone has their own opinion on where things should go. Personally it would take many pages just to sort out units that need price hikes, and then you start on changing unit rules (like the wave serpent shield) and so on.
Allies were a nice idea, in principle, but it failed due to the real word of 40k being several galaxies away from the word that the GWdevs play in.
Perfect imbalance is pretty much a red herring due to it being no different to what most people mean when they say they want a balanced game. People who say nonsense like well if it was perfectly balanced all units would be the same or every game would end up in a draw are either intentionally building straw men or have no idea what people mean when they say they want a balanced game.
People who want a balanced game want every army to have its place in the current meta and have every unit to have a role if used. They don't want units that you would never take for any reason whatsoever that only fill the role of wasting points.m
carlos13th wrote: Perfect imbalance is pretty much a red herring due to it being no different to what most people mean when they say they want a balanced game. People who say nonsense like well if it was perfectly balanced all units would be the same or every game would end up in a draw are either intentionally building straw men or have no idea what people mean when they say they want a balanced game.
People who want a balanced game want every army to have its place in the current meta and have every unit to have a role if used. They don't want units that you would never take for any reason whatsoever that only fill the role of wasting points.m
Personally, I want neither a balanced 40K, nor a perfectly imbalanced 40K.
If I'd wanted a (near-perfectly) balanced game, I'd play Chess.
If I'd wanted an imperfectly balanced game, I'd play MtG.
Independent of my personal biases and preferences however, the example of perfect imbalance serves to illustrate the different approaches to game-design exist (e.g. chess... striving for balance, and MtG... striving for perfect imbalance). If a variety of 2 can exist, so can a variety of 3. Or 4. Or a Million.
All perfect imbalance proves is the existence of variety in game-design.
If variety in game-design is possible, the game-design variant pursued by GW (which is neither balance, nor perfect imbalance) may be intentional, and must not necessarily be a "mistake" as people keep claiming.
Makumba wrote: So GW wanted to make taudar and baron stars...
I've seen nothing, been shown nothing, that would lead me to reject this possibility and be 100% certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was incompetence.
Makumba wrote: So GW wanted to make taudar and baron stars...
I've seen nothing, been shown nothing, that would lead me to reject this possibility and be 100% certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was incompetence.
How about the fact that their current method makes whole armies and, therefore, whole swathes of their own miniatures line obsolete and worthless.
No business wants to make a line they are still selling and manufacturing obsolete. It is a waste of resources, time and money.
How about the fact that their current method makes whole armies and, therefore, whole swathes of their own miniatures line obsolete and worthless.
No business wants to make a line they are still selling and manufacturing obsolete. It is a waste of resources, time and money.
If true, that is a reason that would make it seem unwise.
That is not a reason that would reject the possibility in all instances and beyond reasonable doubt. Businesses have been known to make bad business decisions.
I think we've established in great detail that you consider the current direction of the game of Warhammer 40K to be unwise. I disagree, but that is just my opinion.
In either way, unwise must not mean impossible, or does it?
Wait so you actually think that 40k is fine being an unbalanced mess where some units are so bad you never want to take them, and actively taking them reduces your chances of winning just because you picked bad units, while other units are so good that you always want to take them and you hurt your chances of winning by not taking them?
Even if your meta doesn't have that problem you have to at least recognize that GW's design is flawed BECAUSE it has almost zero semblance of balance. You can recognize a problem exists even if you never once encounter it.
Anything else is completely insane, because there IS a problem, whether or not you know it's there. If you pretend to not even acknowledge a problem, then I'm sorry but you're either delusional and have your fingers in your ears, or you're a troll because I can't imagine any other way someone could be oblivious and argue that what GW does is good design in any way, shape or form.
WayneTheGame wrote: Wait so you actually think that 40k is fine being an unbalanced mess where some units are so bad you never want to take them, and actively taking them reduces your chances of winning just because you picked bad units, while other units are so good that you always want to take them and you hurt your chances of winning by not taking them?
Even if your meta doesn't have that problem you have to at least recognize that GW's design is flawed BECAUSE it has almost zero semblance of balance. You can recognize a problem exists even if you never once encounter it.
Anything else is completely insane, because there IS a problem, whether or not you know it's there. If you pretend to not even acknowledge a problem, then I'm sorry but you're either delusional and have your fingers in your ears, or you're a troll because I can't imagine any other way someone could be oblivious and argue that what GW does is good design in any way, shape or form.
Zwei believes that having the game imbalanced creates variety and allows for "narrative games"
Yeah, Two Tailors logic argues with itself. The current set up discourages variety and encourages each side to have the exact same armies facing off against one another as they are the only viable options to play a fair game.
I have a sneaking suspicion, that he may be one of the "flavor of the month" players that only fields the new awesomness. Without the auto-win button, those players would have a hard time having a good time.
MWHistorian wrote: If by "Greater Variety" Zwei means "the same power lists over and over again" then yes, I suppose terrible imbalance does create "Greater Variety."
No.
By greater variety I mean the market for games as a whole. Warmachine, Infinity, Chess, Cowboys & Indians, Warhammer Fantasy, My Little Pony the CCG, etc.. .
In such an environment, people who like balanced competitive games could, for example, play chess. People who like imbalanced games could, for example, play 40K.
If one type of game where to perish, for example balanced "chess-type" of games, and everybody would be forced to play 40K-style, that would be a sad day. The gaming hobby would be diminished. The same is true vice versa.
The variety of games suggest a demand for different types of games. If all people would demand the same thing from games, the market would converge to a single game that caters to this demand better than the rest.
In the currently (luckly) varied market of gaming, I've found Warhammer 40K to be the best game for me atm.
Grimtuff wrote: Who the feth likes an imbalanced game? Well, you seem to do. Are you some kind of wargaming masochist?
Some people do.
CT GAMER wrote: Having finally had a chance over the past few days to read, reread and absorb the 6th edition rulebook I have to say that I think it is the best edition of WH40K yet.
Marzillius wrote: As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.
SkavenLord wrote: Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now.
Polonius wrote: 40k is not Magic, or a board game, or even like previous editions of 40k. You can't just pick up and play a game by the "basic rules." They don't exist anymore. You need to own your game.
pm713 wrote: Every problem I've had comes from players.
wufai wrote: The core ruleset is the best out of all editions. There are still a lot of rules debate but just comparing previous editions this is the best so far.
Jimsolo wrote: I've been playing since 3rd, and this is my favorite edition.
6th is far better to me than any previous ed simply through variety, this edition I have seen a plethora of different armies rather than just marines, as a marine player myself it's nice to see
Kain wrote: I'm still waiting for why some players should suffer for their choice in armies while others get lathered in benefits.
And please have this be an answer that makes sense to anyone not from the Moon.
I've given you my reasons for why I prefer 40K over other, more balanced games. You don't like my answer and now I should make up new ones? Which answer do you want to hear?
It doesn't make sense to me either that people would care over childish things like "winning" or bureaucratic banalities like "objectives" or "rounds" or "victory points" over the story.. but hey, different people like different things. Who am I to judge?
As long as there are different games out there to cater to different tastes, everyone can be happy, right?
Kain wrote: I'm still waiting for why some players should suffer for their choice in armies while others get lathered in benefits.
And please have this be an answer that makes sense to anyone not from the Moon.
I've given you my reasons for why I prefer 40K over other, more balanced games. You don't like my answer and now I should make up new ones? Which answer do you want to hear?
The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
AegisGrimm wrote: The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
However having two strong codices who can improve on the strengths of each other allying (eg Tau and Eldar) will always create a stronger army than a weaker one allying in a stronger one to try and patch its weakness.
Tau and Eldar don't ally to patch a weakness in CC, they ally to massively increase their offensive ranged power. Who cares if you're weak in close combat if nobody can get there?
AegisGrimm wrote: The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
How nice. Allies seem to remove the weakness of "bad" codicies then.
Kain wrote: I'm still waiting for why some players should suffer for their choice in armies while others get lathered in benefits.
And please have this be an answer that makes sense to anyone not from the Moon.
I've given you my reasons for why I prefer 40K over other, more balanced games. You don't like my answer and now I should make up new ones? Which answer do you want to hear?
It doesn't make sense to me either that people would care over childish things like "winning" or bureaucratic banalities like "objectives" or "rounds" or "victory points" over the story.. but hey, different people like different things. Who am I to judge?
As long as there are different games out there to cater to different tastes, everyone can be happy, right?
You know what?
The main distinction of a game from other forms of entertainment is that there is a win or lose condition. Traditionally speaking, a game can still be enjoyed even if victory is not achieved if the defeat is handed out fairly.
In Dwarf Fortress you will constantly and repeatedly lose as you struggle to understand the game and it's lethal mechanics, but once you get the hang of it and master it, you start seeing the fun in it because the system is to a degree, fair. It is not arbitrary, if you lose, it's typically purely of your own fault.
In 40k, if you happen to pick a certain army you like that happens to be lower tier than the foe you are playing against, you are immediately disadvantaged and are faced with an uphill battle. One that can be made worse by the contents of the list.
Thus, when an Ork or Tyranid player gets creamed by a Taudar gunline/Wave serpent circus because his army is several editions out of date/his codex was terribad and filled with underpreforming units he doesn't feel like he truly earned a defeat, he feels like he just got smashed with a ton of Bricks because the rules authors were too lazy to see if they were screwing over people for playing what they wanted to use in a setting outside of the twisted nether realm that is whatever passes for GW's playtesting.
Balance, imbalance, whatever; what matters is fairness.
Because at the moment we have matchups that are the equivalent of the Russian Ice Hockey Superleague going against the Tuckahoe middle school penguins. And that just isn't fair. That's not a contest, that's one guy putting you to the curb and stomping on your head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote: The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
Some people like bad things. Shocker. People defending GW are hilarious, though. The company sees you as a walking wallet, and now by defending them, a walking billboard. At no extra cost.
Grimtuff wrote: Who the feth likes an imbalanced game? Well, you seem to do. Are you some kind of wargaming masochist?
Some people do.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between "I like a game that happens to be imbalanced" (what you posted) and "I like a game because it is imbalanced" (what you were asked to provide)? Or do you just think that someone saying "I like that they finally standardized melee weapon profiles" is praising 6th edition's poor balance?
Zweischneid wrote: It doesn't make sense to me either that people would care over childish things like "winning" or bureaucratic banalities like "objectives" or "rounds" or "victory points" over the story.. but hey, different people like different things. Who am I to judge?
So why do you even play a game with rules at all? Why don't you just put your models on the table, push them around, make some machine gun noises and yell some fun dialogue, and talk about how awesome a story you're writing? Why do you care about childish things like "rolling to see if you hit instead of doing what is best for the story", or bureaucratic banalities like "armor saves" or "range" or "movement distance"?
Grimtuff wrote: Who the feth likes an imbalanced game? Well, you seem to do. Are you some kind of wargaming masochist?
Some people do.
CT GAMER wrote: Having finally had a chance over the past few days to read, reread and absorb the 6th edition rulebook I have to say that I think it is the best edition of WH40K yet.
Marzillius wrote: As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.
SkavenLord wrote: Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now.
Polonius wrote: 40k is not Magic, or a board game, or even like previous editions of 40k. You can't just pick up and play a game by the "basic rules." They don't exist anymore. You need to own your game.
pm713 wrote: Every problem I've had comes from players.
wufai wrote: The core ruleset is the best out of all editions. There are still a lot of rules debate but just comparing previous editions this is the best so far.
Jimsolo wrote: I've been playing since 3rd, and this is my favorite edition.
Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.
Because at the moment we have matchups that are the equivalent of the Russian Ice Hockey Superleague going against the Tuckahoe middle school penguins. And that just isn't fair. That's not a contest, that's one guy putting you to the curb and stomping on your head.
I support this description of 40K.
It's crazy when games of Epic can be more mundane than a game of 40K.
Kain wrote: Thus, when an Ork or Tyranid player gets creamed by a Taudar gunline/Wave serpent circus because his army is several editions out of date/his codex was terribad and filled with underpreforming units he doesn't feel like he truly earned a defeat, he feels like he just got smashed with a ton of Bricks because the rules authors were too lazy to see if they were screwing over people for playing what they wanted to use in a setting outside of the twisted nether realm that is whatever passes for GW's playtesting.
This. And don't bother justifying this as "narrative", because a one-sided slaughter is not a very interesting story. For that you need a relatively balanced game where each side has a reasonable hope of victory, and a reason to care about the outcome.
Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.
Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".
Correct game balance would be if every single Codex taken as a mono-list could have an equal chance of winning, before ever coming to the table. The strengths and weaknesses of an army (say, Blood Angels, for instance) would equal each other out, making the only real determining factors within the ensuing game to be deployment and terrain.
I have played plenty of miniatures games like this. And none of them had to be situations where all the armies felt the same "for the sake of balance".
Most of the armies I have in 40K didn't have un-fun downsides to me when I decided on the army (and this is across all editions), because their strengths stopped the nasty-ness of the weaknesses from being overpowering.
AegisGrimm wrote: Correct game balance would be if every single Codex taken as a mono-list could have an equal chance of winning, before ever coming to the table. The strengths and weaknesses of an army (say, Blood Angels, for instance) would equal each other out, making the only real determining factors within the ensuing game to be deployment and terrain.
I have played plenty of miniatures games like this. And none of them had to be situations where all the armies felt the same "for the sake of balance".
Oh now you've gone and done it. You've just gone and pulled the pullstring on his back. Prepare for another 10 pages of misunderstanding a certain Youtube video...
A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.
Strengths balanced against weaknesses.
If GW were properly balanced, having an Imperial Guard Infantry swarm versus a small Elite SM army would be a toss-up, left to the meeting of the players individual skills at the game to decide (with terrain being a variable)
Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.
Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".
Right but none of them overtly states that they enjoy 40k because of it's imbalance rather in spite of it. They just think it's better than the previous editions which could mean a bunch of different things.
Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.
Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".
Right but none of them overtly states that they enjoy 40k because of it's imbalance rather in spite of it. They just think it's better than the previous editions which could mean a bunch of different things.
Indeed, they're just bunch of random quotes with no context to them.
Kain wrote: Thus, when an Ork or Tyranid player gets creamed by a Taudar gunline/Wave serpent circus because his army is several editions out of date/his codex was terribad and filled with underpreforming units he doesn't feel like he truly earned a defeat, he feels like he just got smashed with a ton of Bricks because the rules authors were too lazy to see if they were screwing over people for playing what they wanted to use in a setting outside of the twisted nether realm that is whatever passes for GW's playtesting.
This. And don't bother justifying this as "narrative", because a one-sided slaughter is not a very interesting story. For that you need a relatively balanced game where each side has a reasonable hope of victory, and a reason to care about the outcome.
I'd really like to see the kinds of games that go on in GW's in house play testing that lets them miss things like the screamer star, strip biomancy away from Tyranids while doing absolutely nothing about Daemons abusing these powers on their monstrous creatures to an even greater extent (and having divinitation to boot), let Necron fliers go around for dirt cheap prices, or conclude that abysmal units like the Howling Banshee need no fixing (despite the Banshee being perhaps the most iconic Eldar unit and one of the first things anyone introduced to the Eldar will see, and thus likely buy) but the already decent Wave Serpent needed to throw out Loota-levels of firepower from a grotesquely durable and mobile platform.
Because there's no way anything resembling a competitive list has seen the light of day there.
A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.
Take Infinity.
An army of elite super soldiers with a remote piloted battle mech versus a rag-tag force of the fore lorned and forgotten that use weapons of centuries past or whatever may be acquired off the black market; the latter being few in number with superiority, the former using presence of strength in numbers banded together (game mechanic called linked teams) and weight of fire power to win the day.
Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.
Which is why I tried to mostly pick quotes that are explicit about 6th Edition being an improvement over previous editions, and not just quotes about "I like 40K".
Right but none of them overtly states that they enjoy 40k because of it's imbalance rather in spite of it. They just think it's better than the previous editions which could mean a bunch of different things.
Exactly. We also have no context regarding those quotes. For all we know the person might have said "6th ed is the most fun I've had in 40k. I wish, however, that it were more balanced so I could play my Blood Angels rather than my Tau." but then you cut it to just "6th ed is the most fun I've had in 40k."
While it would make things more vanilla (though that seemed fine in the old days) I think that the loss in prevalence of USR's would do a great deal to balance out units. Make them stand on their stat-lines and wargear again.
If I were to somehow get a typical Daemonic cheese list into GW's in-house play testing games, how quickly would it take for them to realize how badly they've screwed up?
It couldn't hurt in getting rid of some of the bloat either. I am sure I am not the only one sick of having to spend a good chunk of the game looking for two different rules to see if my guy died or not.
@Kain
No, they are probably well aware of the balance issues with their game. They just don't care.
Kain wrote: If I were to somehow get a typical Daemonic cheese list into GW's in-house play testing games, how quickly would it take for them to realize how badly they've screwed up?
They'd probably just kick you out and say that nobody ever uses that stuff. If there's one thing we can be sure of from GW, it's not admitting they've made a mistake.
And then they'll raise the prices of the units you showed them.
A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.
Strengths balanced against weaknesses.
A double-Falcon list hogging the table-edge is virtually unbeatable for a TIE Interceptor list.
A TIE Swarm with Howlrunner will beat an equally pointed Tie Swarm without Howlrunner every time.
A B-Wing with Advanced Sensors is infinitely superiour to a B-Wing with any other 3 pts. upgrade.
Etc....
X-Wing release very much on churning out continues goodies to keep people buying, upping the ante with each wave.
For a game with only 12 models in the entire range, only two factions, only one type of terrain, etc.. it is ridiculously badly balanced.
If you want to play 40K X-Wing style, it is easy enough.
- Remove all factions but 2.
- Reduce to Game to 12 Miniatures, 6 per faction (e.g. Tac Marine = X-Wing, Assault Marine = A Wing, Eldar Guardian = Tie Fighter.,,.. something like this).
- Standardize all weapons into a single profile.
- Standardize all weapon ranges
- Standardize all types of movement to be equal.
- Remove rules for LD and moral, for transports, for psionics, etc..
- Remove Close Combat.
- Play on a flat table with only one type of terrain (no buildings, etc..).
- Play with only 3 to 5 miniatures per side
- Deploy everything at the start of the game at the board-edge.. no reserves, infiltrate, scout, etc..
- Reduce upgrade options to a handful each.
- etc....
A Rebel list featuring three X-wings and a Y-wing can easily be fun against an Imperial List of 5 TIEs and an Advanced. Neither list is automatically at a disadvantage, because the Rebels are outnumbered but have tougher ships, the TIEs have a numerical advantage but weaker ships.
Strengths balanced against weaknesses.
A double-Falcon list hogging the table-edge is virtually unbeatable for a TIE Interceptor list.
A TIE Swarm with Howlrunner will beat an equally pointed Tie Swarm without Howlrunner every time.
A B-Wing with Advanced Sensors is infinitely superiour to a B-Wing with any other 3 pts. upgrade.
Etc....
X-Wing release very much on churning out continues goodies to keep people buying, upping the ante with each wave.
For a game with only 12 models in the entire range, only two factions, only one type of terrain, etc.. it is ridiculously badly balanced.
If you want to play 40K X-Wing style, it is easy enough.
- Remove all factions but 2.
- Reduce to Game to 12 Miniatures, 6 per faction (e.g. Tac Marine = X-Wing, Assault Marine = A Wing, Eldar Guardian = Tie Fighter.,,.. something like this).
- Standardize all weapons into a single profile.
- Standardize all weapon ranges
- Standardize all types of movement to be equal.
- Remove rules for LD and moral, for transports, for psionics, etc..
- Remove Close Combat.
- Play on a flat table with only one type of terrain (no buildings, etc..).
- Play with only 3 to 5 miniatures per side
- Deploy everything at the start of the game at the board-edge.. no reserves, infiltrate, scout, etc..
- Reduce upgrade options to a handful each.
- etc....
Not that hard really to do.
Balance =/= All options and combinations of options are equal against each other. Of course a buffed TIE swarm list will beat an unbuffed one. Of course TIE/in lists would have a solid counter. That's all part of designing an interesting game.
You like the "12 models" thing to bash X Wing with don't you?
How many different pilots?
How many elite pilot talents?
How many secondary weapons?
How many upgrades?
How many crew?
Now, given many of those can be taken in combination with each other across multiple versions of "12 ships" how many actual variations of units have we got?
You are really vehemently opposed to any other opinion than yours, aren't you?
GW could do a great deal towards balancing 40K in one step, which the absolute basic part of it would be:
-Don't make any army choice inherently be able to buff other army choices other than for leadership tests. Remove all of those USR back to a USR setting like in 4th edition.
All the crazy rules that alter how Unit A operates compared to how it is placed(or purchased in a list) in conjunction to Unit B are where tons of issues stem from. Used to be all you had to worry about were leadership buffs, or small very situational things. Now a force in 40K can be this large web of interconnected rules.
I'll say it again, but without any kind of nastyness or sarcasm. 40K would be considered "balanced" by nearly all players simply if taking any army as a mono-codex list had the same chance of a win as any other.
azreal13 wrote: You like the "12 models" thing to bash X Wing with don't you?
How many different pilots?
How many elite pilot talents?
How many secondary weapons?
How many upgrades?
How many crew?
Now, given many of those can be taken in combination with each other across multiple versions of "12 ships" how many actual variations of units have we got?
So what? Add a few things like "chapter tactics" or Kill-Team style USR to the "40K-X-Wing-style" as outlined above. Most of the pilots in X-Wing are identical except for one single stat-point. Most options are never taken in "competitive" play, because everyone uses the same few anyhow.... PtL, Advanced Sensors, Stealth Upgrade, etc... ya know the suspects.
AegisGrimm wrote: You are really vehemently opposed to any other opinion that yours, aren't you?
GW could do a great deal towards balancing 40K in one step, which the absolute basic part of it would be:
-Don't make any army choice inherently be able to buff other army choices other than for leadership tests. Remove all of those USR back to a USR setting like in 4th edition.
All the crazy rules that alter how Unit A operates compared to how it is placed(or purchased in a list) in conjunction to Unit B are where tons of issues stem from. Used to be all you had to worry about were leadership buffs, or small very situational things. Now a force in 40K can be this large web of interconnected rules.
I personally like how Warmahordes handles allies (or mercs/minions). The vast majority of the buffs that a Warcaster/lock can give out are "friendly faction". Mercs/minons are only considered "friendly" and not part of the faction, so cannot get access to these buffs unless a ranking officer is attached, 2 of which in the factions that have them are named characters and thus can only be taken once.
As soon as this guy dies, they are no longer "friendly faction".
40k should have a similar system, as the levels of allies on the table just does not cut it, as TauDar demonstrates.
azreal13 wrote: You like the "12 models" thing to bash X Wing with don't you?
How many different pilots?
How many elite pilot talents?
How many secondary weapons?
How many upgrades?
How many crew?
Now, given many of those can be taken in combination with each other across multiple versions of "12 ships" how many actual variations of units have we got?
So what? Add a few things like "chapter tactics" or Kill-Team style USR to the "40K-X-Wing-style" as outlined above. Most of the pilots in X-Wing are identical except for one single stat-point. Most options are never taken in "competitive" play, because everyone uses the same few anyhow.... PtL, Advanced Sensors, Stealth Upgrade, etc... ya know the suspects.
So there's not "12 ships" which is your disingenuous way of trying to paint X Wing as much simpler than it is.
In reality, most 40K units are just riffs on one or two basic archetypes (every single Marine infantry unit is essentially the same with slightly varied equipment) so to bash X Wing for something that 40K is also guilty of to a great extent, is just another of your flawed arguments.
But those are all upgrades separate from the basic stat-lines of the ships. They are equal to wargear in 40K.
Possibly aside from the TIE Advanced, there is no basic, un-upgraded ship choice that is considered to be "crap" like there are units in 40K.
In reality, most 40K units are just riffs on one or two basic archetypes (every single Marine infantry unit is essentially the same with slightly varied equipment) so to bash X Wing for something that 40K is also guilty of to a great extent, is just another of your flawed arguments.
And that's not really even equatable to X-Wing, because two ships may be the same stats, but the "small" change in pilot skill (a single stat) makes a huge difference. But yes. With the exception of characters, most a Marine Codex is a very small selection of identical statlines.
To quote myself:
I'll say it again, but without any kind of nastyness or sarcasm. 40K would be considered much more "balanced" by nearly all players simply if taking any army as a mono-codex list automatically had the same chance of a win (mechanically) as any other. There would be no "Tier Codexes"
AegisGrimm wrote: But those are all upgrades separate from the basic stat-lines of the ships. They are equal to wargear in 40K.
Possibly aside from the TIE Advanced, there is no basic, un-upgraded ship choice that is considered to be "crap" like there are units in 40K.
Well, even if it is only the TIE Advanced (and no other pilots, upgrades, etc.., that nobody ever uses?), that is a full 8.3% of the entire game that fulfills this. A good deal more than an entire Codex in 40K.
AegisGrimm wrote: Blood Angels in 6th edition is commonly regarded as an entire codex that is horrible to play as.
Perhaps.
But it is still less than 8%, and it is in itself more than twice as old as the entire game of X-Wing. We shall see how the TIE Advanced fares 3 years from now.
And of course, 40K isn't "praised" as an allegedly balanced game in the first place.
I've actually had solid results with the Advanced under "competitive" conditions (playing tourney rules against friends who were using tourney lists when they were practicing for a sanctioned event) so even then, one can't call it and certainly can't start trying to ascribe statistics to it.
TheKbob wrote: 40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:
Codex: Space Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angel
Grey Knights
Chaos Space Marines
Sounds like there must be great demand among player for these.
I suspect that was to illustrate how few "units" 40K uses, in much the same way you're trying to assert that X Wing has comparatively few "units" despite being around for less than a tenth the time.
TheKbob wrote: 40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:
Codex: Space Marines Dark Angels Space Wolves Blood Angel Grey Knights Chaos Space Marines
Sounds like there must be great demand among player for these.
Not really. Having a lot of similar armies available doesn't mean they are all selling. By your logic, demand has gone down as Black Templars lost their stand-alone book.
As to "spreading around players" that is stupid. Why overcomplicate by further spreading out special rules into multiple books when one book serves? From the perspective of GW that just increases their own costs because now instead of printing one book, they have to print 2 or 3 or however many.
Yet another idiotic business decision you seem to support.
This is how most 40k matchups go due to the imbalance. Pick one of Taudar/Screamerstar/Triptide/Triple Baledrake Nurgle Fun Time/Wave Serpent Circus/other netlist as the Detroit Red Wings, and anyone else as the kids:
That's what you get when you have zero thought towards a balanced game.
TheKbob wrote: 40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:
Codex: Space Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angel
Grey Knights
Chaos Space Marines
Sounds like there must be great demand among player for these.
Not really. Having a lot of similar armies available doesn't mean they are all selling. By your logic, demand has gone down as Black Templars lost their stand-alone book.
It would seem that they weren't selling well enough, yes.
Also, Necrons should probably on the list. They also have the basic Marine stat-line for the most part.
TheKbob wrote: 40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:
Codex: Space Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angel
Grey Knights
Chaos Space Marines
Sounds like there must be great demand among player for these.
I think you'll find that of these, three have a bigger playerbase than the others. By a large margin.
They're also the three most distinct ones that can't be rolled up into chapter tactics, a supplement, and some unique units.
Well, those with the biggest playerbase should probably be broken up into more separate codexes of similar appeal to spread players around a bit more.
The Black Templars had just as much to separate them as the Blood Angels, probably more, they got absorbed with the Space Marines anyway.
The Space Wolves are perhaps the only loyalist marine variant truly unique enough (the grey knights are a bit too weird to be easily lumped into the MEQ army) to not be able to be simplified down to a chapter tactic and a supplement's worth of stuff, but even then with a few dataslates I could probably condense the Wolves into Codex Space Marines.
The Grey Knights are unique and distinct enough to play on their own.
Whether or not the Chaos Legions need/deserve their own books is a matter of contention and debate, but I'd rather see a proper lost and the damned book before introducing yet more heldrake bait I mean power armor armies.
Meanwhile, if we give every Space marine variety their own codex; why stop there?
Why not give every major Guard Regiment model their own book?
Why not every craftworld, necron dynasty, dark eldar kabal, sister of battle order,, ork klan, Tau sept, and Tyranid Hive Fleet?
Why not just give every damn minor xenos and armed organization in the background their own book?
No, the Supplement system finally offers a way to trim the MEQ fat.
TheKbob wrote: 40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:
Codex: Space Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angel
Grey Knights
Chaos Space Marines
Sounds like there must be great demand among player for these.
Not really. Having a lot of similar armies available doesn't mean they are all selling. By your logic, demand has gone down as Black Templars lost their stand-alone book.
It would seem that they weren't selling well enough, yes.
The reason they weren't selling was because they were an old book and therefore weren't balanced against newer armies, being considerably weaker than the opposition.
As to "spreading around players" that is stupid. Why overcomplicate by further spreading out special rules into multiple books when one book serves? From the perspective of GW that just increases their own costs because now instead of printing one book, they have to print 2 or 3 or however many.
Yet another idiotic business decision you seem to support.
Well, to have a good variety.
If you have 1000 40K Gamers that are spread out along 5 Codex books as follows...
That would seem to be the more preferable spread. People face different opponents more often, and, yes, financially, the company doesn't waste 20% of its miniature production on 50 exotic snowflakes, while shafting 50% of their consumers with equally only 20% of the miniature releases.
As to "spreading around players" that is stupid. Why overcomplicate by further spreading out special rules into multiple books when one book serves? From the perspective of GW that just increases their own costs because now instead of printing one book, they have to print 2 or 3 or however many.
Yet another idiotic business decision you seem to support.
Well, to have a good variety.
If you have 1000 40K Gamers that are spread out along 5 Codex books as follows...
That would seem to be the more preferable spread. People face different opponents more often, and, yes, financially, the company doesn't waste 20% of its miniature production on 50 exotic snowflakes, while shafting 50% of their consumers with equally only 20% of the miniature releases.
Wouldn't the smart thing in this case be to look at why Codex 1 alone has the same as everyone else combined, and why barely anyone is playing Codex 4 and 5, and do something to address that? But again in a balanced game this wouldn't even need to happen because you really could play what you liked/think is cool, instead of having the company push one army more than everything else (e.g. Space Marines) or have some armies just so powerful that people gravitate towards them to the exclusion of others.
Wouldn't the smart thing in this case be to look at why Codex 1 alone has the same as everyone else combined, and why barely anyone is playing Codex 4 and 5, and do something to address that? But again in a balanced game this wouldn't even need to happen because you really could play what you liked/think is cool, instead of having the company push one army more than everything else (e.g. Space Marines) or have some armies just so powerful that people gravitate towards them to the exclusion of others.
I don't think a company can influence demand like this.
GW gave 40K and Warhammer Fantasy a relatively equal amount of time in the limelight... indeed, Fantasy was the first poster child. Didn't stop people from buying Space Marines.
But if Black Templars are a sign of declining Space Marine sales, you should be happy, no?
Wouldn't the smart thing in this case be to look at why Codex 1 alone has the same as everyone else combined, and why barely anyone is playing Codex 4 and 5, and do something to address that? But again in a balanced game this wouldn't even need to happen because you really could play what you liked/think is cool, instead of having the company push one army more than everything else (e.g. Space Marines) or have some armies just so powerful that people gravitate towards them to the exclusion of others.
I don't think a company can influence demand like this.
GW gave 40K and Warhammer Fantasy a relatively equal amount of time in the limelight... indeed, Fantasy was the first poster child. Didn't stop people from buying Space Marines.
But if Black Templars are a sign of declining Space Marine sales, you should be happy, no?
GW could influence it's market more if it ever actually advertised or something.
Just saying.
Don't even have to run a TV spot, just do what world of tanks or Evony did and plaster banner ads everywhere and you're bound to get hundreds of thousands of customers (or suckers in Evony's case).
TheKbob wrote: 40% of the armies in Warhammer 40k have the exact same statline with variance in special rules and upgrades:
Codex: Space Marines
Dark Angels
Space Wolves
Blood Angel
Grey Knights
Chaos Space Marines
I kind of agree, but I think that CSM and GK are different enough to merit them being separate armies. And maybe Space Wolves.
And this is because of player demand too. I mean, everyone wants to play with the little plastic marines so they'll expand the little plastic marine line.
Overall I'd say that focusing a tad more on Xenos would be nice, but it's certainly not ruining the game or anything.
Then why even have the Pentinent engine if no one takes it in any serious capacity?
Nobody who takes the game serious has a problem with the Pentinent Engine.
Only those who can't see beyond childish concerns like "winning" do.
A game is different from other forms of entertainment because it has a win or lose component and a game is most optimal when it is fair for everyone involved. If the player feels like they fairly earned their victory or defeat, then they are likely to have the most possible fun.
Getting your ass handed to you because you brought what you had/what you liked while the other guy simply rides with the FotM army and units is not fair.
At this point you may as well just regress to Army Men rules. Which is no rules.
Your incompetence in your inability to argue effectively is insulting enough.
Soooo more insulting?
Spade a spade, good sir. You haven't answered anyone's question with a clear answer. How is a Penitent Engine good for the game? Please site facts. Let's add the Exalted Flamer Chariot to this dicussion, why is it good for the game being a literal waste of point in it's ability to do nothing?
Please, no wishy-washy response, give use a measurable reason. If you cannot, then my comment holds accurate, thus not an insult. If you cannot, you can also add troll to this list of facts about yourself, to boot.
AegisGrimm wrote: Balanced 40K= every codex considered "Tier one" regardless of individual strengths and weaknesses.
Exactly. And balanced game aren't fun.
That makes absolutely no sense. Blood Angels shouldn't be sub-par compared to Grey Knights, just for the sake of fun. Because when everyone doesn' field the sub-par choices, only the powerful ones are present, and completely skews the rubric!
Evidently your version of "fun" would be to force your opponent to play one of the sub-par armies. Or are you willing to be the one that takes the bullet so they can have fun?
Each codex, regardless of strengths vs. weaknesses (measured internally) should have 100% the chance of mechanically winning a game, before taking all the ever-present variables of terrain and player skill into consideration. Every codex should be appealing at exactly the same level to the prospective players looking begin that army, regardless of which particular part of the game that army excels at compared to being weak in others.
I support having absolutely hideous, expensive models be slightly more powerful. It's fun watching someone try to justify buying a massive expensive piece of gak that he hates, saying how it'll let him 'win'.
And I actually like certain fluffy choices being slightly underpowered. That way they become more unusual and when you bring your demonhosts to the table your opponent is like "What the heck is that? I've never heard of those before!"
And I actually like certain fluffy choices being slightly underpowered. That way they become more unusual and when you bring your demonhosts to the table your opponent is like "What the heck is that? I've never heard of those before!"
Totally agree. But they shouldn't underpowered in general. They should either have good abilities to balance the bad ones, or a low(er) points cost. Underpowered generally means they are too expensive for what they do.
It would be like saying that Grots have to be priced at 25pts each so no one will take them "for the sake of the fun of the game".
The points in the debate go round and round, round and round, round and round, the points in the debate go round and round; all the thread long.
Don't get mad at him, just point that his answers have absolutely zero substance and is currently typical of the most devout fans or supporters of the game.
Most people I know or have met that still play 40k all agree that it's pretty bad and that Games Workshop is not doing so hot. I have provided actual facts, data, and expert analysis on how GW is on a course for failure. Zwei has provided absolutely nothing of value. So until he changes such, his value added to this discussion is next to nothing.
Why not? Explain to me exactly why they are not fun and why what is fun about an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced one.
Sure.. but as always, my reasons for enjoying unbalanced games are likely full of personal bias and in no small parts the result of my personal experience.
There is no "objective" reason for somebody to like chocolate over vanilla, or vanilla over chocolate.
My personal preference for unbalanced games does not imply universal superiority of unbalanced games. I am happy to accept that other people have different tastes and enjoy balanced games better, possibly even for narrative gaming.
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.
AegisGrimm wrote: But they shouldn't underpowered in general. They should either have good abilities to balance the bad ones, or a low(er) points cost.
It would be like saying that Grots have to be priced at 25pts each so no one will take them "for the sake of the fun of the game".
Yeah, that's true. I was jesting a little before (although I really love being that guy who doesn't care about winning, and has an army that's almost completely dissimilar to all the standard builds.)
I think that GW should occasionally see what people are playing and what people aren't playing, and strengthen the units and factions that people aren't using.
My personal preference for unbalanced games does not imply universal superiority of unbalanced games. I am happy to accept that other people have different tastes and enjoy balanced games better, possibly even for narrative gaming.
You haven't provided any facts yet.
Also, you would be perfectly fine playing against nigh invulnerable death stars on a routine, if not permanent, basis from this point forward? Let's boil it down further, would you be okay with losing every single game you play of 40k from this point forward?
Zweischneid wrote: Well, even if it is only the TIE Advanced (and no other pilots, upgrades, etc.., that nobody ever uses?), that is a full 8.3% of the entire game that fulfills this. A good deal more than an entire Codex in 40K.
And you know what? People generally consider the TIE advanced a mistake. Pretty much any game has at least one mistake that you can point to, but that doesn't really say anything interesting about their respective balance approaches. Yes, FFG made a mistake with the TIE advanced, probably because it was designed around Vader (who is decent as-is, and would be blatantly overpowered in a better ship) and the other cards exist only to meet the expectation of having at least two unique and two generic pilots in each box. But overall their balance approach is much more successful than 40k's.
Would you enjoy it if all your games were against Screamerstars and 2++ rerollable seerstars?
Maybe, maybe not.
I would certainly work with my partner as recommended by the "Spirit of the Game" box and other instructions in the rulebook to make it as fun as possible.
I certainly wouldn't let some rule stop me from having fun.
TheKbob wrote: Let's boil it down further, would you be okay with losing every single game you play of 40k from this point forward?
Sure.
To be fair, I don't even know if I won or lost the last 20 or so games of 40K I played.
They were all awesome games, but I rarely tend to count the beans at the end. If the game rocks, both participants win.
Then we have different opinions on the matter, however you are extremely reductive of those that care about the actual strategic element that GW markets the game as. And doing a disservice to a massive part of the player base; potentially the most lucrative one, as well.
I know even the most fluffiest players I have met have ditched the game because they do not want to lose every single time.
In the mean time, I will gladly crush your army in two turns any time you'd like with an overpowered mess. That way we can get in three games versus one. And don't argue with me, because this is how I interpet "spirit of the game" because I play Eldar, and I have very little population left, so I must either hit you hard and crush you or retreat. Narrative forged.
Zweischneid wrote: They were all awesome games, but I rarely tend to count the beans at the end.
So, again, why bother to play a game with rules at all? Why not just push your models around the table and talk about an awesome story you're imagining? You seem to be so obsessed with the idea that caring about winning is shameful that you're missing the whole point of a narrative game: the victory conditions exist to build a story around them. Your tactical squad moves up to claim the objective because doing so helps you win the game, and then you imagine a narrative around their brave advance under fire to claim the sacred spot upon which an important religious figure was martyred. If you don't even bother to see if your army succeeded at its goals at the end of the game then what's the point of having goals in the first place? Do you just end the story at "they shot each other a bunch" and never bother to talk about the outcome of the battle?
Would you enjoy it if all your games were against Screamerstars and 2++ rerollable seerstars?
Maybe, maybe not.
I would certainly work with my partner as recommended by the "Spirit of the Game" box and other instructions in the rulebook to make it as fun as possible.
I certainly wouldn't let some rule stop me from having fun.
The fun is having a narrative. If your narrative is that your heroic legion makes planetfall looks at the enemy menacingly and immediately dies, it's not a good narrative and thus it isn't fun.
If I knew that a certain build, a certain army, or something else reliably annihilated me every time I played against it, I'd refuse to play against it further. It's just not fun.
AegisGrimm wrote: Balanced 40K= every codex considered "Tier one" regardless of individual strengths and weaknesses.
Exactly. And balanced game aren't fun.
So having every army on the "good" spectrum isn't fun, but having 2-3 "good" and a few "bad" is? Do you actually understand what you're saying, or do you think it means something else?
Zweischneid wrote: Well, even if it is only the TIE Advanced (and no other pilots, upgrades, etc.., that nobody ever uses?), that is a full 8.3% of the entire game that fulfills this. A good deal more than an entire Codex in 40K.
And you know what? People generally consider the TIE advanced a mistake. Pretty much any game has at least one mistake that you can point to, but that doesn't really say anything interesting about their respective balance approaches. Yes, FFG made a mistake with the TIE advanced, probably because it was designed around Vader (who is decent as-is, and would be blatantly overpowered in a better ship) and the other cards exist only to meet the expectation of having at least two unique and two generic pilots in each box. But overall their balance approach is much more successful than 40k's.
I am sure 40K has it's mistakes as well.
I also acknowledged that the entire 6th Edition could be a mistake. I have not evidence to rule out this possibility.
But - conversely - it seems illogical to assume that the broader direction of the game must be entirely the result of a mistake.
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
You ever stop to think why every other OG team member from GW has left but Jervis Johnson?
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
You ever stop to think why every other OG team member from GW has left but Jervis Johnson?
Hint: Nobody likes how he ran the game.
Conjecture.
But if it were true, it would indicated (not prove, but indicate), that Jervis Johnson has an intention with where he is going. No?
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
You ever stop to think why every other OG team member from GW has left but Jervis Johnson?
Hint: Nobody likes how he ran the game.
Conjecture.
I feel a well known phrase about pots and kettles is appropriate here....
Zweischneid wrote: But - conversely - it seems illogical to assume that the broader direction of the game must be entirely the result of a mistake.
The alternative is to assume that GW's rule authors are so utterly stupid that they deliberately make unbalanced choices with no apparent reason behind them. I admit that this is in theory possible, but I think it's more likely that GW as a company just refuses to pay for sufficient development time to make a quality product, and all that nonsense about "spirit of the game" is just making excuses for why you should buy it anyway.
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
We can reject it because appealing to some mysterious "principle" that is so subtle that nobody can see even the faintest hint of it is just insane.
Why not? Explain to me exactly why they are not fun and why what is fun about an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced one.
Sure.. but as always, my reasons for enjoying unbalanced games are likely full of personal bias and in no small parts the result of my personal experience.
There is no "objective" reason for somebody to like chocolate over vanilla, or vanilla over chocolate.
My personal preference for unbalanced games does not imply universal superiority of unbalanced games. I am happy to accept that other people have different tastes and enjoy balanced games better, possibly even for narrative gaming.
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.
You didn't answer my question. I asked why the fun you have with an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced game. You only said that having it balanced meant that some players expect other players to use the rules given, rather than come up with their own.
Zweischneid wrote: But - conversely - it seems illogical to assume that the broader direction of the game must be entirely the result of a mistake.
I don't think the broad direction of the game is a mistake. I think it's the result of a deliberate choice to sacrifice quality in favor of cost reductions, done with the assumption that GW's main target markets rarely, if ever, actually play the game and therefore don't need quality rules (which are more expensive to produce). The mistakes are the individual rules, and are the inevitable result of a policy of rushing out new content as fast as possible without investing in sufficient development time to fix those mistakes. Every game has mistakes like that in initial design, the difference between a good game and a bad game like 40k is how much time and effort the designers invest in fixing those mistakes before publishing it. WOTC spends a months-long development cycle on each new product, and the result is good balance and excellent rule clarity. GW, on the other hand, publishes rough drafts and charges you $50 for them.
You didn't answer my question. I asked why the fun you have with an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced game. You only said that having it balanced meant that some players expect other players to use the rules given, rather than come up with their own.
That doesn't mean you can't.
I never said it cannot happen. I only said it never happened to me yet.
The gaming experience of 40K "played the studio-way" (or what I think they mean by that) has, for me, consistently and repeatedly proven vastly superior to any other wargame out there.
I've met enough Ex-GW employees along the way of my time in wargaming to know most left because of how the corporation was ran. Ronnie Renton has said a few choice words too. Privateer Press folks have also kept a pretty up n up clean slate on the matter, but are always more open to talking to their fans, more so than Jervis "Ivory Tower" Johnson.
There's proof of it littered across the internet. The corporate trial with Chapterhouse has them say on record that their fanbases' favorite hobby was buying their product (lol, wat?!). Tracking all of it down over years and years isn't my idea of fun. You can find it if you look. Or you can just choose to ignore more data points. The choice is yours, but remember one thing...
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
TheKbob wrote: I've met enough Ex-GW employees along the way of my time in wargaming to know most left because of how the corporation was ran. Ronnie Renton has said a few choice words too. Privateer Press folks have also kept a pretty up n up clean slate on the matter, but are always more open to talking to their fans, more so than Jervis "Ivory Tower" Johnson.
There's proof of it littered across the internet. The corporate trial with Chapterhouse has them say on record that their fanbases' favorite hobby was buying their product (lol, wat?!). Tracking all of it down over years and years isn't my idea of fun. You can find it if you look. Or you can just choose to ignore more data points. The choice is yours, but remember one thing...
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
Fair enough. So Jervis Johnson is an A-hole?
A great many people making great products are. The late Steve Jobs was a first-rate one allegedly.
It's not like I am gaming with Jervis Johnson personally.
All I am saying is that (a) I like Warhammer 40K 6th Edition (personal bias) and (b) the things that speak to me in that product could be (but don't have to be) there as a result of intentional design.
All I am saying is that (a) I like Warhammer 40K 6th Edition (personal bias) and (b) the things that speak to me in that product could be (but don't have to be) there as a result of intentional design.
As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.
We have every fact pointing to GW seeing it's customer basis as a pool of unwashed masses readily milked of their money. The track record of releasing slipshod releases suggests they do no balance their games. From my research and breadth of anecdotal evidence from across the US finds that unless you're in one of two types of player scenes, you probably aren't playing the game much (either the hardcore or the we don't give a damn). The former is wrestling, and the latter has frustration creeping into it.
Everything is not "alright" with 40k, more so with the company that produces it. The problem with 40k is Games Workshop and their problem is not building a sustainable business on a product that relies on a loyal and faithful consumer fanbase. Given that a great majority of people who sign up for something called a "game" expect something remotely fair and perceived balance, even some units are better than others, the framework that is the game now fails at this assumption. This failure burns players and makes them quit the game. People quitting is bad for business.
You're in the minority, from my research and experience, Zwei. And the minority will not sustain GW due to it being a publicly traded company. Any shrinking of the company can start a death spiral on the financial side.
All I am saying is that (a) I like Warhammer 40K 6th Edition (personal bias) and (b) the things that speak to me in that product could be (but don't have to be) there as a result of intentional design.
As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.
Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.
To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).
And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).
To assume GW's decline is the direct cause of the rules seems improbable, especially as the game that took the biggest hit was Fantasy, not 40K.
All I am saying is that (a) I like Warhammer 40K 6th Edition (personal bias) and (b) the things that speak to me in that product could be (but don't have to be) there as a result of intentional design.
As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.
Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.
To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).
Name one game (and do not say 40K, you've just said there are other cases) that actively encourages it's players to have imbalanced games which are not based on historical battles which were themselves imbalanced.
Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.
Name one game (and do not say 40K, you've just said there are other cases) that actively encourages it's players to have imbalanced games which are not based on historical battles which were themselves imbalanced.
Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.
Magic is totally different. In magic, picking the cards that you want to use from the crap in booster packs is half the piking game.
Whereas if you spend $40 on Vespid in 40K and you get something that's ass-all and not worth using, it's not something that should happen.
Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.
Perfect Imbalance is not balance.
But for the sake of not using that example, X-Wing is another obvious other one.
Even if the TIE-Advanced is a "mistake" (and it might not be), powerful add-ons, a notorious example being the "Howlrunner" card, which encourages people to buy TIE-Fighters in the more expensive Expansion, rather than the discounted starter box, are clearly attempts to fish for money through overpowered additions to the game.
And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).
Lol
GW are not "in financial trouble."
Demonstrating shrinkage in a market where others are showing growth and where there is evidence of increased spending?
Yes.
In need of taking action if the trend continues?
Absolutely.
Trouble?
Not yet, not even close.
Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?
And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).
To assume GW's decline is the direct cause of the rules seems improbable, especially as the game that took the biggest hit was Fantasy, not 40K.
Your first statement needs no further argument. We've proved otherwise ad nauseum. I will just disagree with you as we have facts that say otherwise. Until you produce them, please stop.
The other half is just marketing. I wouldn't believe the spin Tom Kirby produces. Having reviewed the financial reports from other game companies, like EA, you only see spin. The worst things are always spun to brightest like.
I have linked earlier discussion from another thread that GW, as a whole, has gone down double digits in market share while the entire market for wargaming has gone up by double digits. That suggest not only is GW shrinking, but they are doing so against the trend of the entire industry; simply put, they're doing bad. This is the Occam's Razor, their poor business practices are sinking their ship, to include terrible game/rule support, not executive spin.
They are almost entirely "all-in" on Warhammer 40k. The pittance they give Fantasy isn't much and I'm sure The Hobbit is just kicking around because of contractual obligation. The fact that the models are so ugly and limited in release would suggest this. And Warhammer 40k is a crap show right now. The game almost couldn't be more "pay to win" at this point. That does not make a good game.
Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?
Less shops and fewer average opening hours among the remaining shops, leading to a fall in sales through the retail chain (while online/direct sales are up and sales through the trade are more or less constant).
Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?
Less shops and fewer average opening hours among the remaining shops, leading to a fall in sales through the retail chain (while online/direct sales are up and sales through the trade are more or less constant).
I find that interesting as pretty much everything they are doing would make their internet sales grow by limiting a great deal of product. I expect third party store sales are down because of their terrible new trade practices. Their one man shop design is terrible. All of this was outlined in the article I had linked earlier.
Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?
Less shops and fewer average opening hours among the remaining shops, leading to a fall in sales through the retail chain (while online/direct sales are up and sales through the trade are more or less constant).
Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.
To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).
Zwei, you’re doing it wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Yet again, you are mistaking cause for effect. Points are a tool. Using points is a game mechanic to help define both game structure, and game balance. You do not use points to achieve imbalance – that's simply bad game design.
Imbalance is the end result of not using the points mechanic correctly. It is the result, not the intention.
Simply put, you do not use points to achieve imbalance, imbalance is achieved by using points poorly.
Effect. Not Cause.
Creating imbalance from the use of the points mechanic is the effect of bad games design, and poor mechanical theory. Nothing else.
I find that interesting as pretty much everything they are doing would make their internet sales grow by limiting a great deal of product. I expect third party store sales are down because of their terrible new trade practices. Their one man shop design is terrible. All of this was outlined in the article I had linked earlier.
So you acknowledge that their logistic side may quite likely be a major factor in their downturn?
If it is, how can there be different qualities in balanced games on one hand (e.g. Chess) and perfectly imbalanced games on the other (e.g. MtG).
And how can underpowered MtG-decks (far more useless than the Pentinent Engine could ever be) exist if it is balanced?
Chess is a mirror game, that is Balanced.
For every strong card in Magic, there is another card which can beat it in some other way and then there's a card that can beat that one and so on and so forth. That is perfectly imbalanced which, overall, leads to a balanced game. Every player can have the tools to counter every opponent.
As to underpowered MtG decks, that is a player not getting the most out of cards. They haven't built synergies etc.
Compare that to 40K where some armies flat out do not have the tools to deal with some opponents.
Zwei, you’re doing it wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Yet again, you are mistaking cause for effect. Points are a tool. Using points is a game mechanic to help define both game structure, and game balance. You do not use points to achieve imbalance – that's simply bad game design.
Imbalance is the end result of not using the points mechanic correctly. It is the result, not the intention.
Simply put, you do not use points to achieve imbalance, imbalance is achieved by using points poorly.
Effect. Not Cause.
Creating imbalance from the use of the points mechanic is the effect of bad games design, and poor mechanical theory. Nothing else.
Deadnight.
You are letting your personal bias get into the way of logic.
You dislike the idea of imbalanced game systems, and you disapprove of the idea of using point systems to imbalance a game.
But your dislike for it does not make it an impossibility, or prevent it from being an option other people might see as worthwhile.
If it is, how can there be different qualities in balanced games on one hand (e.g. Chess) and perfectly imbalanced games on the other (e.g. MtG).
And how can underpowered MtG-decks (far more useless than the Pentinent Engine could ever be) exist if it is balanced?
Perfect Imbalance, is in essence, a double negative. Imbalance by definition, cannot be perfect if balance is your objective.
If perfect imbalance isn't balanced, then it's just imbalance!
Balance does not exclude the possibility of bad choices. There are poorer and better Magic cards, of course, but they're much closer to the middle than better or worse 40K units, but it is more about how they are used, and in conjunction with what, than inherent power issues. Then of course, usability of cards will also vary depending in game format, something in a sealed deck format that is very useful, may not see much use in open, say, but at least there is a place in the game for it.
For every strong card in Magic, there is another card which can beat it in some other way and then there's a card that can beat that one and so on and so forth. That is perfectly imbalanced which, overall, leads to a balanced game. Every player can have the tools to counter every opponent.
Plenty of MtG cards have (currently) no direct counter. Platinum Angel being the most blatant example (and also the most obvious "purposeful" example, there is no way it could be a mistake).
Avacyn, Angel of Hope is just a plain feth it to game balance.
They are simply very, very, very, very, very good cards. No downsides.
For every strong card in Magic, there is another card which can beat it in some other way and then there's a card that can beat that one and so on and so forth. That is perfectly imbalanced which, overall, leads to a balanced game. Every player can have the tools to counter every opponent.
Plenty of MtG cards have (currently) no direct counter. Platinum Angel being the most blatant example (and also the most obvious "purposeful" example, there is no way it could be a mistake).
Admittedly it's been a while since I've played, but are you seriously saying that there's no counter to a 4/4 creature?
Have they taken all the creature removal from black, all the direct damage from red and all the counter from blue?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and an 8 mana, 3 white creature is so slow to cast, if you're able to get it down on the table, you're probably winning regardless.
I also suspect "indestructible" may not be as obvious as it first appears as a game term.
Admittedly it's been a while since I've played, but are you seriously saying that there's no counter to a 4/4 creature?
Have they taken all the creature removal from black, all the direct damage from red and all the counter from blue?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and an 8 mana, 3 white creature is so slow to cast, if you're able to get it down on the table, you're probably winning regardless.
I also suspect "indestructible" may not be as obvious as it first appears as a game term.
Well, buy that logic, the Riptide isn't overpowered, since AP2 weapons exist, last I checked.
For what they do and how easy they are to get (and protect), they are not remotely balanced.
So, a 15 second Google, as I'm woefully out of date with magic, reveals this..
Which is apparently in regular circulation anyway.
So, yeah, this is like claiming the Riptide isn't overpowered. As long as every army had access to a 48" AP2 instant death weapon that conferred PE: Tau on its bearer and cost 10 points.
Also, with MTG, imbalance enriches the game via Draft formats, where the point is to work around the weaker cards. In Wargames there is no draft format, so imbalanced units usage is skewed.
So you acknowledge that their logistic side may quite likely be a major factor in their downturn?
I believe logistics would imply getting the product on the shelf and into the users hand, which has some blame. They are limited their product to their webstore which has negatives associated with it. A third party store gets a much smaller cut on website restricted products, souring their interest in further carrying GW. Unless they have a large player base, they're more likely to drop it*.
Price elasticity and customer service are not logistics and I believe these have equal merit. Also, their cost cutting measures are not well placed.
Essentially it's the drive for short term gains of a publicly traded organization versus the more sustainable approach of a private entity, their competitors.
*I have seen this sentiment given by many current and former game store owners over the past few years as I have traveled. They do not like the new trade agreements in place. I have yet to see one happy about it or "enjoying" selling GW product. More like it's a requirement for their customers rather than a want.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Also, with MTG, imbalance enriches the game via Draft formats, where the point is to work around the weaker cards. In Wargames there is no draft format, so imbalanced units usage is skewed.
Perhaps, but that does not preclude the possibility that imbalance can enrich other games (not necessarily 40K) in other ways.
Zweischneid, it boils down to the fact that you find any attempt at winning a game a ‘childish pursuit.’ So your talk of balance is merely obfuscation for your desire to play something where apparently none of your decisions really matter. In that context it is no wonder you support GW’s current rules writing. To you this game is simply a recreational activity, not a constraint with rules and competition.
Others disagree so vehemently because they have a vested interest in the latter, and are either unaware or just disappointed that GW moved the goal posts. GW’s bait and switch business model is catching up to them however; so don’t be surprised if the company changes its spots in the coming months.
Maybe the next discussion might benefit everyone if you just got to the point instead of leading everyone around like the pied piper of illogic…unless of course that’s how you get your kicks.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Also, with MTG, imbalance enriches the game via Draft formats, where the point is to work around the weaker cards. In Wargames there is no draft format, so imbalanced units usage is skewed.
Perhaps, but that does not preclude the possibility that imbalance can enrich other games (not necessarily 40K) in other ways.
Yeah, but a $60 model costs a lot more than any of the drafts I've gone to.
All I am saying is that (a) I like Warhammer 40K 6th Edition (personal bias) and (b) the things that speak to me in that product could be (but don't have to be) there as a result of intentional design.
As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.
Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.
To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).
And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).
To assume GW's decline is the direct cause of the rules seems improbable, especially as the game that took the biggest hit was Fantasy, not 40K.
Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.
Perfect Imbalance is not balance.
But for the sake of not using that example, X-Wing is another obvious other one.
Even if the TIE-Advanced is a "mistake" (and it might not be), powerful add-ons, a notorious example being the "Howlrunner" card, which encourages people to buy TIE-Fighters in the more expensive Expansion, rather than the discounted starter box, are clearly attempts to fish for money through overpowered additions to the game.
But it is darling. And also, stop using perfect imbalance as an example when you are just going to turn around and then say b-but i don't want m-mah 40k to have perfect imbalance.
amanita wrote: Zweischneid, it boils down to the fact that you find any attempt at winning a game a ‘childish pursuit.’ So your talk of balance is merely obfuscation for your desire to play something where apparently none of your decisions really matter. In that context it is no wonder you support GW’s current rules writing. To you this game is simply a recreational activity, not a constraint with rules and competition.
I never said I want to play something were decisions don't matter. The "childish" part was admittedly ill-considered, but you can only spend so much time amid people who mistake insults for arguments before slipping yourself a little bit. At least I do. I'll try to be better.
Others disagree so vehemently because they have a vested interest in the latter, and are either unaware or just disappointed that GW moved the goal posts. GW’s bait and switch business model is catching up to them however; so don’t be surprised if the company changes its spots in the coming months.
Possibly. If GW changes the game in ways that don't appeal to me, I will likely move on. If they (or another company) changes their game in ways that do appeal to me (as GW did with 6th Edition), that's where I will likely spend my money.
Maybe the next discussion might benefit everyone if you just got to the point instead of leading everyone around like the pied piper of illogic…unless of course that’s how you get your kicks.
All right. Let me try again.
(1) Imbalance (not arbitrary whatever-nothing-I-dont-care) can be used intentionally to enrich some games. Not all game designs strive for balance over imbalance in everything or all the time.
(2) Point systems can be used to create imbalance by providing unequal points to equal units, or equal points to unequal units
Ergo, the simple existence of a point system in a game - without any further information - does not allow the conclusion that balance was the game designer's intention.
amanita wrote: Zweischneid, it boils down to the fact that you find any attempt at winning a game a ‘childish pursuit.’ So your talk of balance is merely obfuscation for your desire to play something where apparently none of your decisions really matter. In that context it is no wonder you support GW’s current rules writing. To you this game is simply a recreational activity, not a constraint with rules and competition.
I never said I want to play something were decisions don't matter. The "childish" part was admittedly ill-considered, but you can only spend so much time amid people who mistake insults for arguments before slipping yourself a little bit. At least I do. I'll try to be better.
Others disagree so vehemently because they have a vested interest in the latter, and are either unaware or just disappointed that GW moved the goal posts. GW’s bait and switch business model is catching up to them however; so don’t be surprised if the company changes its spots in the coming months.
Possibly. If GW changes the game in ways that don't appeal to me, I will likely move on. If they (or another company) changes their game in ways that do appeal to me (as GW did with 6th Edition), that's where I will likely spend my money.
Maybe the next discussion might benefit everyone if you just got to the point instead of leading everyone around like the pied piper of illogic…unless of course that’s how you get your kicks.
All right. Let me try again.
(1) Imbalance (not arbitrary whatever-nothing-I-dont-care) can be used intentionally to enrich some games. Not all game designs strive for balance over imbalance in everything or all the time.
(2) Point systems can be used to create imbalance by providing unequal points to equal units, or equal points to unequal units
Ergo, the simple existence of a point system in a game - without any further information - does not allow the conclusion that balance was the game designer's intention.
And how is designing points to make imbalance good in a system that ensures that you are inferior in all ways and there is no balnce in the form of perfect imbalance
But it is darling. And also, stop using perfect imbalance as an example when you are just going to turn around and then say b-but i don't want m-mah 40k to have perfect imbalance.
Why not. People explicitly asked me to not use 40K as an example. Perfect Imbalance seems a good non-40K example that people here are familiar with.
If "Balance = Imperfect Imbalance", why is "Chess =/= MtG"?
But it is darling. And also, stop using perfect imbalance as an example when you are just going to turn around and then say b-but i don't want m-mah 40k to have perfect imbalance.
Why not. People explicitly asked me to not use 40K as an example. Perfect Imbalance seems a good non-40K example that people here are familiar with.
If "Balance = Imperfect Imbalance", why is "Chess =/= MtG"?
Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable. As I have said countless times.
The sky is blue. The sea is also blue. That does not mean that the sky is the sea which is what your logic would lead to.
Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable.
As I have said countless times.
Which is wrong.
Plenty of decks in MtG can not be beaten by certain other decks.
If I only bring a "fluffy" deck full of "Pentinent Engine"-equivalents to a MtG tourney, I'll have no chance of winning.
But it is darling. And also, stop using perfect imbalance as an example when you are just going to turn around and then say b-but i don't want m-mah 40k to have perfect imbalance.
Why not. People explicitly asked me to not use 40K as an example. Perfect Imbalance seems a good non-40K example that people here are familiar with.
If "Balance = Imperfect Imbalance", why is "Chess =/= MtG"?
Because balance isn't just one thing. Chess is mirror matches. That's how they make balance. In that way, MtG could even become chess. Just make it so the decks are stacked with the same cards and maybe in the same order as well. Imperfect imbalance is a double negative that promotes an overall balance. Everything has a counter, nothing is worthless. Even the weakest model has a use that can even curb stomp the overpowered guys thus making them good. It's balance, just a different form of balance than chess.
And why I did? Because you bring up perfect imbalance and then say you don't want 40k to be perfect imbalance. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? Well because it becomes balanced when you get perfect imbalance so the only way to have a true imbalanced game is if you either throw away points entirely or you continue to use points improperly.
Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable.
As I have said countless times.
Which is wrong.
Plenty of decks in MtG can not be beaten by certain other decks.
But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.
Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable.
As I have said countless times.
Which is wrong.
Plenty of decks in MtG can not be beaten by certain other decks.
Indeed. And this is a form of imperfect balance. It's all about cards. Thing is, both of those decks are good against other decks. There are going to be a few bad matchups, but there are relatively few. And even then, there is a way for that deck to beat those decks.
But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.
Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?
Nothing can win all the times but look at Screamerstar and Taudar. Bam there you go. Two armies that basically curb stomp a vast majority of other armies. Now play with your Tzeentch armies. Also, unlike MTG, my deck of Tzeentch really can't beat anything reliably. Never.
What i dont see about everybody harping on about "rules bad!, GW stupid, How dumb, OMG! lets change it however we want! is WTF is wrong with what weve got? its pretty good and its fun so why do we need idiots like...some...people...changing the game completely!
But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.
Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?
Screamerstar?
Folds immediately as soon as it touches a D-Weapon. Perfect counter.
But again, you guys are "shifting goal posts", as I've been accused off so often.
Why is MtG considered balanced (assuming perfect imbalance = balance), when I cannot bring a deck full of knowingly sub-par "Vespid"-equivalent and "Pentinent-Engine"-equivalent-cards, perhaps because I like the artwork, and a have a fair chance.
But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.
Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?
Screamerstar?
Folds immediately as soon as it touches a D-Weapon. Perfect counter.
Which counters basically everybody else as well. Curb stomps many armies with no chance of victory, requires a book most things ban, and is designed for a different game entirely. Plus there's not many good D-weapons. The only real big one was the eldar one which is capable of being with taudar which makes them better cool
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vargard Obi-wan wrote: What i dont see about everybody harping on about "rules bad!, GW stupid, How dumb, OMG! lets change it however we want! is WTF is wrong with what weve got? its pretty good and its fun so why do we need idiots like...some...people...changing the game completely!
Because GW is doing many a thing wrong. Look at their financial page, it's not confirmed unless they do badly again but it's not a good sign. Along with that, they have no PR which only makes matters worse whilst continuing to escalate prices. Along with that, the rules are bad. Look at the armies, look at the competitives. You'll see the same lists constantly dominating and certain codices will hardly exist. Even in casual it can be felt because there is no fun in playing a heldrake against a friend. It's an unbalanced game that punishes you. Or, please play a game with 3 exalted flamers of tzeentch in that lovely chariot. Then come back to me and explain how those things existing is good. Or explain to me how CSM Tzeentch is terrible. His rule being overpriced and bad, his icon being horrid, his special units being bad, his sorcerers being the worst, and his psyker table, the god of psykers, is the worst psyker table in the game.
Vargard Obi-wan wrote: What i dont see about everybody harping on about "rules bad!, GW stupid, How dumb, OMG! lets change it however we want! is WTF is wrong with what weve got? its pretty good and its fun so why do we need idiots like...some...people...changing the game completely!
If you can't see the areas where the game could be massively improved, then you probably don''t have a great grasp of the game in the first place.
There is a huge amount wrong with the game which could be fixed from the top down with just a bit of willing, if that isn't happening, then it is unsurprising that people may feel compelled to alter it themselves.
If the criteria for "balanced" for MtG is only that each deck has some counter, which army in 40K has absolutely no counter?
If 40K is allegedly "broken" because the Pentinent Engine is seen to be useless, how is MtG not "broken" despite cards like... dunno ... Razor Boomerang or Rod of Ruin?
If the criteria for "balanced" for MtG is only that each deck has some counter, which army in 40K has absolutely no counter?
The Waveserpent Riptide wraithknight army of course! Also, you ignored this:
Because balance isn't just one thing. Chess is mirror matches. That's how they make balance. In that way, MtG could even become chess. Just make it so the decks are stacked with the same cards and maybe in the same order as well. Imperfect imbalance is a double negative that promotes an overall balance. Everything has a counter, nothing is worthless. Even the weakest model has a use that can even curb stomp the overpowered guys thus making them good. It's balance, just a different form of balance than chess.
And why I did? Because you bring up perfect imbalance and then say you don't want 40k to be perfect imbalance. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? Well because it becomes balanced when you get perfect imbalance so the only way to have a true imbalanced game is if you either throw away points entirely or you continue to use points improperly.
StarTrotter wrote: . The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .
Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.
StarTrotter wrote: . The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .
Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.
Because "Unit X is garbage and you never want to take it" and "Unit Y is amazing, always take it" adds to the variety of games out there? Oh brother...
StarTrotter wrote: . The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .
Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.
.... so what you are saying is you want Ride to Hell and Aliens: Colonial Marines to exist because it provides bad games which thus make them worthy of existing and the notion of making them good is a bad idea? So a game that could be improved shouldn't because just because? I mean... huh?
StarTrotter wrote: . The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .
Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.
Because "Unit X is garbage and you never want to take it" and "Unit Y is amazing, always take it" adds to the variety of games out there? Oh brother...
Well, apparently people consider MtG to be balanced game
Nobody ever takes a Razor Boomerang or Rod of Ruin.
Why is MtG considered to be "balanced" and 40K considered to be broken.
StarTrotter wrote: . The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .
Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.
Because "Unit X is garbage and you never want to take it" and "Unit Y is amazing, always take it" adds to the variety of games out there? Oh brother...
Well, apparently people consider MtG to be balanced game
Nobody ever takes a Razor Boomerang or Rod of Ruin.
Why is MtG considered to be "balanced" and 40K considered to be broken.
Relative. MtG tries to and often succeeds. 40k barely tries and hurts more as the thing that sucks is 50 dollars on 70 or whatever dollars upon thousands of dollars of models.
Relative. MtG tries to and often succeeds. 40k barely tries and hurts more as the thing that sucks is 50 dollars on 70 or whatever dollars upon thousands of dollars of models.
MtG doesn't try to balance their cards. As shown, they purposefully let the power deviate for as much as 15% - each way - from what they know (or believe) to be balanced.
Why would they do that, if this - predictably - results in sub-par cards that nobody takes?
Relative. MtG tries to and often succeeds. 40k barely tries and hurts more as the thing that sucks is 50 dollars on 70 or whatever dollars upon thousands of dollars of models.
MtG doesn't try to balance their cards. As shown, they purposefully let the power deviate for as much as 15% - each way - from what they know (or believe) to be balanced.
Why would they do that, if this - predictably - results in sub-par cards that nobody takes?
Then why do they have bans, tournaments, tournaments with multiple restrictions, and an established plan. Thing is MtG has a method. A 15% rate of deviancy. GW doesn't have that, they have nothing. Even then, they do it for a multitude of reasons. One, more cards. Two, many of those sub par cards are built to have perks to make them useful, etc. But you won't care about that. You'll just do what you did to the X-Wing. Look at that one bad Tie Advanced despite how many concur it was a mistake.
Then why do they have bans, tournaments, tournaments with multiple restrictions, and an established plan. Thing is MtG has a method. A 15% rate of deviancy.
I don't believe the Razor Boomerang is banned. It's just useless.
A method that intentionallyimbalances individual elements of the game, even though specific elements of the game become useless, because it creates positive dynamics for the game as a whole.
Then why do they have bans, tournaments, tournaments with multiple restrictions, and an established plan. Thing is MtG has a method. A 15% rate of deviancy.
Yes.
A method that intentionallyimbalances individual elements of the game, even though specific elements of the game become useless, because it creates positive dynamics for the game as a whole.
Game Design using imbalance 101.
Yes perfect imbalance is used. Here's the problem, you don't want that for 40k. So it means... NOTHING! Nothing at all. It creates positive dynamics.... but look at the game of 40k? Where is this positive dynamic? Where is this fluid meta? No, it's stagnant. It's not perfect imbalance so your usage of it means little and that you don't even want that means using it as a source is entirely pointless.
Yes perfect imbalance is used. Here's the problem, you don't want that for 40k. So it means... NOTHING! Nothing at all. It creates positive dynamics.... but look at the game of 40k? Where is this positive dynamic? Where is this fluid meta? No, it's stagnant. It's not perfect imbalance so your usage of it means little and that you don't even want that means using it as a source is entirely pointless.
Well, I kept being asked how making the Pentinent Engine "more useful" would be a bad thing for 40K? Why is it not done?
How would making the Razor Boomerang "more useful" be a bad thing for MtG? Why is it not done?
The answer is the same for both.
The imbalance of individual units is a perfectly valid game-design technique.
If the mere existence of the Razor Boomerang does not in itself prove that MtG is "broken", than the mere existence of the Pentinent Engine does not prove that 40K is "broken".
Yes perfect imbalance is used. Here's the problem, you don't want that for 40k. So it means... NOTHING! Nothing at all. It creates positive dynamics.... but look at the game of 40k? Where is this positive dynamic? Where is this fluid meta? No, it's stagnant. It's not perfect imbalance so your usage of it means little and that you don't even want that means using it as a source is entirely pointless.
Well, I kept being asked how making the Pentinent Engine "more useful" would be a bad thing for 40K? Why is it not done?
How would making the Razor Boomerang "more useful" be a bad thing for MtG? Why is it not done?
The answer is the same for both.
The imbalance of individual units is a perfectly valid game-design technique.
If the mere existence of the Razor Boomerang does not in itself prove that MtG is "broken", than the mere existence of the Pentinent Engine does not prove that 40K is "broken".
Yeah the existence of the Penitent Engine doesn't prove that 40k is broken. It's basically every other unit as well that does. Have a good day.
Zweischneid wrote: Plenty of MtG cards have (currently) no direct counter. Platinum Angel being the most blatant example (and also the most obvious "purposeful" example, there is no way it could be a mistake).
...
You have got to be kidding. Or at least you lack even the slightest understanding of MTG if you think platinum angels are uncounterable, or even playable in most formats. It's an expensive medium-size creature that dies to creature removal and artifact removal, can be bounced back to your hand (at which point you instantly lose), can be counterspelled, can be killed in combat, etc. Honestly, if you can't deal with one then you just suck at MTG and should probably stop trying to explain how it is or isn't balanced.
Avacyn, Angel of Hope is just a plain feth it to game balance.
Wait, you are actually serious about this. See that 5WWW in the top right corner? You're probably dead before you get to play her, and if you manage to hold off your opponent that long you deserve a powerful card. And even then she can still be bounced back to your hand, countered, exiled, or just ignored in favor of killing you. Your "feth it to game balance" card is a junk rare that would only see play in very casual groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: Why would they do that, if this - predictably - results in sub-par cards that nobody takes?
Hint: MTG has sealed and draft formats as well as constructed. 40k doesn't.
Hint: MTG has sealed and draft formats as well as constructed. 40k doesn't.
I never claimed that 40K had a draft.
I only said that games (and specifically non-40K games, which was asked of me) intentionally use imbalance in game design.
Magic: the Gathering clearly seems to do so, and a "casual" (see above) deck of or "Pentinent Engine"-equivalent cards chosen for "I like the background" in MtG will not stand up a fine-tuned "Screamerstar"-equivalent top-tournament deck made specifically to win games, and win them hard.
Hint: MTG has sealed and draft formats as well as constructed. 40k doesn't.
I never claimed that 40K had a draft.
I only said that games (and specifically non-40K games, which was asked of me) intentionally use imbalance in game design.
Magic: the Gathering clearly seems to do so, and a "casual" (see above) deck of or "Pentinent Engine"-equivalent cards chosen for "I like the background" in MtG will not stand up a fine-tuned "Screamerstar"-equivalent top-tournament deck made specifically to win games, and win them hard.
Correct?
Nope. Because Magic actually cares and GW cares enough to give points but nothing more than thinking "Our fans biggest hobby is buying our stuff"
Also, the card still has a use unlike the flaming chariot which is literally unplayable. Oh, and don't forget the Legion of the Damned which auto-lose turn one
I can only surmise from this that either you really are a masochist, and getting repeatedly told how wrong you are by strangers in the Internet is right up there with playing 40K "the right way" for you in terms of getting your kicks, you're a troll, or you're too dumb to walk away from a fight you have no hope of winning.
Either way, I haven't played a game of Magic in nigh on 15 years, and I can see that you've not got a clue how to play the game, or even a tentative grasp on the basic mechanics, so prolly best you stop trying to support yourself with samples for it, no?
ing kidding me? I could give you credit for a Thousand Son army but two things. One, why is it that a Thosand Son army works less than a White Scar army? Explain to me this. Along with this, how is it that a Tzeentch list is a poor list. Explain to me this. Tell me how I should just give up on Tzeentch because his mark, his spells, his everything suck besides his daemon prince? Is this good balance? You know what, I hardly play it because it sucks. Then again, I hardly play 
. Maybe adding in a riptide for good measure?