So I've come to realise that the generic problem with 40k seems to be people take the game too seriously.
Just looking at the rules discussions I can't help but think are we really such rules lawyers that we can't just enjoy the game?
For example can a blast template hit models above and below a sky shield at the same time.
I for one don't care what the rules implicitly say, let's just throw a little common sense into the game and get over it.
I think a lot of people who post on here deliberately try and bend the rules when they're not 100% exact to every possible suggestion.
And then they moan about GW writing bad rules because they go out of their way to break or exploit rules that haven't been considered.
Maybe just me but I'm happy to agree with my opponent on usual issues if they occur.
Boniface wrote: So I've come to realise that the generic problem with 40k seems to be people take the game too seriously.
The problem with 40k (as I have said before and will say again) is that 40k players are playing an entirely different game than the people in the design studio. You can interpret that as 'taking things too seriously' or as the design studio 'taking things too lightly' or however you want.
In a lot of ways though, they just don't get the problems that occur.
Add into that a profit motive and you have a recipe for disaster.
You have to understand something, regardless of the stance most people take in YMDC, they generally play a much more relaxed mode (outside of tournaments of course).
For example, rigeld and I both take the stance that vehicles do not get saves against Grav weapons. I play that you do, he plays they can take invulnerable saves but not cover saves.
I'm actually very laid back. I've played against 20-boy mobs with Trukks, I've played against Chaos Daemon allies with 4 heralds. I've had a games where I cheered as I (somehow) failed a Strength check on a S6 MC causing it to get sucked into a Monolith.
40K is a beer and peanuts game. Its not to be taken competitively. That includes the player base needing to stop crying cheese because they didnt bring a strong list. Let the people bring whatever they want as allowed by the rules amd their codex...
There are rules that are not clarified like the OP stated with the skyshield and then there are ones like releasing a "Codex" that auto loses on turn 1 if it does not take allies or knights moving through cover and which side armor gets hit from barrage when the shield is on one side or the other. Some rare things you expect to pop up and work out with your opponent some are not rare at all and should of been caught play testing even a couple games.
I'll say again what I've said before: 40k is exactly what you make it. If you take it seriously, the issues with balance, unclear rules and general conflict within the rules will become apparent. If,on the other hand, you take the rules as a framework to have a more structured game of Toy Soldiers than moving minis and shouting 'BANG!', then it works fine.
It's only when people try to break the game, either by exploiting every strong units at the expense of creativity and every rule at the expense of logic that 40k becomes a mess.
Boniface wrote: So I've come to realise that the generic problem with 40k seems to be people take the game too seriously.
The problem with 40k (as I have said before and will say again) is that 40k players are playing an entirely different game than the people in the design studio. You can interpret that as 'taking things too seriously' or as the design studio 'taking things too lightly' or however you want.
In a lot of ways though, they just don't get the problems that occur.
Add into that a profit motive and you have a recipe for disaster.
This is a really good summary of the problem, thanks pretre!
And as insaniak said, I feel like it is worth GW considering the complaints it gets. While not everyone fits any particular attitude towards GW/40k, leaving a portion of the customer base frustrated when IMO it would be easy enough to satisfy everyone at once (aka more research & development in the rules) does not seem the best plan for long-term growth.
40k is a super complicated game that gives players a huge amount of freedom to do a massive amount of stuff. The idea of comprehensive play testing in a game of this scope is absurd. Really, every possible combination of every rule is going to be tested? You could have a hundred play testers spend a year at it, and it would just scratch the surface.
With freedom comes responsibility. If you don't want to have to be responsible, play a game that gives you a lot less freedom. There's no rules lawyering in Chess, Yahtzee or Candyland.
Nor, of course, does there strictly need to be in 40k either. Responsible adults trying to have a good time can set up their own limits, and work things out themselves.
Sigvatr wrote: Casual 40k is still fine and lots of fun, you just need to play RAI and not RAW
As long as you and your opponent agree on the 'I' then agreed!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ailaros wrote: 40k is a super complicated game that gives players a huge amount of freedom to do a massive amount of stuff. The idea of comprehensive play testing in a game of this scope is absurd. Really, every possible combination of every rule is going to be tested? You could have a hundred play testers spend a year at it, and it would just scratch the surface.
No, that's why champions use FAQs, errata, community feedback and communication to catch the things that slip through the play testing.
Also it doesn't make sense to say that a game of this scope can't be playtested. If they were doing even moderate amounts of play testing they should have realized that ramping the game of the scale they are just isn't feasible. When it was the armies and allies play testing is feasible. Adding in formations, data slates, escalation, stronghold assault, and so on would be easily play tested had they paced the releases instead of dropping it all down at once. You can't just absolve GW of the responsibility of producing a quality luxury product that they claim to make because they have purposely exceeded their ability for quality control.
It's a convoluted mess and I don't think there's any way to really work around it. This is a game where I can bring anywhere between 2-9+ books for a single army. No "beer and pretzel" game should ever have a situation involving 9 books and if you insist on calling it that, then I'll have to question what you consider a beer and pretzel game.
Ailaros wrote: 40k is a super complicated game that gives players a huge amount of freedom to do a massive amount of stuff. The idea of comprehensive play testing in a game of this scope is absurd. Really, every possible combination of every rule is going to be tested? You could have a hundred play testers spend a year at it, and it would just scratch the surface.
You don't have to play test very long at all to figure out that riptides are insanely undercosted, 2+ reroll invuln saves are ridiculous, and ignore cover shots all over the place removes any sense of immersion when you're removing handfuls of models that were hiding behind a wall with just their toes sticking out.
A single play tester could catch some of this junk inside of 10 games.
azreal13 wrote:No, that's why champions use FAQs, errata, community feedback and communication to catch the things that slip through the play testing.
Right, because all of the greatest games are ones that are designed by committee by their fan base. Dakka has shown enough people screaming cheese and coutercheese that relying on the community of players to have input into the game is nonsense. It's why, in reality, very few games that have a serious player base even listen at all, apart from a few technical glitches here and there (like how GW puts out FAQs for things they know are typos).
Game balance isn't something that's going to be successfully accomplished with crowdsourcing. Meanwhile, not everything that someone considers a glitch is, in fact, a glitch.
Gw could also release erratas changing rules after release based on things being too good/bad. Sure 100 testers might not find a problem but 10,000 players will.
40K is at it's best when played between two really good friends. Being on the same page about what you intend to get from a game of 40K is probably the most important thing that can possibly be done to make a game run smoothly.
Rules problems are bound to pop up, but when you both can step back and agree that "Yuck, that doesn't work very well and isn't fun" and come up with a good alternative, the game is going to be a really fun one for both players.
I personally think the rules issues are the largest with 6th edition, but everything i have said can be applied to every edition back to Rogue Trader. Hell, it's how everything was always SUPPOSED to be resolved, and in Rogue Trader was pretty much laid down exactly so in writing.
But when two nerds get competitive, everything changes.
Dalymiddleboro wrote:40K is a beer and peanuts game. Its not to be taken competitively. That includes the player base needing to stop crying cheese because they didnt bring a strong list. Let the people bring whatever they want as allowed by the rules amd their codex...
The problem is that there are units that are so bad that they're not worth taking at all.
As an example, I present the Howling Banshee. Fluff-wise, one of the more numerous Aspect temples. Historically, one of the iconic Eldar units. Ruined and unplayable due to inept game design.
Why is this a problem? Well, it's two-fold. First, I suppose we should make the assumption that most people do not like to lose over and over again. And, most people don't like wasting money, and many people fall into the 'fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you' mentality.
Well, a competitive player can look at a unit like Howling Banshees, and take the five-ten seconds it takes to realize that a unit of t3 models that only deal damage in close-combat, that have no way to get into close combat without spending at least one shooting phase in the open (and then overwatch) isn't actually going to accomplish anything. And so the competitive player doesn't give them any more thought. To the competitive player, they're GWs problem; GW made a crappy unit, and GW will need to come up with warehouse space for them because they're not going to sell.
It's the casual player who suffers. Because the casual player reads the eldar codex, and sees that Howling Banshees are supposed to be awesome. And then the casual player buys them, and paints them, and goes to play games with them, only to see this unit get blown off the table over and over. Except, it doesn't just happen with Howling Banshees, it happens with a lot of units that aren't very good. And it's not just those units that get removed en-masse, it's the casual player's interest in the game. Because the casual player, even playing casually, will run into players who read the internet, and know that "good players" use wave serpents and wraithknights instead of Howling Banshees. And the casual player will eventually grow sick of losing, and turn to his friends, or a forum, and ask, what can I do to win, my Howling Banshees keep dying.
At which point the internet will point and laugh and tell him to put them on the shelf and that he should spend a few hundred more dollars on buying wraithknights and wave serpents instead. Because that's what the internet does.
Some people are bone-headed and stubborn enough to actually go and buy those wraithknights and wave serpents, just to win their casual game. But most aren't. Most then quit the game, even casually, and go and play something else where the models that they like the look of can actually be played with some reasonable expectation of performance.
That's the problem with 40k. It's that the rule design flaws have gotten to the point where you can make an army that, fluff-wise should do well, and that will stand no chance against even a mediocre army from a better codex. And, when the player seeks out the answer to why this is, they'll be told that they chose the wrong army, and that they bought the wrong units. The problem with 40k is that we've accepted the idea that "wrong units" are acceptable in a codex.
Boniface wrote: So I've come to realise that the generic problem with 40k seems to be people take the game too seriously.
Just looking at the rules discussions I can't help but think are we really such rules lawyers that we can't just enjoy the game?
Who are you to decide that people take it 'too seriously'?
Bloody hell, it costs enough time, effort and money that one could arguenot taking it seriously is a colossal waste of people's said time, effort and money.
I presume you are also quite willing to tell these people 'how' to enjoy 'their' game, how your way of enjoying things is more right, and morally superior, and theirs is wrong... Get off it bud.
It the hobby means a lot to someone, they have every right to be that serious about it. It's true, whether relating to 40k, racing, fishing etc. folks get serious about all these things...
Personally, give the the choice between my gaming club on a Wednesday, and boxing, I'll go with boxing
azreal13 wrote:No, that's why champions use FAQs, errata, community feedback and communication to catch the things that slip through the play testing.
Right, because all of the greatest games are ones that are designed by committee by their fan base. Dakka has shown enough people screaming cheese and coutercheese that relying on the community of players to have input into the game is nonsense. It's why, in reality, very few games that have a serious player base even listen at all, apart from a few technical glitches here and there (like how GW puts out FAQs for things they know are typos).
Game balance isn't something that's going to be successfully accomplished with crowdsourcing. Meanwhile, not everything that someone considers a glitch is, in fact, a glitch.
So are you saying although GW charge a premium for their rules, the convoluted rules are too complicated to playtest? I think software coding is complicated as well, does that mean I shouldn't get complaints if there are bugs on my software?
sorry for the rant.... but I do think GW can spent more time on the rules and do better, like previous poster stated, releasing a codex that auto lose on its own is an easy catch. I'm still bitter about my DA codex where there are so many spelling mistakes and omissions (all my named HQ were missing boltguns) and I paid good money for it.
The problem is, GW plays games based on what kind of army they want to play, not what math-hammers into being a good list. The GW playtest group will, with a straight face, field Howling Banshees against MSU of Chaos Marines and think that it's a grand game.
They don't look at the codices and say "Ok, if I wanted to roflstomp someone, how would I do this with this book?".
They don't look at 2 codices and say, "What are the absolute best tools I can synthesize between these two books to create a truly unstoppable monstrosity?"
As mentioned in the thread, the way they playtest is not the way that people who are even slightly serious about the game play the game.
If someone disagree with me, I shoot them. With my fist.
Okay seriously though, everyone I play with plays by the rules, and if an issue comes up then we handle it like adults. By slapping models off the table and throwing dice across the room. Hey did you know that it really, really hurts when someone throws a large blast template like a shuriken at your head? If not, well it really, really hurts.
One time a guy I knew flipped the table mid game in a rage, but nobody thought that was cool because it was a nice table.
Actually what I'm meaning to say is: Oh...this thread again. Every single person I play with can more often than not figure out a good compromise when a discrepancy with the rules comes up. We roll off, we flip a coin ect. I see more rage about this game in these forums than I do anywhere else in person. Except for Matt Ward. I think everybody really does hate Matt Ward...
Game balance isn't something that's going to be successfully accomplished with crowdsourcing. Meanwhile, not everything that someone considers a glitch is, in fact, a glitch.
I disagree. The best example is the ETC. Competitive players, in a collaborative effort that took years to bloom, came up with a WHFB ruleset that is vastly superior to the one GW offers and widely accepted. Successful to such a degree that pretty much every bigger WHFB tournament, even smaller, local ones, have adapted to these or similar rules.
It was a 100% community-driven effort that ultimatively improved the game as a whole for everyone.
I disagree. The best example is the ETC. Competitive players, in a collaborative effort that took years to bloom, came up with a WHFB ruleset that is vastly superior to the one GW offers and widely accepted. Successful to such a degree that pretty much every bigger WHFB tournament, even smaller, local ones, have adapted to these or similar rules.
It was a 100% community-driven effort that ultimatively improved the game as a whole for everyone.
Not me, I hadn't even heard of this until you mentioned it.
That's the biggest failing fan-rulings will never overcome.
There was some discussion on this in another thread. Ultimately, I say the same thing I always do:
I've watched or played in multiple games each week for the 6 years I have been a club leader. I have never once encountered these fabled unanswerable questions that break the game so utterly, as people are always describing.
I think people who think the game is unplayably broken because the rules don't go to laborious length to specify things they assume you are intelligent enough to know, are among the top issues with the game, personally.
I'll give you an example:
Player A: "You can only move in a straight line!"
Player B: "You can bend the tape and move however you want!"
Me: "What does the book say?"
Player A: "It says you move 6 inches!"
Me: "Is bending the tape 'moving 6 inches'?"
Player A: "..."
azreal13 wrote:No, that's why champions use FAQs, errata, community feedback and communication to catch the things that slip through the play testing.
Right, because all of the greatest games are ones that are designed by committee by their fan base. Dakka has shown enough people screaming cheese and coutercheese that relying on the community of players to have input into the game is nonsense. It's why, in reality, very few games that have a serious player base even listen at all, apart from a few technical glitches here and there (like how GW puts out FAQs for things they know are typos).
Game balance isn't something that's going to be successfully accomplished with crowdsourcing. Meanwhile, not everything that someone considers a glitch is, in fact, a glitch.
Kindly point out where I said anything about committee design?
No, the communication structures should be there to allow the designers to get feedback - the responsibility of identifying whether things are in fact a problem or simply a poor loser venting should still remain with the design team (which has been credited as the author of the last few books I believe? Almost the definition of design by committee I'd have thought.)
Then those things which do appear to be a genuine oversight, error or something that slipped through play testing can be acted upon.
Could you throw out a couple of examples of "games with a serious player base" who "don't listen at all" so I can be sure not to start playing them? Thanks.
Dalymiddleboro wrote:40K is a beer and peanuts game. Its not to be taken competitively. That includes the player base needing to stop crying cheese because they didnt bring a strong list. Let the people bring whatever they want as allowed by the rules amd their codex...
The problem is that there are units that are so bad that they're not worth taking at all.
As an example, I present the Howling Banshee. Fluff-wise, one of the more numerous Aspect temples. Historically, one of the iconic Eldar units. Ruined and unplayable due to inept game design.
Why is this a problem? Well, it's two-fold. First, I suppose we should make the assumption that most people do not like to lose over and over again. And, most people don't like wasting money, and many people fall into the 'fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you' mentality.
Well, a competitive player can look at a unit like Howling Banshees, and take the five-ten seconds it takes to realize that a unit of t3 models that only deal damage in close-combat, that have no way to get into close combat without spending at least one shooting phase in the open (and then overwatch) isn't actually going to accomplish anything. And so the competitive player doesn't give them any more thought. To the competitive player, they're GWs problem; GW made a crappy unit, and GW will need to come up with warehouse space for them because they're not going to sell.
It's the casual player who suffers. Because the casual player reads the eldar codex, and sees that Howling Banshees are supposed to be awesome. And then the casual player buys them, and paints them, and goes to play games with them, only to see this unit get blown off the table over and over. Except, it doesn't just happen with Howling Banshees, it happens with a lot of units that aren't very good. And it's not just those units that get removed en-masse, it's the casual player's interest in the game. Because the casual player, even playing casually, will run into players who read the internet, and know that "good players" use wave serpents and wraithknights instead of Howling Banshees. And the casual player will eventually grow sick of losing, and turn to his friends, or a forum, and ask, what can I do to win, my Howling Banshees keep dying.
At which point the internet will point and laugh and tell him to put them on the shelf and that he should spend a few hundred more dollars on buying wraithknights and wave serpents instead. Because that's what the internet does.
Some people are bone-headed and stubborn enough to actually go and buy those wraithknights and wave serpents, just to win their casual game. But most aren't. Most then quit the game, even casually, and go and play something else where the models that they like the look of can actually be played with some reasonable expectation of performance.
That's the problem with 40k. It's that the rule design flaws have gotten to the point where you can make an army that, fluff-wise should do well, and that will stand no chance against even a mediocre army from a better codex. And, when the player seeks out the answer to why this is, they'll be told that they chose the wrong army, and that they bought the wrong units. The problem with 40k is that we've accepted the idea that "wrong units" are acceptable in a codex.
+1. So much this. People don't seem to understand that casuals get hurt the most by the current trends in the ruleset.
I honestly don't care that much if every army list is viable, but I care a great deal that the models which I enjoy painting/looking at function mostly as described in their fluff. No matter how awesome a unit is, or how strong it is supposed to be, if it cannot practically perform its role then I will never enjoy using it. After all, what's more narrative-breaking than that?
Actually, there is something. When I'm playing a fun, casual game with my friends, we are usually focusing more on joking around and telling a story or whatever. But when we run into rules issues that simply break the game or have no clear answer (barrages on Knights, Grav-weapons vs. vehicles, or my old pre-FAQ favorite, deff-rollas during ramming), it sucks the fun and narrative elements of the game right out the damn window. This is especially true when the "solutions" will end up heavily favoring one side or another. Sure, we can 4+ it or flip a coin, but at the end of the day we'll be left feeling like neither person got a fair game. This is a terrible outcome when you're playing a game that takes 2-4 hours to complete.
I don't care about tournaments or any of that stuff. I just want to be able to play 40k with some semblance of logical structure without requiring an hour of negotiations before and/or during the game. I mean, really, the whole "surprise, no one understands how these rules interact so we made up some stuff on the spot which will cause you to lose" is no different than a small child saying "pew pew you're dead!" over and over.
A balanced game is better for all types of play; other better balanced games with as many, if not more unique interactions than 40k can handle balance, then so can 40k. There is no distinction of "how serious you are" in any other game. There is no "casual" vs "competitive". It's all the same because the companies care.
And you can't give GW the pass to have their cake and eat it too. If this is a premium product at a premium cost, then treat it as such and support it as such. Dispensing $50 supplements and $18 data slates isn't premium support. No matter your play style, by forking over SERIOUS cash to GW, why should we not take the end result SERIOUS?
If the rules were free or a lot cheaper, a lot less people would complain about imbalance. If the product had the support other companies provide and still provided their grimdark jollies, a lot less people would complain and there wouldn't be imbalance.
Ailaros wrote: 40k is a super complicated game that gives players a huge amount of freedom to do a massive amount of stuff. The idea of comprehensive play testing in a game of this scope is absurd. Really, every possible combination of every rule is going to be tested? You could have a hundred play testers spend a year at it, and it would just scratch the surface.
With freedom comes responsibility. If you don't want to have to be responsible, play a game that gives you a lot less freedom. There's no rules lawyering in Chess, Yahtzee or Candyland.
RPGs, you know, the games where you have infinitely more options than the move/shoot/assault and army list system than 40k, are playtested much better than 40k...
Ailaros wrote: 40k is a super complicated game that gives players a huge amount of freedom to do a massive amount of stuff. The idea of comprehensive play testing in a game of this scope is absurd. Really, every possible combination of every rule is going to be tested? You could have a hundred play testers spend a year at it, and it would just scratch the surface.
With freedom comes responsibility. If you don't want to have to be responsible, play a game that gives you a lot less freedom. There's no rules lawyering in Chess, Yahtzee or Candyland.
RPGs, you know, the games where you have infinitely more options than the move/shoot/assault and army list system than 40k, are playtested much better than 40k...
Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.
It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.
A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.
A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.
And you can't give GW the pass to have their cake and eat it too. If this is a premium product at a premium cost, then treat it as such and support it as such. Dispensing $50 supplements and $18 data slates isn't premium support. No matter your play style, by forking over SERIOUS cash to GW, why should we not take the end result SERIOUS?
That is a very true point!
---------------------------
Like I said, the game is exactly as laid-back as the two players involved want to make it out to be.
Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.
It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.
A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.
A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.
There is no such animal as this. More accurately, a balanced ruleset would allow you to more easily present a narrative game where one side is heavily favored in chances, but have the narrative option of the underdog (assuming non-terrible rolls and a decent player at the helm) carrying the day.
Such scenarios are what makes the Space Marines famous, after all, as 5 of them take on a planet of Xenos and kill all of them.
There is absolutely zero connection between balanced/imbalanced and competitive/narrative. This is an apples to fighter planes of the Royal Air Force, 1950-1953 comparison.
I disagree. The best example is the ETC. Competitive players, in a collaborative effort that took years to bloom, came up with a WHFB ruleset that is vastly superior to the one GW offers and widely accepted. Successful to such a degree that pretty much every bigger WHFB tournament, even smaller, local ones, have adapted to these or similar rules.
It was a 100% community-driven effort that ultimatively improved the game as a whole for everyone.
Not me, I hadn't even heard of this until you mentioned it.
That's the biggest failing fan-rulings will never overcome.
It's a EU-thing, so the biggest failing might be that damn huge ocean! ;D
There is absolutely zero connection between balanced/imbalanced and competitive/narrative.
My personal experiences with games like Warmachine, Infinity, even earlier Editions of 40K were vastly different.
Either way, more variety of games can never be a bad thing.
40K the way it currently is, is a very unique flavour of game. Balanced games are a dime a dozen. If 40K stopped being the game it is now, I don't see which game could take its place.
Having options for chocolate and vanilla is always better than having only vanilla. The existence of a non-vanilla-flavour in no way inhibits people from choosing vanilla if that is what they like.
Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.
It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.
A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.
A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.
Yep, you enjoy troubleshooting your $50 codecis.
You can have a narrative game with competitive rules, but you have a hard time being competitive with narritve rules. One design plays to a much wider audience. Boy, wonder which one that is.
but you have a hard time being competitive with narritve rules.
There are a few mentions in this very thread of a rules-set where Warhammer Fantasy players managed to do that quite nicely to satisfy their tournament urges.
One design plays to a much wider audience. Boy, wonder which one that is.
If that is true (hint: it isn't), Warhammer 40K may become a minority-game and the more balanced ones will take the top-spot.
Still doesn't change the fact that there are no alternatives to 40K-as-it-is-now (and is thus worth preserving, for those that like it that way), while there are a gazillion of games that cater to the competitive kind.
The gains of turning 40K "balanced" is just adding one grain to a million. The loss is something fundamentally unique.
TheKbob wrote: . But sure, keep covering for GW so they can have their cake and eat it, too.
I spend money on GW products, because I enjoy these products. Why is that so reprehensible? If I wouldn't enjoy their stuff .. as you apparently don't .. I'd not be spending money on them, no?
I have my share of boxes of stuff in the attic of games I don't enjoy. Warmachine and Infinity among them. These games suck. So I stopped spending money on them. Simple.
So you say that you players can make a more competitive game out of a narrative setting after a lot of fan input and hard work. But somehow you can't take a balanced game and make a narrative game out of it?
I honestly can't tell if you're serious or not. How can you do one and not the other? How can you not have the options for narrative games with your own made up rules if you have a solid basis to work from? This just doesn't make any sense.
And before anyone says that there are more casual players or more competitive players than the other, can I see a friggin' statistic before you assume you are the majority opinion and have the most weight in the game?
And before anyone says that there are more casual players or more competitive players than the other, can I see a friggin' statistic before you assume you are the majority opinion and have the most weight in the game?
Can I see a friggin' statistic that shows that "everyone" benefits from a more balanced game. I don't claim to be in the majority. I only claim that not everyone (!) would enjoy a 40K striving to be more balanced.
Some people, believe it or not, buy and play the current edition of Warhammer 40K and like it! Why is that such an impossible concept to grasp for people here?
Just to mention to those who might be unaware the whole "40K would be worse if it were balanced" stich is Zwei's pet topic.
No, I don't get it either, someone who seems at least averagely intelligent who thinks this way seems totally beyond logic for many, but he adamantly sticks to it in every single thread he gets chance to drag on to the subject (and there have been many.)
Probably best not to waste time or effort trying to dissuade him, as he's pretty adamant, and move on.
Psienesis wrote: The problem is, GW plays games based on what kind of army they want to play, not what math-hammers into being a good list. The GW playtest group will, with a straight face, field Howling Banshees against MSU of Chaos Marines and think that it's a grand game.
They don't look at the codices and say "Ok, if I wanted to roflstomp someone, how would I do this with this book?".
They don't look at 2 codices and say, "What are the absolute best tools I can synthesize between these two books to create a truly unstoppable monstrosity?"
As mentioned in the thread, the way they playtest is not the way that people who are even slightly serious about the game play the game.
Yep, and what truly hurts the balance is that they don't consider the possibility that people will try to make lists designed to crush everyone, nor do they consider the possibility that not everyone has common sense and will follow a rule to the letter, no matter how ridiculous the outcome would be.
What GW needs is to hire a complete donkey-cave; someone who goes out of their way to make the most broken combos possible and interpret the rules in the most absurd of ways. Or just go onto the internet. Either one will do. Then perhaps they will realize how game designers should work.
Fenris Frost wrote: There was some discussion on this in another thread. Ultimately, I say the same thing I always do:
I've watched or played in multiple games each week for the 6 years I have been a club leader. I have never once encountered these fabled unanswerable questions that break the game so utterly, as people are always describing.
I think people who think the game is unplayably broken because the rules don't go to laborious length to specify things they assume you are intelligent enough to know, are among the top issues with the game, personally.
I'll give you an example:
Player A: "You can only move in a straight line!"
Player B: "You can bend the tape and move however you want!"
Me: "What does the book say?"
Player A: "It says you move 6 inches!"
Me: "Is bending the tape 'moving 6 inches'?"
Player A: "..."
Common sense goes a long way.
You'd be amazed. I saw a guy declare that the enemy's units couldn't see his because he was on a higher hill and kept on complaining until he got his way. As per me, I've never actually had quite this problem. I'm a casual player. That said, I've run into two obstacles. One, the flaming chariot. Play it, I dare you. It is, in-arguably, one of the worst models in the game. It is basically unplayable and very capable of giving firstblood to the enemy for free. Luckily, with my friends, we house ruled it to work as it was likely intended. That said, I've run it by others that immediately say no. The other one I've had is whenever I deployed a Thousand Son army (I had very little to pick from. Enemy deployed a riptide, pathfinders, and others) It was an ally game on my friend's birthday near the end of my break before I had to leave town again. My good friend wanted to play with me and the birthday friend at once and there was this guy clamoring for a game. I hadn't planned to, I had my daemon prince, a lord, and two units of Thousand Sons. I got dragged in, forced to mainly fight against Tau, and watched as he slaughtered my guys laughing and insulting my army the entire time. When I finally just got into CC to finish off a few guys, my Sorcerer became a DP that promptly got shot by the riptide to death as he gloated about how awesome it is the riptide is tougher than the DP and how superior Tau are. Maaaaaaaan that guy annoyed me.
Now then, what did I learn from it? Well, nothing. It just reminded me that Thousand Sons, and CSM Tzeench in general, is worthless. I've tried to build actual lists with it but it always comes to a waste. Cultists with Tzeentch is idiotic, the mark of tzeentch in general is bad. Playing sorcerers with the mark is bad, playing KSons is bad, Nurgle is better in every way. Not even the icon is worth it. It's choices that were placed there. I grew to really like Tzeentch, Thousand Sons in particular. Bought them, played them, and realized it was all a lie.
In fact, I could go on to criticize the game from the start. It's always been a jerk. it's never ever balanced. I remember the first time I truly played the game after years was with Dark Vengeance. Before then, I'd played LoTR long ago and had been painting models with my dad for some time. Finally, I purchased it and gave my friend DA. We then played games with the simple cards (no codex as we hadn't decided our armies just yet). I played chaos every time. I was stumped, crushed, and beaten every last time whilst the GW employee just watched. Later on, I joined online and read of the imbalance in points. Flipping through my codex, I realized that it wasn't even my fault I always got stomped. As a finisher, the units for the chaos side are an absolute mess that is not built in any way to fight the DA whilst the DA are kitted out to slaughter the CSM. That's not fun, that's not fair. Make balance, let people have fun from the start rather than somebody, naive and foolish, getting demotivated from losing constantly.
40k takes way too long to play to care about it being ultra-competitive.
If I have to spend 2-3 hours getting the little men out, pushing them around a table, then putting them away, I want to enjoy every minute of the experience.
There is no ruleset, perfect or flawed, that will make that happen. Only my own mindset can make it so. And since that's my issue, I don't require the game to be any more or less "balanced" than it already is.
I think I understand what you're saying. Barely. You think that because a game has better balance and there is less need to house rule, that people will be less inclined to house rule? I still don't get that and honestly can't find that to be true outside of your personal experience.
It's like if Thousand Sons were in a balanced game, you wouldn't see as many people proposing homebrew rules for Thousand sons, because they wouldn't be needed/wanted as much, and less people actually being okay with them in a game? Or trying a campaign setting/scenario? I can't accept that. It doesn't make any sense. You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.
but you have a hard time being competitive with narritve rules.
There are a few mentions in this very thread of a rules-set where Warhammer Fantasy players managed to do that quite nicely to satisfy their tournament urges.
One design plays to a much wider audience. Boy, wonder which one that is.
If that is true (hint: it isn't), Warhammer 40K may become a minority-game and the more balanced ones will take the top-spot.
Still doesn't change the fact that there are no alternatives to 40K-as-it-is-now (and is thus worth preserving, for those that like it that way), while there are a gazillion of games that cater to the competitive kind.
The gains of turning 40K "balanced" is just adding one grain to a million. The loss is something fundamentally unique.
TheKbob wrote: . But sure, keep covering for GW so they can have their cake and eat it, too.
I spend money on GW products, because I enjoy these products. Why is that so reprehensible? If I wouldn't enjoy their stuff .. as you apparently don't .. I'd not be spending money on them, no?
I have my share of boxes of stuff in the attic of games I don't enjoy. Warmachine and Infinity among them. These games suck. So I stopped spending money on them. Simple.
Actually wrong. Want to know how to make narrative games with balanced rules? Quite a few ways. One, just play the game and explain it in a fluffy way. Two, set up the terrain to favor one side or the other. Three, let your opponent field extra units past the point limit to represent your force being overwhelmed. Bam, done, victory.
How is it losing something crappy is a bad thing? That's bloody counter-logic. The thing is, it's easier to make something unbalanced than it is to make something balanced. By making the rules entirely equal, just because you are naive and grow to like tzeentch won't mean you will be curb stomped every game just because you picked the wrong choice. You can field that army and have it work on a relatively even playing field with the enemy. Want to make it unbalanced for fluffy reasons? Do what I've mentioned above and bam you have it!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Flaming Chariot? I am not that well versed with Daemons.
It's a 100 point model with AV 10/10/10 fast skimmer. The problem with it is that the exalted flamer is a passenger meaning that if it moves, shots must be on snap fire. The creature has a choice between firing either d3 or 4 lascannon shots (don't have the codex on hand. If memory serves me it is the d3) or a high strength flamer. Problem becomes the flamer can basically never be used and the lascannon shots will only be hitting on 6s. It's been complained about since the beginning but never had a faq fix it.
Savageconvoy wrote: You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.
I am saying that - in my experience - nobody has managed to make the cereal more nutritious without ruining the taste (e.g. Warmachine, Infinity, etc..).
I am not saying it is impossible, but unless somebody has proven it works (preferably for a non-40K-game), I'd rather they stick with great taste .. if in doubt.
Also, a lot of great recent cereals (e.g. X-Wing) have cared not one bit about balanced nutrition and still managed to overtake the balanced offerings (e.g. Warmachine) by leaps and bounds, even among tournament players.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Flaming Chariot? I am not that well versed with Daemons.
It's a 100 point model with AV 10/10/10 fast skimmer. The problem with it is that the exalted flamer is a passenger meaning that if it moves, shots must be on snap fire. The creature has a choice between firing either d3 or 4 lascannon shots (don't have the codex on hand. If memory serves me it is the d3) or a high strength flamer. Problem becomes the flamer can basically never be used and the lascannon shots will only be hitting on 6s. It's been complained about since the beginning but never had a faq fix it.
Oh wow, that's pretty terrible.
I mean, I guess you can stay still to get the proper shots off, but at AV10 you really need those jinks.
I can see why daemon players are pissed off about it.
Savageconvoy wrote: You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.
I am saying that - in my experience - nobody has managed to make the cereal more nutritious without ruining the taste (e.g. Warmachine, Infinity, etc..).
I am not saying it is impossible, but unless somebody has proven it works (preferably for a non-40K-game), I'd rather they stick with great taste .. if in doubt.
Also, a lot of great recent cereals (e.g. X-Wing) have cared not one bit about balanced nutrition and still managed to overtake the balanced offerings (e.g. Warmachine) by leaps and bounds, even among tournament players.
Actually X-Wing balance, if memory serves me, isn't that bad. There are some arguably overpowered things, but, if memory serves me thigns are overall relatively balanced. Also, to be fair, X-Wing has one thing you are not mentioning that gives it an edge over Warmachine. The brand. Just by being Star Wars it's going to have some fans already.
As for 40k, how would it ruin the taste? Warmachine and Infinity, whilst having good rules, don't have grand fluff and are largely built on very small skirmishes. At the moment, 40k is about big giant units and platoon (or wast it company) sized engagements. The thing that gives the units life is the fluff. If all the units were balanced, all of them would be worth it rather than the units that are so bad putting them on the field, despite what their fluff says, is a terrible choice.
Was that the only reason you didn't like the games or were there contributing factors like the aesthetics, the themes/fluff, and the scale of the game?
Those are all reasons I've seen for people not liking Warmachine, Infinity, and so on. But if you're contributing the key factor of those games is because they are balanced, I have to ask the obvious.
Was it the people that were against house ruling and homebrew because there was less need to do so?
Actually X-Wing balance, if memory serves me, isn't that bad. There are some arguably overpowered things, but, if memory serves me thigns are overall relatively balanced. Also, to be fair, X-Wing has one thing you are not mentioning that gives it an edge over Warmachine. The brand. Just by being Star Wars it's going to have some fans already.
X-Wing balance is laughable, for a game that has barely 10 different gaming pieces, only 2 factions and probably less possible combinations than the Space Marines Sternguard entry. It also has blatantly "buy-me-overpowered"-baiting for certain expansions.
But the main thing it has over Warmachine isn't the brand. The main thing it has over Warmachine is the fact that X-Wing is actually fun.
Was it the people that were against house ruling and homebrew because there was less need to do so?
Mix-match armies/models/equipment, mix-up game-play a bit (say.. without Casters for example in Warmachine, to spice up the tired old routine that makes all the games very samey), even changes in the fluff / modelling department were generally ill-regarded.
Yeah, X Wing balance is waaaay better than 40K, you know what else happens?
The things that aren't quite working or are a bit too strong get some sort of adjustment/counter as new releases allow.
For instance, A Wings are often called overpriced, so an upgrade that actually costs minis points is in the offing. TIE Swarm was probably a bit too strong, so things that are most effective against ships flying in close formation start to appear.
FFG care about getting as close as possible to a balanced game, GW blatantly don't.
But this is another one of Zwei's little pet things isn't it deary?
Actually X-Wing balance, if memory serves me, isn't that bad. There are some arguably overpowered things, but, if memory serves me thigns are overall relatively balanced. Also, to be fair, X-Wing has one thing you are not mentioning that gives it an edge over Warmachine. The brand. Just by being Star Wars it's going to have some fans already.
X-Wing balance is laughable, for a game that has barely 10 different gaming pieces, only 2 factions and probably less possible combinations than the Space Marines Sternguard entry. It also has blatantly "buy-me-overpowered"-baiting for certain expansions.
But the main thing it has over Warmachine isn't the brand. The main thing it has over Warmachine is the fact that X-Wing is actually fun.
Eh I honestly didn't know. Still, from the snips I have gathered, their balance is superior and they release new things to try and put some balance into the game. And incorrect. Thing is, you are trying to use a subjective matter as an objective fact. To you, X-Wing is more entertaining than Warmachine. The main thing really has to do with it being Star Wars. That IP really influences people's interests in big ways.
Perhaps there is confusion in all this as to what balance actually is.
Let's look at small examples. Riptides. Riptides may be too good as they currently are. Is toning their firepower down, adjusting their cost, and/or limiting the number taken in anyways going to ruin the game for everyone? I think not. I think that it will open Riptides up more in Casual games.
Let's look at another. Thousand Sons. Is making them better so they actually stand a chance of earning their point cost a bad thing? I think not. It would open them up more to Casual and competitive games.
Now if we do both things together, we get a more balanced game... And everything doesn't get set on fire. How would this ruin the game?
And before anyone says that there are more casual players or more competitive players than the other, can I see a friggin' statistic before you assume you are the majority opinion and have the most weight in the game?
Can I see a friggin' statistic that shows that "everyone" benefits from a more balanced game. I don't claim to be in the majority. I only claim that not everyone (!) would enjoy a 40K striving to be more balanced.
Some people, believe it or not, buy and play the current edition of Warhammer 40K and like it! Why is that such an impossible concept to grasp for people here?
So you like the fact that some matchups are the equivalent of Alexander Karelin bodyslamming Betty White? Or do you just love fighting uphill battles? Or maybe you are the one always jumping to the new hotness.
Eh I honestly didn't know. Still, from the snips I have gathered, their balance is superior and they release new things to try and put some balance into the game. And incorrect. Thing is, you are trying to use a subjective matter as an objective fact. To you, X-Wing is more entertaining than Warmachine. The main thing really has to do with it being Star Wars. That IP really influences people's interests in big ways.
Well, there is always an element of "subjective" in there.
To me, Warhammer 40K is the most enjoyable wargame out there (even better than X-Wing), and 6th Edition the best Edition of 40K yet.
Star Wars obviously has a certain pull, and it "eases" the entry into the game. It makes things familiar. But there must be a million "Star Wars-themed" war/board/computer/card/etc..-games out there, none of which I touched (or the people I play with, the clubs, etc..), because I (and many other people) don't care (enough). Surely, a quick google could find dozens of "Star-Wars-games" that failed commercially. "Star Wars" alone doesn't explain that runaway success.
Eh I honestly didn't know. Still, from the snips I have gathered, their balance is superior and they release new things to try and put some balance into the game. And incorrect. Thing is, you are trying to use a subjective matter as an objective fact. To you, X-Wing is more entertaining than Warmachine. The main thing really has to do with it being Star Wars. That IP really influences people's interests in big ways.
Well, there is always an element of "subjective" in there.
To me, Warhammer 40K is the most enjoyable wargame out there (even better than X-Wing), and 6th Edition the best Edition of 40K yet.
Star Wars obviously has a certain pull, and it "eases" the entry into the game. It makes things familiar. But there must be a million "Star Wars-themed" war/board/computer/card/etc..-games out there, none of which I touched (or the people I play with, the clubs, etc..), because I (and many other people) don't care (enough). "Star Wars" alone doesn't explain that runaway success.
As per the pull of X-Wing. It's a lot of things. That said, the brand name is a major component in bringing people in. From there, you have a starting force that is relatively balanced and lets you automatically start off the game for a rather low entrance price. You have the models already painted and prepared where people that paint can use their own tactics but individuals that don't care to go through that progress can take it. It's also got enough brand that I can convince most to play it. You remember those awesome scenes where Luke and/or Han are flying around fighting the Empire? Well let's play it! The rules are also rather simple, enough so you can learn them in a bit. Finally, the rules are objectively good whilst the game, for many, has an overall positive experience. Finally, Star Wars already has a die hard fan base that will leap on it from the get-go. So, it is a lot of factors that lead up to its success.
For me, Warhammer is odd. It's, perhaps, my favorite and least liked game. On one hand, I love the setting and the fluff so much that it makes me build possessed, thousand sons, and other things just because of a combination of aesthetics and fluff. On the other hand, it's clunky and imbalanced to the point of agony. I'll play it now and have fun, but that's also because I play this game 95% of the time with my friends only and that really makes it entertaining.
Well, in spite of your corporately loyal opinion, I can say that the current edition of the rules is losing them players, both in my casual circle, and my competitive circle (It is possible to enjoy both types of game).
My casual friends are frustrated that the lists they make, without much knowledge of any meta, get pounded by opponents who know what's good and take it. And my competitive friends, while able to put together the nasty lists, find the play style currently in the offering boring. The result is a dwindling pool of players to play with, and no game is good without opponents. They're moving to warmachine, and to x-wing. Those of us who are fairly committed to 40k, simply because of the money invested in armies, are trying to make the best of it and play around the stupid, but GW doesn't make it easy.
Simply consider the needless differences:
Live Ork inside a Walker: Vehicle Live Marine strapped to front of walker: Monstrous creature Live Eldar inside a walker: Vehicle Live Tau inside a walker: Monstrous creature Dead Marine inside a walker: Vehicle Dead Eldar spirit inside a walker: Monstrous Creature Live heretic strapped to front of walker: Vehicle
Redbeard wrote: I have drunk PP's kool-aid and I find it refreshing.
Good for you. If you find Warmachine more to your taste, that is what you should play.
Does Redbeard even play PP? From what I gather, he still plays 40k with his friends, even admitting to being dedicated to the game himself. He's just displeased with the rules as is.
Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.
It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.
A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.
A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.
I see Zwei Quixote has returned. Keep tilting at them windmills!
Why must someone who disputes your obvious gospel interpretation of game design be automatically sided with PP?
Why must someone who enjoys the current iteration of 40K automatically be demeaned as GW-brain-washed?
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
Why must someone who disputes your obvious gospel interpretation of game design be automatically sided with PP?
Why must someone who enjoys the current iteration of 40K automatically be demeaned as GW-brain-washed?
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
For me, it is because Red went on to elaborate his point on the negative qualities of the game whilst all you did was just toss aside his argument, ignore his statements, and say he is a big fan of PP despite him never really implying that.
Hell, Epic: Armageddon actually became more balanced after the fans took it over on the Tac Command forums!
The book became actually useable, too. The actual GW rulebook for that game is one of the most flawed pieces of gak I have ever seen a company attempt to sell, at least judging from the copy you could download off their Specialist Games site before the web update. Units whose picture above the stats didn't match the actual unit, entire stat block entries that were a cut-and-paste repeat from another completely different unit, etc.
GW rules products should not have Errata available the day of the release, for the premium prices they sell them for.
StarTrotter wrote: For me, it is because Red went on to elaborate his point on the negative qualities of the game whilst all you did was just toss aside his argument, ignore his statements, and say he is a big fan of PP despite him never really implying that.
But that is the point. Red might have stated a bunch of stuff he doesn't like, but he didn't address or acknowledge a single point I made, despite quoting me with an insulting "fake quote" that demeans all the points I made as not worthy of any response, while also seeming looking to respond to me in some way.
If he wanted to simply list/add his grievances about 40K, why the "fake-quote" from me?
If he wanted to respond to me, why not respond to things I actually said?
If he doesn't deign to respond to my elaborated points, why should I suddenly be compelled to respond to the points he elaborated on?
Savageconvoy wrote: You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.
I am saying that - in my experience - nobody has managed to make the cereal more nutritious without ruining the taste (e.g. Warmachine, Infinity, etc..).
I am not saying it is impossible, but unless somebody has proven it works (preferably for a non-40K-game), I'd rather they stick with great taste .. if in doubt.
Also, a lot of great recent cereals (e.g. X-Wing) have cared not one bit about balanced nutrition and still managed to overtake the balanced offerings (e.g. Warmachine) by leaps and bounds, even among tournament players.
QFT. I mean, just look at Tyranids. As my troops rain from the sky in their mycetic spores, hidden Lictors and genestealers leap from their hiding places and rip apart the defenders before they can react. Infinity, however, is completely incapable of representing any kind of infiltrator/aircav force, despite being all futuristic. My commandos come on, and then they just stand their staring at the guy with a flamethrower as he burns them to death.
To be honest there is little arguments to one side saying that a game is balanced and the other side saying the game is fun. Balance is not subjective , fun is. It would be as if I claimed apples were better , because they are cheaper and you saying that oranges are better , because they taste better.
StarTrotter wrote: For me, it is because Red went on to elaborate his point on the negative qualities of the game whilst all you did was just toss aside his argument, ignore his statements, and say he is a big fan of PP despite him never really implying that.
But that is the point. Red might have stated a bunch of stuff he doesn't like, but he didn't address or acknowledge a single point I made, despite quoting me with an insulting "fake quote" that demeans all the points I made as not worthy of any response, while also seeming looking to respond to me in some way.
If he wanted to simply list/add his grievances about 40K, why the "fake-quote" from me?
If he wanted to respond to me, why not respond to things I actually said?
If he doesn't deign to respond to my elaborated points, why should I suddenly be compelled to respond to the points he elaborated on?
Yours was:
Well, there is always an element of "subjective" in there.
To me, Warhammer 40K is the most enjoyable wargame out there (even better than X-Wing), and 6th Edition the best Edition of 40K yet.
Star Wars obviously has a certain pull, and it "eases" the entry into the game. It makes things familiar. But there must be a million "Star Wars-themed" war/board/computer/card/etc..-games out there, none of which I touched (or the people I play with, the clubs, etc..), because I (and many other people) don't care (enough). Surely, a quick google could find dozens of "Star-Wars-games" that failed commercially. "Star Wars" alone doesn't explain that runaway success.
Now then, I won't disagree that he didn't need to make the fake quote with kool-aid. That said, there were no real points made in the thing he responded to. You said to me that it was your favorite wargame. What can he say to that? Then you went to discuss that there's something besides SW that made the game popular which is, admittedly, already slightly off topic from 40k itself.
QFT. I mean, just look at Tyranids. As my troops rain from the sky in their mycetic spores, hidden Lictors and genestealers leap from their hiding places and rip apart the defenders before they can react. Infinity, however, is completely incapable of representing any kind of infiltrator/aircav force, despite being all futuristic. My commandos come on, and then they just stand their staring at the guy with a flamethrower as he burns them to death.
I C WAT U DID THAR
We say people gobbling up 40k right now are crazy because they are actively supporting bad business. No matter if you like the other products in any iota, business model to business model, GW is treating it's customers like walking wallets with overpriced paints, tools, and rules. The kits can be argued based on aesthetic, but no one else charges $30 for single pose plastic minis or raises the price when they transition from metal to resin/plastic. And a great deal of modern plastics, such as Malifaux, are doing what GW does. And the metals from Infinity stomp GW detail; check dem Kum Riders!
We all still like 40k. But to argue that GW is fairly treating their customer base in any fashion and you'll be laughed at.
Or should we try to see Zwei defend the new $150 tools?
Why must someone who disputes your obvious gospel interpretation of game design be automatically sided with PP?
Why must someone who enjoys the current iteration of 40K automatically be demeaned as GW-brain-washed?
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
Because that's the only way one can enjoy the current iteration of 40k - by completely ignoring all of the blatant issues and pretending none of that exists.
I am sorry but I cannot fathom how even the most casual of players can think that 6th edition is good. Either you subconsciously house-rule the broken things so they never really come up, or you subconsciously ignore them in the course of the game (the more likely scenario). The idea that a balanced game is somehow worse (and balanced does not mean "everything is equal") boggles my mind, almost as much as people who defend GW's every decision with the cry of "freedom". It's not really freedom, it's the illusion of freedom. You are free to take subpar units... if you want to be at a disadvantage and end up likely to lose games because you chose them. That's not freedom, that's fool's gold, and that's a key problem of 40k right now; there are way too many fool's gold choices. That's not to say other games have none - Warmachine has its share (Khador Man-o-War Shocktroopers spring to mind), but picking them isn't nearly as detrimental in other games as it is in 40k. In Warmachine if I want to field let's say 'jack-heavy Khador with Man-o-War Shocktroopers, I'm going to be at a disadvantage (mostly because I'd be overextending myself with 'jacks and Man-o-War troops aren't that good for their points), but I won't pretty much auto-lose a game like I would if I wanted to field mostly CSMs, a Defiler, a Helbrute, Warp Talons and Khorne Berserkers if I played anybody with half a clue who didn't also pick garbage choices to patronize me. That's the key issue. A bad player of 40k with a good list can beat an experienced player with a poor list, because of the power level gap between lists.
That's a fundamental issue of the game. It's not "taking it too seriously" it's that there are literally choices that will cost you a game if you take them for no other reason than their rules are crap, and choices that can almost single-handedly win you games because their rules are too good. There should never, ever be any choice at those extremes in any kind of decently balanced game; everything should be somewhere near the middle, while 40k has many things at either end (too good or garbage) and very few in the middle.
To think otherwise is pretty much crazy talk, because it's outright ignoring the problems - it's like saying how you need to clean your house... while your roof is missing.
Makumba wrote: To be honest there is little arguments to one side saying that a game is balanced and the other side saying the game is fun. Balance is not subjective , fun is. It would be as if I claimed apples were better , because they are cheaper and you saying that oranges are better , because they taste better.
Balance may not be subjective, but it isn't the universally beneficial. As said, it has "downsides" and "trade-offs".
If balance is not solely beneficial, if it has "good" and "bad", than some game somewhere should try being perfectly balanced (point A). Some other game somewhere should try and reject balance completely to minimize on the downsides of balance (point B). Most games will probably fall somewhere into the middle.
Also, presented with a variety of games that, as balance goes, fall somewhere between point A and point B, different players/gamers will have different preferences.
My personal, subjective preferences probably tend to fall more towards point B, at least moreso than the average of people in this thread. Because of that, I am drawn to games like X-Wing or Warhammer 40K. They fulfill the demand for the kind of games I am looking for.
It does in no way invalidate or demean players looking for something different in their games, more "point A", except that they likely won't find it in games trending more towards "point B" (e.g. 40K).
That said, there were no real points made in the thing he responded to. You said to me that it was your favorite wargame. What can he say to that?
If you don't care for 40K, I can't change that. If you care for balance, you probably don't care for 40K.
But what should be obvious is that a broader gaming hobby with games that caters to both "point A" and "point B" is a richer, more inclusive, more diverse hobby for everyone, than a hobby where all games are forced to converge towards "point A".
The point is not that I like 40K. The point is that variety benefits everyone, and trying to make 40k "more like other games" (to which Red's group seem to gravitate) will diminish and lessen the hobby as a whole. Those other games already exist. Let people who enjoy them play these games. Let 40K be different for those that don't enjoy these other games.
Eldarain wrote: What do you enjoy about the current edition which would be ruined by all units having a purpose and utility?
This is what I don't get about the "balance would be bad" crowd. How would balanced rules and having all units be viable in any way be bad? How would the idea of using tactics to win versus just playing an OP list be bad? I've never really seen an example of why balance would be bad, but there's this pervasive idea that balanced means like Chess, with everyone having the same thing, when nobody in fact has said that.
Eldarain wrote: What do you enjoy about the current edition which would be ruined by all units having a purpose and utility?
This is what I don't get about the "balance would be bad" crowd. How would balanced rules and having all units be viable in any way be bad? How would the idea of using tactics to win versus just playing an OP list be bad? I've never really seen an example of why balance would be bad, but there's this pervasive idea that balanced means like Chess, with everyone having the same thing, when nobody in fact has said that.
For me personally, because more balanced games have proven (in my subjective experience) more inhibitive of narrative gaming.
From a game-designers perspective, this is a good summary of some of the design-choices against balance.
In my experience, a lot of 40k "imbalance" has been precisely this kind of cyclical meta-game.
Landraider-Deathstars faded with Vulkan-Melta-Droppods, which in turn faded to Razor/MSU-Spam, which faded to Missile-spam/Psyfledread, which faded to Heldrake, etc... It keeps the game from going stale.
Neither, however, change the fact that GW is either actively ignoring any form of balance or is grossly incompetant. They have yet to correct absolutely broken units, many listed already, or broken books, such as C:LotD, and that flat out terrible customer service.
Balance may be a discussion (still an extreme doubter, more so when you charge $50 for rules), but their customer service and business practices are bad.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that video apply to video games, and not tabletop games? There's a big difference between the two and what constitutes balance in one and balance in another. In WoW for example, you have balance in the sense that (at most levels anyways) no class is more desirable than another, but in PVP you have classes that can more easily defeat others due to how they function - classes are balanced, but there's an imbalance there for the sake of not having everyone play identically.
Wargaming doesn't have balance like that, least of all 40k where the spectrum is way too wide. Nobody wants 40k to be identical armies, but the discrepancy currently is way too much. You should not be punished (by being at a severe disadvantage from the start, before a single die is rolled or a single unit is moved) for wanting to field CSM squads or Howling Banshees, and currently you ARE because those units are just flat out weak. That's the problem.
Makumba wrote: To be honest there is little arguments to one side saying that a game is balanced and the other side saying the game is fun. Balance is not subjective , fun is. It would be as if I claimed apples were better , because they are cheaper and you saying that oranges are better , because they taste better.
Balance may not be subjective, but it isn't the universally beneficial. As said, it has "downsides" and "trade-offs".
If balance is not solely beneficial, if it has "good" and "bad", than some game somewhere should try being perfectly balanced (point A). Some other game somewhere should try and reject balance completely to avoid minimize on the downsides of balance (point B). Most games will probably fall somewhere into the middle.
Also, presented with a variety of games that, as balance goes, fall somewhere between point A and point B, different players/gamers will have different preferences.
My personal, subjective preferences probably tend to fall more towards point B, at least moreso than the average of people in this thread. Because of that, I am drawn to games like X-Wing or Warhammer 40K. They fulfill the demand for the kind of games I am looking for.
It does in no way invalidate or demean players looking for something different in their games, more "point A", except that they likely won't find it in games trending more towards "point B" (e.g. 40K).
That said, there were no real points made in the thing he responded to. You said to me that it was your favorite wargame. What can he say to that?
If you don't care for 40K, I can't change that. If you care for balance, you probably don't care for 40K.
But what should be obvious is that a broader gaming hobby with games that caters to both "point A" and "point B" is a richer, more inclusive, more diverse hobby for everyone, than a hobby where all games are forced to converge towards "point A".
The point is not that I like 40K. The point is that variety benefits everyone, and trying to make 40k "more like other games" (to which Red's group seem to gravitate) will diminish and lessen the hobby as a whole. Those other games already exist. Let people who enjoy them play these games. Let 40K be different for those that don't enjoy these other games.
You linked imperfect balance, not let's throw balance entirely out the window who wants another waveserpent? And you keep on opting for X-Wing to be this unbalanced mess of a game. Yeah, it has its flaws, but the company still tries to balance it as much as they can.
Also, I care about 40k. I also care for balance. I like 40k. I like the fluff, I like the setting, I like the models, I like the unique army, and I like playing it with friends. ESPECIALLY when we get to create a narrative. Why the hell would I still list 7 armies that are all 40k in my descriptions bar if I didn't? I have fun with 40k but it is in spite of the rules which do not comprise all that is 40k.
And who are these point a and point b folks? If it's on the show, apologies, haven't watched it in a while and audio on my desktop is broken.
And I ask again, how is the game being relatively balanced going to influence the game? What is the point of variety when most of the choices are traps? Do you praise the CSM codex for the option to give your unit the mark of tzeentch despite it being overpriced and giving a 6+ invuln that you will often not use due to your own armor save or cover save? That's not a choice, that's an illusion of choice. This game is a socially based game. Make it balanced or at least perfect imbalanced and then break the rules when you want to. If you want to go silly 5 marines versus 3000 orks and give the marines stupdendous rules, have at it and have a blast! But how is it that making the game will diminish and lessen the hobby? It'll not only diversify the competitive environment a bit (whilst there will always be some form of optimal armies as true balance is impossible, it'll increase the number of choices one could field to form an effective army) and would allow one friend that loves himself riptide to fight a Thousand Son/Tzeentch fan without it always being one sided and a mess, not to mention not entertaining in the slightest to play.
This is not saying what you think it's saying. This is a very strong argument for close balance with minor deviations such as making Sternguard appear a bit stronger and making a unit seem underpowered like Thousand Sons but are perfect for taking down something like Sternguard.
This is making it very hard to take you seriously. We're arguing that there is a bushel of apples and it tastes good and then you start talking about how you hate apples because of their hard green rind and how they're far too large to carry around and eat. This is the very first example you give and it goes against your case in so many ways that it makes it look like you're very confused as to what the topic actually is.
Again, I am not saying 40K is "perfect", far from it. I am not saying things could be changed. I am not saying the prices for the rulebooks are justifiable.
But before anyone can even begin to have a most rudimentary game-design conversation about how to improve the game, the utterly idiotic fallacy must be dispelled that "balance" is some sort of silver bullet. It is not. It is one, rather double-edged tool in the tool-box of a game-designer It can be used, possible even to improve 40K, but it is always a tool that can only be used at a cost, and using it will always make the game less attractive, less fun, to some people, even if it makes the game more attractive to other (possibly more) people.
Zweischneid wrote: Again, I am not saying 40K is "perfect", far from it. I am not saying things could be changed. I am not saying the prices for the rulebooks are justifiable.
But before anyone can even begin to have a most rudimentary game-design conversation about how to improve the game, the utterly idiotic fallacy must be dispelled that "balance" is some sort of silver bullet. It is not. It is one, rather double-edged tool in the tool-box of a game-designer It can be used, possible even to improve 40K, but it is always a tool that can only be used at a cost, and using it will always make the game less attractive, less fun, to some people, even if it makes the game more attractive to other (possibly more) people.
Less attractive to who? The guy that builds a list with the most broken units and crushes all their new friends?
This is not saying what you think it's saying. This is a very strong argument for close balance with minor deviations such as making Sternguard appear a bit stronger and making a unit seem underpowered like Thousand Sons but are perfect for taking down something like Sternguard.
They actively cite deviations of 15% (in the case of MTG) as a rule of thumb other game designers use in the industry.
15% deviation of 40K armies in, say, a 2000 pt. game, could mean as much as 300 pts both ways - a 600 pt. split - that armies deviate from their "real balanced" value.
And that is before accounting for the sliding "value" of point-systems (for example for spamming multiples) as expressed by Quirkworthy http://quirkworthy.com/2011/10/15/design-theory-why-points-systems-will-always-be-broken/ And that is before accounting for game-designer mistakes, which also happen.
And that is before accounting for the fact, that 40K might be pushing a greater variation from the "balance" than the guys as MTG
Now you're just stating Nihilistic nonsense.
"They could do something, but it might make things worse. Better to leave it as it is despite logical and reasoned examples and arguments on why it would improve."
I don't think you understand balance, or the opinions of people asking for balance, to try and label it as a double edged sword. Going off your logic this could work for anything. You could adjust point costs with each codex update, but you don't know if it will make the game more attractive or less attractive and potentially scare away players.
You don't know if having new models in a release will make the game more attractive or less attractive and potentially scare away players.
You don't know if adding in Escalation and Stronghold Assault will make the game more attractive or less attractive and scare away new players.
The statement can be applied to anything, with the only difference that you're accepting what the company puts out with no fear of this double edged sword of inbalance.
I see no actively sold game that doesn't try to push for some sort of game balance.
Even RPGs, pure narrative devices, have errata and FAQs issued for items, circumstances, and game play clarity. FFG handles their 40kRPGs better than GW handles the parent game. And those books are twice the content and the same price or cheaper, IIRC.
Again, you still haven't proven anything. Balance or no balance, there are flat out busted units and books that people paid money for that are not addressed. They are performing bad business compared to all their competition regardless of actual game or aesthetic. You have yet to address this in any form.
Zweischneid wrote: Again, I am not saying 40K is "perfect", far from it. I am not saying things could be changed. I am not saying the prices for the rulebooks are justifiable.
But before anyone can even begin to have a most rudimentary game-design conversation about how to improve the game, the utterly idiotic fallacy must be dispelled that "balance" is some sort of silver bullet. It is not. It is one, rather double-edged tool in the tool-box of a game-designer It can be used, possible even to improve 40K, but it is always a tool that can only be used at a cost, and using it will always make the game less attractive, less fun, to some people, even if it makes the game more attractive to other (possibly more) people.
I don't understand this logic, can you explain? In what way would a balanced game that allowed for every unit in a codex to be fielded with some sort of tactical strategy around it (versus just being underpowered or not worth taking at all) be worse for anyone as opposed to the current situation? If codexes and the rules were balanced, you could have even MORE of a narrative game because you could do fringe things and NOT be penalized for doing it. You could take a lot of currently subpar units if it fit your narrative and not essentially have losing the game be a foregone conclusion.
I'm trying really hard to understand this mentality, because it doesn't make sense to me. I can't think of a single tangible scenario where having a balanced game with balanced rules hurts anyone (beyond the WAAC people who like using unbalanced units, but you don't seem like that type so I doubt you're arguing from that POV), but I can think of a lot of situations where the current (i.e. unbalanced) game hurts people on one side or another, whether its casual players having a narrative game as part of a campaign or two competitors in a tournament competing for a cash prize.
This is not saying what you think it's saying. This is a very strong argument for close balance with minor deviations such as making Sternguard appear a bit stronger and making a unit seem underpowered like Thousand Sons but are perfect for taking down something like Sternguard.
They actively cite deviations of 15% (in the case of MTG) as a rule of thumb other game designers use in the industry.
15% deviation of 40K armies in, say, a 2000 pt. game, could mean as much as 300 pts both ways - a 600 pt. split - that armies deviate from their "real balanced" value.
And that is before accounting for the sliding "value" of point-systems as expressed by Quirkworthy http://quirkworthy.com/2011/10/15/design-theory-why-points-systems-will-always-be-broken/ And that is before accounting for game-designer mistakes, which also happen.
And that is before accounting for the fact, that 40K might be pushing a greater variation from the "balance" than the guys as MTG
Yet again, what variation? By making it so imbalanced, it makes there be less variation. Few people want to field Thousand Sons because they are bad and so you rarely see them. They become an illusion of choice. As per mistakes, yes all make mistakes. Problem is, they never fix them. We have unplayable models that even after months, maybe even a year still are absolutely unplayable. We have pyrocasters that actually got nerfed! from what they used to be.
Savageconvoy wrote: Now you're just stating Nihilistic nonsense.
"They could do something, but it might make things worse. Better to leave it as it is despite logical and reasoned examples and arguments on why it would improve."
Not "despite logical and reasoned examples", but, as said, because the 40K-type-of-game is by far the scarcer commodity in the hobby.
If you have a thousand strains of red tomatoes and only one strain of green tomato, you need to think hard before breeding the green one to be red. People who enjoy the red may be in the majority, but they already have a wealth of options. Those that enjoy the green, even if it is in the eyes of the majority an inferior tomato, have far more to lose.
If he wanted to respond to me, why not respond to things I actually said?
How astute of you. I didn't want to respond to any of your "points", because you're clearly bought-in and not thinking objectively. Your points simply demonstrate this. My post was not a response to yours, I just added a little humour at the beginning of it.
If he doesn't deign to respond to my elaborated points, why should I suddenly be compelled to respond to the points he elaborated on?
You're not. I honestly don't care about anything you have to say about the state of the game because you're exhibiting the same lack of game design understanding that the GW staff exhibits. Your every post stems from the deluded belief that a balanced game is not desirable, in spite of all evidence to the contrary and all modern schools of game design actually aiming for basically balanced systems with some minimal imbalances to drive meta exploration. The idea that imbalance is good for casual play is so laughable as to not warrant a response.
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
Savageconvoy wrote: Now you're just stating Nihilistic nonsense.
"They could do something, but it might make things worse. Better to leave it as it is despite logical and reasoned examples and arguments on why it would improve."
Not "despite logical and reasoned examples", but, as said, because the 40K-type-of-game is by far the scarcer commodity in the hobby.
If you have a thousand strains of red tomatoes and only one strain of green tomato, you need to think hard before breeding the green one to be red. People who enjoy the red may be in the majority, but they already have a wealth of options. Those that enjoy the green, even if it is in the eyes of the majority an inferior tomato, have far more to lose.
Because it's the bad commodity. It's the rotten apple that half of it is sweet and the other half makes you want to vomit.
What aspect of 40k would be ruined by balance? The fluff? Balance would mean you would be able to take your fluff lists and win. The competitive scene? More variety can only be better. Sales? People buy stuff that is of good quality.
As for I, I play Warmachine to beat each other to paste, 40k for the models/fluff and x-wing to win. I don't see much wrong in that.
azreal13 wrote: Still waiting for that one specific example of a unit that would be ruined by whatever it is you think balance is Zwei....
The heldrake, riptide, screamerstar, and waveserpent of course! They wouldn't be as good....
Oh, right!
Just think how much less narrative they'd be if they were merely one viable choice amongst many, rather than obviously, brokenly much better than anything else even roughly comparable.
I haven't seen Zwei have this discussion in weeks! I'm really enjoying the nostalgia trip!
They actively cite deviations of 15% (in the case of MTG) as a rule of thumb other game designers use in the industry.
15% deviation of 40K armies in, say, a 2000 pt. game, could mean as much as 300 pts both ways - a 600 pt. split - that armies deviate from their "real balanced" value.
Again, you seem confused on how this works.
A 15% deviation in a game that uses around 60 cards with a limit of 4 cards of the same kind and randomly sorted is very different from 15%-30% of points in two armies that are completely controlled on the field. That balance system doesn't translate over to 40K. A better idea of balance would be a unit like a Riptide which stands out being 0-1 per 1000 points. That and MTG has further restrictions on tournaments and the different types of games, which helps provide balance outside of the design stage.
And again, my example of a subpar unit being exceptionally good at taking down an above average unit is exactly what they are saying. X is better then A, B, and C and A, B, C are better than D. However D has an advantage against X, which creates an overall balance to prevent the entire community trending towards X. There is a way you can use this logic to approach the current meta, but it sadly doesn't work. Dark Angels aren't good against Eldar and Tau let alone any of the other higher tier armies.
Currently Unit A is worse at shooting and combat than Unit B, and to boot it costs more/is easier to kill/etc.. Even the most casual of players doesn't want to be disadvantages simply because they happen to like how Unit A looks, or the fluff of Unit A, or they built a force where Unit A fits in. But, by choosing Unit A they are actively hurting their chances of winning by picking an inferior unit, because they don't like how Unit B looks or don't like it's fluff.
A balanced system makes Unit A and Unit B much closer to each other, and presents a true tactical choice between them. Maybe Unit A is better at shooting but weaker at combat, while Unit B is better at combat (and can get into combat faster) but weaker at shooting. A shooty army picks Unit A, a combat army picks Unit B, and a savvy commander can pick either one to reinforce a potential weak list in their army. Either choice works, and a player isn't punished simply for picking a certain unit.
In what way would this actually HURT the game?? The fluff player gets to pick the better suited Unit A and *not* feel like "Man, Unit A isn't good, but it fits my army more than Unit B". The competitive player gets to think "Do I take Unit A for some more shooting, or do I stick with Unit B to give more combat power?" and weigh the choice. That's MORE choice, not less. We currently have less choice, where a handful of units are garbage, and a handful are really good - either you take the really good units or you risk losing the game just because you picked wrong.
What's worse isn't just the fact imbalance exists, it's that GW deliberately makes things imbalanced to "force" buying something new. So one edition Unit A is overpowered, and people buy it. Then GW thinks "Let's make Unit A weak, and Unit B strong, so people will buy Unit B; they've already bought Unit A and are unlikely to buy another one". Then later it's "Let's add Unit C and make it more powerful so people have to buy it". Their business model is, in effect, a scam. They change balance not because it needs changing, but to "force" (strongly encourage might be a better word) people to replace units that they've already bought on the assumption that the unit is no longer good, but another unit is.
That's even more deplorable than being just incompetent, because it's being *malicious* and willfully negligent. It's like if you go to a mechanic with a car problem, and he fixes one thing on your car but purposely messes something else up so that in a few months it will break and you'll have to come back to get it fixed, so he gets repeat business. At best, it's unethical. At worst, it's criminal.
Nothing. in a perfect 40K world, units who are shooty/ bad at choppy would be just as viable a choice as units that are choppy/bad at shooty, just depending on playstyle of the player.
Unfortunately, most times they aren't. Or worse yet, instances where they are get changed by GW to positions where they aren't. THOSE are the situations that mess with my head.
Zweischneid wrote: For me personally, because more balanced games have proven (in my subjective experience) more inhibitive of narrative gaming.
Narrative gaming is created through scenarios and backstory, not by having some units be so bad that they are not worth taking, and other units so ridiculously good that they are not worth not taking.
It doesn't help narrative gaming for every second army to be Tau/Eldar allies with multiple Riptides and Wraithknights.
Landraider-Deathstars faded with Vulkan-Melta-Droppods, which in turn faded to Razor/MSU-Spam, which faded to Missile-spam/Psyfledread, which faded to Heldrake, etc... It keeps the game from going stale.
And none of which have anything to do with narrative gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: If you have a thousand strains of red tomatoes and only one strain of green tomato, you need to think hard before breeding the green one to be red. People who enjoy the red may be in the majority, but they already have a wealth of options. Those that enjoy the green, even if it is in the eyes of the majority an inferior tomato, have far more to lose.
Only until you remove the green, forcing them to try the red... and they discover that it tastes (to them) exactly the same...
Making 40K a more balanced game removes nothing from those who want a narrative game. You could still create backstories for your armies. You could still create campaigns and custom scenarios. You could still make 'click... fwoosh!' noises when you fire your flamers.
You could also build an army based solely on the models you like, or on the models you have added into your narrative backstory, without worrying that it will either be so ridiculously bad that it's not even worth putting models on the table, or so ridiculously good that you get labelled as some kind of WAAC troll for showing up with those particular models to a friendly game...
insaniak wrote: You could also build an army based solely on the models you like, or on the models you have added into your narrative backstory, without worrying that it will either be so ridiculously bad that it's not even worth putting models on the table, or so ridiculously good that you get labelled as some kind of WAAC troll for showing up with those particular models to a friendly game...
1000x this. Balanced games let you truly build fluffy armies THAT ARE ALSO GOOD, instead of in most cases a fluffy army being complete garbage or running the risk of labeling you a WAACTFG. For example, a Khorne Berserker army is bad, so you're punished for wanting to play a straight World Eaters or even just a Khornate warband. On the other hand, Nurgle is good so you are actually at a major advantage for wanting a Death Guard or Nurgle-aligned army. Those two extremes should not exist; a Khornate army should be just as viable as a Nurgle army which is just as viable as Slaanesh which is just as viable as Tzeentch, but each plays in a different way.
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
However the episode starts with this phrase (as close as I can quote it):
In perfect imbalance you do not want great, big haphazard [imbalances], but carefully crafted subtle ones.
The entire rest of the episode builds off that mentality. When myself, and many others, say we want a balanced 40k, this is more aptly of what we are requested. A perfect balance would be chess, but that's not what we want. We want what exists in the other games; perfect imbalance.
This video alone states how Privateer Press addresses balance concerns in Warmachine. It actually makes a massive amount of sense and makes me appreciate that game so much more. It's not necessarily boiler plate "rock - paper - scissors," but rather each unit is a tool to perform a tabletop function and they have mathematically distilled each unit to ensure there is that "Jedi Curve" and degrees off it.
And here's the most important part:
Nothing of what Games Workshop has done, to date, in 6E has given the slightest hint that they are striving towards a perfect imbalance system or that there is a mathematical formula to how point value are assigned to units unlike their competitors.
By this very own proof provided by an opposing viewpoint, they have shot themselves in the foot by actively showing that Games Workshop is practicing bad game design. The game is nothing but haphazard, large imbalances. Ones where you can see massive power gaps between units within codecis, let along comparison of codecis. To say that the game is expressing perfect imbalance is ignoring the levels of Deathstar 40k versus that of a fluffy XYZ army.
If Games Workshop applied the same game design theories as expressed in this video (the extra credits series of videos are enlightening on game design in general), a great majority of complaints about the game would vanish. Instead you would have complaints that appear within the other systems that "X" is overpowered... until you find the lizard to his spock, etc. and so on.
The lizard to the current spock is people trying to add D weapons to the game. Weapons that ignore all other rules that simply "point - click - removed". This nothing close to perfect imbalance. So thank you for giving us further proof that Games Workshop is not properly supporting their game and is employing bad game design.
As an aside, it also throws out the other post about "Game points don't work" theory as we can see them actively working well in something like Magic the Gathering or Warmachine. It's not perfect by any means, but by actively maintaining the game, you can correct any deficiencies or unplanned circumstances as both companies, and other game companies like them, do so often. Perfect is not a destination, but by trying to get there, you will likely find success along the way.
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
All I ever said.
I never claimed that 40K hit the nail perfectly (even if - to me, subjectively - 40K hits it better than all the alternatives I've tried). I only ever said that "balance" as such is not the only thing to consider, and in some cases imbalances are preferable.
Once we can get rid of this idiocy of "balanced = better", we can start a real discussion on game-design, including a discussion on what amounts of "imbalance" are right, and how much imbalance or how much balance is taking things too far into one direction or the other.
Also, the video illustrates some of the key problems Warmachine has as a result of too much balance. It is stale, repetitive and not engaging. Warmachine certainly needs a lot more imbalances, and more pronounced imbalances, to be engaging and fun, to be "perfectly imbalanced".
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
All I ever said.
I never claimed that 40K hit the nail perfectly (even if - to me, subjectively - 40K hits it better than all the alternatives I've tried). I only ever said that "balance" as such is not the only thing to consider, and in some cases imbalances are preferable.
Once we can get rid of this idiocy of "balanced = better", we can start a real discussion on game-design, including a discussion on what amounts of "imbalance" are right, and how much imbalance or how much balance is taking things too far into one direction or the other.
Also, the video illustrates some of the key problems Warmachine has as a result of too much balance. It is stale, repetitive and not engaging. Warmachine certainly needs a lot more imbalances, and more pronounced imbalances, to be engaging and fun, to be "perfectly imbalanced".
Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.
Anyways, I think when most of us say balanced, we often put perfect imbalance within that bracket. It's not the most logical thing, but it's kind of like how people use hate in such general terms. Most people here, I assume, would concur that perfect imbalance works perfectly fine for 40k. A complex game of rock paper scissors, that said, it's still an odd form of balance in its own way. It becomes a fluid world where things rise and fall naturally with its own dynamic where every unit has a functional purpose even if some of them are more specific and going to be less common than others usually.
I'd agree that this is what we want in 40k, perfect imbalance.
All I ever said.
I never claimed that 40K hit the nail perfectly (even if - to me, subjectively - 40K hits it better than all the alternatives I've tried). I only ever said that "balance" as such is not the only thing to consider, and in some cases imbalances are preferable.
Once we can get rid of this idiocy of "balanced = better", we can start a real discussion on game-design, including a discussion on what amounts of "imbalance" are right, and how much imbalance or how much balance is taking things too far into one direction or the other.
Also, the video illustrates some of the key problems Warmachine has as a result of too much balance. It is stale, repetitive and not engaging. Warmachine certainly needs a lot more imbalances, and more pronounced imbalances, to be engaging and fun, to be "perfectly imbalanced".
Balance is better. No amounts of imbalance are necessary or desirable.
I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.
Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.
Not anymore subjective than to say that 40K needs to be more balanced. Of course it is subjective. There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine. It simply caters to a different taste in the amount of "imbalance" people want in their games.
As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.
I might not like Warmachine, I think it is far too balanced to be engaging, but for all I care, it can stay the way it is, for the people who enjoy it this way, as long as I have 40K in its current variant as an alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.
No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.
However, as an ancillary effect - as a free bonus if you want - talking to people may also solve some of the problems you feel exist with 40K. But even if it didn't, talking with people is still better than not talking with them.
Zweischneid wrote: There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine.
Oh, there are many things wrong with 40k. It's absolutely full of examples of objectively bad game design, the laughably poor balance is just a small part of the overall problem.
As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.
And, as we've told you many times before, this is a terrible analogy. 40k's problems aren't a case of different flavors, or catering to one group's preferences as the expense of another. It's the equivalent of a restaurant that serves moldy food with shards of broken glass in it, while a few obsessed masochists praise the interesting flavors and crunchy texture.
No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.
I don't really feel like digging up the posts in question, but what you said was essentially "I'm so happy that the game has finally reached a state where pre-game negotiation is mandatory and all those TFGs are being excluded, I would hate to go back to the old days when it wasn't necessary". And that's just one example of many, your point of view is, to be polite, somewhat unconventional and you've mastered the art of not caring when people demonstrate why your claims are wrong.
I don't really feel like digging up the posts in question, but what you said was essentially "I'm so happy that the game has finally reached a state where pre-game negotiation is mandatory and all those TFGs are being excluded, I would hate to go back to the old days when it wasn't necessary". And that's just one example of many, your point of view is, to be polite, somewhat unconventional and you've mastered the art of not caring when people demonstrate why your claims are wrong.
Yes.
In scale of
1. Pre-game communication is not necessary, and nobody does it.
2. Pre-game communication is necessary, and most people do it.
3. Pre-game communication is not necessary, yet most people do it anyways
In recent years, we have slowly moved from 1 toward 2, with 2 > 1. That is improvement. 3 would be ideal, but in a not-perfect-world, I take 2 over 1.
Again, people's tastes might differ, but I am sure there are non-40K games out there that cater to their taste. Diversity is the key to make everybody happy.
Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.
Not anymore subjective than to say that 40K needs to be more balanced. Of course it is subjective. There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine. It simply caters to a different taste in the amount of "imbalance" people want in their games.
As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.
I might not like Warmachine, I think it is far too balanced to be engaging, but for all I care, it can stay the way it is, for the people who enjoy it this way, as long as I have 40K in its current variant as an alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.
No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.
However, as an ancillary effect - as a free bonus if you want - talking to people may also solve some of the problems you feel exist with 40K. But even if it didn't, talking with people is still better than not talking with them.
We play random opponents with preset lists, chief. I'm not feeling you.
We play random opponents with preset lists, chief. I'm not feeling you.
Indeed.
There are many quick ways to create near-perfect balance with 40K.
One-list-tournaments with exact mirror-matches all around. Randomizing armies and players, so people don't know which army they will play in any given game. Technically, even random-army-list generators should be technologically doable these days. Etc..., etc..
If people truly cared about balance in organized tournament play, it be dead-easy to do. Nobody cares enough about balance though. People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.
Zweischneid wrote: People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.
Or even competitive players care about the fluff and models, and don't have much interest in a game where they have to bring the specific models the tournament requires with no choices or customization.
Zweischneid wrote: People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.
Or even competitive players care about the fluff and models, and don't have much interest in a game where they have to bring the specific models the tournament requires with no choices or customization.
Well, if even tournament players pick fluff/models over balanced formats, you can hardly blame the game designers for not caring about balance.
Still subjective to say Warmachine needs to be more imbalanced. There's nothing wrong with chess per say and even Warmachine likely has some themes of perfect imbalance in it as is.
Not anymore subjective than to say that 40K needs to be more balanced. Of course it is subjective. There is nothing wrong with 40k per se, not any more than there is with chess or Warmachine. It simply caters to a different taste in the amount of "imbalance" people want in their games.
As long as we have all the flavours, ranging from Chess to current 40K and even beyond that, everyone can pick the flavour they subjectively prefer.
I might not like Warmachine, I think it is far too balanced to be engaging, but for all I care, it can stay the way it is, for the people who enjoy it this way, as long as I have 40K in its current variant as an alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I would just like to point out that Zweischneid is the guy who has seriously argued that poor balance is good because it forces you to talk about what you want the game to be before playing, and drives out all those awful WAAC/competitive/etc players that he dislikes. Keep this in mind when trying to discuss the subject with him.
No. I argued that talking to people is generally better than not talking to people. That is in itself a truism that needs no other reason to support it.
However, as an ancillary effect - as a free bonus if you want - talking to people may also solve some of the problems you feel exist with 40K. But even if it didn't, talking with people is still better than not talking with them.
The problem is you formulate your way in a confusing way. You keep on talking about imbalance in 40k as though it is a good thing when it isn't in any way. Nobody praises it, it's the thing all will be at best neutral to and at worst openly critique. Even perfect imbalance talks about how it isn't done lazily, it's done in a very meticulous fashion. The cyclical imbalance doesn't even exist in 40k. There's no real solution to the riptide. There's no rise in a certain unit because of the riptide that leads to counters to the counter that leads to other counters. Along with that, the game the thing praises, LoL also has to re-balance their games whenever things come out often times because they are released overpowered. In the end, perfect imbalance is a form of balance in the grand scheme of things. Also, Warmachine actually has perfect imbalance in it. What I'm saying is that the current iteration of 40k is bad. The fact that units like the Riptide, Waveserpent, etc exist and dominate the meta for months to years is a big problem. When a unit is so much better that there is no use in bringing anything else, this is lazy designing. The rules with 40k are wrong. They are imbalanced, make no logical sense, punish many units, have worthless units, etc. As is, there are definitively superior choices that are foolish to not take and units that should never be taken.
People want a 40k game where Ksons, Riptides, and Kroot are all god. Sure, it might be that Ksons, in this fictional world of imperfect balance, are generally better but then there is the slightly underpowered riptide that is particularly efficient at killing Ksons. This brings a rise to riptides however then Kroot rise due to being good at beating riptides that leads to a return of Ksons that are good again due to the drop in number of riptides. This is good and swell but as of now we have a terrible ruleset that punishes everybody.
I don't really feel like digging up the posts in question, but what you said was essentially "I'm so happy that the game has finally reached a state where pre-game negotiation is mandatory and all those TFGs are being excluded, I would hate to go back to the old days when it wasn't necessary". And that's just one example of many, your point of view is, to be polite, somewhat unconventional and you've mastered the art of not caring when people demonstrate why your claims are wrong.
Yes.
In scale of
1. Pre-game communication is not necessary, and nobody does it.
2. Pre-game communication is necessary, and most people do it.
3. Pre-game communication is not necessary, yet most people do it anyways
In recent years, we have slowly moved from 1 toward 2, with 2 > 1. That is improvement. 3 would be ideal, but in a not-perfect-world, I take 2 over 1.
Again, people's tastes might differ, but I am sure there are non-40K games out there that cater to their taste. Diversity is the key to make everybody happy.
Thing is, pre-game communication shouldn't be necessary. It should be optional. We should be able to deploy what we want as long as it isn't our own houserules and just play a game on the bat. If we want narrative games, discussion is necessary.
The problem is you formulate your way in a confusing way. You keep on talking about imbalance in 40k as though it is a good thing when it isn't in any way. Nobody praises it, it's the thing all will be at best neutral to and at worst openly critique.
And you keep talking about imbalance in 40K as if it is a bad thing. If we can settle on neutral, we'd be good.
The cyclical imbalance doesn't even exist in 40k.
Maybe not. A discussion for another day. Cyclical imbalance however does exist in game-design though, as do other forms of imbalance, which proves that balance isn't everything, or always the best thing to go about designing a game.
In the end, perfect imbalance is a form of balance in the grand scheme of things.
No. Imbalance is always a form of imbalance in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, it must be done carefully. Yes, there can be too much imbalance (as there can be too much balance... e.g. Warmachine). Yes, maybe 40K hasn't hit the perfect spot just yet. Warmachine certainly has not.
The Extra Credit video I linked to isn't a description of 40K. It only served to show that the often-repeated notion of "balance=better" is not always right.
We play random opponents with preset lists, chief. I'm not feeling you.
Indeed.
There are many quick ways to create near-perfect balance with 40K.
One-list-tournaments with exact mirror-matches all around. Randomizing armies and players, so people don't know which army they will play in any given game. Technically, even random-army-list generators should be technologically doable these days. Etc..., etc..
If people truly cared about balance in organized tournament play, it be dead-easy to do. Nobody cares enough about balance though. People enjoy the benefits of imbalance - e.g. list-building, "meta-gaming", etc.. - too much to give it up.
One list tournaments with exact mirror-matches also requires yanking the game in ways people don't want and restricts casual players that just want to play a relatively even game from the get go. Randomizing armies doesn't help anything as well. It just makes it a guess. That's like defending psyker and commander roles being random. That takes agency away from the layer (plus that'd be impossible and too expensive for anybody to conventionally do). Seriously, army list randomness is also stupid. This isn't a pc game where I get all my units. This is a game where you have to buy expensive models, build these models, and then paint htem.
It's not easy. And the problem is that nerfing one thing can cause other problems. Even now, tournaments try but look at all the crap that GW throws out with dataslates and minidexes and all this other stuff.
The problem is you formulate your way in a confusing way. You keep on talking about imbalance in 40k as though it is a good thing when it isn't in any way. Nobody praises it, it's the thing all will be at best neutral to and at worst openly critique.
And you keep talking about imbalance in 40K as if it is a bad thing. If we can settle on neutral, we'd be good.
The cyclical imbalance doesn't even exist in 40k.
Maybe not. A discussion for another day. Cyclical imbalance however does exist in game-design though, as do other forms of imbalance, which proves that balance isn't everything, or always the best thing to go about designing a game.
In the end, perfect imbalance is a form of balance in the grand scheme of things.
No. Imbalance is always a form of imbalance in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, it must be done carefully. Yes, there can be too much imbalance (as there can be too much balance... e.g. Warmachine). Yes, maybe 40K hasn't hit the perfect spot just yet.
The Extra Credit video I linked to isn't a description of 40K. It only served to show that the often-repeated notion of "balance=better" is not always right.
BECAUSE IT IS BAD! Perfect Imbalance is good but 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Not in the slightest. It's pure imbalance. It's a world where everything is absolutely broken and many a thing are almost unplayable with no real use (pyrocasters and flaming chariots). It's a crappy game that is held up by a combination of a great setting, well liked fluff, and a large playerbase, oh, and some pretty good models.
I like perfect imbalance. The problem is 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Also, then why link to it? Is that not what you are implying 40k should strive for? Why you are defending 40k's imbalance?
Zweischneid wrote: Well, if even tournament players pick fluff/models over balanced formats, you can hardly blame the game designers for not caring about balance.
Except there shouldn't have to be a choice between the two. The "choice" only exists because the rule authors (GW's morons don't deserve to be called game designers) are incompetent. The fact that, when forced to choose the lesser of two evils, competitive players still want some fluff/model element in their games does not in any way excuse the utter idiocy and laziness of saying "well, they don't care about balance to the exclusion of all else, now we don't have to put any effort into balance".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote: And you keep talking about imbalance in 40K as if it is a bad thing. If we can settle on neutral, we'd be good.
That's because it IS a bad thing. It's bad for competitive play, it's bad for narrative play, it's bad for casual/social play. The only people 40k's lack of balance is helping is the seal clubbers who bring the most overpowered armies and only play against helpless newbies.
Cyclical imbalance however does exist in game-design though, as do other forms of imbalance, which proves that balance isn't everything, or always the best thing to go about designing a game.
No, you're (once again) just failing to understand the difference between variable/cyclical balance and bad balance. If you do more than look at the title "perfect imbalance" you realize that the concept is about carefully crafting an environment where the power of each choice depends on what other choices are common in the metagame. It was a poor decision to use the word "imbalance" in the title because that's not really what it is.
BECAUSE IT IS BAD! Perfect Imbalance is good but 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Not in the slightest. It's pure imbalance. It's a world where everything is absolutely broken and many a thing are almost unplayable with no real use (pyrocasters and flaming chariots). It's a crappy game that is held up by a combination of a great setting, well liked fluff, and a large playerbase, oh, and some pretty good models.
I like perfect imbalance. The problem is 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Also, then why link to it? Is that not what you are implying 40k should strive for? Why you are defending 40k's imbalance?
I linked to the Extra Credit video because of repeated statements like this.
Balance is better. No amounts of imbalance are necessary or desirable.
I am not implying 40K is "perfect". But blind approaches to "more balance" don't make it better or address any of the problems either.
I am not defending 40K's imbalances. I am questioning the misconception that imbalance is a result of the game designers "mistake" or "inability", and not a result of the game designers conscious choice (possibly a bad choice in your eyes, but a choice nonetheless).
You are free to dislike 40K's imbalances as much as you like. I won't stop you. Just don't claim that your subjective opinion on this is some form of objective truth.
It was a poor decision to use the word "imbalance" in the title because that's not really what it is.
It is not. The video actually spends about 1/3rd of the runtime explaining possible drawbacks of "balanced" games using the examples of Chess and Star Craft.
They are not "bad" games (we really need to get away from this false good/bad dichotomy), but different games that cater to a different taste among gamers and, as a result of their balance, are unable to offer some of the experience that more (carefully) imbalanced games can. Ergo, there are advantages to (careful) imbalances over balance.. That can't be true of "perfect imbalance=balance".
Zweischneid wrote: I am questioning the misconception that imbalance is a result of the game designers "mistake" or "inability", and not a result of the game designers conscious choice (possibly a bad choice in your eyes, but a choice nonetheless).
It might be a misconception when dealing with other games. For example, you might look at a bad card in MTG and think that the designers suck, but in reality that card's low power level was a deliberate choice to make draft and sealed formats work. The same is not true in 40k. We aren't dealing with a carefully-crafted metagame where deliberate variations in balance are used to achieve a desired result (other than selling the latest $100 model kit). What we have is a very obvious case of incompetent rule authors, nonexistent playtesting, and a management structure that doesn't give a about the company's quality problems.
Just don't claim that your subjective opinion on this is some form of objective truth.
BECAUSE IT IS BAD! Perfect Imbalance is good but 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Not in the slightest. It's pure imbalance. It's a world where everything is absolutely broken and many a thing are almost unplayable with no real use (pyrocasters and flaming chariots). It's a crappy game that is held up by a combination of a great setting, well liked fluff, and a large playerbase, oh, and some pretty good models.
I like perfect imbalance. The problem is 40k isn't perfect imbalance. Also, then why link to it? Is that not what you are implying 40k should strive for? Why you are defending 40k's imbalance?
I linked to the Extra Credit video because of repeated statements like this.
Balance is better. No amounts of imbalance are necessary or desirable.
I am not implying 40K is "perfect". But blind approaches to "more balance" don't make it better or address any of the problems either.
I am not defending 40K's imbalances. I am questioning the misconception that imbalance is a result of the game designers "mistake" or "inability", and not a result of the game designers conscious choice (possibly a bad choice in your eyes, but a choice nonetheless).
You are free to dislike 40K's imbalances as much as you like. I won't stop you. Just don't claim that your subjective opinion on this is some form of objective truth.
Thing is, it's not exactly imbalance. It's meticulously created to have a system where, case by case, their is an imbalance, but in the grand scheme of things, there is. It's an extremely complex equation of rock paper scissors jack hammer etc. Variable and cyclical balance are all about the specific plotting. It's about carefully crafting a system by which a fluid and dynamic metagame is established. It's built so that units will rise and fall due to perceptions where there are units that can counter that unit that then rise to take the dominant place for another unit to be capable of countering that. It's all fluid and creates a wave-like system for all models to have their own use and value. Along with this, the things that are just plain bad are then fixed (as in Magic and LoL) if they really are that bad/good. It's an odd system that relies on imbalancing units to establish a balanced world.
You could argue that dataslates and new codices bring about balance, but they really don't. There still isn't any real counter to the riptide and Taudar still reigns after months of existance. An update will literally invalidate certain lists and make entire armies worthless in comparison to others. Entire armies. Perfect imbalance, humerously, is a form of balance. Just not as obsessive as chess.
Thing is, it's not exactly imbalance. It's meticulously created to have a system where, case by case, their is an imbalance, but in the grand scheme of things, there is. It's an extremely complex equation of rock paper scissors jack hammer etc. Variable and cyclical balance are all about the specific plotting. It's about carefully crafting a system by which a fluid and dynamic metagame is established. It's built so that units will rise and fall due to perceptions where there are units that can counter that unit that then rise to take the dominant place for another unit to be capable of countering that. It's all fluid and creates a wave-like system for all models to have their own use and value. Along with this, the things that are just plain bad are then fixed (as in Magic and LoL) if they really are that bad/good. It's an odd system that relies on imbalancing units to establish a balanced world.
You could argue that dataslates and new codices bring about balance, but they really don't. There still isn't any real counter to the riptide and Taudar still reigns after months of existance. An update will literally invalidate certain lists and make entire armies worthless in comparison to others. Entire armies. Perfect imbalance, humerously, is a form of balance. Just not as obsessive as chess.
No. Perfect imbalance is a form of imbalance. I am not sure how it would be termed "balance" just because it is meticulously crafted.
Yes, creating good game imbalances is complex, difficult and laborious work. Any 6-year-old can create "balance" (e.g. chess-style mirror-matches, to name the most obvious example). Perfect imbalances is not "less obsessive" than chess. It is different to chess, trying to achieve different things. Notably not to establish a "balanced world", but to establish a "moving/evolving world". Different things.
That is why 20-years of game-experience in chess mean alot. It is balanced, thus static. Easy to learn, difficult to master. That is why 20-years of game-experience in MTG mean nothing, as the game evolves as a result of its cyclical imbalances and any "newbie" can jump in with minimal fuss by picking up the latest releases and learning the basics. More difficult to learn initially (creating a fake-sense of skill-progression), but far easier to master (reducing frustration).
The only reason you call it "balance" is because you are falling to your own fallacy of "imbalance = mistake".
Many of people are stating imbalance as the main issue. While it is an issue, it should be expected. This game is very complex leading to many things the developers don't foresee. For example, when Blizzard made Starcraft, they were surprised at the ingenuity of some players using tactics like lurker drops or players rushing liftoff and moving their bases to locations not reachable by ground attack. The difference is, Blizzard had to option of finishing each race (zerg, toss, terrain) simultaneously. This helped ensure they were fairly balanced.
GW doesn't have this option. If their codices were produced in unison, ensuring balance, we would have to expect crippling development times or a loss of quality. Instead, each codex needs to be produced separately. With this, some tactics will be missed as some players intentionally look for loopholes. Take the necron scarab rush that got FAQ'ed. It simply did not act as it was intended, so it was fixed.
This brings up "Why not just FAQ everything to keep it balanced?". The problem with FAQing everything is it eliminates the need to buy new codices. The only need to buy new codices would come in the forms of bragging rights, new units, or just changing entire units to somehow maintain balance but provide different play-styles. There is no reason in buying a new codex if it doesn't modify the current one.
Some tactics are more potent than others. This is true for any Min-Max tactic. It'll innately be strong against some while being horrible against others. Some Min-Max lists are just better suited for this, runtherd spam won't make it too far as it lacks anti-tank while Russ spam will make it further as certain units are required to take out heavier vehicles. This makes the counter to min-max being specially made lists or ingenious tactics with all-comer lists. The former being weak against other lists and the latter requiring genuine thought beyond simple list building.
All that said, I think the biggest problem with 40k is that the story will never progress. It's progression will only either be lateral or bring us closer to a logical conclusion to the game.
Bit late to the party here, but as far as my interpretation of the "perfect imbalance" would be something like the 3 ORIGINAL runesckape classes, before you skip this just listen. It was like a scissor paper rock except the rock didn't always beat the scissors hence like the three classes if there were a huge increase in say armour classes, you'd get that guy that figures out Mage and to counter that the archer. Plus mix and match combos like warrior with leather armour means that the things he is good against and beaten by is reversed.
Thing is, it's not exactly imbalance. It's meticulously created to have a system where, case by case, their is an imbalance, but in the grand scheme of things, there is. It's an extremely complex equation of rock paper scissors jack hammer etc. Variable and cyclical balance are all about the specific plotting. It's about carefully crafting a system by which a fluid and dynamic metagame is established. It's built so that units will rise and fall due to perceptions where there are units that can counter that unit that then rise to take the dominant place for another unit to be capable of countering that. It's all fluid and creates a wave-like system for all models to have their own use and value. Along with this, the things that are just plain bad are then fixed (as in Magic and LoL) if they really are that bad/good. It's an odd system that relies on imbalancing units to establish a balanced world.
You could argue that dataslates and new codices bring about balance, but they really don't. There still isn't any real counter to the riptide and Taudar still reigns after months of existance. An update will literally invalidate certain lists and make entire armies worthless in comparison to others. Entire armies. Perfect imbalance, humerously, is a form of balance. Just not as obsessive as chess.
No. Perfect imbalance is a form of imbalance. I am not sure how it would be termed "balance" just because it is meticulously crafted.
Yes, creating good game imbalances is complex, difficult and laborious work. Any 6-year-old can create "balance" (e.g. chess-style mirror-matches, to name the most obvious example). Perfect imbalances is not "less obsessive" than chess. It is different to chess, trying to achieve different things. Notably not to establish a "balanced world", but to establish a "moving/evolving world". Different things.
That is why 20-years of game-experience in chess mean alot. It is balanced, thus static. That is why 20-years of game-experience in MTG mean nothing, as the game evolves as a result of its cyclical imbalances and any "newbie" can jump in with minimal fuss by picking up the latest releases and learning the basics.
The only reason you call it "balance" is because you are falling to your own fallacy of "imbalance = mistake".
I'll succeed that I was using balance improperly. Also, chess still isn't extremely simple and no 6 year old would really make it. The number of rules it has and exceptions is very high. If not, there wouldn't be so many professionals. I was looking at it from the concept that it was balanced in the sense that there is a meter that everything is compared to with only a slight sense of divergence that is then countered by something else to formulate something slightly similar to rock paper scissors in the grand scheme of things. That said, it is true I shouldn't use balance. The problem is, it isn't really entirely imbalance. The video itself discusses something more along the liens of a game that has a concept of balance, the jedi curve, etc that is scaled and then planned out so that there are a few above and below the average score. The below score units are then built to be particularly efficient at besting certain above level units, etc. This requires some form of balance to then break off of. As said in the base, it's not large imbalances... it's "This week, we discuss the benefits of subtle imbalances in games ". Subtle ones are what make it so great.
40k has none of this though, not a single ounce of this. Pick the best army and watch as you crush newbies and experienced members alike. Pick a pyrovore and realize there's nothing it beats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hanith wrote: Many of people are stating imbalance as the main issue. While it is an issue, it should be expected. This game is very complex leading to many things the developers don't foresee. For example, when Blizzard made Starcraft, they were surprised at the ingenuity of some players using tactics like lurker drops or players rushing liftoff and moving their bases to locations not reachable by ground attack. The difference is, Blizzard had to option of finishing each race (zerg, toss, terrain) simultaneously. This helped ensure they were fairly balanced.
GW doesn't have this option. If their codices were produced in unison, ensuring balance, we would have to expect crippling development times or a loss of quality. Instead, each codex needs to be produced separately. With this, some tactics will be missed as some players intentionally look for loopholes. Take the necron scarab rush that got FAQ'ed. It simply did not act as it was intended, so it was fixed.
This brings up "Why not just FAQ everything to keep it balanced?". The problem with FAQing everything is it eliminates the need to buy new codices. The only need to buy new codices would come in the forms of bragging rights, new units, or just changing entire units to somehow maintain balance but provide different play-styles. There is no reason in buying a new codex if it doesn't modify the current one.
Some tactics are more potent than others. This is true for any Min-Max tactic. It'll innately be strong against some while being horrible against others. Some Min-Max lists are just better suited for this, runtherd spam won't make it too far as it lacks anti-tank while Russ spam will make it further as certain units are required to take out heavier vehicles. This makes the counter to min-max being specially made lists or ingenious tactics with all-comer lists. The former being weak against other lists and the latter requiring genuine thought beyond simple list building.
All that said, I think the biggest problem with 40k is that the story will never progress. It's progression will only either be lateral or bring us closer to a logical conclusion to the game.
Honestly this is why I think that digital is really the way to go. Think about it, you make it and then can digitally update all of the flaws in the codex! It fixes so much (granted then they'd need to actually do that)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hiveof_chimera wrote: Bit late to the party here, but as far as my interpretation of the "perfect imbalance" would be something like the 3 ORIGINAL runesckape classes, before you skip this just listen. It was like a scissor paper rock except the rock didn't always beat the scissors hence like the three classes if there were a huge increase in say armour classes, you'd get that guy that figures out Mage and to counter that the archer. Plus mix and match combos like warrior with leather armour means that the things he is good against and beaten by is reversed.
This is a decent comparison although I'd say it works a bit better if you throw in a warhammer that is good against both scissors and paper bad bad against rock, a unit named Soul that is good against scissors, paper, and rock but weak to a unit named Darkness that is weak to scissors, paper, and rock, neutral against warhammer, and strong against soul. A bit more variation and some things that peek at the top and bottom.
Guys, we're never going to drill it through his skull that he's so utterly off base its keeps swinging from hilarious to terrible. Leave him to function in bizzaro-world where 40k is obviously amazing due to it's terrible balance.
Zweischneid wrote: Well, if even tournament players pick fluff/models over balanced formats, you can hardly blame the game designers for not caring about balance.
Um.. just who the hell am I supposed to blame?
They are literally the ones creating this situation. It is entirely on the people making the game if the game is flawed....
And I think we would all still like an answer to how armies like Thousand Sons (or in my case a marine spam IW army, or a Deathwing army, ect) being made viable is a bad thing?
Your argument comes across as utterly stupid because you still haven't explained your position in a coherent manner.
Balance can be achieved without restricting options, yet the imbalance in the game is demonstrably hampering people and preventing them from running fluffy armies they want to run.
Your argument comes across as utterly stupid because you still haven't explained your position in a coherent manner.
Balance can be achieved without restricting options, yet the imbalance in the game is demonstrably hampering people and preventing them from running fluffy armies they want to run.
Not only that but the video he keeps referencing as "proof" that balance is bad isn't even saying what he thinks it is. A game like Warmachine IS perfect imbalance; 40k is about as far from that as possible.
azreal13 wrote: Still waiting for that one specific example of a unit that would be ruined by whatever it is you think balance is Zwei....
The heldrake, riptide, screamerstar, and waveserpent of course! They wouldn't be as good....
Oh, right!
Just think how much less narrative they'd be if they were merely one viable choice amongst many, rather than obviously, brokenly much better than anything else even roughly comparable.
I haven't seen Zwei have this discussion in weeks! I'm really enjoying the nostalgia trip!
hang on a sec though to defend my loyal CSM here, its not that the helldrake is so damn amazing... it SEEMS to be because of the pile of gak that exists in lots of other units, its the diamond in the rough.
there is a thread where we were discussing the wyvern vs drake, and the wyvernsx3 is close to the same points but can kill 2-3x as many MEQ a turn.. the IG tank starts on the board can shoot from turn 1 etc etc, drake may not show up till turn 4..
so i think its time to stop labeling the drake one of thebest units in the game, when its just one of the best in the codex.
id love MORE viable options in my book and some more ballance.
ill also take some rules proofing, because i look in YMDC and cringe, so many "discussions" become based on 1 word that never appears again..
azreal13 wrote: Still waiting for that one specific example of a unit that would be ruined by whatever it is you think balance is Zwei....
The heldrake, riptide, screamerstar, and waveserpent of course! They wouldn't be as good....
Oh, right!
Just think how much less narrative they'd be if they were merely one viable choice amongst many, rather than obviously, brokenly much better than anything else even roughly comparable.
I haven't seen Zwei have this discussion in weeks! I'm really enjoying the nostalgia trip!
hang on a sec though to defend my loyal CSM here, its not that the helldrake is so damn amazing... it SEEMS to be because of the pile of gak that exists in lots of other units, its the diamond in the rough.
there is a thread where we were discussing the wyvern vs drake, and the wyvernsx3 is close to the same points but can kill 2-3x as many MEQ a turn.. the IG tank starts on the board can shoot from turn 1 etc etc, drake may not show up till turn 4..
so i think its time to stop labeling the drake one of thebest units in the game, when its just one of the best in the codex.
id love MORE viable options in my book and some more ballance.
ill also take some rules proofing, because i look in YMDC and cringe, so many "discussions" become based on 1 word that never appears again..
Naw, the heldrake is still pretty damn good. Look at the statistics, and you'll find that Chaos broke into the high ranking competitive top 15. That being said, they were without a single CSM and were only composed of 1 required squad of cultists, 1 DP, and one heldrake. It's lost some might but it's still underpriced for what it is (if you go baledrake). It's a tanky 12/12/10 flier (harder to hit) with a 5+ invuln save, that has a 360 degree gun that fires a template of flame S6 AP3 which can be placed far away from the model itself whilst also being able to vector strike. Simply put, the baledrake is still one of the best units out there. That said, it's in an incredibly bad codex.
Oh, and if you didn't know, I'm actually a chaos player at heart (don't trust my profile icon that might make you think of IG! I am secretly a cultist!)
That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.
The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.
azreal13 wrote: That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.
The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.
we were doing some basic math that goes like this.
12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)
baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...
numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.
lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)
so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one
And I think we would all still like an answer to how armies like Thousand Sons (or in my case a marine spam IW army, or a Deathwing army, ect) being made viable is a bad thing?
Because it doesn't ride on any particular unit or army.
It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".
Other games do it just like it. X-Wing players only play TIE-Fighters for so long, before they realized that they "need" Howlrunner, or "need" to have a few PtL cards that are so much better for 3 pts. than most others talents, or need Advanced Sensors on their B-Wing, etc.., etc.., etc...
Does that mean my "fluffy" TIE-Fighter "New Hope" Squadron led by Vader (or even worse, led by Maarek Stele) instead of Howlrunner is inferior for its points? Yes it does. Does that mean my "fluffy" B-Wing Squadron without Advanced Sensors looted from the Imperial Shuttle is inferior? Yes it does. People accept that as a price for the underlying "imbalanced" game-design. And every new release will bring a new hotness. Things that were hot and one point are fading, or will be fading soon.
Sucks if your "Vader + 2 starter-box-Tie Fighters"-list gets walked over, but you just eat it up and buy Howlrunner and move on. That's how it works. Until the time comes to shelf Howlrunner again.
These games are made that way on purpose (and possibly not even in the sense that game-designers decide that X should be a power-combination, but simple in the sense that game-designers allow enough "variance" so that power-combos occur "naturally").
You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.
Zweischneid wrote: You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.
Of course it's intentional, with 40k more than others since their idea seems to be if they invalidate/weaken a unit you already bought, you'll have to go and buy another one, and then when they weaken that one, you'll have to buy another, and so on. Their entire game design has shifted to a revolving door to sell things, rather than have a quality game that also happens to have quality models. The game might as well not even exist at this point, as it's an afterthought.
Let's compare that to Warmachine: All units are approximately balanced in the sense that there is no real "must have" or "never take" choices. There are some things that are better than others, which you see more frequently in the competitive space (certain Mercenary units spring to mind), and some things that are generally not that good for their points cost (again I use the Khador Man-o-War units as an example here), but even a "bad" unit like the MoW Shocktroopers (which aren't so much as "bad" as cost too much for what they do, and other units can do their job better) aren't going to cost you a game just because you "chose poorly" and decided to take them in the first place; you can field an MoW based army and still win if you are a superior player; the disadvantage is minimal and can be almost totally nullified by a skilled commander (as it should be).
On the other hand you have a powerful unit like Cygnar's Stormwall colossal (think the Warmachine equivalent of a titan). It's very good for its points, but you build an army around its tactics and that's what enables you to win a game; you don't just win because you happen to field one like what happens in 40k with the equivalent. It's just a different tactical dynamic - your army plays one way with a Stormwall, and another way without one, sometimes with exactly the same units and changing only that one model. You don't end up seeing every Cygnar player at a Warmachine tournament fielding a Stormwall because it's better than everything else; you see players with various lists based on their preferred playstyle and what their strategy is, and each of them have an equal (as far as the rules/models go) chance of winning - the game comes down to tactics and the skill of the person behind the list, not the list itself.
That's what 40k should strive to be. Nobody wants a game like Chess with everything identical, but there can and should be balance within each faction and across the game that doesn't mean some units just are going to make you lose the game if you happen to pick them, while others can win you the game just by being there. Every unit should have some sort of tactics or strategy associated with it (whether by itself or with other choices that complement it), and there should never be a situation where you can point to several units and tell a new player "These units aren't good, never take them" (even worse if said units are meant to be the mainstay of the army e.g. CSM) or point to another unit or two and say "You always want to take these units". While Warmachine has something like that to a point, the difference between a "bad" unit and a "good" unit generally comes down to "You can make this work if you're good" while in 40k it's "You have zero chance of this working barring fighting somebody totally clueless".
azreal13 wrote: That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.
The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.
I shortly mentioned it but admittedly didn't keep to long to it. It's also one of the few forms of ap3 that is actually good in the game.
we were doing some basic math that goes like this.
12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)
baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...
numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.
lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)
so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one
To be fair, you are comparing it to a codex that just came out focusing entirely upon damage without losing any units and against what is theorized to possibly be the best (or at least one of) the best units in the IG codex.
It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".
And so, once again, how does this evolving state of play, where people swap one min-maxed power list food the next min-maxed power list, encourage more narrative play than a system where a wider range of armies are viable?
It's much down to personal preference in what you like in the games and your general attitude towards it.
Do I wish some rules were written better? Yes - but that has little to do with balance.
Do I wish armies were more balanced? Unlikely to effect me....
Do I wish people would give up going on and on and on about the balance in 40k? Yes.
Revolving door type can also be a good thing. Keeps the game moving, keeps things different and keeps it new and interesting. I don't want to play with the same models game in and game out, I want to math hammer new builds or new uber builds, there's only 3 or 4 units in the entire game I think one of the designers were smoking something funny, even then it's only through players exploiting those they become a burden for some players.
Balance is not the be all and end all for many people. Bad balance doesn't automatically mean not fun. I recently played a doubles game where mine and my partner's lists were completely ill adept at handling our opponents when we turned up (Nids & White Scars VS Guard & SM /w Knight /w Fortress). Even worse the dice were against us, after scouting bikes forward and starting with FMC's on the table our opponents stole the initiative - don't think I need to explain the outcome but everyone had a good game and everyone had fun.
Like I say it really depends on what you want to the game. I have a friend who will complain about the balance of 40k on a weekly basis, he does currently play Dropzone and X-Wing. He has played Warmahorde - but did not keep that up. Obviously while the game balance annoys him, that system while good in balance, is lacking in something else.
Sad thing is it is probably the epic situations, adrenaline and drama created by iffy balance.
[edit] Wish people wouldn't use the words auto win and auto lose units like it actually exists. We all know while we can % up likelihoods and lists there is still a hell of a lot of strategy in 40k, and lets not forget those damn dice rolls.
And I think we would all still like an answer to how armies like Thousand Sons (or in my case a marine spam IW army, or a Deathwing army, ect) being made viable is a bad thing?
Because it doesn't ride on any particular unit or army.
It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".
Other games do it just like it. X-Wing players only play TIE-Fighters for so long, before they realized that they "need" Howlrunner, or "need" to have a few PtL cards that are so much better for 3 pts. than most others talents, or need Advanced Sensors on their B-Wing, etc.., etc.., etc...
Does that mean my "fluffy" TIE-Fighter "New Hope" Squadron led by Vader (or even worse, led by Maarek Stele) instead of Howlrunner is inferior for its points? Yes it does. Does that mean my "fluffy" B-Wing Squadron without Advanced Sensors looted from the Imperial Shuttle is inferior? Yes it does. People accept that as a price for the underlying "imbalanced" game-design. And every new release will bring a new hotness. Things that were hot and one point are fading, or will be fading soon.
Sucks if your "Vader + 2 starter-box-Tie Fighters"-list gets walked over, but you just eat it up and buy Howlrunner and move on. That's how it works. Until the time comes to shelf Howlrunner again.
These games are made that way on purpose (and possibly not even in the sense that game-designers decide that X should be a power-combination, but simple in the sense that game-designers allow enough "variance" so that power-combos occur "naturally").
You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.
I'll give you one thing, you are stubborn.
How does it not make a difference if one unit is massively better than another or whether one entire codex is better than another? How the hell is it that you are endorsing an entire damn codex being superior than another one. AN ENTIRE FRIGGING CODEX! You aren't even talking about unit to unit, you are talking Imperial shall always win because hur durr I don't care balance is bad, perfect imbalance is bad let's have slow imbalance.
Also, need I remind you that at least X-Wing tries to have balance? That it also is dramatically cheaper. Compare the price for X-Wing and GW. Compare the amount of time to deploy those units. Pay attention to how a single Tie-Fighter model can represent multiple different units all depending on the card you place down. Notice how cheap it all is, notice how it is still more balanced than 40k.
Little tip, the game isn't built to have dramatic imbalance ON PURPOSE. Games are made in three ways. Pure balance, perfect imbalance, and pure imbalance. The last is a bad decision. A game like X-Wing is vying for perfect imbalance. No matter what is done, pure balance and perfect imbalance are unattainable. X-Wing shall never gain true perfect imbalance. It does try though. They can't figure out everything that will happen.
As for GW, GW doesn't plan anything at all. They fling COOL and it's the least work at a wall and get it out. They have no logic. It's not even making new models broken to increase sales. Look at the pyrovore. How is it creating a natural combo? When will it ever become relevant? When will Thousand Sons ever be of use when the niche they have, killing marines, CSM (which are already inferior to tactical marines in every way thus making them worthless as well) do their job better? When will the flow to the top? Ksons have been bad since 3.5 and perhaps even earlier. That is static and lifeless. Here is the thing, 40k's competitive environment is stagnant and even casual is stagnant. 40k is designed upon the third choice, pure imbalance where nothing is fun unless you just accept them, laugh it off, and make up with rolling a d6 to decide your arguments.
Also, Warmachine is designed on perfect imbalance, not chess.
It makes no difference whether Thousand Sons are better than Plague Marines or worse, whether Chaos Space Marines are better than Tau or worse. It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".
And so, once again, how does this evolving state of play, where people swap one min-maxed power list food the next min-maxed power list, encourage more narrative play than a system where a wider range of armies are viable?
If balance or perfect imbalance came into play, things would be different. With balance, countless armies would be playable and all equal leaving it to the luck of the dice and skill to make the game. It does promote static competitive world. Honestly, I'm okay with this but would prefer the latter which iiiiiissss..... Perfect imbalance. All units have a usage, all of them have a worth. Everything is worth it although not all are always useful. Some are generally bad but great at killing the things that would generally be strongest without it. By doing this, the gaming environment goes through a natural flowing game world that rises and falls and lets things be dynamic. 40k right now is crap units, decent units, broken units. Pick the broken units and you'll be set for years probably.
Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.
It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.
A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.
A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.
This makes no sense. It's much easier to play a narrative game with balanced rules, you get more back and forth more choice of effective units and a better experience over all. Where is the imagination in only having a few lists that are effective? Where is the imagination and narrative potential of a game that can be decided before it has even started? Your argument isn't even slightly convincing.
Nem wrote: It's much down to personal preference in what you like in the games and your general attitude towards it.
Do I wish some rules were written better? Yes - but that has little to do with balance.
Do I wish armies were more balanced? Unlikely to effect me....
Do I wish people would give up going on and on and on about the balance in 40k? Yes.
Revolving door type can also be a good thing. Keeps the game moving, keeps things different and keeps it new and interesting. I don't want to play with the same models game in and game out, I want to math hammer new builds or new uber builds, there's only 3 or 4 units in the entire game I think one of the designers were smoking something funny, even then it's only through players exploiting those they become a burden for some players.
Balance is not the be all and end all for many people. Bad balance doesn't automatically mean not fun. I recently played a doubles game where mine and my partner's lists were completely ill adept at handling our opponents when we turned up (Nids & White Scars VS Guard & SM /w Knight /w Fortress). Even worse the dice were against us, after scouting bikes forward and starting with FMC's on the table our opponents stole the initiative - don't think I need to explain the outcome but everyone had a good game and everyone had fun.
Like I say it really depends on what you want to the game. I have a friend who will complain about the balance of 40k on a weekly basis, he does currently play Dropzone and X-Wing. He has played Warmahorde - but did not keep that up. Obviously while the game balance annoys him, that system while good in balance, is lacking in something else.
Sad thing is it is probably the epic situations, adrenaline and drama created by iffy balance.
[edit] Wish people wouldn't use the words auto win and auto lose units like it actually exists. We all know while we can % up likelihoods and lists there is still a hell of a lot of strategy in 40k lets not forget those damn dice.
For warmachine, it can be many a thing. It could be fewer players, less appealing models, less interesting fluff, or the fact that no other game fields the platoon/company sized army that 40k does. Also depends on your friends. As you mentioned, you had fun with others. That said, it wasn't because of the game per say but instead all of you having a blast. Basically beer and pretezels. Thing is, how does improving the rules ruin this in any way? Yeah, I can have fun now. But my entertainment for this game would only improve if it was more "balanced".
azreal13 wrote: That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.
The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.
I shortly mentioned it but admittedly didn't keep to long to it. It's also one of the few forms of ap3 that is actually good in the game.
we were doing some basic math that goes like this.
12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)
baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...
numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.
lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)
so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one
To be fair, you are comparing it to a codex that just came out focusing entirely upon damage without losing any units and against what is theorized to possibly be the best (or at least one of) the best units in the IG codex.
to be fair the helldrakes been hated on for how long because its the best unit in the codex, and now no longer justified, and people still beg for it to be nerfed.
AegisGrimm wrote: Hell, Epic: Armageddon actually became more balanced after the fans took it over on the Tac Command forums!
The book became actually useable, too. The actual GW rulebook for that game is one of the most flawed pieces of gak I have ever seen a company attempt to sell, at least judging from the copy you could download off their Specialist Games site before the web update. Units whose picture above the stats didn't match the actual unit, entire stat block entries that were a cut-and-paste repeat from another completely different unit, etc.
GW rules products should not have Errata available the day of the release, for the premium prices they sell them for.
On the flipside, for how much we pay the erratas/FAQs should occur a lot more often (I'd say MONTHLY) to address issues.
AegisGrimm wrote: Hell, Epic: Armageddon actually became more balanced after the fans took it over on the Tac Command forums!
The book became actually useable, too. The actual GW rulebook for that game is one of the most flawed pieces of gak I have ever seen a company attempt to sell, at least judging from the copy you could download off their Specialist Games site before the web update. Units whose picture above the stats didn't match the actual unit, entire stat block entries that were a cut-and-paste repeat from another completely different unit, etc.
GW rules products should not have Errata available the day of the release, for the premium prices they sell them for.
On the flipside, for how much we pay the erratas/FAQs should occur a lot more often (I'd say MONTHLY) to address issues.
i can get behind that. maybe not errata, but defFAQ... that way they can sell the next rulebooks/codecies as the time comes...
WayneTheGame wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that video apply to video games, and not tabletop games?
You can apply it to all games, but in non-digital games it can actually be a hinderance instead of a boon because updates take longer and unless we're getting new rulesets every month things just won't change fast enough to really keep the community in a perpetual shifting meta. It does feel like what GW is trying to do though.
EDIT: @TheKbob: GW has said many times in the past that there is no mathematical formula for determining points costs (I'm currently playing around with one but it's one of those things where you really have to decide how much things are worth and that can be subjective. I mean it's great if everything is pointed to the same yardstick but if one special rule is priced too high or low it can cause problems. The system I made (which has 0 play testing and was me mostly just kind of poking things) makes a Marine 32 points, a Guardsman 20 and a Carnifex 76 (and that was AFTER adding a 50 point "Monstrous Creature"tax (which mostly is to cover the dozen rules they get plus the high toughness) to thing) and generally we'd all be playing 4,000+ to fit our current armies in, which isn't a BAD thing but the bigger the numbers might just create a mental stigma in player's minds). Instead developer basically play around with points and try to get what "feels right".
Zweischneid wrote: It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".
No, it's NOT how you kick off those things. If X is clearly better than Y it's something for a new player to learn, but once they figure it out (or go online and let someone tell them) all that means is they're always going to play with X instead of Y. You don't have an interesting metagame, you just have lots of lists with X and a bunch of Ys collecting dust on the shelf.
An interesting metagame starts to develop when X is better than Y if A is more common than B, and the opposite is true if B is more common then A. Then you have to constantly evaluate your choices depending on the choices other players are making. But that's not what 40k has.
Other games do it just like it. X-Wing players only play TIE-Fighters for so long, before they realized that they "need" Howlrunner, or "need" to have a few PtL cards that are so much better for 3 pts. than most others talents, or need Advanced Sensors on their B-Wing, etc.., etc.., etc...
Nope, you still don't understand X-Wing. Howlrunner is obviously powerful, but there are plenty of imperial lists (even TIE swarms) that don't use her. PTL seems powerful at first, but then you realize how predictable getting stressed every turn makes you and those other options start to look a lot more appealing. Advanced sensor B-wings are great, but so are B-wings with FCS or cheaper B-wings with no upgrades at all.
Does that mean my "fluffy" TIE-Fighter "New Hope" Squadron led by Vader (or even worse, led by Maarek Stele) instead of Howlrunner is inferior for its points? Yes it does. Does that mean my "fluffy" B-Wing Squadron without Advanced Sensors looted from the Imperial Shuttle is inferior? Yes it does. People accept that as a price for the underlying "imbalanced" game-design. And every new release will bring a new hotness. Things that were hot and one point are fading, or will be fading soon.
Yes, but the point you keep missing is that:
1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.
2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.
These games are made that way on purpose (and possibly not even in the sense that game-designers decide that X should be a power-combination, but simple in the sense that game-designers allow enough "variance" so that power-combos occur "naturally").
No they aren't. For example, there's general consensus that the X-Wing balance problems are mistakes, not deliberate choices. And we see FFG making an effort to fix those mistakes: assault missiles to break up swarms, stress abilities to make PTL less of an automatic choice, a -2 point "upgrade" for A-wings to fix their point cost issues, etc.
azreal13 wrote: That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.
The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.
I shortly mentioned it but admittedly didn't keep to long to it. It's also one of the few forms of ap3 that is actually good in the game.
we were doing some basic math that goes like this.
12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)
baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...
numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.
lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)
so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one
To be fair, you are comparing it to a codex that just came out focusing entirely upon damage without losing any units and against what is theorized to possibly be the best (or at least one of) the best units in the IG codex.
to be fair the helldrakes been hated on for how long because its the best unit in the codex, and now no longer justified, and people still beg for it to be nerfed.
The heldrake is caught at a dilemma. The competitive lists nowadays can crush it (and chaos). The problem is, in a casual environment it is far too strong. A buffing of Chaos in general, nerfing of baledrake, and probably a buff to the dakkadrake is the most optimal solution. The problem is the heldrake isn't that appealing because of its codex.
Just to use a bit of logic.
A rule set for a game is by its definition'instructions to play the game.'
So you should just be able to read the rules and know how the game is played.And everyone should be able to do the same.
IF you have to second guess what the game developer intended to write, the rule set FAILS ITS PRIMARY FUNCTION!
RAW should be good enough not to need RAI.
The ONLY reason to include point values and army organization, it to allow the games to be balanced enough for pick up games / competitive play.
Rule sets written for narrative play ,(like Stargrunt II ), DO NOT USE POINTS VALUES!!!
IF the 40k rule book is just supposed to be a 'general guide line for narrative co-operative gaming .'
I have NO PROBLEM with that.
Just leave out the PV and F.O.C and use scenario ideas and campaign books.
That way 'competitive' players can not argue the rules and PV should be more balanced .(Because nothing would be over costed or under costed because nothing would be costed!)
And GW would find out if the people who play 40k exactly the same way as the studio is a big enough market to keep them in business.
1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.
2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.
You keep missing the point as well.
Are the gaps smaller? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.
Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.
The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".
Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.
Well GW doesn't seem to be very good with either balance or imbalance.
Balance works well , if all armies or factions are bad the same way ,or the balance is like something in starcraft.
Imbalance works well , if everything is over the top . No unkillable units , everything kills everything and the game leaves two craters when it finishes.
GW doesn't do any of those things. They let the same armies dominate for years , while others are always bad. There are units with no viable counters or armies that counter most of the playfield. And again they do it for years , not weeks or months like it is in the case of starcraft.
1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.
2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.
You keep missing the point as well.
Are the gaps smaller? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.
Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.
The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".
Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.
A game where only limited choices are in anyway effective does not give you more choice it gives you less, it does not help stoke the imagination it limits it server it reduces available options and forces someone to either play a smaller selection of lists or resign to have little to no chance to have a competitive (as in both have a good chance on winning not for tournaments) game between both players. This stifles creativity it doesn't promote it.
I haven't seen you make a single good argument for the imbalance in 40k you also seem to have severely misunderstood the perfect imbalance video if you think it in anyway relates to 40k.
40ks imbalance is either a result of incompetence or apathy. They are not using imbalance as tools to great a better game.
A good game does not need to be perfectly balanced what it does need to do is have players be able to actually be able to not get destroyed unless they choose a particular set of narrow options. You need matches to not be practically over before it even begins.
Balancing the game better would allow the player far more choice in customising their force, their playstyle and choosing their army without being punished for creativity. It's entirely illogical to think that giving the player more useable options will give them less options.
1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.
2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.
You keep missing the point as well.
No, he's not. Please, just stop this internet contrarian shtick. It's getting tiresome.
1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.
2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.
You keep missing the point as well.
Are the gaps smaller? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.
Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.
The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".
Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.
Alright then time to tear in. The thing is, gaps being smaller DOES matter. Having fewer choices that are absolutely horrid or absolutely broken good DOES matter. Having these makes things good! This is best. It leads to more variety, more choice, more diversity.
Onto your next point, did you even read him? He mentioned these big variances where something is too good to be flaws, mistakes. They aren't, they are unintended consequences that get answered later on to help balance things out whilst providing a capability to still field it the old way. This is closer to perfect imbalance.
Yes, balance is not inherently superior to perfect imbalance. Problem is, you are arguing for true imbalance, not perfect imbalance.
Alright then time to tear in. The thing is, gaps being smaller DOES matter. Having fewer choices that are absolutely horrid or absolutely broken good DOES matter. Having these makes things good! This is best. It leads to more variety, more choice, more diversity.
Perhaps. I'll think about it and consider. I don't have an immediate answer to this. Perhaps smaller gaps are better. Perhaps they are not. Either way, that discussion is outside of the argument I am making. For the sake of simplicity, assume he is right with this for the time being.
Onto your next point, did you even read him? He mentioned these big variances where something is too good to be flaws, mistakes. They aren't, they are unintended consequences that get answered later on to help balance things out whilst providing a capability to still field it the old way. This is closer to perfect imbalance.
As are probably many of the more problematic issues in 40K. Mistakes. I am never said there were none.
Yes, balance is not inherently superior to perfect imbalance.
Thank you.
Problem is, you are arguing for true imbalance, not perfect imbalance.
No. I am merely advocating people stop with this misleading obsession about balance. Not that companies can also fail at trying to make a good imbalanced game (I don't think GW has failed here, but I am obviously in the minority there).
If somebody goes out for fishing, and fails to bring home a good catch, you can criticize him for being a bad fisherman. But if you criticize him for being a bad fox-hunter, you're missing the point. He never tried hunting foxes in the first place.
Once people finally stop bashing GW for being a bad fox-hunter, we can start talking about how they could become better fishermen.
40k has one of those communities that will bitch no matter what.
Obviously 40k wasnt meant to be played hardcore or in a tournament scene
Should it be?
Yes at least a little.
But does it have to be for the game to still be fun?
No.
Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.
The game 40k needs more balance. As I stated, it's hard swings. To argue otherwise means you don't read anything on the internet about this game or you're just trolling.
The Heldrake is bad because it takes zero skill to use and unlike the Wyvern, it can crack a rhino in the movement phase with no saves and then burninate the squad on the inside. Also, even if the Wyvern was "OP" you'd have to remember that two wrongs and all. Plus, maximizing spacing, you'd realistically get only about 15~ hits which would be about 7.5 wounds or 2~3 dead marines (fast math, so could be off). Small blasts suck at 2" spacing. The flamer would still kill more marines.
The game as written now has no form of balance and is nothing but hard swings. It's filled with absolutely game breaking units; broken in both directions. We have units that flat out don't work (Mandrakes, Pyrovores, Exalted Flamers, etc.) or books that don't work (Legion of the Damned Codex auto-loses). This implies little to no actual game design. This is then magnified by the opposite end of the spectrum with units that ignore nearly every restriction in the game or stacks a reroll on every dice roll.
Balance is better for all players still. And it's super easy to a balanced game and "forge a narrative" [sic] than to do vice versa. And paying $50 to troubleshoot your own books with friends is asinine.
Once people finally stop bashing GW for being a bad fox-hunter, we can start talking about how they could become better fishermen.
Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree. There still has not been another game company yet presented as argument who strives for a busted game as you imply. Even most RPGs, narrative focused games that are actually designed with balance between classes in mind and errata'd, FAQ'd. Historical miniatures, designed with imbalances in mind to recreate narrative events, are still designed with that balance in mind. There is no "grand design" that springs forth from GW.
Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.
Exactly, it has precisely the problems the video identifies, among other things, for Starcraft during that game's "balanced phase". Stale, repetitive, devoid of strategy.
Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.
Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.
The $50 price tag for most new releases, watering-down of said releases, and over charging for single character special rules begs to differ; all while claiming to be a premium model company.
Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.
Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.
The $50 price tag for most new releases, watering-down of said releases, and over charging for single character special rules begs to differ; all while claiming to be a premium model company.
I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.
I don't think we are at odds about the fact that GW's products could be cheaper. We are at odds about whether they should be more balanced or not.
Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.
Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.
Incorrect, it's not narrative in the slightest. A narrative game would have imperfect balance where units aren't unplayable and other units so horrendously good that they make a joke of the game. Things would be all of varying levels. many in the middle with some that are generally better but weak to some ones that are generally worse. As is, it's not like that at all. There's still no counter to the riptide (as mentioned before) and certain codices are just better in every way to every other codex whilst some are just worse than every other codex. CSM are 1 point cheaper but lose dozens of rules and gain a bad rule. For just one point of difference. GW also plays by the mentality of making everything random rolls (how is random warlord traits and psyker spells narrative?). No, a narrative game would toss out the rules and points and instead start talking about general theming concepts using the points as approximates usually recommending a flexible range of some 200 points or something to give one the edge over another. But it doesn't and its rules actually hurt narrative games more than they help.
If you disagree with me, build a Chaos Space marine codex composed of Tzeentch units or better yet Thousand Sons army. Oh, and don't forget to compare how "amazing" Tzeentch sorcerers are to other sorcerers. Also don't forget how narrative it is for them to be some of the best psykers and have divination. Oh wait, they suck and don't have divination.
Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.
Exactly, it has precisely the problems the video identifies, among other things, for Starcraft during that game's "balanced phase". Stale, repetitive, devoid of strategy.
Nope, Warmachine is Starcraft II or the MOBAs, filled with subtle imbalances. Your manor of speech about the game suggest you haven't really played it, but just dabbled and wrote it off. And you could always house rule it and make things more exciting? Why not trying to Forge the Narrative and all?
I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.
I don't think we are at odds about the fact that GW's products could be cheaper. We are at odds about whether they should be more balanced or not.
They are flat out selling busted rules, as noted before, for the markets highest cost. Balance or no-balance, flat out BROKEN units and rules. Things that do no work. And they are not FAQ'd or given errata.
Even setting aside the balance issue (balance is still better, period) there's no disagree on that!
Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.
Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.
The $50 price tag for most new releases, watering-down of said releases, and over charging for single character special rules begs to differ; all while claiming to be a premium model company.
I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.
I don't think we are at odds about the fact that GW's products could be cheaper. We are at odds about whether they should be more balanced or not.
Not quite. As per Watering-down releases and over charging single characters, it's actually like taking away characters in a fighter game that are already on the cd (and if you hacked you could get them) and then releasing them as DLC.
Onto the next aprt, I don't think it's quite that. In fact, it seems like TheKbob also agrees that perfect imbalance is the way for 40k to go. He and I just disagree with you upon it being good now. It's not, it makes no sense and it isn't even close to perfect imbalance. In fact, I think most people here want perfect imbalance rather than balance balance. It's just that, to get to perfect imbalance, things will end up becoming more balanced as perfect imbalanced is based upon subtle factors isntead of overt riptides and heldrakes.
StarTrotter wrote: No, a narrative game would toss out the rules and points and instead start talking about general theming concepts
Give it another 2 or 3 years.
And that point I'll drop this game like a piece of trash and tell all of my friends to stop playing that piece of game and to stop supporting it's quality. If you want that, makes books for some themes. If you want that, go FW, give me a delicious book with lots of units, fluff, and themed rules/ideas. Bam, that way you can satisfy all customers but throwing it all away? That's plain stupid and lazy (Perfect imbalance is the most difficult probably, balance is the second most, imbalance is the easiest)
Correct most (if not all) advocates of balance want "better" balance. Not perfect balance. We want units to be different, function differently etc. What I personally would like is for all units to be good at what they are supposed to do....currently they are not.
I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.
Gw purposefully releases overpowered models at high price tags and purposefully releases books that break balance (Escalation) to further support the former. I think that's kinda wrong. Though...maybe they are trying to forge a narrative by doing so. Or maybe it's boring to not go "pay to win".
I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.
Gw purposefully releases overpowered models at high price tags and purposefully releases books that break balance (Escalation) to further support the former. I think that's kinda wrong. Though...maybe they are trying to forge a narrative by doing so. Or maybe it's boring to not go "pay to win".
I'd be rather surprised if this were the truth. If so, they'd be buffing Pyrocasters and other similar units up all the time and always releasing new models with broken rules. Thing is, they also break units like the waveserpent that is a model a lot of old players already play. Along with that, look at the competitive Chaos list. It's cultists with sometimes Plague Marines, a DP, maybe a lord, heldrakes, and obliterators. The only real new thing here is that cultists exist and have largely taken over the Plague Marine's spot and the heldrake is new. The rest is still the same and still arguably good-very good.
Zweischneid wrote: You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.
Actually, you can't be so stupid as to believe that GW's "design choices" are intentional.
I mean, in a vacuum, the video you link to puts forth an interesting take on balance. Not necessarily correct, but not necessarily wrong either. But, and here's the kicker, the guy who made the video understands what he's talking about, while you're just parroting and throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.
Back to GW, compared to other game companies...
I think it's pretty obvious that most companies want to sell models. Models have high margins. Rules have low margins. You sell one rulebook to someone, but you can sell them multiple of the same miniature and make money. At their heart, these companies, none of them, are writing games out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it to make money, and they make money by selling models, not by selling rules.
All models have a fixed cost associated with them too. For single pewter models, you're paying a sculptor, making a mold, and doing some marketing. For plastic kits, there's a much larger up-front cost in tooling the mold.
This is one of the reasons that GW (and probably other companies) should strive to make new models desirable, so they can recoup these costs quickly. And, as many people note, in GWs case, new models are often overpowered. They want to sell as many Valkyries, Helldrakes, and Riptides as possible, as soon as possible, because they need to pay for those molds (or, more likely, the next set of molds).
There's clearly a motive to make new stuff good. Here's why I cannot believe that their design choices are intentional:
Tau Flyers. Possessed Marines. Flayed Ones. Bloodcrushers. The Taurox. Etc.
For each new codex, they release new models. These are the models with the greatest incentive to sell. And some are so blatantly overpowered that it's obvious what the goal is. But then there are those others, expensive models, that are rubbish. No sane person would make the investment in a new model, and then consciously make it so lackluster that no one wants to buy them. That's where the argument that GW knows what they're doing falls apart. This isn't CCG game design, where you sell unknown game items and let the secondary market define the relative values, this is a business where the fixed costs are known, and need to be recouped, and where you can't count on someone buying 20 random boxes hoping to get a helldrake instead of a hellbrute.
It's also where your lack of understanding of why balance is needed really falls apart. Because it's okay to have some models better at some things and others better at other things. But it's not okay to have some models that are good at no things, because those models don't sell, and it's a business. Not only do they not sell, they drive customers away, because someone who makes the mistake of buying the "bad models" (without consciously accepting that they're buying bad models for some alternate purpose) will feel burned and will walk away from the game.
This is pretty entertaining to watch. None of you on either side of this argument has considered the possibility that this is by design, have you?
For one thing, war isn't balanced. This game is supposed to have its root in the story around it; it is not a competition of skill and mental acumen between two players, it is meant to be a way that a 41st millennium battlefield in 40k fiction plays out in front of us. So the idea that it needs to be perfectly balanced is ridiculous. People want the game balanced because they want to use it to be hardcore competitive sorts but at the end of the day, this game is not about that. Now, you can have competitions, of course, and those who exploit the balance most effectively do have an advantage. But "auto win" armies are only "auto win" against their ideal targets. When you have balanced lists people tend to have at least a fighting chance. Let's not pretend like 250 points of Guardsmen are supposed to be able to cover all the bases a Land Raider does just because they are comparable points costs.
No one ever considers the game as a whole, either. Would Tau be as broken if every time they set foot in terrain we rolled to see if it was a forest that would eat them, like it says to in the book? Would the Aegis Line be as ubiquitous as it is if it got put down before any terrain is on the table, like the book says to initially? Would the Wave Serpent be as good if people mysterious objective bonuses were worth having?
These are rhetorical, speculative questions of course, but it is true that the less desirable elements of the game are rarely considered. When people talk about the broken Heldrake, they are talking about three of them @510pts, over a quarter of most tournament lists, in an army with no way to enhance its reserve rolls.
This brings me to my next and ultimate point: GW historically puts things in the game with a mind toward future rule changes (Grey Knights are a good example -- OP as hell at intro in 5th but thanks to 6th ed PW changes, mundane by comparison now). So for all we know, things like the Heldrake and Riptide are put in with a mind toward such things. I would not be surprised if 6.5/7th changes the Torrent rule or Flyer rules and renders the Drake's price suddenly sensible, for example.
Also, generally, people really need to calm down about certain units. There are dozens more units in this game than the Heldrake, the Riptide, the Wraithknight, and the Night Scythe. You'd never know it from the way people cry about these four things.
The problem with 40k is, as it's always been...its playerbase's relentless crying.
Fenris Frost wrote: This is pretty entertaining to watch. None of you on either side of this argument has considered the possibility that this is by design, have you?
For one thing, war isn't balanced. This game is supposed to have its root in the story around it; it is not a competition of skill and mental acumen between two players, it is meant to be a way that a 41st millennium battlefield in 40k fiction plays out in front of us. So the idea that it needs to be perfectly balanced is ridiculous. People want the game balanced because they want to use it to be hardcore competitive sorts but at the end of the day, this game is not about that. Now, you can have competitions, of course, and those who exploit the balance most effectively do have an advantage. But "auto win" armies are only "auto win" against their ideal targets. When you have balanced lists people tend to have at least a fighting chance. Let's not pretend like 250 points of Guardsmen are supposed to be able to cover all the bases a Land Raider does just because they are comparable points costs.
No one ever considers the game as a whole, either. Would Tau be as broken if every time they set foot in terrain we rolled to see if it was a forest that would eat them, like it says to in the book? Would the Aegis Line be as ubiquitous as it is if it got put down before any terrain is on the table, like the book says to initially? Would the Wave Serpent be as good if people mysterious objective bonuses were worth having?
These are rhetorical, speculative questions of course, but it is true that the less desirable elements of the game are rarely considered. When people talk about the broken Heldrake, they are talking about three of them @510pts, over a quarter of most tournament lists, in an army with no way to enhance its reserve rolls.
This brings me to my next and ultimate point: GW historically puts things in the game with a mind toward future rule changes (Grey Knights are a good example -- OP as hell at intro in 5th but thanks to 6th ed PW changes, mundane by comparison now). So for all we know, things like the Heldrake and Riptide are put in with a mind toward such things. I would not be surprised if 6.5/7th changes the Torrent rule or Flyer rules and renders the Drake's price suddenly sensible, for example.
Also, generally, people really need to calm down about certain units. There are dozens more units in this game than the Heldrake, the Riptide, the Wraithknight, and the Night Scythe. You'd never know it from the way people cry about these four things.
The problem with 40k is, as it's always been...its playerbase's relentless crying.
Oh god please don't bring up the war isn't balanced *rolls eyes* well, I guess we should break chess and make black win 90% of the time and win white wins, flip a coin. If heads then black still wins because war is not fair. Please, cry me a river. Along with that, nobody is really vying for true perfect balance. Most people are arguing for units to be viable. This means a relatively balanced game or perfect imbalance. As of now, you have units that claim how amazing they are in fluff but are utter when it comes to table top and you have units that are just godmode for no reason. Look at the fluff and tell me why CSM are inferior to SM and why Ksons are terrible and Tzeentch armies are bad in every way if CSM or why Tzeentch sorcerers are some of the worst psykers in the game. Along with that, auto wins are still auto wins. The GK list that could auto-table daemons on turn one was bad design. Am I supposed to accept it because it was their ideal targets? This also ignores things like heldrakes that are good against basically half of the game and riptides that are basically good against everything. Also, those 250 points of guardsman bring other things to the table than a land raider (and the guardsman in this unbalanced game likely do it better).
Have you seen that many forests? Also it adds more randomness to clutter it and increase book keeping. Also, the book says to put it down which becomes cheese where the enemy invalidates the thing entirely or you can opt for the NARRATIVE option which is just as recommended in the book itself. It also doesn't recommend LoS blocking terrain that is vital to close range/combat armies does it? Serpents would still likely be good, just drop the troops and let the serpent do it's thing.
The heldrake can improve its reserve rolls by bringing and aegis with a recon thing to improve the reserve roll.
And where is the counter to the riptide? It still doesn't exist and there still isn't an answer to the heldrake for many of the armies that need it most. Why is it that the flamer got 360 on a faq making it better? They obviously didn't plan that. Also, that implies that GW predicted their very first codex of 6th edition to be influenced by rules years down the line when they can't even build a tyranid codex or CSM codes or a DA codex properly.
Also, it's because those units are great and pull more of their weight. And the problem with this fanbase is that 40k has a crappy developer and people will excuse it by saying war isn't balanced.
I'd agree that it was designed if they actually made logical choices. Instead, they often focus on short sighted aspects and don't make cheap tactics. Logically, they'd buff the really bad units to be really good and make all their new releases good so they'd be big and sell. Thing is, they don't. For every riptide they release, there is also the exalted flamer. For every heldrake releases, rules make the waveserpent devestating.
Addition: Anyways, apologies for it being a bit on the rude side. Couldn't sleep and I've been doing three senseless debates for hours now and your IT IS A WAR SO IMBALANCE just was too much. It just supports lazy design and incompetent balancing and supports us eating .
Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.
The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".
Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.
Size definitely matters. Fewer extreme choices do matter. What don't you get about this?
Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.
Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.
Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.
Exactly, it has precisely the problems the video identifies, among other things, for Starcraft during that game's "balanced phase". Stale, repetitive, devoid of strategy.
Wait, what? Warmachine is devoid of strategy? Um, no. Warmachine is all about strategy, to the point where a good list played by a poor player will lose to a bad list played by a superior player. That's how a game should work. There's no "I placed a Stormwalll, I win" or "I'm using Man-o-War Shocktroopers, guess I shouldn't bother to try" in Warmachine, while in 40k there's a lot of "Here's my 3x Riptides and O'Vesastar, I win by turn 3" or "I'm playing a fluffy 1K Sons list that can't win a game because they're so bad". Warmachine games end abruptly this is true but games encourage aggressive play and tactics like trying to set up an assassination or control objectives.
There's a lot more strategy and low-level unit tactics and synergy in Warmachine than 40k ever had, even before 6th edition.
Fenris Frost wrote: This is pretty entertaining to watch. None of you on either side of this argument has considered the possibility that this is by design, have you?
You're not paying attention, are you? I think the idea that it is intentional has been raised, and refuted.
For one thing, war isn't balanced.
This is a game, not a war simulation. Current doctrine in the US military is that unless our soldiers outnumber their opponents 3-to-1, they are to disengage. Do you believe a game in which one side got three times as many points as the other side would be fun?
Games that are one-sided can be entertaining. Playing a story in which a handful of desperate survivors attempt to hold-out against a much larger aggressor force can be fun. But, it's really not the sort of fun that most people want most of the time. Getting your ass handed to you repeatedly is, for most people, not fun. It makes them less likely to want to continue to play the game.
People want the game balanced because they want to use it to be hardcore competitive sorts
Again, you're not really keeping up with the discussion, are you. Hardcore competitive players are far less impacted by poor game balance than casual players. Hardcore competitive players will analyze what's good, will buy only what's good, and will field only what's good.
It's the casual players who are the ones who buy models that look cool, and then suffer because those models lose games because they're "bad".
No one ever considers the game as a whole, either. Would Tau be as broken if every time they set foot in terrain we rolled to see if it was a forest that would eat them, like it says to in the book? Would the Aegis Line be as ubiquitous as it is if it got put down before any terrain is on the table, like the book says to initially? Would the Wave Serpent be as good if people mysterious objective bonuses were worth having?
If you believe that balance can be achieved by simply upping the number of random events that impact the victory conditions, absent of player decisions, I could suggest that you play Chutes and Ladders or Candyland. I, however, prefer games where player decisions have a greater impact on the result than a few choice dice rolls. But, I do not mean to disparage Candyland fans.
Except that that is entirely false. The problem is that due to balance you don't often see the donzens of units that are not good. The list of horrible units is just as bad (or worse) than that of the OP units. You mention real war....here is the issue, in a real war you would expect units to actually be reasonably good at their role. This is not the case in 40k. No one is saying that 180 points of pyrovores shoudl cover the same bases as a Riptide. What we (or at least I am saying) is that they should be equally good at what they are supposed to do.
SO if a riptide is supposed to be durable good shooting, and Pyrovoes are supposed to be good at digging light infantry out of cover. I expect 180 points of pyrovores to be as good at digging light infantry out of cover as Riptides are at providing durable shooting. But they are not, pyrovores are bad at what they are meant to do. Which begs the question why in a real war would tyranids evolve them at all.
Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.
Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.
Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.
There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.
Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.
Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.
But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.
If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.
The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people, thus creating demand for variety. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.
Zweischneid wrote: Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.
There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.
Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.
Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.
But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.
If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.
The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.
What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.
This "perfect imbalance" you keep saying doesn't mean you have some units that are too good, and some units that are garbage and nobody with a brain would take them (aka how 40k works). It means you have a variety of units that each have their uses in a given context, whether individually or as part of a group with other similar units, where you aren't punished for picking the "wrong" unit just because that unit is weak.
Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.
Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.
Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.
There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.
Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.
Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.
But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.
If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.
The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.
Technically MtG also uses it because random cards in card packs and a few other reasons. Also, it's not really like that.
It's more like....
Balance---------------------------------------------Imbalance
I
Perfect Imbalance.
The notion is that everything ends up having a usage and viable at some point in a naturally flowing cycle due to subtle imbalances. If things actually start to slide too much to the right, then the rules will be updates or a new release will come out or something will be banned to bring it back to the left.
Imagine "balance" as a scale. The closer you are to the middle ("perfect balance" i.e. everything is equal, similar to Chess) the better, but nothing is realistically going to be exactly in the middle. 40k has a lot of things on either the left side (underpowered) or right side (overpowered), and few things in the middle. X-Wing or Warmachine has a lot more towards the middle, with very few outliers.
Whether or not things are purposely not balanced, the level of that imbalance is what ultimately matters. No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side. Games like X-Wing, Malifaux, and Warmachine succeed in that. 40k fails miserably.
Again, as demonstrated by the idea of "perfect imbalance", trying to get as close to the middle as possible is not the goal.
There are good reasons to consciously move away from this middle to provide different aspects in a game, that a perfectly balanced game like Chess (also a viable alternative to game design) cannot offer.
Again, games like MtG (and probably many wargames) purposefully (!) unbalance thing to bring in certain aspects to gaming - a metagame, list-(deck-whatever)-building, an evolving state of play, etc.. , at the expense of things a more balanced game could offer (which in turn cannot offer all the things an imbalanced game can offer.
Think instead of your scale as one where "absolute balance" is on the far left, and "absolute imbalance" is on the far right. Chess is probably very far left. Games like MTG, Warmachine or Malifaux scattered at various points along the line. 40K probably further right than most of these.
But where is "perfect imbalance".... ? That is a question every gamer needs to answer for himself. For some, it will be at the utter left-most "chess-end" of the scale (e.g. people who play Chess, I would think). Other like a bit more imbalance into the mix, and their perfect spot may be more where Warmachine or MTG sits. And others again like games more to the right side of the spectrum. The last kind of players, it would seem likely, might be attracted to 40K in its current form.
If every game should aspire to be "more balanced", the world would only need one game (Chess? Go?), namely the most balanced one. All less-balanced games would be inferior, so nobody would play them.
The fact that quite a few games exist - and enjoy success and fans - suggests that other factors are also important, and different factors will matter more or less to different people. Some will care a lot about balance. Others not at all. Luckily, we are enjoying a period in history, where games catering to all tastes exist, including games like 40K which doesn't care much about balance.
What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.
This "perfect imbalance" you keep saying doesn't mean you have some units that are too good, and some units that are garbage and nobody with a brain would take them (aka how 40k works). It means you have a variety of units that each have their uses in a given context, whether individually or as part of a group with other similar units, where you aren't punished for picking the "wrong" unit just because that unit is weak.
And this. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance. You can put your fingers in your ears and scream you aren't listening but the heldrake, waveserpent, screamerstar, riptide, flamer of tzeentch, swarms of nurgle spawn, Flayers, those shadow assassins of DE, beaststars, pyrocasters, etc. Are not balanced with many being too good and doing everything great whilst others have no use besides you wanting to purposefully cripple yourself.
What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.
Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.
Am I interpreting the video wrong so far?
If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?
What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.
Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.
Am I interpreting the video wrong.
If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?
As per MtG, as mentioned, the reason is two fold. One, it's a mechanic to keep you grabbing for more cards probably. Second, it often leads to scenarios where the system can naturally fluctuate where strong cards can be countered by weak cards thus promoting the collection of additional cards, meaning buying more packs, meaning more money.
As for a game like league. it has several elements, one is to support money. Another is to promote a shifting game environment. You can tell that 40k does not have this because the meta is extremely static due to imbalance.
As it says, it's about SUBTLE imbalance, not blatant wow broken imbalance. Heck, he even goes out of his way to describe two examples. One being the difference between over powered and broken as well as an example speaking of Champion A being better than most but then Champion B, largely considered underpowered turns out to be good against him leading to it becoming popular making champion A be considered bad now. Even then, he goes on to say that if complaints persist for a long time then it is likely true that it is broken and mentions having to fix them.
What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.
Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.
Am I interpreting the video wrong.
If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?
As per MtG, as mentioned, the reason is two fold. One, it's a mechanic to keep you grabbing for more cards probably. Second, it often leads to scenarios where the system can naturally fluctuate where strong cards can be countered by weak cards thus promoting the collection of additional cards, meaning buying more packs, meaning more money.
As for a game like league. it has several elements, one is to support money. Another is to promote a shifting game environment. You can tell that 40k does not have this because the meta is extremely static due to imbalance.
I am not talking about 40K. 40K isn't part of the video.
Do you agree, that the video shows that there are credible reasons for game-designers to chose imbalances over balance for certain games? Is that a correct interpretation of this video?
What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.
Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.
Am I interpreting the video wrong.
If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?
As per MtG, as mentioned, the reason is two fold. One, it's a mechanic to keep you grabbing for more cards probably. Second, it often leads to scenarios where the system can naturally fluctuate where strong cards can be countered by weak cards thus promoting the collection of additional cards, meaning buying more packs, meaning more money.
As for a game like league. it has several elements, one is to support money. Another is to promote a shifting game environment. You can tell that 40k does not have this because the meta is extremely static due to imbalance.
I am not talking about 40K. 40K isn't part of the video.
Do you agree, that the video shows that there are credible reasons for game-designers to chose imbalances over balance for certain games? Is that a correct interpretation of this video?
Apologies, I ended up updating my old post. You might want to re-read it now. It actually touches on how individuals will chose imbalances over balances to promote certain features including increased purchases, a flowing, naturally, self sustaining meta, and a few other details. That said, I also point out that it's not dramatic imbalances that he explains but instead subtle and nuanced imbalances and even admits that things can be so bad they need to be rebalanced.
What you are talking about is NOT perfect imbalance. 40k is nowhere near perfect imbalance; X-Wing and Warmachine are. That video doesn't say what you think it's saying.
Isn't it? I think the video is saying that game-designers sometimes purposefully create imbalances over balances, and it gives examples, MtG, where game-designers did just that, and Chess, where they didn't.
Am I interpreting the video wrong so far?
If, as you say, quote, " No game can be perfectly balanced, but the goal is try and get as close to the middle as possible and avoiding the outliers to either side", why does MtG deviate on purpose from their "Jedi Curve" (e.g. numerical balance) as shown in the video?
I haven't played MtG but from what little I know, they either have or used to have "trick" cards that looked good but really weren't, to trick new players and teach them the concept of "system mastery", the idea being as they got more experienced they would learn what to watch out for and improve their deck-building as a result. I can't say I ever agreed with that notion, but 40k doesn't have any sense of balance whatsoever and doesn't even care if things are unbalanced.
I can only speak to 40k and Warmachine as these are the only games I have played or looked at the rules in recent memory. Warmachine operates on the notion that your list-building skills is just one facet of the game and more than eclipsed by your tactics. There is no "killer list" in Warmachine; there are strong lists, of course, but the strong lists aren't as grossly imbalanced as with 40k where someone with a good list can demolish a better player with a worse list - I read elsewhere a story about an experienced, like 5+ year player fielding a balanced army getting smashed in three turns by an almost complete newbie fielding a "netlist"; that kind of situation should never happen in any game, as the list alone shouldn't be enough to single-handedly win a game.
As I said earlier in Warmachine you can field a list consisting of generally subpar choices, and if you can maximize how to use them you can defeat somebody using a more powerful list. That's the mark of a fairly balanced (note I said fairly as true balance is an impossibility, and if it were possible it'd be rather boring anyways) game that appeals to both competitive gamers in tournaments or a casual/friendly setting. There is no "I win" button in Warmachine, while 40k has a variety of "I Win" buttons and a few buttons that are broken and don't work at all.
That's how a game should be. The concept of "perfect imbalance" means that you can play what you want and change up your tactics appropriately, versus playing what you want/think is cool and getting steamrolled by someone who plays the better units.
Apologies, I ended up updating my old post. You might want to re-read it now. It actually touches on how individuals will chose imbalances over balances to promote certain features including increased purchases, a flowing, naturally, self sustaining meta, and a few other details. That said, I also point out that it's not dramatic imbalances that he explains but instead subtle and nuanced imbalances and even admits that things can be so bad they need to be rebalanced.
I don't deny that.
But he also notes that (almost) perfectly balanced games like chess have qualities that may be undesirable as well. The static state of play, the immense barrier to enter higher levels of play, etc...
Can we agree that "maximum balance" is not the sole and only goal of all games and all game-designs ever?
That's how a game should be. The concept of "perfect imbalance" means that you can play what you want and change up your tactics appropriately, versus playing what you want/think is cool and getting steamrolled by someone who plays the better units.
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
Apologies, I ended up updating my old post. You might want to re-read it now. It actually touches on how individuals will chose imbalances over balances to promote certain features including increased purchases, a flowing, naturally, self sustaining meta, and a few other details. That said, I also point out that it's not dramatic imbalances that he explains but instead subtle and nuanced imbalances and even admits that things can be so bad they need to be rebalanced.
I don't deny that.
But he also notes that (almost) perfectly balanced games like chess have qualities that may be undesirable as well. The static state of play, the immense barrier to enter higher levels of play, etc...
Can we agree that "maximum balance" is not the sole and only goal of all games and all game-designs ever?
I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.
I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.
Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).
It's a matter of degree. If Champion A is so much better than B, that B might as well not play, you have trivialized the game; not created "imperfect balance".
I don't think you understand just how game-breaking some units are.
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.
Except in 40K Champion B can't hold Champion A's jock strap. Compare any BA character to Smashf%^&^&*er.
I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.
Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).
Overall, yes, I believe there are some nuances and different interpretations that are making conflict (although I suppose the joke of the two christians so alike but one minor sect difference and it makes heated arguments burst out everywhere rather accurate)
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.
Yes. But the cycle doesn't start if everything is balanced. Things need to be imbalanced first.
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.
Except in 40K Champion B can't hold Champion A's jock strap. Compare any BA character to Smashf%^&^&*er.
And I'm not disagreeing with you. Flip through my messages and you'll see I've been disagreeing with Zwei constantly. In fact, I've been one of his biggest oppositions. I was talking about the concept from the video itself not how it is in the game. Those two things are very different.
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.
Yes. But the cycle doesn't start if everything is balanced. Things need to be imbalanced first.
Yes and no. It's a rather odd system. Basically, it requires imbalances plotted out masterfully to let it loop around and twist and turn. In short, everything needs pros and cons already established for it to flow. In short, it's really complicated and not really simple to put. it needs imbalances to be set up but requires it by way of subtle imbalance rather than simply just standard or blatant imbalance.
I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.
Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).
Overall, yes, I believe there are some nuances and different interpretations that are making conflict (although I suppose the joke of the two christians so alike but one minor sect difference and it makes heated arguments burst out everywhere rather accurate)
Ok. Great.
Now.. I made a second argument.. unrelated to the actual contents of the video, though it also, as a second argument, goes against the "absoluteness" of balance-over-everything.
The argument was the one about subjective taste: E.g. Some people will prefer games with more balance (e.g. Chess) and some people will prefer games with a smattering of carefully crafted imbalance (e.g. MtG). Thus, there is a diversity of "subjective tastes". Some people like Chess better, others MtG better. Both can co-exist without Chess necessarily being "better" than MtG or vice versa for every human alive. Indeed, some people might enjoy both Chess and MtG for different settings or moods.
Martel732 wrote: It's a matter of degree. If Champion A is so much better than B, that B might as well not play, you have trivialized the game; not created "imperfect balance".
I don't think you understand just how game-breaking some units are.
Not only that but I believe the video is talking about the context of a MOBA, e.g. League of Legends. In a game like that you get a bit more leeway between power levels, so Champion A can be better than Champion B, because Champion A and Champion B don't exist in a void; I haven't played LoL but I've dabbled in DOTA2 which is similar and done PVP in World of Warcraft so it's roughly the same idea, and you don't balance around 1v1 in that case (a common complaint in WoW is that "X class is OP" because X class can beat Y class in a 1v1 duel; PVP isn't balanced around 1v1 at all).
It's not black and white and comparing one to one, it's all the units compared to all the units. 40k has units that are just pretty much worthless, and have little or no reason to exist as there's no compelling reason to field it (Mutilators, Pyrovores, CSM) and units that are so good that you always want to field it if you can (Plague Marines, Wave Serpents). That's not the same as "Champion A can beat Champion B".
That's the underlying issue. Not that Unit A is better than Unit B, but that Unit B is *worthless* with no compelling reason to take it, and Unit A is *so good* that you want to field it every chance you get.
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.
Except in 40K Champion B can't hold Champion A's jock strap. Compare any BA character to Smashf%^&^&*er.
And I'm not disagreeing with you. Flip through my messages and you'll see I've been disagreeing with Zwei constantly. In fact, I've been one of his biggest oppositions. I was talking about the concept from the video itself not how it is in the game. Those two things are very different.
No, it is not. Look at the video again, for example the part about cyclical imbalance, "Champion A", "Champion B", etc..
Champion A is better. Objectively. Otherwise the system wouldn't work.
To be technical, it isn't entirely like that. It's more of Champion A is objectively better than the average in most cases whilst Champion B is objectively worse than the average in most cases however Champion B is strong against Champion A. this leads to the rise of Champion B to best Champion A then making Champion B the dominant force and Champion A rather unpopular. This flows into a continuing cycle.
Yes. But the cycle doesn't start if everything is balanced. Things need to be imbalanced first.
Yes and no. It's a rather odd system. Basically, it requires imbalances plotted out masterfully to let it loop around and twist and turn. In short, everything needs pros and cons already established for it to flow. In short, it's really complicated and not really simple to put. it needs imbalances to be set up but requires it by way of subtle imbalance rather than simply just standard or blatant imbalance.
Oops meant that for Zwei, really. Not you. You just had the quote I wanted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?
Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?
I never said 40K was an example of perfect imbalance.
I said perfect imbalance was one example of game-design theory contradicting the idea of "balance=better".
40K, with all it's "narrative", isn't trying to create a MtG-style "perfect imbalance". But like MtG, it rejects balance as the "only" principle, or at least subordinates it to more important priorities, if for different reasons than MtG does.
Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?
I never said 40K was an example of perfect imbalance.
I said perfect imbalance was one example of game-design theory contradicting the idea of "balance=better".
40K, with all it's "narrative", isn't trying to create a MtG-style "perfect imbalance". But like MtG, it rejects balance, or at least subordinates it to more important priorities, if for different reasons than MtG does.
Well, I think they have rejected it a bit too much. And help but to think it's hard to move models that completely blow in the game.
I've already agreed to that and to the static state of play and immense barrier to enter higher levels of play actually. That's not where our arguments are really coming from.
Well, I was accused of misunderstanding the video. Can we agree that we have a shared understanding of the video now? Of what it says and what it doesn't say (nothing about 40K, which I never claimed).
Overall, yes, I believe there are some nuances and different interpretations that are making conflict (although I suppose the joke of the two christians so alike but one minor sect difference and it makes heated arguments burst out everywhere rather accurate)
Ok. Great.
Now.. I made a second argument.. unrelated to the actual contents of the video, though it also, as a second argument, goes against the "absoluteness" of balance-over-everything.
The argument was the one about subjective taste: E.g. Some people will prefer games with more balance (e.g. Chess) and some people will prefer games with a smattering of carefully crafted imbalance (e.g. MtG). Thus, there is a diversity of "subjective tastes". Some people like Chess better, others MtG better. Both can co-exist without Chess necessarily being "better" than MtG or vice versa for every human alive.
Is that wrong?
Subjectivity always muddles the scenario. That said, both of their perks. A static system is charming because it truly puts to test your capabilities with the least possible imbalances set up (really the only flaw that keeps chess from being perfectly balanced is who gets turn one). Perfect imbalance surrenders some individual balance to promote a cycle where everything is worth fielding at some point, although not necessarily at all points but will organically flow even without too much input from yourself besides working out the kinks. I wouldn't quite say that being scaled too much toward imbalance. As mentioned before, I feel the scale is much more like:
Balance---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Imbalance
I....................................I ............................................................................................. I
Chess................Perfect Imbalance............................................................................40k
Or something like that. As noted, I'd still place perfect imbalance closer to balance. The thing is, it still has a more balanced middle zone with a bell shaped formation of units and then has internal ways to keep everything fluid and vibrant. Thing is, going too imbalanced or too balanced is a bad idea in terms of static environment. Both balance and imbalance can lead to a static world. Between these two, balance is most optimal because it does not give you the illusion of choice when it is actually excessively impaired. The most optimal combination for creating a fluid system is something that is relatively balanced with only minor increases and decreases and with counters established and planned out to keep everything with a proper use at some point, as stated before. This is an abstraction admittedly but it's analyzing how it focused on the subtitles rather than blatant mess ups and referencing the game's attempts to fix up massive disparities
It's almost like a form of balance that uses imbalance to make balance. Slippery slope and all and sounds counter intuitive but that's what ends up feeling like. Along with that, another problem is that 40k can't be updated and isn't as cheap as a game. That's the biggest reason why things need to be more rigid for 40k. Cause we can't go buying models all casual like. It needs to be a bit more static in the end.
Zwei, how do you justify completely useless units in 40K? Shouldn't perfect imbalance have at least one use for every unit?
I never said 40K was an example of perfect imbalance.
I said perfect imbalance was one example of game-design theory contradicting the idea of "balance=better".
So we agree that 40k is imbalanced then.
The idea of perfect imbalance though is just an extension of balance. What I mean is you can have "perfect imbalance" and things are balanced as a result.
For example, I would consider Warmachine to be an example of "perfect imbalance". There are units that are good, units that aren't as good, but the focus on the usage versus the unit statline balances that imbalance out to where every unit is a *viable* choice. If you pick the weaker Unit A but don't build correctly around it, or use it wrong, you can lose a game and this is perfectly acceptable. However, there is no situation where Unit A is *so* bad that you're basically a newb or a sucker if you decide to field it, and by fielding it alone you just reduced the chance of winning a game by some arbitrary amount.
Conversely, Unit B might be a really good all-around unit, and the one that everyone recommends you take, but it's never going to single-handedly win you the game because it's head and shoulders above everything else in the game. It's better, but the fact every unit has a place makes up for the fact that Unit B is better than Unit A, because you can use Unit A in tandem with other units to offset the fact it's worse than Unit B, and Unit A used in the right context or with the right supporting units can beat Unit B, despite the fact Unit B is better.
How about you stop quoting things you don't understand. Watch the video again. Note the part around 0:45 where he says "not great big haphazard ones". Note the part around 0:53 where says "just a little bit of imbalance".
Hell, he's wrong by the 1:30 mark. Chess is imbalanced. White has a half-move advantage on black, every single game.
Furthermore, in a game with 17 factions, designed imbalance inherently exists between those factions, as some are necessarily better at some things and worse than others. The great big imbalances within each codex don't serve to enhance player discovery, they actually reduce the amount of interest in the game by pruning the decision tree of branches to discover.
One of the concepts that he doesn't go into, but that anyone who has ever attempted to create a computer AI to play any game understands, is that of a decision tree. You can see this most obviously in chess, as it's a game that doesn't involve random events. Well, from the initial game state, you have 20 possible moves you can make. Then your opponent moves, one of 20 choices also. Then you make your next move, and the number of possible moves here is greater than 20. Already, in evaluating our second move, we need to consider 400 possible game states. Skipping some library stuff that chess AIs use to simplify the opening game, you can see how the number of decisions could quickly overwhelm a computer, especially around the midgame, where you may have 100 legal moves to choose from. Early chess AIs could take hours to come up with a move. Well, in order to reduce complexity, AI developers realized that you could prune certain move evaluations early, and that by recognizing a bad decision early enough, you could save a lot of cycles. (I could go further into this, and why harder settings necessarily require less pruning, but...)
The point is that, when you're looking for a unit to fit a particular role, say, assaulting an opponent's objective, a high level of imbalance means you prune the bad units out of the equation entirely, and they never get used. And, since picking the right unit isn't really part of the game you play against your opponent, this reduces, rather than increases the depth of the game. It's as if they didn't even create the bad units, for how infrequently they show up in the game. That's not good game design, even if you want some better units in the game.
Back to the video, and how it doesn't make sense for a game like 40k. So, he points out League Of Legends, and how Cyclical Design doesn't really apply to a tabletop wargame in the same way that it applies to a videogame. See, in a game like League of Legends, a cyclical imbalance makes sense, because the metagame can evolve quickly, at a very moderate cost to a player. But in a tabletop wargame, you're looking at a hobby as much as a game, and this is doubly true for the casual players who are most hurt by the imbalanced game.
Bob, the casual, players Space Wolves. Bob has a Space Wolf tattoo. Bob has spent several thousand dollars on his Space Wolves, and has invested hundreds of hours converting and painting them. The promise that the metagame will evolve if Bob switches to playing Eldar isn't realistic. It denies the cost, both monetary and in time, that switching an army involves in a tabletop wargame. Bob's not switching. The competitive player will switch to whatever's good, but not the casual player. So the "evolving metagame" created by cyclical design isn't really an appropriate construct for the sort of game that we're talking about. And this is where your argument has gone wrong from the beginning.
Miniature Wargames are not CCGs and they're not Video Games. They cost a lot more money than Video Games, (though perhaps not competitive M;TG), and a lot more time to develop your army than CCGs take to obtain a deck (although, perhaps not more time than it takes to max level your WOW guy). The barrier to switching factions is far higher than in either of these other paradigms. Therefore, a design strategy based on people switching factions all the time is far less than ideal. But, it's more than that, because it's not just imbalance between factions, it's also big huge swingy imbalance between units within a faction - something even your quoted video says shouldn't exist. Because when your comparing two units with the same purpose, and one is better than the other, that's not a cyclical design issue, that's just a mistake.
Hell, he's wrong by the 1:30 mark. Chess is imbalanced. White has a half-move advantage on black, every single game.
True. Which is why almost every chess-club in the world will start teaching you the game with things like the French Defense, which responds to this tiny imbalance. Once you have that down, you go on defeating the French Defense in turn, etc., etc...
Even in the "almost-perfect-balance" that is Chess, it is the imbalance, however small, that is the gateway to learning the game, the "texture" you use to climb up and become better.
A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.
Hell, he's wrong by the 1:30 mark. Chess is imbalanced. White has a half-move advantage on black, every single game.
True. Which is why almost every chess-club in the world will start teaching you the game with things like the French Defense, which responds to this tiny imbalance. Once you have that down, you go on defeating the French Defense in turn, etc., etc...
Even in the "almost-perfect-balance" that is Chess, it is the imbalance, however small, that is the gateway to learning the game, the "texture" you use to climb up and become better.
A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.
not quite, a truly balanced game would have some perk to it. It would be the greatest judge of skill where there is only the factor of error of the individual themselves. it basically all comes down to skill. At this point, the best two individuals of equal skill can get is a draw really and often times the one that goes first wins out as well.
Which is why nobody has mentioned a "truly 100% balanced game" in this thread, or ever in the related threads that I've seen. I don't think anyone is against the idea of this "perfect imbalance", the argument is that 40k is about as far from that as pitting a soapbox racer against a Nascar driver and claiming that it's a fine comparison because both are "cars".
The original argument of the thread was if the "problem" with 40k is taking it too seriously, and this was quickly refused by the idea that the problem with 40k is the gross imbalance of the factions and units within the same faction, which then turned into the current discussion of perfect imbalance, which really is a moot point because 40k isn't 100% balanced (ignoring whether or not this is a viable design) nor is it perfect imbalance. It's almost gross negligently imbalanced, and that is the problem with 40k. Things aren't balanced for what appears to be no reason at all (whether laziness or ignorance), or at worst things are imbalanced to coerce players into buying new/better units on a rotating basis.
Barring the typical complaints about prices, I don't think there would be half as much issue with 40k if it actually *was* trying to reach perfect imbalance. The issue is that it's not, and is pretending in the same breath that it is while its defenders claim that 40k's style of balance is a good thing.
No matter how you slice it, 40k needs to be more balanced than it currently is. Whether that's a move towards 100% balance or "perfect imbalance" is irrelevant, just the fact that it needs to NOT be grossly imbalanced while in the same breath pretending that it is.
We're talking in circles, and Zwei, you have yet to address the flat out broken nature of many units. If the game is so beautifally designed as-is, this does not address the glaring flaws in many units.
The way the game is designed itself, using a points system and force organization, suggests the game is shooting for balance. Otherwise it would simply be a narrative framework of bring what you want. However, Games Workshop business model isn't supporting this, either. It's noted in much of the fluff that Imperial Knights have fallen to Chaos in the past, yet Chaos cannot have them. It would make sense that if you gave Chaos the knight, they'd buy it, thus more sales. So what reason would Games Workshop pull this? It's either an ignorant decision, which is neglegence to the players, it's incompetance, or it's a choice of game design. A game design that is aiming for what... balance. And failing.
The game design for Warhamm 40k is bad. I have seen three areas across this country over the past several years dropping off the game because of the gross mismanagement of the ruleset coupled with increased costs. They were all dropped for one of the major skirmish games appealing to local community at that time; the skirmish games featuring better support. Any support is better support than the next to none Games Workshop provides. We can split hairs on what we mean by "balance" as is being done, but it's a waste of time at this point. A local tournament draws in a much larger crowd (up to 60+ players and not "WAAC" folks, but all types) when comped. When your player base has to manage the rules you sell at a higher cost than any other game AND have the audacity to claim you're just a model company, you're dellusional.
We have many folks here claiming to be casual players and saying the game doesn't work for their narrative forging. We have many competitive players saying it doesn't workt there, either. We have the entire spectrum reprsented saying it's busted. Can you play it? Yes. But how much fun is a game win on a rules dice-off? If this was a narrative driven game, it would be a cooperative setting like that of a traditional RPG. Or, if it is to be narrative driven like historical miniatures, settings would be given with asymmetrical conditions that allow both players a "win". Warhammer 40k offers neither but symmetrical victory conditions with direct player vs player confrontation. Narrative? Marketing term, nothing more.
Warhammer 40k is not balanced and not by intetional design. The FAQs alone prove this when you have comments such as "WOW WE DIDN'T INTEND THIS BUT I GUESS IT'S LEGAL SO WHATEVS". Yeesh.
I don't think anyone is against the idea of this "perfect imbalance", the argument is that 40k is about as far from that as pitting a soapbox racer against a Nascar driver and claiming that it's a fine comparison because both are "cars".
Barring the typical complaints about prices, I don't think there would be half as much issue with 40k if it actually *was* trying to reach perfect imbalance. The issue is that it's not, and is pretending in the same breath that it is while its defenders claim that 40k's style of balance is a good thing.
Again. I never pretended 40K aims for what the video presents as "perfect imbalance".
I linked to the video as one example for why "true 100% balance" isn't a goal of game design, as some people claimed. If you already agree that "true 100% balance" isn't the goal, and a little imbalance serves an important purpose, linking the video would've only told you what you already know.
I agree with Redbeard. The whole M:TG hobby is very different to tabletop wargames and what is appropriate to a card trading and collecting game is not necessarily appropriate to a tabletop wargame.
However, I still don't understand what people mean by balance, imbalance and perfect imbalance.
It seems to me as if Zweischneid is arguing that both sides should not be the same. I agree with that, however I believe that both sides should have the same chance to build effective armies from different lists.
A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.
This encompasses everything that's wrong with what you're arguing in a nutshell, and unless you really are substantially more stupid than you appear, can only be a result of your wilful ignoring of everyone who has tried to explain the opposite viewpoint in every one of the many, many threads you've derailed with this facile argument.
Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."
Martel732 wrote: Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.
Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".
I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.
All we need is consensus that "balance" isn't everything and that alterantive approaches exist. "Perfect Balance" being one of them, not necessarily the one 40K pursues.
Martel732 wrote: Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.
Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".
I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.
Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?
Martel732 wrote: Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.
Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".
I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.
Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?
One that doesn't place a lot of emphasis on balance, I would argue.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree with Redbeard. The whole M:TG hobby is very different to tabletop wargames and what is appropriate to a card trading and collecting game is not necessarily appropriate to a tabletop wargame.
However, I still don't understand what people mean by balance, imbalance and perfect imbalance.
It seems to me as if Zweischneid is arguing that both sides should not be the same. I agree with that, however I believe that both sides should have the same chance to build effective armies from different lists.
My definitions of the three are something like this:
Balance: Unit A is the same as Unit B, no difference between the two (likely cosmetic only); skill is the only deciding factor (no idea on an example of this?)
Perfect Imbalance: Unit A is better at X, Unit B is better at Y, or Unit A is better than Unit B but Unit B can defeat Unit A with the right tactics/additional choices; Skill is not the *only* factor, but is the biggest factor (e.g. Warmachine). Also for the record I think this should be better referred to as "imperfect balance", since it's striving for overall balance without individual choices being balanced.
Imbalance: Unit A is better than Unit B in every way possible; there is no rules-based reason to take Unit B; taking Unit B actively hurts your opportunities for winning, regardless of skill, because Unit A is flat out better. (e.g. 40k)
Martel732 wrote: Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.
Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".
I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.
Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?
One that doesn't place a lot of emphasis on balance, I would argue.
That's very obvious. I don't understand why they would write such a system and invalidate a third of their model line.
A truly 100% balanced game would be 100% pointless.
This encompasses everything that's wrong with what you're arguing in a nutshell, and unless you really are substantially more stupid than you appear, can only be a result of your wilful ignoring of everyone who has tried to explain the opposite viewpoint in every one of the many, many threads you've derailed with this facile argument.
Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."
Balanced is much easier to type.
Also this, pretty much. Few if any of us want perfect balance where Unit A is equivalent to Unit B except for the models. But none or almost none of us want the current trend where Unit A outshines Unit B to the point where not only is there no rules reason to field Unit B, but Unit B is basically a trap that costs you games because it's so bad.
This whole "perfect imbalance" concept is really just wanting things to be balanced overall, even if at the individual level A > B.
Martel732 wrote: Okay let's work with "perfect imbalance" then. As much as I disagree with the concept, I would take that over what 40K offers now.
Again. I never said 40K strives for the concept introduced as "perfect imbalance".
I only quoted "perfect imbalance" to give you and others one example of game design that purposefully moves away from "perfect balance" for game-design reasons.
Okay so what game design is 40K then? Perfect "We don't give a feth"?
One that doesn't place a lot of emphasis on balance, I would argue.
Indeed it doesn't. Nor does it work with imperfect balance. It functions on pure imbalance to its detrament.
Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."
Balanced is much easier to type.
Can we just spam this for the rest of the thread anytime Zwei posts?
I would love it that many of my friends didn't feel disparraged when playing their Dark Angels and Chaos Space Marine armies. I saw 4 of said players at my last local all either quit 40k or dump their armies for something else because of this disparrage and they weren't competitive gamers. I saw a fifth be resolute in at least being the best painted punching bag he could be (which his stuff was awesome, he had like several companies painted!), but even as narrative driven as he was, he wishes the book wasn't a steaming pile. Are these fine folks all wrong? Are they not the intended audience?
Inversely, I saw several people almost forced to shelve their Tau and Eldar armies because people just would not play them. They would not be bringing triptide, broadside spam, serpent spam, jetseer, etc., but the given stigma those armies had meant that people just didn't want to play them.
So you had people on both sides of the power curve feeling marginalized. And marginalized after spending hundreds of dollars on their armies, some over a thousand dollars on their collection. The new Tau book is amazing in terms of internal design save a few units still be "never takes" (e.g. Vespid, Flyers, Devilfish, Named ICs, etc.). But the mere idea that the special rule "Interceptor" should only cost 5 points on a gun platform model is a joke. Now look at something like the Firestorm Cadre, which literally sells you special rules, allows you to take these already powerful units, but take them outside of force organization and free rules that makes already powerful units even more powerful.
I'm sorry, but the argument that "it's a narrative game" is an excuse. It's a marketing term that covers up the shoddy design. And I wouldn't blame the designers as I imagine their hand is forced by middle and upper management. Hell, I miss Mat Ward codecis... they might be powerful, but almost every unit was something you would consider. Make Ward EIC. If everything is a powerhouse, then we'll at least be closer to a playable game.
Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."
Balanced is much easier to type.
Can we just spam this for the rest of the thread anytime Zwei posts?
Will do.
Though I'm pretty sure we'll just get spammed with that same useless Youtube video...
I'm sorry, but the argument that "it's a narrative game" is an excuse. It's a marketing term that covers up the shoddy design.
Not anymore than the argument of "it's a balanced game" by PP is an excuse to cover up their shoddy narratives.
So again, how does units not working and both types of playstyles being marginalized a good design? Please, explain with details and facts.
And I know plenty of folks who love the narrative of Warmachine more because it advances and changes characters/creates new ones. And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."
I'm sorry, but the argument that "it's a narrative game" is an excuse. It's a marketing term that covers up the shoddy design.
Not anymore than the argument of "it's a balanced game" by PP is an excuse to cover up their shoddy narratives.
You truly have no idea what you're talking about do you? You're just refuting people's points for the sake of it. It's like some kind of game isn't it?
Tell ya what, lets try to trap you in a loop- "Boy, I sure do love disagreeing with people on the internet. It's like my favourite thing to do."
TheKbob wrote: And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."
As does 40K.
Straight from the rulebook. (emphasis mine).
Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.
TheKbob wrote: And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."
As does 40K.
Straight from the rulebook. (emphasis mine).
Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.
That's great, but trying to get people to agree is like herding bunny rabbits. I want the Riptide to be T3. Anyone willing to agree to that?
A lot of the 40k balance issues could be resolved if it was treated more like a narrative game, such as a historical one, and introduced asymmetrical missions so that each army could be constructed based on player liking and then play to their strengths on the table top.
As it stands, 5/6 game types favors going second on Turns 5, 6, & 7 for objective capture and denial. When you have near impervious untis, such as the Jetseer Council, that can break apart and contest the entire table while also scoring any objective they please with their troops choices, you get this disparity.
So either way you slice it, Warhammer 40k fails as a narrative game because the design does not reflect this in conjunction with other narrative wargames and it fails as a competitive one through unit and codex balance.
In a balanced game, however, no play style is marginalized and everyone has an opportunity to succeed without worrying about choosing the :"right" models to play with.
You truly have no idea what you're talking about do you? You're just refuting people's points for the sake of it. It's like some kind of game isn't it?
Tell ya what, lets try to trap you in a loop- "Boy, I sure do love disagreeing with people on the internet. It's like my favourite thing to do."
Well, I don't get why people complain about the "Forge the Narrative" boxes being a dishonest marketing ploy, only to turn around and complain again when the rules actually do what the "Forge the Narrative"-boxes claim the rules-writers set out to do.
If you don't like the "Forge-the-Narrative"-approach... 40K probably isn't for you. If the game-rules were obviously some balanced tournament-style thing that contradict the "Forge-the-Narrative" declaration, it would make sense to dismiss it as a marketing gag.
But since the rules do what the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes claim they do, I fail to see how people feel "betrayed" by GW's rather explicit and open declaration of intent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: A lot of the 40k balance issues could be resolved if it was treated more like a narrative game, such as a historical one, and introduced asymmetrical missions so that each army could be constructed based on player liking and then play to their strengths on the table top.
As it stands, 5/6 game types favors going second on Turns 5, 6, & 7 for objective capture and denial. When you have near impervious untis, such as the Jetseer Council, that can break apart and contest the entire table while also scoring any objective they please with their troops choices, you get this disparity.
I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement. The Guerrilla-warfare Dark-Angels-vs.-CSM-Missions in the Crimson Slaughter supplement, etc..
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.
Okay, I'm running my fluffy White Scars army that tables you by turn three. Did you have fun? I love giant robots and want to run Triptide. I buy, build, and lovingly paint three models... and no one wants to play me. I'm not having fun...
Here's the problem, you cannot evoke "spirit" with rules. You invoke permissions. A framework to enjoyable game is one where both parties have an reasonable outcome for success. We aren't all WAAC and we all know losing all the time is not fun. However, getting curb stomped/curb stomping is fun for no party, save a few donkey caves.
I tell you what, having D weapons vaporize my units, as GW intends to happen in normal games of 40k now, is not fun for anyone.
But since the rules do what the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes claim they do, I fail to see how people feel "betrayed" by GW's rather explicit and open declaration of intent.
How do the rules achieve that though? The colossal imbalances actually do more harm to narrative gaming than competitive.
TheKbob wrote: And you can easily create your own narrative in Warmachine than you can 40k if you use the same concept of "change the rules to how you see fit."
As does 40K.
Straight from the rulebook. (emphasis mine).
Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. [...] Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.
You get that quote is treating the reader as a wargaming novice right? That they'll never have encountered a game like a tabletop wargame of any flavour and "other games" in this context is more likely referring to Monopoly than Warmachine.
Zweischneid wrote: I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.
Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.
Zweischneid wrote: I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.
Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.
Keep trying.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
It's obvious the game doesn't subscribe to any particular metric of balance, and my overall point is that the game is better (read: more entertaining or unique each game) because of it. In other games the pieces mean very little; the football and field upon which the players themselves test their skills at running, catching, tackling, etc. In 40k it is more like a controlled show, and they know this and place heavy emphasis on this. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they are ball-parking most stuff and calling it even, but are these things really as broken as people make out? I don't even slightly think so.
I mean, the complaints are even more suspect once you accommodate the fact that you can have allies. Are the Tau or Chaos unbalanced because of the Riptide, when in fact many more of the armies in the game can also have the Riptide or Heldrake as an Ally? Again, no one thinks of this aspect, just the units in a vacuum against other comparable units.
Most really did not get my earlier post, thinking I was advocating for some kind of chaotic mess. I wasn't. But the truth is with 40k you are not supposed to emerge talking tactics with your opponent. You are supposed to emerge with some cinematic story moments, and we remember those moments and enjoy them more than we do any brilliant card combo in MtG or any brilliant plays in Warmachine, generally -- that is what we as humans like. 40k realizes those moments, not competitive mastery and balance, are its' strong points (remember, we are talking about a game where people used to go, "I threw a vortex grenade and it landed on my leader and him and his whole squad died, it was awesome!"). Knowing this, GW plays to its' strengths -- those very moments.
What I don't understand is why if everyone here are such masters of game design principle, why they don't just play another game? 40k is, to my knowledge, the only game that is criticized this much for its' quality. Why not just stop?
Also, I mean there is the obvious elephant in the room...that each codex cycle the good things might become worse while bad things become must-haves, thus keeping GW's business going strong. Rather than incompetence, it is likely a marketing strategy which leads to these things. Say what you want about the Heldrake FAQ -- it moved a lot of models. And you can't really criticize that business practice; it is not much different than MtG's business model, really.
I don't know why so many people want to make Warhammer 40,000 something it is not. Or why, exactly, it being what it is makes it a bad game, instead of just a different one. Is Cards Against Humanity a bad game because points aren't decided objectively? Is Twilight Imperium a bad game because some races have different starting bonuses? Is D&D a bad game because you might fight an enemy that is too powerful if your GM makes a mistake? No, of course not. But this game...THIS game...is somehow terrible. Why? Because of the degree of imbalance? What, it doesn't make sense that the degree be a little wider in a game with ~17ish factions each comprising of numerous wildly different units made out of everything from child-sized snotlings to building-sized titanic war machines?
And this "it hurts the casual players the most" thing. Casual List and Hardcore List are not the only two kinds of lists in the game, it's much more granular than that, and no one ever seems to consider that. As long as you are somewhere in the ballpark you have a fighting chance, and if you don't, there are plenty of people who accept that and play anyway just to see how things pan out (sometimes even winning). To hear you lot tell it, no Riptide or Heldrake ever lost, and anyone without one is doomed to the point of simply quitting the game. I guess I should retire because I have a squad of Blood Claws in my Space Wolf army, then. And surely my Daemons should just be a display army since I don't have any hope of winning without a Screamerstar or a Lord of Change in my list.
I maintain what I always have -- the problem is the playerbase, not the game. The game is NOT balanced, it puts being entertaining before being competitive, and a lot of people just can't make peace with this. It does what it sets out to do -- forges a narrative, the entire intent of the game plastered all over the book. I don't get why people claim the game is trying to be one thing and failing when it clearly is not trying to be that thing in the first place. There is a game for people who want balance and competition -- newsflash: this ain't it.
Zweischneid wrote: I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.
Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.
Keep trying.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Being tournament based is superior to many folks, not idiotic. Why makes a narrative game not "iditoic"? If the result is 40K, I'd have to beg to differ.
Zweischneid wrote: Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?
And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.
And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?
...40k realizes those moments, not competitive mastery and balance, are its' strong points (remember, we are talking about a game where people used to go, "I threw a vortex grenade and it landed on my leader and him and his whole squad died, it was awesome!"). Knowing this, GW plays to its' strengths -- those very moments.
...Also, I mean there is the obvious elephant in the room...that each codex cycle the good things might become worse while bad things become must-haves, thus keeping GW's business going strong. Rather than incompetence, it is likely a marketing strategy which leads to these things. Say what you want about the Heldrake FAQ -- it moved a lot of models. And you can't really criticize that business practice; it is not much different than MtG's business model, really...
I spent over a hundred dollars lovingly acquiring my command squad and hero, dozens of hours building and painting, and then I played them only to be evaporated with no save of any kind. That's so awesome!... Again, this mentality does not address the situations I have presented of many, non-comeptitvely focused players being marginalized from having any sort of fun because their armies are either too weak or percieved as too powerful. This wasn't just one or two folks. This wasn't just one local meta. I have insight of at least traveling for work and seeing many different play areas. My local scene enforces heavy comp on organized play because having units automatically deleted isn't fun.
And that is the elephant in the room, GW is a business. We're all cool with that because they make something we like. However, regardless of the game and how you feel about other games, the customer service they provide for their product, more so as the market leader, is abhorrent. Game balance and design is one thing. When you have situations of absolutely "no-win" in terms of rules conflicts, busted or underpowered units, or codecis that are flat-out non-functional as stand alone products, you're doing something wrong.
You can cry "narrative" all you want. It doesn't seem to be working unless you put a lot of effort into the game to make it work. Most gamers I know and have met would much rather be able to choose the models they like, choose a point level of play, and sit down to what they know will be an enjoyable game of strategy and tactics. And most of readily agreed that 40k is too for that to take place.
Zweischneid wrote: Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?
And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.
And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?
Or does logic hurt the person trolling?
Tried DZC. It too is fairly bland and symmetrical.
Sure, I can "modify" a competitive game and make it more narrative. People can (and do) take a narrative game and modify it to be competitive. Nothing wrong with that.
I am not saying it is impossible to do with Warmachine, but it takes a lot of work and, usually, more "free-form" gaming tends to go against the grain of most Warmachine players I've met.
You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
Zweischneid wrote: Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?
And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.
And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?
Or does logic hurt the person trolling?
Tried DZC. It too is fairly bland and symmetrical.
Sure, I can "modify" a competitive game and make it more narrative. People can (and do) take a narrative game and modify it to be competitive. Nothing wrong with that.
I am not saying it is impossible to do with Warmachine, but it takes a lot of work and, usually, more "free-form" gaming tends to go against the grain of most Warmachine players I've met.
You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
Zweischneid wrote: You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
This last point will be resolved when we see the next financial report. If they continue their downward trend, or only keep profits high due to further cuts without showing a significant uptick in sales volume, we will have our answer on that.
For the business perspective on GW, go to Masterminis.net and read his 12~13 part narrative on how GW is failing as a company; it's written not by a "common Joe" but a former corporate executive of a succesful international bsuiness and is invested personally in a miniatures based company. It's an award winning analysis and perfectly exemplifies on how GW is being sustained on blind brand loyalty alone.
The pricing of their new tools alone is proof enough they are in the market of sniffing their own farts. The mental gymnastics alone to play their game is one thing, but their physical flexibility to have heads that far up their bum is impressive.
For the business perspective on GW, go to Masterminis.net and read his 12~13 part narrative on how GW is failing as a company; it's written not by a "common Joe" but a former corporate executive of a succesful international bsuiness and is invested personally in a miniatures based company. It's an award winning analysis and perfectly exemplifies on how GW is being sustained on blind brand loyalty alone.
I know the series. GW does just about everything wrong you can do wrong. I don't deny that. If they didn't have the far and away best miniatures-game all around, they'd been toast years ago.
Zweischneid wrote: Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Your logic fails, though. Just "forge your own narrative" and create your own rules. It's what we're supposed to do for Warhammer 40k, so why doesn't that work for Warmachine, eh?
And I have seen Warmachine Campaigns, that's the funny part.
And Infinity and Malifaux are both much more narratively driven. Freeblades does, as well. Then there's also Dropzone Commander, which I hear is pretty awesome. By ragging on "GW is the only narrative game", which is both a lie and a marketing term excuse, you're missing your own logical fallacy. If GW expects us to fix up their game with broken units and rules to be enjoyable and forge many narratives, how is this different from you taking a "competitive" game (read balanced and actively maintained by a responsible and consumer focused company) and modifying it for all the narratives?
Or does logic hurt the person trolling?
Tried DZC. It too is fairly bland and symmetrical.
Sure, I can "modify" a competitive game and make it more narrative. People can (and do) take a narrative game and modify it to be competitive. Nothing wrong with that.
I am not saying it is impossible to do with Warmachine, but it takes a lot of work and, usually, more "free-form" gaming tends to go against the grain of most Warmachine players I've met.
You keep complaining about GW prices, but part of the reason GW gets away with those prices for their books is because they still have largely a monopoly on this particular type of gaming that scratches the narrative itch "out of the box". If somebody would challenge GW's turf with a game that does what 40K does, but cheaper, (not, we do tournaments, but you can change it if you like), GW'd be faced with some real competition and be forced to bring down prices.
Incorrect, it is easy to modify a competitive game to a narrative game. It is far more difficult to do the opposite. The reason why their prices are huge is they used to have a monopoly on non-historical war gaming. Even now they are still the most popular and inflate the prices to make up for a diminishing fanbase.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
You haven't played many miniature games have you? Please stop throwing words around if you don't know what they mean.
40k IS NOT A NARRATIVE FOCUSED GAME.
A narrative focused game is one that is mission or campaign focused, like Force on Force or GW's own Inquisitor. A narrative focused game is one that usually doesn't use a points system to define the opposing armies but where they are defined by the specific mission or as a continuing evolution of a campaign.
40K does not fill any of these criteria, they are just as narrative focused as Warmachine or Infinity!
Heck, if you take into account that there are narrative focused mission in almost every NQ and that CB as recently released narrative campaigns for all the factions in Infinity, you can even argue that 40k is LESS narrative focused than either of those games.
I know the series. GW does just about everything wrong you can do wrong. I don't deny that. If they didn't have the far and away best miniatures-game all around, they'd been toast years ago.
I never did like the idea of "You're so smart, so why not start your own?" Wargaming is all a hobby for us and I'll keep that way, too!
I think it's the brand that keeps them going. My attachment is to theme, the universe, and the models. Most certainly NOT the game. And I continue to meet folks in the same category more than those who are in it just for the game alone. I want a Mech IG army, Tau Auxillery army, and a fat grip of Space Marines, but I am entirely put off by how the game itself is being managed. If my hobby then becomes model collecting and painting, there are companies that offer me better options. Andrea Miniatures... gorgeous stuff...
I don't want GW to tank, but their model is unsustainable, sadly. I don't think they will collapse, but I expect them to become much smaller in the coming year(s).
Zweischneid wrote: I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.
Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.
Keep trying.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Being tournament based is superior to many folks, not idiotic. Why makes a narrative game not "iditoic"? If the result is 40K, I'd have to beg to differ.
The irony I find with this is that a game built around tournaments also lends itself to casual play, while the reverse is blatantly false and a game geared for casual play usually falls apart in tournaments. Ergo, games should be designed for tournament play first since there's no drawback for casual play.
I concur with the OP. People do take 40K way to seriously. But since I don't play in tournaments (IMHO40K is not a tourney game because it is not balanced. For tourneys I play WM).
But I do enjoy the heck out of some Beerhammer. And if people get really wound around the axle about the game, I just don't play them any more.
The irony I find with this is that a game built around tournaments also lends itself to casual play, while the reverse is blatantly false and a game geared for casual play usually falls apart in tournaments. Ergo, games should be designed for tournament play first since there's no drawback for casual play.
Zweischneid wrote: I guess you haven't played any of the missions they released in the last year or so. All the Codex: Supplement Missions were very much inspired by such (fake-)historical settings, for example the attack of Hive Fleet Leviathan on Iyanden in the Iyanden Supplement.
The rulebook-missions are mostly a relic of a bygone area of game-design. I agree that they can be misleading, but the "Forge-the-Narrative"-boxes throughout the rulebook should be a pointer for people.
I shouldn't need to spend more money to make the game playable. Don't sell a broken product, or as you said, "relic of by-gone days" and then charge me more for the real game.
Whether you like Warmachine or not, their business practice of "Hey, the core missions are busted, here are better ones. They are free, have fun!" is much better than selling me new missions.
Keep trying.
Warmachine is more affordable and doesn't rob your wallet. Great. Never disputed that. I wish PP would stop with their idiotic tournament-focused game design and make a great narrative game like 40K, so greedy GW wouldn't be the only source for getting one. If they did, they'd be Numero Uno for many years already.
Being tournament based is superior to many folks, not idiotic. Why makes a narrative game not "iditoic"? If the result is 40K, I'd have to beg to differ.
The irony I find with this is that a game built around tournaments also lends itself to casual play, while the reverse is blatantly false and a game geared for casual play usually falls apart in tournaments. Ergo, games should be designed for tournament play first since there's no drawback for casual play.
People need to stop comparing Warmachine and 40k... It's an apples to oranges comparison...
People need to stop comparing Warmachine and 40k... It's an apples to oranges comparison...
The game, yes. But they are both like businesses that sell rules, models, supplies, and have periodicals and company supported events.
One does all of this in a much more consumer friendly manner than the other. One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip. The other is performing every corporate cost-cutting measure in the book to stay relevant and ensure profits for the shareholders while treating customers like walking wallets.
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
So, they lose market share to one of the "Big Fish" Franchises when it moves in. How'd GW do?
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
You mean two massively popular IPs that have their own built in giant fanbase plus less construction required? Not that surprising honestly.
TheKbob wrote: One is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip.
Is it?
Last I checked, PP lost heaps of market shares to X-Wing and (!) Star Trek Attack Wing Games with .. um 0.001% as many models, rules and, thus, costs as PP's range.
So, they lose market share to one of the "Big Fish" Franchises when it moves in. How'd GW do?
40K remains the top dog. Fantasy disappeared.
Of course, they are relative numbers. 40K might have taken a hit, but not enough to dethrone it. Or it might not have, and GW's recent sales-cave-in is "Fantasy-caused".
I don't think a pissing contest over financials that involves no actual data proves anything.
The problem: GW introduces units like Helldrakes and Riptides that invalidate huge swaths of army concepts. Concepts, by the way, that didn't need such hard counters. GW also puts in units that are objective inferior in nearly every way to other choices in their own codex slot.
Myself and others are asking for solutions for this, not being told to "suck it up" and "forge the narrative".
Martel732 wrote: I don't think a pissing contest over financials that involves no actual data proves anything.
Which is why I was asking for the data that PP is doing well. It would put a lot of perspective on things.
The only place we can get such a thing is by removing it from our collective derriers. You know full well PP are a private company and the only things we have are conjecture and educated guesses based on the fact the wargaming industry as a whole is growing.
azreal13 wrote: Oooh, where did you check? I'm always interested to see some good hard figures on the businesses in wargaming.
The PP range must have grown loads too, if it is 1000x bigger than X Wing.
Good hard figures?
Don't exist except for GW, which is publicly listed.
ICv2-surveys are probably what most people are working with.
The X-Wing range is currently 12 miniatures. Ok, warmachine is probably not 12.000 miniatures, but it is a lot more than 12.
So, what I'm getting is you didn't actually check anything and were throwing around made up numbers for hyperbolic over exaggeration?
That X-Wing overtook Warmachine, Fantasy and Hordes, and Star Trek Attack Wing overtook Fantasy and Hordes, no, that seems confirmed as far as the limited data we (or I) have allows.
Spoiler:
Spring 2012 is "typical" for many years before that too. A long time, there was little change.
Gen-Con 2012, X-Wing launches
Spring 2013, the first X-Wing craze abates
Fall 2013, X-Wing goes viral among the gaming crowd, as opposed to the IP crowd. Also, Fantasy = Gone.
WIth X-Wing selling more than Warmachine, while having a far smaller range, presumably it is far more profitable.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: People need to stop comparing Warmachine and 40k... It's an apples to oranges comparison...
I kinda see your point, but it's more like comparing an orange to a tangerine. They are similar games, with similar goals, and as such the closest comparison to be made (and I'd argue that 40k is more of the outlier as other games seem similar to Warmachine than to 40k)
Martel732 wrote: I don't think a pissing contest over financials that involves no actual data proves anything.
Which is why I was asking for the data that PP is doing well. It would put a lot of perspective on things.
The only place we can get such a thing is by removing it from our collective derriers. You know full well PP are a private company and the only things we have are conjecture and educated guesses based on the fact the wargaming industry as a whole is growing.
It is not. According to ICv2, the "gaming" industry is growing, with the biggest new entry being the My Little Pony CCG... no joke, and MtG breaking one record after another. Boardgames are also up.
The subgroup of wargaming that includes 40K, Warmachine, etc,, was not growing.
Not true, I suggest you check out Wayshuba's posts in the ongoing FFG discussion in General, he's a market analyst by trade and has access to a variety of (pay to access, not allowed to share) sources which give a lot more info and say otherwise.
ICv2 is, at best, the market equivalent of someone licking their finger and putting it in the air, and while a useful guide, shouldn't be taken as any sort of gospel.
azreal13 wrote: Not true, I suggest you check out Wayshuba's posts in the ongoing FFG discussion in General, he's a market analyst by trade and has access to a variety of (pay to access, not allowed to share) sources which give a lot more info and say otherwise.
ICv2 is, at best, the market equivalent of someone licking their finger and putting it in the air, and while a useful guide, shouldn't be taken as any sort of gospel.
Well, I would assume ICv2 has at the very least the same tools that Wayshuba has. They are a market analytics consultancy after all.
But yes, all that stuff needs to be taken with all the appropriate caveats.
I spent over a hundred dollars lovingly acquiring my command squad and hero, dozens of hours building and painting, and then I played them only to be evaporated with no save of any kind.
This is what I was talking about. What evaporated them? Building-sized monster? Daemon from hell the size of a tank made of unreality? Orbital strike? A gigantic mech? What exactly do people propose a game do to make a unit like a command squad balanced in those situations?
Everyone has complaints, not solutions. I think that is because by and large people aren't sure what the problem is, and the community at large is just in a big "40k is a mess" echo chamber.
I spent over a hundred dollars lovingly acquiring my command squad and hero, dozens of hours building and painting, and then I played them only to be evaporated with no save of any kind.
This is what I was talking about. What evaporated them? Building-sized monster? Daemon from hell the size of a tank made of unreality? Orbital strike? A gigantic mech? What exactly do people propose a game do to make a unit like a command squad balanced in those situations?
Everyone has complaints, not solutions. I think that is because by and large people aren't sure what the problem is, and the community at large is just in a big "40k is a mess" echo chamber.
The solution is to price the units fairly for how the are *actually used in the game*. Lots of units need to be cheaper, and some need to get a hike.
azreal13 wrote: Not true, I suggest you check out Wayshuba's posts in the ongoing FFG discussion in General, he's a market analyst by trade and has access to a variety of (pay to access, not allowed to share) sources which give a lot more info and say otherwise.
ICv2 is, at best, the market equivalent of someone licking their finger and putting it in the air, and while a useful guide, shouldn't be taken as any sort of gospel.
Well, I would assume ICv2 has at the very least the same tools that Wayshuba has. They are a market analytics consultancy after all.
But yes, all that stuff needs to be taken with all the appropriate caveats.
Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing which you shouldn't do. All the ICv2 is, essentially, is the compilation of results of a phone survey conducted with a variety of gaming retailers, who themselves essentially pull the answers out of the air. I can testify as a former director of a retail business that often what you think is doing well isn't always borne out by the sales figures, and is frequently coloured by what has been selling well that month, day, week or morning.
@Zwei- those charts don't really say "PP is losing market share". Sure, X-wing bumped Hordes to the #5 spot, but also notice that it maintains that position, While one of GW's games (Fantasy) falls off the chart when Attack Wing Arrives. Warmachine, meanwhile manages to reclaim the #2 spot from X-wing during spring 2013, before being bumped in the fall (probably due to X-wing Wave 3).
This makes me think that PP is holding its own, while GW is being pounded by a new competitor. Admittedly, lacking any real data we cannot make any conclusions, either for or against.
Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing which you shouldn't do. All the ICv2 is, essentially, is the compilation of results of a phone survey conducted with a variety of gaming retailers, who themselves essentially pull the answers out of the air. I can testify as a former director of a retail business that often what you think is doing well isn't always borne out by the sales figures, and is frequently coloured by what has been selling well that month, day, week or morning.
Fair enough. I can see that easily happening when a "new" game sells tons of stuff, while the "old" game keeps chucking along like it always has.
I find it less likely to happen with regards to the assessment that "gaming is growing, wargaming isn't". But I guess it could.
Again, some alternative "numbers" (or as close as we could get) would've been nice. Which is why I'd like to know that source for TheKbobs PP "is steadily growing at a healthy, sustainable clip."
Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
I don't see how when some armies can be laughably stomped certain other lists. Unless you play with a small group of friends, the game is broken. Maybe its fine for you, but not everyone and that's what I meant. Heck, I play mostly with people I know and I have a blast. But outside my little world the game has serious issues.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing. I'm sorry, but that's moronic. It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away. It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
Then you're factually wrong. There might be situations of "The game as I play it" being fine for you/your meta, but that's not necessarily the same thing as "The game is fine". In fact that's one of the issues with 40k in general - whether it's fine or not is almost 100% dependent on how you, your regular opponents, your not-so-regular opponents, people who might be your opponents the next time you play, people you've never met before but play at your FLGS, etc. play the game.
There are people here who don't seem to have a problem with the game because of how their metas work (Swastakowey springs to mind), but that's a far cry from the game itself being fine as it is, across all meta, which is what a balanced and decently-written game should strive to be. Just because you don't see problems (which isn't a bad thing) doesn't mean those problems don't exist; that's part of the trouble with GW's idea of how the game is played - it's 100% reliant on the style and tone and way that they play while ignoring everything else but taking no steps to make it so there's only one way to play the game.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
Yeah, but then, some of us have read your posts, so.....
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, you're basically saying that my Penitent Engine and Repentia being useless on the tabletop is somehow a good thing.
I'm sorry, but that's moronic.
It's not good for the game as an industry because it frustrates players, noobs and vets alike and chases them away.
It's not good for the game as a game because its not fun to lose just because you took a unit you like.
You're arguing this like its your first semester of Philosophy I. You're throwing around a lot of vague generalizations and 'big ideas' but you're not backing them up and you're not making them clear at all.
You state that 40k isn't perfectly imbalanced but you think its fine just the way it is. No one else really thinks that that actually plays the game. Yes, there are plenty of people that think the game is really fun, me included. I love 40k. But if I see a triptide list, 3 Imperial Knights or Serpent spam, I'm not playing a game against them because I know I'll lose before I roll a single dice. That's not fun. To argue otherwise would be ignorant or purposefully trolling.
Decreasing the cheese OP and buffing the units that are so bad that they're a liability is nothing but good for the game.
That's what people mean when they say they want "balance" to the game. They want it so they could show up at their store with their army and have a reasonable expectation of winning and losing.
I play the game and think it's fine as is.
Yeah, but then, some of us have read your posts, so.....
Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
I love how GW white knights always assume that the complainers are always wrong.
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
40k is a hippy dippy mess of a game. This is a fact.
However, this does not make people incapable of enjoying it.
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
40k is a hippy dippy mess of a game. This is a fact.
However, this does not make people incapable of enjoying it.
Pretty much this. You can enjoy 40k if you play it in a certain kind of meta, but that doesn't mean 40k is fine and dandy.
From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
It's not useless if you find yourself a gaming group where it's useful.
Simply saying X is useful or useless is a fallacy, because there is not a single way to play 40K. In one group, Pentinent Engines might be useless, because people only run Riptides. In another group, the Riptide might be useless, because people don't play games with or against Riptides.
Pretty much this. You can enjoy 40k if you play it in a certain kind of meta, but that doesn't mean 40k is fine and dandy.
But 40K is meant to be played in a certain kind of meta. If you are not playing in a certain kind of meta, how would you know which books, supplements, models, etc.. you use, and which ones you dont? Which is why, to reference the discussion above, the gaming group is so important, as expressed by Jervis Johnson.
Spoiler:
Jervis Johnson in White Dwarf Weekly #9 wrote:
However, the sheer breath of choice these supplemental rules bring means that it is rare to impossible to use all of the different elements we've created in every game you play. In the old 'infantry skirmish' days, pretty much all of the rules we'd created were used in all of the games that were played. Nowadays, you can pick and choose and, if you want, vary those elements you use, meaning that there are lots of different ways to play. To use another analogy, the rules have changed from a set meal where you must eat everything you are given, to a buffet where you get to choose what to put on the plate.
So why did all that make me think about the importance of gaming groups? Well, all this choice means that the way we all go about organising our games has had to chagne a bit. Back in the day, pretty much all you could do was fight small-scale infantry skirmishes, and all games would be rather similar. Basically, if you didn't like infantry skirmishes, well, you were right out of luck.
Now, taking 40K as an example, you can do anything from a Kill Team mission through to a weekend long session of Apocalypse and lots of different things inbetween! Not only does this mean that you will need to pick and choose what sort of game you want to play before you play it, but it will also almost certainly mean that there will be some types of game that you prefer to play.
It's the last point that makes finding a good gaming group so beneficial to your enjoyment of the hobby. Choice means that there will be some sorts of game you prefer, and finding a group of like-minded individuals to play with is therefore more important. In the old days, the game was so limited in scope that there war really only one way to play, and so wherever you played, you had to play that way. With more choice you need to find other people that are on your own wavelength;
If you don't have a specific meta to tailor 40K to your liking, you're probably better off not playing 40K. It's not designed for that.
I love tons of bad video games; games full of bugs, terrible audio, bad graphics, and broken gameplay. But the spirit and soul of a bad game can make on endure; enough charm may exist to turn it to love.
See Deadly Premonition.
But Deadly Premonition was a $20 budget game that turned into cult classic.
Warhammer 40k is a several hundred to thousand dollar game that is sustained on the endurance and love of the setting, not because of it's broken mechanics. Just because you find it quirky, lovable, and able to work around, it doesn't change what it actually is.
My comment on Privateer Press was base upon my travels and seeing it grow at many stores and at major GTs over the past several years. If you want to chock it up to anecdotal, then so be it, but it's at least a well educated hypothesis. There are no outward signs of slowing, lethargy, or sag in the market based upon any community response. It's the same vibe as Valve. They aren't publicly traded, but we know they are succesful and growing based upon their actions and stance in the market. None of the business transitions breed an air of despiration.
Now Games Workshop, on the other hand... *looks at $150 tool kits and $50 books with 1 page of useful rules* Hmmmmm,...
Zweischneid wrote: Love how the 40K-haters keep arguing to keep their own little hate-fantasy alive.
Poster A: Nobody thinks 40K is fine. Everyone hates it.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine.
Poster A: You're wrong. If you enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. Only people who hate 40K play it properly. Nobody thinks 40K is fine.
It's more like this.
Poster A: 40k is a broken game that is absolutely internally imbalanced where units are far too good and some are absolutely unplayable. It can be entertaining but that is more due to friends, the models, the building, the painting, the large community, and the fluff that keep it up. The rules are terrible in every way and are objectively bad.
Poster B: Actually, I think it's fine
Poster C: You are wrong.
Poster B: But this video shows imbalance can be a good thing
Poster A: I like 40k. I do. I have armies, I still will buy models on occasion. That doesn't mean it is perfect.
Poster A edited update: The video has no real connection to your argument as the game is not perfect imbalance. It's a mess of bad rules, little playtesting, and monkeys on the typewriter.
Poster B: How dare all of you! I shall continue on stubbornly for a day or more.
Find a different gaming group where its useful? No gaming group is going to change how worthless it is. And what if changing my meta isn't an option? Sure, with my small group of people we could houserule or do special scenarios, but when playing with other people at my store, it's worthless.
Again, that's down to poor game design if I have to break the rules to use it. That's not good for the game. So again, answer my question this time. How is that good for the game?
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists.
That's kinda inflammatory; not sure if you're saying "haha, you can't afford new strategies" or that a slippery slope meta is the result of stupid players.
Jervis Johnson wrote:It's the last point that makes finding a good gaming group so beneficial to your enjoyment of the hobby. Choice means that there will be some sorts of game you prefer, and finding a group of like-minded individuals to play with is therefore more important. In the old days, the game was so limited in scope that there war really only one way to play, and so wherever you played, you had to play that way. With more choice you need to find other people that are on your own wavelength;
Yea, okay, Jervis. Then why don't you create a team of dedicated and identified power users who help establish said gaming groups through a company supported outrider program to foster new players, organize sanctioned events, and be an aid to the company for a small reward?
And why don't you support FLGS with respect in their ability to effectively market and sell your product to ensure players have space for gaming groups?
Oh, that's right, these are bad ideas. You're right, Jervis.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists.
That's kinda inflammatory; not sure if you're saying "haha, you can't afford new strategies" or that a slippery slope meta is the result of stupid players.
I wasn't insulting anyone, just stating that like any other game usually those that complain find complaining easier than conquering.
Pretty much this. You can enjoy 40k if you play it in a certain kind of meta, but that doesn't mean 40k is fine and dandy.
But 40K is meant to be played in a certain kind of meta. If you are not playing in a certain kind of meta, how would you know which books, supplements, models, etc.. you use, and which ones you dont? Which is why, to reference the discussion above, the gaming group is so important, as expressed by Jervis Johnson.
Spoiler:
Jervis Johnson in White Dwarf Weekly #9 wrote:
However, the sheer breath of choice these supplemental rules bring means that it is rare to impossible to use all of the different elements we've created in every game you play. In the old 'infantry skirmish' days, pretty much all of the rules we'd created were used in all of the games that were played. Nowadays, you can pick and choose and, if you want, vary those elements you use, meaning that there are lots of different ways to play. To use another analogy, the rules have changed from a set meal where you must eat everything you are given, to a buffet where you get to choose what to put on the plate.
So why did all that make me think about the importance of gaming groups? Well, all this choice means that the way we all go about organising our games has had to chagne a bit. Back in the day, pretty much all you could do was fight small-scale infantry skirmishes, and all games would be rather similar. Basically, if you didn't like infantry skirmishes, well, you were right out of luck.
Now, taking 40K as an example, you can do anything from a Kill Team mission through to a weekend long session of Apocalypse and lots of different things inbetween! Not only does this mean that you will need to pick and choose what sort of game you want to play before you play it, but it will also almost certainly mean that there will be some types of game that you prefer to play.
It's the last point that makes finding a good gaming group so beneficial to your enjoyment of the hobby. Choice means that there will be some sorts of game you prefer, and finding a group of like-minded individuals to play with is therefore more important. In the old days, the game was so limited in scope that there war really only one way to play, and so wherever you played, you had to play that way. With more choice you need to find other people that are on your own wavelength;
The studio lives in a completely different universe to the rest of the gaming world. It is this disconnect that causes 40k's main issues.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists. A good player can play and win in any environment. A local gent wins most of the events he decides to show up in, and not even a swedish komp event stopped him, where he couldn't field any of the "power units".
I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Fluff or not, game wise this I'd consider a poor list.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
MWHistorian wrote: Zwei, tell me specifically how keeping my Penitent Engines useless on the table is good for the game. Answer me in one specific way that actually makes sense.
Just quoting this to highlight that at least one person has noticed his failure to address it, and that it has also been noticed not for the first time ITT.
Didn't I just respond to it above.
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: From my experience, most people that complain about power level, are ones that bring poor lists and can't counter other lists.
That's kinda inflammatory; not sure if you're saying "haha, you can't afford new strategies" or that a slippery slope meta is the result of stupid players.
I wasn't insulting anyone, just stating that like any other game usually those that complain find complaining easier than conquering.
Because conquering involves sacrificing the models you like or forcing the other player to lower their power level.
StarTrotter wrote: I dare you to go up against triptide, Waveserpent, Taudar, and more with a CSM Tzeentch army with no daemons or a pure Thousand Sons army. I dare you, I bloody dare you to do it. And don't call it a poor list. It's a fluffy list. Heck, even the tzeentch list that is general sucks so don't be giving me that. Also, look at the top winners. Notice the frequency. Thing is, certain codices are just downright better than others.
Fluff or not, game wise this I'd consider a poor list.
That's the whole point. Fluffy lists aren't even balanced. Hey, Star Trotter, how about you play against my fluffy White Scars all biker army? Or my fluffy, all Eldar Grav Tank Samm Hain army? Or my Fluffy Draigowing (that is a fluffy army)? Or my fluffy 9 Monstrous Creature Spam army (because any Nids army is fluffy, adapt and overcome!)?
And again, you didn't say in which context you found it useless.
Playing in a Dark Heresy-style/Inquisitor scenario with a Pentinent Engine against a crowd of Chaos Cultists on a city-style-board, to take a simple example, I could see it being fairly awesome.
Stemming a Tyranid onslaught isn't what it's supposed to do in the background, so you probably shouldn't field it as such.
Play with the narrative.
So list tailoring? That's the narrative?
How does this work when I want a pick-up game because I'm in a new area? I use wargames to find cool new people. Argueing about rules isn't a cool way to meet new people. Neither is list tailoring.
about the company's quality problems.
(don't trust my profile icon that might make you think of 
