Sim-Life wrote: But again, IH are a temporary outlier that will get nerfed in March (if not before), so you can't really base an argument on the overall state of the game on one temporary cherry picked example.
Pick any army that has been OP then. The same point applies. One person can pick a "weak" army and one person can pick a "strong" army and they will never have a good game because one person's army is garbage and one person's army is good. That is the opposite of "good enough for casual play"
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Narrative players (which, incidentally, is only a term that GW seem to have created in 6th to excuse their own wooly writing) are the most likely to adapt the rules to suit their purposes, therefore the argument has to be in favour of a tight ruleset for people who do play to determine a winner and loser, because modifying a tight ruleset is infinitely easier than tightening a loose one.
Sim-Life wrote: But again, IH are a temporary outlier that will get nerfed in March (if not before), so you can't really base an argument on the overall state of the game on one temporary cherry picked example.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
It's easier to omit parts of a ruleset than it is to invent and include new rules. Especially when it comes to agreeing houserules with your opponent. If someone find the rules are "good enough" to work for what they want, then that's totally fine, and within their right to say. Likewise, if someone finds the rules are not "good enough" then that's also fine, and they can ask for such. When it comes down to it, this is a very subjective area, and comes down to the individual and their own group. But for me, I'd rather have a tighter ruleset that I can exclude rules from, than a basic ruleset that I would have to invent my own ruleset to add to it.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
Sim-Life wrote: But again, IH are a temporary outlier that will get nerfed in March (if not before), so you can't really base an argument on the overall state of the game on one temporary cherry picked example.
Scatterbikes + D Weapons and Battle Demi-Company existing last edition, and the broke ass formations besides that in 7th? The interaction of Roboute and Asscanbacks existing until the new codex? Conscripts having to be nerfed to be the same exactly damn points as an existing unit that's still more broken than other armies' troops? The broken Castellan that took a whole year to actually nerf properly somehow? Or how about wound allocation making it impossible to kill Paladins in 5th? In 6th where Wave Serpents were shooting better than their own army's dedicated firing platforms, let alone other armies with their own tanks?
I'm not even CLOSE to finished, but sure call it "oh you're just cherry picking this right now the game is fine".
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
That's why it's not good enough at any level: The game tells you pick what you think is cool, and then turns around and kicks you in the balls if you picked one of the factions that haven't gotten love.
Exactly.
Years ago, my wife thought Tyranids were cool, so she bought some. She's not super competitive, she just likes to take units that appeal to her (Gaunts and Zoanthropes, mostly) and have fun. End result: she lost every single game she played with someone who wasn't me, and didn't have any fun. Eventually she didn't want to play any more, even with me.
Balance is *more* important for "casual" or "narrative" players, not less.
In 6th where Wave Serpents were shooting better than their own army's dedicated firing platforms, let alone other armies with their own tanks?
Now that was truly funny. I remember the run on Wave Serpents was so bad they were shipped in white Citadel boxes with build instructions printed off a copier and stapled.
We’re deep into the disingenuous arguments in this thread I see!
Narrative as a tag is not new or “invented by GW in 6th”.
Historical wargamers like to refight battles. The outcome is known and the dice may end up changing history. This isn’t pointless, and people enjoy it.
Some of these Historical games have very simple rules with just Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery and Officer unit types. They can still allow the players to tell a story and have memorable moments even without special rules.
Bringing up examples of bad balance from 5th and 6th does nothing to refute that GW is updating the game twice a year with FAQs and points changes. You might as well point out 2nd’s Virus Grenade if you wanna go full cliche.
Memorable moments crop up when It’s crucial that a roll succeeds, or a unit succeeds against the odds. Mathhammer cant predict these. The players bring that spirit to the table irrespective of rules.
There are so many ways to enjoy the game. It’s kinda sad how many threads become “you’re playing it wrong” or “if you enjoy this you are [insert epithet]”. Stop telling other people how to have fun...
Balance is not a problem for casual games within a fixed group, as you can use house-rules to overcome it
Balance is not an issue for high competitive games, as everyone will just take the flavour of the week and use it.
Balance is an issue for those in between, and this is most likely the majority of the people.
Competitive games were the TO want to make Codex hopping/borrowing armies impossible (so if you did not choose the current top army by accident a year ago, no chance to be within the top tier)
Pick up games, or casual events were people want to play the stock game, or the process on agreeing to some house-rules takes longer than actual playing the game
Narrative is a thing, but GW does not really support it.
It is not new, neither in TT in general nor for GW, and it is the thing were the old "no points needed to have fun" comes from.
Burt than you need a lot of Scenarios with different pre-made army lists that you gonna use
Just the "play narrative but do everything on your own" does not work, as those how want to do it don't need GW for it, and those who don't want to do all on their own are in the same situation as before
Balance Issues are a problem for casual pick-up games, for non high-competitive events, new players or those who base their army/unit choice on fluff.
and just because other games have minor balance issues in the high competitive scene, does not mean that GW should not even start trying to get a game done that is playable out of the box without the need of house-rules (and yes, additional limits to the unit choice to make armies not as strong in casual games are house-rules too)
If people want competitive values quite so badly, and GW does not officially support it. Why not make organization specific point values? Toss them on to relics and warlord traits while you're at it. Sure it's a lot of work, yes yes I'm sure you think GW should do it for you, but they aren't. You all clearly know better, why not put that to use.
Do something like say a guardsman is worth 10 points, and work your way out from there. Chaos cultists and conscripts maybe 8, Genestealer cultists probably 9 or 10. Even I was screwing around with things like this to see where space marines should sit cost wise, and frankly, I think the game is plenty salvageable with redone points, but no one is going to like how much their big center piece models cost after being priced fairly.
Jep exactly these. I don't get it. All tournament using own rules and house rules but still cry ofer bad balance? Hell give own house ruled points if you don't play the official game
I shouldn't have a need to talk to my opponent about how the game is played in terms of lists outside point levels, period. There's a bizarre disconnect there for the CAAC crowd here that you're suddenly anti-socializing because of that. In reality that's more time put into an already long game as is. Could I talk to my opponent asking where he got that awesome Relic Blade proxy? Yeah that's cool. Could I talk to my opponent asking them to please oh pretty please don't use their nicely painted Dark Reapers? No that's just stupid.
If people want competitive values quite so badly, and GW does not officially support it. Why not make organization specific point values? Toss them on to relics and warlord traits while you're at it. Sure it's a lot of work, yes yes I'm sure you think GW should do it for you, but they aren't. You all clearly know better, why not put that to use.
Do something like say a guardsman is worth 10 points, and work your way out from there. Chaos cultists and conscripts maybe 8, Genestealer cultists probably 9 or 10. Even I was screwing around with things like this to see where space marines should sit cost wise, and frankly, I think the game is plenty salvageable with redone points, but no one is going to like how much their big center piece models cost after being priced fairly.
It's too hard to reach a consensus. Here's the thing envisage a group of competitive players playing a perfectly balanced game, they only have two factions to use. Even if 40k was only two, perfectly balanced factions people would still complain about balance because there are too many other variables to account for and confirmation bias is a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I shouldn't have a need to talk to my opponent about how the game is played in terms of lists outside point levels, period. There's a bizarre disconnect there for the CAAC crowd here that you're suddenly anti-socializing because of that. In reality that's more time put into an already long game as is. Could I talk to my opponent asking where he got that awesome Relic Blade proxy? Yeah that's cool. Could I talk to my opponent asking them to please oh pretty please don't use their nicely painted Dark Reapers? No that's just stupid.
Except thats not at all how it is. Generally you agree on a points level before hand and when we turn up inform the opponent of any non-WYSIWYG models and away we go. Generally people don't spam models in casual games. Your assumption that all casual players operate at the same "spam X unit to win" method of playing as competitive players. Most casual games I've played over my 20 or so years most lists consist of a single version of a given unit unless its a Troops choice or the army in question has limited options in a such a given role.
I feel balance is a spectrum.
IMO at least 8th is far more balanced than 7th.
Yes, if you bring Grey Knights, and someone brings IH, you are at a disadvantage. But I don't feel you have a 0% chance to win the game - and by contrast in 7th, I feel if you played say CSM, Orks, Tyranids without Flying Hive Tyrant Spam etc, you had essentially a 0% chance versus Eldar, Tau, Marines. You did no damage, while they casually swept you from the table.
Every Chapter Approved GW make things "better". The bad units get buffs - the always takes get nerfed. Is this mathematically perfect? No.
But again - its a spectrum.
Moving from:
|----------------------|
to:
|--------|
Is improvement.
Are Ironhands (and the SM factions in general) out of whack? Yes - so enjoy the next 12 months. Because I am confident they will be nerfed by this time next year.
If you create a game where you have a 50% win rate regardless of what faction you play, regardless of what units you bring, regardless of how you use them on the table, you are not creating balance, you are essentially making winning or losing a random consequence of the dice. Which is not (imo again) good for the game. You want a bit of random luck - so yes, the mathematically inferior choices can still sometimes win - but I don't want list building and decision making to become irrelevant.
Which is another point about balance. On this forum people always seem to get "average" dice. They never roll badly or well. So we are meant to believe the mathematically superior faction (and in turn the inferior faction) have a 100%/0% win rate respectively. Thats just not true.
Now obviously if one faction has say a 60% chance to win and another has only a 40% chance to win, its going to skew tournaments. The odds of winning 5 games in a row on purely this luck basis, is nearly 8% for the 60% player, and just 1% for the 40% player. If very few players play the 40% faction - and a huge number play the 60% faction - it should not be surprising that the 40% faction almost never wins 5 games.
This isn't to say a faction with a 40% win rate is in a good place and shouldn't be buffed - but you play 5 games, you should expect to win 2. This is not "unplayable".
This screed might be a bit white knighting - but I am still enjoying 40k, Marine burnout or no, and struggle with the view it isn't a lot better than its been for this decade at least.
Tyel wrote: I feel balance is a spectrum.
IMO at least 8th is far more balanced than 7th.
Yes, if you bring Grey Knights, and someone brings IH, you are at a disadvantage. But I don't feel you have a 0% chance to win the game - and by contrast in 7th, I feel if you played say CSM, Orks, Tyranids without Flying Hive Tyrant Spam etc, you had essentially a 0% chance versus Eldar, Tau, Marines. You did no damage, while they casually swept you from the table.
Every Chapter Approved GW make things "better". The bad units get buffs - the always takes get nerfed. Is this mathematically perfect? No.
But again - its a spectrum.
Moving from:
|----------------------|
to:
|--------|
Is improvement.
Are Ironhands (and the SM factions in general) out of whack? Yes - so enjoy the next 12 months. Because I am confident they will be nerfed by this time next year.
If you create a game where you have a 50% win rate regardless of what faction you play, regardless of what units you bring, regardless of how you use them on the table, you are not creating balance, you are essentially making winning or losing a random consequence of the dice. Which is not (imo again) good for the game. You want a bit of random luck - so yes, the mathematically inferior choices can still sometimes win - but I don't want list building and decision making to become irrelevant.
Which is another point about balance. On this forum people always seem to get "average" dice. They never roll badly or well. So we are meant to believe the mathematically superior faction (and in turn the inferior faction) have a 100%/0% win rate respectively. Thats just not true.
Now obviously if one faction has say a 60% chance to win and another has only a 40% chance to win, its going to skew tournaments. The odds of winning 5 games in a row on purely this luck basis, is nearly 8% for the 60% player, and just 1% for the 40% player. If very few players play the 40% faction - and a huge number play the 60% faction - it should not be surprising that the 40% faction almost never wins 5 games.
This isn't to say a faction with a 40% win rate is in a good place and shouldn't be buffed - but you play 5 games, you should expect to win 2. This is not "unplayable".
This screed might be a bit white knighting - but I am still enjoying 40k, Marine burnout or no, and struggle with the view it isn't a lot better than its been for this decade at least.
The 40% win rate player in this example doesnt have a 1% chance to win but rather 0,1% or maybe even much less. His 40% chance to win is against mostly other bad armies and against marines for example he might only have a 10 % chance to win.
Go look up the stats for the sub 45% win rate armies against marines and you see many of them have closer to 10-20% win rates.
Only reason it doesnt go lower than 30-40% is that the meta isnt only marines. But if he is unlucky and there are 50% marines at a tournament then it means lots of marine players will win against other marines and put marines over the whole playing field and not just the top. An unlucky Blood Angels player (before the new PA is what im taking stats for) might then have 5 games in a row against codex marines with each game having a 10% chance to win. For him to win that tournament would need a miracle and most likely he will go 0-5 and get crushed in most games. He could get lucky and win a game to then be crushed for the rest of the event.
Balance is way worse than it might seem. I have heard of tournaments losing up to 50% of the players because they dont want to face marines and marines some times being close to 50% of the participants. The above example could be a reality and not many want to spend time and money and risk having a ruined weekend.
My team decided to skip a 3 day event in a nearby city due to rules being locked before the IHfaq. Why go there and risk just losing the whole team match if one of the 4 opponents had an IH list, having them automatically start with 1-0 in a best of 4 isnt worth spending lots of money on.
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
It might surprise you to realise that we as players also have the power and abilities to make, break and modify rules on the fly to serve the narrative. We have been doing this for 5 years in our group and we are far from the only ones. It is also possible to have an umpire or third party help organise or build the games. Even if it's not explicitly stated in the rules, plenty players, especially in the historical sphere do this.
Just because a game is adversarial doesn't mean that both players can't collaborate on building an interesting and fair game prior to the dice being rolled. Or for one player to take the lead and build a game and the other to trust them that it will be a fair one. Again, quite a common approach outside of the competitiv scene. Saying because it's adversarial, and therefore none of this can happen or there can be no cooperation is silly, small minded and leads down the road to competitive at all cost and the idea that there is no kinship, everyone is an island, everyone is an opponent just to be beaten and you must do everything in your power, nothing else matters and you must sacrifice every other aspect on the altar to get that win.
while I agree that a narrative is, as you say, 'the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct', I disagree that the
construct allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. What game you play, what scenario you use/build, the terrain set up,any other 'twists' to use the Warcry term etc. All of that is a factor.
40k is fine for narrative games. It's got lore. It's got mechanics that try to bring the lore to life. As do all other games. I've had narrative games of warmachine/hordes and infinity, flames of war and other historicals. I genuinely enjoy this approach and apply it to all games. 40k is no better or worse as fundamentally, 'narrative" is an approach brought to the table by the players, not something any set of rules can do by themselves. Where 40k falls down for me is that it's a clunky interface. Think of a computer game with awkward controls where you have too many things that you can do that require too many buttons pressed in awkward ways and a menu system that is crude and barely functional. You can work with it, for sure. the source material is so rich that oftentimes this can overcome the awkwardness, but let's be fair - I like my game mechanics like my power - green and clean. There could be less bloat,less dice rolling, simpler resolutions, etc. That said, like any other game, 40k is fine for narrative games, so long as you approach it the right way.
And funnily enough, regarding the RPGs comment, I've seen terrible gm's and I've seen awful munchkin powergamers that were only interested in crushing their peers. It's not as separate as you might think.
Historical wargamers like to refight battles. The outcome is known and the dice may end up changing history. This isn’t pointless, and people enjoy it.
No. Please don't take this as a criticism, but...
Historical wargamers sometimes refight battles. But historicals are so much more. Reenactments are less of a thing than you realise, at least in my experience - no different to following the vraks campaign or something like that for 40k. Mostly, historicals seek to represent 'reflective' battles of a particular era - the kind of battle between your celts and my Romans 'that could have happened' , such as a raid, a siege, a set-piece, an ambush etc rather than specifically relighting the battle of x. Truth be told, the historical record is patchy, with huge holes and there is a vast tapestry to play with and bring to life. It's a lot more open ended that players of fantasy and sci fi games often realise.
Is it that time again? Ok, well lets do a quick summary of the last 20 years or so to save everyone some time.
Player 1: 40k is meant to be competitive.
Player 2: No its not
Player 1: GW should make the game more balanced so we can have better competition.
Player 2 (Probably paid by Gdubs): YOU AREN"T FORGING THE NARRATIVE HARD ENOUGH!
Sorry that was too much fun
Seriously though it boils down to this. You have a huge player base that DOES NOT play competitively and loves the game and a smaller player base that plays tournaments and competitively. Both think the game has issues and needs things addressed. Here is the kicker though.....
The tournament players want the game to be more balanced because it will make the tournament scene more fun. Guess what Casual players? That would make your games more fun as well! Unless you happen to be that random WAAC casual player who takes borderline NET lists to "Friendly" games; you will only be happier if the game becomes more balanced.
I play both casual and tournaments. I would love to be able to take more of my models to tournaments and I would love to play more casual games where my army isn't at a massive handicap from the start of the game.
Also, almost every game at its roots is a competitive game. Saying you dont want balance because you don't view the game as competitive is just silly. Would you ever play Tick Tack Toe if X got to have 2 moves instead of 1? No. Balance makes games more enjoyable. If you want to play casually that is absolutely fine and I encourage it. But how would balance ruin that? It wouldn't, it would just make it better and make competitive games more balanced.
Sim-Life wrote: If you don't want a weekend ruined then don't play in tournaments. Just arrange a game with a friend and have fun, like GW intended.
I like to have fun games against players I havent met before or players I havent seen in a long time. Just playing at our small club against the same players and same armies every week isnt that fun compared to tournaments.
Im just keeping it to events in my city while the game isnt so balanced so if im unlucky or everyone is with a marine infested event I can just pack up and go home and only lose 10-20€ instead of 10x that amount for a weekend somewhere else.
Think I have only had 1 bad tournament game so far due to a bad opponent and I have played 40k 4th/5th/8th, WFB, Warmachine and Blood Bowl tournaments. Tabletop tournament gamers are usually awewome so it sucks that the rules we use arent.
Sim-Life wrote: If you don't want a weekend ruined then don't play in tournaments. Just arrange a game with a friend and have fun, like GW intended.
I like to have fun games against players I havent met before or players I havent seen in a long time. Just playing at our small club against the same players and same armies every week isnt that fun compared to tournaments.
Im just keeping it to events in my city while the game isnt so balanced so if im unlucky or everyone is with a marine infested event I can just pack up and go home and only lose 10-20€ instead of 10x that amount for a weekend somewhere else.
Think I have only had 1 bad tournament game so far due to a bad opponent and I have played 40k 4th/5th/8th, WFB, Warmachine and Blood Bowl tournaments. Tabletop tournament gamers are usually awewome so it sucks that the rules we use arent.
My point was more that if playing in tournaments isn't enjoyable for some people, maybe they shouldn't be playing at tournament level? I played in Warmachine tournaments for a while because thats what the game was based around but I got sick of everyone bringing their factions top tier list because everyone was always using tournaments as practice for the next big Master/IG/WTC so I never had fun with my weird casual lists. I stopped playing at tournament level and guess what? Suddenly the game was fun again.
I get that some people find competitive level play fun but expecting 40k to be the game for that just isn't going to happen. It's always going to be balanced for casual level play.
Is it though? My first 8th edition games were quite casual and they were some of the worst games I have ever had in a tabletop game.
Do you know how terribly bad a BA list with terminators in a land raider, whirlwind, devastators, predator, furioso dread, MM attack bike, 10 man tactical marines, non smash captain HQs and a bunch of assault marines are?
At least with my more competetive lists as a BA player I get much more of a game out of it. The game isnt balanced at all at a casual level unless you spend a bunch of time pre game houseruling stuff or tailor lists for a close game. You have to spend more effort getting a balanced matchup in casual games than if using tournament lists.
If people want competitive values quite so badly, and GW does not officially support it. Why not make organization specific point values? Toss them on to relics and warlord traits while you're at it. Sure it's a lot of work, yes yes I'm sure you think GW should do it for you, but they aren't. You all clearly know better, why not put that to use.
We already had this, it took 1 and a half Edition to get people into using that and it was thrown way as soon as GW announced a new Edtion because "GW will solve all problems now and we don't need it any more"
At the end of 7th we were also close to the point were people were ready to accept a community comp system (deep changes were always out of question is it would stop the game from being 40k, except when GW made something similar but even going a step further, than it was the best 40k ever) but as soon as 8th hit and a "GW will adress balance issues with point changes on their own", it was over again as GW will take care and everything is perfect.
In the end, 8th was better than 7th at the beginning and now is the same as all editions at the end of their live. Nothing new or special.
People again fight for a community comp/point system as GW proofed again (as with every edition so far) to be not be able to get out of their power creep and bloated style of faction rules
But whatever the community will do, it will be worth nothing as soon as 9th hit as "it will be the edition were GW will finally make a good game"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: If you don't want a weekend ruined then don't play in tournaments. Just arrange a game with a friend and have fun, like GW intended.
If I want to have a fun game with friends, I play everything but 40k
It is just that 40k is the one game were you will find larger events everywhere and playing outside your usual group and meet other people with other armies is a thing for a lot of people.
You would think by this time people would realize that GW in general and the 40k team in particular aren't capable of making a good game (with the possible exception of the LOTR game which actually was pretty good and the self-contained games). For whatever reason, intentional or incompetence or overwhelmed with work, they never have and probably never will without essentially changing direction from a model company that oh yeah has that game thing too back to a game company that sells both a tabletop wargame and high quality gaming models that are also great for display. As long as the game is an afterthought to the models the game will suffer. It should be a tag team effort and it's not anymore.
The 40k team in particular just seems to be trash at rules. But remember it's mostly the same guys from 6th and 7th edition's "forge the narrative" (Cruddace, Grant, maybe He Who Must Not Be Named, etc.) so not exactly designers with a good track record. At least the AOS team is new and has at least one tournament player.
I consider myself a narrative player but I still want tighter balance.
I know Iron Hands are the to to example, but there are loads of imbalanced interactions at the narrative level. Consider mono-Slaanesh Daemons (fluffy and narrative) vs. gunline Imperial Guard or Tau, just as an example.
Right this very moment I am playing a map campaign with my friends and it is turning into an arms race. Everything started narratively, but because there are things on the line with each game (map regions, bragging rights, narrative promotions, character levels, etc) people are beginning to break things more and more to try to win. I don't blame them though - blame GW. The new Marine Book dropped, which forced the Chaos players into a more soupy meta build. CSM squads, what should be the core of the army, disappeared overnight, just as an example. The fact that we had any in the first place is a testament to my player's dedication in the narrative but it is unsustainable to simply lose every narrative game because of bad balance.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me. Wolsung Miniature Game was born as a utility to resolve skirmishes that arose as a part of Wolsung pen&paper RPG. Inq28/Inquisimunda exist solely for playing out narratives. The core of Oldmunda was 2nd ed 40k and made a great narrative system for nearly two decades - campaign layer of Necromunda is just an additional level of the story, not the sole narrative element... People, including names like John Blanche, have been using 40k as a narrative tool for three decades and what, should suddenly stop doing that and apologize for being dumb enough to hammer screws? Or is it more plausible to assume that some other people have a mindset too narrow to see how 40k can be used this way?
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
nataliereed1984 wrote: or the Castellan, they correct that with FAQ / Errata as quickly as they can.
If they corrected it as quickly as they could it wouldn't have taken nearly a year to address it.
Castellans came out in June of 2018, which was far too close to Fall FAQ and CA given the printing delays. So they took a swing at it in March through soup and when that wasn't enough they knocked it down in September.
GW moved forward on it consistently and I'm skeptical a faster timeline for most balance changes is wise, but with the patch to IH they might be more willing to do that in the future.
I don't accept that it has to be one or the other, how about you develop and test something competently and THEN release it.
Sure, I dont disagree, but they're clearly understaffed and you have to weigh getting everyone's books out fast or doing it proper.
Layer on top the fact that they're still changing the dynamic of the game, which makes it hard to keep all the books on the same playing field.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me. Wolsung Miniature Game was born as a utility to resolve skirmishes that arose as a part of Wolsung pen&paper RPG. Inq28/Inquisimunda exist solely for playing out narratives. The core of Oldmunda was 2nd ed 40k and made a great narrative system for nearly two decades - campaign layer of Necromunda is just an additional level of the story, not the sole narrative element... People, including names like John Blanche, have been using 40k as a narrative tool for three decades and what, should suddenly stop doing that and apologize for being dumb enough to hammer screws? Or is it more plausible to assume that some other people have a mindset too narrow to see how 40k can be used this way?
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
THIS.
Also, this is exactly why I don't want a flat wound role in regular 40k. For Apocalypse, sure, that makes sense, but in 40k, I want there to be distinct differences between the question of whether you missed, whether you hit but the person was so hardcore they just shrugged it off, whether you hit but the person's armor or forcefield or whatever soaked it up, or whether you hit and actually managed to hurt or kill the enemy. Because that way we play out the story of a battle, with particular things happening in particular ways, as appropriate to the units and their lore and what weapon you used and so on.
Why all the sudden talk about tight vs loose rules?
Those have nothing to do with how competitive the battle is. You could have a system that is both simultaneously competitively balanced and also narratively simulationist.
I think that is the desired end-state.
Simulationism is at odds with casual playability, not competitive viability.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me
Which isn't what I was saying, was it? Suboptimal =/= cannot. Hit a scew with a hammer, screw still ends up embedded in the wood, there's just better ways of doing it.
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
Good oh, except none of that was all that pertinent to my point. An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." Your examples are still mathematical constructs and still rely exclusively on the player(s) to take random outcomes of probability and try and weave them into a story. A story which will only ever be a variation on "I ran towards him, decided to hit/shoot/lightning bolt him in the face and did/didn't do it, then I/he ran away." Or, for variety, "I hid near the important thing for an arbitrary amount of time and didn't die."
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
And, what, it's optimized instead for competition? Is that what you're claiming? Cos at that point, I feel like you and I are just living in completely different realities.
Also, this is exactly why I don't want a flat wound role in regular 40k. For Apocalypse, sure, that makes sense, but in 40k, I want there to be distinct differences between the question of whether you missed, whether you hit but the person was so hardcore they just shrugged it off, whether you hit but the person's armor or forcefield or whatever soaked it up, or whether you hit and actually managed to hurt or kill the enemy. Because that way we play out the story of a battle, with particular things happening in particular ways, as appropriate to the units and their lore and what weapon you used and so on.
40k is already too big to have such rules working properly
There is no reason to have the detailed heroic story of each of your 100 grunts laid out by the dice on the table
current 40k at 2000 points is already Apocalypse size of the past, while still using rules for small a small 500 point Skirmish system.
this is also a reason why there is a balance issue, the size of the game is outside the sweetspot of the rules
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
playing and losing is fine, getting leafblown by nu-army 2.0 with little to no retort not so much and whilst rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock will always exist in most games the apparent lack of joined up design in 40k makes in somewhat more prone to that
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
playing and losing is fine, getting leafblown by nu-army 2.0 with little to no retort not so much and whilst rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock will always exist in most games the apparent lack of joined up design in 40k makes in somewhat more prone to that
But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that two narrative players will always have too much conflict of interest for it to be a narratively focused game, because there's a winner and loser at all, of any kind.
There is no reason to have the detailed heroic story of each of your 100 grunts laid out by the dice on the table
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
Azreal13 wrote: An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." .
You are seriously underestimating how many of us don't mind losing the toy soldier game if we had a good time playing it.
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
And, what, it's optimized instead for competition? Is that what you're claiming? Cos at that point, I feel like you and I are just living in completely different realities.
You're doing a very good job of strawmanning my posts and arguing points I didn't make. How do you know how many people I think don't mind losing? How do you know I'm not one of them? The reality is that in order not to compromise the narrative both players have to not mind losing by the same amount, which is effectively "totally not mind at all." That does not describe all players.
Frankly, I don't think 40K is optimised for anything, precisely because it seems to want to please everyone. But I honestly don't think it's all that fun of a game even if it were perfectly balanced. It's a modified version of a 40 odd year old rule set, and modern games do, for my taste, expose the limitations.
This doesn't mean I'm criticising people who enjoy playing it, but I do think it retains its popularity in part because there seem to be so many people who play it to exclusion, or inhabit GWs ecosystem exclusively and therefore don't gain a perspective outside that.
How do you know how many people I think don't mind losing?
Resisting the urge to all caps here, but:
Because you literally just argued that absolutely everyone who plays the game is so worried about losing that they can't possibly collaborate in good faith on a narrative set-up.
Look, frankly, I think you either play in gaming circles that are wildly different than the ones I do, or you have a really inaccurate grasp on how other players actually think and feel. Either way, I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere debating this, because we're not even coming from the same agreed upon reality of what 40k games and the people who play them are actually like.
But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that two narrative players will always have too much conflict of interest for it to be a narratively focused game, because there's a winner and loser at all, of any kind.
No it wasn't!!! It was that finding two players who equally prioritised the story over winning was hard, not that it was impossible, hence "all but the most sympatico" did you miss this or just misunderstand it?
Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
You started it.
ETA I just saw your second response, you need to read what I'm writing, and not argue what you think I'm saying in your head.
Azrael, you've been arguing for pages on end that the game inherently doesn't work for a type of play that has been constantly done by thousands and thousands of people over the course of 30 years, and that the game is not designed and optimized for the way it is played by the actual people who designed it. And you're now in straight up "you started it!!!" territory. So yeah, I think we're done. You know. Like I said several posts ago. We're not going to get anywhere debating this, because we apparently are not even arguing from the same base premises of reality.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me
Which isn't what I was saying, was it? Suboptimal =/= cannot. Hit a scew with a hammer, screw still ends up embedded in the wood, there's just better ways of doing it.
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
Good oh, except none of that was all that pertinent to my point. An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." Your examples are still mathematical constructs and still rely exclusively on the player(s) to take random outcomes of probability and try and weave them into a story. A story which will only ever be a variation on "I ran towards him, decided to hit/shoot/lightning bolt him in the face and did/didn't do it, then I/he ran away." Or, for variety, "I hid near the important thing for an arbitrary amount of time and didn't die."
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
I think the crux here lies in difference of "narrative" definition between you and me - what I and Natalie are talking about is emergent narrative - what points of the story that happens on the tabletop are "rendered" by the game engine with limited or no control from players agency. In this context narratives happen via simulation. The general, encompasing narrative is controled directly via mission choice/brew, terrain layout and army lists, but after the first roll you immerse yourself in the game and DISCOVER what narrative emerges from player decisions and the ruleset. What you seem to be talking about is intentional storytelling, which is completely different beast. And an optimal emergent narrative ruleset is fundamentally different from optimal competitive ruleset, if only because it does not have to have an absurd time limit for a proper game.
@thread:
Why I am discussing this? Because a fundamental misconception was expressed earler in this thread, that tight, balanced ruleset benefits all forms of play. It does not, because practicalities of increasing blind balance (the kind of balance that does not require any conscious balancing actions on the players side during preparation stage) are always at expense of diversity/detail/narrative capacity. It is worth to note here, that there are many different approaches to the narrative playing itself, some of which are completely immune to imbalance (collaborative listbuilding for one-off games can be performed in even the most broken systems) but there are also things like linked campaigns that are simply bolted on an otherwise matched play rules, like what Unit1126PLL has described. Those indeed benefit from balance, but it is enough to look at Oldmunda (a system with completely balanced start for all the players involved in a campaign) to see, that even with tight balance linked campaings must have their own layer of balancing mechanism built in, which is completely different can of worms.
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
What do you mean? I roll to hit, roll to wound, then defending player rolls their saves. How is that different from what I described?
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
What do you mean? I roll to hit, roll to wound, then defending player rolls their saves. How is that different from what I described?
You don't do it for a unit, you are supposed to do it for each single model, and each single model of the target need to check for cover, roll their saves and need to keep track of their wounds
So 40k, as it is now, is about the heroic story of each single model on the table, something you said that no one asked for.
Crimson wrote:Azreal, I really don't even understand what you're babbling about.
How is winning or losing is incompatible with narrative? This is just a complete non sequitur. Narrative is not predetermined, it is emergent.
Not the first time you've had trouble understanding my arguments, if memory serves. So, given others seem to get it, even if they've misrepresented them a little, we'll chalk that up to a you problem.
nataliereed1984 wrote:Azrael, you've been arguing for pages on end that the game inherently doesn't work for a type of play that has been constantly done by thousands and thousands of people over the course of 30 years, and that the game is not designed and optimized for the way it is played by the actual people who designed it. And you're now in straight up "you started it!!!" territory. So yeah, I think we're done. You know. Like I said several posts ago. We're not going to get anywhere debating this, because we apparently are not even arguing from the same base premises of reality.
Weeell, this is what, my 7th post, so, once again, "arguing for pages" isn't really an accurate description, technically you're right if the page break has happened, but largely this just seems hyperbolic. Once again, I haven't said it doesn't work, I'm saying it is sub optimal, for like the fourth time now. "The actual people who designed it" don't work for GW any more, and there's countless anecdotes about how the game has been compromised for commercial reasons or miscommunication all the way back to the start. The game is now a frankenstein of the visions of multiple authors, not all of which had full say in how their vision was executed. That it has resulted in something that isn't optimised in any real way (except as a vehicle to sell models, it is excellent at that) shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
The irony of the fact that you strawmanned my argument in the very same post as you accused others of strawmen resulted in me joking that you started it appears to have gone over your head.
Like… actually conveying an immersive story? If a player decides to have their fire warriors charge into melee because it's fun, they probably want the rules to reflect what would happen if a bunch of riflemen try to punch people to death: they die when they hit close combat, inflicting only minor injuries. You can't get that just by "rolling a die".
For narratively-focused players, the rules and balance aren't there for winning vs losing, it's for having the battle play out in a way that shows an interesting story that "makes sense" for the lore and the units involved and the modelling thereof, and that the players can't overly anticipate in advance.
Why do you even need rules at all for that? You just fairly accurately explained the likely outcome, if you're that bothered by the "story" just move the models and remove however many casualties from each side that "feels" right? Or play an RPG.
Why not just "move the models and remove however many casualties... 'feels' right"? For the exact same reason RPGs have rules! JFC! Are you guys not even bothering to TRY understanding where we're coming from here???
@nataliereed, now you can see what I meant
@Azreal13, you forgot about making pew pew noises while moving those models for narrative purposes to complete this classic "argument".
The nature of the game resulting from a given set of rules is entirely different "dimension" than tight vs loose. You can have a tight ruleset that does not convey any narrative at all - see GO for an extreme example, but even in 40K history you can look at difference between, say, early 3rd ed close combat rules that left completely no room for interesting story happening in CC after charges were made, and 2nd ed rules that, when applied to a proper scale of battle of 2nd/Necromunda, resulted in ongoing duels with ups and down within the CC phase itself. Tightness of those rules interacting with weapons/wargear/codices or language used to describe those rules, or point balance of units in the game at that time had absolutely nothing to do with resulting differences in "feel" of combat phase gameplay between those two editions.
When you add different expectations about accepted length of game and complexity of rules, capacity of rules to tell interesting stories, simulationism of rules etc between narrative players and tournament players it should be clear enough, that narrative vs competitive rules design is way, way more complex consideration than simple "loosening a tight ruleset is easier than tighting a loose ruleset".
You know what RPGs have too? Independant third parties that have the power to make, break or modify rules on the fly to serve the purpose of the narrative. 40K is an adversarial game played to detrmine a winner. Any "narrative" is the player's imagination imposing itself on the output of a mathematical construct. A construct, incidentally, that allows for very few meaningful choices outside of army building. 40K isn't just a poor choice for narrative gaming because it is adversarial, it is a poor choice of an adversarial game to play narratively.
It is the classic hammering of a screw, sure, you'll get some way to the result you wanted, but it'll never be the right tool for the job.
Also, I thought the pew pew was implied.
The notion that adversarial games cannot convey compelling narratives and you require RPG-like approach baffles me
Which isn't what I was saying, was it? Suboptimal =/= cannot. Hit a scew with a hammer, screw still ends up embedded in the wood, there's just better ways of doing it.
One more way to show why „tight vs loose” is not the crux here and that competitively focused system may not be universally beneficial. Imagine three core rule systems and assume for a moment, that probabilities resulting from resolution systems given below in a typical situation are the same, so overall math stays identical:
1. You roll a single modified dice to see if attack suceeded and target is removed from play
2. You roll flat to hit, flat to wound, opponent rolls flat save, either cover or armour
3. You roll modified to hit, formula to wound, separate modified cover, separate modified armour and finally an injury roll
There is nothing about tightness or balance above, but thise three systems differ greatly in how many possible story points emerge from the resolution system alone. In the first case you wont know which modifier made the roll a succes, so you must make up the missing part of the emergent narrative yourself. The second case gives you a bit more to hold on, but does not handle heroic duels or lone-hero-against-hordes-of-zombies types of situations all that impressive. The third is the most simulationist approach, and would be pain to resolve in mass battles, but gives you detailed information about what and when exactly happened during a fight.
Now those three examples can be discussed whether they are adequate to the scope of the game you wish to play, do they manage the time required to resolve well enough, are they an overkill or too dumbed down, but there is nothing inherently unbalanced or not tight about them. None.
Good oh, except none of that was all that pertinent to my point. An adversarial game between all but the most sympatico of gamers is about determining a winner and loser, which is always going to generate a conflict of interests with what is best for the "narrative." Your examples are still mathematical constructs and still rely exclusively on the player(s) to take random outcomes of probability and try and weave them into a story. A story which will only ever be a variation on "I ran towards him, decided to hit/shoot/lightning bolt him in the face and did/didn't do it, then I/he ran away." Or, for variety, "I hid near the important thing for an arbitrary amount of time and didn't die."
Once again, for clarity, you can play 40K narratively, but it is a sub optimal tool for the job.
I think the crux here lies in difference of "narrative" definition between you and me - what I and Natalie are talking about is emergent narrative - what points of the story that happens on the tabletop are "rendered" by the game engine with limited or no control from players agency. In this context narratives happen via simulation. The general, encompasing narrative is controled directly via mission choice/brew, terrain layout and army lists, but after the first roll you immerse yourself in the game and DISCOVER what narrative emerges from player decisions and the ruleset. What you seem to be talking about is intentional storytelling, which is completely different beast. And an optimal emergent narrative ruleset is fundamentally different from optimal competitive ruleset, if only because it does not have to have an absurd time limit for a proper game.
No, I get it, I just don't agree with it. Allowing the events in game to unfold and tell a story is precisely what I think of when narrative is discussed in this context. I just don't think that the rules engine for 40K does a particularly good job in comparison to some other games I've played. Given sufficient prompting I'm sure theres all sorts of war stories I can dredge up from the last 30 ish years of playing, like the time the opposing Chaos Lord dropped his own vortex grenade at his feet and disappeared, or the time the opposing Farseer's head exploded on the "ch" of charge at the top of turn 1. What I'm saying is that other games I've played latterly appear to generate those sorts of moments with more regularity, hence I believe those games to be better for narrative gaming than 40K. This belief largely stems from the fact that these games tend to offer the player more to do and more ways to interact with their opponent, hence you get more of those story points.
Not the first time you've had trouble understanding my arguments, if memory serves.
That is probably true!
So, given others seem to get it, even if they've misrepresented them a little, we'll chalk that up to a you problem.
Several people here are arguing against your incoherent nonsense, and seem to think you do not even understand what 'narrative' means. Now given your clarification this seems not to be entirely the case, but then it is even more perplexing why you dragged winning or losing into this as it has nothing to do with the issue.
No one's asking for that. THAT would require stuff like hit points and modifiers. Why does everyone keep immediately going to weird hyperbolic straw men in this thread?
What I like is that if I have a unit of guardsmen unload their lasguns at a unit of plague marines, rather than it just being a flat roll of "you kill one plague marine", it can instead be "well, you HIT all of them, but half the rounds bounced off the armor, and the Plague Marines' unholy resilience allowed them to shrug off all but one of the shots that got through", in which case we can imagine that one lucky shot going straight into the cyclopean eye of one of them. You know?
But this is not what the game is doing at the moment or the rules are designed for
This is what players do as a workaround to get things going.
It is not only the competitive players that struggle with the rules to get what they want, but also the narrative people because straight out of the box (without adjustments made by the players) the game does not work that way.
What do you mean? I roll to hit, roll to wound, then defending player rolls their saves. How is that different from what I described?
You don't do it for a unit, you are supposed to do it for each single model, and each single model of the target need to check for cover, roll their saves and need to keep track of their wounds
So 40k, as it is now, is about the heroic story of each single model on the table, something you said that no one asked for.
Wow… I mean, I guess the fact that I've only played a few games since returning to the hobby this year is impacting my perceptions here, but… wow, I would really not wanna play a game wherein my opponent was taking things so seriously as to insist we hunker down to check LOS / cover and roll separately for each and every model in the unit rather than just rolling a bunch of dice at once for all the models that are in a position to shoot / fight clear targets, then another bunch of dice for any attacks that are dealing with modifiers like cover. And yeah, if the rules are indeed specifying it's required to always check every single model independently and players aren't allowed to treat the unit as a whole, I agree they really need to get cleaned up in that regard.
For small units, like five assault terminators or whatever, I can totally understand wanting a separate roll for the terminator standing partly behind a shattered wall or whatever, but for big squads of ork boyz or guardsmen or gaunts, doing separate rolls for everyone just because a couple around the edges might *hypothetically* be blocked by their compatriots or whatever is definitely too much detail for any scale bigger than 750 points.
Not the first time you've had trouble understanding my arguments, if memory serves.
That is probably true!
So, given others seem to get it, even if they've misrepresented them a little, we'll chalk that up to a you problem.
Several people here are arguing against your incoherent nonsense, and seem to think you do not even understand what 'narrative' means. Now given your clarification this seems not to be entirely the case, but then it is even more perplexing why you dragged winning or losing into this as it has nothing to do with the issue.
How about dialling down the rhetoric? Your choice of language seems to be a deliberate attempt to bait, keep at it and you'll get rule 1 for Christmas.
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
That you don't, but are happy to use quite abrasive language in expressing that isn't a good look.
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
No! You yourself keep repeatedly saying we're not understanding you and that what you really meant was X instead of Y!
C'mon. Azrael. Please. Can you at least admit that there have been issues of miscommunication with you? Or, alternatively, that I therefore wasn't misunderstanding you earlier? You can't have it both ways!
How about dialling down the rhetoric? Your choice of language seems to be a deliberate attempt to bait, keep at it and you'll get rule 1 for Christmas.
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
That you don't, but are happy to use quite abrasive language in expressing that isn't a good look.
How about responding to the content rather than the tone? How does winning or losing or caring about it conflict with enjoying the emergent narrative? Was this clear and polite enough or will you evade the third time?
nataliereed1984 wrote: Wow… I mean, I guess the fact that I've only played a few games since returning to the hobby this year is impacting my perceptions here, but… wow, I would really not wanna play a game wherein my opponent was taking things so seriously as to insist we hunker down to check LOS / cover and roll separately for each and every model in the unit rather than just rolling a bunch of dice at once for all the models that are in a position to shoot / fight clear targets, then another bunch of dice for any attacks that are dealing with modifiers like cover. And yeah, if the rules are indeed specifying it's required to always check every single model independently and players aren't allowed to treat the unit as a whole, I agree they really need to get cleaned up in that regard.
I have no problem with using house-rules and optional stuff to work around to get the game working.
I also have no problem to play the game as it is out of the box
It is just if someone would play with me, insist on not using house-rules at all as the game is fine and don't need them, I also won't use them with all the consequences
Anyhow, 40k 8th edition as it is written and sold now, does not work for what the players (all of them) want it to be.
Neither competitive guys, nor casual or narrative players use the rules without some workarounds, so the game is far away from being fine for anyone if even the narrative people are not able to use the rules without adjustments for the supposed game size (1750 points)
one reason for this is, as Azreal13 said, that this is not a "game" as a whole but a composition of different kind of rules from different authors for different editions that does not work for well for anything as the last time GW really made 40k as complete rule-set, with a basic idea what each faction is going to be while writing the core, was with 3rd. Everything after was just adding patches over time.
definitely too much detail for any scale bigger than 750 points.
which is one basic problems 8th edition has and one reason (upon many) why people are not able to get past turn 2 in 3 hours
It might be that GW rules-writers are sort of *expecting* players to do certain common sense house-rule stuff, like letting big units fire against the targetable parts of other big units all at once with a flat assumption about LOS / cover / etc, and so are sort of deliberately skewing the rules towards the more ambiguous or conflicted situations, and thereby creating detail overload… like if they're writing them in a "this is just a tool to be interpreted" mentality like the way RPG rulebooks are usually written. But… it's a reasonable point that that's probably not the best way to go about things writing a PvP game, wherein even in friendly and narrative there will always be games or situations where, for one reason or another, one or more players will want everything to be 100% by-the-book.
How about dialling down the rhetoric? Your choice of language seems to be a deliberate attempt to bait, keep at it and you'll get rule 1 for Christmas.
Disagreeing with me surely means they understand me, otherwise they'd be asking for clarification?
That you don't, but are happy to use quite abrasive language in expressing that isn't a good look.
How about responding to the content rather than the tone? How does winning or losing or caring about it conflict with enjoying the emergent narrative? Was this clear and polite enough or will you evade the third time?
You could just not use a tone in the first instance?
Ok, I'll indulge you.
Final turn, the final few members of a tactical squad are camped on an objective which will score enough VPs to win the game. There's a squad of Chaos Terminators in charge range. The better narrative, or certainly the narrative the 40K fluff would suggest is the correct one, would be a Butch and Sundance style last charge against the hated enemy. So, does the player play to win, shuffling the Marines about in cover, or play the better story?
Doesn't have to be in-game either, what happens when one player brings a list that's fluff above all, and the other doesn't? Even if it isn't an optimised tourney list it can still be a total road block. Or accidental hard counters when both players are so unconcerned with balance they have no idea what they've done? Sure, "total rout by turn 2" is a narrative you can apply to the game, but it isn't fun to play.
As is so often the case when it comes to balance in 40K, it all boils down to a group of like minded players to make it work, no matter what that mind may be, and if there's disparity in the player's personal objectives then the rules simply are not robust enough to correct it.
nataliereed1984 wrote: It might be that GW rules-writers are sort of *expecting* players to do certain common sense house-rule stuff, like letting big units fire against the targetable parts of other big units all at once with a flat assumption about LOS / cover / etc, and so are sort of deliberately skewing the rules towards the more ambiguous or conflicted situations, and thereby creating detail overload… like if they're writing them in a "this is just a tool to be interpreted" mentality like the way RPG rulebooks are usually written. But… it's a reasonable point that that's probably not the best way to go about things writing a PvP game, wherein even in friendly and narrative there will always be games or situations where, for one reason or another, one or more players will want everything to be 100% by-the-book.
this is the point
the one advantage of 40k, compared to all other games, was the easy to find pick up game and that everyone plays the same game (a reason why the "only use the official rules" attitude is so strong).
but that is not there any more if rules are written with the expectation that people will house-rule stuff that does not work (next thing is on how far house rules should go)
this is less a problem for competitive play (as the TO will say which house-rules are used)
Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?
Final turn, the final few members of a tactical squad are camped on an objective which will score enough VPs to win the game. There's a squad of Chaos Terminators in charge range. The better narrative, or certainly the narrative the 40K fluff would suggest is the correct one, would be a Butch and Sundance style last charge against the hated enemy. So, does the player play to win, shuffling the Marines about in cover, or play the better story?
In such a situation the narrative emerging from the rules obviouly is that remaining on the objective is absolutely vital. Perhaps the marines need to access a datacore so that the information can be uploaded to the strike cruiser on the orbit or something like that. A narrative of desperate last charge would emerge in a situation where the victory would hinge on the chaos terminators being destroyed.
Doesn't have to be in-game either, what happens when one player brings a list that's fluff above all, and the other doesn't? Even if it isn't an optimised tourney list it can still be a total road block. Or accidental hard counters when both players are so unconcerned with balance they have no idea what they've done? Sure, "total rout by turn 2" is a narrative you can apply to the game, but it isn't fun to play.
It probably isn't fun to play, at least if it happens often. But as you noted, that is not a problem with the narrative. I recently read a short story by Abnett where tyranids completely butcher the Imperial Guard stationed on a planet and even Space Marines who arrive to help get annihilated.
kodos wrote: 40k is already too big to have such rules working properly
There is no reason to have the detailed heroic story of each of your 100 grunts laid out by the dice on the table
current 40k at 2000 points is already Apocalypse size of the past, while still using rules for small a small 500 point Skirmish system.
this is also a reason why there is a balance issue, the size of the game is outside the sweetspot of the rules
Thank you for pointing this out. Separate hit -> wound -> save rolls so that you can forge the narrative is appropriate for a skirmish game where you have 10-20 models on the table. It is wholly inappropriate for massive hordes of infantry along with formations of armor and giant robots. I personally would not be at all upset if 40K was branched into a skirmish system (bigger Kill Team) and a battle system (smaller Apocalypse).
There is something very wrong with the scale of a game when skyscraper-sized robots are modeled, but it also matters exactly what kind of grenade a conscript is carrying.
It's pretty hard to balance, what, 29 factions? Let's squat some of this junk and reduce the size of the game. That alone would help with keeping people on an even playing field.
this is the point
the one advantage of 40k, compared to all other games, was the easy to find pick up game and that everyone plays the same game
Look, I agree with you that there's some issues with detail scaling, and that the rules writers are maybe making too many assumptions about people's ability and willingness to tweak the rules as needed, but the idea that the only advantage of 40k over other games is that it's easy to find an agreed upon pick-up game is… that's a pretty bold claim. I mean, for starters, there's the obvious advantages of the IP itself, and the quality of the models.
I stick by my belief that, although it's certainly not perfect, I like the game a lot, that it works quite well for the kinds of games I enjoy, and that the game is always going to be structured primarily around "telling a story" (and, to be frank, I'm sure that's in part because it's a nice middle ground that invites both newcomers and experts, and rests between hardcore competitor types and open play types who just want an excuse to set up their models with a friend's), so there's not much use being angry it isn't optimized for the competitive scene.
If the game were all about intense competition between human players, at the cost of the feeling of narrative immersion and memorable moments and the friendly vibe of many gaming days, I wouldn't be interested. It would turn me off. For many of the same reasons I never play competitive videogames online with strangers anymore. Compettiive gaming is deeply unpleasant and alienating to lots of people, and not always for anything to do with the game itself, if you catch my meaning. So why should the desire of Gamer X who wants it to be that kind of game trump the desires of people like me, who don't want it to change in that direction? It is what it is.
The unwillingness of people who strongly dislike 40k to play other things due to the fact that other games aren't as popular and widespread is a self-defeating, self-perpetuating vicious cycle, by the way, and one that I'm certain absolutely infuriates people like Privateer Press and Corvus Belli and Warlord, and the many smaller companies and people trying to actually make new games that better fit certain desires and niches.
There is something very wrong with the scale of a game when skyscraper-sized robots are modeled, but it also matters exactly what kind of grenade a conscript is carrying.
To be fair, though, anyone fielding a 28mm titan outside of Apocalypse games deserves what they get.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?
You're assuming that all games use Matched Play rules, which aren't the main way to play, manyof the standard Matched Play rules are listed in the Advanced Rules section.
Trying playing with the Core rules, PL, no CP, and your Codex, the basic version of the game, the one most people start with, at 500, 750, 1000, etc points, not these huge 2,000 point tournament based things. Look at it from the beginner perspective.
The base game is actually pretty fun!
The rulebook does make a note about using detachments and CP for Stratagems, saying that it's a great option, but it's just an option.
Personally, I've stopped using Matched Play and am following the Narritive section of the book (and CA's) which have TONS of unique and cool rules. I've found that PL based games, and the Narritive rules really change the feel of the game, even if you add in CP's and such.
Togusa wrote: It's pretty hard to balance, what, 29 factions? Let's squat some of this junk and reduce the size of the game. That alone would help with keeping people on an even playing field.
I started typing this out earlier but I felt there’s no viable chance of it happening. How about we get back to the old days:
Basic Marine codex with basic units and wargear
Non codex marines get small supplements for special rules/units/wargear but reference main Marine book for all else
IG codex with stats for the basic WS3, BS3, S3, T3 human trooper and buffs for using pure IG forces
Inquisition supplement with Sisters and GK with henchmen using IG rules
Custodes supplement with SoS and golden boys
Mechanicum codex (these need more robots and less infantry so they’re not too similar to IG)
Tau Alliance - add more kroot and vespid units without anymore Gundams
Necrons but I have no idea what to do with them as I don’t see them played
Tyranids
GSC supplement with new elites but using the IG rules for cultists and tanks, pure IG buffs replaced with Nid synergy
Chaos marines with god-specific marines as elites
Demon supplement so a player can choose how many troops to use from either list
Traitor guard supplement using IG rules but you use, for example, the same demon princes above
If a greater demon is taken as the General then god specific marines become troops
So you pare the number of codexes back and treat divergent lists as supplements. They draw basic troops and most units from a parent codex using those strategems with supplement-specific units being treated more like elites and costing more points. Tie CP generation to the choice of HQ with higher ranking officers or demons giving more rather than the number of formations. HQs should cost a lot of points with those having weaker stat lines (Tau or IG) giving morale or game effect bubbles instead of everyone getting bubbles (also reduces Death Stars).
So what’s the advantage? You’re balancing fewer main codices against one another while treating supplement units or abilities like points-heavy addons to customize an army. It allows Nids and Chaos to build somewhat soupier lists to compete with the Imperium while making the basic marine, the basic IG trooper, the basic Nid, the basic Tau, etc become the focus.
You’ll still have soup lists with potentially crazy combos but objectives should play more heavily into victory conditions rather than wiping your opponent. It’s possible to win battles and lose a war but it’s going to be impossible to achieve anything like consistent balance with this many separate army lists. Of course paring down will never happen because we continue to buy the models and GW treats the rules more like a tax we continue to pay.
Togusa wrote:It's pretty hard to balance, what, 29 factions? Let's squat some of this junk and reduce the size of the game. That alone would help with keeping people on an even playing field.
IMO the introduction of subfactions in 8th was the perfect opportunity to pare back the number of Marine flavors into a core codex, but I guess that ship has sailed.
nataliereed1984 wrote:To be fair, though, anyone fielding a 28mm titan outside of Apocalypse games deserves what they get.
Then I'll genericize it to 'a battalion-level game shouldn't care about what kind of grenade a conscript is carrying'. 40K's muddled scale is, IMO, a big part of its design problems; beyond the logical problems like putting ICBMs on the table or aircraft that fly in tight circles at 20mph, there's a lot of chrome at a very small scale but not a lot of fidelity in the large-scale, such as maneuver, coordination, or C&C. I've heard complaints about Apocalypse not modeling special weapons, but its scale is perfect for what it's supposed to be: the CO of a battalion strength element does not care about the individual armament of each member of a squad. They don't even care about the squad itself. They care about the company, or at most the platoon, with their orders passed down the chain.
It's a common wargame conceit that the player wears two 'hats'- rather than play a game where you are just the battalion CO and your 3-5 companies are the only playing pieces, it's accepted that you are simultaneously the battalion CO and his company COs, so you have control over both the companies and the platoons within those companies. 40K gives you control over, and 1:1 representation of, every individual soldier, which implies that it would be a platoon-level game at most (giving you the hats of a squad leader and a platoon commander)- and, in fact, that's exactly what it was back in 1st/2nd Ed, with an army being a couple of squads and a vehicle or two.
Abstraction keeps things moving. If greater fidelity isn't adding significant depth to the mechanics, then it's bad design. With the scale 40K is at now, it doesn't need anywhere from 20-120 dice rolls to resolve a single squad of 10 guys rapid firing, but those mechanics have been carried forward by historical inertia and, IMO, an excessive focus on chrome by the playerbase.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?
You're assuming that all games use Matched Play rules, which aren't the main way to play, manyof the standard Matched Play rules are listed in the Advanced Rules section.
Trying playing with the Core rules, PL, no CP, and your Codex, the basic version of the game, the one most people start with, at 500, 750, 1000, etc points, not these huge 2,000 point tournament based things. Look at it from the beginner perspective.
The base game is actually pretty fun!
The rulebook does make a note about using detachments and CP for Stratagems, saying that it's a great option, but it's just an option.
Personally, I've stopped using Matched Play and am following the Narritive section of the book (and CA's) which have TONS of unique and cool rules. I've found that PL based games, and the Narritive rules really change the feel of the game, even if you add in CP's and such.
That doesn't tackle literally ANYTHING in my post.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?
Dingdingding we have an IGOUGO mention! Reset the clock.
Ever considered those stratagems just represent one truly heroic example of such tactics per turn, and all the units are doing such things to a lesser degree? They add flavour and the frisson of risk/reward resource management. Yes, it’s entirely artificial, but I disagree Stratagems are inmersion-breaking by nature. For me, they’re the opposite. They’re something a stat line and special rules some can’t quite achieve. They’re not perfect, not balanced, but are largely fun (except Lightning Fast Reactions that can get in the sea).
As usual, you’ve adopted a viewpoint and refuse see an differing one. At least this time you haven’t pre-derided those with an opposing view, I guess...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?
Dingdingding we have an IGOUGO mention! Reset the clock.
Ever considered those stratagems just represent one truly heroic example of such tactics per turn, and all the units are doing such things to a lesser degree? They add flavour and the frisson of risk/reward resource management. Yes, it’s entirely artificial, but I disagree Stratagems are inmersion-breaking by nature. For me, they’re the opposite. They’re something a stat line and special rules some can’t quite achieve. They’re not perfect, not balanced, but are largely fun (except Lightning Fast Reactions that can get in the sea).
As usual, you’ve adopted a viewpoint and refuse see an differing one. At least this time you haven’t pre-derided those with an opposing view, I guess...
That...doesn't work either in such a limited context. For all intents and purposes, these are things the units are actually TRAINED for. After all, who is using the Auspex, and why does just one work at a time? Why is just one Predator moving that turn with no firing penalties? Out of the 15 Heavy Bolters in your army, why is just one able to fire Helfire rounds when that Chaos Knight needs to die NOW? That's just a couple off the top of my head. There's SEVERAL more beyond that in the codex and other codices as well. Some make sense as army benefits, like the one to change your Doctrine back or the Orbital Bombardment, and then the supplements gave the army wide ones during your effective doctrine or whatever. Those are few and far between though.
I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
MiguelFelstone wrote: Games Workshop does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, or any environment it seems.
I see click bait articles all the time complaining about one thing or another, ways they could improve the game, ect, and that would be wonderful it it actually accomplished a damn thing.
If you accept the above, why on gods green earth would you believe it will be improved? If i'm wrong i'd love to be proven so, please elaborate.
Grey Knights are the poster boys for GWs in-house test team and the perfect example of how completely out of tune they are with the competitive players who buy their products.
If you have a single faction that can't win tournaments for years on end you have a problem, and like i said it's been like this for years, the last GK winning list i saw ran 5-6 baby carriers so it was a while ago.
False, GW sends out game designers for tournaments and they have several elite gaming groups provide feedback and testing on new codexes and they have an internal team that casually tests new content. SM is not proof we need to give up, but proof GW needs to get a little more focus on testing for balance and probably ditch their current casual playtesters because SM are fairly unfun in casual because of rules bloat hitting casuals more than competitive gamers.
8th is better than 7th, it seems like complaining and providing feedback is working. GW is trying harder than ever to make a moderately fair game.
8th isn't that old and GK have won a major, if you include soup I'm sure they have won tonnes of RTTs, did hey win a major in 7th? They didn't receive buffs at regular intervals at least.
Why have a rulebook if you don't want to play a game? Just roll ten dice each per player turn and whoever rolls the highest total by the end of the game wins. Move and remove models from the table to represent the pts score each turn and forge a narrative, now stop asking for 40k to be terrible and stop improving, I just invented a terrible game you can have fun with.
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.
So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also the narrative argument falls flat when you realize the rules don't even allow for immersion anyway. Strats that only affect one unit at a time ever, like True Grit or Transhuman Physiology, because only one unit gonna remember they can shoot stuff next to them or they can somehow become more durable? The fact IGOUGO stops actual interaction between armies for dozens of minutes at a time? The bizarre as hell scaling of the current wounding table?
You're assuming that all games use Matched Play rules, which aren't the main way to play, manyof the standard Matched Play rules are listed in the Advanced Rules section.
Trying playing with the Core rules, PL, no CP, and your Codex, the basic version of the game, the one most people start with, at 500, 750, 1000, etc points, not these huge 2,000 point tournament based things. Look at it from the beginner perspective.
The base game is actually pretty fun!
The rulebook does make a note about using detachments and CP for Stratagems, saying that it's a great option, but it's just an option.
Personally, I've stopped using Matched Play and am following the Narritive section of the book (and CA's) which have TONS of unique and cool rules. I've found that PL based games, and the Narritive rules really change the feel of the game, even if you add in CP's and such.
That doesn't tackle literally ANYTHING in my post.
But it does!
Only Matched Play has the One use per phase limitation on Stratagem.
All other methods of play in the book (that use Stratagems) let you use strays as much as you want, as long as you have the CP.
Fajita Fan wrote: Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.
Yes but there is hardly a "clear to your opponent" anymore. So much of what an army can do isn't modeled on the table or available at a glance on the unit's datasheet. 3 WL traits and relics each, 2 or more chapter tactics per sub-faction, doctrines for the people gw thinks deserve better than the rest of us this season, pages of stratagems. All across many books that most opponents have no business in buying for themselves.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Which then raises the question "what do CPs represent?"
In what world is "I would have called in an Orbital Strike but I instead promoted myself to Chapter Master" a narratively sensible thing?
"Sorry sir, we'd load and fire our hellfire shells at the Knight but Fred and Ted and Steve all got relics from the armory instead so we can't."
"Sorry Inquisitor, we would seize that man for interrogation but we fired too many Flakk missiles..."
"Sorry, commander, but you can't use the radio in the chimera anymore. We had to shoot Chaos harder too many times instead."
those limitations do not exist in Narrative-based games.
I have never once spent cp on becoming chapter master for a day.
CP's represent potentially pivotal moments in the battle where intuition, guile, experience, etc factors into the game. if the commander, using their gut, picks to rethink that shot/order/jumping out the way etc it would only be really fairly represented by a commodity(gained/lost).
I really like how the game plays with the CA terrain rules and like minded people. 8th really just needs condensing the rules and maybe introducing flat to wound rolls and differing profiles for wounding light inf, heavy inf, vehicles(maybe by keyword).
Fajita Fan wrote: Both narrative and matched play games should be WYSIWYG so everything is clear to your opponent.
Yes but there is hardly a "clear to your opponent" anymore. So much of what an army can do isn't modeled on the table or available at a glance on the unit's datasheet. 3 WL traits and relics each, 2 or more chapter tactics per sub-faction, doctrines for the people gw thinks deserve better than the rest of us this season, pages of stratagems. All across many books that most opponents have no business in buying for themselves.
Good marketing, and momentum go a long way even when you have a rather poor game. Rules only need to be good enough to sell to the Idea they Represent. This is really where GW sits with WYSIWYG, No Model no rule, Other than where we can use that to sell something.
I'm not sure us Aeldari and Sisters players would be very happy with that solution. :-/
Catbarf:
It was a joke.
Sorry I had them in earlier when I typed this morning. Harlequins should be a supplement.
If you just mean that sub-factions like Harlequins, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, etc. should be folded back into the main codex, with just a supplement for their unique qualities...
I mean, I can definitely see where you're coming from, but it would still be immensely frustrating for those players who suddenly see their favourite factions ranges minis and unique qualities dramatically reduced.
And I don't thinking cutting down from roughly 24 codexes to roughly 18 would actually help with balancing that much. Especially when you STILL have to do the supplements.
I think it'd be more hurt for players than gain, and even IF it were "even", I still distrust any idea about improving the game that requires making it worse for some players.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know… I actually had a thought about how a lot of the conflicts between competitive and narrative desires for the game could be resolved in a mutually satisfactory way…
What if they expanded the Three Ways To Play concept, so that rather than simply different missions and such to play with the same set of rules, and suggestions on how to use them, there were actual "patches" for the rules, and overt "suggestions" for additional optional rules, that could be used to meet different needs?
For example, the Matched Play rules could have a bunch of clear-cut "suggestions" for how to omit OP units or rules from your games, and "patches" for making the rules more streamlined, fast-moving, and appropriate to 2000 pt games (like a flat to-wound roll, and LOS / cover being determined on a unit basis for any infantry unit in excess of 5 models in games of 1000+ points, rather than always being model-by-model).
And Narrative could have, for example, "Suggestions" like rules about how many of a given unit a particular force would take. Like saying that a White Scars army can only have a maximum of one dreadnaught. You could even *minimums*, like White Scars requiring at least one bike unit and at least one land speeder!
Does that seem reasonable? Just, like, leaning into the fact that many of usl play the game in very different ways than others, with very different goals, and creating "OFFICIAL", rather than house-rule, ways to tweak the game to best serve these differences, so no one's fun is being compromised by someone else's fun?
Note: by "patches" I mean "this alternate rule is, 'officially', always in effect for this 'way to play'", and by "suggestions", I mean something akin to a house rule, but they themselves came up with it, tested it, edited it, etc, and are offering it to us as an option to enhance this particular 'way to play' that is optional but ALSO "official".
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.
So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.
Yes. Yes it does work. And it isn’t shallow or bizarre. Try arguing without throwing in insults. It’s perfectly reasonable and one way of reconciling Matched Play’s limitation. Bizarre would be something like mentioning IGOUGO in every thread on every topic, or berating people as CAAC before they’ve even posted. That’s bizarre behaviour.
As others have noted “why only once per phase?” is only a “problem” (if you call it that) in Matched Play, a mode which has extra limiters added in a vain quest for balance. It’s a gamey patch to curb the worst abuses. If you want to play a game with 15 Hellfire Shells fired in a Phase then you absolutely can. The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?
JohnnyHell wrote: The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?
If so, this sure as ain't the board for me...
It's the only forum I visit that uses the term "marine apologist" in a hostile capacity for anyone who doesn't mind there being a marine release. I've considered getting out a few times but there is some good content here amongst the holes.
JohnnyHell wrote: The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?
If so, this sure as ain't the board for me...
It's the only forum I visit that uses the term "marine apologist" in a hostile capacity for anyone who doesn't mind there being a marine release. I've considered getting out a few times but there is some good content here amongst the holes.
Yeah, that's my impression so far as well: mostly not the kind of people I get along with best, or would want to game with, but also a pretty decent number of cool folks mixed in.
GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
Except GW know roughly from there sales figures that competitive sells and not just to the competitive players although that is not an unsubstantial amount itself.
GW see a sales spike after every major tournament as people read and see about the results and it’s not just meta chasers it can be your average player who sees a unit used that they dismissed for there army or it could be half a dozen imp knights meta chasers are customers too. The well painted and setup armies on top tables can influence people starting a whole new army.
Besides we know there are hardcore tournament players play testing for GW and most people in the studio that are not JJ are not limp wrist caac players forging the narrative as hard as they can, unfortunately JJ and a couple of other senior members are still ascendant and till that old guard get the boot things are unlikely to change.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
They actually kinda did that with 6th and 7th and guess what? Nobody cared. Instead people came up with ITC and continued complaining as usual.
_SeeD_ wrote: Maybe GW should get out the tournament rules business and let each host do their own rules.
This is already partly what's happening and it is a problem. All american hardcore competitive players play a heavily houseruled version of the game which is more boring than the real game and focuses even more on killing. It doesn't stop them from complaining about GW.
_SeeD_ wrote: Maybe GW should get out the tournament rules business and let each host do their own rules.
This is already partly what's happening and it is a problem. All american hardcore competitive players play a heavily houseruled version of the game which is more boring than the real game and focuses even more on killing. It doesn't stop them from complaining about GW.
Complaining alone wouldn't be a problem. Demanding point values that fit their houseruled version better is a problem, especially when FLG is part of official playtesting...
_SeeD_ wrote: Maybe GW should get out the tournament rules business and let each host do their own rules.
This is already partly what's happening and it is a problem. All american hardcore competitive players play a heavily houseruled version of the game which is more boring than the real game and focuses even more on killing. It doesn't stop them from complaining about GW.
Complaining alone wouldn't be a problem. Demanding point values that fit their houseruled version better is a problem, especially when FLG is part of official playtesting...
Well yeah. It is an utterly bonkers situation that half of the playtesters are not playing using the rules they're supposed to test...
ITC is a big part of the issues seen at the competitive level, at least here in the states, but honestly the best option would be for the ITC to go back to what they had to do in 6th and 7th and do their own.errats and balance. They already change the way the game is played so why not go whole hog I stead of pretending things are fine. FLG is basically the GW ministry of propaganda at this point and little more than corporate shills.
RE: testing a huge issue is apparently the playtesters are not allowed to test certain things so a lot that they might catch they aren't allowed to check. Since it's all kept secret it's hard to tell but bits and pieces indicate they get given a fixed army list from GW and told to use that and check for specific interactions. They are not allowed to create their own lists and find broken combos. Or that's what it appears to be.
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.
So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.
Yes. Yes it does work. And it isn’t shallow or bizarre. Try arguing without throwing in insults. It’s perfectly reasonable and one way of reconciling Matched Play’s limitation. Bizarre would be something like mentioning IGOUGO in every thread on every topic, or berating people as CAAC before they’ve even posted. That’s bizarre behaviour.
As others have noted “why only once per phase?” is only a “problem” (if you call it that) in Matched Play, a mode which has extra limiters added in a vain quest for balance. It’s a gamey patch to curb the worst abuses. If you want to play a game with 15 Hellfire Shells fired in a Phase then you absolutely can. The assumption on Dakka is that every game is 2k meta netlist WAAC, though, right?
No, it is shallow, as the Imperial Knight is a big target. It's baffling to think as well, even if you decide to do Narrative to get rid of the once a turn restriction, that STILL doesn't help your case. Assuming you spent all your CP to fire at that Imperial Knight, all the sudden you're out of CP and now NONE of the Auspex Scanners work in your army! Play with no restrictions AND unlimited CP, and you get the same rules bloat that everyone loved from 7th. Sorry, but you don't get to say "no THIS particularly breaks immersion" when there are several instances of core rules breaking immersion you're choosing to ignore on purpose to make your argument seem better. So you want to bring up something breaking immersion on my end? Well you get to hear all the stuff we haven't talked about yet!
Also I love the whole "vain quest for balance" like this is some terrible idea. No,
So seems that Slayer Fan has realised that games use abstractions and thus do not perfectly reflect what the reality would be. Quelle horreur!
You do understand that this is the case with every bloody game ever made, even the RPGs which focus on immersion? Even various hero or drama points that allow characters perform better than normally for a limited number of times are pretty common in RPGs.
Crimson wrote: So seems that Slayer Fan has realised that games use abstractions and thus do not perfectly reflect what the reality would be. Quelle horreur!
You do understand that this is the case with every bloody game ever made, even the RPGs which focus on immersion? Even various hero or drama points that allow characters perform better than normally for a limited number of times are pretty common in RPGs.
Yes you're right. The is an abstraction of two armies, where one does a bunch of stuff while the other does absolutely nothing outside firing at charging models, an abstraction where high tech gear can only work once a turn and if you somehow use abstraction points to much it doesn't work anymore, an abstraction of an absolute joke of balancing armies. Did I get that right for ya? Are some of you really willing to die on this hill that immersion is of utter importance only when you decide it is?
Yes you're right. The is an abstraction of two armies, where one does a bunch of stuff while the other does absolutely nothing outside firing at charging models, an abstraction where high tech gear can only work once a turn and if you somehow use abstraction points to much it doesn't work anymore, an abstraction of an absolute joke of balancing armies. Did I get that right for ya? Are some of you really willing to die on this hill that immersion is of utter importance only when you decide it is?
Immersion is important and it works in 40K pretty well for a wargame. I don't see your point and that is probably because as usual you don't have one.
Yes you're right. The is an abstraction of two armies, where one does a bunch of stuff while the other does absolutely nothing outside firing at charging models, an abstraction where high tech gear can only work once a turn and if you somehow use abstraction points to much it doesn't work anymore, an abstraction of an absolute joke of balancing armies. Did I get that right for ya? Are some of you really willing to die on this hill that immersion is of utter importance only when you decide it is?
Immersion is important and it works in 40K pretty well for a wargame. I don't see your point and that is probably because as usual you don't have one.
It does? Really? My Land Raider can't fire because one Guardsman ran up and knocked on the hull? My Vindicator is going to shoot its fixed-forward gun behind it and hit your tank square-on because an antenna was poking out behind the bunker? I'm going to fire an orbital bombardment and it's going to kill two dudes and take one wound off your character? Psykers get worse the more of them you have?
8e is terrible at immersion by comparison to itself in earlier editions when the writers were putting a bit of effort into immersion and the playerbase spent all their time grumbling about how much work it took to handle the immersion in a tournament environment and how much better it'd be if all the character and personality got stripped out in favour of long-winded descriptions of why these guys deserve to-hit rerolls or extra mortal wounds.
Yes you're right. The is an abstraction of two armies, where one does a bunch of stuff while the other does absolutely nothing outside firing at charging models, an abstraction where high tech gear can only work once a turn and if you somehow use abstraction points to much it doesn't work anymore, an abstraction of an absolute joke of balancing armies. Did I get that right for ya? Are some of you really willing to die on this hill that immersion is of utter importance only when you decide it is?
Immersion is important and it works in 40K pretty well for a wargame. I don't see your point and that is probably because as usual you don't have one.
What's immersive about anything I listed? You say I don't have a point because of the blind eye you've turned to GWs poor rules writing. The point I made, which was incredibly clear by the way, was you cannot claim one thing is totally immersive breaking while ignoring all the other issues pretending everything is fine.
So no I want you to explain how anything in the base 40k game is immersive instead of just pretending only certain things are immersion breaking.
What's immersive about anything I listed? You say I don't have a point because of the blind eye you've turned to GWs poor rules writing. The point I made, which was incredibly clear by the way, was you cannot claim one thing is totally immersive breaking while ignoring all the other issues pretending everything is fine.
So no I want you to explain how anything in the base 40k game is immersive instead of just pretending only certain things are immersion breaking.
Things you list as faults are abstractions. These exist in every game. In overwhelming majority of RPGs my character gets a turn and does all their actions at once, while everyone else is 'frozen in place.' In many RPGs I use some meta resource to power my characters abilities. You need to focus to the overall flow of the events rather than the minutiae. For example that tank that fires when only small part of it's hull can draw LOS to the target is obviously not in reality immobile, it can 'peek' behind the cover a bit to fire and then withdraw back. And yes, sometimes abstractions can create immersion breaking WTF moments like a same warrior being both risen as a plague zombie and being revived by an apothechary. At least in the eight edition there no longer are biker characters that can protect entire units of infantry by dodging bullets!
Also, Immersion and what breaks it is highly personal. I for example found D&D 4th edition to be so 'gamey' that it hurt my immersion. Other people though it was fine. And as this was about subjective experience neither was wrong.
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.
So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.
"That Chaos Knight is on its last legs - load the Hellfire rounds in the Heavy Bolter Brother Carl!"
"Uh, Sergeant, what Hellfire rounds?"
"Carl! You had one job!"
I obtain plenty of immersion from my 40K games - if I didn't I probably wouldn't play. I am a 30 year military guy, and I love when things go sideways on the tabletop battlefield. Some other guy called Carl mentioned something about friction and the fog of war. For me, Stratagems and CPs are the commander's (aka my) influence on the battlefield. Its a finite thing. I can spend it affecting that one weapons's firing or take a broader view. Works for me - you are under no obligation to try it and also under no obligation to enjoy the narrative aspects of the game.You are free to find your own way to enjoy the game.
I almost always try to find narrative moments, even when I'm at a tournament. I'll send my Master into close combat with the Demon Prince even though it would make more sense to allow the Terminators to grind it down on their own. So I might give up a Slay the Warlord VP to my opponent - its about the glory of the moment. The "Narrative way of playing" is not the same thing as playing narratively. I don't tend to play scenarios or "historical refights." I do, however, enjoy playing in a style where the narrative emerges.
Regarding the thread in general, perhaps GW should hire a few ex-poachers to be their game wardens. Bring them in-house to find the loopholes and wombo-combos that hard-core tourney players exploit during the design phase. It would cost money, though, and even then would not be perfect. I think that GW designs 40K in the frame of games between friends. They rely on moral suasion and restraint. Works great amongst friends but not so much out in the wilds of the FLGS. As it works now, I think they test for rules interactions and then rely on the community of play test after the book releases. I guess its working for them. Our local tourneys sell out and have a waiting list. The big tournies seem to have the same thing going on.
40k is so abstract that it isn't very immersive. The mechanics are so sparse and shallow that any story that emerges comes more from our imaginations than anything that happens on the table. Sure, an objective could be an important place to protect, a computer with information that needs to be downloaded, or a piece of lostech, or whatever.
Mechanically, though, it's just a thing that, if you control more of than the other person at the end of the game, somehow makes you win. Contrast with other games, like Infinity where hacking into a mainframe is something a model can actually do, and the problem becomes clearer.
8th 40k is a lot like D&D 5th- light on detail, interaction, and storytelling, heavy on resolving attacks in combat. Basic frameworks for moving, shooting, and stabbing. That's all.
If 40k was immersive, the core rules would be deeper, allowing units to behave in narrative ways.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
Have you ever watched any Voxcasts or whatever?
The designers routinely DO say, quite clearly, that balance and hardcore competition is not their priority for 40k. They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
Have you ever watched any Voxcasts or whatever?
The designers routinely DO say, quite clearly, that balance and hardcore competition is not their priority for 40k. They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
None of which means that they shouldn't be trying. Especially since they call out in 8th especially how matched play is meant to be balanced and suitable for competitive play.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
Have you ever watched any Voxcasts or whatever?
The designers routinely DO say, quite clearly, that balance and hardcore competition is not their priority for 40k. They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
None of which means that they shouldn't be trying. Especially since they call out in 8th especially how matched play is meant to be balanced and suitable for competitive play.
It doesn't mean they're not trying. It means it's not their main priority, as has been said a bajillion times in this thread. And it's to make the point that "well if it's not meant to be a highly balanced and competitive game, they should come out and SAY that! Then it would be fine!" is silly, because they DO come out and say that. And it's additionally plain as day for anyone who's willing to look at a game for what it is rather than what they wish it was instead.
Fajita Fan wrote: They don’t need to try. We keep buying this stuff regardless so they don’t need to change or invest the effort it would take to balance 87 codices.
And they know that everyone who complains bitterly and hates the game will still go right on playing it because "nothing else is as popular", so they never have to worry about Warmahordes or Infinity ever outpacing them…
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
Have you ever watched any Voxcasts or whatever?
The designers routinely DO say, quite clearly, that balance and hardcore competition is not their priority for 40k. They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
whenever they have a game/rules person on, it is reiterated over and over again.
it's like those against GW's stated position are standing in an echo chamber of their own creation. They choose to ignore it since it does not fit their narrative(see what I did there). I could understand this viewpoint if (@some point in the past) GW was the bestest, mostest, awesomest balance machine ever. With the tightest most efficient rules and no OP/under overcosted units. Since this is clearly not the case, continuing to complain about something that clearly is not even a moderate priority for GW, is insane.
nataliereed1984 wrote: ...They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
...Nobody wants "perfect balance". Everyone wants the rules not to punish them for liking the wrong models, points values that aren't gibberish, and rulebooks that aren't made nonfunctional by endless typos. I don't understand where the question "can you make (army X) not be unplayable garbage/not be an auto-win button?" turns into "can you make a perfectly balanced wargame in which everyone has precisely a 50.00% winrate against everyone else?" in GW designers' brains.
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.
So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.
I almost always try to find narrative moments, even when I'm at a tournament. I'll send my Master into close combat with the Demon Prince even though it would make more sense to allow the Terminators to grind it down on their own. So I might give up a Slay the Warlord VP to my opponent - its about the glory of the moment. The "Narrative way of playing" is not the same thing as playing narratively. I don't tend to play scenarios or "historical refights." I do, however, enjoy playing in a style where the narrative emerges.
Then we get purposely bad moves like this. This is why GW probably doesn't catch broken crap. They probably play like THIS.
Fajita Fan wrote: They don’t need to try. We keep buying this stuff regardless so they don’t need to change or invest the effort it would take to balance 87 codices.
And they know that everyone who complains bitterly and hates the game will still go right on playing it because "nothing else is as popular", so they never have to worry about Warmahordes or Infinity ever outpacing them…
That's because none of you CAAC players vote with your wallets. You gobble up everything.
I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
Have you ever watched any Voxcasts or whatever?
The designers routinely DO say, quite clearly, that balance and hardcore competition is not their priority for 40k. They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
None of which means that they shouldn't be trying. Especially since they call out in 8th especially how matched play is meant to be balanced and suitable for competitive play.
It doesn't mean they're not trying. It means it's not their main priority, as has been said a bajillion times in this thread. And it's to make the point that "well if it's not meant to be a highly balanced and competitive game, they should come out and SAY that! Then it would be fine!" is silly, because they DO come out and say that. And it's additionally plain as day for anyone who's willing to look at a game for what it is rather than what they wish it was instead.
You really want to look at it for what it is? Okay? If it weren't for 30+ years of lore and story writing, the game would be trashed as 0/10 due to poor mechanics and poor balancing.
Racerguy180 wrote: ...whenever they have a game/rules person on, it is reiterated over and over again.
it's like those against GW's stated position are standing in an echo chamber of their own creation. They choose to ignore it since it does not fit their narrative(see what I did there). I could understand this viewpoint if (@some point in the past) GW was the bestest, mostest, awesomest balance machine ever. With the tightest most efficient rules and no OP/under overcosted units. Since this is clearly not the case, continuing to complain about something that clearly is not even a moderate priority for GW, is insane.
Newbie who likes Dawn of War comes into a gamestore and says "Hey, I like (this army) and I want to buy a starter box/learn more about the game." The community is then presented with a choice. Do they say "Don't buy that army, the design team doesn't like them and their rules are all incredibly s**t", or do they lie about the state of the game to get the newbie to buy the stuff and then wait for them to discover that everything is grotesquely mis-priced and they're going to lose every game unless they go into games with a large points handicap?
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Fajita Fan wrote: They don’t need to try. We keep buying this stuff regardless so they don’t need to change or invest the effort it would take to balance 87 codices.
And they know that everyone who complains bitterly and hates the game will still go right on playing it because "nothing else is as popular", so they never have to worry about Warmahordes or Infinity ever outpacing them…
If that's the case, and I've nothing to suggest it isn't, then how soon they forget the lessons of history.
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
What are they trying to do? Are they trying to "balance the game" (=make all options (which army to use, which units to use, which upgrades to take) worth taking under some circumstance), or are they trying to give a sales bump to whatever's clogging up the warehouse?
nataliereed1984 wrote: ...They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
...Nobody wants "perfect balance". Everyone wants the rules not to punish them for liking the wrong models, points values that aren't gibberish, and rulebooks that aren't made nonfunctional by endless typos. I don't understand where the question "can you make (army X) not be unplayable garbage/not be an auto-win button?" turns into "can you make a perfectly balanced wargame in which everyone has precisely a 50.00% winrate against everyone else?" in GW designers' brains.
Absolutely this. Nobody has ever asked for perfect balance. What we've asked for is rulebooks that aren't busted within 10 minutes of skimming through them, forces that aren't in such a skew that you can curbstomp people or get curbstomped just because you like a certain model or faction without factoring in anything else, and expecting "professional" designers to show some level of professional skill.
It's disingenuous to try and push this "perfect balance" myth when that isn't what anyone is asking. All we are asking for is actually fething competent rules, and they seemingly can't even do that. It's not unreasonable to expect people to actually be good at their job.
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
What are they trying to do? Are they trying to "balance the game" (=make all options (which army to use, which units to use, which upgrades to take) worth taking under some circumstance), or are they trying to give a sales bump to whatever's clogging up the warehouse?
To be fair we have no idea if that second statement is or has ever been true. It might look like it sometimes but equally, we find brand new models that are trash. I'm not sure there's an ulterior motive at all; it's far too random and nonsensical to be anything other than not really having a clue how to do it and throwing something together.
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
Okay, I'll rephrase it for you to make it easier to understand in the form of a question.
If they're not putting in enough effort to balance the game, how can you say they're at least trying? The two are NOT compatible.
alextroy wrote: I don't know how someone can see all the changes to Matched Play 40K from the original rules, two three Chapter Approved with points updates, twice yearly general FAQs, and 2-Week FAQs for each product and say GW isn't trying to balance the game.
They may not be great at it. They may not be close to achieving it. They may not be putting in "enough" effort to satisfy you, but they are definitely trying.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
Not putting in effort =/= trying.
I read this several times and can only say
Okay, I'll rephrase it for you to make it easier to understand in the form of a question.
If they're not putting in enough effort to balance the game, how can you say they're at least trying? The two are NOT compatible.
I mean you can try and still fail to achieve the goal. The issue is GW doesn't REALLY seem to be trying, just saying they are (and having people say they are) because they put out FAQs and Chapter Approved, both of which indicate that they don't really understand the problems in the first place, let alone how to solve them.
nataliereed1984 wrote: ...They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
...Nobody wants "perfect balance". Everyone wants the rules not to punish them for liking the wrong models, points values that aren't gibberish, and rulebooks that aren't made nonfunctional by endless typos. I don't understand where the question "can you make (army X) not be unplayable garbage/not be an auto-win button?" turns into "can you make a perfectly balanced wargame in which everyone has precisely a 50.00% winrate against everyone else?" in GW designers' brains.
- Some people here clearly want balance and hardcore competitive play to be the main priority of GW, at the expense of other considerations and other players, and in contradiction to the entire 30+ year history of 40k. That's the problem.
- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
- GW designers' brains AREN'T thinking that bizarre strawman. They're just thinking in roughly the same way as a lot of us in this thread are: it's not meant to be an intense tournament game, it's meant to be a fun game about simulating a battle within the IP, so that's the aspect of the game that gets the most attention from the designers and playtesters. It is really, really, REALLY hard to balance a game consisting of two dozen distinct factions with dozens of different unit types each, all with different stratagems and relics and sub-faction benefits and special rules, while maintaining a system that can replicate the "feel" of the IP and all those different factions and different units, all while written by different people with different brains and visions and hampered by only having the cumbersome tool of the English language to communicate with, and WHILE having to constantly churn out new models and new books and new editions in order to keep the money coming in and the shareholders happy.
So yeah, when the game turns out to, inevitably, have mistakes in terms of balance, and then the competitive players immediately seize on them, and break the game, to dominate the meta for a couple months, but then also go on webforums to complain bitterly that that thing they just made happen happened, yeah, GW is probably going to think " you guys. You're demanding way more than we can possibly give, act like you hate us and we owe you everything you personally want regardless of other players, and you aren't even using the product the way it's intended. I'm not particularly arsed to sort it all out for you."
I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
I guess they have other competing priorities that prevent them from satisfying some people.
That's the core of the whole thing.
They are juggling a LOT of different chainswords in the air to keep this game and IP going. Competitive balance is only one of them.
They can do MOST things MOSTLY right MOST of the time, but they can't do ALL the things WHOLLY right ALL of the time.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
You probably didn't get an answer yet because you phrased the question in a loaded way that implicitly requires the answerer to agree that it's consistently poorly balanced and poorly written.
Not saying you did so intentionally, just pointing out that it's there.
A more neutral version of the question would be "can you name a mainstream commercial war-game that you think is balanced and written worse than 40k is?"
Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
Azreal13 wrote: I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
X-Wing
Infinity
Flames of War
Heavy Gear
Star Wars Legion
All Dropzone Games
... etc ..
...
Azreal13 wrote: I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
X-Wing
Infinity
Flames of War
Heavy Gear
Star Wars Legion
All Dropzone Games
... etc ..
...
LOL imagine thinking ANY of those games are as unbalanced as 40k.
Azreal13 wrote: I've asked this before, and nobody offered a reply, so I'll see if different people can offer a different response.
Can anyone, corner cases and corrected blips aside, name a mainstream commercial wargame that's as consistently poorly balanced and poorly written as 40K?
This is asked with no agenda and genuine curiosity.
X-Wing
Infinity
Flames of War
Heavy Gear
Star Wars Legion
All Dropzone Games
... etc ..
...
You're either joking or lying or have never actually played anything other than 40k. Keep in mind we are talking about AS bad as 40k, not "has balance issues" because every game has that. But I Have never, in 20+ years, ever found a game as consistently poorly balanced with seemingly as little effort put into it balance as any GW game. The other games at least genuinely try and have designers who seemingly actually know statistics and real game design not claim they have a formula but get so much wrong that either their formula isn't even remotely right or they're just lying about it. So no, those games aren't as bad as GW games. GW has the worst balance I've ever seen come from a company where things are consistently missed or not even thought of (and we're talking about basic interaction here not corner-case things).
JohnnyHell wrote: I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
It's very shallow to think it's just the one Heavy Bolter that landed the shot on the Imperial Knight out of 15 you have in your army, meanwhile the rest are shooting with 2 hits average.
So no it still doesn't work in your bizarre interpretation.
I almost always try to find narrative moments, even when I'm at a tournament. I'll send my Master into close combat with the Demon Prince even though it would make more sense to allow the Terminators to grind it down on their own. So I might give up a Slay the Warlord VP to my opponent - its about the glory of the moment. The "Narrative way of playing" is not the same thing as playing narratively. I don't tend to play scenarios or "historical refights." I do, however, enjoy playing in a style where the narrative emerges.
Then we get purposely bad moves like this. This is why GW probably doesn't catch broken crap. They probably play like THIS.
Fajita Fan wrote: They don’t need to try. We keep buying this stuff regardless so they don’t need to change or invest the effort it would take to balance 87 codices.
And they know that everyone who complains bitterly and hates the game will still go right on playing it because "nothing else is as popular", so they never have to worry about Warmahordes or Infinity ever outpacing them…
That's because none of you CAAC players vote with your wallets. You gobble up everything.
Slayer,
I am having a hard time understanding the point you are trying to make - are you referring to my bad move of charging in with my Master? If you are trying to insult me by saying that I play the way the designers play then I guess I'll take it as a compliment? For the record I had already won that game when I sent my Master in. I don't try to lose, in fact I try to win. I try not to miss an opportunity, though, to create a cinematic moment. I have a real-world job with real world consequences etc. This is my hobby. And I quite enjoy the hobby that GW has created.
Additionally, we (whomever we are - I guess I'm a CAAC who plays in tournaments?) do vote with our wallets when we purchase something, or do not purhcase something. That's our decision - our choice. I left for 7th after playing for some 20 years but came back and stayed for 8th. Based on what I see at the gaming communities I belong to many folks are indeed voting with their wallets and are buying/playing GW. You should try to build a bridge and get over that. Worrying about how others are enjoying their hobby is a bizarre hobby to have.
I do think that the IH supplement shows that the design team have some blind spots or "failures of imagination". They probably didn't think of an IH flyer spam or thought about FW interactions. They may be ignorant of the scale of Leviathan forgery-world copies out in the wild. It's a problem, for sure, and it will likely take another rules fix to resolve (like FW models do not benefit from Faction abilities but they do not break Faction coherency etc). I do think that a couple of in-house powergamers locked in the basement of Nottingham (a Red Team of sorts) might help catch these.
Finally, based on the sheer number of fixes that GW has issued since 8th dropped you cannot possibly say that they are not trying to achieve "balance." Even if "balance" gets air-quoted.
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
JohnnyHell wrote: Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
No, I fething didnt, if I intended it that way, I'd have simply left the question without qualifying it.
The fact is, the only way it looks like an agenda is if you suspect that I'm fishing for a specific answer and not genuinely open to a variety or responses, and only if you actually think the answer to the question is no.
I'm not assuming people responding only play 40K. I don't play one system to the exclusion of all else, and have played many games over the years, why would I assume other are all that different? If people only play 40K and still feel comfortable defending it from a position of total ignorance of the wider context of the market, then that at least massively undermines any argument they make, if not completely invalidates it.
I'm also fairly sure the last time I asked was in a topic in General Discussion, so theoretically far more people who play other systems would have been participating.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Finally, based on the sheer number of fixes that GW has issued since 8th dropped you cannot possibly say that they are not trying to achieve "balance." Even if "balance" gets air-quoted.
Cheers,
T2B
I would be more inclined to agree if the fixes indicated they were doing anything other than kneejerk reacting without actually understanding the problem. Although I agree they might be "trying" just trying incredibly poorly (again because it seems like they just don't understand what makes things unbalanced, or they do and are unwilling to fix the root cause)
JohnnyHell wrote: Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
No, I fething didnt, if I intended it that way, I'd have simply left the question without qualifying it.
The fact is, the only way it looks like an agenda is if you suspect that I'm fishing for a specific answer and not genuinely open to a variety or responses, and only if you actually think the answer to the question is no.
I'm not assuming people responding only play 40K. I don't play one system to the exclusion of all else, and have played many games over the years, why would I assume other are all that different If people only play 40K and still feel comfortable defending it from a position of total ignorance of the wider context of the market, then that at least massively undermines any argument they make, if not completely invalidates it.
I'm also fairly sure the last time I asked was in a topic in General Discussion, so theoretically far more people who play other systems would have been participating.
On this note I think a big part of the issue is that many people who think 40k is balanced haven't played any other games, so really aren't qualified to talk about balance since their vision is skewed.
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
JohnnyHell wrote: Does anyone play anything else? Asking people who’ve largely only experienced one game to name other, not-played-much games seems fruitless. 40K has a huge install base. Everything else in the sci-fi wargames sphere... not so much.
Also you asked that question with a tonne of agenda ;-)
No, I fething didnt, if I intended it that way, I'd have simply left the question without qualifying it.
The fact is, the only way it looks like an agenda is if you suspect that I'm fishing for a specific answer and not genuinely open to a variety or responses, and only if you actually think the answer to the question is no.
I'm not assuming people responding only play 40K. I don't play one system to the exclusion of all else, and have played many games over the years, why would I assume other are all that different If people only play 40K and still feel comfortable defending it from a position of total ignorance of the wider context of the market, then that at least massively undermines any argument they make, if not completely invalidates it.
I'm also fairly sure the last time I asked was in a topic in General Discussion, so theoretically far more people who play other systems would have been participating.
On this note I think a big part of the issue is that many people who think 40k is balanced haven't played any other games, so really aren't qualified to talk about balance since their vision is skewed.
Agreed. 6th and 7th really knocked the stuffing out if my local clubs enthusiasm for 40K, so we started playing other games. While that brings its own issues with fragmentation and people sometimes struggling to get a game of their first choice if the right people aren't there each week, from a pure enjoyment of gaming perspective it's been a revelation.
nataliereed1984 wrote: ...They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
...Nobody wants "perfect balance". Everyone wants the rules not to punish them for liking the wrong models, points values that aren't gibberish, and rulebooks that aren't made nonfunctional by endless typos. I don't understand where the question "can you make (army X) not be unplayable garbage/not be an auto-win button?" turns into "can you make a perfectly balanced wargame in which everyone has precisely a 50.00% winrate against everyone else?" in GW designers' brains.
- Some people here clearly want balance and hardcore competitive play to be the main priority of GW, at the expense of other considerations and other players, and in contradiction to the entire 30+ year history of 40k. That's the problem.
- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
- GW designers' brains AREN'T thinking that bizarre strawman. They're just thinking in roughly the same way as a lot of us in this thread are: it's not meant to be an intense tournament game, it's meant to be a fun game about simulating a battle within the IP, so that's the aspect of the game that gets the most attention from the designers and playtesters. It is really, really, REALLY hard to balance a game consisting of two dozen distinct factions with dozens of different unit types each, all with different stratagems and relics and sub-faction benefits and special rules, while maintaining a system that can replicate the "feel" of the IP and all those different factions and different units, all while written by different people with different brains and visions and hampered by only having the cumbersome tool of the English language to communicate with, and WHILE having to constantly churn out new models and new books and new editions in order to keep the money coming in and the shareholders happy.
So yeah, when the game turns out to, inevitably, have mistakes in terms of balance, and then the competitive players immediately seize on them, and break the game, to dominate the meta for a couple months, but then also go on webforums to complain bitterly that that thing they just made happen happened, yeah, GW is probably going to think " you guys. You're demanding way more than we can possibly give, act like you hate us and we owe you everything you personally want regardless of other players, and you aren't even using the product the way it's intended. I'm not particularly arsed to sort it all out for you."
I'm not a competitive player.
I don't give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
I don't expect GW to give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
What I do expect is for GW to consider the fact that when they put out a book giving points values for units people are going to seize on those points values as meaning something. I don't understand why GW, and by extension people like you, insist that there is either the game as it exists now, which is good enough, or the game tournament players want, which is impossible. The game as it exists right now isn't good enough and could be dramatically improved with very minimal effort far short of being the game tournament players want.
The problem is that if I want to wander into a gamestore with an army and find a game I cannot trust GW's points to produce an accurate estimate of what kind of game I should expect. In a competently-designed wargame if I show up with a thousand points of models and you show up with a thousand points of models we should be able to have a reasonable game. In 40k if I show up with a thousand points of Custodes and you show up with a thousand points of Iron Hands I am going to get leafblowered off the table without any opportunity to do any damage to anything because GW's designers like one of those armies and don't like the other, completely independent of the points/PL they supposedly give us to balance a pick-up game. This is not "the best they can do", this is not a case of "guys, they're trying, stop asking the impossible." I don't want the game to be a tournament-competitive game. I want the designers to give equal attention to everything they put out instead of slavishing love and attention on the armies they play and tossing off a half-baked uninteresting slurry of overpriced garbage for the armies they don't. I want to be able to get pick-up games where I don't get eaten alive because I brought the wrong models and go home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" or steamroll someone else because they bought the wrong models and send them home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" I want to not throw away a pile of models because there'll be zero demand for them since their rules are s*** and I'll be lucky to recoup the cost of shipping. I want to not have to sit down and do research about whether whatever new cool models I want to buy and paint are going to be shelf-jockeys collecting dust because the writers didn't understand how their rules were supposed to work. I want GW to recognize that maybe they f***ed up some of the basic assumptions about the math of 8e they did in the Indices and try and overhaul some datasheets instead of accepting that the game is f***ed and then charging me to fiddle prices occasionally. I want to stop having to tell newbies who like the lore and like the models that they can't play the models they like if they want to have a shot of not getting stomped off the table in two turns every time they play the game.
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.
But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
So they're meant to reflect the extremes - WAAC being really obnoxiously hardcore competitive players who are no fun to play with and build lists that just spam the most OP and cost-efficient units, farm CP, and unleash ridiculous combos, and totally ignore stuff like the other player's interests, having a good time, any sense of immersion or narrative sensibility, etc, and CAAC being the obnoxiously casual narrative player who absolutely refuses to take any aspect of the game seriously, just wants to role-play their army while ALSO ignoring stuff like the other player's interests, having a mutually enjoyable good time, and having some genuine sense of excitement and tension to the battle?
But, given that this a webforum for a fandom, and therefore everyone has to fight all the time, the terms get applied universally to everyone, as a hard binary with no outside or in-between positions possible?
- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
Apparently the caveat needs to be offered several more times…
Point of order, this is a sub forum for a fandom on a forum for wargaming in general. Sadly GW gets all the attention, but equally it is only really the GW subs that this distinction really applies. Most other games it doesn't really matter what your attitude to the game is because the rules are robust enough to accommodate it without requiring player agency to make adjustments.
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
It means something Slayer doesn't like, as far as I can tell from the usage. You'd think that taking a casual non-strict attitude towards WYSIWYG would count, but apparently that's opposite-day rules...
nataliereed1984 wrote: - Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
Apparently the caveat needs to be offered several more times…
I don't think the caveat is relevant. The fact that "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, guys!" isn't and shouldn't be an excuse for the points being gibberish has nothing to do with whether or not it'd be nice if the game were better-balanced.
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
It means something Slayer doesn't like, as far as I can tell from the usage. You'd think that taking a casual non-strict attitude towards WYSIWYG would count, but apparently that's opposite-day rules...
No, CAAC is used to mean someone who is essentially a sore loser. The person who takes a garbage list (that the list is garbage is another issue entirely), loses with it and then goes on a rant about how their opponent is a filthy TFG for daring to pick units that synergize well. It, like WAAC, has generally devolved into being an insult that means "You don't play the way I do" but the original intention is the person who not only doesn't care to play well or build strong lists but complains about the fact their opponent DID while at the same time refusing to do it because they feel morally superior by not doing it.
It's basically an extreme example of David Sirlin's "Scrub": A player who imposes their own limitations that the game doesn't, and then complains when not everyone does the same thing.
I play Flames of War and Team Yankee. Anybody who thinks that GW has the monopoly on unbalanced factions/books has clearly not played either in a mildly competitive setting. Anybody remember the BAR fiasco from the EW release? How about the US Tank Destroyer spam and Blood Guts and Glory Patton lists? East German BMP1 spam?
The big difference between FOW and 40K is that the 40K reboot from 7th to 8th was a smashing success and the FOW reboot from 3rd to 4th was a disaster. Its too bad, I liked FOW. Anyhoo, this is a 40K General Discussion sub-board.
Ultimately, GW seems to be getting something right. Guess I'm a CAAC White Knight? Huah!!!
I don't give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
I don't expect GW to give a flying f*** about tournament winrates.
What I do expect is for GW to consider the fact that when they put out a book giving points values for units people are going to seize on those points values as meaning something. I don't understand why GW, and by extension people like you, insist that there is either the game as it exists now, which is good enough, or the game tournament players want, which is impossible. The game as it exists right now isn't good enough and could be dramatically improved with very minimal effort far short of being the game tournament players want.
The problem is that if I want to wander into a gamestore with an army and find a game I cannot trust GW's points to produce an accurate estimate of what kind of game I should expect. In a competently-designed wargame if I show up with a thousand points of models and you show up with a thousand points of models we should be able to have a reasonable game. In 40k if I show up with a thousand points of Custodes and you show up with a thousand points of Iron Hands I am going to get leafblowered off the table without any opportunity to do any damage to anything because GW's designers like one of those armies and don't like the other, completely independent of the points/PL they supposedly give us to balance a pick-up game. This is not "the best they can do", this is not a case of "guys, they're trying, stop asking the impossible." I don't want the game to be a tournament-competitive game. I want the designers to give equal attention to everything they put out instead of slavishing love and attention on the armies they play and tossing off a half-baked uninteresting slurry of overpriced garbage for the armies they don't. I want to be able to get pick-up games where I don't get eaten alive because I brought the wrong models and go home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" or steamroll someone else because they bought the wrong models and send them home thinking "well, what was the point of playing this game, then?" I want to not throw away a pile of models because there'll be zero demand for them since their rules are s*** and I'll be lucky to recoup the cost of shipping. I want to not have to sit down and do research about whether whatever new cool models I want to buy and paint are going to be shelf-jockeys collecting dust because the writers didn't understand how their rules were supposed to work. I want GW to recognize that maybe they f***ed up some of the basic assumptions about the math of 8e they did in the Indices and try and overhaul some datasheets instead of accepting that the game is f***ed and then charging me to fiddle prices occasionally. I want to stop having to tell newbies who like the lore and like the models that they can't play the models they like if they want to have a shot of not getting stomped off the table in two turns every time they play the game.
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
This is the most succinct and clear post that describes the issue I have seen in a very long time. Not only exalted, but anyone who disagrees with the idea GW needs to really try (not do a token try and they say "Hey look we're trying!") needs to read and re-read this post to understand exactly the problem. You hit the nail on the head.
The entire issue is there should never be swathes of models that look cool but are useless (unless you like to lose a lot) and sit on the shelf because, for whatever reason, the design team isn't skilled enough to understand how to make things viable or are secretly playing favorites with some units and not others (which we don't know if they are, but since we know nothing it's easy to assume it is because there is so little explanation otherwise)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I play Flames of War and Team Yankee. Anybody who thinks that GW has the monopoly on unbalanced factions/books has clearly not played either in a mildly competitive setting. Anybody remember the BAR fiasco from the EW release? How about the US Tank Destroyer spam and Blood Guts and Glory Patton lists? East German BMP1 spam?
The big difference between FOW and 40K is that the 40K reboot from 7th to 8th was a smashing success and the FOW reboot from 3rd to 4th was a disaster. Its too bad, I liked FOW. Anyhoo, this is a 40K General Discussion sub-board.
Ultimately, GW seems to be getting something right. Guess I'm a CAAC White Knight? Huah!!!
I also play FOW however I started with 4th though so I don't know the differences between 3rd and 4th, but 8th being a smashing success means little other than people fell hook, line and sinker for GW's smoke and mirrors, since it's become arguably worse than 7th edition ever was in a very short time. 40k has a lot of inertia and a lot of "it's good enough" attitude floating around. Other games don't get that luxury so have to try harder. It's only GW that can put out horsegak and have the masses eat it up like it's candy and ignore all the problems because hey at least it's popular.
Other wargames than 40K do seem to have a problem even consistently existing... Most seem to die after couple of years.
But some of them, even many might indeed have better balance than 40K.. However I don't think that main reason for this is that their writers are more competent or care more about balance than GW ones. 40K has absolutely massive breadth and scope. For example in a historical game there is quite limited selection of units and everyone's stuff is pretty similar. A German WWII tank is more similar to a British WWII tank than a Wave Serpent is to a Carnifex. And many other games are just skirmish games where most units are just infantry or big robots at most. 40K has everything from Gretchin to Knight Titans. That is part of its appeal, but indubitably makes balancing way more challenging.
Now whilst I really like that such a huge variety of units and factions is usable in 40K one way GW makes this even more difficult than it needs to be is introducing all these subfactions, and they have doubled down on that recently. I for one would be perfectly satisfied if different Space Marine chapters etc were merely differentiated by the paint job and the fluff. But among the playerbase I'm probably in the minority in this, people seem to want specialised bespoke rules for everything and GW is complying. But by doing so they make balancing even more difficult, and in many cases completely impossible. Obviously more varieties you write, greater chance there is that some of them will accidentally be too good. And as subfaction rules do not affect the point costs, balancing them becomes simply impossible. For example if one subfaction makes vehicles much more powerful and other one does not, then how do you cost the vehicles properly for the main faction? It simply cannot be done.
Crimson wrote: Other wargames than 40K do to have a problem even consistently existing... Most seem to die after couple of years.
Getting a bit offtopic but this is a double-edged sword. 40k is so ingrained that other games have an extremely difficult time getting any traction at all, so without players and store support (at least here in the USA if a game store doesn't stock your product it's unlikely most people are going to know/care about it, even in the age of the internet. I sometimes think most game stores and their patrons live in a different age where only what they see in stock is considered to exist) of course it'll die. 40k is and always has been the comfortable outlier where you can be reasonably certain there is at least one store (independent or GW) that will stock 40k and provide tables, and even more certain there are people who play. Much less so for any other game where there's a good chance not only have none of the locals even heard of it because they never look outside of GW, but if you suggested it you would be told to feth off with trying to "push your pet game" or be told that the store won't let people play it there because they don't stock it, so nobody cares.
Back on topic here, an underlying issue besides bloat (too many factions, units and options but Pandora's box has been opened there and can 't be shut) is that there's no consistency. There is no common profile for a vehicle which gets slightly adjusted so that say an Eldar vehicle has better WS/BS but less W being more fragile, while a SM vehicle has more being more resilient, etc. So everything is seemingly done at random without any baseline that it goes off of, resulting in a huge variety of ways it gets designed that, if rumors are true, each designer decides independently so if Cruddace feels that a marine vehicle should be totes kewl awesome he'll do that, while Grant might think Eldar tanks are a bit too good and tweak them to be slightly weaker but have an extra ability or something. Since there is seemingly no communication you now have a SM tank being way OP and an Eldar tank being nerfed because each designer went off on their own with what they thought it should be without paying any attention at all to what other vehicles are like.
And again, the above may or may not be true but since we are told nothing about the design process, we can only go by what it seems to be which is exactly this.
Man this has drawn on for far too long, and all these points must have been made several times over by now... Oh well, once more unto the breach.
GW is perfectly capable of getting balance right, or at least achieving an acceptable level of balanced gameplay and still having a reasonable amount of customizing available to players. To take an example, the 6e. Ravening Hordes for Fantasy Battle was pretty brilliant (if I remember correctly, been a long time). 30k. before Custodes might be a never example, haven't played it tho.
However, that is not what the current business model is. A slow flow of codexes, a meta game that changes within editions, rules errata and additional important rules you have to buy new books to get a hold of... all that is of course deliberate, and none of that speaks to a particular aim for a balanced gameplay. Balanced here meaning a stable and balanced game system for competitive play and, more importantly at least some degree of stability and between codex comparability within editions/over time. On the contrary, one might conspiratorially suggest that they are smart enough to plan the meta game, in order to maximize player investment and optimize buzz around new codexes, sets and particular models.
I find that you really have to be wearing your rose colored googles to not just plainly accept this on the face of things, (but each to their own opinion, of course). You can totally enjoy the game regardless, and find that more player options, new models, more narrative campaigns etc. are where GW should put their resources, and to some extent, that is just what we have right now (with added meta game chasing). Great.
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
Personally, I would like a game system with few changes over time, no adjustments or changes for the sake of change, but only to smoothen out gameplay. I would like a total roll back of the gameplay importance of added special rules*, special characters, extra++ saves, funky game changing equipment, optimized and thus bottleneck creating builds and wargear choices and a slight scale back in the scale the gameplay is supposed to represent. 40k. used to be a slightly bigger skirmish level game, although no body were willing to admit it. To some extent it still is, only with flyers, super heavies, über characters and titans... Where did my Epic go? Instead, what I would like is tons and tons of customobility, both within codexes and on units and characters, but with said options having only minor game implications. That could bring balance, but keep it fun and fluffy. Unfortunately, a stagnant game is GW's worst nightmare, and maybe rightly so, since they need people to go out and update and buy new armies again and again.
*EDIT*: Just a stray thought. Some, definitely not all, but some of the imbalances due to special rules might stem from the extremities the designers need to go to in order to make fluff and differences apparent in a D6 based gameplay. Ei. Eldar are faster than Space Marines, so they get fleet of foot, but these space marines are faster than other space marines, so they also get fleet of foot... oh boy, muffed it up again.
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Yes and no. It's true that it's a self-creating problem: People want to break the game and find the most OP combos to play the "best", and then turn around and complain the game is unbalanced because those things exist. However, it's not unreasonable to expect a game to be played competitively (as all games inevitably are because humans are like that) and as a result the game ought to be better balanced so there's not a huge gap between power levels. So yes it's a problem the competitive players create by trying to break everything, but the fact things are so easy to break and require so little effort to determine which is the "best" option that it's overall a bad thing. Some level of system mastery where you eventually learn the best combos is fine, but with 40k most broken combos are blatantly obvious and discovered within minutes, which means the designers are either so incompetent that they can't even see 2+2=4 combos, it's intentional to create a "meta" which makes more people buy things, they don't have time to adqeuately test or a myriad of other reasons none of which are really putting them in a good light.
To answer your second point the "CAAC" peple seem to get the ire because far too often it's pretending that balance is bad or that somehow good balance means you can't play casually or narratively. So they are arguing from a standpoint that's not only wrong but ignorant as well, since good balance helps the CAAC player more by making more choices viable and NOT having only 10% of a book be good; even if you take the approach that you can't have competitive and narrative in the same game (which is flat out wrong) surely having better balance means you can take more narrative forces and not get the gak kicked out of you by someone playing the more competitive list, because the balance between those lists is suddenly a lot smaller. But again CAAC is thrown out way too often and with too broad a brush to mean anyone who doesn't want to break the game or thinks the game shouldn't be played in a cutthroat competitive manner (the second usually by people who emphasize the competitive aspect to the exclusion of all else) just like WAAC is given to anyone who wants to build a strong list.
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
So they're meant to reflect the extremes - WAAC being really obnoxiously hardcore competitive players who are no fun to play with and build lists that just spam the most OP and cost-efficient units, farm CP, and unleash ridiculous combos, and totally ignore stuff like the other player's interests, having a good time, any sense of immersion or narrative sensibility, etc, and CAAC being the obnoxiously casual narrative player who absolutely refuses to take any aspect of the game seriously, just wants to role-play their army while ALSO ignoring stuff like the other player's interests, having a mutually enjoyable good time, and having some genuine sense of excitement and tension to the battle?
But, given that this a webforum for a fandom, and therefore everyone has to fight all the time, the terms get applied universally to everyone, as a hard binary with no outside or in-between positions possible?
- Of course the game could be improved, and it would be nice for every faction to have a reasonably fair shot at winning, no faction to be an obvious God Tier, and no clearly auto-take or never-take models. Of course. How many times does that caveat need to be offered?
But no. I'm asking too much that there should be a reason to use every army and every unit. It's entirely okay for boxes of models to be dead shelf space that won't sell until someone throws them out because it's been a decade since anyone on GW's design team has liked them enough to try and fix them. It doesn't hurt GW at all that Warhammer generates its own endless spiral of frustrated burn-outs who hate the game and everything it stands for because the promises of the design team are lies and it's all entirely okay because "it isn't meant to be a competitive game, you guys!"
Apparently the caveat needs to be offered several more times…
Not really. WAAC is the attitude, not the list, and the same for CAAC. The main difference is at least some WAAC tool isn't going to pretend balance is even somewhat there compared to the CAAC tool.
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Maybe? You don't see the regular top tournament players here complaining. There are also a lot of net-listed predictions that didn't come to pass. There is a disconnect between the forums and some parts of the real life equation.
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.
But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.
It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?
Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Maybe? You don't see the regular top tournament players here complaining. There are also a lot of net-listed predictions that didn't come to pass. There is a disconnect between the forums and some parts of the real life equation.
Name net list predictions that didn't come to fruition. You'll find it VERY small of a list.
Aestas wrote: Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.
But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.
It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?
My point is you're saying that just because someone played in a manner that was fun for them, picked units you wouldn't use, they're an extreme CAAC player? It's not a black and white space where you're either a douchey tourney player or some narrative crack pot.
In short, just because your view of the world is limited to narrow perceptions, don't presume others conform to your standards or opinions.
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.
But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.
It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?
My point is you're saying that just because someone played in a manner that was fun for them, picked units you wouldn't use, they're an extreme CAAC player? It's not a black and white space where you're either a douchey tourney player or some narrative crack pot.
In short, just because your view of the world is limited to narrow perceptions, don't presume others conform to your standards or opinions.
It is pretty clear you didn't read the actual post I was referring to anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: I honestly wouldn't bother engaging with Slayer on this, he seems to think casual play is an insult directed at him personally for some reason.
The insult is denying the issues, being pretentious about it, and still giving GW money for their printed products.
I haven't played any war-games BESIDES 40k, Necromunda and Kill Team in like twenty years. My own answers wouldn't have any relevance.
By the way…
What the hell does CAAC mean? I initially thought it meant "Competitive At All Costs" but now it seems like it's being used in the opposite sense, like "Casual At All Costs"????
There's the WAAC (where someone cheats and does whatever they can to win, sometimes measuring to the mm of a movement or purposely misremembering a rule, which while compatible with competition isn't necessary for the personality) and CAAC (the virtue signaling player that says making even a slightly cohesive list is a tryhard, and toy soldiers and all that garbage).
And why does "I wanted a cinematic showdown between HQ's" = CAAC? You know nothing of their list, the game or anything. They might have been winning a tourney with iron hands and since it was in the bag, charged the prince with a chapter master for a laugh.
But of course you don't seem to understand that fun can be found in a scenario that isn't bleeding edge efficiency.
It actually fits the very definition if said Terminators in that story would've made it miles easier. It doesn't matter who was winning at that point. Based on the fact it was indeed Terminators in the story, we already know it was not a tournament list anyway. So your point is what?
My point is you're saying that just because someone played in a manner that was fun for them, picked units you wouldn't use, they're an extreme CAAC player? It's not a black and white space where you're either a douchey tourney player or some narrative crack pot.
In short, just because your view of the world is limited to narrow perceptions, don't presume others conform to your standards or opinions.
It is pretty clear you didn't read the actual post I was referring to anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: I honestly wouldn't bother engaging with Slayer on this, he seems to think casual play is an insult directed at him personally for some reason.
The insult is denying the issues, being pretentious about it, and still giving GW money for their printed products.
The original CAAC comment came when you blindly decided that CAAC players keep GW afloat. Of course I mean anyone who isn't an ITC player is obviously CAAC and nobody exists in the middle or buys anything, likewise the sold out items on the store aren't possibly meta chasing competitive units...
Aestas wrote: Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?
I´m solely basing my wild claim on anecdotal evidence from forums, I'll gladly concede to that.
Aestas wrote: Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?
I´m solely basing my wild claim on anecdotal evidence from forums, I'll gladly concede to that.
I'm not sure Anomander knows what the words "seems to me" mean, or is capable of making a post that isn't indignant hyperbole.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.
So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?
Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim.
Aestas wrote: Now. The funny thing here is that the worst offenders in chasing the meta, and thus making the business model more viable, seems often times to be the same people who complains the most loudly about it. That is voting with your wallets, but for the very thing you claim to be against.
This is a really good point. It seems to me that the people who are most angry about things like the Iron Hands supplement are ALSO exactly the same people who scour each new release for the most powerful, game-breaking ways to exploit the problems in the rules to crush their opponents, rather than just playing the factions and sub-factions and tactical approaches they like best. Take this, and factor in "I won't play any different games because no one plays the different games", and it starts looking like they're creating, or at least exacerbating, most of the problems they're most angry about. After all, it's not the "CAAC" players who are inclined towards spamming and netlisting and making OP'd lists - if any of them bought new Iron Hands, it was simply because they were happy to see a neglected, overlooked chapter get some attention for once - so why are they the target of so much ire?
Based on what? Do you have any data to back up this wild assertion that the meta-chasers buying a new army every three months are also the people complaining?
I´m solely basing my wild claim on anecdotal evidence from forums, I'll gladly concede to that.
I'm not sure Anomander knows what the words "seems to me" mean, or is capable of making a post that isn't indignant hyperbole.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.
So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?
Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim
You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.
JohnnyHell wrote:I mean, it does work if you read my take on it. If you ignore it and repeat yours of course it doesn’t. That’s how opinions work.
I get the frustration some people have with Strats. Seeing them as the more heroic moments helps me reconcile them. Units are using their Auspexes and scanners and fly clouds and knife feet etc all the time. That one Hellfire Shell is the one that hits the crucial spot, whereas the others plinked off the armour and might as well have been regular rounds. All the Eldar planes are jinking about but that one gal is just *super good at it*. That kind of thing. The exemplars and outliers are the ones the Strats represent, to me. YMMV. Whatever is most fun for you.
AnomanderRake wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote: ...whenever they have a game/rules person on, it is reiterated over and over again.
it's like those against GW's stated position are standing in an echo chamber of their own creation. They choose to ignore it since it does not fit their narrative(see what I did there). I could understand this viewpoint if (@some point in the past) GW was the bestest, mostest, awesomest balance machine ever. With the tightest most efficient rules and no OP/under overcosted units. Since this is clearly not the case, continuing to complain about something that clearly is not even a moderate priority for GW, is insane.
Newbie who likes Dawn of War comes into a gamestore and says "Hey, I like (this army) and I want to buy a starter box/learn more about the game." The community is then presented with a choice. Do they say "Don't buy that army, the design team doesn't like them and their rules are all incredibly s**t", or do they lie about the state of the game to get the newbie to buy the stuff and then wait for them to discover that everything is grotesquely mis-priced and they're going to lose every game unless they go into games with a large points handicap?
Who wins in this situation? Who is this good for?
Which part of the community are you referring to? The fact that you would automatically dismiss something since it's not the "hotshit" and deride them for their interest in a particular whatever, says a fair amount of how you perceive the community as a whole. which you do not represent. there are many facets to the community, not just the tournament scene. Narrative is an equally valid way to enjoy the hobby and as far as I can tell have no problem with the game as currently featured. Occasional players also have a voice as well as newcomers.
I would talk with them and see which models they like the most, what kind of army style they like, type of game(serious competitive/chill for fun/everything in between)etc. a 5 minute conversation goes a long long way to helping a new player/collector/painter/tourney goer for them to get the most out of their hobby.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.
So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?
Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim
You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.
Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!
Ah yes, Schroedinger's Tournament Player, simultaneously not a large enough demographic to be worth GW trying to balance the game, but also so large it is capable of clearing GW out of stock of the new hotness.
Racerguy180 wrote: I would talk with them and see which models they like the most, what kind of army style they like, type of game(serious competitive/chill for fun/everything in between)etc. a 5 minute conversation goes a long long way to helping a new player/collector/painter/tourney goer for them to get the most out of their hobby.
Yes, but what happens when after that conversation you have to break it to them that the army/models they like are no good and they'll just lose every game unless they play this other army/take these other models that they may not like as much? Which of the following is the more likely response?
1) Oh okay, I guess I'll pick this other army then if the one I like is no good
2) Oh, really? Well that sucks *puts box back and goes to play a different game where they can play what they like and not be punished for it*
The sheer fact that you may have to discourage a new player from picking up what they like so they don't just constantly lose with little or no chance at winning until they buy an army that doesn't have that issue or get fed up with losing and stop playing is pretty damning. And I suspect that situation (eager new player just keeps getting crushed because the army/models they like are weak and eventually just stops showing up) happens a lot more than people want to believe.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.
So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?
Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim
You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.
Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!
Ah yes, Schroedinger's Tournament Player, simultaneously not a large enough demographic to be worth GW trying to balance the game, but also so large it is capable of clearing GW out of stock of the new hotness.
Well… YEAH. We're talking one or two kits out of literally hundreds.
Just like I said much earlier in the thread: "top-selling model" is not indicative of their overall sales.
And as I also said: GW has sales data. They definitely know who's buying what and how often. And you can all rest assured that they're not deliberately ignoring opportunities to make more money. They know where their bread and butter comes from, and that's the breadth of the hobby, not any one particular sub-type of player. Not even just players at all.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.
So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?
Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim
You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.
Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!
Ah yes, Schroedinger's Tournament Player, simultaneously not a large enough demographic to be worth GW trying to balance the game, but also so large it is capable of clearing GW out of stock of the new hotness.
Good one But also; The enigma of the internet. Being simultaneously in agreement and disagreement at the same time.
I do however, need to point out that in (sales) statistics, you look at movements, not only at absolutes. So the two can quite easily exist at the same time. For example, the casual market being the fore, the planned meta game driving extra sales. Also, just to point it out, to even begin to use sold out items as a metric requires a similar starting baseline.
To sum up; I do not know if GW chases the meta, I have no clue, since I do not have the data and haven't looked at it, and even if I had, i'm not sure any conclusive conclusions could even easily be made (since there are a ton of unknown variables behind a miniature sale not easily gleamed from sales numbers). However, overall I see little business sense in making a perfectly balanced game. If it gets to a point where change would be unwelcome - in other words, if you didn't need a new edition, where do you then go with your game IP? I do see a business reason to rig the meta however, since it keeps the game changing.
I do want that game tho. The balanced one. As stated earlier, I'm not happy with the current situation.
EDIT: for lots of typos, non-english speaking errors and some giggles.
EDIT 2: The above shouldn't be understood as if no patterns would be easily detectable. I'm pretty sure you could easily gleam a few trends without breaking a sweat. Just for fun, a few could be "Bigger = better sales", hence scale creep on models and the introduction of primaris and custodes etc. Another one being "overload the s--t on detail = sales" as apart from Primaris, random detail amount seems to creep ever upward, and "sucky codex = less sales" since it is still an outlier to see new codexes plainly balanced to the whole edition without some kind of über build. The last one obviously being the most contestable and hardest to gleam.
I thought I was late to the party, but since we are still talking about CAACs, let me explain the source of the name for those too new to this forum, since I'm one of "the original CAACs" this term was coined against...
Originally it was used by Peregrine to insult all those people who derive their fun and/or intelectual excercise in any game not from solving the system (in other words, try to win the meta-game), but in any other way Peregrine was unable to understand. If, for example, you were open to playing anything other than the strongest builds at the moment and was open about it, or, god forbid, if you were ok with self imposed limitations on lisbuilding in order to accomodate anyone who whished to play with trash tier units because they liked the models, you were filthy, virtue signaling CAAC. If you made in-game moves like what TangoTwoBrawo described above, you were virtue signaling CAAC because it is insulting for your oponent to not play your A game all the time. And so on, you can get the general idea.
Since the very begining of the term it was meant to be insulting and had no usefull or well defined meaning at all. As time passed and the term started circulating a lot of people tried to make at least some sense out of it and that is how we got the now accepted vague meaning of "people who don't know how to be competent at the game but are sore loosers so they hide behind casual/narrative self-description". But as can be seen in this very thread, some people still use it in original way of "I don't like your fun so you must be dumb CAAC".
So it has been claimed several times over the last few pages that 40k is "too large in scope" or that there are "too many" factions for the game to be balanced.
40k has:
Space Marines (Loyal and traitor)
Custodes (basically betterer more superer marines +2)
Knight Titans
Sisters
Inquisition
Assassins (all 4 of them)
Mechancus
Guard
Tyranids
Eldar
Tau
Orks
Necrons
Demons
Tyranids
14. 14 Unique factions. That's really all. Lore aside, how different are they, really? Stat profiles? Certainly not doing the "heavy lifting" as GW claimed in 8th ed. previews. The most significant things are USRs, doctrines, stratagems etc. These would be fixed with a more complex core ruleset that accounted for varying numbers in the stat profiles for units and weapons, make those profiles more meaningful, then added on USRs or a unique rule or two per army to make them more distinct.
14 is not a massive difference over other games, either.
Malifaux has 8 factions currently, and all but the Explorer's Society, which is new in M3E, have 8 masters a piece. Masters play differently from each other, more so than BA vs DA vs Smurfs vs IH vs GKs. Yet the game appears pretty well-balanced so far. Story is also one of the pillars of Malifaux, by the way, part and parcel of gameplay.
GW prioritized simplicity, speed of play, and streamlining to such a degree that there is nothing meaningful or distinct left. A more complex core= more choices for players to make when playing, substantive differences between units/armies without massive imbalance, and a richer emergent narrative not based on playing pretend over the few actions units can take.
On the claim that balancing the game better for competitive play would make it less fun for narrative: how?
What about my being able to bring some tac squads, DW, RW, devastators and a libby, and not get creamed by IH or whatever else is the new hotness, without my opponent needing to use different units or give me a handicap, tells a weaker story? The biggest problem with 40k in telling a narrative is that it has become so heavily streamlined and abstract that there aren't many cool things for our units to do. Unlike in Malifaux, or MEDGe, or Infinity, or Zone Raiders, or......... This problem is unique to 40k. Why?
Why on Earth would anyone bring "virtue signalling" into it? What does that have to do with playing a game?
I loathe that term anyway, for a variety of reasons it's best not to get into, but isn't it about like, ethics and politics and altruism, and assuming or projecting disingenuous motivations in them, not… you know… how people prefer to enjoy their recreational activities?
nataliereed1984 wrote: Why on Earth would anyone bring "virtue signalling" into it? What does that have to do with playing a game?
I loathe that term anyway, for a variety of reasons it's best not to get into, but isn't it about like, ethics and politics and altruism, and assuming or projecting disingenuous motivations in them, not… you know… how people prefer to enjoy their recreational activities?
It’s a hateful term which ironically signals the user’s politics more than whatever they’re trying to project on others.
Blastaar wrote: So it has been claimed several times over the last few pages that 40k is "too large in scope" or that there are "too many" factions for the game to be balanced.
40k has:
Space Marines (Loyal and traitor)
Custodes (basically betterer more superer marines +2)
Knight Titans
Sisters
Inquisition
Assassins (all 4 of them)
Mechancus
Guard
Tyranids
Eldar
Tau
Orks
Necrons
Demons
Tyranids
14. 14 Unique factions.
-Grey Knights
-Chaos Marines are a wholly different faction from loyalist marines with wholly different rules and balance considerations
-Death Guard
-Thousand Sons
-Drukhari
-Harlequins
-Genestealer Cults
-Sisters of Silence
Then there's the fact that while similar to basic marines, there's still lots of unique balance considerations for:
You're not even remembering all the factions when making this claim!
No one's saying this makes it impossible to balance. But it definitely makes it incredibly difficult, especially in the context of limited time and resources and a constant influx of new models and rules.
nou wrote: I thought I was late to the party, but since we are still talking about CAACs, let me explain the source of the name for those too new to this forum, since I'm one of "the original CAACs" this term was coined against...
Originally it was used by Peregrine to insult all those people who derive their fun and/or intelectual excercise in any game not from solving the system (in other words, try to win the meta-game), but in any other way Peregrine was unable to understand. If, for example, you were open to playing anything other than the strongest builds at the moment and was open about it, or, god forbid, if you were ok with self imposed limitations on lisbuilding in order to accomodate anyone who whished to play with trash tier units because they liked the models, you were filthy, virtue signaling CAAC. If you made in-game moves like what TangoTwoBrawo described above, you were virtue signaling CAAC because it is insulting for your oponent to not play your A game all the time. And so on, you can get the general idea.
Since the very begining of the term it was meant to be insulting and had no usefull or well defined meaning at all. As time passed and the term started circulating a lot of people tried to make at least some sense out of it and that is how we got the now accepted vague meaning of "people who don't know how to be competent at the game but are sore loosers so they hide behind casual/narrative self-description". But as can be seen in this very thread, some people still use it in original way of "I don't like your fun so you must be dumb CAAC".
Hope this helps.
I think your definition is just colored by personal opinion just a tad. CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).
At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.
WAAC mostly to me is RAW vs RAI argued strictly for their advantage and overall cheating. Cut throat lists are an optional part of the equation after that, but they'll at least a somewhat streamlined army.
Blastaar wrote: So it has been claimed several times over the last few pages that 40k is "too large in scope" or that there are "too many" factions for the game to be balanced.
40k has:
Space Marines (Loyal and traitor)
Custodes (basically betterer more superer marines +2)
Knight Titans
Sisters
Inquisition
Assassins (all 4 of them)
Mechancus
Guard
Tyranids
Eldar
Tau
Orks
Necrons
Demons
Tyranids
14. 14 Unique factions.
-Grey Knights
-Chaos Marines are a wholly different faction from loyalist marines with wholly different rules and balance considerations
-Death Guard
-Thousand Sons
-Drukhari
-Harlequins
-Genestealer Cults
-Sisters of Silence
Then there's the fact that while similar to basic marines, there's still lots of unique balance considerations for:
You're not even remembering all the factions when making this claim!
No one's saying this makes it impossible to balance. But it definitely makes it incredibly difficult, especially in the context of limited time and resources and a constant influx of new models and rules.
I forgot nothing. My point was that, despite the unique units and SRs, marine factions aren't truly all that different from each other, and I say this as a DA player that wants to keep his unique stuff.
Chaos is in a similar boat. A few unique units here and there, some "special" wargear and USR-but-bespoke rules. They still fight like marines.
Blastaar wrote: So it has been claimed several times over the last few pages that 40k is "too large in scope" or that there are "too many" factions for the game to be balanced.
40k has:
Space Marines (Loyal and traitor)
Custodes (basically betterer more superer marines +2)
Knight Titans
Sisters
Inquisition
Assassins (all 4 of them)
Mechancus
Guard
Tyranids
Eldar
Tau
Orks
Necrons
Demons
Tyranids
14. 14 Unique factions.
-Grey Knights
-Chaos Marines are a wholly different faction from loyalist marines with wholly different rules and balance considerations
-Death Guard
-Thousand Sons
-Drukhari
-Harlequins
-Genestealer Cults
-Sisters of Silence
Then there's the fact that while similar to basic marines, there's still lots of unique balance considerations for:
You're not even remembering all the factions when making this claim!
No one's saying this makes it impossible to balance. But it definitely makes it incredibly difficult, especially in the context of limited time and resources and a constant influx of new models and rules.
And how many of those armies SHOULD be considered separate?
Blastaar wrote: and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).
But how is that "virtue signalling"??? This doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with ethics or politics, or stating an ethical position.
Blastaar, try including every Codex and not pretending some are the same different rules requires balancing, so they’re not able to be counted as one.
Space Marines (and 6+ Supplements, increasing complexity)
Dark Angels
Blood Angels
Space Wolves (all these three have their own Codex)
Chaos Space Marines
Death Guard
Thousand Suns
Adeptus Custodes
Imperial Knights
Chaos Knights
Adepta Sororitas
Inquisition (albeit just the White Dwarf footnote that they are)
Assassins
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Tyranids
Genestealer Cult
Craftworld Aeldari
Drukhari
Harlequins
Ynnari (again, these are separate and balancing requires treating each separately, and Ynarri as another for balancing purposes)
T’au
Orks
Necrons
Daemons
That’s 24 books, not 14, plus supplements, Vigilus, PA etc.
The GW we store lists 35 factions/subfactions. Again, not 14.
...and if being super picky all the Kill Team/Blackstone etc pamphlet Codexes, Titans, DKoK, RaH... but no one uses those sooooo.
And how many of those armies SHOULD be considered separate?
They're certainly all more separate than assassins are…
But that's not the point anyway. The point is about the number of different units and factional rules that GW has to consider and juggle in order to maintain balance. I'm not interested in going down some rabbit hole tangent about whether or not the Death Guard should be folded back into CSM or whatever.
Yeah… you did? You forgot Grey Knights, Drukhari, Harlequins and Genestealer Cults, as some pretty obvious, unambiguous examples of distinct factions with their own codex and distinct units and rules and balance issues?
If you're going to claim Drukhari and Harlequins were covered under "Eldar" and GSC were under "Tyranids", you might as well just say Sisters, Guard, Assassins, Inquisition, Knights and AdMech are all just "Humans".
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
The only complexity is in your imagination. Want to know why there's such terrible balance between the Angels, Codex Marines, and Space Wolves? Because GW writes them as separate armies and then doesn't at the same time!
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.
nou wrote: I thought I was late to the party, but since we are still talking about CAACs, let me explain the source of the name for those too new to this forum, since I'm one of "the original CAACs" this term was coined against...
Originally it was used by Peregrine to insult all those people who derive their fun and/or intelectual excercise in any game not from solving the system (in other words, try to win the meta-game), but in any other way Peregrine was unable to understand. If, for example, you were open to playing anything other than the strongest builds at the moment and was open about it, or, god forbid, if you were ok with self imposed limitations on lisbuilding in order to accomodate anyone who whished to play with trash tier units because they liked the models, you were filthy, virtue signaling CAAC. If you made in-game moves like what TangoTwoBrawo described above, you were virtue signaling CAAC because it is insulting for your oponent to not play your A game all the time. And so on, you can get the general idea.
Since the very begining of the term it was meant to be insulting and had no usefull or well defined meaning at all. As time passed and the term started circulating a lot of people tried to make at least some sense out of it and that is how we got the now accepted vague meaning of "people who don't know how to be competent at the game but are sore loosers so they hide behind casual/narrative self-description". But as can be seen in this very thread, some people still use it in original way of "I don't like your fun so you must be dumb CAAC".
Hope this helps.
I think your definition is just colored by personal opinion just a tad. CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).
At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.
You are using one of the later definitions as they were rationalized, and I agree that what you wrote above is one of the meanings a person using the term may have in mind. Originally however, speaking from the history of actual use on this forum and playstyles of people who it was used against it meant what I wrote. And to be clear, I wrote my post only for the sake of newcomers, so that they are aware of the full weight of the term as it circulates here, not to provide the one-true-definition.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.
That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.
That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.
Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
The only complexity is in your imagination. Want to know why there's such terrible balance between the Angels, Codex Marines, and Space Wolves? Because GW writes them as separate armies and then doesn't at the same time!
Telling me I’m imaging that 35 factions is more complex than 14? Ok, I mean, there’s no logic there at all. It demonstrably is more complex.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.
That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.
Again, whether or not those factions "should" have separate rules is completely irrelevant, and a whole different discussion, AND an example of one of the ways balance and narrative can come in conflict, something y'all keep insisting never happens. These factions DO have separate rules, which makes it more difficult to balance the game. That is the point.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The CAAC players are the ones literally buying anything, printed and models.
So... a CAAC is anyone who buys a GW product?
Since balanced gameplay comes from minimizing the gab between the über and the poor (EDIT: units and army-wise), I highly doubt just buying random things tells the GW data machine much (if they even have one). Buying for the meta would tho, although, as already pointed out, I hold no secret data to document any effect of that claim
You're likely 100% right however. Thunderfire cannons, out of stock, eliminators out of stock. Possessed, very much in stock.
Definitely the casuals snapping the stock up!
Ah yes, Schroedinger's Tournament Player, simultaneously not a large enough demographic to be worth GW trying to balance the game, but also so large it is capable of clearing GW out of stock of the new hotness.
Well… YEAH. We're talking one or two kits out of literally hundreds.
Just like I said much earlier in the thread: "top-selling model" is not indicative of their overall sales.
And as I also said: GW has sales data. They definitely know who's buying what and how often. And you can all rest assured that they're not deliberately ignoring opportunities to make more money. They know where their bread and butter comes from, and that's the breadth of the hobby, not any one particular sub-type of player. Not even just players at all.
Are you suggesting that GW has an insideaheadatron and alongside sales figures, which are traditionally "what" and "how much" also collates the "why" their customers buy a product? The last kit I bought was an AT Warlord. Nobody asked me if I was buying it just to paint, to use in games or because it was broke AF.
But then, if there's only one or two kits out of hundreds that tourney players are buying in quantities sufficient to clear GW out, the balance is worse than I thought.
While I appreciate what you're saying with your top selling model comment, you can make a certain degree of assumption when a model is top selling, part of a range of hundreds of SKUs and supporting a company with turnover in the hundreds of millions. It hasn't sold 8 boxes.
Racerguy180 wrote: I would talk with them and see which models they like the most, what kind of army style they like, type of game(serious competitive/chill for fun/everything in between)etc. a 5 minute conversation goes a long long way to helping a new player/collector/painter/tourney goer for them to get the most out of their hobby.
Yes, but what happens when after that conversation you have to break it to them that the army/models they like are no good and they'll just lose every game unless they play this other army/take these other models that they may not like as much? Which of the following is the more likely response?
1) Oh okay, I guess I'll pick this other army then if the one I like is no good
2) Oh, really? Well that sucks *puts box back and goes to play a different game where they can play what they like and not be punished for it*
The sheer fact that you may have to discourage a new player from picking up what they like so they don't just constantly lose with little or no chance at winning until they buy an army that doesn't have that issue or get fed up with losing and stop playing is pretty damning. And I suspect that situation (eager new player just keeps getting crushed because the army/models they like are weak and eventually just stops showing up) happens a lot more than people want to believe.
if you read what I actually said, you should already have discussed the "power" of something relative to current rules and also discussed how those rules change. If you're upfront with what they're looking to get out of the game the player goes with the thing that they like the most. for some, the model is the most important, others how powerful it is, and others still, love the lore/place in their army. The new player may want to build the nastiest tournament netlist out there and be perfectly fine with constantly chasing the dragon. which would also be figured out in that short little conversation.
I mean it's not like rocket science or something. whenever we get a new player interested in the game we try to direct them in the way appropriate for the results of that little social interaction.
Racerguy180 wrote: I would talk with them and see which models they like the most, what kind of army style they like, type of game(serious competitive/chill for fun/everything in between)etc. a 5 minute conversation goes a long long way to helping a new player/collector/painter/tourney goer for them to get the most out of their hobby.
Yes, but what happens when after that conversation you have to break it to them that the army/models they like are no good and they'll just lose every game unless they play this other army/take these other models that they may not like as much? Which of the following is the more likely response?
1) Oh okay, I guess I'll pick this other army then if the one I like is no good
2) Oh, really? Well that sucks *puts box back and goes to play a different game where they can play what they like and not be punished for it*
The sheer fact that you may have to discourage a new player from picking up what they like so they don't just constantly lose with little or no chance at winning until they buy an army that doesn't have that issue or get fed up with losing and stop playing is pretty damning. And I suspect that situation (eager new player just keeps getting crushed because the army/models they like are weak and eventually just stops showing up) happens a lot more than people want to believe.
if you read what I actually said, you should already have discussed the "power" of something relative to current rules and also discussed how those rules change. If you're upfront with what they're looking to get out of the game the player goes with the thing that they like the most. for some, the model is the most important, others how powerful it is, and others still, love the lore/place in their army. The new player may want to build the nastiest tournament netlist out there and be perfectly fine with constantly chasing the dragon. which would also be figured out in that short little conversation.
I mean it's not like rocket science or something. whenever we get a new player interested in the game we try to direct them in the way appropriate for the results of that little social interaction.
Also, the meta constantly changes. Just cos the army the kid loves best happens to "suck" in Autumn 2019 doesn't mean it's going still be so in Spring 2020 when they've finally gotten it all built and painted and ready to go!
Also, the meta constantly changes. Just cos the army the kid loves best happens to "suck" in Autumn 2019 doesn't mean it's going still be so in Spring 2020 when they've finally gotten it all built and painted and ready to go!
But hopefully we can agree that that is kind of a sucky way to even out unfairness? The meta really shouldn't change that much to begin with
Also, the meta constantly changes. Just cos the army the kid loves best happens to "suck" in Autumn 2019 doesn't mean it's going still be so in Spring 2020 when they've finally gotten it all built and painted and ready to go!
But hopefully we can agree that that is kind of a sucky way to even out unfairness? The meta really shouldn't change that much to begin with
Sure. But it's still weird to think it's wise to actively discourage a new player from getting the army that appeals to them most because they happen to currently not be that great in competitive play.
I mean… a new player isn't even going to be playing competitive games right off the bat anyway! They're going to need to learn the game in a forgiving environment first!
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
The only complexity is in your imagination. Want to know why there's such terrible balance between the Angels, Codex Marines, and Space Wolves? Because GW writes them as separate armies and then doesn't at the same time!
Telling me I’m imaging that 35 factions is more complex than 14? Ok, I mean, there’s no logic there at all. It demonstrably is more complex.
More than six times more complex to be precise, if you look at faction vs faction level. You have 91 faction vs faction matchups at 14 factions and 595 at 35 (I did not count self-faction matchups as those are balanced at this level by definition). But real balancing must account for unit vs unit comparisons also, which assuming 40 units per faction on average gives you nearly 1mln balance considerations at 35 factions and "only" 150k at 14 factions. Put subfaction rules on top of that, different loadout options, etc.. and you may just grasp how complex 40K is to achieve anything resembling usefull blind balance.
So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
nou wrote: I thought I was late to the party, but since we are still talking about CAACs, let me explain the source of the name for those too new to this forum, since I'm one of "the original CAACs" this term was coined against...
Originally it was used by Peregrine to insult all those people who derive their fun and/or intelectual excercise in any game not from solving the system (in other words, try to win the meta-game), but in any other way Peregrine was unable to understand. If, for example, you were open to playing anything other than the strongest builds at the moment and was open about it, or, god forbid, if you were ok with self imposed limitations on lisbuilding in order to accomodate anyone who whished to play with trash tier units because they liked the models, you were filthy, virtue signaling CAAC. If you made in-game moves like what TangoTwoBrawo described above, you were virtue signaling CAAC because it is insulting for your oponent to not play your A game all the time. And so on, you can get the general idea.
Since the very begining of the term it was meant to be insulting and had no usefull or well defined meaning at all. As time passed and the term started circulating a lot of people tried to make at least some sense out of it and that is how we got the now accepted vague meaning of "people who don't know how to be competent at the game but are sore loosers so they hide behind casual/narrative self-description". But as can be seen in this very thread, some people still use it in original way of "I don't like your fun so you must be dumb CAAC".
Hope this helps.
I think your definition is just colored by personal opinion just a tad. CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).
At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.
Yes but Peregrine really did use it to insult anyone who thought the game was more about building the best list you can to try and win. I think it was Peregrine who once said it was insulting for your opponent to not bring the best list they could, because it was wasting your time if you crushed them. The way they said it was just about as condescending and rude as you could imagine, so the term definitely has its roots in being an insult to people who don't do everything possible to win.
Sirlin's scrub is a much better definition and one that isn't as condescending.
Blastaar wrote: and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).
But how is that "virtue signalling"??? This doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with ethics or politics, or stating an ethical position.
The idea is that, for some folks, their method of interacting with the game is an ethical position. If you play more competitively, you're one of "those" people and so on.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
The only complexity is in your imagination. Want to know why there's such terrible balance between the Angels, Codex Marines, and Space Wolves? Because GW writes them as separate armies and then doesn't at the same time!
Telling me I’m imaging that 35 factions is more complex than 14? Ok, I mean, there’s no logic there at all. It demonstrably is more complex.
More than six times more complex to be precise, if you look at faction vs faction level. You have 91 faction vs faction matchups at 14 factions and 595 at 35 (I did not count self-faction matchups as those are balanced at this level by definition). But real balancing must account for unit vs unit comparisons also, which assuming 40 units per faction on average gives you nearly 1mln balance considerations at 35 factions and "only" 150k at 14 factions. Put subfaction rules on top of that, different loadout options, etc.. and you may just grasp how complex 40K is to achieve anything resembling usefull blind balance.
A lot of this is self-inflicted problems though. 40k doesn't need that many factions. It doesn't need each individual space marine founding chapter to have their own rules, and each traitor legion. Those rules don't need to be as vast as they are. So yes, 40k has a lot of factions on the surface but below the surface most of them could easily be consolidated and then most of the options are superfluous. A lot of the "complexity" of 40k is in minutiae like weapon options and stratagems and the like, while other games have complexity that's actually in how rules interact. I can't find the post anymore but I once found a post saying just how many different permutations Warmahordes (and this was MK2) had between all the combos and interactions and it was like an order of magnitude more than 40k despite having less numerical factions and units. Magic is the usual example of the same thing (tons of permutations that are actual choices not "do I take a flamer or plasma") but then that argument gets dismissed because Magic isn't a wargame.
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.
That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.
Again, whether or not those factions "should" have separate rules is completely irrelevant, and a whole different discussion, AND an example of one of the ways balance and narrative can come in conflict, something y'all keep insisting never happens. These factions DO have separate rules, which makes it more difficult to balance the game. That is the point.
It isn't irrelevant. Rules bloat is part of what you defend.
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.
Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WAAC mostly to me is RAW vs RAI argued strictly for their advantage and overall cheating. Cut throat lists are an optional part of the equation after that, but they'll at least a somewhat streamlined army.
WAAC is having a 2” measuring key you use to space all of your infantry to minimize blast template casualties, any list with 2 troops but 3 HQs and 6 elites in separate detachments for maximum deathstarage, trying to distract your opponent or obfuscate, modeling for advantage, and treating your movement phase as a physical exercise of micron-precise terrain management.
Have we all agreed that:
There are too many separate codices to balance,
Balance is a moving target given list building preferences,
There are multiple builds within each codex further complicating balance,
Demand for Gw products is relatively inelastic to price or competitive balance,
Ergo balance isn’t something GWhas to invest in too heavily,
Thereupon reflected in GW’s production schedule and project management,
And we shouldn’t expect it to change any time soon.
Also, the meta constantly changes. Just cos the army the kid loves best happens to "suck" in Autumn 2019 doesn't mean it's going still be so in Spring 2020 when they've finally gotten it all built and painted and ready to go!
But hopefully we can agree that that is kind of a sucky way to even out unfairness? The meta really shouldn't change that much to begin with
Sure. But it's still weird to think it's wise to actively discourage a new player from getting the army that appeals to them most because they happen to currently not be that great in competitive play.
I mean… a new player isn't even going to be playing competitive games right off the bat anyway! They're going to need to learn the game in a forgiving environment first!
Grey Knights haven't been good outside the quick stint of their 5th edition codex. I'd tell anyone to avoid them at all costs outside grabbing 1 box each of the Strikes and Terminators for bitz. That's really it. I did that for my Deathwatch Terminators with Swords and the Storm Bolters. They ain't painted but I'll get a pic of them later. For all they do wrong, GW created a lot of great stuff if you play Marines!
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.
Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.
We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.
Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.
We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.
Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.
We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.
And that's a bad thing why?
Because fewer options and rules clearly means the game isn't as fun or enjoyable
JohnnyHell wrote:Blastaar, try including every Codex and not pretending some are the same different rules requires balancing, so they’re not able to be counted as one.
Space Marines (and 6+ Supplements, increasing complexity)
Dark Angels
Blood Angels
Space Wolves (all these three have their own Codex)
Chaos Space Marines
Death Guard
Thousand Suns
Adeptus Custodes
Imperial Knights
Chaos Knights
Adepta Sororitas
Inquisition (albeit just the White Dwarf footnote that they are)
Assassins
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Tyranids
Genestealer Cult
Craftworld Aeldari
Drukhari
Harlequins
Ynnari (again, these are separate and balancing requires treating each separately, and Ynarri as another for balancing purposes)
T’au
Orks
Necrons
Daemons
That’s 24 books, not 14, plus supplements, Vigilus, PA etc.
The GW we store lists 35 factions/subfactions. Again, not 14.
...and if being super picky all the Kill Team/Blackstone etc pamphlet Codexes, Titans, DKoK, RaH... but no one uses those sooooo.
And because, among other things, GW tries to make so many different flavors of space marine super special and unique, we have major balance issues. Roll them into one massive codex, use alternate Force Org charts for the chapters with unique units or weird organization and their gear and have done with it. Chapter tactics, doctrines, etc. make the game worse, not better.
JohnnyHell wrote:Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
8th ed is not complex for having many rules that are nearly identical in ways that don't really contribute to the gameplay experience, it is bloated. At least as much as 7th was. You mistake quantity for quality.
JohnnyHell wrote: Indeed. Tried to make a point but it unfortunately reaffirmed that there’s a high level of faction complexity, thus negating his point.
Just occurred to me that his claim that "Space Marines" are all one faction for balancing purposes would actually require imagining that Grey Knights and Iron Hands are part of the same balance consideration, which is very very lmao.
That's because the Supplements shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, and separate codices for Angel Marines shouldn't have happened either.
Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.
You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.
Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.
We agree 100% on that one. But it does mean less extreme options and game altering rules.
And that's a bad thing why?
I get the feeling that you are more out looking for a fight than you are reading what people are writing. No. It is a good thing in my eyes. But it is still the lay of the land.
CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).
It's merely one definition that has crystallised from the ether, amongst others.
With respect, the person you describe is not someone I would like to play against, but I've also seen that very same definition used as a scathing and condascending term of derision for people like Nou and myself, or generally anyone who simply isn't interested in playing an army that is anything other than built at the bleeding edge of competitiveness, or who dares to suggest the idea of talking to the other guy before a game.
At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.
With respect, it really isn't. Caac and Waac are very nebulous terms and often mean different things to sifferent people. Just because you have an idea in your head as to what they mean, and probably share this definition, with posters you respect, it doesn't mean that this definition is universally shared. I've seen Waac used disparagingly a lot of times, and sometimes, quite accurately to describe a broad range of attitudes and approaches. Similarly, with caac, as pointed above, I've seen it hurled about, more often than not as a nasty, condescending expletive, or as something like a gaming equivelant of the 'n' word. But it's misplaced. It gets thrown around a lot, but it seems actual presence is pretty damned small. And it's a boogeyman term, very heavily built on projection rather than substance, often nothing more than an 'other-ing ' to try to scare people into line By stoking fear and hate because 'those people' are going to ruin their game. I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.
Cheers
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Could they make it balanced enough to actually satisfy people. Sadly, I think the answer to that one is no.
There's things that can be done to help, but let's face it, every support structure you build in has an associated cost, and I've never come across one that didn't have its detractors or legitimate faults. Magnify that by the size of the 40k community and regardless of whatever decision gw does, you have the never ending cycle of both hostility and complaint. Similarly. I've never seen a 'better balanced wargame' (and I've played my fair share!) that has been balanced enough that couldn't be twisted into a weapon and turned into an NPE.
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Of course they could. It would probably (and in my eyes it should) mean a much simplified gameplay, with much less distinct special rules etc. between each faction and subfaction, but it could easily be done. However, as stated elsewhere, I doubt they think it would be to their financial benefit.
Balance doesn't have to mean blandness, as evidenced by all the other games with many moving parts, decent balance and interesting gameplay.
Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.
Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:
Each crew must be led by a named special character.
M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.
Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.
Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.
To (fellow) narrative oriented players out there who's afraid that simplified, streamlined and less distinct rules leads to a less narratively gripping and fluffy gameplay. Try to grab the Song of Blades and Heroes ruleset (shouldn't set you back much), and knock back a few skirmish games using that ruleset modified to, let us say a 40k. scenario with two distinct factions, and see how much fun it can actually be, even if the gameplay is as simple as it can get. Don't worry about learning curves, you get it in the first try.
I'm not saying 40k. should be just as simple, only that you don't need to be so opposed to a simplified ruleset. But again, I highly doubt we will see GW go in that direction.
CAAC is essentially Srilin's "scrub." Someone who plays very weak lists, who, upon losing, becomes upset and/or angry, blaming the other player and claiming some sort of moral high ground for playing said weak list, because it is their personal view that their way to play is the only legitimate approach, and yes, this does involve virtue signaling. A CAAC player imposes restrictions on themselves, and instead of seeking to improve at the game, despite disliking losing, expects other players to play by the same restrictions, regardless of the style or intent of the actual rules, or the desires of the other person(s).
It's merely one definition that has crystallised from the ether, amongst others.
With respect, the person you describe is not someone I would like to play against, but I've also seen that very same definition used as a scathing and condascending term of derision for people like Nou and myself, or generally anyone who simply isn't interested in playing an army that is anything other than built at the bleeding edge of competitiveness, or who dares to suggest the idea of talking to the other guy before a game.
At least CAAC is easier to define than WAAC, which appears to be used to describe anyone from someone like myself, who prefers to play in a cutthroat, competitive style whether in a tourney or just on a day that ends in Y, "rules lawyers" (many of whom are people who simply have a better grasp of the rules and actually expect everyone to play by said rules) all the way up to people who outright cheat.
With respect, it really isn't. Caac and Waac are very nebulous terms and often mean different things to sifferent people. Just because you have an idea in your head as to what they mean, and probably share this definition, with posters you respect, it doesn't mean that this definition is universally shared. I've seen Waac used disparagingly a lot of times, and sometimes, quite accurately to describe a broad range of attitudes and approaches. Similarly, with caac, as pointed above, I've seen it hurled about, more often than not as a nasty, condescending expletive, or as something like a gaming equivelant of the 'n' word. But it's misplaced. It gets thrown around a lot, but it seems actual presence is pretty damned small. And it's a boogeyman term, very heavily built on projection rather than substance, often nothing more than an 'other-ing ' to try to scare people into line By stoking fear and hate because 'those people' are going to ruin their game. I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.
Cheers
And this is why labels can be problematic. We can't even agree on what they mean!
In gaming it's especially stupid. The idea that some people are playing "wrong" or for reasons other than fun is.... laughable, really. I would think just about everyone plays outside of organized events, or the off game just to "see what happens." Why couldn't that same person also like building lists to crush their buddies? Who would spend a full day, or two, playing with action figures in a tournament if it wasn't fun?
JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.
You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?
No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.
Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted. This thread is dancing all over and the post I was responding to was simply evasion. “There are 14 factions” “erm, there are more...” “Well there shouldn’t be!” Ahem.
All the pre-labelling of people to try and undermine positions through derision is also completely disingenuous. Maybe instead of trying to pin down definitions peeps should stop using this ‘tactic’ in arguments? We could have much more chill and useful discussions if they refrained.
JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.
You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?
No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.
Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted.
I'm still not understanding you. Discussing the state of, well, anything involves not only what is, but what was, and what could be. It isn't merely a matter of personal opinion, but of analysis. Understanding the strengths as well as the flaws, and what to do about those flaws, or even how to maintain that strength.
There are a load of rulebooks in 8th. There don't seem to be too many players who really enjoy this. GW attempting to justify those books, or applying a band-aid to deeper issues of lack of interaction and substantive diversity by giving armies unique rules has led to a high variance in power. Sticking only with "what is" doesn't focus the discussion, but stifles it.
Without what was, or what could be, this thread would be one OP along the lines of "There are too many books! Balance sucks!" and everyone else saying "Yeah, balance sucks! I can't even play X army/unit/whatever" ad nauseam. Hardly a conversation.
Could they make it balanced enough to actually satisfy people. Sadly, I think the answer to that one is no.
There's things that can be done to help, but let's face it, every support structure you build in has an associated cost, and I've never come across one that didn't have its detractors or legitimate faults. Magnify that by the size of the 40k community and regardless of whatever decision gw does, you have the never ending cycle of both hostility and complaint. Similarly. I've never seen a 'better balanced wargame' (and I've played my fair share!) that has been balanced enough that couldn't be twisted into a weapon and turned into an NPE.
Even taking that at face value, there is still a gap between deliberately pursuing something broken, and balance being so egregious that you trip over it.
Still, "some people won't ever be happy" isn't a reason not to try, the closer you get to the target you'll at least probably make more people happy.
Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.
Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:
Each crew must be led by a named special character.
M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.
Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.
Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.
And by all reports is pretty well-balanced.
It can be done. It has been done.
Isn't comparing Malifaux to 40k a bit like comparing a handful of oranges to a bushel of apples? There are a lot of factions, a lot of units, and a bajillion possible builds within each of the 276 codices in 40k. No matter how balanced the CSM and IG codices are between one another when choosing balanced, take all comer lists if you try to take World Eaters vs a melee IG build (I don't know, lots of ogryns and power swords on ever Sgt) the IG may as well be strung together like Christmas lights given how fast they'll be taken off the board.
X-wing was pretty tight and overall balanced between factions but not necessarily balanced between builds. Try taking just bombers with torpedoes vs an all fighter list. Try taking all fighters vs 3 TY1300s...
Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.
(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)
Azreal13 wrote: Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.
(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)
But it's a legal build in each book, just simply squeezing the best possible min/max list out of each possible detachment for competitive play is going to be pretty hard in a game with the scale and history of 40k.
Seriously, you higher level players should get together and build a basic take all comers list from each codex (say 2 HQ, 4 troops, 3 elites, 2 FA, 2 HS) and I wonder how balanced they'd come out. It'd be a neat exercise.
Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.
Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:
Each crew must be led by a named special character.
M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.
Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.
Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.
And by all reports is pretty well-balanced.
It can be done. It has been done.
Isn't comparing Malifaux to 40k a bit like comparing a handful of oranges to a bushel of apples? There are a lot of factions, a lot of units, and a bajillion possible builds within each of the 276 codices in 40k. No matter how balanced the CSM and IG codices are between one another when choosing balanced, take all comer lists if you try to take World Eaters vs a melee IG build (I don't know, lots of ogryns and power swords on ever Sgt) the IG may as well be strung together like Christmas lights given how fast they'll be taken off the board.
X-wing was pretty tight and overall balanced between factions but not necessarily balanced between builds. Try taking just bombers with torpedoes vs an all fighter list. Try taking all fighters vs 3 TY1300s...
I don't really think so. The 32 or whatever factions are in name only, marines especially aren't actually all that mechanically unique from chapter to chapter. There may only be 8 factions in Malifaux, one of which isn't filled out yet, but each of the faction's masters play quite differently from one another, leading to pretty diverse builds within those factions, and different builds for each master.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.
(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)
I think the trick for something like WE is to give them tools to support the berserkers- transports, ways to cause suppression to the enemy other than shooting, etc. Melee is so integral to 40k lore that a melee list should be just as TAC as the traditional mix of shooting, tanks, fast stuff, and melee. At least for the appropriate armies.
JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.
You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?
No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.
Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted.
I'm still not understanding you. Discussing the state of, well, anything involves not only what is, but what was, and what could be. It isn't merely a matter of personal opinion, but of analysis. Understanding the strengths as well as the flaws, and what to do about those flaws, or even how to maintain that strength.
There are a load of rulebooks in 8th. There don't seem to be too many players who really enjoy this. GW attempting to justify those books, or applying a band-aid to deeper issues of lack of interaction and substantive diversity by giving armies unique rules has led to a high variance in power. Sticking only with "what is" doesn't focus the discussion, but stifles it.
Without what was, or what could be, this thread would be one OP along the lines of "There are too many books! Balance sucks!" and everyone else saying "Yeah, balance sucks! I can't even play X army/unit/whatever" ad nauseam. Hardly a conversation.
The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game? It was simply a diversion attempt. It served no purpose and still doesn’t. Hence my comment. I’m out of ways to explain this comment to you by now and you’ve expanded your miscomprehension into a whole post that doesn’t actually apply. You can talk about ways to balance without posters misrepresenting how many factions there are or wishing for amalgamations GW aren’t going to do. No point in this dead ends. No one is stifling anything. And tbh the last few pages have been largely tangents and ad hominems so there may not even be a coherent central topic running through it anymore!
The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game?
Because that's kinda the point of the thread? 40k is hard to balance given the number of factions and possible builds. They can't please everyone balance-wise to meet the competitive needs of those who really demand it and they really aren't going to try given their current commercial success.
Azreal13 wrote: Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.
(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)
But it's a legal build in each book, just simply squeezing the best possible min/max list out of each possible detachment for competitive play is going to be pretty hard in a game with the scale and history of 40k.
Seriously, you higher level players should get together and build a basic take all comers list from each codex (say 2 HQ, 4 troops, 3 elites, 2 FA, 2 HS) and I wonder how balanced they'd come out. It'd be a neat exercise.
That’d be outright impossible for Custodes to do at any reasonable points value.
JohnnyHell wrote:Opinions on what should and shouldn’t be are largely irrelevant when discussing what is.
You need to explain the logic of this one. This thread is about the poor balance of GW games. Discussing what is unbalanced and why inevitably leads to discussion on how to fix the problem. Otherwise, what is the point? That we should be apathetic?
No, I was attempting to keep the goalposts in one place for a while.
Opinions on whether books should or shouldn’t have been combined are irrelevant in discussing the state of the game as it is, namely that lots of things have already been split into multiple books. That genie is out of the bottle. Suddenly tangenting onto “well they shouldn’t be separate books” isn’t useful when discussing the current state of things. It’s a topic for another thread. Hope that makes sense - that’s just a more verbose version of what I posted.
I'm still not understanding you. Discussing the state of, well, anything involves not only what is, but what was, and what could be. It isn't merely a matter of personal opinion, but of analysis. Understanding the strengths as well as the flaws, and what to do about those flaws, or even how to maintain that strength.
There are a load of rulebooks in 8th. There don't seem to be too many players who really enjoy this. GW attempting to justify those books, or applying a band-aid to deeper issues of lack of interaction and substantive diversity by giving armies unique rules has led to a high variance in power. Sticking only with "what is" doesn't focus the discussion, but stifles it.
Without what was, or what could be, this thread would be one OP along the lines of "There are too many books! Balance sucks!" and everyone else saying "Yeah, balance sucks! I can't even play X army/unit/whatever" ad nauseam. Hardly a conversation.
The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game? It was simply a diversion attempt. It served no purpose and still doesn’t. Hence my comment. I’m out of ways to explain this comment to you by now and you’ve expanded your miscomprehension into a whole post that doesn’t actually apply. You can talk about ways to balance without posters misrepresenting how many factions there are or wishing for amalgamations GW aren’t going to do. No point in this dead ends. No one is stifling anything. And tbh the last few pages have been largely tangents and ad hominems so there may not even be a coherent central topic running through it anymore!
So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.
And I misrepresented nothing about the number of factions there are. Just how different are BA from my DA, or Smurfs, or IH? Chapter tactics, doctrines, half a dozen units and wargear? A distinction without a difference. Marines are one faction, sold in too many volumes.
Precisely. As I've already said, many games posses both flavor and a relatively balanced play experience.
Malifaux was fething written as a narrative game. In Malifaux:
Each crew must be led by a named special character.
M3E introduced a keyword system to encourage players to use models within that master's theme.
Nearly every fething model has at least one or two bespoke special abilities.
Asymmetrical, story-based objectives via the Schemes & Strategies system.
And by all reports is pretty well-balanced.
It can be done. It has been done.
Isn't comparing Malifaux to 40k a bit like comparing a handful of oranges to a bushel of apples? There are a lot of factions, a lot of units, and a bajillion possible builds within each of the 276 codices in 40k. No matter how balanced the CSM and IG codices are between one another when choosing balanced, take all comer lists if you try to take World Eaters vs a melee IG build (I don't know, lots of ogryns and power swords on ever Sgt) the IG may as well be strung together like Christmas lights given how fast they'll be taken off the board.
X-wing was pretty tight and overall balanced between factions but not necessarily balanced between builds. Try taking just bombers with torpedoes vs an all fighter list. Try taking all fighters vs 3 TY1300s...
I don't really think so. The 32 or whatever factions are in name only, marines especially aren't actually all that mechanically unique from chapter to chapter. There may only be 8 factions in Malifaux, one of which isn't filled out yet, but each of the faction's masters play quite differently from one another, leading to pretty diverse builds within those factions, and different builds for each master.
Similar with a game like Warmahordes. 40k has the illusion of having all this complexity and a vast number of factions, but all of that variety isn't really variety and there are only a handful of really significant decisions while other games have a lot more interaction.
So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.
To be fair, when it wasn't selling and they got a sound financial newspaper across the nose with a stern "No" from their customers, all they did is release a new edition with much muttering about balance and competitive games, then more or less carried on as before within about 6 months, with an excuse to rerelease all the codexes again.
The only way to win is not to play. Quite literally in this case.
So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.
To be fair, when it wasn't selling and they got a sound financial newspaper across the nose with a stern "No" from their customers, all they did is release a new edition with much muttering about balance and competitive games, then more or less carried on as before within about 6 months, with an excuse to rerelease all the codexes again.
The only way to win is not to play. Quite literally in this case.
That is an accurate characterization. Could they finally learn from another downturn? Maybe, if players aren't persuaded by the 2nd Great Warhammer PR Offensive. Not trying is even worse.
So you are merely defeatist. "It will never happen, so don't talk about it." You're half-correct- 40k will never become more tactical or better balanced, so long as it continues to sell well despite its massive flaws. The players have the power to make that happen.
To be fair, when it wasn't selling and they got a sound financial newspaper across the nose with a stern "No" from their customers, all they did is release a new edition with much muttering about balance and competitive games, then more or less carried on as before within about 6 months, with an excuse to rerelease all the codexes again.
The only way to win is not to play. Quite literally in this case.
Sadly. The players HAD the power, and fell for it. 8th was promised to be a new direction and we've gotten basically 7th edition with at least a better core that isn't 20 years old. But while the core rules are actually quite good, it's just been bloat on top of bloat on top of bloat again, as bad as or worse than 7th edition was. And with record sales, there won't be any reason to change. Last time it took what, like at least 6 years for people to start to get tired (after 5th, 6th and 7th editions were pretty hated although I think 6th started out with promise)? So we're looking at at least that amount of time again, if not longer.
I think the worst part is that like I said, the core rules of 8th are actually pretty well done. It's just the codex creep and stratagem/CP creep which is bad. If armies were designed differently and with proper inter and intra unit balance along without stratagems being such key pieces of the list and maybe with 30k style Rites of War (pick XYZ and get benefits/drawbacks that change up the org chart) then we might have a solid game on our hands.
For instance let's say if only the base stratagems in the rulebook are available (with missions adding extra but not codexes), not the extraneous ones (these would ideally be rolled back as abilities but that's getting too detailed for this), with only Patrol, Battalion and Brigade detachments (that correspond roughly to like sub-1000, up to 2500 and then above that but not using Apoc) and Rites of War which is where you can change up what counts/doesn't count, that seems pretty solid. It does have an affect on things like Knights but honestly Knights don't belong in the game anyways at the normal level, and exceptions could be made anyways via the rites of war system.
... I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.
I wonder if we're thinking about the same person. Around four years ago there was this guy active here, I don't recall his nick - played an absolute thrash Marine list consisting of Tacs, Assaults, Devastators and lead by Pedro Cantor. He made "X unit is OP" threads like once a week for months, and tried to convince everyone, that his vision of playing only basic infantry lists was fun "because fun is when things happen". A lot of lenghty threads revolved around him back then (he is the only poster whose list I remember to this day because of how central he was). It was long before CAAC was coined and the most common insult phrase back then was "gitgud or gtfo". This guy most certainly met all cryteria for CAAC as presented by Blastaar.
Azreal13 wrote: Good balance doesn't eliminate bad decisions. A melee list is never going to be a TAC list in any game where there's ranged combat. A melee list would be an attempt to hard counter the meta, not a rounded force.
(posted before the post im referring to was edited, it made more sense then.)
But it's a legal build in each book, just simply squeezing the best possible min/max list out of each possible detachment for competitive play is going to be pretty hard in a game with the scale and history of 40k.
Seriously, you higher level players should get together and build a basic take all comers list from each codex (say 2 HQ, 4 troops, 3 elites, 2 FA, 2 HS) and I wonder how balanced they'd come out. It'd be a neat exercise.
That’d be outright impossible for Custodes to do at any reasonable points value.
Almost makes you wonder why Custodes are their own codex without either Sisters of Silence or IG as basic troops? (See my post a few pages back)
... I've been on 'this board for years, and in my time, I've probably seen one poster on these boards who I would think could legitimately be called caac, going beyond your 'scrub' definition of the term caac.
I wonder if we're thinking about the same person. Around four years ago there was this guy active here, I don't recall his nick - played an absolute thrash Marine list consisting of Tacs, Assaults, Devastators and lead by Pedro Cantor. He made "X unit is OP" threads like once a week for months, and tried to convince everyone, that his vision of playing only basic infantry lists was fun "because fun is when things happen". A lot of lenghty threads revolved around him back then (he is the only poster whose list I remember to this day because of how central he was). It was long before CAAC was coined and the most common insult phrase back then was "gitgud or gtfo". This guy most certainly met all cryteria for CAAC as presented by Blastaar.
Wait, he was playing marines and ONLY used tac, assault, devastators and Kantor? Like… no rhinos or landspeeders or bikers or dreads or anything???
Did he take the lore on what the battleline companies consist of WAAAAYYY too literally or something?
I don’t remember him using anything else at the beginning of his presence here, but I stopped following his threads after couple of months so I don’t know if he eventually expanded his list or not.
You assert that the list in my story was not a tourney list. Well, it came from round 2 of a local tourney last weekend with 44 players. The tourney was billed as a counterpoint to our more competitive club champs that happen in February: no Lords of War, no ForgeWorld. I don't run those in any case, so I went for an oddball themed list. It had fifteen Deathwing Tartaros Terminators and a Land Raider (going for a 30K theme) with some Astra Militarum bullet catchers to bulk out the list. I came 19th. I lost the first match against Ultramarines, but if we had gone to the fourth turn I would have tabled him. I handily won the second match where my Master challenged the Demon Prince and lost the third against Black Templars. I had fun in each game and achieved my objective: have fun games on my first Saturday of Block Leave. I had spent Canadian Thanksgiving painting Cypher as my Master so he was going to put that sword to use. If this makes me CAAC in your eyes then so be it! I came 2nd in an earlier tournament in 8th Edition (with Deathwing Terminators no less). I always run Dark Angels, so its been tough sledding as of late but I am OK with that. I play for fun, but I will admit that the competition in the game is part of the fun. Its just not the dominant part.
I honestly have no idea how my playstyle could be offensive to you or other players. If it hurts your feelings that I buy GW products then I guess I will have to live with that.
As an aside I reject the WAAC and CAAC labels. CAAC is a non-sequitur. Its impossible to be casual at all costs. I assume it was indeed invented by somebody hurt that they had been labelled as WAAC. I don't blame them for being insulted, but making a counter-insult is a little immature.
If my bringing 15 Terminators makes a competitive player feel like I am judging him then he has a real insecurity complex. How about we play the legal lists that we want to? Now, there might be some folks out there who would like to compete at the top table at LVO but are unable to do so. If they make passive-aggressive jabs at their victorious opponents then that's just poor sportsmanship and nothing to do with the casual/narrative gaming mindset. I also dislike the WAAC label. I think that competitive and casual are at least workable categories that avoid making a judgement in the title. They can both coexist in the gaming ecosystem. I also think its possible to float between the two: I think I do. I played at the Canadian Grand Tournament in 2nd Ed and I was nationally ranked in FOW a few years ago (not anymore). I still play tournaments but I now focus on bringing a list that I will enjoy and that my opponent might find a little off-beat.
My favourite 40K Youtube personality is the Glacial Geek. I think he is the champion for the style of gamer that I identify with. Play to win, but also play to have fun and enjoy the good and the bad.
The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game?
Because that's kinda the point of the thread? 40k is hard to balance given the number of factions and possible builds. They can't please everyone balance-wise to meet the competitive needs of those who really demand it and they really aren't going to try given their current commercial success.
If nothing else, "they should put all space marine factions under a single codex" and "all factions should only have access to the basic rulebook strategems" at least work as an example of how and why a game that prioritizes competitive, balanced play can often be at odds with a game that prioritizes narrative and simulation of an IP. People like having different codexes and rules and stratagems and such for different flavours of Space Marine because it helps the feeling of each chapter / organization / warband / legion having it's own culture and approach to warfare and strengths and weaknesses and such, it makes it feel like your allegiance to a particular chapter or whatever matters beyond simple cosmetics, and (when done well, anyway... which does not seem to be the case with the recent chapter supplements, I admit) also incentivizes the use of the units that are most strongly associated with that chapter. Thus, a narrative element that is fun for narrative players and ties the rules to the lore and IP comes at the expense of what would be best for creating a balanced and competitive game. This kind of thing is even MORE important when looking at wholly different societies in the setting… Drukhari should NOT look and fight and organize the same way Craftworlders do, for instance, and it would be a huge turn off for me if they did.
Which isn't to say balance is ALWAYS at odds with narrative. Simple things like doing a better job with points values and fitting the level of detail more appropriately to the scale of most games being played would be improvements that wouldn't hurt a player like me at all. But SOMETIMES it does, as in this "less codexes and factional differences" stuff.
This, in theory at least, should help explain one of the reasons why people with a more casual / friendly / narrative mindset bristle a bit at the idea of 40k turning into a competitive tournament game.
The Marine books aren’t going to be recombined. They’ve recently diversified even further. So why bother mentioning it in a thread about whether it’s possible to balance the game?
Because that's kinda the point of the thread? 40k is hard to balance given the number of factions and possible builds. They can't please everyone balance-wise to meet the competitive needs of those who really demand it and they really aren't going to try given their current commercial success.
If nothing else, "they should put all space marine factions under a single codex" and "all factions should only have access to the basic rulebook strategems" at least work as an example of how and why a game that prioritizes competitive, balanced play can often be at odds with a game that prioritizes narrative and simulation of an IP. People like having different codexes and rules and stratagems and such for different flavours of Space Marine because it helps the feeling of each chapter / organization / warband / legion having it's own culture and approach to warfare and strengths and weaknesses and such, it makes it feel like your allegiance to a particular chapter or whatever matters beyond simple cosmetics, and (when done well, anyway... which does not seem to be the case with the recent chapter supplements, I admit) also incentivizes the use of the units that are most strongly associated with that chapter. Thus, a narrative element that is fun for narrative players and ties the rules to the lore and IP comes at the expense of what would be best for creating a balanced and competitive game. This kind of thing is even MORE important when looking at wholly different societies in the setting… Drukhari should NOT look and fight and organize the same way Craftworlders do, for instance, and it would be a huge turn off for me if they did.
Which isn't to say balance is ALWAYS at odds with narrative. Simple things like doing a better job with points values and fitting the level of detail more appropriately to the scale of most games being played would be improvements that wouldn't hurt a player like me at all. But SOMETIMES it does, as in this "less codexes and factional differences" stuff.
This, in theory at least, should help explain one of the reasons why people with a more casual / friendly / narrative mindset bristle a bit at the idea of 40k turning into a competitive tournament game.
However, I think a lot of this could be solved by a subsection of Matched Play, Organized Play (or Competitive Play) by either GW themselves or a governing body like the ITC which streamlines and strips down options to make it more balanced for tournaments without impacting everyone else. So you still have the gamut of crazy options for narrative play, but going to an event many of those get removed for the sake of balance. This would come with its own problem, namely the fact that seemingly whatever is "tournament standard" becomes the default standard for everything (in most cases) so removing things for the sake of balance effectively removes them from the game entirely. Just look at how the 3 detachments and Rule of Three tend to show up in every game and are assumed to be baseline rules for matched play, always in effect, despite only being suggested for organized events. Which is its own problem but one that isn't easy to address even with a subset of a subset of rules.
However, that doesn't address the major underlying issue of inter-codex imbalance and even intra-codex imbalance. Even if this hypothetical organized play did things like only allow the base stratagems, or curb CP, or curb soup or whatever, it doesn't fix the inherent issues which still plague the game and have a detrimental effect on narrative even more than competitive (because suddenly if the units which fit your narrative happen to be on either extreme it's going to hurt the game).
Yeah, I mean, I even said a few pages ago that a possible ideal solution is just for GW to lean more into the "three ways to play" concept and create sort of 'rules patches' for them to allow the game to work a bit better for what each "way to play" is trying to achieve!
I also imagine soup-abuse is one of those things that both narratively focused and competition focused players can all agree is awful.
Alternate faction detachments are for stuff like having some allied Harlequins working with your Drukhari, having a Knight in with your AdMechs, adding some Assassins or Inquisitors to an Imperial force, having a full force of Nurgle daemons fighting alongside the Death Guard, that kind of thing. Not blatantly mixing and matching the "best" units from each faction within a wider keyword!
If nothing else, "they should put all space marine factions under a single codex" and "all factions should only have access to the basic rulebook strategems" at least work as an example of how and why a game that prioritizes competitive, balanced play can often be at odds with a game that prioritizes narrative and simulation of an IP. People like having different codexes and rules and stratagems and such for different flavours of Space Marine because it helps the feeling of each chapter / organization / warband / legion having it's own culture and approach to warfare and strengths and weaknesses and such, it makes it feel like your allegiance to a particular chapter or whatever matters beyond simple cosmetics, and (when done well, anyway... which does not seem to be the case with the recent chapter supplements, I admit) also incentivizes the use of the units that are most strongly associated with that chapter. Thus, a narrative element that is fun for narrative players and ties the rules to the lore and IP comes at the expense of what would be best for creating a balanced and competitive game. This kind of thing is even MORE important when looking at wholly different societies in the setting… Drukhari should NOT look and fight and organize the same way Craftworlders do, for instance, and it would be a huge turn off for me if they did.
Well agreed on the Eldar factions, they're completely separate cultures, but not with the marines and other such subfactions. I know that a lot of people feel that they need to have rule support for their chapters unique fighting style, but I really don't. All units should be worth taking in any chapter. And then you can express the flavour with your army build choices. If your chapter prefers close combat, take a lot of assault elements, if they prefer to wage war with heavy siege weapons, take a lot of tanks and devastators etc.
Now, I know I am in minority with this, and that is the reason it is not happening. A lot of players love all these specialised rules and not just narrative players, competitive ones too; they love finding the best subfactions and trait combos etc. Ultimately I feel that this is the sort of rule bloat that leads to imbalance, but I really don't think GW has any incentive to stop doing this. Any possible new customers that could be gained due the improved balance due faction consolidation would easily be outnumbered by players who rage quit because their faction lost its unique rules.
Azreal13 wrote: So we can build a large hadron collider, send a man to the moon and access the sum of human knowledge on a device in our pocket, but a team of dozens of people whose job it is to produce a game can't make it more balanced because it's too complicated?
Come on...
Straw man.
What did it cost to go to do those things? Were they required to turn a profit?
Sometimes throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. GW needs leadership to drive the teams.
A team of dozens of people being paid to design games professionally by a company with turnover in the hundreds of millions are getting left behind by people writing games in their spare time. Substitute any example of people doing incredibly complicated things to suit your tastes, I stand by the point.
Although, and I mean this most sincerely, there's a short list of (mostly former) posters I'd happily shake warmly by the throat, but it is a pretty short list.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WAAC mostly to me is RAW vs RAI argued strictly for their advantage and overall cheating. Cut throat lists are an optional part of the equation after that, but they'll at least a somewhat streamlined army.
WAAC is having a 2” measuring key you use to space all of your infantry to minimize blast template casualties, any list with 2 troops but 3 HQs and 6 elites in separate detachments for maximum deathstarage, trying to distract your opponent or obfuscate, modeling for advantage, and treating your movement phase as a physical exercise of micron-precise terrain management.
Have we all agreed that:
There are too many separate codices to balance,
Balance is a moving target given list building preferences,
There are multiple builds within each codex further complicating balance,
Demand for Gw products is relatively inelastic to price or competitive balance,
Ergo balance isn’t something GWhas to invest in too heavily,
Thereupon reflected in GW’s production schedule and project management,
And we shouldn’t expect it to change any time soon.
???
Only here would someone say that getting max coherence between models to minimize casualties from blasts can be even close to considered WAAC. No wonder some of you people think small blasts were even close to good!
Have we all agreed that:
There are too many separate codices to balance,
Balance is a moving target given list building preferences,
There are multiple builds within each codex further complicating balance,
Demand for Gw products is relatively inelastic to price or competitive balance,
Ergo balance isn’t something GWhas to invest in too heavily,
Thereupon reflected in GW’s production schedule and project management,
And we shouldn’t expect it to change any time soon.
Missed this earlier, but yeah. I think this is pretty much the basic reality of things that we should theoretically agree on. Which raises the question of why on Earth we've needed 19 pages to fight over "Well, I think this situation is completely awful!" "I think it's not that bad!" "I think it's only mildly awful!" "I think it's great!", and variations thereupon.
A team of dozens of people being paid to design games professionally by a company with turnover in the hundreds of millions are getting left behind by people writing games in their spare time. Substitute any example of people doing incredibly complicated things to suit your tastes, I stand by the point.
Dozens seems unlikely. Who has written a game in their spare time that is leaving GW behind? What qualifies as 'leaving them behind'?
Look at what they did with Apocalypse. There's clearly knowledge of the mechanics that make games more easily balanced, but there isn't a magic switch you can flip on 40K.
You assert that the list in my story was not a tourney list. Well, it came from round 2 of a local tourney last weekend with 44 players. The tourney was billed as a counterpoint to our more competitive club champs that happen in February: no Lords of War, no ForgeWorld. I don't run those in any case, so I went for an oddball themed list. It had fifteen Deathwing Tartaros Terminators and a Land Raider (going for a 30K theme) with some Astra Militarum bullet catchers to bulk out the list. I came 19th. I lost the first match against Ultramarines, but if we had gone to the fourth turn I would have tabled him. I handily won the second match where my Master challenged the Demon Prince and lost the third against Black Templars. I had fun in each game and achieved my objective: have fun games on my first Saturday of Block Leave. I had spent Canadian Thanksgiving painting Cypher as my Master so he was going to put that sword to use. If this makes me CAAC in your eyes then so be it! I came 2nd in an earlier tournament in 8th Edition (with Deathwing Terminators no less). I always run Dark Angels, so its been tough sledding as of late but I am OK with that. I play for fun, but I will admit that the competition in the game is part of the fun. Its just not the dominant part.
I honestly have no idea how my playstyle could be offensive to you or other players. If it hurts your feelings that I buy GW products then I guess I will have to live with that.
As an aside I reject the WAAC and CAAC labels. CAAC is a non-sequitur. Its impossible to be casual at all costs. I assume it was indeed invented by somebody hurt that they had been labelled as WAAC. I don't blame them for being insulted, but making a counter-insult is a little immature.
If my bringing 15 Terminators makes a competitive player feel like I am judging him then he has a real insecurity complex. How about we play the legal lists that we want to? Now, there might be some folks out there who would like to compete at the top table at LVO but are unable to do so. If they make passive-aggressive jabs at their victorious opponents then that's just poor sportsmanship and nothing to do with the casual/narrative gaming mindset. I also dislike the WAAC label. I think that competitive and casual are at least workable categories that avoid making a judgement in the title. They can both coexist in the gaming ecosystem. I also think its possible to float between the two: I think I do. I played at the Canadian Grand Tournament in 2nd Ed and I was nationally ranked in FOW a few years ago (not anymore). I still play tournaments but I now focus on bringing a list that I will enjoy and that my opponent might find a little off-beat.
My favourite 40K Youtube personality is the Glacial Geek. I think he is the champion for the style of gamer that I identify with. Play to win, but also play to have fun and enjoy the good and the bad.
Cheers,
T2B
Nobody cares about anecdotes in local tournaments that don't matter for anything. That's the thing you're missing. In 7th I used a Tyberos deathstar + Asterion deathstar in the same bloody list and I won a local tournament. Want to know why I didn't bother to write a report? It doesn't report on what is going on in the game whatsoever, what with Battle Demicomany and Scatterbikes everywhere. I don't pretend it's an accomplishment.
So while you can pretend everything is fine and dandy with pretending Dark Angels should be a separate army and that Deathwing means anything...it doesn't. It feeds right into the nice loyal customer GW uses to talk about in the Kirby era. We deserve better and you don't realize it.
A team of dozens of people being paid to design games professionally by a company with turnover in the hundreds of millions are getting left behind by people writing games in their spare time. Substitute any example of people doing incredibly complicated things to suit your tastes, I stand by the point.
Dozens seems unlikely. Who has written a game in their spare time that is leaving GW behind? What qualifies as 'leaving them behind'?
Look at what they did with Apocalypse. There's clearly knowledge of the mechanics that make games more easily balanced, but there isn't a magic switch you can flip on 40K.
Perhaps Apocalypse NEEDS to be the default game everyone plays.
A team of dozens of people being paid to design games professionally by a company with turnover in the hundreds of millions are getting left behind by people writing games in their spare time. Substitute any example of people doing incredibly complicated things to suit your tastes, I stand by the point.
Dozens seems unlikely.
Over the course of the lifetime of the game, I'd be surprised if it isn't hundreds. As it stands the design studio staff is in three figures, but they're obviously not all rules writers. I have it on good authority that isn't even close to the number of people now employed in marketing and PR, which comes as no surprise when you look at how things are run at GW nowadays.
Who has written a game in their spare time that is leaving GW behind? What qualifies as 'leaving them behind'?
I was specifically thinking of Mike Hutchinson, who wrote Gaslands in his spare time, and straight out of the gate wrote an entirely more balanced ruleset with a decent list of options and factions. He admittedly included one flat out broken unit and made a couple of errors in pointing, but considering the relative availability of resources it makes GW failing to get 40K right in over 30 years look deliberate.
Or then there's Mat Hart and Rich Loxham, who wrote Guild Ball and even now having added factions and extra models some 4 years down the line have grown Steamforged into a multimillion pound company yet still managed, with regular adjustments, to keep the balance between Guilds at 50% win rate +/-10%. There's been hiccups, but even then because the game leans so much less on list building than 40K and so much more on in game decisions, player skill still remains the biggest factor between even the "best" and "worst" factions.
And that's just two I know well enough to comment on.
Look at what they did with Apocalypse. There's clearly knowledge of the mechanics that make games more easily balanced, but there isn't a magic switch you can flip on 40K.
No, you're right. They've never had an opportunity to completely scrap all the stuff that doesn't work, re define the design space and move forward on a more solid platform.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WAAC mostly to me is RAW vs RAI argued strictly for their advantage and overall cheating. Cut throat lists are an optional part of the equation after that, but they'll at least a somewhat streamlined army.
WAAC is having a 2” measuring key you use to space all of your infantry to minimize blast template casualties, any list with 2 troops but 3 HQs and 6 elites in separate detachments for maximum deathstarage, trying to distract your opponent or obfuscate, modeling for advantage, and treating your movement phase as a physical exercise of micron-precise terrain management.
Have we all agreed that:
There are too many separate codices to balance,
Balance is a moving target given list building preferences,
There are multiple builds within each codex further complicating balance,
Demand for Gw products is relatively inelastic to price or competitive balance,
Ergo balance isn’t something GWhas to invest in too heavily,
Thereupon reflected in GW’s production schedule and project management,
And we shouldn’t expect it to change any time soon.
???
Only here would someone say that getting max coherence between models to minimize casualties from blasts can be even close to considered WAAC. No wonder some of you people think small blasts were even close to good!
What do you do to pass time while someone moves Orks or IG spacing out of all of their models perfectly and stopping to reset the mosaic whenever a models shifts? I was so glad to see blast templates disappear and blast guns just roll xD6 hits.
So while you can pretend everything is fine and dandy with pretending Dark Angels should be a separate army and that Deathwing means anything...it doesn't. It feeds right into the nice loyal customer GW uses to talk about in the Kirby era. We deserve better and you don't realize it.
I don't think anyone is saying more balance is bad, I'm just accepting that given the current sales success GW is experiencing we're not likely to see any different behavior from their rules department. I'm a realist, picketing outside a GW or sending a sternly worded letter will accomplish nothing.
As much as I hate this expression it really is what it is, man. Just try to have fun with the game, that's what I try to do.
nataliereed1984 wrote: If nothing else, "they should put all space marine factions under a single codex" and "all factions should only have access to the basic rulebook strategems" at least work as an example of how and why a game that prioritizes competitive, balanced play can often be at odds with a game that prioritizes narrative and simulation of an IP. People like having different codexes and rules and stratagems and such for different flavours of Space Marine because it helps the feeling of each chapter / organization / warband / legion having it's own culture and approach to warfare and strengths and weaknesses and such, it makes it feel like your allegiance to a particular chapter or whatever matters beyond simple cosmetics, and (when done well, anyway... which does not seem to be the case with the recent chapter supplements, I admit) also incentivizes the use of the units that are most strongly associated with that chapter. Thus, a narrative element that is fun for narrative players and ties the rules to the lore and IP comes at the expense of what would be best for creating a balanced and competitive game. This kind of thing is even MORE important when looking at wholly different societies in the setting… Drukhari should NOT look and fight and organize the same way Craftworlders do, for instance, and it would be a huge turn off for me if they did.
Which isn't to say balance is ALWAYS at odds with narrative. Simple things like doing a better job with points values and fitting the level of detail more appropriately to the scale of most games being played would be improvements that wouldn't hurt a player like me at all. But SOMETIMES it does, as in this "less codexes and factional differences" stuff.
This, in theory at least, should help explain one of the reasons why people with a more casual / friendly / narrative mindset bristle a bit at the idea of 40k turning into a competitive tournament game.
I think this is kind of hinting at a false dichotomy- flavorful, fluffy rules don't have to involve finicky, fiddly 'chrome' and bespoke special rules that come at the expense of competitive play.
Some armies do a great job of distinguishing subfactions from one another through simple rules. Take Tyranids for example.
-Hydra lets you re-roll failed hits against targets you outnumber.
-Jormungandr gives you cover as long as you don't advance or charge, and lets you deep strike additional units alongside tunnelers.
-Kraken increases your advance rolls and lets you fall back and charge in the same turn.
-And Kronos lets you re-roll 1s to hit.
Each faction encourages builds and playstyles that make them very different from one another. Hydra is all about swarming hordes. Jormungandr favors deep-striking lists, but not with flying creatures. Kraken lets you build a mobile, aggressive army. And Kronos is the go-to choice for a gunline.
Those are elegant rules: They're simple, easy to remember, easy to balance, and capture the flavor of what they're meant to depict. The Space Marine supplements are not. They capture the flavor, but they're complex, full of layers upon layers of bespoke rules, and clearly aren't very balanced. You don't need that level of granular detail to make green Space Marines who like stealth feel different from yellow Space Marines who like fortifications. Narrative players and competitive players aren't at odds here.
This ties back to a game design concept called designing for effect. The idea is that it is more important for a mechanic to feel right and produce the desired outcome than it is to painstakingly simulate whatever it's supposed to represent.
Warmachine is a good example of simple rules having a massive impact on theme. Each warcaster has fewer than a half-dozen spells and a once-per-game feat. Those abilities radically change how their armies work, such that the same unit or warjack works completely differently under two different warcasters from the same faction. It accomplishes this with rules that fit on a standard playing card.
Edit: Apocalypse is a great example of a 'less is more' approach to game design as applied to 40K. It plays quickly for what it represents, and captures the feel of the 40K units without having a half-dozen special rules and eight weapon profiles for each unit, let alone 50+ dice to resolve a normal shooting attack. The design philosophy of Apocalypse as applied to 40K could make for a much more streamlined game- although I'm sure that there are enough players hung up on rolling dice for its own sake, rather than as a means to an end, that the backlash would be enormous.
I really liked Warmachine at first in its first edition but I didn't find it massively more balanced than 40k. I don't know if X-wing is more balanced in 2.0 either.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WAAC mostly to me is RAW vs RAI argued strictly for their advantage and overall cheating. Cut throat lists are an optional part of the equation after that, but they'll at least a somewhat streamlined army.
WAAC is having a 2” measuring key you use to space all of your infantry to minimize blast template casualties, any list with 2 troops but 3 HQs and 6 elites in separate detachments for maximum deathstarage, trying to distract your opponent or obfuscate, modeling for advantage, and treating your movement phase as a physical exercise of micron-precise terrain management.
Have we all agreed that:
There are too many separate codices to balance,
Balance is a moving target given list building preferences,
There are multiple builds within each codex further complicating balance,
Demand for Gw products is relatively inelastic to price or competitive balance,
Ergo balance isn’t something GWhas to invest in too heavily,
Thereupon reflected in GW’s production schedule and project management,
And we shouldn’t expect it to change any time soon.
???
Only here would someone say that getting max coherence between models to minimize casualties from blasts can be even close to considered WAAC. No wonder some of you people think small blasts were even close to good!
What do you do to pass time while someone moves Orks or IG spacing out of all of their models perfectly and stopping to reset the mosaic whenever a models shifts? I was so glad to see blast templates disappear and blast guns just roll xD6 hits.
So while you can pretend everything is fine and dandy with pretending Dark Angels should be a separate army and that Deathwing means anything...it doesn't. It feeds right into the nice loyal customer GW uses to talk about in the Kirby era. We deserve better and you don't realize it.
I don't think anyone is saying more balance is bad, I'm just accepting that given the current sales success GW is experiencing we're not likely to see any different behavior from their rules department. I'm a realist, picketing outside a GW or sending a sternly worded letter will accomplish nothing.
As much as I hate this expression it really is what it is, man. Just try to have fun with the game, that's what I try to do.
I was just on my phone, really. What else am I really gonna do? I might sound like a broken record, but that's just one problem with IGOUGO: absolutely little interaction.
nataliereed1984 wrote: If nothing else, "they should put all space marine factions under a single codex" and "all factions should only have access to the basic rulebook strategems" at least work as an example of how and why a game that prioritizes competitive, balanced play can often be at odds with a game that prioritizes narrative and simulation of an IP. People like having different codexes and rules and stratagems and such for different flavours of Space Marine because it helps the feeling of each chapter / organization / warband / legion having it's own culture and approach to warfare and strengths and weaknesses and such, it makes it feel like your allegiance to a particular chapter or whatever matters beyond simple cosmetics, and (when done well, anyway... which does not seem to be the case with the recent chapter supplements, I admit) also incentivizes the use of the units that are most strongly associated with that chapter. Thus, a narrative element that is fun for narrative players and ties the rules to the lore and IP comes at the expense of what would be best for creating a balanced and competitive game. This kind of thing is even MORE important when looking at wholly different societies in the setting… Drukhari should NOT look and fight and organize the same way Craftworlders do, for instance, and it would be a huge turn off for me if they did.
Which isn't to say balance is ALWAYS at odds with narrative. Simple things like doing a better job with points values and fitting the level of detail more appropriately to the scale of most games being played would be improvements that wouldn't hurt a player like me at all. But SOMETIMES it does, as in this "less codexes and factional differences" stuff.
This, in theory at least, should help explain one of the reasons why people with a more casual / friendly / narrative mindset bristle a bit at the idea of 40k turning into a competitive tournament game.
I think this is kind of hinting at a false dichotomy- flavorful, fluffy rules don't have to involve finicky, fiddly 'chrome' and bespoke special rules that come at the expense of competitive play.
Some armies do a great job of distinguishing subfactions from one another through simple rules. Take Tyranids for example.
-Hydra lets you re-roll failed hits against targets you outnumber.
-Jormungandr gives you cover as long as you don't advance or charge, and lets you deep strike additional units alongside tunnelers.
-Kraken increases your advance rolls and lets you fall back and charge in the same turn.
-And Kronos lets you re-roll 1s to hit.
Each faction encourages builds and playstyles that make them very different from one another. Hydra is all about swarming hordes. Jormungandr favors deep-striking lists, but not with flying creatures. Kraken lets you build a mobile, aggressive army. And Kronos is the go-to choice for a gunline.
Those are elegant rules: They're simple, easy to remember, easy to balance, and capture the flavor of what they're meant to depict. The Space Marine supplements are not. They capture the flavor, but they're complex, full of layers upon layers of bespoke rules, and clearly aren't very balanced. You don't need that level of granular detail to make green Space Marines who like stealth feel different from yellow Space Marines who like fortifications. Narrative players and competitive players aren't at odds here.
This ties back to a game design concept called designing for effect. The idea is that it is more important for a mechanic to feel right and produce the desired outcome than it is to painstakingly simulate whatever it's supposed to represent.
Warmachine is a good example of simple rules having a massive impact on theme. Each warcaster has fewer than a half-dozen spells and a once-per-game feat. Those abilities radically change how their armies work, such that the same unit or warjack works completely differently under two different warcasters from the same faction. It accomplishes this with rules that fit on a standard playing card.
Edit: Apocalypse is a great example of a 'less is more' approach to game design as applied to 40K. It plays quickly for what it represents, and captures the feel of the 40K units without having a half-dozen special rules and eight weapon profiles for each unit, let alone 50+ dice to resolve a normal shooting attack. The design philosophy of Apocalypse as applied to 40K could make for a much more streamlined game- although I'm sure that there are enough players hung up on rolling dice for its own sake, rather than as a means to an end, that the backlash would be enormous.
Which isn't to say balance is ALWAYS at odds with narrative.
Yeah, thanks, saw that. Now add the rest of your statement:
Which isn't to say balance is ALWAYS at odds with narrative.
[...]
But SOMETIMES it does, as in this "less codexes and factional differences" stuff.
Balance isn't at odds with factional differences when they're implemented well. The false dichotomy is the idea that fluffy representations of differences between factions/subfactions can only come through complex and difficult-to-balance mechanics, and so we must choose between balanced and bland or imbalanced but fluffy.
Balance is at odds with overly technical mechanics (of any kind, not just faction rules) that prioritize inherent complexity over designing for effect. Letting Kronos re-roll 1s if they don't move isn't the problem. Giving a sub-faction dozens upon dozens of psychic powers and stratagems and conditional abilities and bespoke special rules is the problem.
I've played plenty of simple games that captured the narrative/feel of their subject matter better than more complex and simulationist competitors. Having fewer codices would not necessarily mean less differentiation between the factions.
A team of dozens of people being paid to design games professionally by a company with turnover in the hundreds of millions are getting left behind by people writing games in their spare time. Substitute any example of people doing incredibly complicated things to suit your tastes, I stand by the point.
Dozens seems unlikely.
Over the course of the lifetime of the game, I'd be surprised if it isn't hundreds. As it stands the design studio staff is in three figures, but they're obviously not all rules writers. I have it on good authority that isn't even close to the number of people now employed in marketing and PR, which comes as no surprise when you look at how things are run at GW nowadays.
Who has written a game in their spare time that is leaving GW behind? What qualifies as 'leaving them behind'?
I was specifically thinking of Mike Hutchinson, who wrote Gaslands in his spare time, and straight out of the gate wrote an entirely more balanced ruleset with a decent list of options and factions. He admittedly included one flat out broken unit and made a couple of errors in pointing, but considering the relative availability of resources it makes GW failing to get 40K right in over 30 years look deliberate.
Or then there's Mat Hart and Rich Loxham, who wrote Guild Ball and even now having added factions and extra models some 4 years down the line have grown Steamforged into a multimillion pound company yet still managed, with regular adjustments, to keep the balance between Guilds at 50% win rate +/-10%. There's been hiccups, but even then because the game leans so much less on list building than 40K and so much more on in game decisions, player skill still remains the biggest factor between even the "best" and "worst" factions.
And that's just two I know well enough to comment on.
Look at what they did with Apocalypse. There's clearly knowledge of the mechanics that make games more easily balanced, but there isn't a magic switch you can flip on 40K.
No, you're right. They've never had an opportunity to completely scrap all the stuff that doesn't work, re define the design space and move forward on a more solid platform.
I don't think GW has ever tried until now.
Gaslands while really fun is basically X-Wing and isn't nearly the same level of units and options as 40K. I can't comment on Guild Ball as I'm not familiar with the mechanics, but it looks to me to be an easier place to balance when you're at most dealing with 12 models on each side, which is more comparable to Kill Team.
Over the course of the lifetime of the game, I'd be surprised if it isn't hundreds. As it stands the design studio staff is in three figures, but they're obviously not all rules writers.I have it on good authority that isn't even close to the number of people now employed in marketing and PR, which comes as no surprise when you look at how things are run at GW nowadays.
Rules writes are likely the only people worth mentioning and you're looking at maybe a dozen people making decisions (and it's the decisions we care about). Additionally, it takes a LOT of people in Marketing to handle all the facets of the web these days -- my company has 3 people dedicated to handling Google Reviews, Facebook, and Yelp alone not to mention folks for CRM, ad spots, printing, and so forth.
catbarf wrote: I don't see that I've missed anything, so if you would be so kind as to actually point it out it would be much appreciated.
The point was that the more factions, units, and special rules there are, the more difficult it is to balance them all while keeping pace with constant new releases. Which is a pretty self-evident truth that almost everyone has agreed on. Not "these kinds of things cannot exist in a balanced game" or "more factions inherently means less balance".
The constant shifting goalposts, strawmen arguments, aggression, hyperbole, not bothering to keep up with what a given point is meant to address, and the amount of people who seem to be deliberately avoiding any possible middle-ground in this thread is incredibly exhausting. I really should have stuck with my instinct like 15 pages ago to leave this conversation alone due to how negative it was getting.
AngryAngel80 wrote: GW like most companies wants the best of all worlds. They could, very easily clear all this up and just state on their community page " Warhammer is not and never will be meant to be a hardcore competitive game, play it as such at your own peril. We only give a passing glance balance, never expect more than this from this product. "
If they stated that, quite clearly for all their customers to see, I'd gladly never say another word on their awful balance as they quite clearly made it known that's a non issue for them.
However, they toss around the word and idea of balance about as much any tournament thumper does but it's awful usually.
For the people giving GW a pass, just have GW be clear what the game is and is not and many of these topics would die. GW is as to blame for lack of simple clarity that leads people to believe they actually care about balance, as what else are all these paid point changes, why would they care at all about Legends in tournaments, why would they even run their own tournaments or attend ones they aren't running, etc, etc that makes it seem a lot like they are trying for balance just crap at it.
Have you ever watched any Voxcasts or whatever?
The designers routinely DO say, quite clearly, that balance and hardcore competition is not their priority for 40k. They even tend to make fun of people wanting perfect balance and put scare quotes around it.
whenever they have a game/rules person on, it is reiterated over and over again.
it's like those against GW's stated position are standing in an echo chamber of their own creation. They choose to ignore it since it does not fit their narrative(see what I did there). I could understand this viewpoint if (@some point in the past) GW was the bestest, mostest, awesomest balance machine ever. With the tightest most efficient rules and no OP/under overcosted units. Since this is clearly not the case, continuing to complain about something that clearly is not even a moderate priority for GW, is insane.
A random voxcast or what have you is not putting it out, black and white, for all players to easily see and digest. They do say they don't strive hard for balance but then go ahead and say they are trying to balance things. They need to either give up the ghost and admit they won't be balanced because they want to use it to sell, or they are just crap at it and can't do it despite best efforts or if it happens it's just a happy accident. As is they consistently talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on the crowd and intent they want to put out there. Which leads to these talks. Now, I'd say they were quite clear with the first stage of AoS, it was as casual as can be and only the most foolish tried to make it competitive.
At the end of the day, they need to do a better job with workable balance, or just go all in on casual and purge out those who want balance so that they can have a unified community as is it ends up just a mess with these never ending arguments.
Oh and if their pace leads to them being unable to put out quality then they need to slow it all down so they can actually do what is expected of them. Moving at a break neck pace is a problem of their own design and entirely in their own capability to fix.
Those of you saying that Apocalypse should be the "default version"...
Why?
Why should it be default?
It's right there. It's available to use. If it works better for your kind of games, go play it! Have fun! More power to you! There's no minimum points requirement for it, and it works great for 2000 points!*
So... why does it have to be the DEFAULT???
This is the kind of thing that can sometimes make competitive players seem entitled and selfish; an insistence on their preferred form of the game being the "default", "official", "proper" way to play, and other preferences having to be the spin-offs, options, alternatives, etc. Why can't it be the other way around? Why do you HAVE to play the "default" version of the most popular game instead of anything else, when so many easily available alternatives would suit you better, you know?
This is also the kind of thing GW rules designers make fun of, too, and that makes them take the complaints and issues (even the quite valid ones!) less seriously. When competitive players insist on not doing ANYTHING that doesn't have a big OFFICIAL PROPER MAIN WAY TO PLAY WARHAMMER stamp on it. Like people who would refuse to allow FW units or campaign supplements because they weren't "official".
* - By which I mean the comparable PL. 300, IIRC? And if you think PL is too imprecise, play Apocalypse with points! THAT IS OKAY. No Rules Police are going to smash in your door!
Well the speed of releases was just to catch everyone up on 8th Ed, something people keep forgetting. It took like a year an a half to give all the factions their codex after the overhaul? Imagine how Dakka would react if GW had just kept to their normal release schedule? Can you imagine if major factioms had to wait 3 years to get their non-index codex before they'd even gotten round to the minor ones?
random voxcast or what have you is not putting it out, black and white, for all players to easily see and digest. They do say they don't strive hard for balance but then go ahead and say they are trying to balance things. They need to either give up the ghost and admit they won't be balanced because they want to use it to sell, or they are just crap at it and can't do it despite best efforts or if it happens it's just a happy accident. As is they consistently talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on the crowd and intent they want to put out there. Which leads to these talks. Now, I'd say they were quite clear with the first stage of AoS, it was as casual as can be and only the most foolish tried to make it competitive.
They're NOT contradicting themselves when they say they're trying to balance it!
Look, these two things can EASILY both be true:
a) A highly balanced and competitive, tournament-style game is NOT their priority, and never will be. Their priority is a game that reproduces the "feel" of the setting/lore/IP, for the sake of a fun afternoon between friends or likeminded strangers.
b) They still want players with a more competitive tilt to enjoy the game, and they know that relative balance between factions and properly representative points costs are important to most players regardless of play style, so they try their best, relative to their other goals and their practical limitations, to balance the game!
random voxcast or what have you is not putting it out, black and white, for all players to easily see and digest. They do say they don't strive hard for balance but then go ahead and say they are trying to balance things. They need to either give up the ghost and admit they won't be balanced because they want to use it to sell, or they are just crap at it and can't do it despite best efforts or if it happens it's just a happy accident. As is they consistently talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on the crowd and intent they want to put out there. Which leads to these talks. Now, I'd say they were quite clear with the first stage of AoS, it was as casual as can be and only the most foolish tried to make it competitive.
They're NOT contradicting themselves when they say they're trying to balance it!
Look, these two things can EASILY both be true:
a) A highly balanced and competitive, tournament-style game is NOT their priority, and never will be. Their priority is a game that reproduces the "feel" of the setting/lore/IP, for the sake of a fun afternoon between friends or likeminded strangers.
b) They still want players with a more competitive tilt to enjoy the game, and they know that relative balance between factions and properly representative points costs are important to most players regardless of play style, so they try their best, relative to their other goals and their practical limitations, to balance the game!
HOW on Holy Terra is that a contradiction!?!
You can only put out a half arsed attempt at something for so long before it seems either you suck at it or you really don't want to accomplish it. The contradiction is in they could easily accomplish both. Nail down that tight tournament rule set, for you know those competitive types they care about. For this they have no limitations, they are the company that puts out the game if they wanted to do it they should have all the assets on hand to do it and time on hand to accomplish this task despite all the " But it's hard !! " people keep tossing out there. This is a rule set for a game not rocket science, it can be done despite how bloated they keep making it. They could always you know, un bloat it as well, just saying.
Both casual and competitive could be a priority, and if time is an issue they should take their time and do the job right.
It's an awful lot of coddling for this professional company that can and should put out better efforts or be frank to the fact they don't give a crap. Being commended for lazy effort shouldn't be a thing when most people hold themselves to a higher standard why should we expect less from this very large company that has been doing this for a long time ?
If we grow to accept less than best effort, the crap product we get is our fault and we saw where that led to last time, it led to 7th edition and the game circling the drain while some hard liners kept saying how amazing it was and they did their best and anything more was just too much to ask for. This whole conversation happened then too, yet somehow, they found an ability to do better when money was on the line. I think we can reasonably believe they could do much better than they currently are. I'm not even asking anymore they do better, I just want them to level with everyone they won't ever really seek better balance, or they are bad at it. As the tongue in cheek jokes are fine but honesty goes a long way then even I could shoot down these posts and be like " Bruh, they just don't care lol, you want balance this is the wrong place for you. " As I said, I wouldn't even be mad, but the token signs of " balance " will just keep leading people to actually want it, you know, the balance they claim to be working on.
Why to people still think that casual/narritive and competitive need different kind of rules?
Competitive gaming does not need any balance nor does it need good rules.
Bad rules will be compensated by a tournament FAQ/Errara, bad balance will be compensated by everyone playing the best armies with the best options
No problem here that need to be fixed.
Casual/Narritive people don't care about balance as they use Power Level or no points at all and just play scenarios without victory conditions
again, no problem to be found
But, the big problem is that casual/narritive people are going to play competitive events and start to struggle as they don't have a chance with their army and don't want to buy in a new one just to be able to play the game with a different group of people.
this was less of a problem in the past with armies being smaller and cheaper.
just needed to paint 60 models and having an army for competitive events and one for narritive events was fine
now buying and painting 100 models for one army and people want to use that army for both
and at this point the whole balance problem kicks in
overall, casual/narritive players will always benefit more from well written rules and good balance than competitive players (as soon as the pay2win netlist is gone and skill is more important some WAAC players will struggle)
and in most other games it is the narritive group who demand better rules/balance as the competitive group is happy with taking whatever is the strongest option
saying otherwise is either an excuse for lacy work (as they don't want to try or don't care) or from people who like the imbalance as it makes WAAC easier
PS: if GW really does not care about competitive games, they should stop doing matched play points and just update power levels
because the majority of people are said as not caring about competitive too, this should make no difference at all and it would be clear for everyone that the game is not made for competitive play
but GW is doing it because the playerbase wanted to have it, which means there must be more people doing competitive gaming and/or those spending more money so that it is worth the afford
or the casual/narritive people demand matched play points, which means they care about balance and that brings back the first point
My original point was about how I find the emerging narrative in my games of 8th edition. You said my account was not from a "tourney list" so I provided the context. You also referred to me as a CAAC, so I corrected you. The player base for 40K is wide and you should respect that not everybody approaches the game in the same way as you.
random voxcast or what have you is not putting it out, black and white, for all players to easily see and digest. They do say they don't strive hard for balance but then go ahead and say they are trying to balance things. They need to either give up the ghost and admit they won't be balanced because they want to use it to sell, or they are just crap at it and can't do it despite best efforts or if it happens it's just a happy accident. As is they consistently talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on the crowd and intent they want to put out there. Which leads to these talks. Now, I'd say they were quite clear with the first stage of AoS, it was as casual as can be and only the most foolish tried to make it competitive.
They're NOT contradicting themselves when they say they're trying to balance it!
Look, these two things can EASILY both be true:
a) A highly balanced and competitive, tournament-style game is NOT their priority, and never will be. Their priority is a game that reproduces the "feel" of the setting/lore/IP, for the sake of a fun afternoon between friends or likeminded strangers.
b) They still want players with a more competitive tilt to enjoy the game, and they know that relative balance between factions and properly representative points costs are important to most players regardless of play style, so they try their best, relative to their other goals and their practical limitations, to balance the game!
HOW on Holy Terra is that a contradiction!?!
You can only put out a half arsed attempt at something for so long before it seems either you suck at it or you really don't want to accomplish it. The contradiction is in they could easily accomplish both. Nail down that tight tournament rule set, for you know those competitive types they care about. For this they have no limitations, they are the company that puts out the game if they wanted to do it they should have all the assets on hand to do it and time on hand to accomplish this task despite all the " But it's hard !! " people keep tossing out there. This is a rule set for a game not rocket science, it can be done despite how bloated they keep making it. They could always you know, un bloat it as well, just saying.
Both casual and competitive could be a priority, and if time is an issue they should take their time and do the job right.
It's an awful lot of coddling for this professional company that can and should put out better efforts or be frank to the fact they don't give a crap. Being commended for lazy effort shouldn't be a thing when most people hold themselves to a higher standard why should we expect less from this very large company that has been doing this for a long time ?
If we grow to accept less than best effort, the crap product we get is our fault and we saw where that led to last time, it led to 7th edition and the game circling the drain while some hard liners kept saying how amazing it was and they did their best and anything more was just too much to ask for. This whole conversation happened then too, yet somehow, they found an ability to do better when money was on the line. I think we can reasonably believe they could do much better than they currently are. I'm not even asking anymore they do better, I just want them to level with everyone they won't ever really seek better balance, or they are bad at it. As the tongue in cheek jokes are fine but honesty goes a long way then even I could shoot down these posts and be like " Bruh, they just don't care lol, you want balance this is the wrong place for you. " As I said, I wouldn't even be mad, but the token signs of " balance " will just keep leading people to actually want it, you know, the balance they claim to be working on.
Okay so:
1. Writing rules does not have "no limitation". The people writing rules and playtesting need to be paid and deadlines must be met. You can't say "well they should take their time" because people get impatient. While IH are stomping all over the meta EVERY other faction is sitting here waiting for THEIR power creepy codex. If GW DID take their time people would equally bitch about them being too slow.
2. It IS hard. I mentioned before even Privateer Press, who for a while was GWs biggest rival and whose game was entirely focussed around tournament level play was never greatly balanced. It was KIND of balanced but still the meta was dominated by certain lists and still is, despite having public beta testing and literally top level tournament players on staff to playtest.
3. You can't "unbloat" it. People hate it when they can't use their models anymore. GW frequently receives flak on these forums for their "no model no rules" policy. Imagine how people would feel if models they DID go into Legends or something. Can you imagine the reaction if tactical marines were just axed in one fell swoop when they shifted to Primaris? I almost wish GW had done that so I could see it. It would be like when they axed Fantasy all over again except with 50% of their customer base.
4. The comparison to 7th is a confusing one to m because it shows that the customer base IS willing to take their money and leave but since 8th launched GW has been doing so well that the BBC publishes news articles about it. Moreover this hasn't been an initial surge and then a drop off like you would expect if the game was as crap as people would have you believe but a steady increase, which means its retaining players who are still buying stuff. So either people are enjoying 8th despite its balance flaws and the naysayers in this thread are a vocal minority or AoS is doing some crazy numbers.
@kodos we care about matched play/points because it makes games easy to set up. As I said before evert game arrangement I've made for 8th has gone like this:
Me: Anyone free this week?
Friend: I'm free monday.
Me: Cool, 2000pts?
Friend: Sounds good, see you then.
We don't spend the following day discussing house rules etc. We just meet, explain what isn't WYSIWYG and play.
Sim-Life wrote: .
@kodos we care about matched play/points because it makes games easy to set up. As I said before evert game arrangement I've made for 8th has gone like this:
Me: Anyone free this week?
Friend: I'm free monday.
Me: Cool, 2000pts?
Friend: Sounds good, see you then.
We don't spend the following day discussing house rules etc. We just meet, explain what isn't WYSIWYG and play.
and this will work the same with "20 Power Level" or "Scenario X, army lists as the book".
that your are asking for matched play points which means your asking for a more balanced game as PL will offer or that the outcome is not fixed
it is not easier than the other options, but it gives the impression of a more balanced game with an open outcome
and this is the problem for a lot of people as matched play points are not better balanced than PL (for some units but not everything) and the outcome depends on the chosen factions/lists (and is not open until the end)
Sim-Life wrote: .
@kodos we care about matched play/points because it makes games easy to set up. As I said before evert game arrangement I've made for 8th has gone like this:
Me: Anyone free this week?
Friend: I'm free monday.
Me: Cool, 2000pts?
Friend: Sounds good, see you then.
We don't spend the following day discussing house rules etc. We just meet, explain what isn't WYSIWYG and play.
and this will work the same with "20 Power Level" or "Scenario X, army lists as the book".
that your are asking for matched play points which means your asking for a more balanced game as PL will offer or that the outcome is not fixed
it is not easier than the other options, but it gives the impression of a more balanced game with an open outcome
and this is the problem for a lot of people as matched play points are not better balanced than PL (for some units but not everything) and the outcome depends on the chosen factions/lists (and is not open until the end)
Our group likes points because of the granularity and the fact that its how we've been playing for 20+ years. I probably should have mentioned that. Its really more the former than the latter though.
Sim-Life wrote: .
@kodos we care about matched play/points because it makes games easy to set up. As I said before evert game arrangement I've made for 8th has gone like this:
Me: Anyone free this week?
Friend: I'm free monday.
Me: Cool, 2000pts?
Friend: Sounds good, see you then.
We don't spend the following day discussing house rules etc. We just meet, explain what isn't WYSIWYG and play.
and this will work the same with "20 Power Level" or "Scenario X, army lists as the book".
that your are asking for matched play points which means your asking for a more balanced game as PL will offer or that the outcome is not fixed
it is not easier than the other options, but it gives the impression of a more balanced game with an open outcome
and this is the problem for a lot of people as matched play points are not better balanced than PL (for some units but not everything) and the outcome depends on the chosen factions/lists (and is not open until the end)
You're out of your mind if you think PL is more balanced or remotely as balanced. Unit x has 6 boltguns, unit Y has 4 chaincannons and 6 boltguns, yep perfectly equal in PL. You might as well count number of wounds in your list as counting PL, it's next to useless for balancing purposes and pts are getting more and more balanced with every CA, there is a point (CA 24 at GW's meandering pace towards balance) where almost all options will be viable with pts, not at all so with PL which could be CA 21 if it became a goal and GW set up the right method for balancing and testing their game. I could do it easily as a part time job if I had a solid team of playtesters and a guy or two that were good at math (if I applied myself for a bit I'd be able to do it myself as well) and crucially GW's official mandate, because with that you unlock a bunch of volunteer resources. A simple thing like question scheme released to the 40k community with a rating of 1-5 would massively enlighten GW. Something as silly as nerfing Ogryn while leaving Bullgryn alone wouldn't happen if you had a scheme that said "Ogryn 1,5 Bullgryn 3,8".
One of the biggest issues currently is that they've opened the box with faction bloat. They CAN'T go back or there would be rioting in the streets if they removed things, even if it was for the overall balance and health of the game you'd have people screaming bloody murder that their stuff isn't valid anymore.
Even if they tightened these restrictions for tournament play (the hypothetical "Organized Play" subset of rules) you'd have people bitching that they bought 5 Knights and can't use them, etc.
Also, I notice people keep thinking that the variety of options in 40k somehow makes it more complicated. It really doesn't. Most of it is just illusions to look complicated (e.g. this unit has 10 different weapon options) when A) There's often one obvious good choice and several obvious bad choices and B) These are all minor options. A game like Gaslands or Warmahordes or Guild Ball or what have you, while they are often smaller than 40k, have more actual options that really impact the game rather than get bogged down in minutiae.
I haven't tried the Apoc rules but I've heard they are fairly good, and probably better at 40k than 40k is. To answer the above question, why would it need to be the default? Because history has shown that in most cases if something isn't the default, it doesn't get used. People LIKE having an "official standard" they can fall back on and dislike having to ask if something is allowed. So if Apoc were to be used for 40k but as an option, you would see it come up very rarely and everyone would just stick to "default" Matched Play because you don't have to do any work and you can be certain someone has played it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: You're out of your mind if you think PL is more balanced or remotely as balanced. Unit x has 6 boltguns, unit Y has 4 chaincannons and 6 boltguns, yep perfectly equal in PL. You might as well count number of wounds in your list as counting PL, it's next to useless for balancing purposes and pts are getting more and more balanced with every CA, there is a point (CA 24 at GW's meandering pace towards balance) where almost all options will be viable with pts, not at all so with PL which could be CA 21 if it became a goal and GW set up the right method for balancing and testing their game. I could do it easily as a part time job if I had a solid team of playtesters and a guy or two that were good at math (if I applied myself for a bit I'd be able to do it myself as well) and crucially GW's official mandate, because with that you unlock a bunch of volunteer resources. A simple thing like question scheme released to the 40k community with a rating of 1-5 would massively enlighten GW. Something as silly as nerfing Ogryn while leaving Bullgryn alone wouldn't happen if you had a scheme that said "Ogryn 1,5 Bullgryn 3,8".
PL might not be balanced, but neither is points. So for all the hate PL gets, it's not really any different. While GW has seemingly abandoned PL that appears to be more because everyone immediately jumped on "Why wouldn't I just take all the best options then if it's all free" instead of seeing why it was actually there.
Wayniac wrote: One of the biggest issues currently is that they've opened the box with faction bloat. They CAN'T go back or there would be rioting in the streets if they removed things, even if it was for the overall balance and health of the game you'd have people screaming bloody murder that their stuff isn't valid anymore.
Even if they tightened these restrictions for tournament play (the hypothetical "Organized Play" subset of rules) you'd have people bitching that they bought 5 Knights and can't use them, etc.
Also, I notice people keep thinking that the variety of options in 40k somehow makes it more complicated. It really doesn't. Most of it is just illusions to look complicated (e.g. this unit has 10 different weapon options) when A) There's often one obvious good choice and several obvious bad choices and B) These are all minor options. A game like Gaslands or Warmahordes or Guild Ball or what have you, while they are often smaller than 40k, have more actual options that really impact the game rather than get bogged down in minutiae.
You don't need to remove units to remove bloat, I think a lot of people appreciate their special weapons in their squads and how that helps them specialize in small ways that you cannot with the new Primaris units or in the Apocalypse specialist game. Removing Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, WL traits and Stratagems with the next CA and release a set of universal Stratagems and WL traits and re-balance Relics (and probably cut down on the number for some factions...). It's six pages for Stratagems and WL traits and five pages for Relics. CA20 won't need datasheets so it could replace that.
vict0988 wrote: You're out of your mind if you think PL is more balanced or remotely as balanced. Unit x has 6 boltguns, unit Y has 4 chaincannons and 6 boltguns, yep perfectly equal in PL. You might as well count number of wounds in your list as counting PL, it's next to useless for balancing purposes and pts are getting more and more balanced with every CA, there is a point (CA 24 at GW's meandering pace towards balance) where almost all options will be viable with pts, not at all so with PL which could be CA 21 if it became a goal and GW set up the right method for balancing and testing their game. I could do it easily as a part time job if I had a solid team of playtesters and a guy or two that were good at math (if I applied myself for a bit I'd be able to do it myself as well) and crucially GW's official mandate, because with that you unlock a bunch of volunteer resources. A simple thing like question scheme released to the 40k community with a rating of 1-5 would massively enlighten GW. Something as silly as nerfing Ogryn while leaving Bullgryn alone wouldn't happen if you had a scheme that said "Ogryn 1,5 Bullgryn 3,8".
PL might not be balanced, but neither is points. So for all the hate PL gets, it's not really any different. While GW has seemingly abandoned PL that appears to be more because everyone immediately jumped on "Why wouldn't I just take all the best options then if it's all free" instead of seeing why it was actually there.
If one can of tomatoes is 4 dollars and the other one is 2 dollars, but canned tomatoes in russia cost 1 dollar, do you go to Russia, buy the 2 dollar tomatoes or the 4 dollar tomatoes? It's the perfection fallacy. You choose the best option available which is pts.
You're out of your mind if you think PL is more balanced or remotely as balanced.
But people here claim that balance is not needed for casual/narrative games, so PL are as good as are matched play, with the advantage that they don't even give the impression of balance while matched play points do.
So if balance is not important, just use PL and everything is fine
taking matched play points for something that they are not meant for or in you example why by tomatoes if you want apples
, it's next to useless for balancing purposes and pts are getting more and more balanced with every CA,
not really
Fajita Fan wrote: Is Kill Team more competitive or balanced than 40k? I haven’t tried it and that’s an actual question.
KT is up to point better
but for different reasons, as it is smaller and faster you are more likely to finish games and play more of them which is an advantage for competitive game
As a narrative player, if the game does not represent the narrative on the table, I am not interested.
I hear a lot how GW pushes their narrative and that is so important to their games, but neither AOS nor 40k on the table look anything like their narrative. It is in the wild usually a min/max fest where the core of the armies that are in the books are minimal or not present at all.
Thats why I don't play 40k, and haven't for some years now, and a major reason why I dropped AOS as well (among a couple other reasons that deal solely with game mechanics).
If 40k had rules that enforced their narrative and made the core forces of the armies have to be represented, I'd probably reconsider it. That goes hand in hand with internal balance of the books, which for GW games is usually virtually non existent.
I do not like to be forced to collect a certain type of collection in my chosen faction to have good games because of very bad internal balance that only makes a couple of things viable to field.
Just because I am a narrative player does not mean that I enjoy boring one sided games because one force is mathematically superior to the other one in such a way that no game is to be had after turn 1 unless you give in and collect the viable models.
The whole balance is not needed for casual / narrative games is ... the strangest piece of fiction I have heard in some time.
Yeah, when I talked about consolidating rules I never meant making models unplayable. This should never happen, everything that has model should have rules. I was merely speaking about all tacked on extra bonus rules that differentiate otherwise identical units of various subfactions. But the conclusion is same though; people love such bonus rules and would get mad if they were removed.
I hear a lot how GW pushes their narrative and that is so important to their games, but neither AOS nor 40k on the table look anything like their narrative. It is in the wild usually a min/max fest where the core of the armies that are in the books are minimal or not present at all.
A bit harsh, but I get what you mean. It bugs me when the way the army would be composed in the fluff and how it is composed on tabletop are miles apart. How well or badly these match vary from faction to faction though. In any case, Were i writing rules making sure that the rules support the sort of force structure the fluff would imply would be one of my top priorities.
You're out of your mind if you think PL is more balanced or remotely as balanced.
But people here claim that balance is not needed for casual/narrative games, so PL are as good as are matched play, with the advantage that they don't even give the impression of balance while matched play points do.
So if balance is not important, just use PL and everything is fine
taking matched play points for something that they are not meant for or in you example why by tomatoes if you want apples
, it's next to useless for balancing purposes and pts are getting more and more balanced with every CA,
not really
Fajita Fan wrote: Is Kill Team more competitive or balanced than 40k? I haven’t tried it and that’s an actual question.
KT is up to point better
but for different reasons, as it is smaller and faster you are more likely to finish games and play more of them which is an advantage for competitive game
I don't know why anti-casual people keep saying this because no one else has. It's getting kind of tiring seeing people claim casual players don't care AT ALL like you could put a carnifex down and claim its stats are 20 across the board and all space marines have 1 for all their stats because its more accurate in our head canon.
Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.
Also, I notice people keep thinking that the variety of options in 40k somehow makes it more complicated. It really doesn't. Most of it is just illusions to look complicated (e.g. this unit has 10 different weapon options) when A) There's often one obvious good choice and several obvious bad choices and B) These are all minor options. A game like Gaslands or Warmahordes or Guild Ball or what have you, while they are often smaller than 40k, have more actual options that really impact the game rather than get bogged down in minutiae.
It's not a question of balancing individual codex entries and their wargear, you're talking about a lot of possible builds in many possible codices. Build a computer program to see how many possible 2000 point army lists are legal in a marine codex. There has to be billions of combinations before you start adding the effects of warlord traits, strategems, terrain abilities, etc. Some lists will end up being more powerful than others. It's not that a marine tactical squad is hard to balance compared to gluing machine guns to hotwheels or pairing warcasters/warjacks - the point is that you can take 2-6 of them in a regular army in a ton of permutations who you must balance with the HQs, banner abilities, strategems, and that's before you throw in the rest of the codex. Multiply this by a couple dozen codices and GW has almost no incentive trying to achieve anything remotely close to the moving target that is "balance."
The tournament crowd who are upset that this army or that army doesn't see the top tables is dwarfed by the Timmys whose parents buy his models and the beer & pretzels crowd who get games in between their kids' soccer games.
You're out of your mind if you think PL is more balanced or remotely as balanced.
But people here claim that balance is not needed for casual/narrative games, so PL are as good as are matched play, with the advantage that they don't even give the impression of balance while matched play points do.
So if balance is not important, just use PL and everything is fine
taking matched play points for something that they are not meant for or in you example why by tomatoes if you want apples
, it's next to useless for balancing purposes and pts are getting more and more balanced with every CA,
not really
Fajita Fan wrote: Is Kill Team more competitive or balanced than 40k? I haven’t tried it and that’s an actual question.
KT is up to point better
but for different reasons, as it is smaller and faster you are more likely to finish games and play more of them which is an advantage for competitive game
I don't know why anti-casual people keep saying this because no one else has. It's getting kind of tiring seeing people claim casual players don't care AT ALL like you could put a carnifex down and claim its stats are 20 across the board and all space marines have 1 for all their stats because its more accurate in our head canon.
Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.
Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.
'Press X to doubt'
You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.
nataliereed1984 wrote: The point was that the more factions, units, and special rules there are, the more difficult it is to balance them all while keeping pace with constant new releases. Which is a pretty self-evident truth that almost everyone has agreed on. Not "these kinds of things cannot exist in a balanced game" or "more factions inherently means less balance".
The constant shifting goalposts, strawmen arguments, aggression, hyperbole, not bothering to keep up with what a given point is meant to address, and the amount of people who seem to be deliberately avoiding any possible middle-ground in this thread is incredibly exhausting. I really should have stuck with my instinct like 15 pages ago to leave this conversation alone due to how negative it was getting.
Nobody has disagreed that more factions, units, and special rules make the game harder to balance, that's not what I've been talking about.
My point is that
more factions, units, and special rules
is not the only way to accomplish
the feeling of each chapter / organization / warband / legion having it's own culture and approach to warfare and strengths and weaknesses and such
which is the false dichotomy you were setting up in the post I originally quoted:
Thus, a narrative element that is fun for narrative players and ties the rules to the lore and IP comes at the expense of what would be best for creating a balanced and competitive game.
You were arguing that removal of the myriad bespoke codices that differentiate subfactions means sacrificing characterization/feeling/fluff from the subfactions. I argue that this is simply not true; it's just a matter of using broader, simpler effects that achieve the same 'feel' as more complex ones while being dramatically easier to balance. Design for effect.
And yeah, if AK-47 Republic can make Navy SEALs and Somali militia feel radically different despite drawing from the same core army list, I'm going to go ahead and say Drukhari/CWE/Exodites can be the same way. For that matter, do Chaos Marines with ten thousand years of experience and ancient weapons and armor currently play much differently from loyalist Space Marines with ten years of experience? I'd argue that for all the books and supplements layering on special rules, the core mechanics fail to meaningfully differentiate factions through statlines or army organization. It comes down to an avalanche of special rules and stratagems, and still at the end of it all a group of rag-tag Genestealer Cult insurgents and a crack squad of highly-disciplined Cadians still play and feel virtually identical to one another.
Streamlining the game, in the process providing design space for fluffy faction/subfaction rules, can make the game both fun for narrative players and better for competitive play. That's all I've been saying.
Those of you saying that Apocalypse should be the "default version"...
Why?
Because it's a better game. I'd like to see GW take their better ruleset and run with it, rather than continue to prop up the bloated mess of the current one.
It would need modification to function well in the 1000-2000pt range, particularly as it fails to model things like special weapons that have historically been important to unit identities, but the core of a better game- an actual C&C mechanic, alternating activation, better implementation of the Stratagem concept, and much faster combat resolution- are all there already.
Also, I notice people keep thinking that the variety of options in 40k somehow makes it more complicated. It really doesn't. Most of it is just illusions to look complicated (e.g. this unit has 10 different weapon options) when A) There's often one obvious good choice and several obvious bad choices and B) These are all minor options. A game like Gaslands or Warmahordes or Guild Ball or what have you, while they are often smaller than 40k, have more actual options that really impact the game rather than get bogged down in minutiae.
It's not a question of balancing individual codex entries and their wargear, you're talking about a lot of possible builds in many possible codices. Build a computer program to see how many possible 2000 point army lists are legal in a marine codex. There has to be billions of combinations before you start adding the effects of warlord traits, strategems, terrain abilities, etc. Some lists will end up being more powerful than others. It's not that a marine tactical squad is hard to balance compared to gluing machine guns to hotwheels or pairing warcasters/warjacks - the point is that you can take 2-6 of them in a regular army in a ton of permutations who you must balance with the HQs, banner abilities, strategems, and that's before you throw in the rest of the codex. Multiply this by a couple dozen codices and GW has almost no incentive trying to achieve anything remotely close to the moving target that is "balance."
The tournament crowd who are upset that this army or that army doesn't see the top tables is dwarfed by the Timmys whose parents buy his models and the beer & pretzels crowd who get games in between their kids' soccer games.
This is something that people comparing balance in 40k to balance in other wargames either ommit or don’t realise. You can indeed create a wargame that actively steers itself towards a tie, there are mechanisms at game designer disposal that can achieve that. You can create a game, in which every decision that happens happens after the game has started, no problem here either, chess or Go are prime, but not only, examples here. But the problem in 40k is and always was, that most of player decisions in this system happen before players even meet at the table and you cannot balance that - point systems and army construction restrictions are tools not complex enough and too limited in their capacity to achieve that goal. In 40k, after the first roll you can only decide where to move, what to shoot or what to charge, and what of those three actions to boost with psychic powers or in 8th with your finite CP resource. Those are in turn tools not capable enough to close power gaps that occur in an open army construction system so vast. And if you redesign the game to deal with this problem it won’t be 40k anymore. Of course we can discuss if it’s a bad thing or a good thing, but even two major overhauls in the last 30 years, 2nd to 3rd and 7th to 8th show that there will inevitably be shifts in the playerbase and those two overhauls weren’t as drastic as redesign required to achieve the level of balance people expect. And financial results of the last years show that current state of the game is working just fine for both GW and large enough part of their customer base. So why would GW have to change their succesfull business model to anything else? And for those who wished that Apocalypse is a glimpse of what is to come - it most likely won’t happen exactly because those same people don’t want to invest their time and effort to sway others from „default mode” to „better mode” so GW don’t see any major response to Apocalypse from competitive crowd. So why should they bother? Because game design ethics? Come on...
And a word about balance in narratives, as I see there is a lot of misconception here: it is not that we do not need balance in our games to have fun. It is that we take the reality as it is for the last 30 years and don’t expect GW to provide us with balance - we simply balance scenarios and forces ourselves on the fly, as neede for the narrative we want to play out. And because we aro not bound by what GW provides we can utilize all those additional tools that can increase how close resulting games are beyond what point systems can provide. A carefully executed narrative game can be as balanced as top tournament tables and requires the same amount of knowledge about the game and balance issues. We just utilise this knowledge to a different end goal. But because of the flexibility of such approach we actually strive when there are a lot of actual or even nuanced/minutiae options at our disposal, and are not hindered by them.
And for the love of god, narrative=/=casual, stop grouping those two together as if they were synonyms. Those can be as far apart as they are from hardcore competitve approach.
Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.
'Press X to doubt'
You personally, perhaps, but I have a hard time believing that all people who play casually don't enjoy stomping face and adhere to some unwritten set of rules.
catbarf wrote: For that matter, do Chaos Marines with ten thousand years of experience and ancient weapons and armor currently play much differently from loyalist Space Marines with ten years of experience?
Yes! The Loyalist newbie is a Primaris so has better stats and gets much better faction rules for some reason!
Because it's a better game. I'd like to see GW take their better ruleset and run with it, rather than continue to prop up the bloated mess of the current one.
Apoc being 'better' is just an opinion. One that you want to forcefeed to others. If you think it is better, you can play it.
Now personally I think there are some things 40K should steal from Apoc, but to me Apoc as it is now is way too streamlined, sterile and gamey.
You're out of your mind if you think PL is more balanced or remotely as balanced.
But people here claim that balance is not needed for casual/narrative games, so PL are as good as are matched play, with the advantage that they don't even give the impression of balance while matched play points do.
So if balance is not important, just use PL and everything is fine
taking matched play points for something that they are not meant for or in you example why by tomatoes if you want apples
, it's next to useless for balancing purposes and pts are getting more and more balanced with every CA,
not really
Fajita Fan wrote: Is Kill Team more competitive or balanced than 40k? I haven’t tried it and that’s an actual question.
KT is up to point better
but for different reasons, as it is smaller and faster you are more likely to finish games and play more of them which is an advantage for competitive game
I don't know why anti-casual people keep saying this because no one else has. It's getting kind of tiring seeing people claim casual players don't care AT ALL like you could put a carnifex down and claim its stats are 20 across the board and all space marines have 1 for all their stats because its more accurate in our head canon.
Its just that casual lists don't min/max armies so flaws that only happen when you bend optimization to breaking point don't exist in casual games, so our game is a bit more balanced for it.
You don't have to min-max to discover that a basic Imperial Guard or Codex Marines or Eldar or even Dark Eldar are strictly better than Grey Knights, Angel Marines, or Necrons. So what's your point now? What is someone gonna do, give a point handicap?
You were arguing that removal of the myriad bespoke codices that differentiate subfactions means sacrificing characterization/feeling/fluff from the subfactions. I argue that this is simply not true; it's just a matter of using broader, simpler effects that achieve the same 'feel' as more complex ones while being dramatically easier to balance. Design for effect.
And yeah, if AK-47 Republic can make Navy SEALs and Somali militia feel radically different despite drawing from the same core army list, I'm going to go ahead and say Drukhari/CWE/Exodites can be the same way. For that matter, do Chaos Marines with ten thousand years of experience and ancient weapons and armor currently play much differently from loyalist Space Marines with ten years of experience? I'd argue that for all the books and supplements layering on special rules, the core mechanics fail to meaningfully differentiate factions through statlines or army organization. It comes down to an avalanche of special rules and stratagems, and still at the end of it all a group of rag-tag Genestealer Cult insurgents and a crack squad of highly-disciplined Cadians still play and feel virtually identical to one another.
Streamlining the game, in the process providing design space for fluffy faction/subfaction rules, can make the game both fun for narrative players and better for competitive play. That's all I've been saying.
I wonder if you were here when very flavourfull 2nd ed was castrated and replaced by uber bland index era, streamlined 3rd. And before bringing out an argument about Index era being temporary - 3rd ed Eldar codex have not brought back any of the former flavour. Had different 3rd ed armies played differently? Well, yes. Were those differences deep enough to allow for interesting narratives and immersive feel of the game? Hell no... The transition between 7th and 8th had similar effect, current layers upon layers of "bespoke rules" are less flavourfull than 7th eds basic level of USRs/unique special rules, but I agree that 7th ed required a lot effort to balance games out, even narratively speaking, so it is no surprise that 8th came almost universally as a relief, for any type of players.
ain't the board for me...
So it has been claimed several times over the last few pages that 
I forgot nothing. My point was that, despite the unique units and SRs, marine factions aren't truly all that different from each other, and I say this as a 
