My area is an odd one. Particularly the game stores I frequent. Both have a strong presence of "Tournament Players" and "Casual Players" that intermingle. Now there is a talk of a divide among the two groups on the internet. I have had experience with both are these small stores where both play. Tournaments(Mostly RTT at popular stores) are where they mix, sometimes with disastrous results. I wish, in this, to analyze why this divide exists for some reason.
"Casual" players are players who do not take this game too seriously. They build theme lists, lists that are for fun or have units they like.
"Tournament" players are those that live for competitive scene. They build lists to beat others. They know the rules, the best units to take and throw the rest out. They anylyze the game and so forth.
Both frequent the stores I see. Here are some observations I made over the last couple of RTTs and game nights. Casual players are more likely to get frusterated when facing off against a death star unit or spam, such as Seer council or Triptide, While Tournament Players are more resigned in their facing it, possibly facing it or knowing about it(tournament players are more likely to know the meta). Rarely will Casual players "Spam" units, usually only troops or some of the more less deadly units(Such as speeders or things like that) While tournament players will tend Spam powerful units, Riptides, Wraith knights, Those stupid flying MCs that put out 12 shots a turn. But this could be funds. While possibly not lacking it money, casual players are more likely, from what I observed. The got the one or two model, they don't need a third or fourth.
On the flipside, when building lists, tournament players seem to be more focused on what each unit will due, its roll and purpose. This unit will kill tanks then die, this one will Capture objectives, This one will frustrate my opponent to no end and cause an anime like vein. They are also more likely to stick with a list for more then one game, tweaking what does and doesn't work. Casual players will pick what they want and play. Things will work out in the end. They are also less likely to stick with a list, changing it between every game. Why is that? Well, it is possible that tournament players would need to tweak or test a list multiple time. They need to find a list that can work in a tournament setting, while casual players do not. They do not need to test, only enjoy.
But the question remains, Why the divide? This isnt just something seen in 40k or GW games but many Systems. I have seen it in magic, Pathfinder society and warmachine. So why? One Theory I have is time. We all value our time but we also value our game. We do not want it wasted. You cannot tell who is which by looks or sometimes list. So you play a Pick Up game, set up, then halfway through you realize your opponent is one of the others. The Casual isnt having fun because they are not getting a challenging and fun game, but are defeated. The Tournament player sees no challenge, winning easily and no fun. Neither can get that time back. In a tournament, ou cant leave a game, unlike a Pick up one(You can, just not easily, with money on the line. If you invest in a game for 4 hours or even a day, you don't want it to be wasted, so you hope that the one you play is on the same level. But you cant, so you think everyone should play on your level(This is something I see more in casual players, but tournament players say it aswell) Leading to a divide among them.
Well, for me, at least, I actually divide 40k players up into four different groups, not the two that the internet usually does. I find it makes things more clear:
Winners
For this group of players, success is a binary state, and that success is determined by exactly one thing - winning. The point of the game, possibly the ONLY point of the game is to win it. It is easy for the other player groups to revile this group because it produces behavior antithetical to their way of playing, but such behavior is perfectly congruent with the way the game is supposed to be played for these players. They will rules lawyer to advantage because it can help them win, and if you aren't able to argue well enough why my interpretation of the rules is wrong, then you SHOULD lose. Likewise, if I bring the strongest list in the game, and you don't, you should lose more often, and complaining about my list is just a cover-up for the fact that you brought a weaker list.
Winners have a strange relationship with dice - they don't want the game to be based on the luck of the dice, because they don't want to lose just because someone got lucky (or they got unlucky), but at the same time want to be able to come back from behind with a little luck if it means they can pull out a win. Also, this group doesn't want there to be serious game balance. Part of the fun is to come up with stronger and stronger combinations of units to give them that edge. If every army were roughly as powerful, then you wouldn't get to use your peak brainpower to come up with secret combinations that others didn't know about that would allow you to crush your opponents. List building is a skill, after all, and not everyone is as skilled as others.
It is, in a way, the purest, most black and white way to look at the game. People's complaints about pretty much anything tend to be irrelevant. Who cares if I use a spam list if it gets me the win? Why are you letting fluff get in the way of you winning? I'll take the victory, but I'll also likely think less of you for not being as clever as me, or not "wanting" it as much.
Strategizers
Success for Strategizers is also binary, and is also determined by who wins games, but the point of the game isn't the win - that's merely a means to an end. The end is to have a game that pits player skill against player skill, and shows who is best.
This group thinks that 40k should be like a sport, where everyone is started out with a completely equal playing field, and when all other variables are controlled for, it will be the best player that wins. The one with the most skill. These are the people who are most likely to show up to tournaments, and most likely to believe that the results of tournaments are infallible data.
Strategizers believe that luck is an insignificant factor in 40k, and that it doesn't have much to do with the result of any given game. After all, if I roll poorly, I can always use my player skill to mitigate the damage that the dice has done, and a game of 40k involves hundreds of die rolls, so really luck is a controlled variable anyways. Meanwhile, this group is driven insane by the fact that 40k is a very imbalanced game, because there will constantly be people (mostly "winners") who will keep on bringing more-powerful lists which makes it so that players don't start out with an even playing field (as such, the winner might not be the most skilled, but the one with the most overpowered list), or, almost as bad, people who show up with weaker lists, which undermines the ability to test player skill (they could always claim they lost only because they had a weaker list). List building should not be a skill, and players should be able to show up with more or less any combination of units and still have an equal chance of winning (providing they're as skilled as their opponent).
Competers
For Competers, success in 40k isn't a binary state, and who wins or loses a game isn't strictly relevant to who succeeds. What's important to Competers is the competition itself. It's playing a game with a serious chance of losing, but playing to the peak of your abilities to overcome that adversity. The game, in brief, should be a challenge.
This player type is likely to also be the same kind of person who, when they beat a video game, goes back and plays it again on a harder difficulty level, or when they finish a 1,000 piece puzzle, goes out and buys a 2,000 piece one with no edge pieces. They are the kind of person who would run a marathon with 100-pound weights attached to their legs and then, when they finished in the middle of the pack feel pretty good about themselves, because look how many people they beat who weren't running with weights. They are the kind of person who would think more highly of a person who tied a game who had the most disadvantages than they would the other player who was playing the game on "easy mode" even if they got the same result.
Like Winners, Competers have a love-hate relationship with dice. On the one hand, bad die rolls ratchet up the challenge level for whoever rolls them, and gives them an incentive to play harder. On the other a Competer may well have delicately balanced things to provide a specific level of challenge that may be ruined by how the dice roll. Competers also love that the game is imbalanced, as it gives them a deep, rich field of options to work with. I can't see how to make the strongest list of a weak army style or from a weak codex if all armies are roughly equal in strength. I'd be stuck with the brute, crass, and much more boring points handicap (likely a Strategizer invention), and the game would be much more shallow if what pieces I took didn't matter.
List building is a skill, except unlike Winners, the point isn't to make the strongest list, but to make the list that most accurately achieves your objectives, whatever those are. That said, they likely grow weary quickly of those people who bring strong lists and when they win, pass it off as player skill when it was the list, moreso than the skill, that was really responsible. The same is true for players who are lucky. Real skill is determined by how hard something was to achieve, not how many times you achieved it. It's why body-builders lift increasingly heavier weights.
Players
In a way, this group is sort of a catch-all for the remainders. Like Competers, success in 40k is not a binary state, but it takes things even further by placing a low or non-emphasis on player skill. If winning and skill aren't what's important, then what is? Well, that's sort of up to the player.
Most likely, the way to determine if a game or a player has been successful is if they had fun. That can take many forms. For some, it could be zany things happening in a game, while for others it is a chance to display well-painted models in beautiful terrain and have the opportunity to actually do something with them. 40k could be purely a social call - something to do while chatting with friends, or it could be a sandbox for doing minor game design (coming up with interesting new missions, and seeing if they worked well or not). In a way, there are as many ways to determine who the best Player is as there are Players.
Unlike the above types, Players tend to outright embrace the fact that 40k is a dice game, as that random element is almost required to keep things interesting, or to come up with the best stories. Dice, in this case, are as necessary to 40k as they are to D&D or any other role-playing game. Meanwhile, they tend to be rather indifferent to list building and game balance, as neither of these things are required for the game to be fun, and problems can always be house-ruled away whenever they become inconvenient.
Players might roll their eyes at Strategizers for trying to debase such a rich and wonderful game into nothing more than chess with different miniatures, and are often outright hostile towards Winners, who tend to do things in a way that the Player would consider boring, and resent how they try and push their shallow, narrow interpretation of the game on others. "If it's not the strongest at something, it's not worth taking" is the antithesis of everything that the game should be about.
While there is a divide, its usually not as glaring an issue in well made game systems from what i've seen.
I played X-wing the other day with a tourney player, and while I didn't know the first thing about the competitive lists (having only played it once before), I just built a force from his collection and had a good game (I lost but lasted a while and killed more than half his stuff, mostly I think I lost because I wasn't as familiar with the game tactics).
If 40K had better rules and more balance between the armies, even casual players new to the game could still give vets some challenge and still have an enjoyable game for both.
All hobbies I have seen have this problem to an extent.
The casual hobbyist will generally "fall behind" the more involved or more extreme hobbyists.
For example the old janitor that comes to clean my office is really into radio controlled airplanes. Not just flying, but tuning up motors, tweaking all the angles and so on. His planes are much better than those who just like flying or dont have the time or interest in that bit tend to not fare as well in comps. (unless they pay someone to tune up their craft for them.
Same with fishing and boating (I know I mention these a lot but I make my money from anything boat related...). The casual guys come in, buy the basics go out, have some beer and come in with catch. The into it guys take hours discussing the best rods down to millimeters of detail and study currents and weather etc and go out fish hard come home and tweak all their gear.
With all hobbies I can think of this is a thing. The people saying that certain changes will eliminate this gap are wrong as it will always exist. No one is better than the other nor is it a problem until they mix during the activity.
So in my opinion it comes down to not what they want out of a game, but what they want to focus on within the game along with the amount of time invested into it. The casual gamer invests (generally) the same amount of time painting, building and playing the game but the competitive player takes it a step further and researches and tweaks lists.
Not a problem like its made out to be. All hobbies have this divide. But with so few gamers and so much social interaction its hard for our divides to truly get along at all times.
Because people want different things out of their game. Some people want to just play occasionally without putting much effort into the game beyond the time they spend actually playing it, and have no interest in forums, spending tons of time writing lists, etc. Some people love building and painting the models, and just play because hey, why not, they've already got the models. Some people love the fluff and want to create an army that perfectly represents a "real" army from the background fiction. Some people love strategy and competition and spend lots of time and effort trying to be the best at their game.
The only thing different between GW games and other games is that GW's rules are so utterly broken that attempting to have a game between two players from different groups is usually not a fun experience for at least one player. This leads to the various groups seeing each other as enemies that are ruining the game, rather than fellow players who have slightly different preferences.
Ailaros wrote: Also, this group doesn't want there to be serious game balance. Part of the fun is to come up with stronger and stronger combinations of units to give them that edge. If every army were roughly as powerful, then you wouldn't get to use your peak brainpower to come up with secret combinations that others didn't know about that would allow you to crush your opponents. List building is a skill, after all, and not everyone is as skilled as others.
Nope. You might have had a point in 1980, but the internet exists now. A game with poor balance will be "solved" very quickly, and the best possible lists will be freely available to even low-skill players. The only players your "winner" will beat through list superiority in an unbalanced game will be newbies (who don't offer a satisfying challenge) and people who refuse to play with the best options. Your "winner" archetype wants a balanced game because it rewards careful analysis and finding your own perfect combination, instead of just looking up what the most overpowered options are and taking them. This puts the power lists out of reach for most people, rather than letting anyone with a few minutes of time find one.
List building should not be a skill, and players should be able to show up with more or less any combination of units and still have an equal chance of winning (providing they're as skilled as their opponent).
Sorry, but you can keep insisting all you want that list building isn't or shouldn't be a skill, but you're still wrong. "Strategy" players also like list-building and recognize that it's part of the game. For example, in MTG the equivalent player archetype loves tinkering with new decks and looking for the perfect strategy, not just perfecting their own play once the game begins. In any other game a "strategy" player would be happy if their superior strategy in list/deck/etc construction wins the game for them, because they're better at that aspect of the game.
All you're really doing here is pointing out that 40k has terrible balance and isn't very satisfying for "strategy" players, since list building consists of taking the obvious overpowered units that everyone figured out from the leaked scans before the codex was even officially released.
Competers also love that the game is imbalanced, as it gives them a deep, rich field of options to work with. I can't see how to make the strongest list of a weak army style or from a weak codex if all armies are roughly equal in strength.
This is only true if you're obsessed with this masochistic idea of crippling yourself to prove how awesome you are when you "overcome" those poor decisions and don't lose too badly. For everyone but you this kind of approach is incredibly frustrating. It's annoying to have to deliberately make bad decisions and treat your opponent like a small child, and it's annoying to have half the game off-limits no matter how much you love the fluff/models of those units because they're too powerful.
I'd be stuck with the brute, crass, and much more boring points handicap (likely a Strategizer invention)
Yeah, what a TFG, coming up with an elegant solution that allows you to adjust the difficulty of the game without having to make fundamental changes in what models/units you like to use or carry around multiple armies worth of stuff to fine-tune your army for each opponent. I can't imagine a hellish world in which you show up for a 1500 point game, realize that your opponent's list is too weak to be an interesting challenge, and just drop a unit from your army and start playing the game. It's obviously much more fun to be forced to paint a bunch of ratlings and rough riders because your fluffy armored company army is too powerful.
Though I guess I'm omitting the most important part here: your masochistic self-crippling allows you to congratulate yourself about how you're playing the game on "hard mode" and provides a convenient excuse when you lose. Merely playing with 100 points less than your opponent won't give you the satisfaction of telling all the Tau players they're TFG sociopaths because they don't use melee units.
Unlike the above types, Players tend to outright embrace the fact that 40k is a dice game, as that random element is almost required to keep things interesting, or to come up with the best stories.
Yeah, like the story of how the space marine captain leading a melee-focused army randomly woke up one morning with shooting-focused leadership skills. Some amount of fairly predictable randomness helps in storytelling by adding an element of surprise, but that's very far from 40k's obsession with random tables and replacing storytelling with random dice.
Meanwhile, they tend to be rather indifferent to list building and game balance, as neither of these things are required for the game to be fun
Yep. Casual players don't care about game balance. They don't mind at all when someone brings a much more powerful army and crushes them, or when they have to negotiate before every game and convince their opponents to go easy on their poor 4th edition orks. And I'm sure these people love being told that their army full of Riptides (who doesn't love giant robots?) is "cheese" and they're not allowed to use it anymore.
Swastakowey wrote:With all hobbies I can think of this is a thing. The people saying that certain changes will eliminate this gap are wrong as it will always exist. No one is better than the other nor is it a problem until they mix during the activity.
I'm not a hunter myself, but I know that hunting also has this. In the case of hunting, at least, it's seen as a progression. New people show up and want to try things out, and then they take things seriously, and then they graduate to enjoying things for its own sake.
The 40k community has yet to positively establish the trend of tournament players as those on the middle rung yet. Probably because 40k is such a new activity (compared to, say, hunting).
---
So, I just went through and read that link I posted, and I'm shocked by how it pairs with what I wrote above. Clearly this must have been rattling around in the back of my mind when I wrote it.
Because the similarities are very stark. First you have people who just want to try out the game, and success is just in getting minis on the table at all (a category I overlooked), and then the point is to not just to be able to shoot the gun, for a hunter, but it's to hit the target, and to do so as much as possible (in the case of 40k winning games), and then the point is to get the biggest, most prestigious achievements (18-point bucks for hunters, placing in the top three at NOVA for 40k players), and then the point is about method, including handicap (selecting only certain kinds of game to hunt, or restricting yourself to using only bows for hunters, or, well, all that challenger stuff I said about 40k players), eventually getting to the point where you've already bagged enough game, large and small, easily and difficultly that you just enjoy hunting for the sake of hunting, or just playing 40k for the sake of playing 40k.
That being said, it's interesting how much dakka exists to move people from noobs into winners (the entire army list section, YMDC, and almost all of the tactics board), and what little is left is mostly from winners to strategizers (tournament battle reports, and the rest of the tactics board).
And this comes back to balance. Like I said, balance seemed less of an issue in these. In Pathfinder, I see people who bring gunslingers or zen Archers get eye rolls because they steamroll through things, making games unfun
But it's not. These divisions exist in EVERY HOBBY.
Even in ones, like 40k, where 3/4 of the player types WANT there to be game imbalance, or at least are apathetic to it.
Only one kind of 40k player yearns for 40k to be a well-balanced game, and that kind of player is in the minority, both categorically and numerically. If you can't break out of your own box and look around you, then these divisions will never make any sense.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And this comes back to balance. Like I said, balance seemed less of an issue in these. In Pathfinder, I see people who bring gunslingers or zen Archers get eye rolls because they steamroll through things, making games unfun
if Peregrine is involved in a discussion two divergent concepts inevitably merge: balance and Forge World...
Swastakowey wrote:With all hobbies I can think of this is a thing. The people saying that certain changes will eliminate this gap are wrong as it will always exist. No one is better than the other nor is it a problem until they mix during the activity.
I'm not a hunter myself, but I know that hunting also has this. In the case of hunting, at least, it's seen as a progression. New people show up and want to try things out, and then they take things seriously, and then they graduate to enjoying things for its own sake.
The 40k community has yet to positively establish the trend of tournament players as those on the middle rung yet. Probably because 40k is such a new activity (compared to, say, hunting).
---
So, I just went through and read that link I posted, and I'm shocked by how it pairs with what I wrote above. Clearly this must have been rattling around in the back of my mind when I wrote it.
Because the similarities are very stark. First you have people who just want to try out the game, and success is just in getting minis on the table at all (a category I overlooked), and then the point is to not just to be able to shoot the gun, for a hunter, but it's to hit the target, and to do so as much as possible (in the case of 40k winning games), and then the point is to get the biggest, most prestigious achievements (18-point bucks for hunters, placing in the top three at NOVA for 40k players), and then the point is about method, including handicap (selecting only certain kinds of game to hunt, or restricting yourself to using only bows for hunters, or, well, all that challenger stuff I said about 40k players), eventually getting to the point where you've already bagged enough game, large and small, easily and difficultly that you just enjoy hunting for the sake of hunting, or just playing 40k for the sake of playing 40k.
That being said, it's interesting how much dakka exists to move people from noobs into winners (the entire army list section, YMDC, and almost all of the tactics board), and what little is left is mostly from winners to strategizers (tournament battle reports, and the rest of the tactics board).
Yea I agree, I was reading thorugh that thinking about the stages my friends and I have been through and the stages the kids at the club are going through as they grow up etc.
Very interesting indeed. Especially that last sentence. The real problems start when people are thrust forward rather than seeking their own answers.
When someone buys a boats we dont thrust them into all the tips and tricks, we show them the bare basics and let them grow from there. As they upgrade and come in for gear and services you see them go through all sorts of stages as they work themselves out in their hobby. But then there are the guys who look online and figure out all these "tips and tricks" but they have something to be upset about and also spend a lot of money on the latest and greatest gear, only to come back and replace it again and so on.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And this comes back to balance. Like I said, balance seemed less of an issue in these. In Pathfinder, I see people who bring gunslingers or zen Archers get eye rolls because they steamroll through things, making games unfun
if Peregrine is involved in a discussion two divergent concepts inevitably merge: balance and Forge World...
Agreed. And the use of the words:
utterly,
convulsive,
bloated,
mess.
Pretty predictable now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: And this comes back to balance. Like I said, balance seemed less of an issue in these. In Pathfinder, I see people who bring gunslingers or zen Archers get eye rolls because they steamroll through things, making games unfun
Ailaros wrote: Even in ones, like 40k, where 3/4 of the player types WANT there to be game imbalance, or at least are apathetic to it.
Only because GW have convinced the other 3/4 that balance is bad (or at least irrelevant) so that they don't have to pay for the design and playtesting required to make balanced rules. It's just unfortunate that you can't seem to figure out that you're stuck on a concept that exists for the sole purpose of increasing GW's profits at the expense of the quality of their games.
Ailaros wrote: Even in ones, like 40k, where 3/4 of the player types WANT there to be game imbalance, or at least are apathetic to it.
Only because GW have convinced the other 3/4 that balance is bad (or at least irrelevant) so that they don't have to pay for the design and playtesting required to make balanced rules. It's just unfortunate that you can't seem to figure out that you're stuck on a concept that exists for the sole purpose of increasing GW's profits.
so I guess what is being said is that Necrons need to be good in close combat, Tyranids and Orks shoot well, and Imperial Guard fearless. yes, this game sucks. so unfair.
Casual Players completely understand all the rules, all the advantages, all the disadvantages, and have access to the exact same books as everyone else. We understand Death Star vs. Death Star.
Warhammer 40k and any other tabletop game can be played with rules and coins on the floor.
Oh, I know he has me blocked. TBH it's much better that way, I get to point out exactly why he's wrong about everything but I don't have to deal with the same old tedious back and forth of an Ailaros thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
viewfinder wrote: so I guess what is being said is that Necrons need to be good in close combat, Tyranids and Orks shoot well, and Imperial Guard fearless. yes, this game sucks. so unfair.
Well, if by "being said" you count the post you just made saying it. Because that's the only place those ridiculous ideas are being said.
Oh, I know he has me blocked. TBH it's much better that way, I get to point out exactly why he's wrong about everything but I don't have to deal with the same old tedious back and forth of an Ailaros thread.
To many of us its an annoying thread where you speak to a wall. He isnt wrong about anything either. Just like your jibberish, his jibberish is opinion. I might do what he does, it will be a nice change. Enjoy being a big man talking tall to someone who cant hear you on the internet.
The people that don't want balance are the ones that don't understand what it is. They think it means sameness. It doesn't. I means that every unit has a viable purpose depending on what kind of army you want to run.
MWHistorian wrote: The people that don't want balance are the ones that don't understand what it is. They think it means sameness. It doesn't. I means that every unit has a viable purpose depending on what kind of army you want to run.
Balance =/= sameness...or chess.
The idea that balance is bad is absurd.
Well I have played many games over the years and the ones with the most balance (namely historical usually) have all had very similar units. With minor differences in moral or training. Nothing like 40k.
I havent played infinity (the models are dreadfully ugly to me) but with only 8-20 models on the board, it doesnt seem hard to achieve balance even with complex rules. Same with X wing, the guys at the club only have around 6-15 models a team. I dont play it because im not into starwars. But the other games I have played plenty of, where large scale and balanced but had very similar units. Weapons werent really a thing, it was all on training and moral as many historic games are.
People shout out about how they can fix the game (in their opinion fix) and write a very brief paragraph about what they would fix. But in reality the details are much more complex and I highly doubt anyone could write a balanced rule set keeping all the units and factions that 40k has. Not without standardizing most of the gear and stats.
There may be games out there that are 40k in terms of unit, faction and weapon amounts that are balanced but I have not seen them. They are small and balanced with mediocre variation - large and standardized - small and standardized. Very simply put anyways.
So how can balanced be achieved without massed standardization? In depth please, because I (like many gamers) arent convinced. Especially since the reason many play 40k is for all the units and choices we get to make when modeling and list making.
A bit late but I do agree 40k can be more balanced. But not balanced.
Ailaros wrote: But it's not. These divisions exist in EVERY HOBBY.
Even in ones, like 40k, where 3/4 of the player types WANT there to be game imbalance, or at least are apathetic to it.
Only one kind of 40k player yearns for 40k to be a well-balanced game, and that kind of player is in the minority, both categorically and numerically. If you can't break out of your own box and look around you, then these divisions will never make any sense.
I can't imagine that someone wishes for an unbalanced rules.
Well, at lasts that's what I thought until I read this quote from the frontline gamming fourms:
Let me put t this way, Some people like me, Need those absurdly good OP units to even HOPE to stand a chance against some of the best players out there. I feel as if I can go to a GT and not just feel like I will get bent over the table my first game. Some of us arent so good we can win with DE or Orks. Some of us need help in that department
I'm not often a fan of actively labelling whole groups of people but if we just do it the right amount of times we'll get to an imperfect balance in which the community is sooo fractured its various parts will stop remembering the rest of the community exists and will live on in a blissfull stupor in their respective tiny bubbles.
It seems with 6th everyone draws a line at some point but those lines don't always matchup. With too much in, you eventually have nothing because everyones playing a very different game. Balance is just as much a problem of format as any other factor. I already hear your shrill nasally voice "its simple, it's about communication. is that so.." wait, stop, shut feth up, please. Communication used to be real easy "how many points?" eventually it was "you wanna play apoc Y/N?." Easy. Based on your answers you maybe could have still in the end been pegged as one "type" of player but at least the politics were easier to grasp back then and certainly not so daunting. It's a challenge not sounding cynical or condescending communicating that something might not be your cup of tea these days. I fear lengthy conversations often just outline more and more diversity of opinion on the game, and that's the crux of the problem, gw has left it to us to fix their game so that all misanthropy resulting from that lack of balance or formatting is redirected at the playerbase. Don't hate the game, hate the player is what defines 6th edition for many. It's really stupid, like yolo level 14 year old stupid thinking.
What do I know though, I'm just a whiner. And a casual tournament player.
MWHistorian wrote: The people that don't want balance are the ones that don't understand what it is. They think it means sameness. It doesn't. I means that every unit has a viable purpose depending on what kind of army you want to run.
Balance =/= sameness...or chess.
The idea that balance is bad is absurd.
Well I have played many games over the years and the ones with the most balance (namely historical usually) have all had very similar units. With minor differences in moral or training. Nothing like 40k.
I havent played infinity (the models are dreadfully ugly to me) but with only 8-20 models on the board, it doesnt seem hard to achieve balance even with complex rules. Same with X wing, the guys at the club only have around 6-15 models a team. I dont play it because im not into starwars. But the other games I have played plenty of, where large scale and balanced but had very similar units. Weapons werent really a thing, it was all on training and moral as many historic games are.
People shout out about how they can fix the game (in their opinion fix) and write a very brief paragraph about what they would fix. But in reality the details are much more complex and I highly doubt anyone could write a balanced rule set keeping all the units and factions that 40k has. Not without standardizing most of the gear and stats.
There may be games out there that are 40k in terms of unit, faction and weapon amounts that are balanced but I have not seen them. They are small and balanced with mediocre variation - large and standardized - small and standardized. Very simply put anyways.
So how can balanced be achieved without massed standardization? In depth please, because I (like many gamers) arent convinced. Especially since the reason many play 40k is for all the units and choices we get to make when modeling and list making.
We can start with the units that are so useless that they actually hurt your chance of winning if you use them. That's not good for gaming because no one's going to take them, thus limiting your actual choices from the codex. Example: Penitent Engine. The thing is an open topped walker that won't survive to reach combat. It's a complete point sink and utterly useless. To make it viable, give it some rule to help it get into combat. Give it a jink save, out flank or make it much faster. Another unit that needs help. Mutilators. They're a CC unit that is slow, no grenades or anything to help it assault, and basically sucks at the one thing it was made for. Give it some buffs to help it become viable.
So, go through the codexes and make the useless units usable. What we want is when we have several units in an FOC slot and you have a hard time picking which one you want because they're all, just good at different things.
Step Two: Go through the codexes and find the units that are way too good. For example, that Eldar falcon. It's a transport, its got a jink, shield and the shield can shoot off and kill everything....and its cheap and you can take a ton of them. Take away that stupid shield blast or nerf the crap out of it. That would make it less cheese. Make the Riptide more expensive because it's simply too good for what it does. Now go through and find any other units that are too good for what they cost and fix them up.
Step three: Find the cheap combinations, or......actually, just get rid of battle brothers. that would get rid of most cheap combinations right there.
Step four: Find other imbalances such as armies with no access to AA and fix that. Stop pricing CC units like CC hasn't been nerfed by 6th.
Step five: Play test and play test. "Oh? Death Wing armies are torn apart by most other armies? Oh, we better give them something to help them a little."
It's not friggin rocket science. Will it be perfect? No. Nothing is. Will it be a heck of a lot better? Yes.
MWHistorian wrote: The people that don't want balance are the ones that don't understand what it is. They think it means sameness. It doesn't. I means that every unit has a viable purpose depending on what kind of army you want to run.
Balance =/= sameness...or chess.
The idea that balance is bad is absurd.
Well I have played many games over the years and the ones with the most balance (namely historical usually) have all had very similar units. With minor differences in moral or training. Nothing like 40k.
I havent played infinity (the models are dreadfully ugly to me) but with only 8-20 models on the board, it doesnt seem hard to achieve balance even with complex rules. Same with X wing, the guys at the club only have around 6-15 models a team. I dont play it because im not into starwars. But the other games I have played plenty of, where large scale and balanced but had very similar units. Weapons werent really a thing, it was all on training and moral as many historic games are.
People shout out about how they can fix the game (in their opinion fix) and write a very brief paragraph about what they would fix. But in reality the details are much more complex and I highly doubt anyone could write a balanced rule set keeping all the units and factions that 40k has. Not without standardizing most of the gear and stats.
There may be games out there that are 40k in terms of unit, faction and weapon amounts that are balanced but I have not seen them. They are small and balanced with mediocre variation - large and standardized - small and standardized. Very simply put anyways.
So how can balanced be achieved without massed standardization? In depth please, because I (like many gamers) arent convinced. Especially since the reason many play 40k is for all the units and choices we get to make when modeling and list making.
We can start with the units that are so useless that they actually hurt your chance of winning if you use them. That's not good for gaming because no one's going to take them, thus limiting your actual choices from the codex. Example: Penitent Engine. The thing is an open topped walker that won't survive to reach combat. It's a complete point sink and utterly useless. To make it viable, give it some rule to help it get into combat. Give it a jink save, out flank or make it much faster. Another unit that needs help. Mutilators. They're a CC unit that is slow, no grenades or anything to help it assault, and basically sucks at the one thing it was made for. Give it some buffs to help it become viable.
So, go through the codexes and make the useless units usable. What we want is when we have several units in an FOC slot and you have a hard time picking which one you want because they're all, just good at different things.
Step Two: Go through the codexes and find the units that are way too good. For example, that Eldar falcon. It's a transport, its got a jink, shield and the shield can shoot off and kill everything....and its cheap and you can take a ton of them. Take away that stupid shield blast or nerf the crap out of it. That would make it less cheese. Make the Riptide more expensive because it's simply too good for what it does. Now go through and find any other units that are too good for what they cost and fix them up.
Step three: Find the cheap combinations, or......actually, just get rid of battle brothers. that would get rid of most cheap combinations right there.
Step four: Find other imbalances such as armies with no access to AA and fix that. Stop pricing CC units like CC hasn't been nerfed by 6th.
Step five: Play test and play test. "Oh? Death Wing armies are torn apart by most other armies? Oh, we better give them something to help them a little."
It's not friggin rocket science. Will it be perfect? No. Nothing is. Will it be a heck of a lot better? Yes.
Quickly look at my last post for a wee update I forgot to add.
Thats certainly a start. It may improve the game. But more likely, it will just change whats good and whats bad. Do you think 40k players that make lists based on competitiveness will not take a unit because its only slightly better than another unit instead of drastically better?
I mean people nit pick over a few wounds of improvement between units. Unless the game is rewritten completely I dont think balance is possible. But if its rewritten completely it certainly wont be anything like the game we have now. So there is gonna be no guarantee people will like it either. After all we all played 40k for a reason in the first place. For many it was seeing a large army where you can completely make it from the ground up. Do you really think the game can be balanced but retain the nature of 40k that attracts many players today?
I personally dont think it can. Thats not to say a new 40k wont be a good game. It just wont be 40k. I think if anything it would be like playing one of the other popular games but with 40k models. Which i can do now if I wanted.
It probably wasnt well written, but in short nearly balanced isnt balanced.
I am 100% certain even if GW made a balanced edition, people will complain. Simply because its popular.
Just take the units that are not as good and reduce their points by 10% (rounded to 1 if below) If they are still considered useless, lower the points again. If they are now OP increase the points back another 5%.
You don't have to change any of the rules. Just make the less good units less points to reflect their lower ability. It doesn't have to happen overnight, but the striving towards balance would make for a better game in my opinion.
It would also enable GW to sell more units. Don't see how it is a bad thing at all.
Bottle wrote: Just take the units that are not as good and reduce their points by 10% (rounded to 1 if below) If they are still considered useless, lower the points again. If they are now OP increase the points back another 5%.
You don't have to change any of the rules. Just make the less good units less points to reflect their lower ability. It doesn't have to happen overnight, but the striving towards balance would make for a better game in my opinion.
It would also enable GW to sell more units. Don't see how it is a bad thing at all.
Never said bad, just not possible. If its so easy to do, youd think it will be done very quickly by a group of gamers who know the game very well.
Bottle wrote: Sadly, this likely won't happen until all the codexes become digital and then "balance patches" could be released.
Thats very true, many problems can be fixed if all was digital. But as it is people will have to make do.
But anyways this talk of balance doesnt have much to do with the great divide. The great divide is present in all hobbies. Regardless of balance issues
MWHistorian wrote: The people that don't want balance are the ones that don't understand what it is. They think it means sameness. It doesn't. I means that every unit has a viable purpose depending on what kind of army you want to run.
Balance =/= sameness...or chess.
The idea that balance is bad is absurd.
Well I have played many games over the years and the ones with the most balance (namely historical usually) have all had very similar units. With minor differences in moral or training. Nothing like 40k.
I havent played infinity (the models are dreadfully ugly to me) but with only 8-20 models on the board, it doesnt seem hard to achieve balance even with complex rules. Same with X wing, the guys at the club only have around 6-15 models a team. I dont play it because im not into starwars. But the other games I have played plenty of, where large scale and balanced but had very similar units. Weapons werent really a thing, it was all on training and moral as many historic games are.
People shout out about how they can fix the game (in their opinion fix) and write a very brief paragraph about what they would fix. But in reality the details are much more complex and I highly doubt anyone could write a balanced rule set keeping all the units and factions that 40k has. Not without standardizing most of the gear and stats.
There may be games out there that are 40k in terms of unit, faction and weapon amounts that are balanced but I have not seen them. They are small and balanced with mediocre variation - large and standardized - small and standardized. Very simply put anyways.
So how can balanced be achieved without massed standardization? In depth please, because I (like many gamers) arent convinced. Especially since the reason many play 40k is for all the units and choices we get to make when modeling and list making.
We can start with the units that are so useless that they actually hurt your chance of winning if you use them. That's not good for gaming because no one's going to take them, thus limiting your actual choices from the codex. Example: Penitent Engine. The thing is an open topped walker that won't survive to reach combat. It's a complete point sink and utterly useless. To make it viable, give it some rule to help it get into combat. Give it a jink save, out flank or make it much faster. Another unit that needs help. Mutilators. They're a CC unit that is slow, no grenades or anything to help it assault, and basically sucks at the one thing it was made for. Give it some buffs to help it become viable.
So, go through the codexes and make the useless units usable. What we want is when we have several units in an FOC slot and you have a hard time picking which one you want because they're all, just good at different things.
Step Two: Go through the codexes and find the units that are way too good. For example, that Eldar falcon. It's a transport, its got a jink, shield and the shield can shoot off and kill everything....and its cheap and you can take a ton of them. Take away that stupid shield blast or nerf the crap out of it. That would make it less cheese. Make the Riptide more expensive because it's simply too good for what it does. Now go through and find any other units that are too good for what they cost and fix them up.
Step three: Find the cheap combinations, or......actually, just get rid of battle brothers. that would get rid of most cheap combinations right there.
Step four: Find other imbalances such as armies with no access to AA and fix that. Stop pricing CC units like CC hasn't been nerfed by 6th.
Step five: Play test and play test. "Oh? Death Wing armies are torn apart by most other armies? Oh, we better give them something to help them a little."
It's not friggin rocket science. Will it be perfect? No. Nothing is. Will it be a heck of a lot better? Yes.
Quickly look at my last post for a wee update I forgot to add.
Thats certainly a start. It may improve the game. But more likely, it will just change whats good and whats bad. Do you think 40k players that make lists based on competitiveness will not take a unit because its only slightly better than another unit instead of drastically better?
I mean people nit pick over a few wounds of improvement between units. Unless the game is rewritten completely I dont think balance is possible. But if its rewritten completely it certainly wont be anything like the game we have now. So there is gonna be no guarantee people will like it either. After all we all played 40k for a reason in the first place. For many it was seeing a large army where you can completely make it from the ground up. Do you really think the game can be balanced but retain the nature of 40k that attracts many players today?
I personally dont think it can. Thats not to say a new 40k wont be a good game. It just wont be 40k. I think if anything it would be like playing one of the other popular games but with 40k models. Which i can do now if I wanted.
It probably wasnt well written, but in short nearly balanced isnt balanced.
I am 100% certain even if GW made a balanced edition, people will complain. Simply because its popular.
[spoiler]
So, we shouldn't try for balance because it's impossible. Better isn't something to try for?
From what I understand, you say we shouldn't try for balance, even though it would make the game better, because true balance is impossible? Perfect is the enemy of good.
And as to what this has to do with the divide of player types is that if the game was balanced, the divide would be far smaller than it is now.
MWHistorian wrote: The people that don't want balance are the ones that don't understand what it is. They think it means sameness. It doesn't. I means that every unit has a viable purpose depending on what kind of army you want to run.
Balance =/= sameness...or chess.
The idea that balance is bad is absurd.
Well I have played many games over the years and the ones with the most balance (namely historical usually) have all had very similar units. With minor differences in moral or training. Nothing like 40k.
I havent played infinity (the models are dreadfully ugly to me) but with only 8-20 models on the board, it doesnt seem hard to achieve balance even with complex rules. Same with X wing, the guys at the club only have around 6-15 models a team. I dont play it because im not into starwars. But the other games I have played plenty of, where large scale and balanced but had very similar units. Weapons werent really a thing, it was all on training and moral as many historic games are.
People shout out about how they can fix the game (in their opinion fix) and write a very brief paragraph about what they would fix. But in reality the details are much more complex and I highly doubt anyone could write a balanced rule set keeping all the units and factions that 40k has. Not without standardizing most of the gear and stats.
There may be games out there that are 40k in terms of unit, faction and weapon amounts that are balanced but I have not seen them. They are small and balanced with mediocre variation - large and standardized - small and standardized. Very simply put anyways.
So how can balanced be achieved without massed standardization? In depth please, because I (like many gamers) arent convinced. Especially since the reason many play 40k is for all the units and choices we get to make when modeling and list making.
We can start with the units that are so useless that they actually hurt your chance of winning if you use them. That's not good for gaming because no one's going to take them, thus limiting your actual choices from the codex. Example: Penitent Engine. The thing is an open topped walker that won't survive to reach combat. It's a complete point sink and utterly useless. To make it viable, give it some rule to help it get into combat. Give it a jink save, out flank or make it much faster. Another unit that needs help. Mutilators. They're a CC unit that is slow, no grenades or anything to help it assault, and basically sucks at the one thing it was made for. Give it some buffs to help it become viable. So, go through the codexes and make the useless units usable. What we want is when we have several units in an FOC slot and you have a hard time picking which one you want because they're all, just good at different things.
Step Two: Go through the codexes and find the units that are way too good. For example, that Eldar falcon. It's a transport, its got a jink, shield and the shield can shoot off and kill everything....and its cheap and you can take a ton of them. Take away that stupid shield blast or nerf the crap out of it. That would make it less cheese. Make the Riptide more expensive because it's simply too good for what it does. Now go through and find any other units that are too good for what they cost and fix them up.
Step three: Find the cheap combinations, or......actually, just get rid of battle brothers. that would get rid of most cheap combinations right there.
Step four: Find other imbalances such as armies with no access to AA and fix that. Stop pricing CC units like CC hasn't been nerfed by 6th.
Step five: Play test and play test. "Oh? Death Wing armies are torn apart by most other armies? Oh, we better give them something to help them a little."
It's not friggin rocket science. Will it be perfect? No. Nothing is. Will it be a heck of a lot better? Yes.
Quickly look at my last post for a wee update I forgot to add.
Thats certainly a start. It may improve the game. But more likely, it will just change whats good and whats bad. Do you think 40k players that make lists based on competitiveness will not take a unit because its only slightly better than another unit instead of drastically better?
I mean people nit pick over a few wounds of improvement between units. Unless the game is rewritten completely I dont think balance is possible. But if its rewritten completely it certainly wont be anything like the game we have now. So there is gonna be no guarantee people will like it either. After all we all played 40k for a reason in the first place. For many it was seeing a large army where you can completely make it from the ground up. Do you really think the game can be balanced but retain the nature of 40k that attracts many players today?
I personally dont think it can. Thats not to say a new 40k wont be a good game. It just wont be 40k. I think if anything it would be like playing one of the other popular games but with 40k models. Which i can do now if I wanted.
It probably wasnt well written, but in short nearly balanced isnt balanced.
I am 100% certain even if GW made a balanced edition, people will complain. Simply because its popular.
So, we shouldn't try for balance because it's impossible. Better isn't something to try for? From what I understand, you say we shouldn't try for balance, even though it would make the game better, because true balance is impossible? Perfect is the enemy of good.
And as to what this has to do with the divide of player types is that if the game was balanced, the divide would be far smaller than it is now.
No, what I mean is balance can be better (please read what i say) but not balanced. Not without standardizing and reducing the possible game sizes. Balance is not possible without heaps o changing. As you have yourself admitted.
And thats an assumption. There will always be a divide regardless.
When I used to play at a club (so semi-competitively) it seemed to me that it was often the person who argued the most about the little points of contention that won. I just didn't care enough about a game of toy soldiers to spend my time arguing (but still had a decent record). For me, the competitive scene is the antithesis of what this game is all about, and against what the designers clearly intended it to be.
So maybe the split is more simple - those who attach significance to winning a game of toy soldiers, (I.e. "I am somehow better than you because I beat you") and those who don't. My sense of self-worth doesn't come from winning games of 40k.
However I don't think the divide is an issue - it's really simple to choose who you do or do not play against.
viewfinder wrote: stop whining about balance. I have yet to hear a chess player who plays black cry that the game is out-of-balance. either play or stop complaining.
Two issues with that, first the only "imbalance" in chess is white goes first, everything else is balanced, and in more competitive environments the players usually switch position
NamelessBard wrote:I can't imagine that someone wishes for an unbalanced rules.
Lots of people do.
People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games. It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to. It's why list building is considered a skill.
If everyone showed up with the same chance of winning, you might as well play flip-a-coin. It's the opportunity to use one's intellect to advantage that's important, and you can't do that without game imbalance.
On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.
Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.
If you spend hours doing research and calculation and careful list building, and in the end you have the same chance of winning as anyone else, that's going to be deeply frustrating to anyone who wants to be able to use their cleverness to their advantage.
If you spend hours doing research and calculation and careful list building, and in the end you have the same chance of winning as anyone else, that's going to be deeply frustrating to anyone who wants to be able to use their cleverness to their advantage.
Use your cleverness on the battlefield. Too much of this game is already decided with codex choice and the list building step. Too many battles are foregone conclusions after set up. The game becomes easier to predict the more dice that are rolled, since each player then becomes a slave to averages because of the law of large amounts of dice.
If the only thing you want is to win, then you're going to want as many avenues as possible to gain an advantage over your opponent. If choosing one 40k list over another had no more impact on the result of the game than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking red in settlers of ctan, then you've closed off a method for gaining advantage over your opponent, and thus, of winning.
It's not to say that if you close off one option that means that therefore there are no options. But it doesn't change the fact that less is less.
It's why people who play games to win don't play simple, easy games, generally. Over time they engage in very complicated things like warfare or pit fighting. Or, in contemporary times, they will bias towards games that have huge, complex systems, like playing the stock market or 40k.
Ailaros wrote: People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games.
No, they want balanced games because games with poor balance are easy to "solve" even if you're a less-skilled player. When every random newbie can spend a few minutes searching online and discover Riptide spam the "skilled" player has no real advantage. What they actually want is a balanced game because it makes identifying the advantages in list building much more difficult and excludes the less skilled/determined players.
The only people who want poorly balanced games are the seal clubbers who take the most powerful lists possible and then refuse to play anyone who isn't a newbie or "fluff" player with a weak list. But those people are so rare that they might as well not exist.
It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to.
Lol, no.
1) Everyone has access to FW. It's 2014, buying FW stuff online is no more difficult than buying some new orks online.
2) FW rules are not an auto-win no matter how many times you keep claiming it. Most of them are weaker than average, and the few overpowered things aren't any more overpowered than the overpowered codex stuff. So WAAC players will obviously exploit the overpowered FW rules in a FW-legal environment, but they would prefer to ban FW so they can exploit the cheaper codex rules instead and win just as easily.
On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.
Yeah, it's just awesome that the only way to use, say, rough riders is if you want to deliberately take a weak list to give yourself a bigger challenge. If you just like the fluff/models then too bad, have fun losing games. This is so obviously superior to the alternative, which is a balanced game where you make things harder on yourself by taking fewer points.
Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.
No, you just don't understand what game balance is. Balance doesn't mean that every combination of choices, no matter how bad, is equally effective. It means that every option has an appropriate price and is a viable choice in the right situation, and that there is a wide range of potential winning strategies to use. It doesn't mean that you can deliberately make the worst list you can and still have a chance of winning.
But of course you know this because we've told you countless times. I expect you'll just continue to ignore it and keep posting the same ridiculous claims.
". If choosing one 40k list over another had no more impact on the result of the game than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking red in settlers of ctan, then you've closed off a method for gaining advantage over your opponent, and thus, of winning. "
Not true. That's where "different, but equal comes in". Think of the Starcraft paradigm where marines counter immortals which counter tanks which counter banelings that counter marines. These units are not the same, yet are all fair, since there is a circle of counter units.
Too many units in 40K have inefficient counters, because the rules for that unit are too strong.
tyrannosaurus wrote: When I used to play at a club (so semi-competitively) it seemed to me that it was often the person who argued the most about the little points of contention that won. I just didn't care enough about a game of toy soldiers to spend my time arguing (but still had a decent record). For me, the competitive scene is the antithesis of what this game is all about, and against what the designers clearly intended it to be.
Same here, at our gaming group we all hate playing against "that guy" because every single thing will be contested. Your units will never get cover but his always will, he can see behind buildings, he tended to move his models very quickly after measuring distances, etc. So we all just avoid playing him. Even if I play against someone with a powerful tau list that i have little chance of beating, at least i'll have fun playing it.
I think it's pretty obvious by how certain people conduct themselves online what sort of player they are. Honestly with some of the things people say, especially in rules disputes where people justify insane bending of the rules to do things that were clearly never intended, but in their minds that's "just playing by the rules", I'm surprised some people can find anyone to play with at all.
1) Everyone has access to FW. It's 2014, buying FW stuff online is no more difficult than buying some new orks online.
It is you can order stuff from online shops and you don't pay additional taxs ,and you can pay on delivery , you don't need a credit card to buy stuff. You can also order stuff at an online store and pick it up in their brick and mortar stuff. We have a GW in Poland and people though it is going to be awesome way to buy FW , till on open day they were told that they can view the FW stuff , but can order it only from FW directly.
2) FW rules are not an auto-win no matter how many times you keep claiming it. Most of them are weaker than average, and the few overpowered things aren't any more overpowered than the overpowered codex stuff. So WAAC players will obviously exploit the overpowered FW rules in a FW-legal environment, but they would prefer to ban FW so they can exploit the cheaper codex rules instead and win just as easily.
Because leting a limited number of people upgrade their armies with FW , while most can't would help the balance. I would rather play against taudar, seerstars all weekend , then have to play them and FW eldar titans or warhounds.
Makumba wrote: It is you can order stuff from online shops and you don't pay additional taxs ,and you can pay on delivery , you don't need a credit card to buy stuff. You can also order stuff at an online store and pick it up in their brick and mortar stuff. We have a GW in Poland and people though it is going to be awesome way to buy FW , till on open day they were told that they can view the FW stuff , but can order it only from FW directly.
I admit that maybe things suck in Poland, but that was in reply to someone living in the US. And here there's no excuse for whining about how FW is "hard to get" because it isn't any harder than buying from "main" GW or ordering a pizza.
Because leting a limited number of people upgrade their armies with FW , while most can't would help the balance. I would rather play against taudar, seerstars all weekend , then have to play them and FW eldar titans or warhounds.
That's a problem with escalation, not FW. You'll note that the Revenant titan is in the "core GW" escalation book, even though the model is sold by FW. You can buy the escalation book from GW and then scratchbuild a model without ever having to touch a FW product. Meanwhile non-escalation FW units are no worse than the codex units you already have to deal with.
The only way I can see Forgeworld being harder to obtain is if you don't want/can't get a credit card. Even then I am sure you could just pay a relative to order the crap for you with their credit card. So, yeah, that argument is complete crap.
Question, Makumba. If the Titans themselves were made by Games Workshop would you be more okay with them?
TheCustomLime wrote: The only way I can see Forgeworld being harder to obtain is if you don't want/can't get a credit card. Even then I am sure you could just pay a relative to order the crap for you with their credit card. So, yeah, that argument is complete crap.
You can also use a debit card, which is just cash in a more convenient package. The only people in the US who might find it difficult to get FW models are young children who don't have their own bank accounts or permission to buy stuff online.
Of course, to be fair, Makumba lives in Poland where apparently things are different and it's much less common to have a credit card or buy stuff internationally.
TheCustomLime wrote: The only way I can see Forgeworld being harder to obtain is if you don't want/can't get a credit card. Even then I am sure you could just pay a relative to order the crap for you with their credit card. So, yeah, that argument is complete crap.
You can also use a debit card, which is just cash in a more convenient package. The only people in the US who might find it difficult to get FW models are young children who don't have their own bank accounts or permission to buy stuff online.
Of course, to be fair, Makumba lives in Poland where apparently things are different and it's much less common to have a credit card or buy stuff internationally.
I was under the impression that they could only accept a select few debit cards as in none of the more popular ones. That's what it says on the FW site anyway.
Yeah, I guess that is true so for people living in Poland the argument holds water.
If you spend hours doing research and calculation and careful list building, and in the end you have the same chance of winning as anyone else, that's going to be deeply frustrating to anyone who wants to be able to use their cleverness to their advantage.
So Chess players are unable to use their cleverness?
Because aside from white going first the game is balanced
TheCustomLime wrote: I was under the impression that they could only accept a select few debit cards as in none of the more popular ones. That's what it says on the FW site anyway.
I don't know about elsewhere, but debit cards in the US are effectively just credit cards that take money out out of your bank account instead of putting it on credit. You use them exactly the same way, and whoever you're buying from doesn't see any difference.
I haven't really seen a division between tournament and casual in Warmachine. Pretty much everyone goes in tournaments at some point or other, because tournaments are sort of like just big game days where you get to play a bunch and maybe you win a coin or a prize! And there might even be catering.
The argument about balance making things samey is fascinating, because part of what causes balance problems in 40k is units being too similar. When you have two units that do the same thing, but one does it better, you just take the better unit and forget the other one exists (unless you really like its fluff, in which case you probably buy one, paint it up, then never run it, ever, just ponder it broodingly as it sits on the shelf). In most games, the way to do it right is to give the units a meaningful difference so that one unit is better in some context and another unit is better in a different context. That way, alright, maybe your favourite model ever isn't the best under all circumstances, but you can make it work by playing to its strengths and putting it in the right army.
I think if the game is balanced well then tournament and casual players are at least playing the same game. That was my experience with Warmachine, but someone mentioned Starcraft 2 earlier so let's go with that. Even quite poor players are still playing the same game as the pros, and the same things matter. The contact area between the two groups is larger. I think that's good and helps people find good games and have more fun and less frustration.
Inasmuch as these better-balanced games have a separation between tournament and casual players, it's not because they're playing different games as you sort of see in 40k, it's more a gradation of skill levels - you want to get better at the same so you naturally (but not exclusively) talk to other people around your skill level.
To me it depends on tourny or casual,if oyu play tourny and oyu pay money heck yea you play hard,but there is time for fun and stuff,you have to know when to play and have fun.
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
And don't forget that the casuals claim that WAAC armies aren't a personal problem for them anyway , because they are beating them with their casual lists all the time .
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?
No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.
People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games. It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to. It's why list building is considered a skill.
I disagree. And the millions of folks who play chess would also like to have a word.
Imbalance doesn't allow 'skill' to win. Take a welterweight versus a heavyweight. Any amount of skill won't cover the sheer physical imbalance between the two. Imbalance skews things so that skill is actually far less relevant.
As to the forgeworld comment - forgeworld is no worse than the rest of gws offerings. Some good, plenty bad. The tau stuff as a whole is mediocre. Id imagine people tend to flock to it for awesome models, more so than broken rules,
List building in balanced games like warmachine is a skill. In 40k, you go to dakka, find the latest netlist, spam what's good and win.
If everyone showed up with the same chance of winning, you might as well play flip-a-coin. It's the opportunity to use one's intellect to advantage that's important, and you can't do that without game imbalance.
Utter rubbish. People should have access to the sane tools of the sane quality, but how they use them determines the winner. Balance does bit equal sameness. You have to use your intellect to a far greater degree when the other guy's roster is as good as yours. Imbalance substitutes for intellect.
On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.
Rubbish. Challenge in an imbalanced game sways between seal clubbing and being clubbed by a seal clubber. Balanced games encourage greater diversity and challenge, for the simple reason that the game doesn't boil down to 'the one list who rules them all'. There is more reason to take other stuff, and you'll get more use out if it. Having stronger and weaker units simply has the result of focusing on what's stronger to the exclusion if everything else, the game ends up skewed. Balance suffers. Variety suffers. You're not more skilled as a result.
Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.
No, they do it in spite of the game being unbalanced, not because they like the fact that it's unbalanced.
Saying otherwise their decisions won't make any difference is utter tosh. Tactical choices matter. How you play matters. Heck, playing warmachine opens me up to no end of killer combinations. Twin black dragons? Winter guard and iron fangs? Cavalry? Nyss hunters and kayazy? Rifle korps? Men o war bricks? How about casters? Hmm? Or warjacks? All allow me to play completely differently, and still compete at a high level. It's the same story in infinity. There is no 'one list'. To the extent that the unofficial motto is 'it's not your list, it's you'. ** I have a huge array of choices both at the list building stage, and in tactical play. All in a balanced game.
**Please note folks: I'm not saying these games are 'better'. They are my preference, but this is not the thread fir that argument. I'm just trying to illustrate the point that balanced games are tactical, and offer both variety and challenge. **
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?
No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.
So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?
Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?
No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.
So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?
Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?
I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?
No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.
So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?
Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?
I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.
I know I won't get a answer your side never answer but I'll ask anyways.
How does balancing the rule set we have now change any of that. And if someone does have the balls to answer give a samlpe not just "becouse it limits chose" how would it limit choose is what I want to know.
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Yes, this is what I observed. Casual players seem to care about the game they are playing is fun, which when playing a WAAC list doesnt happen.
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Yes, this is what I observed. Casual players seem to care about the game they are playing is fun, which when playing a WAAC list doesnt happen.
There shouldn't be WAAC lists. That's the whole point.
You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.
Ailaros wrote: People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games.
No, they want balanced games because games with poor balance are easy to "solve" even if you're a less-skilled player. When every random newbie can spend a few minutes searching online and discover Riptide spam the "skilled" player has no real advantage. What they actually want is a balanced game because it makes identifying the advantages in list building much more difficult and excludes the less skilled/determined players.
The only people who want poorly balanced games are the seal clubbers who take the most powerful lists possible and then refuse to play anyone who isn't a newbie or "fluff" player with a weak list. But those people are so rare that they might as well not exist.
It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to.
Lol, no.
1) Everyone has access to FW. It's 2014, buying FW stuff online is no more difficult than buying some new orks online.
2) FW rules are not an auto-win no matter how many times you keep claiming it. Most of them are weaker than average, and the few overpowered things aren't any more overpowered than the overpowered codex stuff. So WAAC players will obviously exploit the overpowered FW rules in a FW-legal environment, but they would prefer to ban FW so they can exploit the cheaper codex rules instead and win just as easily.
On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.
Yeah, it's just awesome that the only way to use, say, rough riders is if you want to deliberately take a weak list to give yourself a bigger challenge. If you just like the fluff/models then too bad, have fun losing games. This is so obviously superior to the alternative, which is a balanced game where you make things harder on yourself by taking fewer points.
Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.
No, you just don't understand what game balance is. Balance doesn't mean that every combination of choices, no matter how bad, is equally effective. It means that every option has an appropriate price and is a viable choice in the right situation, and that there is a wide range of potential winning strategies to use. It doesn't mean that you can deliberately make the worst list you can and still have a chance of winning.
But of course you know this because we've told you countless times. I expect you'll just continue to ignore it and keep posting the same ridiculous claims.
I'm quoting this so a certain someone will see it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.
Cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal are neither Waac or tfg.
There are plenty counters to it.
And while it's definitely a valid option, it's not dominating the meta, winning every tournament, or roflstomping everything in its path. In other words, it's good, but can be dealt with.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.
Cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal are neither Waac or tfg.
There are plenty counters to it.
And while it's definitely a valid option, it's not dominating the meta, winning every tournament, or roflstomping everything in its path. In other words, it's good, but can be dealt with.
I repeat - hardly tfg or Waac.
My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot
hotsauceman1 wrote: You will always find people to game a system. for example, Xwing. From what I hear a list making the circuit know is A bunch of cheap tie fighters on the field, so much that they cannot kill them in a game.
Or the cygnar lists with arcane shield on a colossal.
WAAC or TFG lists are in every game.
From what you hear?
X Wing does have TIE swarm, yes, but to call it a WAAC is plain daft. It is a strong list, and one that you need to consider your capability of dealing with if you're planning on competing in a tourney, but there are plenty of options which allow you to deal with it, including just being flat out better at the game, as you can pull all sorts of tricks with your movement to disrupt the close formation the list needs to function optimally, or simply be better at guessing your opponents moves than he is at guessing yours.
Contrast that with a 40K game, where say a BA or Orks player, statistical outliers aside, is as close as possible guaranteed to lose as one can get in a probability based game against Tau or Eldar, assuming a no holds barred, efficient approach to list building, then that comparison is laughable.
Hey, if you want to pay for the power armor, I'm more than happy. But your durability/pt against the scatter laser goes DOWN. Yes, guardsmen tank the best weapon in the game better than marines. I think I'll go cry in a corner now and eat ice cream.
My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot
The e-Haley/stormwall is an easy list, but it's not the best list. It's a result of the groupthink on forums - it's good, but it doesn't dominate.
I've one-rounded colossals in the past with a single warpwolf stalker.
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?
No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.
So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?
Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?
I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.
I know I won't get a answer your side never answer but I'll ask anyways.
How does balancing the rule set we have now change any of that. And if someone does have the balls to answer give a samlpe not just "becouse it limits chose" how would it limit choose is what I want to know.
I explained earlier, but the current set up can be better balance wise, but it cant be balanced. So unless the game changes from the ground up these problems will exist. So will it even end up being the game most of us love? Who knows, you cant just say it will be better. Im sure there are very balanced games that nobody plays because they suck. Its just a risk and if we enjoy the game currently, why risk change?
However im all for balanced supplement edition, because that gives me a chance to see what im in for before agreeing that a balanced rule set does nothing but good.
It also doesnt hurt the main player base to enjoy the game as it stands. Its just a few of you that want it to change. When there are more people who want it to change (real people) then I dont think we will mind, as players are better to have than rules.
SaintTom wrote: So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.
But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.
So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.
I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.
Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?
No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.
So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?
Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?
I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.
I know I won't get a answer your side never answer but I'll ask anyways.
How does balancing the rule set we have now change any of that. And if someone does have the balls to answer give a samlpe not just "becouse it limits chose" how would it limit choose is what I want to know.
I explained earlier, but the current set up can be better balance wise, but it cant be balanced. So unless the game changes from the ground up these problems will exist. So will it even end up being the game most of us love? Who knows, you cant just say it will be better. Im sure there are very balanced games that nobody plays because they suck. Its just a risk and if we enjoy the game currently, why risk change?
However im all for balanced supplement edition, because that gives me a chance to see what im in for before agreeing that a balanced rule set does nothing but good.
It also doesnt hurt the main player base to enjoy the game as it stands. Its just a few of you that want it to change. When there are more people who want it to change (real people) then I dont think we will mind, as players are better to have than rules.
Ah, this post allows me to get you more than anything I've read previously. You err on the side of cautious, no wonder you're happy with how things are, don't want things to change and tried to argue it was somehow the customer's fault that 40K wasn't as good as it could be because they should have "tried it first."
Your last sentence is preposterous though. Are you saying that people posting on Dakka aren't real people? Are you again consulting this detailed breakdown of global 40K player satisfaction you appear to have access to, but have refused thus far to share? Or are you in fact making huge assumptions based on the fact that you play in one of the smallest countries by population that GW are active in, in a small town, with a limited number of players, and it would appear one of the fastest shrinking player bases (looking at the sales from the last report) and extrapolating that up to make some very shaky conclusions?
I'm coming to the conclusion that most players are just bad players. The 40K community in general must not be experience what the Eldar can really do, else they'd be sick being burned to the ground week after month.
Martel732 wrote: I'm coming to the conclusion that most players are just bad players. The 40K community in general must not be experience what the Eldar can really do, else they'd be sick being burned to the ground week after month.
I wouldn't say bad. In my experience, most players are aware of what makes a good list. They just choose not to utilize those tools either because they don't want to be "That guy", want a different sort of army or can't really afford it.
Out of curiosity, Swastakowey, what exactly does your group do to make 40k enjoyable? Just avoid more point's efficient choices like SM bikes, Heldrakes and Riptides?
Better balance is what people are asking for. Not perfectly balanced. Why do you not understand that? We know it can't be perfectly balanced. Someone will go first. Someone who doesn't bring anti-tank can't win against a tank heavy list. Someone without AA is going to have trouble against flyers. We're asking that in the tactics section, when someone starts a thread saying "How do I use Mutilators" that we can actually answer something other than "Not taking them." That when someone asks for advice on his fluffy Thousand Sons themed army he can get some legitimate advice on how to keep it fluffy and fun.
So unless the game changes from the ground up these problems will exist. So will it even end up being the game most of us love?
Why would this be something to make you like the game less? Why would having Mutilators and Warp talons be useable be bad? Why would Riptides and Wave serpent spam not being auto-wins somehow make the game less fun?
Who knows, you cant just say it will be better.
So that justifies that things are fine being bad. Isn't that a tad Nihilistic? Surgery can some times lead to death. But guess what? Some crazy people actually preform surgery.
why risk change?
It's not a good system. Why would you stick with a system when there are known methods of improving upon that system? Play testing for one. Someone actually putting in an hour of work to set up a LotD army on the table and realize he is tabled turn 1. How is something as simple as that going to fundamentally ruin 40K?
It also doesnt hurt the main player base to enjoy the game as it stands. Its just a few of you that want it to change.
Can we actually get a poll on this? Where are the numbers coming from. It's really simple too.
Are people:
1.) Happy with the current system and don't want to see any changes
2.) Wishing more balance within the codex (i.e. Mutilators being worth running)
3.) Wishing for more balance between the armies (Not like chess, but having armies with appropriate options to allow them to stand decently against others)
4.) Wishing for more play testing and coherent rules (i.e. LotD not auto-losing without allies and more frequent FAQs)
Before any one side declares themselves right by majority, I would like to see who actually is that majority. I have never met one person who has said the system couldn't use a bit more balance.
I've seen a lot of (justifiable) hate towards Eldar. The other day my LGS had a tournament. 1650 points, no named characters, codex (and supplement) armies only, no escalation, no SA, no FW.
There were 15 players. Of the 15, 8 brought Eldar and/or Tau (9 if you include Dark Eldar).
The top 4 players (in order)
Eldar with Tau allies, 2 Wraithknights, can't recall if he had Serpents.
Raven Guard with Grav gun spam.
Eldar with Tau (FE), no spam. 1 Wraithknight, 1 Jetbike squad, 2 Serpents
CSM with Nurgle Marines and Spawn.
Now as a tournament, it was fairly competitive. By the same token, it was also friendly. People would remind their opponents about special rules, remind them when they forgot to shoot with a unit, let them do things out of phase if they forgot (such as using Nova Reactor in the Shooting phase), One guy went to shoot at a Nurgle Prince who was behind Ruins and his opponent reminded him that the Prince had a 2+ Cover save.
That said, I completely forgot where I was going with this.
Sorry, with a high priority customer, please dont ask too many questions because Im gonna have to answer them all in about an hour...
I will say this before I go but the gamers number the hundreds within an hours drive. there are players ages from 10-60 and there are off the top of my head around 20 ish games that are regularily played by these groups. That number grows on big events like our 2 anual swap meets and open games days etc. Its a huge, huge community thats very diverse. But anyways I will come back, but please dont ask heaps of questions or I will struggle to answer them like in all the other threads
This may be flamebait and I do apologize in advance for any flaming I cause but...
I think the difference between casual and competitive players is that casual players (At least CAAC players like some posters in this thread) feel morally superior for not taking the best options.
So I decided I wont bother (to the joys of many ) simply because it goes nowhere.
I just think that the joys of wargaming (especially today) is found when you pick a set or sets of rules you enjoy then play them as you please. I really do not understand the people who pick up a 40k rule book and play it in spite of all the flaws they see, or stop playing yet linger because "they long to enjoy a game among many".
There are going to be things people dislike with all rule sets, but if a rule set is so bad that you have to rally against it at every opportunity then I dont see why you bother keeping at it.
I do understand that many are unfortunate enough to have to play pick up games without planning but thats not GW fault. I also dont see why its so hard to get peoples numbers or emails that go to your area for pick up games and start becoming friends and developing your own trends and unspoken rules etc and go from there.
I also disagree that balance automatically = good.
I am cautious. I dont buy codices willy nilly because I would rather see whats in them first or do research. I wont buy the 7th edition rule book unless I like the rules. If it means I have to find people willing to play an old edition so be it. Thats not GW fault.
The constant blame being put on GW comes down to player choice 99% of the time. You are blaming GW for putting the option there. Sounds really dumb.
I will agree that things like GW prices are at times very odd. So complain about price, thats not player fault thats GW fault.
I get that you all want a game thats focused on tournament play that eliminates any pre game talk, but thats not what GW rules are about. You have to acceot that and move on. There are so many games out there (as you all know) so use on of their rule sets.
So the divide between casual and WAAC stems from one group playing the game as they wish it to be, while the others play the game as is. 40K doesn't cater to you clearly as much as you want it to. I dont see vegetarians complaining at food joints for having the option of meat. Its there for those that want it.
So instead of seeing this divide as a bad thing, see it as different options and each person fits into a group. A vegetarian wont try your meat dish, so dont get mad and blame the chef. They just catered to the wants of those who are buying their food. Just like GW is just selling what people will buy.
You can argue all day that people are buying less, or that GW is declining (like it has for decades...apparently) or that other games are growing. But it changes nothing. Just find your place in the hobby and enjoy it. If that means leaving 40k for a better rule set then so be it. If it means playing 40k and loving it, so be it. If it means buying GW models but not rules so be it. Just find the rules that suit you and move on. If they dont cater to your needs make a statement for others to see why then move on. Just like you would a cafe or airline.
We arent super special customers who should be treated differently to other customers. There is plenty to choose from, so go choose. There are more wargaming opportunities then ever. So enjoy it while it lasts.
Otherwise you are just like the You Tube commenters that find popular music artists and state how much you hate them and how people should listen to this band instead, or the artist needs to change so I like the music. The world doesnt work like that.
The divide isnt because of balance, or bad rules. Its because its a large community (in wargaming terms) and we are all trying to cater to our needs. We are all at different stages and all have different situations.
Im ranting now, but you get the idea. (I hope). I can grantee, if Infinity gets as big as 40k or replaces it for example, people will be complaining. There will be a divide as the community gets larger and more peoples come into it. It just comes with any hobby.
You may complain in piece. On all threads you please. Without my gibberish.
I also disagree that balance automatically = good.
I'll be honest, I tried, but that line pretty much undermines everything else you say, and I couldn't really take much else seriously after that.
But this one thing jumps out...
You say it is the players fault that GW have a poor ruleset, ostensibly, I think, because people continue to buy and play the game,
But, almost in the same breath,
You say that pricing is GW's fault? But surely that's our fault too, because "we" are paying them?
Frankly, I don't think you really know what you're arguing any more, or even if you really already did, I think you're speaking from a very narrow perspective in terms of your experience with the game, and are unwilling/unable to accommodate what people with a wider/different perspective than yours may be able to add, and also have approached the whole subject without accepting even a glimmer of a hint of a possibility that you might be wrong!
So instead of seeing this divide as a bad thing, see it as different options and each person fits into a group. A vegetarian wont try your meat dish, so dont get mad and blame the chef. They just catered to the wants of those who are buying their food. Just like GW is just selling what people will buy.
It's more like two people go to a Restaurant and order some food. At first it's okay, but one person starts getting noticeably sick the more times they go. It turns out the restaurant has slowly been adding more and more peanut products into all food items due to improper cleaning and control of their culinary ware. Customer A is allergic to peanuts. Customer B however likes the decorations and as long as he sneaks in some ketchup the meals are perfect. He keeps dragging Customer A along with him, despite the fact that the food is killing him, saying that the restaurant never claims to have any peanuts in their food. Customer B doesn't care about Customer A because Customer B is getting what he wants. No need to complain about the food.
Analogies aren't really needed. Some customers like the game because they can work with it and don't care if others can't enjoy it. Some want improvement overall at no cost to other players.
One thing I really want to know from the "casual" side. Where does GW come out and say they are a non-competitive game? I know the rule book says to have fun and all, and really any rule book will. But where did GW state it's a beer and pretzel game meant to be unbalanced and played a certain way.
I'm genuinely curious to know. I really want to play the game the right way. I've heard so many casual players say they're playing it the absolute right way and with the full spirit of the game. I just want to know how you know you're doing it right.
I'm a casual player and swastika does not reflect my views at all. I play SOB and have never been in a tournament and really have no desire to do one. I mostly play fluffy, battles with people I know.
But the game is horribly imbalanced and needs some changes. I'd play more in stores if the game was balanced. I don't like to show up with SOB army and then get tabled by turn three by a cron air army. (That wasn't my idea of fun.)
The game should be playable for casual and competitive.
My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot
The e-Haley/stormwall is an easy list, but it's not the best list. It's a result of the groupthink on forums - it's good, but it doesn't dominate.
I've one-rounded colossals in the past with a single warpwolf stalker.
Yes, but like I was saying, you still get those lists in the game that everyone takes, even in a balanced game like WM/H.
Then you don't understand game design. This is design 101 stuff, balance is good for every type of player.
You are blaming GW for putting the option there.
No, we're blaming GW for publishing half-finished garbage.
I get that you all want a game thats focused on tournament play that eliminates any pre game talk, but thats not what GW rules are about.
No, you have this completely wrong. Eliminating pre-game negotiations has nothing to do with tournament play. Tournaments provide all of that for you in the rules for that particular tournament. Pre-game negotiation is an issue for casual players, since they're the people who are most likely to just show up and want to play a game and the least likely to care about forums/strategy/etc to have an informed opinion in those pre-game negotiations.
So the divide between casual and WAAC stems from one group playing the game as they wish it to be, while the others play the game as is. 40K doesn't cater to you clearly as much as you want it to. I dont see vegetarians complaining at food joints for having the option of meat. Its there for those that want it.
Except GW's rules aren't good for casual play either. The correct analogy would be a restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, while a few obsessed masochists praise the unique flavor and crunchy texture.
We all have different forms of fun and they are all equally valid. In a perfect world, the game would made in a way to make sure that all parties are enjoying themselves, no matter the outlook.
What someone said on page one is correct; different levels of dedication to the hobby vary, as well. My Dad was one of the top historical scale R/C aircraft builders in the US and still frequently judges competitions, but flying for him was not always his favorite. But to compete, scale models have to be flown.
I can see the same in 40k. Some people will go to competitions to win the best army in terms of wearing someones crap on their shoes by going in mouth first where as others want to win the best made/painted army. The latter still has to be "flown" to compete.
And to those who don't care either way, they'll plunk along on their own things.
I think folks need to remember that wargaming and modeling are the hobbies. GW is just an option.
Because people want different things out of their game. Some people want to just play occasionally without putting much effort into the game beyond the time they spend actually playing it, and have no interest in forums, spending tons of time writing lists, etc. Some people love building and painting the models, and just play because hey, why not, they've already got the models. Some people love the fluff and want to create an army that perfectly represents a "real" army from the background fiction. Some people love strategy and competition and spend lots of time and effort trying to be the best at their game.
The only thing different between GW games and other games is that GW's rules are so utterly broken that attempting to have a game between two players from different groups is usually not a fun experience for at least one player. This leads to the various groups seeing each other as enemies that are ruining the game, rather than fellow players who have slightly different preferences.
You almost had me with this.
I read through your entire first paragraph, agreeing with every point. I was about ready to throw my hands up and say 'holy gak a post by Peregrine that was 100% productive and on point", and then promptly purchase a lottery ticket. Unfortunately my cause for celebration quickly diminished as I continued and read your second paragraph, in which you decided to completely ruin any semblance or shred of joy I possibly took away from the previous excerpt. "Oh, he bashed GW and complained about the rules again".
I don't really see that as unwarranted GW bashing.
Look at it like this
Core rules
Supplements
Data slates
Formations
Escalation
Stronghold assault
So take the core rules as something that both agree on. Now you have 5 separate points that both players have to agree on. If I just bought a Khorne mower and want to play escalation but my opponent doesn't, then I have a "nice" model sitting out for no real good reason. If my opponent wants to play Stronghold assault because of his spiffy new shield generator and I don't, then he's out of luck.
Heck, even with the core rules you have to agree on allies now because of some of the insane choices. It's not like it's hard to pay 202 points of your army to make two units twin-linked and getting two scoring jetbike units.
I also disagree that balance automatically = good.
I'll be honest, I tried, but that line pretty much undermines everything else you say, and I couldn't really take much else seriously after that.
But this one thing jumps out...
You say it is the players fault that GW have a poor ruleset, ostensibly, I think, because people continue to buy and play the game,
But, almost in the same breath,
You say that pricing is GW's fault? But surely that's our fault too, because "we" are paying them?
Frankly, I don't think you really know what you're arguing any more, or even if you really already did, I think you're speaking from a very narrow perspective in terms of your experience with the game, and are unwilling/unable to accommodate what people with a wider/different perspective than yours may be able to add, and also have approached the whole subject without accepting even a glimmer of a hint of a possibility that you might be wrong!
My frien told me that he stop counting at the amount of Stormwalls w/ Ehaley when it reached double digits when looking at the lists for "Lock N' Load" I think. I wont pretend 40k has the same balance, but for SURE people will always finds out what works and take it alot
The e-Haley/stormwall is an easy list, but it's not the best list. It's a result of the groupthink on forums - it's good, but it doesn't dominate.
I've one-rounded colossals in the past with a single warpwolf stalker.
Yes, but like I was saying, you still get those lists in the game that everyone takes, even in a balanced game like WM/H.
You keep saying that but I wonder what experience you actually have?
Obviously you know something about warmachine but it sounds like your only experience with X wing is hearing some people talk online.
And for the record both games have 'better' lists but those lists are not considered WAAC because they simply don't have the same sort of advantage Taudar have over Orks.
And then there is Infinity.
You say those lists appear in all games, and yet if you go to the infinity forums, or the sub forum here, or hell even just groups on facebook, and ask for advice on lists all they really do is tell you to take what models you like. If you ask about a 'top teir' army or a 'best' list you might actually get laughed at.
