Does anyone know how long after GW finalize a codex before it goes to printing? Are they play testing right up to the point it is sent to the printers? Or do they sit on a finalized codex for a time waiting for a good release date?

Also does anyone know how long they tend to play test a codex? Days? Weeks? Months?

It probably goes to printing the day they started the rough draft

As for playtest they probably finish printing the book and then playtest for WD

But all honestly I don't think anybody but the people working inside GW for those departments might even know...

There's something about it on Beasts of War, some of the playtesters pop up in the forums. Ask your question over there.

They are been tested and tested a long time before you have it in your hands

GW doesn't playtest.

I don't know how long they play test for but I did see them do it once at warhammer world.

One guy was using the new marines against chaos, they seemed to get quite offended when I told them that the codex was pretty much the same and still sucked lol

 Peregrine wrote:
GW doesn't playtest.

At least you aren't becoming predictable Peregrine....

brother marcus wrote:
I don't know how long they play test for but I did see them do it once at warhammer world.

One guy was using the new marines against chaos, they seemed to get quite offended when I told them that the codex was pretty much the same and still sucked lol

Did you tell that to the CSM player or the SM player.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
GW doesn't playtest.

At least you aren't becoming predictable Peregrine....

Sorry, is this one of those threads where we're supposed to pretend, against all evidence, that GW does any kind of competent playtesting?

brother marcus wrote:
I don't know how long they play test for but I did see them do it once at warhammer world.

One guy was using the new marines against chaos, they seemed to get quite offended when I told them that the codex was pretty much the same and still sucked lol

That's not playtesting, that's just playing a random game in their free time.

The guy with the new marines and I doubt it was a random game when it was 3 months before the marine release and the codex was printed out on a4 paper.

I think they do play-test however obviously not nearly enough to get even fairly obvious bugs out of codexes.

Given GW's obsession with secrecy, they can't send out "beta" rules to a wide group of testers so they must rely on their own staff playing as many games as possible.

When you consider the huge complexity of changing one out of 15 codexes, with all the possible rules interactions, the human foibles of the players and the difficulty of analysing games, it isn't surprising that the results are poor.

What they ought to do is take a computer game like Dawn of War and strip out all the graphics so it runs just as mathematical code, and reprogram it as a UGOIGO system.

You then attach a module that sets up games and a module that analyses the results. The results module can also be designed to feed back into the set-up module, which would allow the system to make changes automatically to factors like the cost of units.

The objective is for the system to run millions of games on each codex pair, modifying the codex factors until any particular codex match-up gives a 50/50 result. This would mean the pair of codexes is now balanced, and the skill of players (plus luck) would be the determining factor in real life games.

This system would also allow designers to plug new units into the game and test the results very quickly.

Killkrazy, do you have any idea how much work that would be?

You can't just 'strip out' Dawn of War. DoW's game mechanics bear absolutely no resemblance to 40k's game mechanics!

You're looking at years worth of work just to get a working beta of such a computer program. Much, much more effective to just get your developers and some random CSAs to play games and report back problems.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Killkrazy, do you have any idea how much work that would be?

You can't just 'strip out' Dawn of War. DoW's game mechanics bear absolutely no resemblance to 40k's game mechanics!

You're looking at years worth of work just to get a working beta of such a computer program. Much, much more effective to just get your developers and some random CSAs to play games and report back problems.

Lol - I mis-read that - For a second I thought it said 'report back problems' so aches, pains etc...

It does looks like the play with some strange house rules and stuff that doesn't happen outside of their test games. And from time to time there is stuff like Kelly writing his own codex for his own army , missing the good old days of Falcons taking 60 lascanons hots per turn and ending up stuned and makes stuff like the serpent shield . You know for old times sake , the eldar players had to wait so long for a good dex. .

There are some things in the recent Tau codex that appear to have changed between when the flavor text was written and the rules were finalized (ie the Razorshark should have Vector Dancer from the sounds of it, the Cadre Fireblade should have a Target Lock instead of Split Fire but for a while in the FAQ Target Locks gave Split Fire).

How thorough it is is debatable, but honestly there is no real way for them to predict the broken combinations that seem obvious to the Evil Geniuses of the Internet.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Killkrazy, do you have any idea how much work that would be?

You can't just 'strip out' Dawn of War. DoW's game mechanics bear absolutely no resemblance to 40k's game mechanics!

You're looking at years worth of work just to get a working beta of such a computer program. Much, much more effective to just get your developers and some random CSAs to play games and report back problems.

Since I am a video game producer I do have an idea. DoW has a database, a state machine, and a set of behaviour drives which likely can be used in my system. None of the graphics engine is needed.

I don't have any specific numbers, however, I can tell you they don't play test as much as I think they should. First of all, they are a company that sells models, that just happen to have rules for a game.

Unlike MTG, who playtests years in advance and has a pretty good size play test group. MTG even has what was once called the "future future league" or something to that effect. WotC plans, developes, play tests and builds a whole block of cards three years ahead of current production, therefore, enabling a great product that has yet to go over crazy like their "black summer".

Im not a big MTG player any more, just, different crowd I wasn't in the mood to be around. I do like 40k, have enough invested into it, and therefore, I keep playing.

Malifaux did do a massive beta test for M2e, and, that was pretty good. Complete with free rules on line.

You know, I think they do playtest. They probably just don't care about the game imbalances.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You're looking at years worth of work just to get a working beta of such a computer program. Much, much more effective to just get your developers and some random CSAs to play games and report back problems.

Such a system would not take years worth of work to make. Just a committed effort to make it happen, and better testing than GW currently does. I've worked on far more complicated concepts in systems for far more regulated and significant industries than game designing and seen it done in less than a years time. That is for systems that can have impact on human drug interactions which could cause someone's death if they don't work correctly in some instances. A system that pits codecies against each other in a hidden simulation and spits out the results isn't going to be a risk to anyone's life or health and doesn't need to be perfect, just usable and close enough.

The volume of actual game playing needed to truly test a new codex, especially against every existing codex in the system is staggering for a small development staff to even consider performing which is why we get the codecies we get.

Skriker

 Peregrine wrote:
GW doesn't playtest.

this is factually incorrect, to the extent that it makes me think you're flame baiting.

I would guess that the devs test things out as they develop rules. It seems to be an informal process, i'd guess that entire special rules have been created because of a single instance in one of the devs' battles where something cool happened.

Honestly i'd prefer this process to a mechanical grind of playtesting, which would create a bland equality between everything.

Okay, I'll stick for Peregrine here. Given the final products, GW might as well do 0 playtesting. If this is the best they can do, their heads are full of rocks.

You certainly get something that has been tested somewhat.

People who think that there is no testing whatsoever aren't nearly creative enough. You think GW stuff is bad, but it's nowhere NEAR as bad as it could possibly be.

xruslanx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
GW doesn't playtest.

this is factually incorrect, to the extent that it makes me think you're flame baiting.

I would guess that the devs test things out as they develop rules. It seems to be an informal process, i'd guess that entire special rules have been created because of a single instance in one of the devs' battles where something cool happened.

Honestly i'd prefer this process to a mechanical grind of playtesting, which would create a bland equality between everything.

Yes because starcraft brood war, arguable the most balanced rts and longest running competitive video game, was bland and boring. That is why tens of thousands in korea and hundreds of thousands across the world watched it and went to live television events for it. Making billions of dollars in profits. The game also provided an amazingly high skill cap and yet was fun for the masses to mess around with and not worry about the competitive side. And how was this acheived you may ask? By taking the thousands of games played at the highest level by the most skilled and adjusting things that were too weak or too strong yet still allowing for a skilled player to overcome a disadvantage through good decision making and tactics. (Fanboy rant over )

Now to be fair this is not the same we have 15 races to try and balance. I feel that is far to many and has far to much complexity to truly balance. We are not an rts, we have turns in which a player has no way to counteract the tactics and choices of their opponent. A properly balanced game is not boring or bland it is a better measure of the skill of each player and leads to outside the box thinking (read as: not using op combos that slip through codex writing) and tactics that allows the use of all units within a codex equally. Now will some units see more table time? Of course, it was the same in brood war however each unit in each of the 3 races did have a purpose (however frequent or rare) and could be used with the proper decisions.

Proper and extensive playtesting is a good things for games. Even 40k that does not sell itself as a competitive game could benefit from more playtesting by skilled players. It would lead to a YMDC section that was less argumentative and more explanitory. Rules would make sense and not be put in the game simply to put rules in the game. More of the models would be used adding to vareity and thus more strategy and tactics in games instead of: pick unit A. Why? Because unit B sucks and you will lose if you take it.

Just my two cents on the matter.

xruslanx wrote:

this is factually incorrect, to the extent that it makes me think you're flame baiting.

GW do playtesting, just not very good playtesting.

xruslanx wrote:

I would guess that the devs test things out as they develop rules. It seems to be an informal process, i'd guess that entire special rules have been created because of a single instance in one of the devs' battles where something cool happened.

Honestly i'd prefer this process to a mechanical grind of playtesting, which would create a bland equality between everything.

equality doesnt equal bland. it just makes things equal, and doesnt punish a player because he likes codex x, or build y. And funnily enough, other companies have introduced rules because of something cool, or because of fluff, and integrate things in a well balanced and careful manner.

GWs system of playtesting isnt so much "informal", but rather is something they dont care too much about. it causes the unfortunate effect of creating a whole host of problems. And thats when they actually listen to their playtesters in the first place.

Back in the day, GW did external playtesting. Some of my friends were involved. And yes, i have friends whose names do actually appear in that big beast of a rule book, and in some of the "special thanks" sections at the start of the codices. GW have not done external playtesting since fifth edition (when a playtester, after signing an NDA leaked the damned thing). Since then, theyve been playtesting themselves, as they wanted to to it (the abomination of codex grey knights got something like 2 dozen practice games in from what i heard)

The sad fact was while some the playtesters contributed nothing but white noise (moaning and complaining, and little constructive feedback - typical of the 40k community if you ask me), others were quite professional about it (like i said, the guys i know in the special thanks section) and ran a very tight, very focused ship. It didnt do any good though. Plenty times, they did see problems in the pre released codices (i remember sneakily getting to rifle through the 4th ed eldar and tau codices). And GW quite happily ignored them. I remember back in the day with the fourth edition space marine codex, for example (the assault cannon spam edition) where they quite accurately pointed out the potential for OP asault cannon combos. As the lads related it to me, they reported back to GW "either assault 3 and rending, or assault 4. both is ridiculous". What did GW do? THey ignored them anyway, and did what they wanted, and let a glaring fault emerge into the codex that really unbalanced the space marine armies of that edition to the extent that marines became all about one thing.

that right there is the attitude. GW simply dont care. they do what they want, and ignore what they want, and simply do not really care about the consequences. folks brought up the shield guard issue in PP games (it didnt work, essentially) and after one forum poster put up a very in depth and detailed account of the failings of the mechanism, and how/why it failed, PP jumped on it at the next errata and fixed it with no hassles.

 Ailaros wrote:
You certainly get something that has been tested somewhat.

People who think that there is no testing whatsoever aren't nearly creative enough. You think GW stuff is bad, but it's nowhere NEAR as bad as it could possibly be.

I'll put a dartboard up against GW any day. Because that's where they seem to get their points values from.

I think codex's are well written and each should have those broken units ok not to the point of unstoppable but hey should it Ives every gamer the chance to play competitive with competitive units I think gw are good at what they do

Maybe my expectations are too high after Starcraft, but GW seems to put ZERO thought into the codices.

They do play test as i know 1 person who has done this for GW - not sure if they still do tbh. (just read dreadknights post - guess they dont then)

The issue is not the play testing its more how they then use this to feedback into the rules. Gw are more about the 'feel' of it and if it is 'cool' rather then any imbalance issues it will cause.

That's not play testing, then.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW doesn't playtest.

Then who are these people creditted as play testers on the back of the C: AS book?

Dudes who played the game pre printing of the codex ?

Martel732 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
You certainly get something that has been tested somewhat.

People who think that there is no testing whatsoever aren't nearly creative enough. You think GW stuff is bad, but it's nowhere NEAR as bad as it could possibly be.

I'll put a dartboard up against GW any day. Because that's where they seem to get their points values from.

Just because you don't understand how a game is balanced doesnt' make it imbalanced. Nor does it mean they do no play testing either.

What we're talking about here is something that isn't perfect, but is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than it could be if they were, say, trying to design a bad game on purpose.

xruslanx wrote:

Honestly i'd prefer this process to a mechanical grind of playtesting, which would create a bland equality between everything.

Balance is not symmetry. It is balance. It doesn't equate to both armies being exactly the same as each other. It equates to consistency so that 1500 points of army X has a good chance to stand up to 1500 points of army Y. The armies don't have to look the same, and unit choice on both sides still has an impact on army ability, but with consistency there are fewer holes where some armies get upgunned and uppowered units for lower costs than existing codecies do or that have a slew of special rules that when they all work well can be somewhat overbearing.

Skriker

 Ailaros wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
You certainly get something that has been tested somewhat.

People who think that there is no testing whatsoever aren't nearly creative enough. You think GW stuff is bad, but it's nowhere NEAR as bad as it could possibly be.

I'll put a dartboard up against GW any day. Because that's where they seem to get their points values from.

Just because you don't understand how a game is balanced doesnt' make it imbalanced. Nor does it mean they do no play testing either.

What we're talking about here is something that isn't perfect, but is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than it could be if they were, say, trying to design a bad game on purpose.

No, they're apathetic. They don't do anything on purpose. That's why the good units might as well be selected by a dart board.

they do what pushes sales. End of. Done

playtesting

Hue hue hue

cammy wrote:
The issue is not the play testing its more how they then use this to feedback into the rules. Gw are more about the 'feel' of it and if it is 'cool' rather then any imbalance issues it will cause.

And there it is.

It is further exacerbated by the fact that even after decades of it being clear that people play the rules AS WRITTEN and not by the silly spirit of the rules, they still can't be bothered to tighten up their language and make rules clear AND concise with zero ambiguity. It really isn't that hard to do that when it comes down to it, but they seem incapable of doing so.

Skriker

 Ailaros wrote:
Just because you don't understand how a game is balanced doesnt' make it imbalanced.

There is no hidden balance in 40k that we just don't understand. The game is an unbalanced mess. FFS, you of all people should understand this given how much you complain about how 40k is nothing but fun-destroying gunlines and everything else has been nerfed into futility.

Nor does it mean they do no play testing either.

They might play an occasional game for fun, but when they fail to fix even the most obvious mistakes it's pretty clear that there is no meaningful playtesting.

What we're talking about here is something that isn't perfect, but is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than it could be if they were, say, trying to design a bad game on purpose.

Which is a ridiculous straw man. Nobody is claiming that GW is making a bad game deliberately, they just don't care enough to do better. They assign rules and point values to their model kits based on what "seems right" and then don't bother to test that assumption. And the result is garbage.

Whenever video games are released people quickly find glitches or bugs or issues that they can EXPLOIT. The same is very true for Wargames too. No amount of play testing will stop people finding loop holes or issues that can be exploited for the players benifit. However unlike a video game they cant just release a patch, so it shows more in wargames.

Games workshop probably puts heaps of effort into playtesting BUT their rules arent written too well so unlike other gaming systems its easy to find flaws very quickly.

But at the end of the day whos fault is it, the players for exploiting the system, or the guys that wrote it and failed to see it from the hundreds of different angels us players as a massed group can look at it?

Its like at college, the admin put blocks on certain internet sites (particularily dodgy sites and video game sites) but we kept finding ways around internet blocks (for game purposes) and no matter what they did us students always found ways around it. They had the best intentions and a huge budget but nothing can stop the target audience (or victims) from finding a way to exploit the system.

Sadly 40k is full of people exploiting the system (in my opinion) through spam lists and OP combos etc.

In my opinion 40k is an absolutely awesome game if you weed out all the power gamers and are left with a bunch of guys who choose units they enjoy and play competatively but to the point where everyone has fun.

Not GW fault entirely but the players who exploit the game who are at fault.

No, it's GWs fault. If they wrote rules that couldn't be exploited, then no one would have to self-nerf.

I wouldnt call not taking 7 riptides self nerfing, id call that good sportsmanship and playing the game properly. Self nerfing is taking less points than the game size.

No, I won't fault someone for building a quality legal list. The seven riptides should be prohibited by balanced list building rules.

Self-nerfing is also taking one of GW's derp derp units in a slot that could be a Riptide or a Helldrake. It all goes back to GW not balancing units.

Or by players not being dirtbags and wanting nothing but to table people at the expense of fun... Its easy to play 40k without exploiting it, if players played properly and didnt make lists like the above then no one would complain.

Martel732 wrote:
No, I won't fault someone for building a quality legal list. The seven riptides should be prohibited by balanced list building rules.

This. Stop making excuses for GW. If the Riptide-spam list is too powerful to play then GW should have taken the time to discover it and make it impossible. The fact that it's possible pretty clearly demonstrates that GW doesn't even do basic playtesting, since it's not exactly hard to discover that list if you spend more than a few minutes with the codex.

Stop making excuses for dirtbag players if people found that its not very fun to play games like that they would take the time and courtesy to not play those kinds of lists.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Or by players not being dirtbags and wanting nothing but to table people at the expense of fun... Its easy to play 40k without exploiting it, if players played properly and didnt make lists like the above then no one would complain.

The question here is whether GW playtests, not whether the players should compensate for GW's lack of playtesting. The fact that you can play 40k and enjoy it as long as you make a major effort to avoid using all of the balance problems doesn't excuse GW's lazy and incompetent game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Stop making excuses for dirtbag players if people found that its not very fun to play games like that they would take the time and courtesy to not play those kinds of lists.

And, again, those lists shouldn't be possible. The fact that they exist proves that GW doesn't playtest.

It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way. It takes all parties to make it work and me and all my friends can make it work so clearly the problem lies with the players.

 Swastakowey wrote:
It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way. It takes all parties to make it work and me and all my friends can make it work so clearly the problem lies with the players.

Sportsmanship isnt the issue here. The problem is that these lists are possible.

You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

Sure, they didnt force it but they allowed it. The fact that its perfectly legal without even twisting the wording of the rules speaks poorly of gee dubs. You cant expect people to not take the best lists they can. Thats going against human nature.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

In no way should any game be reliant on its players' good nature in order to ensure both parties have a good time.

I should, and in other systems, can, be able to sit down for a game with the most foaming-at-the-mouth WAAC player and still be confident of enjoying a game, because the rules protect me from him abusing anything.

As much fondness as I have for 40K, it falls away short of that.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

No, it's GW's fault for allowing it in the first place. If a list with 5 Riptides is too powerful then don't let Tau ally with Farsight. If re-rollable 2++ death stars are overpowered and not fun add a rule that invulnerable saves can never be re-rolled. Etc. No amount of blaming "WAAC abusers" excuses GW's complete incompetence at balancing the game.

They play test... but not to the extent of making things crazy balanced. It's kind of a lose - lose situation for them though. In the end, we want them to update everything quickly, and this year they have just about pumped out a book a month, which on the one hand finally makes us happy... but to do that, they can't be play testing anything TOO much.

They play test longer, they lose because we're upset they're not releasing books, they play test too little and pump out books for us and we're angry they didn't play test them enough. Lose - lose.

I don't normally like to stand up for GW on this issue, but let's face facts, you can please some people some of the time, but you can never please everyone all the time.

 Swastakowey wrote:
It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way.

Nonsense. You have to spend a lot of effort carefully balancing your list so you don't accidentally bring something too powerful but also don't nerf yourself to the point that your opponent crushes you too easily, you have to avoid buying the overpowered models even if you think they're cool, etc. Essentially you have to do all the playtesting and balance work that GW is supposed to be doing when they demand $50 for a rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt1785 wrote:
In the end, we want them to update everything quickly, and this year they have just about pumped out a book a month, which on the one hand finally makes us happy... but to do that, they can't be play testing anything TOO much.

Sure they can. They just need to hire more people to playtest and accept that playtesting is a full time job, not something you do for fun on your lunch break.

(And of course combining all the redundant marine armies into a single book would help a lot.)

 Swastakowey wrote:
You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

It's not that simple. GW shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first part. They are incredibly lazy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt1785 wrote:
In the end, we want them to update everything quickly, and this year they have just about pumped out a book a month, which on the one hand finally makes us happy... but to do that, they can't be play testing anything TOO much.

Sure they can. They just need to hire more people to playtest and accept that playtesting is a full time job, not something you do for fun on your lunch break.

(And of course combining all the redundant marine armies into a single book would help a lot.)

My comment was taking into account only their CURRENT staff. Sure, adding people would allow for more time to be spent on more things. But to be honest, I think they really threw a wrench in their own faces with the Allies table considering I don't find AS many balance issues with the Fantasy books (Don't quote me as saying they don't exist in Fantasy, but there are fewer combos because of single book armies). Again, lose-lose. Some wanted allies, some didn't. They please a few people, made the rest of us unhappy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
It takes no effort to play the game in a fun good sportsmanshippy way.

Sure they can. They just need to hire more people to playtest and accept that playtesting is a full time job, not something you do for fun on your lunch break.

(And of course combining all the redundant marine armies into a single book would help a lot.)

Nah, honestly an open beta would be completely welcome and the community would probably be able to reflect that to GW.
But seeing that GW doesn't even have a forum anymore there's not much of a medium for them to do that.

Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

And goodwill has to start somewhere, so instead of blaming other people and continuing on playing the game in a horribly unbalanced way perhaps start playing it nicely and properly and many people will begin to follow.

Thats how we weeded out a lot of the power gaming at the the club i go to. All it takes for those Power Gamers nobody likes to realize when the player on the other side is not having fun. If both players made a list designed to have fun, not to utterly crush then everyone enjoys it more.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Of course they play test.....

The fact that there are all they incredibly unbalanced things outside of APOC is purely a matter of typing errors on the final proofs for the last 3 codices.

That would never happen with electronic versions..... wait what's that about 7 Riptide armies?

How could that have happened with proper play testing?

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Sorry, but when your answer is "but you can just ignore all of the unbalanced stuff" GW gets all of the blame.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

Which is why it's bad that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a good job of balancing the game.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

But, again, that's not the question here. This is a discussion of GW's playtesting (or lack of playtesting), not a discussion of how to compensate for GW's lazy unprofessional game design and still somehow have a fun game.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

And goodwill has to start somewhere, so instead of blaming other people and continuing on playing the game in a horribly unbalanced way perhaps start playing it nicely and properly and many people will begin to follow.

Thats how we weeded out a lot of the power gaming at the the club i go to. All it takes for those Power Gamers nobody likes to realize when the player on the other side is not having fun. If both players made a list designed to have fun, not to utterly crush then everyone enjoys it more.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

You are thinking that everyone wants to get the same thing out of the game. Some people play this game to compete and win and get their enjoyment out of that. Not everyone plays the game as a social event between friends exclusively. Of course, humans are going to take every advantage they can get when being competitive. It's just how we are, there is no shame in it.

So, I don't blame people for taking Penta-Riptide lists. They are just doing what's natural to everyone. The fault lies with the creator of the rules who allows this advantage to be taken.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

And goodwill has to start somewhere, so instead of blaming other people and continuing on playing the game in a horribly unbalanced way perhaps start playing it nicely and properly and many people will begin to follow.

Thats how we weeded out a lot of the power gaming at the the club i go to. All it takes for those Power Gamers nobody likes to realize when the player on the other side is not having fun. If both players made a list designed to have fun, not to utterly crush then everyone enjoys it more.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Except you know what would help? That if balance was good enough that you could take *anything* and still be making a good list, not. Thousand sons are trash and its far far far better to take a heldrake.

It would allow for more strategies aside from holding back, it'd allow choices to be made that hows off more of the game, but instead we have the balance See-Saw. Where you'll either end up low, or you end up high.

To all of you saying its the players fault for trying to win, think of it from a different perspective. When people play games like Chess, stratego, risk, starcraft, warmahordes, malifaux, etc. you don't see people blaming the opponent for trying to win or taking good things, why? Because its balanced and if you see somebody spamming zerglings you know what units to take to not get stomped by it, or when you see somebody rushing europe when they get t1 in risk or rushing australia to turtle all game you know that his units will be spread out and you can cripple them easily or that the enemy in australia will have no presence in the rest of the continents do its open game for you.

40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

Except that we have math on our side for some useless units. Thousand Sons for example are very poor in the niche they are supposed to be good in, to the point where it's better to take a normal squad of CSM rather then to take thousand sons.

Not to mention if you are bad at your role, you aren't doing good at it regardless.

azreal13 wrote:In no way should any game be reliant on its players' good nature in order to ensure both parties have a good time.

TheCustomLime wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

Sure, they didnt force it but they allowed it.

Welcome to a little concept called "liberty".

GW isn't responsible for players creating a bad gaming environment.

TheCustomLime wrote:So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Exactly.

TheCustomLime wrote:You are thinking that everyone wants to get the same thing out of the game. Some people play this game to compete and win and get their enjoyment out of that. Not everyone plays the game as a social event between friends exclusively. Of course, humans are going to take every advantage they can get when being competitive. It's just how we are, there is no shame in it.

So, I don't blame people for taking Penta-Riptide lists. They are just doing what's natural to everyone. The fault lies with the creator of the rules who allows this advantage to be taken.

Of course, people can try and get whatever they want out of a game.

What's the problem is when one kind of player defines this in a way where anyone can have fun playing the game, and when another group defines it in a way in which they can not. 40k isn't another excuse for people to take as much advantage of a situation for personal gain. In fact, NO system is designed for that purpose, because when selfishness is the only prerogative the system itself falls apart as those who choose strength express tyranny over the weak, and everyone else eventually gets sick of that kind of behavior.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

That is the worst assumption in the realm of gaming.

 Ailaros wrote:

azreal13 wrote:In no way should any game be reliant on its players' good nature in order to ensure both parties have a good time.

TheCustomLime wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

Sure, they didnt force it but they allowed it.

Welcome to a little concept called "liberty".

GW isn't responsible for players creating a bad gaming environment.

TheCustomLime wrote:So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Exactly.

TheCustomLime wrote:You are thinking that everyone wants to get the same thing out of the game. Some people play this game to compete and win and get their enjoyment out of that. Not everyone plays the game as a social event between friends exclusively. Of course, humans are going to take every advantage they can get when being competitive. It's just how we are, there is no shame in it.

So, I don't blame people for taking Penta-Riptide lists. They are just doing what's natural to everyone. The fault lies with the creator of the rules who allows this advantage to be taken.

Of course, people can try and get whatever they want out of a game.

What's the problem is when one kind of player defines this in a way where anyone can have fun playing the game, and when another group defines it in a way in which they can not. 40k isn't another excuse for people to take as much advantage of a situation for personal gain. In fact, NO system is designed for that purpose, because when selfishness is the only prerogative the system itself falls apart as those who choose strength express tyranny over the weak, and everyone else eventually gets sick of that kind of behavior.

Yes, but some people will of course use it for those reasons and 40k really lends itself to be abused like that. While no system is designed to be abused on purpose there are certainly systems that, through incompetent design, are able to exploited like hell and you can't expect people to not go for it. While some people will certainly keep themselves under control some will try to gain every advantage they can since they want to win. This issue is magnified horribly in the tournament scene where the whole point is to win. The biggest condemnation of Gee Dubs horrible game design is in how the same armies place high in big tournaments regardless of who is playing them.

More relevant to the topic is this reflects on how Games Workshop playtests their game. They probably get casual players to playtest the game which is terrible since these players will simply be satisfied in enjoying the game and only point out the most obvious design flaws. Or, less likely, they get competitive players to test their system and simply ignore their advice in the name of making the game more "Cinematic". I personally do not believe they write the rules to sell models since a lot of their new kits aren't that great (Such as the Centurions).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

Except that we have math on our side for some useless units. Thousand Sons for example are very poor in the niche they are supposed to be good in, to the point where it's better to take a normal squad of CSM rather then to take thousand sons.

I never said that no units weren't over or under costed. Clearly some units just aren't good enough, but we can throw around individual examples of everything all day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

That is the worst assumption in the realm of gaming.

Some people play for fun. Other people play to win. These are different types of people, though only one of those groups assumes its playstyle is universally and objectively superior. Competative players might also play for fun, but fun players can also play to win.

Casual does not mean less competitive. Just those annoying players that exploit the game are what we hate. Competitve and fun is easily possible. Exploitation is taking the joy out of gaming which is pretty much people always playing like its a tournament.

Both styles are still competitive just one sucks the joy out of playing. And that one is Power Gaming.

If you look at a casual game there are few arguments at worst and things are relaxed and people are chatting away as it goes. This does not mean they are aiming to loose or playing pooryl.

In a game of Power Gamers we see heated arguments, rule twisting, and few smiles. The people watching it dont find it enjoying and it gives off a bad atmosphere. No body likes the little kid screaming at the TV playing COD, same goes for wargaming.

Casual does not mean not playing to win. It means winning while keeping to the spirit of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will add its fine to OP if your opponent wants to do so, obviously.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

IOW, GW are utterly incompetent and can't figure out how to write a game where it is still balanced and fun even when people try their best to win.

I'd talk about how other games do it better and don't need to have the players compensate for the bad rules, but you'll just ignore them like you've ignored every other example of other companies doing stuff that you consider "impossible".

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives.

So you admit that overpowered units exist? And you still think that GW are somehow good game designers?

While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

Yeah, there are lots of them that fill the awesome role of "making your list weaker so you don't crush the poor newbie you're about to play".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Just those annoying players that exploit the game are what we hate.

How is taking a powerful list exploiting the game? We aren't talking about rules-lawyering obscure interpretations of the rules, they say very clearly that you're permitted to do things like take 4-5 Riptides in your Tau army.

Both styles are still competitive just one sucks the joy out of playing. And that one is Power Gaming.

Actually I think constantly worrying about whether or not I'm bringing a list that is too powerful for my opponent's arbitrary rules about how powerful your list is allowed to be is much, much less fun. At least with "power gaming" you don't have to worry about your opponent whining and crying because you did something they don't approve of.

In a game of Power Gamers we see heated arguments, rule twisting, and few smiles.

Not really.

Casual does not mean not playing to win. It means winning while keeping to the spirit of the game.

A "spirit of the game" which is unique to every person, and completely arbitrary. Though I guess it does give you a convenient excuse when you lose.

This is coming from someone who used to power game back in the day. I would frequently wipe people out before turn 3. But one day i slowed down and looked at the faces of those on the other side of the table and (surprise surprise) they weren't having fun. Im not saying GW is not at fault, but hey if people buy their product then why would they see the need to put more effort into it?

What i am saying is at least the players have a responsibility for how they play games.

I mean the way i see Power Gamers is that they are showing a huge amount of narcissism in their personality. What joy is a game where you aim to crush the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is a reason movies are dragged out and the story generally involves a struggle that both sides are trying to overcome. Why? So everyone finds it entertaining.

People want the same in a wargame. You cant tell me your opponents enjoy a game where they are killing nearly nothing but are loosing everything. So why do it? Why aim for it? Why is it a goal? The aim should be to make it an intense, enjoyable, balanced game. GW has made this possible, either buy accident or on purpose, because we have a huge amount of customization with our armies. Huge amount.

So why is the goal to crush as quickly and ruthlessly as possible your opponent when instead it should be to have a fun, interesting and involving game for all.

No one can fix GW and what they do, but its easily possible to fix player attitudes. To me Power gaming can be fine, granted its what both players want. But it seems players are pressed into making uber lists just to keep up with the OP players. I have been told many times on this forum what i should and shouldnt take, but it shouldnt be about that it should be this unit IS ABLE TO do this when used like this. Not dont use it because its not (insert typical "auto includes here"). I dont wanna fight an imperial guard army and almost always see the same few slots taken, talk about unimaginative and bland.

The coolest and best armies to play is where both armies are heavily themed based on what each persons flavour and tastes are. If you like riptides go ahead and take one, but are they so cool that you need 7? Surely you didnt play tau to use 3 different types of units, Or you didnt play guard to copy and paste your troops 3 times, and take 3 vandettas.

I mean its cool if your making a nam based list and want troops dropping in and stuff but if you just took them to win (and generally you can tell by what else is on the list what their intentions are) then wheres the fun in that? There isnt.

I mean you all complain that the game is not balanced then why not balance it by taking a bit of "good stuff" and a bit of "bad stuff"?

Its an easy fix.

Seen this conversation before, had it myself even, and I can tell you its pointless - especially when your conversational partner is Perry "brick wall" Grin. I've met people IRL who have quit the forum after arguing with him I gak you not

Heck ive been here for a few weeks and i can tell Peregrine and i are not gonna get along haha. The problem is im just as stubborn at times. But i can definitely see him driving people away. Sigh but i guess if everyone had the same point of view then things could be a bit boring... maybe...

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've met people IRL who have quit the forum after arguing with him I gak you not

Really? Who were they? And did they quit the game as well?

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im not saying GW is not at fault, but hey if people buy their product then why would they see the need to put more effort into it?

Professional pride? Desire to get more sales? Fear of continued decline in sales costing them their market dominance? Why else do companies put out good products even though a garbage product would still sell a few copies?

I mean the way i see Power Gamers is that they are showing a huge amount of narcissism in their personality. What joy is a game where you aim to crush the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I mean the way I see "casual" gamers is that they are showing a huge amount of narcissism in their personality. What joy is there in a game where you bring a weak list and get crushed in 2-3 turns without giving your opponent an entertaining challenge?

GW has made this possible, either buy accident or on purpose, because we have a huge amount of customization with our armies. Huge amount.

GW hasn't made it possible at all. The players have made it possible despite GW's incompetence in making a balanced game with a wide variety of equally-effective options to choose from instead.

but it shouldnt be about that it should be this unit IS ABLE TO do this when used like this.

It should be. Blame GW for making a game where there are obvious auto-includes, obvious bad units that you only include if you want to make your list weaker, and not much in the middle. Until GW fixes their game I see no reason to pretend that bad units are viable choices and imagine ridiculous situations where they could contribute something.

The coolest and best armies to play is where both armies are heavily themed based on what each persons flavour and tastes are.

That's your personal preference. Some people think the coolest and best army to play is one where both armies are optimized for competitive play and both players are trying as hard as possible to win the game.

I mean you all complain that the game is not balanced then why not balance it by taking a bit of "good stuff" and a bit of "bad stuff"?

Because when I pay $50 for a rulebook I shouldn't have to spend a lot of time and effort trying to make a list that fits some other person's arbitrary standard for how much "good stuff" I'm allowed to take.

Didn't quit the game, and not gonna say.

Sorta reminds me of the argument thats happening here. Some people go "oh look, my opponent ain't having fun, so neither am I" and others don't give a gak.

Meanwhile, some people would say that if their debating has driven people off of this site it should be considered a bad thing, and others put a notch in their bedpost so to speak

That's your personal preference. Some people think the coolest and best army to play is one where both armies are optimized for competitive play and both players are trying as hard as possible to win the game.

That is true . But theme or no theme , stuff should work. It is ok if someone wants to player a weaker army or weaker unit , that is their choice . But Being weaker , shouldn't mean that the unit has 0 chance to work , no matter what the player does . Rough raiders shouldn't be ground vendettas , but if they are ment to be melee units , then they should be able to get in to melee . They can do this for some dex and can't do it at all for other. No one is going to say that vespids are the bomb , but they do what they do , which is shoting for too many points . Those eldar jet bike cavalery are the same . And then you look at something like venguard veterans and they just don't make sense in the same codex as honor guard , assault terminators etc.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks.

That is a very interesting thing considering that most of the writers are British .

If nobody took power gaming, optimized, copy paste lists would you?

Probably, since that's what I like to get out of the game, provided it broadly covered a theme I would want to do with that army anyway.

Well theres nothing actually wrong with those lists, as long as thats what both players are bringing and expecting.

My issue is only with tournaments pretty much only advancing the one at the expense of the other due to a universal lack of comp and deemphasis of soft scores.

Yes i hope i made it clear its all good to do it if both players want to that sort of thing in my opinion, but it should be pre arranged to do so rather than people expecting it.

Dakkamite wrote:Well theres nothing actually wrong with those lists, as long as thats what both players are bringing and expecting.

My issue is only with tournaments pretty much only advancing the one at the expense of the other due to a universal lack of comp and deemphasis of soft scores.

Isn't that the point of a tournament though? Bring your chessiest, beardiest, dirtest list possible and smash the crap out of people doing the same?

The soft-scores thing is a whole different issue worthy of its own thread tbh.

Nah, thats just one interpretation of it. Different events for different folks really.

In all honesty given what we pay for the game (taking about the core rules and codex costs) we should be getting a perfectly well balanced and enjoyable game that we dont have to jump through hoops in order to have a balanced game. Something is seriously wrong with your rules set when players have to modify them in order to have good games, that says you haven't written very good rules

Yep, armies should be fluffy *and* powerful, with no wasted units or models, and a less draconian legal team etc etc

Theres plenty of games out there that provide that, yet this is the one everyone (myself included) plays the most =/

Mysteries of life and all that

This isn't about a social contract with each other, this about Games Workshop's incompetent game design. If they didn't intend players to be "dicks" why did they allow them to be? All they had to do was add "You may only take 0-3 Riptides per army" or that "The Wave Serpent's shield may only be used once per game" and a lot of issues would've been solved with those sentences yet they never did. They allow these big oversights and charge $50 for clearly flawed books. Either they intend for huge imbalance for "Cinematic" purposes or they really suck at their jobs.

Sure, no one beat in "You must take a Penta-Riptide list! You must take a Penta-Riptide list!" into their heads but no one stopped them either (Them refers to the fielders of such lists). It's like having large bowls of candy on Halloween with no rules on how much of it can be taken and getting pissed at people for taking as much as they want. It's a dick move, yeah, but they haven't done anything wrong.

To make long things short, players shouldn't have to restrain themselves in the first place. People should be able to take whatever they want and still have a well balanced game. The fact that games can be decided by lists alone is mostly GW's fault.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Whenever video games are released people quickly find glitches or bugs or issues that they can EXPLOIT. The same is very true for Wargames too. No amount of play testing will stop people finding loop holes or issues that can be exploited for the players benifit. However unlike a video game they cant just release a patch, so it shows more in wargames.

...

...

Actually, GW have had eight editions of Fantasy and six of 40K to find and fix a lot of their bugs, as well as the frequent errata and FAQs they release.

The blunt fact is that if there are serious problems in GW rules it is because they aren't interested in fixing them.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Nah, thats just one interpretation of it. Different events for different folks really.

Than what is the point of having the a tournament in the first place, its like competing in a triathlon then getting the gaks when someone trains for endurance in the lead up.

brother marcus wrote:
I don't know how long they play test for but I did see them do it once at warhammer world.

One guy was using the new marines against chaos, they seemed to get quite offended when I told them that the codex was pretty much the same and still sucked lol

Playing a normal game isn't play testing, it is just playing the game.

Proper play testing of a miniature game rules implicates several repetitions of actions and allot of "lets reset this back and try this other situation instead". So much so that for an outsider it wouldn't even resemble a proper game being played.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

IOW, GW are utterly incompetent and can't figure out how to write a game where it is still balanced and fun even when people try their best to win.

Oh peregrine, peregrine, peregrine. What do you think about the people who *do* enjoy 40k? Do you consider them to be an inferior species? Or are they all drunk?

Has it not occurred to you in the slightest that you might not be 40k's target audience, as far as rules are concerned?

So you admit that overpowered units exist?

Of course they do. Because if every single unit were just as powerful as all the others it'd be a fething dull game.

And you still think that GW are somehow good game designers?

Yup.

Yeah, there are lots of them that fill the awesome role of "making your list weaker so you don't crush the poor newbie you're about to play".

Or alternatively, not everyone wants to play IG with 6 vendettas + Forgeworld cheese. You are a powergamer, and that's fine. But not everyone is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've met people IRL who have quit the forum after arguing with him I gak you not

Peregrine doesn't give a damn about actual ideas, he'll just quote you to death. I would advise keeping up with him for as long as you're able, then bail.

Well I guess I don't give a damn, either, because the people expecting restraint from gamers are living in fantasy la la land. If there is a way to shoot people off the board by turn 2, gamers will find it and use it.

I'm 100% with Peregrine in that the GW apologists are acting like people are somehow twisting rules or rules lawyering here. No, taking the generic stock WS is quite OP without bending a single rule.

Quit making excuses for the lazy game design and testing of GW. If they'd ever had real competition in the last 20 years, they almost certainly would have lost.

It is NOT possible to "fix" player attitudes because even if you don't think finding the most efficient list isn't fun, other players WILL. You don't get to dictate what is fun for others.

The solution is to make it so there is no single most efficient list. But GW is too stupid/lazy/both to make this happen. Instead, they trot out the Vendetta, the helldrake, and the Wave Serpent.

xruslanx wrote:
Oh peregrine, peregrine, peregrine. What do you think about the people who *do* enjoy 40k? Do you consider them to be an inferior species? Or are they all drunk?

If they enjoy it because of the fluff/models, fine. If they enjoy it because of the rules then sorry, they have no idea what they're talking about.

Has it not occurred to you in the slightest that you might not be 40k's target audience, as far as rules are concerned?

Of course I'm not. I have high standards for the things I spend money on, which is why I don't buy GW rules. GW's target audience is clearly people with low standards who will pay $50 for garbage and be thankful for it, or kids who whine until their parents buy them a box of space marines and a codex.

Of course they do. Because if every single unit were just as powerful as all the others it'd be a fething dull game.

Again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. We've already explained why you're wrong about this, but you just bury your head in the sand and pretend 40k is a good game.

And you still think that GW are somehow good game designers?

Yup.

Well, you have no idea what you're talking about then. Not that we expect much else from someone who thinks that playing a non-GW game is like having sex with your dog.

Peregrine doesn't give a damn about actual ideas, he'll just quote you to death.

You seem to be having trouble telling the difference between "not giving a damn about your ideas" and "thinking your ideas are utterly stupid".

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Oh peregrine, peregrine, peregrine. What do you think about the people who *do* enjoy 40k? Do you consider them to be an inferior species? Or are they all drunk?

If they enjoy it because of the fluff/models, fine. If they enjoy it because of the rules then sorry, they have no idea what they're talking about.

I really think you should spend more time thinking about other people...you can't possibly imagine why people enjoy playing the most popular wargame in the world? There are hundreds of thousands of perfectly rational, intelligent people out there who enjoy 40k regularly. Try harder at understanding why this is the case.

I get why you don't like 40k - because it isn't designed for your competative tourney-style gameplay. Try to understand why other people DO like it.

Has anyone thought that this debate wouldn't be happening if GW did competently play test and produce a balanced, fair, and clear rule set?

That alone should speak volumes about the state of this game.

xruslanx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Oh peregrine, peregrine, peregrine. What do you think about the people who *do* enjoy 40k? Do you consider them to be an inferior species? Or are they all drunk?

If they enjoy it because of the fluff/models, fine. If they enjoy it because of the rules then sorry, they have no idea what they're talking about.

I really think you should spend more time thinking about other people...you can't possibly imagine why people enjoy playing the most popular wargame in the world? There are hundreds of thousands of perfectly rational, intelligent people out there who enjoy 40k regularly. Try harder at understanding why this is the case.

I get why you don't like 40k - because it isn't designed for your competative tourney-style gameplay. Try to understand why other people DO like it.

They'd like it better I bet if each unit choice in the codex had a legitimate use.

I want to believe stuff gets a lot of playtesting...

xruslanx wrote:
I really think you should spend more time thinking about other people...you can't possibly imagine why people enjoy playing the most popular wargame in the world?

I can understand why. The game has good fluff and models, and GW's business practices (driving independent stores out of business, etc) have given them a dominant position in the market such that if you want to play a tabletop wargame in a lot of places your choices are 40k, WHFB, or that one guy who plays something else once a month.

What I can't understand is how anyone who understands anything about game design can claim that 40k's rules are good. Which, by the way, you have yet to explain. All you've done is insist that they're adequate for what you want and whine about how we hurt poor GW's feelings.

I get why you don't like 40k - because it isn't designed for your competative tourney-style gameplay. Try to understand why other people DO like it.

40k isn't designed for casual gaming either. In fact it isn't designed for anything beyond having the idea of a cool game exist so that kids will buy space marine kits.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I really think you should spend more time thinking about other people...you can't possibly imagine why people enjoy playing the most popular wargame in the world?

I can understand why. The game has good fluff and models, and GW's business practices (driving independent stores out of business, etc) have given them a dominant position in the market such that if you want to play a tabletop wargame in a lot of places your choices are 40k, WHFB, or that one guy who plays something else once a month.

What I can't understand is how anyone who understands anything about game design can claim that 40k's rules are good. Which, by the way, you have yet to explain. All you've done is insist that they're adequate for what you want and whine about how we hurt poor GW's feelings..

You are factually incorrect, yet again.

So tell me, why do you think so many people enjoy playing 40k rules? Nothing to do with fluff or models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

They'd like it better I bet if each unit choice in the codex had a legitimate use.

I never said every 40k codex is perfect. But there's a big gulf between "40k is a fun ruleset but it has its problems", and "40k is absolute garbage with no effort put into it whatsoever".

People play 40K because they can get a game. That's my experience. It's the only game in town for this genre in many cases.

xruslanx wrote:
You are factually incorrect, yet again.

You know, if you were a reasonable person you'd want us all to forget about how you made a biased poll and even admitted it was a biased poll that was intended to "prove" that people like 40k. But I guess you'd prefer to brag about it.

So tell me, why do you think so many people enjoy playing 40k rules? Nothing to do with fluff or models.

Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the fact that you left out an "average" option so that anyone who thinks the rules are adequate for what they want to do but not great is forced to say they like the rules "a lot".

But there's a big gulf between "40k is a fun ruleset but it has its problems", and "40k is absolute garbage with no effort put into it whatsoever".

You're right, there is. Too bad GW is on the wrong side of it.

xruslanx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Oh peregrine, peregrine, peregrine. What do you think about the people who *do* enjoy 40k? Do you consider them to be an inferior species? Or are they all drunk?

If they enjoy it because of the fluff/models, fine. If they enjoy it because of the rules then sorry, they have no idea what they're talking about.

I really think you should spend more time thinking about other people...you can't possibly imagine why people enjoy playing the most popular wargame in the world? There are hundreds of thousands of perfectly rational, intelligent people out there who enjoy 40k regularly. Try harder at understanding why this is the case.

I get why you don't like 40k - because it isn't designed for your competative tourney-style gameplay. Try to understand why other people DO like it.

False. I play the game because I enjoy the fluff and models. Never been to a tournament (excluded local fluff ones) and I have never used a net list. i want a more balanced game. Again I will use the example of starcraft, a balanced game that was fun for both the high level competitive and the casual gamer. Better balance would allow the fluff players like myself to have a better chance at winning games. I know that if I put my deathwing on the table and I face eldar, tau, necrons, grey knights, bikers, orks, IG or tyranids I have a less than 30% chance at winning. Why? Is it because I am a bad player? Is it because i make poor choices in game? Not really it is because my units are not designed in a way to have any kind of equal footing against these armies. Will I still put my deathwing on the table? Yes, why you ask because I like them and think its fun. I still want a more balanced game. Balance does not equal bland.it means that each army and list within that army have a even chance to win. Within that I will make a caveat starcraft example, there were strategies and unit compositions that were demostratably worse at fighting certain units. However they could overcome that disadvantage through player skill. I am sorry but no amount of player skill will allow a deathwing player to beat even 3 wave serpents with guardians.

TL: DR Balance is good for BOTH fluff and competitive players. It leads to strategic depth and a reliance on player skill to overcome difficult matchups and opponents. Balance is not bland it is the ability to take any unit and make it work and synergize with your personal playstyle and army

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
You are factually incorrect, yet again.

You know, if you were a reasonable person you'd want us all to forget about how you made a biased poll and even admitted it was a biased poll that was intended to "prove" that people like 40k. But I guess you'd prefer to brag about it.

So tell me, why do you think so many people enjoy playing 40k rules? Nothing to do with fluff or models.

Yeah, let's just conveniently ignore the fact that you left out an "average" option so that anyone who thinks the rules are adequate for what they want to do but not great is forced to say they like the rules "a lot".

But there's a big gulf between "40k is a fun ruleset but it has its problems", and "40k is absolute garbage with no effort put into it whatsoever".

You're right, there is. Too bad GW is on the wrong side of it.

I find it astounding that you actually believe that people don't enjoy playing 40k.

I think I'll just...leave you to it.

xruslanx wrote:
I find it astounding that you actually believe that people don't enjoy playing 40k.

I find it astounding that you can read what I said and think that it was "people don't enjoy playing 40k". I'm just not sure whether it's astoundingly poor reading comprehension, or astounding dishonesty.

xruslanx wrote:
I find it astounding that you actually believe that people don't enjoy playing 40k.

I think I'll just...leave you to it.

I find it astounding that you could fail to understand his point, repeatedly, and in fact are purposely misstating what he's saying.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I find it astounding that you actually believe that people don't enjoy playing 40k.

I find it astounding that you can read what I said and think that it was "people don't enjoy playing 40k". I'm just not sure whether it's astoundingly poor reading comprehension, or astounding dishonesty.

So you admit that people do enjoy playing 40k?

Why do you think that is? Third time's the charm...

Because Forgeworld models are pretty! That's why people enjoy playing 40k. There is no other reason to play the game or you are doing it wrong!

rigeld2 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I find it astounding that you actually believe that people don't enjoy playing 40k.

I think I'll just...leave you to it.

I find it astounding that you could fail to understand his point, repeatedly, and in fact are purposely misstating what he's saying.

I find what he has to say to be beneath contempt and I'd rather he answered my question - why people enjoy playing 40k.

I often find that extremists position their arguments so as to make it seem that the only possible way one could disagree with them would be to be lacking in critical faculties at all, or having the outlook of a child. I'm interested as to why Peregrine thinks that intelligent, rational adults enjoy playing 40k, I've asked him three times now...interesting to see if he actually bothers to reply.

xruslanx wrote:
So you admit that people do enjoy playing 40k?

I've already said that people enjoy playing 40k despite the poor rules. Either you didn't pay enough attention to notice, or you'd rather make up straw man arguments to "counter".

Why do you think that is? Third time's the charm...

Because of the fluff and models, and because for some people even playing a bad game is better than playing no game at all.

xruslanx wrote:
I find what he has to say to be beneath contempt and I'd rather he answered my question - why people enjoy playing 40k.

Yeah, expecting a high quality product when you pay $50 a book is beneath contempt for every reasonable person...

I've asked him three times now...interesting to see if he actually bothers to reply.

Me: 40k's rules suck, the only reason to play is the fluff/models.
You: WHY ARENT YOU TELLING ME WHY PEOPEL LIKE THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me: because of the fluff/models and GW's dominant position in the market.
You: WHY DONT U REPLY TO MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!

xruslanx wrote:

So you admit that people do enjoy playing 40k?

Why do you think that is? Third time's the charm...

We play because

1) we enjoy the fluff
2) we like the models
3) its what our friends/peers/local group play
4) we enjoy the hobby and a game is good motivation to paint/model more

you see how none of those involve any sense of affection for the rules. The rules are...adequate to play a game. The rules currently are not good. They serve the purpose to facilitate a game but they do not do it well of even okay. I would enjoy the game more and play more if the rules were

A) better writen (that is to say less convoluted, more concise, user friendly, not full of useless rules that are added simply to add complexity)
B) writen so that I could play a game and go without the mandatory rules debate between players
C) Did not add random events that take away from a players ability to use skill to defeat an opponent and instead go "Well gak my army just got neutered by this crazy random happenstance game over."

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
So you admit that people do enjoy playing 40k?

I've already said that people enjoy playing 40k despite the poor rules. Either you didn't pay enough attention to notice, or you'd rather make up straw man arguments to "counter".

Why do you think that is? Third time's the charm...

Because of the fluff and models, and because for some people even playing a bad game is better than playing no game at all.

xruslanx wrote:
I find what he has to say to be beneath contempt and I'd rather he answered my question - why people enjoy playing 40k.

Yeah, expecting a high quality product when you pay $50 a book is beneath contempt for every reasonable person...

I've asked him three times now...interesting to see if he actually bothers to reply.

Me: 40k's rules suck, the only reason to play is the fluff/models.
You: WHY ARENT YOU TELLING ME WHY PEOPEL LIKE THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me: because of the fluff/models and GW's dominant position in the market.
You: WHY DONT U REPLY TO MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup, classic peregrine. Keep 'em coming

xruslanx wrote:
Yup, classic peregrine. Keep 'em coming

Yup, classic xruslanx: ignore everything everyone else says, come right back and make the same argument like nothing ever happened.

xruslanx wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I find it astounding that you actually believe that people don't enjoy playing 40k.

I think I'll just...leave you to it.

I find it astounding that you could fail to understand his point, repeatedly, and in fact are purposely misstating what he's saying.

I find what he has to say to be beneath contempt and I'd rather he answered my question - why people enjoy playing 40k.

I often find that extremists position their arguments so as to make it seem that the only possible way one could disagree with them would be to be lacking in critical faculties at all, or having the outlook of a child. I'm interested as to why Peregrine thinks that intelligent, rational adults enjoy playing 40k, I've asked him three times now...interesting to see if he actually bothers to reply.

Mate, he's answered your question and I believe a bunch of people demonstrated that you are wrong in your assertion that just because people play 40k despite it's horrible balance means they enjoy the rules. The fact that you yourself said "Forge World cheese" means you don't enjoy the imbalance. Have you ever considered that people play despite how horrible the rules are? I myself am more into the painting/modeling side of things and I'd be totally happy if I never saw a tournament. I think the rules are utter crap and make casual play worse. I play because I love the setting and the models. Warmachine and Bolt Action have better rules yet I am not all that interested in them since I find the models are bland.

I personally try to avoid playing 40k competitively as much as possible because its mainly just about the lists and little about gameplay. If I want to play a game competitively I look more towards fantasy (I haven't had any cheese struggles yet) or malifaux because both are much more about the game play and less about the armies. I also don't need to worry as much about FotM players and codex creep for those things either in the competitive scene (look at the crossroads GT in fantasy, a Brettonia player came in 7th).

40ks rules balance wise are utter garbage and should never be taken seriously as a game at all (look at the tau bomber that can't drop bombs, or the vengance battery that has to shoot its battlecannon at a flier since the flier is closest but it can't since its a flier, or better yet something that brakes the game since the start of 6th, when I put my 5 warriors that are carrying the relic in a NS and it is destroyed what happens? It can't be dropped since the unit is already off the table and had specific permission to be removed from the table via transport, but now that it is in reserves what happens?) There shouldn't be these game braking moments that occur from normal gameplay. If you think a player is a **** for bringing 5-7 riptides to a friendly game then you should try looking at it from his perspective. Maybe the only reason that player started playing tau was because he loves the gundam series and thought it would be fantastic to run an army themed on it which tau riptides happen to be a perfect fit for.

xruslanx wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I find it astounding that you actually believe that people don't enjoy playing 40k.

I think I'll just...leave you to it.

I find it astounding that you could fail to understand his point, repeatedly, and in fact are purposely misstating what he's saying.

I find what he has to say to be beneath contempt and I'd rather he answered my question - why people enjoy playing 40k.

He has answered your question. Multiple times in fact.

I often find that extremists position their arguments so as to make it seem that the only possible way one could disagree with them would be to be lacking in critical faculties at all, or having the outlook of a child. I'm interested as to why Peregrine thinks that intelligent, rational adults enjoy playing 40k, I've asked him three times now...interesting to see if he actually bothers to reply.

Because intelligent, rational adults enjoy doing a lot of things in groups, regardless of the actual activity. The artistic part of the hobby helps as well.

The fact that the rules are pathetic and that I could do a better job in a weekend is appalling but that doesn't stop me from having fun with friends.

It might take more than a weekend by yourself, but not if I helped

The rules are bad, from a technical and competitive point of view, and in comparison to other Wargames they don't stand up.

However that doesn't stop them being enjoyable for what they are in their own vacuum. When played in the spirit of the game. Or when you 'Forge the Narrative'

And xruslanx, I can't believe you have made me say this, but Peregrine is right, you really aren't listening.

Eldercaveman wrote:
The rules are bad, from a technical and competitive point of view, and in comparison to other Wargames they don't stand up.

However that doesn't stop them being enjoyable for what they are in their own vacuum. When played in the spirit of the game. Or when you 'Forge the Narrative'

And xruslanx, I can't believe you have made me say this, but Peregrine is right, you really aren't listening.

Indeed it is a momentus occasion when the majority begin to agree with peregrine (personally I enjoy the points he brings up and always like reading what he has to say but I see why people may not always want to agree with what he has to say)

In a vacuum the rules themselves hold up well its just when the races are introduced imbalances occur due to random point values for things and random fancy rules, and the lack of proofreading in the codecis and rulebook can add to frustration with rule confusions and people claiming units are op and would rather not fight them en masse (look at how the FMCs have relentless smash, not relentless, and smash

Eldercaveman wrote:
The rules are bad, from a technical and competitive point of view, and in comparison to other Wargames they don't stand up.

However that doesn't stop them being enjoyable for what they are in their own vacuum. When played in the spirit of the game. Or when you 'Forge the Narrative'

You have to forge some serious narrative to make stuff like 1ksons work , like forge a whole new army just to play against with an army like that .

xruslanx wrote:

You are factually incorrect, yet again.

So tell me, why do you think so many people enjoy playing 40k rules? Nothing to do with fluff or models.

And your proof is, what, exactly? a thread with a poll which you yourseld admitted was deliberately biased and one sided?

But you know, dont let the facts get in the way! 75% of folks questions held 40k to be adequate at best, and even then, with issues. and this is a poll that is a lot less biased than yours, which, and i repeat, you yourself admitted it was deliberately biased.

xruslanx wrote:


So tell me, why do you think so many people enjoy playing 40k rules? Nothing to do with fluff or models.
.

(1) its their first game.
(2) no time/resources for other games.
(3) their friends play it.
(4) they like the fluff
(5) they like the models
(6) they're kids and don't know any better.

you will find most folks enjoy 40k in spite of the rules, not because of them. even your threads contains lots of posts asserting this.

xruslanx wrote:

I never said every 40k codex is perfect. But there's a big gulf between "40k is a fun ruleset but it has its problems", and "40k is absolute garbage with no effort put into it whatsoever".

It lies towards the latter. experience with other games (again, odd that you were willing to compare analogies to computer games, and sex with animals, but you weren't willing to accept the validity or value other ttg's could bring to the debate), and even common sense easily shows the failures of 40k. Lets leave out other games for the moment. i pointed out to you multiple instances where 40k's rules were cluttered, counter intuitive, excessive, bloated, poorly proofread, and poorly playtested. even ignoring the presense of other games, these issues with 40k remain, and very put slide 40k into the "garbage with no effort put in" category.

Not that you'll listen.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Like grey hunters becoming cheaper? GW make "changes", they don't make "improvements".

xruslanx wrote:

Some people play for fun. Other people play to win. These are different types of people, though only one of those groups assumes its playstyle is universally and objectively superior.

considering the amount of "casual" players who play for "fun" who leave snide belittling remarks to the cometitive crowd (and vice versa), there are those on both sides who refuse to listen. there is nothing wrong with casual gaming. heck, our flames of war games are extremely casual. there is nothing wrong with competitive games. our warmachie group is great fun, and nothing beats a good cut throat tourney. However, there is a problem when it comes to insisting that 40ks set of rules that are demonstrably cluttered, counter intuitive, excessive, bloated, poorly proofread, and poorly playtested, especially from a perspective of utter and clomplete indifference and ignorance of other ttg's (and refusal to accept their validity with regard to the hobby) and insisting despite this, that 40k and GW are the best, whilst ignoring any and all arguments that counter it.

xruslanx wrote:

I never said that no units weren't over or under costed. Clearly some units just aren't good enough, but we can throw around individual examples of everything all day.

but yet, thats somehow not an issue? I'd argue that yes, it is an issue. and a big one. admitting there are issues, and yet dismissing them at the same time as you do doesnt really work, son. you cant just say "there are problems, and here they are, and so what", and then claim everything is somehow OK.

A poll in the specific 40K Discussion area of a mainly 40K forum will naturally show a positive to 40K because people who dislike or have never heard of 40K won't ever have bothered to look at it.

So that piece of "evidence" is bs.

Oh for gods sake. Why do people bother arguing with xruslanx?

Almost every comment of his that I've read in the last month or so since I joined Dakka involved an insult, a straw man argument or ad hominem, calculated to wind people up and derail discussions. Whenever theres a thread on a contentious issue regarding GW, there seems to be a high probability that at least half the thread will be people arguing with xruslanx.

Clearly he isn't interested in a rational and civil discussion with anyone on anything.

I wouldn't say xruslanx isn't necessarily uninterested in a rational and civil discussion, I'd just say he's not very good at it.

As for GW's play testing, I'd have to agree that it is slipshod at best and sadly deficient in making any positive impact on the game's mechanics in general. GW is much more interested in making changes than making improvements. No amount of play testing will change that.

Man I remember back in the day my friend was a Dark Elf player. He had the original DE models and the new versions were coming out and Gav Thorpe wrote an article explaining how he'd written the new codex. It so enraged my friend he wrote a 3 page letter to Thorpe (which never got a response) and it was hilarious. Thorpe brought it on himself though, with such awesomeness as 'spikes are so evil!' and 'I took away a pip of move and an attack because the cold ones *look* slower than the old models.'

I might dig it up for laughs.

I think there is an easy way to settle this...

Simple yes or no answer to the two questions below.

1. Do you think GW puts more emphasis on selling models than having balance between the Codices?

2. Do you think the ability to make a terribly unbalanced but totally legal list has grown or decreased since the 3rd Edition?

The answers should be instructive....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I think there is an easy way to settle this...

Simple yes or no answer to the two questions below.

1. Do you think GW puts more emphasis on selling models than having balance between the Codices?

2. Do you think the ability to make a terribly unbalanced but totally legal list has grown or decreased since the 3rd Edition?

The answers should be instructive....

1. yes.

2. No. third edition was broken as hell. I remember, for example the likes of craftworld eldar - ulthwe with their no-limit-to-its-size seer council, alaitoc with its broken-as-hell disruption table, eldar in general with the old crystal targetting matrix (shoot in the movement phase, move in the shooting phase). then there was the old starcannon. deadly, massive ROF. and it was on everything. and thats only eldar. the old blood angels were utterly deadly with the "on a 1 i go faster" rule, their faster moving vehicles, and the third edition incarnation of the death company.

in the end, third ed boiled down to either "rhino rush" armies, or "shoot the rhino rush armies before they get there" armies, and so on. Some armies were severely ott at playing that game, being able to hit assault easily on turn 2 and roll up a flank with the old assault rules. Whilst a direct comparison of the "power levels" of a sixth edition codex, and a third edition might lead to the conclusion that sixth has more broken stuff ,its not really true. third edition was a far "simpler" game in terms of what got what in a codex (i remember the third ed SM codex where one SC's thing was he got an invulnerable save)and there was far less written about things. TImes were different back then, and the game codices reflected that, but make no mistake - it had its combos that were just as OTT as anything you could talk about today. .
No, 40k has always been a broken mess.

The rules are...lacking in some regards. The balance is horrible in many areas. Thousand Sons troops. Flat out suck and are almost unplayable. Penitent Engines and Repentia: SUCK. There are so many units that no one's going to take because they flat out suck. A little play testing by the designers could have made them stop and say, "hey, this unit here is completely useless. Maybe we can lower the points of give 'em a cool power, eh? That way they won't be completely ignored and go unplayed."

The overall balance of the game needs some fine tuning. I still enjoy the heck out of it, but games like Warmachine have better rules that actually have balance and playability.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I think there is an easy way to settle this...

Simple yes or no answer to the two questions below.

1. Do you think GW puts more emphasis on selling models than having balance between the Codices?

2. Do you think the ability to make a terribly unbalanced but totally legal list has grown or decreased since the 3rd Edition?

The answers should be instructive....

1. No. But mostly because "balance" isn't a goal of collectible games to begin with: An interesting (and evolving) meta-game is far more important to make sure the game stays interesting (e.g. the game of 40K you played a year ago isn't the same as it is today, which in turn isn't the game you'll play in a year from now).

2. Decreased a lot. 3rd Edition was a horrid mess.

Is 40K a collectible game? I have always regarded collectible games as things like MTG or Clix, which have the mechanism of buying more units than you need, in order to find the good ones.

In 40K you just go in the shop and pick up seven Riptides and you're done.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is 40K a collectible game? I have always regarded collectible games as things like MTG or Clix, which have the mechanism of buying more units than you need, in order to find the good ones.

In 40K you just go in the shop and pick up seven Riptides and you're done.

Yes. Exactly like MtG (league of legends, etc..) it's a collectible game, because it has a cyclical meta-game. AV14 is good, so everyone buys Melta, which makes AV14 bad and people start AV11-spam, which makes people drop the melta and buy missile-spam, etc.. , etc... . Riptides are hot now. They won't be in a year from now.

MtG works the same way. WoTC have stated that they have a mathematical formula for "balanced" MtG cards and they purposefully let cards deviate up to 15% each way from that balanced ideal, precisely because it creates this kind of metagame. If GW uses a similar rule of thumb, 15% each way, a 2000 pts. vs. 2000 pts. match using the written Codexes could "really" be a 1700 pts. vs. 2300 pts. match in "balanced" point-values (i.e. before the up to 15% deviation was applied). That is GOOD, PURPOSEFUL game design as practiced by companies such as WoTC (and likely GW). Game designer and/or playtesting screw-ups are added on top of it.

That, after all, is what drives the hobby. You look at the list and figure out that Riptides are good. If you could just throw darts at the army list, or let a random numbers generator pick units and equipment from the Codex, and any and all combinations would all be equally good ("balanced") the entire list-building/army-building/hobby aspect would fall through.

The quest to find that "good list"/"tactics" (e.g. 7 Riptides) or that "better list"/"tactics" (e.g. beating those 7 Riptides) in no small parts drives the hobby. But "list-building" would be meaningless if everything's balanced.

I can assure you that GW does not put anywhere near that much thought into this.

Rules editions make different weapons good, not codices. Melta won't be any more popular next year than this year. Melta was popular in 5th because of the magic vehicle damage table of invincibleness.

Martel732 wrote:
I can assure you that GW does not put anywhere near that much thought into this. .

Perhaps.

Doesn't change the fact that even for companies that do (!) put in this amount of effort into their games, balance is not the primary or overriding concern. Quite the opposite. Perfect balance is something good game designers try to avoid.

Tell that to the Starcraft designers. Balance is good for both sales and the game despite their beliefs to the contrary. There's a reason Korea plays Starcraft and not 40K.

Martel732 wrote:
Tell that to the Starcraft designers. Balance is good for both sales and the game despite their beliefs to the contrary. There's a reason Korea plays Starcraft and not 40K.

No. Blizzard actively tried to unbalance Starcraft I for similar reasons.

Yes, a highly balanced game is great for some really high-end competition. Look at the current chess world championships. But it also makes it rather un-fun for Joe Average to play the game. Starcraft 1 suffered precisely from "too much balance" in that most optimal strategies were easily calculated (except for the top-tier 10 guys perhaps) and the entire game boiled down to who could click faster to execute them. It sucked the tactical challenge from the game.

I am not saying there is no place for a balanced game. Chess is popular for a reason. But for a commercial product, it's not what companies aim for. You don't want your customers to go through learning 20-years of chess-strategy to even stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning their next game against a guy who has been playing for a few years. By adding the constantly evolving meta-game (which periodically de-valuates past "best strategies", you keep the game both "newcomer friendly" and you keep vets following the news (and buying new models and armies).

Well, that's not the philosophy they've used with SC II, and it's even bigger. Well balanced uints lead to an ever-evolving meta, because all units are equally viable. That's without having to make cheesy OP units like GW.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, that's not the philosophy they've used with SC II, and it's even bigger. Well balanced uints lead to an ever-evolving meta, because all units are equally viable. That's without having to make cheesy OP units like GW.

If all units are equally viable, there's no meta. How could there? Choosing X or Y would make no difference whatsoever.

Whether or not GW hits the "right amount" of imbalance or goes to far is another discussion. They may well be off. But that has nothing to do with the fact that perfect balance isn't the aim any company sets itself. They aim is "the right amount of imbalance" (which of course, companies can still fail to achieve with their games).

Equally viable does not mean choices aren't extremely important.

For example, marines in SCII counter mutas but are countered by roaches and banelings. All of these units are viable, but it's all about counter units.

Aiming for imbalance is insane to me.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If all units are equally viable, there's no meta. How could there? Choosing X or Y would make no difference whatsoever.

You're making the extremely common mistake in assuming that balanced means the same.
It's absolutely incorrect. It means that for every strength there's an equally important weakness. All units are equally viable, but a meta evolves to exploit the weaknesses of the units being used. In fact a system like this shifts the meta far more often - in computer games the meta will shift over the course of a game.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If all units are equally viable, there's no meta. How could there? Choosing X or Y would make no difference whatsoever.

You're making the extremely common mistake in assuming that balanced means the same.
It's absolutely incorrect. It means that for every strength there's an equally important weakness. All units are equally viable, but a meta evolves to exploit the weaknesses of the units being used. In fact a system like this shifts the meta far more often - in computer games the meta will shift over the course of a game.

Not really. If all strengths, advantages, etc.. are perfectly off-set by weaknesses, disadvantages, etc.. of the same measure, there's no metagame. In the sum, overall, the spread would still be even as no particular unit, army, etc.. would stand out.

The meta starts rolling when one particular unit - Unit A - is slightly above-average (despite having a weakness). People flock to this unit/army/etc.. because it is better than average. At that point, people discover unit B, which has a particular strength that exploits the particular weakness of Unit A and/or counters the particular unit B. Thus, while Unit A is slightly better than average, it becomes relatively weaker as people start to flock to Unit B. Then there is Unit C that offers particular advantages vs. Unit B. etc.., etc...

You still need that initial imbalance to kick the meta off. If all are equal (after subtracting (or adding?) weaknesses from strengths) you're still sitting at nothing. And if the meta ever slows down, you need to give it a kick with a new imbalance in the system.

The initial imbalance in many cases is "I like this faction."
Enough people like Faction A and others will play Faction B to exploit a weakness in A. Some As switch to C... Etc.

rigeld2 wrote:
The initial imbalance in many cases is "I like this faction."
Enough people like Faction A and others will play Faction B to exploit a weakness in A. Some As switch to C... Etc.

I wouldn't bet a business on that, but hey YMMV.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is 40K a collectible game? I have always regarded collectible games as things like MTG or Clix, which have the mechanism of buying more units than you need, in order to find the good ones.

In 40K you just go in the shop and pick up seven Riptides and you're done.

Yes. Exactly like MtG (league of legends, etc..) it's a collectible game, because it has a cyclical meta-game. AV14 is good, so everyone buys Melta, which makes AV14 bad and people start AV11-spam, which makes people drop the melta and buy missile-spam, etc.. , etc... . Riptides are hot now. They won't be in a year from now.

MtG works the same way. WoTC have stated that they have a mathematical formula for "balanced" MtG cards and they purposefully let cards deviate up to 15% each way from that balanced ideal, precisely because it creates this kind of metagame. If GW uses a similar rule of thumb, 15% each way, a 2000 pts. vs. 2000 pts. match using the written Codexes could "really" be a 1700 pts. vs. 2300 pts. match in "balanced" point-values (i.e. before the up to 15% deviation was applied). That is GOOD, PURPOSEFUL game design as practiced by companies such as WoTC (and likely GW). Game designer and/or playtesting screw-ups are added on top of it.

That, after all, is what drives the hobby. You look at the list and figure out that Riptides are good. If you could just throw darts at the army list, or let a random numbers generator pick units and equipment from the Codex, and any and all combinations would all be equally good ("balanced") the entire list-building/army-building/hobby aspect would fall through.

The quest to find that "good list"/"tactics" (e.g. 7 Riptides) or that "better list"/"tactics" (e.g. beating those 7 Riptides) in no small parts drives the hobby. But "list-building" would be meaningless if everything's balanced.

Well, I see your point, however "everything's balanced" does not mean the same as "everything's equal".

Or to put it differently, the obviously good choices that exist because others in the codex are obviously crappy, do not make list building a challenging, interesting activity.

I have heard this concept of the "perfect unbalance" before and I am still completely unable to understand it. I think anyone trying to create a fun game aims for perfect balance.

Firstly, all really famous games are balanced. Soccer, Tennis, Chess, Risk, Go, Poker, Checkers... say a game that has been successful in any way for a respectable amount of time (say, 50 years) and you would be saying the name of a balanced game.

Nobody in his mind would like to play an unbalanced game for long. What would be the point? I chose red so I won? Where´s the challenge? Where´s the fun? Unbalanced games and boring and senseless to most players. You just need to look at w40k to see it: people whine endlessly about how unfunny is to play the game, because of the game being unbalanced. It is not fun for anyone to be utterly destroyed without any chance because your preferred faction is now "low tier". Most people who invested in a now useless unit or faction has stopped buying and playing the army for a while, that´s all. This does not apply to competitive people who would gladly spend hundreds of bucks on anything as long as it gives them an edge, but they are few, and GW has said many times that they do not care about them.

I know the LoL example, but it does not apply. It takes no time and no money to swap factions in a videogame. Applying it to w40k causes quit-rages and an endless stream of complains and whines.

Also, all games have a "meta" of its own. The Italian soccer teams have a completely different meta than the British. It doesn´t matter if the game is balanced. There are always local variables.

 da001 wrote:
I have heard this concept of the "perfect unbalance" before and I am still completely unable to understand it. I think anyone trying to create a fun game aims for perfect balance.

Firstly, all really famous games are balanced. Soccer, Tennis, Chess, Risk, Go, Poker, Checkers... say a game that has been successful in any way for a respectable amount of time (say, 50 years) and you would be saying the name of a balanced game.

Than why aren't you playing Chess instead of 40K? If balance is the key to fun, Chess should be infinitely more fun than 40K? Infact, game design itself would be a pointless pursuit. It'd be largely impossible to ever create a game that is more "fun" than Chess or Go, since they come rather close to perfect balance.

 Zweischneid wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The initial imbalance in many cases is "I like this faction."
Enough people like Faction A and others will play Faction B to exploit a weakness in A. Some As switch to C... Etc.

I wouldn't bet a business on that, but hey YMMV.

Blizzard is much larger than GW, and Starcraft is built on balance, not imbalance.

Martel732 wrote:


Blizzard is much larger than GW, and Starcraft is built on balance, not imbalance.

Starcraft was build on balance, largely because it was made before Blizzard got (really) big. Starcraft II is build on imbalance like all professionally designed video games.

No, it's not. Not at all.

Martel732 wrote:
No, it's not. Not at all.

Well, I guess you'll just have keep spending the rest of your life banging your head against a wall asking yourself why so many games out there "mysteriously" aren't balanced

SC II is balanced. There are is not a single unit in the game that gives one of the races an unfair advantage. It's all arithmetic. I KNOW why games are unbalanced. The designers use bad arithmetic by design or incompetence. My money is on incompetence for GW.

Martel732 wrote:
SC II is balanced. There are is not a single unit in the game that gives one of the races an unfair advantage. It's all arithmetic. I KNOW why games are unbalanced. The designers use bad arithmetic by design or incompetence. My money is on incompetence for GW.

Even a quick google search for the last 24 hours gives you gazillion of Starcraft II players that disagree with you.

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/10490239270


But ok. Incompetence it is. You're conviction obviously is the foundation of this world.

They might, but there are a gazillion more who appreciate the balance. It's a much closer approximation of balance than GW's incompetent crap.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Than why aren't you playing Chess instead of 40K? If balance is the key to fun, Chess should be infinitely more fun than 40K? Infact, game design itself would be a pointless pursuit. It'd be largely impossible to ever create a game that is more "fun" than Chess or Go, since they come rather close to perfect balance.

But I play Chess too. Actually I play all the games I mentioned you, and many more. And new games are always welcomed. Also all my family and lots of friends plays chess too. Far more people have fun playing chess than playing 40k.

However I do not play tournaments. I know hundreds of people who play chess and I don´t know a single one who goes to tournaments. Everyone play "for fun". And we have lots of fun! That doesn´t mean that Chess is "the perfect game" in any sense. It has good things (like balance) and bad things. I didn´t say that balance is all, I said balance is quite important.

So why would I play 40k? For me, it is the setting, the background, the models, and all the crazy things going on... But it is not a perfect game at all. It has a lot of problems, and unbalance is, by far, the biggest one. The lack of balance is a bad thing: it turns games that should have been for fun into tournament-style matches where the one who bring the new combo wins at the cost of being branded TFG. It gives a sense of unfairness and unsportmanship that shouldn´t be there.

In many cities there are parks with chairs and tables with a chess board on it. You can go and play with a complete stranger. Lots of people have fun, and rages and arguments are really rare. Now imagine what would happen if you go to such a place and the person in front of you shows you a letter signed by the company who did the table saying that he is allowed to do two movements for each one of yours because he paid some money to the company. Nobody would play with this person, and if this is the norm almost nobody would go there. It would be as empty as a GW store, with just a handful of players, most of them having bought unfair advantages (and the occasional noob), having endless discussions about which barely legal combo will win the day.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Starcraft was build on balance, largely because it was made before Blizzard got (really) big. Starcraft II is build on imbalance like all professionally designed video games.

Starcraft II is build on imbalance? So a single faction is so better than the others that everyone plays it? Are you sure?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And people complaining that Starcraft II is unbalanced is complaining. It is not a good thing for anyone. People who believe that is not getting fun. From their point of view it is a fail, and thus they quit the game and try to convince people not to buy it. And how could it be otherwise? If a person wants to play Terrans and Terrans are completely useless, this person is not suddenly going to like Zerg.

Well said but remember in balanced games both sides are equal to the point where at best you get to choose which colour you are. Dont get me wrong risk and chess is great but to acheive balance GW would have to give everything a near similar statline and all the guns the same stats etc.

FoW as an example in my opinion has acheived balance between variation and game balance. They do this by making most of the guns the same, units the same attirbutes and so on, but you still get to make faction choices that change how you play. Playing as the red guy in risk mens just as much as playing the yellow guy for example. Playing Orks is completely different to playing Space Marines and so on.

I for one am fine with the inbalance because its a result of getting huge amounts of customization on the feild beyond colour or meaningless symbols such as monopoly etc.

Thats why i dont blame GW as much as i blame the players that make crazy combos etc and table people for no real gain and all.

Back to the point of FoW, there is very little choice in how you customize your platoons a lot of the time, however with a Guard squad i can combine units, add commissars, change up the weapons and so on. FoW i can usually add an extra team per platoon... Huge difference in customization and variation.

So GW at the end of the day has merely given us the freedom to make our armies and customize them as we please but as a result there are lots of possibilities to create OP units and combinations. Unless everyone is fine with closing the gap of difference between the factions then balance is something that wont work so its up to us players to make the game fun more balanced.

Happily prove me wrong though its just something i have noticed.

 Zweischneid wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If all units are equally viable, there's no meta. How could there? Choosing X or Y would make no difference whatsoever.

You're making the extremely common mistake in assuming that balanced means the same.
It's absolutely incorrect. It means that for every strength there's an equally important weakness. All units are equally viable, but a meta evolves to exploit the weaknesses of the units being used. In fact a system like this shifts the meta far more often - in computer games the meta will shift over the course of a game.

Not really. If all strengths, advantages, etc.. are perfectly off-set by weaknesses, disadvantages, etc.. of the same measure, there's no metagame. In the sum, overall, the spread would still be even as no particular unit, army, etc.. would stand out.

The meta starts rolling when one particular unit - Unit A - is slightly above-average (despite having a weakness). People flock to this unit/army/etc.. because it is better than average. At that point, people discover unit B, which has a particular strength that exploits the particular weakness of Unit A and/or counters the particular unit B. Thus, while Unit A is slightly better than average, it becomes relatively weaker as people start to flock to Unit B. Then there is Unit C that offers particular advantages vs. Unit B. etc.., etc...

You still need that initial imbalance to kick the meta off. If all are equal (after subtracting (or adding?) weaknesses from strengths) you're still sitting at nothing. And if the meta ever slows down, you need to give it a kick with a new imbalance in the system.

No, the meta starts rolling when the better players start using a particular unit/choice effectively. Then other players start to use either the same unit in order to try and emulate success, or the units that are available in order to counter the dominant list/force/deck/whatever.

Once the environment reaches the stage where the counter unit is so common that it renders the original concept no longer viable, the players start to move on to something which counters the counter, again, typically in a cascade pattern from the better players to the "less good."

None of this is inherently predicated on any unit being unbalanced or overpowered, in fact it works best when every option has proportional strengths and weaknesses.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well said but remember in balanced games both sides are equal to the point where at best you get to choose which colour you are. Dont get me wrong risk and chess is great but to acheive balance GW would have to give everything a near similar statline and all the guns the same stats etc.

FoW as an example in my opinion has acheived balance between variation and game balance. They do this by making most of the guns the same, units the same attirbutes and so on, but you still get to make faction choices that change how you play. Playing as the red guy in risk mens just as much as playing the yellow guy for example. Playing Orks is completely different to playing Space Marines and so on.

I for one am fine with the inbalance because its a result of getting huge amounts of customization on the feild beyond colour or meaningless symbols such as monopoly etc.

Thats why i dont blame GW as much as i blame the players that make crazy combos etc and table people for no real gain and all.

Back to the point of FoW, there is very little choice in how you customize your platoons a lot of the time, however with a Guard squad i can combine units, add commissars, change up the weapons and so on. FoW i can usually add an extra team per platoon... Huge difference in customization and variation.

So GW at the end of the day has merely given us the freedom to make our armies and customize them as we please but as a result there are lots of possibilities to create OP units and combinations. Unless everyone is fine with closing the gap of difference between the factions then balance is something that wont work so its up to us players to make the game fun more balanced.

Happily prove me wrong though its just something i have noticed.

You are not wrong. I do believe a certain unbalance keeps the game crazy and extra-fun. There are times when games like Chess or Risk get repetitive.

However, I think GW pushes it way too far. It is not that difficult to make some changes via FAQ and nerf the worst combos, as well as buffing up some useless units. And the lack (or excess) of interest showed in some factions makes the game quite unfair for some players. Compare the last Sisters of Battle codex with the 5th edition Codex Grey Knights, let alone the last Space Marine Codex. When a 5th edition daemon player loses in turn 1 against a GK player is not fun. When a Sisters of Battle player faces 6 Necron fliers or 3+ Vendettas it is not fun. Playing against a 4 Riptide Tau or a Screamerstar with most armies is just not fun.

And passing the problem to the players is not a solution. It is a "survival of the jerk" situation where the only one having fun and coming back for more is the odd WAAC player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

No, the meta starts rolling when the better players start using a particular unit/choice effectively. Then other players start to use either the same unit in order to try and emulate success, or the units that are available in order to counter the dominant list/force/deck/whatever.

Once the environment reaches the stage where the counter unit is so common that it renders the original concept no longer viable, the players start to move on to something which counters the counter, again, typically in a cascade pattern from the better players to the "less good."

None of this is inherently predicated on any unit being unbalanced or overpowered, in fact it works best when every option has proportional strengths and weaknesses.

^This. If all options are more of less at the same level, the meta works perfectly. Clearly overpowered options erase local variables and give us copy-pasted, boring lists repeated over and over. What´s the point of evolving or trying new stuff if it is clear which one is the better option?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If all units are equally viable, there's no meta. How could there? Choosing X or Y would make no difference whatsoever.

You're making the extremely common mistake in assuming that balanced means the same.
It's absolutely incorrect. It means that for every strength there's an equally important weakness. All units are equally viable, but a meta evolves to exploit the weaknesses of the units being used. In fact a system like this shifts the meta far more often - in computer games the meta will shift over the course of a game.

Not really. If all strengths, advantages, etc.. are perfectly off-set by weaknesses, disadvantages, etc.. of the same measure, there's no metagame. In the sum, overall, the spread would still be even as no particular unit, army, etc.. would stand out.

The meta starts rolling when one particular unit - Unit A - is slightly above-average (despite having a weakness). People flock to this unit/army/etc.. because it is better than average. At that point, people discover unit B, which has a particular strength that exploits the particular weakness of Unit A and/or counters the particular unit B. Thus, while Unit A is slightly better than average, it becomes relatively weaker as people start to flock to Unit B. Then there is Unit C that offers particular advantages vs. Unit B. etc.., etc...

You still need that initial imbalance to kick the meta off. If all are equal (after subtracting (or adding?) weaknesses from strengths) you're still sitting at nothing. And if the meta ever slows down, you need to give it a kick with a new imbalance in the system.

No, the meta starts rolling when the better players start using a particular unit/choice effectively. Then other players start to use either the same unit in order to try and emulate success, or the units that are available in order to counter the dominant list/force/deck/whatever.

Once the environment reaches the stage where the counter unit is so common that it renders the original concept no longer viable, the players start to move on to something which counters the counter, again, typically in a cascade pattern from the better players to the "less good."

None of this is inherently predicated on any unit being unbalanced or overpowered, in fact it works best when every option has proportional strengths and weaknesses.

Was going to elaborate upon it but... azreal you took the words out of my mouth!

 da001 wrote:

And people complaining that Starcraft II is unbalanced is complaining. It is not a good thing for anyone.

So people complaining about Starcraft II being unbalanced are all wrong, and the game is balanced.

But the people complaining about 40K being unbalanced are all right, and the game is indeed unbalanced.

You guys really cherry-pick the way to make it just the way you like it, don't you?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 da001 wrote:

And people complaining that Starcraft II is unbalanced is complaining. It is not a good thing for anyone.

So people complaining about Starcraft II being unbalanced are all wrong, and the game is balanced.

But the people complaining about 40K being unbalanced are all right, and the game is indeed unbalanced.

You guys really cherry-pick the way to make it just the way you like it, don't you?

Perfect imbalance is a video game concept to "force" meta changes within the game. I believe that you are correct that SC II is developed with this concept in mind.

Perfect imbalance works in video games because everyone that buys the game has equal access to all races and all units.

Perfect imbalance even works in TCG or LCG games for the same reasons: theoretically every player has the same level of access to all the cards in a game.

Perfect imbalance, IF (and that is a big IF), it was ever applied to a miniature wargame, would be a broken and idiotic game design concept because a player has to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to adapt to these forced meta-changes.

Either way, for that type of game design philosophy (or any other), to work, you would have to start from a perfectly understandable and clear foundation (from a mathematical perspective), so that the designers could then introduce precise changes to affect the balance of the game. GW's current crop of "randomize everything" rules aren't nowhere near clear enough from a mathematical perspective to make that type of design possible and even if it did, the rules are so poorly and terribly written that one simply cannot assume that the people that come up with them have any real idea of what advanced game design concepts like "perfect imbalance" even are, let alone how they should be implemented...

 Zweischneid wrote:

 da001 wrote:

And people complaining that Starcraft II is unbalanced is complaining. It is not a good thing for anyone.

So people complaining about Starcraft II being unbalanced are all wrong, and the game is balanced.

But the people complaining about 40K being unbalanced are all right, and the game is indeed unbalanced.

You guys really cherry-pick the way to make it just the way you like it, don't you?

Guilty as charged.

There is no single unit in SC II that is as abusive as the WS. If you don't understand that, then you know nothing about SC II.

Starcraft brood war was balanced. However you must understand that each race had a portion of itself or a unit that was overpowered. But these units while overpowered had distinct and exploitable weaknesses. For example.

Terran: The Siege tank. A unit with extremely high damage both single target and splash. Also it was built from a common facility so a large number could be built quickly. A line of tanks was very difficult to break because of the tremendous amount of damage that was put out.

However the downside. To get that damage you had to sacrifice mobility. Not just a little all of it you were completely immobile. You had no defense against air and even a large line of tanks could be exploited by flanking and attacking from multiple angles to spread out the damage.

Now lets look at the wave serpent. It has mobility by being a fast vehicle. It has defenses with the shield. It has above average firepower for a transport. Yeah its a transport as well allowing it to take troops to critical locations (objectives).

However its downside is...
...
wait what is its downside again? I have not seen one. There is no comparable disadvantage or exploitable trait that limits the effectiveness of the wave serpent.

Wave Serpents are direct only!

Its balance through inaccessability!

You can't buy them en masse from a discounter, only at full price from their own website.

Yeah, that'll keep things positioned nicely.

 FirePainter wrote:
Starcraft brood war was balanced. However you must understand that each race had a portion of itself or a unit that was overpowered. But these units while overpowered had distinct and exploitable weaknesses. For example.

Terran: The Siege tank. A unit with extremely high damage both single target and splash. Also it was built from a common facility so a large number could be built quickly. A line of tanks was very difficult to break because of the tremendous amount of damage that was put out.

However the downside. To get that damage you had to sacrifice mobility. Not just a little all of it you were completely immobile. You had no defense against air and even a large line of tanks could be exploited by flanking and attacking from multiple angles to spread out the damage.

Now lets look at the wave serpent. It has mobility by being a fast vehicle. It has defenses with the shield. It has above average firepower for a transport. Yeah its a transport as well allowing it to take troops to critical locations (objectives).

However its downside is...
...
wait what is its downside again? I have not seen one. There is no comparable disadvantage or exploitable trait that limits the effectiveness of the wave serpent.

This is spot on.

Although I'm not quite in the Peregrine camp of believing GW doesn't play test at all, I am in the camp that something is certainly amiss. A few potential issues *might* be that their play testers are ineffective, they rules authors don't properly deal with the information that comes back or the play testers aren't given all of the necessary information to work with.

By ineffective play testers I mean either those people can't read or they simply run the book through a few games and are done. Point of order: grav guns. You'd think the number 1 new gun for Marines would be exceedingly clear on how it works against mixed armor unit types. This is a very common setup. Common enough that it would have been brought up in the middle of the first game.

That said, I get the feeling that there are several rules and/or units which simply never get over to the play test group at all. Mandrakes in the DE codex comes to mind. Had that unit been play tested it would have been apparent that the entire unit would need to be tweaked or it wouldn't sell... Another unit are the Hell drakes. Those rules feel like they were made up simply to ensure the sale of models with zero regard for playability.

Given GW's secrecy policy, my guess is that play testers are simply not given the whole story and certain units/rules are withheld as internal only or made up last minute based on sales policies. I'd love to talk to one of the SM play testers to see if my guess is accurate; but I doubt any of them would discuss it.

I think the secrecy policy does come into it but in a way that play testers aren't sourced from outside the company. You can test your own game a hundred times and you will think it is perfect with no holes in it. Throw it out into the public and all of a sudden you'll be informed of mechanics that don't work, badly worded rules and broken combinations that you never thought of but are wholly within the rules you wrote.

A combination of a much larger number of people testing it and people going into the game with only the rules you've provided and not your vision of how things are meant to work allow players to find things wrong with the game. I think the latter is very important here as in rules thread there is always a discussion of RAI vs RAW. I'm sure the writer would read their rule and know exactly what it means but when we read the rule exactly as it is written without their insight we have to guess at what we think they want to happen.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 da001 wrote:

And people complaining that Starcraft II is unbalanced is complaining. It is not a good thing for anyone.

So people complaining about Starcraft II being unbalanced are all wrong, and the game is balanced.

But the people complaining about 40K being unbalanced are all right, and the game is indeed unbalanced.

You guys really cherry-pick the way to make it just the way you like it, don't you?

I think this reasoning is unfair. Most players consider W40k completely broken regarding balance and most players consider Starcraft (both of them) an example of balance. Of course there are exceptions, the internet is big. But look at the tournaments:
Starcraft is quite balanced:
w40k is unbalanced: Of course this is debatable, but I don´t think I am cherry-picking.

Also this is about external balance (Codex 1 vs Codex 2) balance. The internal balance (mutilators vs heldrakes, pyrovores vs tervigons) is even worst.

More important: my point in the sentence you quoted was that those complaining about unbalance are upset. They stop playing the game. Unbalance is perceived as a really bad thing, because the sense of unfairness and unsportmanship associated with it.

On topic again, I don´t think GW cares about play-testing. They follow the "rule of cool". Two reasons:
1) If they did, the mistakes are so glaring that they are doing it wrong. It is difficult to achieve a good balance, but it would be easy to detect things like heldrakes or pyrovores. Just a few tries and you detect such things.
2) More important: they know the most glaring mistakes a week after the Codex is released, because players quickly detect them and post them on the internet. But they do not fix them. It is obvious that the Vendetta, the Pyrovore, the Mandrake or the Heldrake need help, but they are not fixing it. Also keep in mind that they are losing money because of that, quite obviously in the case of the "useless" units.

About the "rule of cool" goal. If the writer likes the army, it gets overpowered.
If you look at the Adepta Sororitas Codex and the Space Marine Codex, written at the same time, I think it is quite obvious that one of them has lots of effort on it, while the other is something any fan could do in about four hours. One of them have many things changed to make the army cooler at the cost of overpowering it, while the other seems to works in the opposite direction. In 5th edition, Codex Grey Knights and Codex Sisters of Battle proves this further. It is the clearest case, but there are more: Codex: Eldar and Codex: CSM are written by the same person.

I can´t believe Ward aimed for external balance when writing Codex: Grey Knights. Specially against Daemons.

I can´t believe Ward aimed for external balance when writing Codex: Grey Knights. Specially against Daemons.

Actually that was only one ability, if GK's had kept some of their old gear Daemons would be even more hosed now. Such as the famous ability to ignore Daemon Cover saves with psycannons.

Odd as it sounds, GK's actually became LESS effective against daemons when the codex hit, of course then again they were written when Daemons were still attached to CSM, and GK were just two units that allied into other codex's.

Which means that GW never really cared about balance. In any edition.

 Swastakowey wrote:
In my opinion 40k is an absolutely awesome game if you weed out all the power gamers and are left with a bunch of guys who choose units they enjoy and play competatively but to the point where everyone has fun.

Not GW fault entirely but the players who exploit the game who are at fault.

40k is most fun when you play in a regular group that has a consistent view on how to interpret the rules and are dedicated to having fun the same way with the game. It works least well and is the least fun in environments where you are always playing totally new opponents who have different interpretations of the rules and different opinions on how to get the most fun out of the game.

In more balanced games with better written rules I haven't found the same split and can more readily enjoy playing in my regular leagues with folks I know or at larger events against completely new people.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
FoW as an example in my opinion has acheived balance between variation and game balance. They do this by making most of the guns the same, units the same attirbutes and so on, but you still get to make faction choices that change how you play. Playing as the red guy in risk mens just as much as playing the yellow guy for example. Playing Orks is completely different to playing Space Marines and so on.

Back to the point of FoW, there is very little choice in how you customize your platoons a lot of the time, however with a Guard squad i can combine units, add commissars, change up the weapons and so on. FoW i can usually add an extra team per platoon... Huge difference in customization and variation.

Ummm...there are limits on unit customization in Flames of War because they are based on historical units and not just made up. A german Volksgrendier platoon can't suddenly have flamethrowers in every squad because that didn't happen historically. Also, playing flames of war and unit characteristics is not even remotely the same as playing Risk. In Risk EVERY unit in one army is exactly the same as identical units in the opposing armies. That is not the same in flames of war. They haven't made "every gun the same" or given "all units the same attributes". Your description of FoW is not even remotely on target. What they did do is cost things consistently in each of the 3 war periods. Also units are broken up and kept strictly to their war periods. Rules are also consistent for each unit type with the addition of faction flavor to make them behave closer to their historical counterparts. You won't find lists with King tigers for Early war at all or with100 point King tigers for later war just because the list writer thought they are so cool and wanted to see more of them. Units that hit harder and are harder to destroy cost more. Units that are easily broken, easily targeted and so on cost less. This is how balance actually works. It isn't through homogenizing the armies across the game to be the same.

Playing Germans does play differently than playing Italians, or Russians or British or Americans. Romanians and Hungarians tend to play similarly to germans, but that is because they adopted a lot of german equipment and a lot of german doctrines for their armies thanks to german control. Even within the British there are different factions that play slightly differently from baseline British forces. Australians, Indians, New Zealanders, South Africans all have slightly different feels when played on the table. So there is just as much variety in FoW as in something like 40k. It is just that the differences are not big and flashy since every force was a human army during WWII. Kind of limits the extent you can take it to.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
By ineffective play testers I mean either those people can't read or they simply run the book through a few games and are done. Point of order: grav guns. You'd think the number 1 new gun for Marines would be exceedingly clear on how it works against mixed armor unit types. This is a very common setup. Common enough that it would have been brought up in the middle of the first game.

There is already a rule that tells you how to deal with units that have mixed armor types in a unit in the BRB. The grav gun doesn't need a separate special rule, it just needs to follow the one that already exists. It is that simple. That can just as easily apply to grav gun wound numbers as saving throws.

Skriker