Hi, my name is Chad Knight (aka CKO aka Kenpachi) and I am a member of South Mississippi Gamers although I am the crazy relative that they reluctantly have to claim. (lol) I am getting back into the game after a long break but I have been lurking and playing casual games. Now that you know a little about me and my credentials, I am writing this to give my opinion on this topic called “balance”. I believe that TOs cannot balance the game only GW can, TOs are making the game more enjoyable for everyone but mainly the casual player with ristrictions. In this article it is easy to believe that I am anti-TO or Reecius which is not the case I am anti using the word balance because when we say the game is unbalance it pushes away all players from the game as it creates an illusion that the game rules are flawed, which they are not. There is no flaw in 40k as GW is making it possible to make insanely powerful units they are doing this by design, but it is the TOs job to restrict these type of list from being built for the sake of all players eventhough I believe its mainly for casual players, as the more competitive players do not care they just want to compete.
I see a lot of tournament organizers scrambling to figure out ways to balance the game, because supposedly GW has a flaw in their gaming system they are unaware of. Regardless of restrictions people are going to get steamrolled and that has nothing to do with balance, thus it is a foolish goal from the start. “Balancing” gives the tournament organizers and inexperienced players this false hope that they will control the overall power of the elite player’s list. The inexperienced players buy units that are not going to beat elite players and, be of absolutely no use once the player gets better at the game. While the elite players in response to changes go out and buy new units to dominate the new tournament rules, I guess that explains GWs marketing strategy not much of a flaw now is it. In actuality “balancing” creates more variables which are harder on newer players because your elite players will constantly be changing.
In order to fix something you must first identify the problem and, I don’t see the problem I turned to this article for help. article http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html Reecius is a tournament organizer and elite player (if you are reading this have you won a GT), I figure his concerns and issues with “balancing” represents a large portion of our community so I will be quoting this article a lot.
REECIUS WROTE:
The meta though, as predicted, was a bit stale. Over 50% of the armies there used Eldar, Tau or Space Marines in some fashion. And, Daemons were also a force, just as predicted.
I don’t understand why the metagame at Adepticon was consider stale? At any competitive setting certain things are going to be used more because you have a better chance of winning, Typically 3-5 decks dominate card game’s tournament there is no difference with 40k. I think Space Marines, Tau, and Eldar dominated the top tables and that made it seem as if there were more of them.
REECIUS WROTE:
Lastly, as I called (to no one's surprise) Inquisition was everywhere. In the finals, nearly every list that could take Inquisition, did. So am I bringing this up to pat myself on the back? No, not at all. Just pointing out that the imbalance in the game is at an all time high, currently.
I remember reading that article Reecius did call it, but I don’t think inquisitors are unbalanced. They give their allies access to divination, servo skulls, and grenades for a very cheap price nothing game breaking. What army cannot get re-rolls if they want them? Whenever someone says balance I immediately replace it with power, powerful, or to powerful. So when you say “the imbalance in the game is at an all time high” I see ‘the power in the game is at an all time high”, which to me is a good thing.
REECIUS WROTE:
Yes, there have always been power lists. We all know this. But what we have now is unit combinations that become SO points efficient that it approaches absurdity. TinBane posted the numbers to explain this concept to those less mathematically inclined over at FLG, which you can read here.
Do you the reader think it is possible to rid the game of unit combinations that are so powerful due to allies? Tournament organizers should have two types of events one with absolutely no restrictions and another one where there are restrictions, bans, and require list approval before the tournament. That way the tournament organizers have absolute power guaranteeing a fun game for all participates. If a player doesn’t like the tournament organizers decision with their list changes, tell them they can play with the sharks in the no restrictions tournament.
REECIUS WROTE:
The data there explains concretely what most of us already know intuitively: that some units are unfairly good for their points cost. A unit that becomes almost invincible due to rerolled saves, is fast, fearless, hard hitting and in general an order of magnitude better at everything than anything else in the game is not only good, it is too good. These units should cost many, many more points than they do to justify their power, but don't. Thus they obviously become the competitive choice as they are hyper points efficient.
These units will be created regardless of restrictions. As long as allies exist there will always be hyper point efficient units. Rule changes make you buy new stuff to dominate, which is a good thing everyone enjoys fresh air. Restrictions are really helpful in regional or local tournaments because new units are winning instead of the same old thing. The restrictions do no not balance the game because in order to obtain balance everyone has to have equal opportunity to hyper point efficient units and that will never happen.
REECIUS WROTE:
7/16 players took Eldar in some way, 4 of those were Beastars. 9/16 took Inquisition. It's like Grey Knights from two years back, all over again. And it's not just here, either. The UKGT had 7/10 Eldar in the finals. 5 of them were Beaststar lists. The writing is on the wall. It's not to say that these players are not good (they are) but that these specific Deathstars are too powerful.
This is blown out of proportions to me. To me this entire paragraph says, “Beastars are the most powerful unit in the game according to tournament results”. 7/16 eldar is less than half and 9/16 inquisition should be 6/16 because 3 of them just spent 34 points to get the servo skulls. The variety in the 2014 Adepticon top 16 is the main reason why I am coming back into the game, a freaking drop pod list made it, that’s great!
REECIUS WROTE:
One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.
What the hell are you talking about Willis? lol
REECIUS WROTE:
This is exacerbated when only one of the armies in a game are subject to randomness and the other is not. It creates a grossly imbalanced situation. When my Riptide rerolls to hit at BS9 due to marker lights, wounds on a 2, possibly with rerolls, ignores cover, armor saves, etc. it's shot becomes many, many, many times more powerful than my opponent's shooting that might miss, might not wound, and might bounce off of my armor or cover, etc. Even if that weapon is more powerful than my Riptide's, it isn't as good because it may not do what you want it to but often, costs the same or less points. That is imbalance
The word imbalance creates this false illusion that there is a flaw or a mistake which is false. Remember balance equals power so when someone says that unit is imbalance they are saying that unit is powerful. Don’t you think Tau should have way more powerful shooting attacks? The said Riptide squad will be facing things like the beaststar unit? Riptides vs Beaststar who would win that fight, it can be determined by tactics or a tournament organizer. Either the TO makes it to where we don’t get to see this battle unfold because they make it impossible with their rule changes or one unit gets dominated because somebody gets the subjective nerf stick from the tournament organizer.
REECIUS WROTE:
The same goes for rerolling saves. If I can reroll my 2+ save it is not just twice as good as your 2+, it is SIX TIMES as good. Shouldn't it then, cost 6 times as many points? They don't. And therein lies the problem.
Once more these units will be facing off against other monstrosities such as Riptides, beaststars, and other 2+ rerolling save units, bring your cheese to counter their cheese. **** just got real after escalation, the destructive capabilities and defensive capabilities of our units are crazy powerful but that’s the direction GW is going in. We give the stiff arm to the escalation book but the books they release afterwards also have some kick to them as well and there is nothing we can do to stop the constant barrage of powerful units. I don’t like the words balance and imbalance when a player use those words it doesn’t sound like they are complaining, but that’s what he/she is doing.
REECIUS WROTE:
The top players will take Deathstar lists often to stay competitive with one another. I understand that 100%. If you are a player that is driven to win, then you will take the best tools available to you. However, now more than ever the result for the overall scene is games that are often foregone conclusions before they begin. Now, I am not saying Deathstars can't be beaten. Highly skilled players can and do beat them. In fact, many of us enjoy the challenge. I do. But a casual player that doesn't come to the table with the skillset they need to handle these lists gets utterly steamrolled. I have watched the impact it has on players many times and it isn't pretty. It is also one of the root causes for the ongoing migration of 40K players to other games that has been slowly increasing over the past two years.
This is an excellent point! The competitive player is going to steamroll the casual player regardless of what restrictions are made. I have to put this in bold letters, THE NICK NANAVATI’s OF THE WORLD ARE GOING TO STEAMROLL CASUAL PLAYERS REGARDLESS OF TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER’S RESTRICTIONS. I understand your concern about the decreasing 40k players as I was one of them. I left the game because they threw everything at us including the kitchen sink with this edition and it was too much change to quickly and I couldn’t handle it. It is ironic that the same thing that pushed me away is drawing me back; I now look at 40k differently. I am going to face crazy super powerful units but I have access to crazy super powerful units, it’s a trade off. We have to make sure that new players when building their armies do not play stuff they have no chance of winning against. We have to literally baby them into the game, which is the way it should be done. Just make sure that before they make a large purchase that they have one game against a crazy super combo list so they can see what true power is.
REECIUS WROTE:
So what to do?
It's time for some self restraint in order to have more enjoyable, more challenging, and more accessible tournaments for everyone. The best players will win in any meta. It really doesn't matter. They are wired to find the most points efficient lists that exist and have the experience to master them relatively quickly. No matter the tools available to them, they will build the best possible lists. They will also almost always be the guys at the top tables as they have been, year after year. Changing the meta as a group really doesn't impact them. Who it does impact is everyone else at the event that wants fun, fair games.
Why can’t this target group of players have a separate tournament to guarantee they have fun fair games? Tournament organizers have to protect casual players and that is why the best option is a separate tournament where the organizer has absolute power. They will be able to say no to beaststar, seer council, and screamerstar list.
REECIUS WROTE:
What we're doing to limit some of the craziness is the following:
1. Only two detachments in a list. What that means is you can take a primary and secondary detachments, but no more. Space Marines+Inquisition. Space Marines+Imperial Guard. But not all three. You can take add-ons that fit in your primary detachment such as Be'Lakor that won't count towards your limit. This cuts back on the cherry picked Inquisitor that sits around throwing magical grenades and adding Servo Skulls randomly into lists as well as less of the ubiquitous Coteaz. You can still take Inquisition if you want, just not all of it at once. You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything. Too many Inquisitorial allies cuts down on variety as if you go to an event knowing 70% of the field will be able to totally shut down your Scouts/Infiltrators/Deep Strikers/Etc. people will choose not to bring those types of units. Plus, it is stupid to see an all
Xenos army led by a Coteaz against Imperial armies...also led by a Coteaz. Yeah.
Sacrifice an entire ally slot just to cancel scout moves and infiltrating, not happening few armies would use Inquisition if that’s the case. One sentence stands out in this paragraph, “You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything”. This sentence proves my main point that restrictions create false hope. Do you the reader think this will prevent the elite player from taking the best of everything? The answer is no elite players will always take the best of everything that is available and steamroll inferior list.
REECIUS WROTE:
Formations are in, but count as a detachment. This means you can take Skyblight or the Tau formation but at the cost of an ally. We find this to be quite fair and it makes Nids a top tier build who bring anti-Deathstar ability to the game to help balance the meta. Plus, it opens up some cool, fun lists.
Making formations count as detachments limits certain factions. The suggested limitations create an illusion that you achieved victory before the game has started. A player gains zero advantage if the restrictions forced their opponent to use something different to beat them with. In fact your opponent has the advantage because he knows how to kill you with the new stuff and you have no idea what to do as a casual player, where previously you would know I need to kill that Centurion Squad. .
REECIUS WROTE:
Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.
I agree with this, GW really knocked the ball out of the park with Imperial Knights.
REECIUS WROTE:
Missions. Missions fundamentally change the game. By using the right missions in the right ratio, you can make units like Deathstars less viable by altering win conditions.
This I also agree with changing missions is a perfectly fine.
REECIUS WROTE:
I think so long as we as a community decide to take the bull by the horns and acknowledge that the game as is is grossly imbalanced and not conducive to fun, fair competition, we will have no problem adjusting. It will also take the acknowledgement of those that play Deathstars that their lists are inherently, mathematically, objectively, undeniably imbalancing to the game. I am not demonizing these lists or players at all. Deathstars aren't unbeatable, Adepticon was won by an FMC Daemon player after all. Although in fairness, at that level of play lists become far less relevant and luck and skill are by far more important. The hyper powered list just makes it easier for the top players to get to the finals.
Reecius clearly doesn’t like Deathstars so he wants to nerf them or get rid of them completely. Star list are auto wins against non top players but in this article Reecius admits that even with changes those non top players will be demolished anyways, so what is the point? Even if changes are made new units will rise to be just as deadly, so what is the point? The point is that, TO’s make rule changes not because it “balances” the game but because it makes the game more enjoyable for casual players. Making regional modifications to make sure that everyone in your area enjoys themselves is a good thing. At a GT where people are flying in from all across the country, the rule modifications that were made to make the regional players happy might screw over another region's players.
To sum it all up balance is controlled by GW, we use the word balance too loosely. We can make changes that will force us to use new units and tactics which will keep the game fresh and exciting. The number of units available has tripled since 6th started, making it impossible for TO’s to balance the game. They are doing the best they can to make sure that the tournament they are running is successful so just sharpen or dull your list according to the restrictions and enjoy the game.
I completely disagree with you, and agree with Reecius. Someone take a picture, Reecius can attest that that didn't happen often for a while
Since the last time you played competitive 40k was in 2012 (based on your intro above) you're a little behind the times, I think... Reecius would've agreed with you then, most likely.
I have participated in a handfull of tournaments since 2012 and I am a play test dummy for people in my group as they see me as the competitive guru, I am fully aware of the current meta.
I would love to hear what parts you disagree with and you can even give examples to voice your opinion. A simple disagree without reasoning is not as helpful. I did make changes so the quotes are easier to understand.
CKO wrote: and I am a few steps away from being an elite 40k player
If only such a thing existed. If you want to play wargames competitively you really need to use a better ruleset, preferably one that has actually been playtested.
CKO wrote: Hi, my name is Chad Knight (aka CKO aka Kenpachi) and I am a few steps away from being an elite 40k player. In order for me to call myself elite I will have to win a GT and I have yet to do that.
So, I'm not going to address the ridiculous claim that there is such a thing as an 'Elite' 40k player.
I'm just going to point out that winning a GT does not mean you have any better idea of how tournaments should be run than people who don't win. Many people enter tournaments. Not all of them own current meta armies, competitive armies, play very often or have any expectation of reaching the top tables. But they pay their money to enter just the same as the person who went out and purchased the most current power list. The tournament has an equal responsibility to make the event fun and fair to both the 'elite' and the 'fun' players.
Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.
CKO wrote: At any competitive setting certain things are going to be used more because you have a better chance of winning, Typically 3-5 decks dominate card game’s tournament there is no difference with 40k. I think Space Marines, Tau, and Eldar dominated the top tables and that made it seem as if there were more of them.
The arguments against this are well-trodden ground on here. In short...
1 - The game is probably too complex to be perfectly balanced, and there will always be some lists that are more powerful than others. If I'm playing a more powerful army and you're playing a less powerful one, it should be more difficult for you to win. However, if it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to win, then this stops being a fun game. The argument is that the balance difference between more powerful and less powerful lists is too big - such that if you don't own one of the current few powerful lists, you are unlikely to win
2 - Building and painting an army takes a lot of time and money and involves preferences other than 'what is the most powerful combo?'. The most powerful combo also changes very quickly. Many players going to a tournament will therefore not own the most powerful combo, but something in the middle. Asking everyone attending to buy the most powerful combo is not an option.
3 - While these players (the majority) don't really expect to win the tournament, the idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to win will cause frustration. Hence, then balance issue above.
4 - The people at tournaments with non-optimal lists are there to enjoy a few games of 40k with different opponents and different armies. They want variety - hence the numerous tournaments who offer schemes where you won't end up playing against your friends. This is something the majority of tournament attendees want, and something that is hampered when the meta encourages people to only bring the same few lists.
5 - Because of the above points, and because tournaments have a responsibility to the majority of their attendees, tournaments have a responsibility to make sure as many people can compete as possible, to encourage diversity of lists, and to make sure that bringing a less powerful list is not a boring auto-lose for one player.
Also, because of the above points, the idea that winning a GT must make you an 'Elite' player is even more laughable. I will probably be taking Noise Marines to the NOVA, because that's the army I've been painting this year. I know that, if I go out now and buy Taudar, I'll immediately place myself in a higher bracket, and higher up the scoring tables, but it won't miraculously make me a better player.
Competitive 40k is a joke right now. Have a look at the current top competitive lists. Or rather list (sic). The game is absolutely broken and far from being balanced. A competitive player stepping in and trying to fix the mistakes GW ought to fix themselves is a welcome sign and much appreciated.
The very same approach has been successful in WHFB; revolutionizing and vastly improving the competitive scene in Europe.
I would love to hear what parts you disagree with and you can even give examples to voice your opinion. A simple disagree without reasoning is not as helpful. I did make changes so the quotes are easier to understand.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but I also don't want to be too repetitive, as there are several threads in this section where I've articulated my view (maybe too frequently ) on this. I personally think a source limit is palatable to both competitive and casual players, and is a perfect thing for most events to implement without getting into the weeds of GW's rules madness. As it is, GW has put out tons of supplemental rules with little or no guidance on how they should be used.
If someone, such as yourself, wants Escalation, no source limit, and totally unmodified book missions, there are events that do that. But it's not what most players seem to want in the current meta, with good damn reason lol. When Reecius "champion of Forgeworld inclusion" is saying a source limit just makes sense, it makes sense to listen, imo. MVBrandt of the Nova Open (and winner of best general in the Adepticon team tourney) also is going this route for his event. So they are both "elite" players, and TOs.
I, on the other hand, am completely middle of the pack (our team was 57th of 120 teams at Adepticon). And I like to express my thoughts since I figure organizers want to hear what ordinary players are thinking, and I am so totally in favor of a source limit to give some kind of structure to the supplemental rules. I play tyranids, and so love the inclusion of data slate formations, and having it count as your allied slot seems like a great way to include them.
In the end mine is just one opinion, but I'm pointing out that a lot (LOT) of ordinary players, elite players, and TOs feel this way in the current meta, and that's why TOs are rightfully responding to it. But there are all inclusive, including Escalation, events for people like you, too, it's just not as popular a style of event given GW's rules avalanche lately. This isn't 5th edition, and for better or worse, some framework on what rules to allow / in what quantity are needed for most (but not all) events.
Edit: By quote tags I meant what I used at the top of this post, which you can get by using square brackets instead parentheses like this: (quote) The quoted text (/quote)
slaede wrote: Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.
Pretty close to the truth.
Frankly, it's more about curbing the repetition, at least for me - what's the fun in traveling across the country, to play against essentially the same Tau/Eldar combo 5/7 games? Even worse if it's an event where terrain is uniform across all the tables.
Although, I'm not sure that I want to continue playing in a world where the rules allow Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition to all be part of the same army. Must be getting old....
Janthkin wrote: Although, I'm not sure that I want to continue playing in a world where the rules allow Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition to all be part of the same army. Must be getting old....
You forgot to add Knights, with a skyshield landing pad or void shield generator, in the same army as the above combos (or a Revenant, as long as we're talking totally unrestricted 40k, am I right? )
Farseer
Vect
Coteaz
2 x 10 Guardians, Brightlance
2 x 3 Eldar Jetbikes
1 x 5 Kabalite Warriors
1 x 1 Revenant Titan
1 x Void Shield Generator w/ 3 Void Shields
Sure, that's legal as the rules are currently, if an event doesn't want to add any additional guidelines. Should every event be run that way? Heck no..........
It's actually the kick to the fluff that hurts me most, which I must admit is a surprise even to me.
From a rules perspective, I gave up in December - it's become impossible to keep track of every rule, or even to be able to look at a list and know whether or not it's legal. Except for Tyranids.
I agree with a lot of the stuff thats already been posted, Also the idea of having to have won a GT to be an elite player is a bit silly, like wise its tough to compare 40k from 2012 to todays version. I've stopped playing in "competitive" settings largely because I got tired of playing against the same handful of armies, 40k is a hobby for me and playing against the same lists over and over again is pretty boring. I am pretty interested to see what impact the Knights have on all the "Star" units
Personally this edition annoys me for the same reason Janthkin mentioned. The fluff abuse hurts me. I think allies is a neat idea and I think it has its place in Apoc bring whatever the hack you want games but the nonsense it allows in a standard 40k game is silly.
Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.
QFT.
As to the ridiculousness of the "soon to be an elite player", I can only laugh. Winning a GT means....drumroll please.....That you won a GT. That's it. Someone else might infer that you are a better than average 40k player, but it's not a given.
I've never heard anyone actually referred to as'an elite player'. Certainly never heard anyone refer to themselves that way, and keep a straight face. There are some very, very good players. They usually let their torunament records and their armies do the talking for them.
Any of your thoughts on tournaments, good or bad, are sadly going to be tainted by this initial foolishness.
mikhaila wrote: Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.
QFT.
As to the ridiculousness of the "soon to be an elite player", I can only laugh. Winning a GT means....drumroll please.....That you won a GT. That's it. Someone else might infer that you are a better than average 40k player, but it's not a given.
I've never heard anyone actually referred to as'an elite player'. Certainly never heard anyone refer to themselves that way, and keep a straight face. There are some very, very good players. They usually let their torunament records and their armies do the talking for them.
Any of your thoughts on tournaments, good or bad, are sadly going to be tainted by this initial foolishness.
But the OP has 3 Sensei and is himself a gaming guru...how can he not be elite?!
slaede wrote: Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.
Pretty close to the truth.
Exactly.
I used to be pretty against comp. Army-building is a part of the game, some lists are better than others, and you don't have to win the event to have fun. Deal with it. Right?
Right?
Well...
See, a Revenant in a game of 40k is just stupid. Not necessarily unbalanced; just stupid. My Tau army can kill one reliably on turn one, and that's game over. But if I don't go first, I'll lose two important units and I'll never be able to kill the damn thing and it will table me by itself. Stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
In addition, there's the new imbalance. 40k was always unbalanced, but even in the Grey Knight doompocalypse of late 5th, if you showed up with one of the crappier codexes you could still participate in a game against them. Everyone can kill a few Rhinos and some dudes, or a few fancy Terminators or whatever. You'd probably still end up losing, but at least you left the game with the feeling of having been a part of it. Force the guy to reinforce his flank. Deny him some objectives. Run like a girl. Whatever. Now, though, if I bring my Blood Angels against a Screamerstar (which isn't even close to being the best army in the game) it's pretty likely that I won't even kill a single model before I lose. Super!
You know, when you get down to it, the game is actually kind of balanced. You could go to a big tournament and be not at all surprised if Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, Daemons and now Astra Militarum won it. With the inclusion of dataslates, Nids can compete. That's a lot of factions with a legitimate chance to win.
CSM and Dark Angels don't measure up, but I think Ravenwing is underrated and underrepresented, and CSM occasionally show up in the top echelons. Necrons can also hang. Even Imperial Knights with AM allies might be highly competitive.
So the balance is pretty alright. It's the hyper-efficient overpowered stuff that needs fixin.
CKO wrote: Hi, my name is Chad Knight (aka CKO aka Kenpachi) and I am a few steps away from being an elite 40k player. In order for me to call myself elite I will have to win a GT and I have yet to do that.
If only such a thing existed. If you want to play wargames competitively you really need to use a better ruleset, preferably one that has actually been playtested.
So, I'm not going to address the ridiculous claim that there is such a thing as an 'Elite' 40k player.
If winning multiple Grand Tournaments where there are hundreds of players competing do not make you an elite player what does? Its like winning a championship Lebron James has rings, Karl Malone doesn't he is a hall of famer but, he will not be put up there with the elites because he didn't win the big one. I view Grand Tournament winners as players who has rings so when Tony Kopach and Nick Nanavati have atleast two rings to my none I cant say I am on their level.
ArbitorIan wrote: I'm just going to point out that winning a GT does not mean you have any better idea of how tournaments should be run than people who don't win. Many people enter tournaments. Not all of them own current meta armies, competitive armies, play very often or have any expectation of reaching the top tables. But they pay their money to enter just the same as the person who went out and purchased the most current power list. The tournament has an equal responsibility to make the event fun and fair to both the 'elite' and the 'fun' players.
I mention I was a competitive player so that the reader would know what side of the fence I am on. Winning the majority of your games doesnt some how make your opinion on things more important than a player that comes to a tournament to show off their amazingly painted army, so I agree with you 100%.
ArbitorIan wrote: Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.
I agree that is why in the article I wrote:
CKO wrote: In order to fix something you must first identify the problem and, I don’t see the problem I turned to this article for help. article http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html Reecius is a tournament organizer and elite player (if you are reading this have you won a GT), I figure his concerns and issues with “balancing” represents a large portion of our community so I will be quoting this article a lot.
The whole point of the article was not to bash anyone or to claim that tournaments are for the best of the best. It says that balance is impossible with 40k and a tournament organizer tue goal is finding ways to make sure casual players have a good time. They want the casual player vs casual playe match ups to be good games, and not determined by bringing one unit such as a Revenant Titan.
CKO wrote: At any competitive setting certain things are going to be used more because you have a better chance of winning, Typically 3-5 decks dominate card game’s tournament there is no difference with 40k. I think Space Marines, Tau, and Eldar dominated the top tables and that made it seem as if there were more of them.
ArbitorIan wrote: The arguments against this are well-trodden ground on here. In short...
1 - The game is probably too complex to be perfectly balanced, and there will always be some lists that are more powerful than others. If I'm playing a more powerful army and you're playing a less powerful one, it should be more difficult for you to win. However, if it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to win, then this stops being a fun game. The argument is that the balance difference between more powerful and less powerful lists is too big - such that if you don't own one of the current few powerful lists, you are unlikely to win
I agree with you again but those Impossible match ups will happen regardless because if the non power list player continues to win he eventually will run into an Elite players or wannabe Elite players (players who have elite list). The elite player will win the match up because of superior list and tactics while the wannabe might win but if he does its usually due to the elite list not tactics. This is when the restrictions come into play. Wannabe elite are the players mainly affected because the list is their true advantage over non power list players and if the TO can find a way to limit the power of those list than the non power list player who are better tactician can possible win. In the article I said restrictions create a false hope that it will limit the power of Elite Players which it doesnt it limits the power of the wannabes such as myself, because at the end of the day the Elite players will win it all.
ArbitorIan wrote: 2 - Building and painting an army takes a lot of time and money and involves preferences other than 'what is the most powerful combo?'. The most powerful combo also changes very quickly. Many players going to a tournament will therefore not own the most powerful combo, but something in the middle. Asking everyone attending to buy the most powerful combo is not an option.
I do not care what people bring I am not trying to force people to bring powerful combos. If they want good games against non powerul list it will eventually happen after 1-2 losses. Thats why TO place restrictions to create a false hope that the casual player can win it all but its not happening. However what it is does do is create a perfect environment where the casual player will enjoy the majority of their games.
ArbitorIan wrote: 3 - While these players (the majority) don't really expect to win the tournament, the idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to win will cause frustration. Hence, then balance issue above.
Either the Elite player will win another tournament or a wannabe elite (uses elite list) becomes an elite player and win. The non powerful list player might win but it will be hard as hell, but a drop pod list made the top 16 at Adepticon so it is possible.
ArbitorIan wrote: 4 - The people at tournaments with non-optimal lists are there to enjoy a few games of 40k with different opponents and different armies. They want variety - hence the numerous tournaments who offer schemes where you won't end up playing against your friends. This is something the majority of tournament attendees want, and something that is hampered when the meta encourages people to only bring the same few lists.
I agree with you but the winner of the tournament is going to be an optimal list. I am saying that balance is a foolish goal the true goal is insuring that non-optimal list players have fun and dont have to play a press win button type list..Balance is making all things equal which in 40k it will never happen.
ArbitorIan wrote: 5 - Because of the above points, and because tournaments have a responsibility to the majority of their attendees, tournaments have a responsibility to make sure as many people can compete as possible, to encourage diversity of lists, and to make sure that bringing a less powerful list is not a boring auto-lose for one player.
CKO wrote: Reecius clearly doesn’t like Deathstars so he wants to nerf them or get rid of them completely. Star list are auto wins against non top players but in this article Reecius admits that even with changes those non top players will be demolished anyways, so what is the point? Even if changes are made new units will rise to be just as deadly, so what is the point? The point is that, TO’s make rule changes not because it “balances” the game but because it makes the game more enjoyable for casual players.
Rule changes make you buy new stuff to dominate, which is a good thing everyone enjoys fresh air. Restrictions are really helpful in regional or local tournaments because new units are winning instead of the same old thing.
I agree thats why in the article I wrote the above.
ArbitorIan wrote: Also, because of the above points, the idea that winning a GT must make you an 'Elite' player is even more laughable. I will probably be taking Noise Marines to the NOVA, because that's the army I've been painting this year. I know that, if I go out now and buy Taudar, I'll immediately place myself in a higher bracket, and higher up the scoring tables, but it won't miraculously make me a better player.
Do you have a trophy? Did you go to an event with over 300 poeple and come out on top? Were the best players in the country there? A person that wins a GT can say yes to all these questions, that makes them elite in my opinion. What makes a player elite in your eyes Arbitorian?
Sigvatr wrote: Competitive 40k is a joke right now. Have a look at the current top competitive lists. Or rather list (sic). The game is absolutely broken and far from being balanced. A competitive player stepping in and trying to fix the mistakes GW ought to fix themselves is a welcome sign and much appreciated.
You are agreeing with me, which is balance in 40k is a foolish goal, also I am not trying to fix the mistakes GW is making TOs are. 40k will be unbalanced regardless of what TOs do but the changes they make will make the game enjoyable for all of their participates including myself.
RiTides wrote: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but I also don't want to be too repetitive, as there are several threads in this section where I've articulated my view (maybe too frequently ) on this. I personally think a source limit is palatable to both competitive and casual players, and is a perfect thing for most events to implement without getting into the weeds of GW's rules madness. As it is, GW has put out tons of supplemental rules with little or no guidance on how they should be used.
GW's ruels madness is the very reason why I believe balance is a TOs foolish goal, but that doesnt mean we cannot have fun at GTs. All of GTs in my opinion are doing a hell of a job at making their events great.
RiTides wrote: If someone, such as yourself, wants Escalation, no source limit, and totally unmodified book missions, there are events that do that. But it's not what most players seem to want in the current meta, with good damn reason lol. When Reecius "champion of Forgeworld inclusion" is saying a source limit just makes sense, it makes sense to listen, imo. MVBrandt of the Nova Open (and winner of best general in the Adepticon team tourney) also is going this route for his event. So they are both "elite" players, and TOs.
I dont care what I am allowed to used, I am not pro escalation or no source limit I am pro TO. Their job is hard enough as it is, asking them to balance the game for us is to heavy of a burden for TOs to carry. The best they can do is make sure that everyone enjoys themselves because power list will happen regardless, they can attempt to lower the level of power but at the end of the day it still ends in a mascre.
RiTides wrote: I, on the other hand, am completely middle of the pack (our team was 57th of 120 teams at Adepticon). And I like to express my thoughts since I figure organizers want to hear what ordinary players are thinking, and I am so totally in favor of a source limit to give some kind of structure to the supplemental rules. I play tyranids, and so love the inclusion of data slate formations, and having it count as your allied slot seems like a great way to include them.
I am lost, and I am not sure what your talking about and I am just joking! In the middle is a fine place to be and I think people should not sleep on nids they can be good.
RiTides wrote: In the end mine is just one opinion, but I'm pointing out that a lot (LOT) of ordinary players, elite players, and TOs feel this way in the current meta, and that's why TOs are rightfully responding to it. But there are all inclusive, including Escalation, events for people like you, too, it's just not as popular a style of event given GW's rules avalanche lately. This isn't 5th edition, and for better or worse, some framework on what rules to allow / in what quantity are needed for most (but not all) events.
Once more I am not pro escalation I dont own any of those models, I believe alot of people put me in that category because I informed the reader that I was a competitive player and balance is impossible, so logically I must want the inclusion of everything in tournaments including escalation, NO!
slaede wrote: Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.
You are agreeing with me in a way as you are saying that perfect balance is a foolish goal. Making sure everyone has a good time by placing restrictions on certain things is what TOs are doing which is why I am coming back to the game because its not balance but it can still be extremely fun.
slaede wrote: Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.
Pretty close to the truth.
Hulksmash agrees with me than, balance impossible but making the game more enjoyable is possible.
Janthkin wrote: Frankly, it's more about curbing the repetition, at least for me - what's the fun in traveling across the country, to play against essentially the same Tau/Eldar combo 5/7 games? Even worse if it's an event where terrain is uniform across all the tables.
I think they are doing a great job with repetition, thats why i wrote in the article.
CKO wrote: This is blown out of proportions to me. To me this entire paragraph says, “Beastars are the most powerful unit in the game according to tournament results”. 7/16 eldar is less than half and 9/16 inquisition should be 6/16 because 3 of them just spent 34 points to get the servo skulls. The variety in the 2014 Adepticon top 16 is the main reason why I am coming back into the game, a freaking drop pod list made it, that’s great!
In adepticon the top tables were really diverse.
Janthkin wrote: Although, I'm not sure that I want to continue playing in a world where the rules allow Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition to all be part of the same army. Must be getting old....
It is silly at times.
ironicsilence wrote: I agree with a lot of the stuff thats already been posted, Also the idea of having to have won a GT to be an elite player is a bit silly, like wise its tough to compare 40k from 2012 to todays version.
I said this earlier, Do you have a trophy? Did you go to an event with over 300 poeple and come out on top? Were the best players in the country there? A person who wins a GT can say yes to all these questions, that makes them elite in my opinion. What makes a player elite in your eyes Ironicsilence?
ironicsilence wrote: I've stopped playing in "competitive" settings largely because I got tired of playing against the same handful of armies, 40k is a hobby for me and playing against the same lists over and over again is pretty boring. I am pretty interested to see what impact the Knights have on all the "Star" units
I left because it was to much to fast and I resented the fact that I could no longer keep up with everything. I still played the game but without the intentions of going to a tournament until after adepticon where I realized that I could use anything I want. I dont think knights will be that big of a factor sadly their weakness is flyers.
ironicsilence wrote: Personally this edition annoys me for the same reason Janthkin mentioned. The fluff abuse hurts me. I think allies is a neat idea and I think it has its place in Apoc bring whatever the hack you want games but the nonsense it allows in a standard 40k game is silly.
And they claim they are forging a narative!
mikhaila wrote: Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.
QFT.
As to the ridiculousness of the "soon to be an elite player",
, why is it ridiculous?
mikhaila wrote: [i] I can only laugh. Winning a GT means....drumroll please.....That you won a GT. That's it. Someone else might infer that you are a better than average 40k player, but it's not a given.
I said this earlier, Do you have a trophy? Did you go to an event with over 300 poeple and come out on top? Were the best players in the country there? A person who wins a GT can say yes to all these questions, that makes them elite in my opinion. What makes a player elite in your eyes mikhaila?
mikhaila wrote: I've never heard anyone actually referred to as'an elite player'. Certainly never heard anyone refer to themselves that way, and keep a straight face.
Than you have never met Kenpachi!
mikhaila wrote: There are some very, very good players. They usually let their torunament records and their armies do the talking for them.
That is why I call GT winners elite because they have the trophys to prove it, I am getting this weird vibe about your post mikhaila it is almost as if you are attacking my view point of what an elite player is. Are you upset that you are not considered an elite player in my eyes?
mikhaila wrote: Any of your thoughts on tournaments, good or bad, are sadly going to be tainted by this initial foolishness.
That is sad, you were unable to read the article unbiasly because of my definition of elite. I cannot take your comments into consideration because you openly admit that you are bias from the start, I would love for you to try reading it without being bias because of my quote on quote, "initial foolishness" and give me your opinion than.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: But the OP has 3 Sensei and is himself a gaming guru...how can he not be elite?!
Yes, my first sensei taught me the game by pounding me into the dirt everygame until I started to win, the second sensei taught me how to make list, and the third taught me the importance of the missions but only 2 of them could be considered elite.
I am not elite because I do not meet my definition of elite which is winning a GT.
I used to be pretty against comp. Army-building is a part of the game, some lists are better than others, and you don't have to win the event to have fun. Deal with it. Right?
Right?
Well...
See, a Revenant in a game of 40k is just stupid. Not necessarily unbalanced; just stupid. My Tau army can kill one reliably on turn one, and that's game over. But if I don't go first, I'll lose two important units and I'll never be able to kill the damn thing and it will table me by itself. Stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I agree the revenant titan is just dum.
Thud wrote: In addition, there's the new imbalance. 40k was always unbalanced, but even in the Grey Knight doompocalypse of late 5th, if you showed up with one of the crappier codexes you could still participate in a game against them. Everyone can kill a few Rhinos and some dudes, or a few fancy Terminators or whatever. You'd probably still end up losing, but at least you left the game with the feeling of having been a part of it. Force the guy to reinforce his flank. Deny him some objectives. Run like a girl. Whatever. Now, though, if I bring my Blood Angels against a Screamerstar (which isn't even close to being the best army in the game) it's pretty likely that I won't even kill a single model before I lose. Super!
You also are are agreeing with me because you say that 40k is unbalanced. Yes, TO are doing a good job of making the game fun for all but sometimes the casual player runs into a list they can do nothing about. The burden of balance should not be placed on TO for they cannot fix the best they can do is create a fun environment for all if you run into that list know the TO did their best to stop it from happening.
slaede wrote: You know, when you get down to it, the game is actually kind of balanced. You could go to a big tournament and be not at all surprised if Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, Daemons and now Astra Militarum won it. With the inclusion of dataslates, Nids can compete. That's a lot of factions with a legitimate chance to win.
I dont think it is balanced because everyone do not have the equal opportunity to create death star type units, but the game is alot better now than it was at the start of 6th when no one had anti-air and so forth. The game is now fair because alot of armies can win as opposed to a select few just look at the Adepticon results for proof.
slaede wrote: CSM and Dark Angels don't measure up, but I think Ravenwing is underrated and underrepresented, and CSM occasionally show up in the top echelons. Necrons can also hang. Even Imperial Knights with AM allies might be highly competitive.
Yes I know that is why I am back in the mix, I have been playing in casual games and buying codexes but now I have intentions of playing competitively again.
slaede wrote: So the balance is pretty alright. It's the hyper-efficient overpowered stuff that needs fixin.
Not everyone can get the hyper efficient overpowered stuff so the game is not balanced, but the majority of the new stuff can.
I can see you have said you are new to 6th ed. from your post, so giving you benefit of the doubt.
I think I did a poor job of explaining my experience with six I have gone to a handful of tournaments in six and I play around 1 game a week. Now I am playing 3 games a week, when I say I left I meant GT.
happygolucky wrote: Honestly I would go to 3-6 GT's if that's what your aiming for then come back to this thread and have a think if you still think the same..
I am not new I am fully aware of the monstrosities that 6th has created. I am actually looking forward to creating my own and facing them now that I see that I literally have a million options.
OMG, I literally responded to everyones post thanks for your comments.
CKO wrote: A simple disagree without reasoning is not as helpful.
You're right, it isn't.
CKO wrote: REECIUS WROTE:
One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: But the OP has 3 Sensei and is himself a gaming guru...how can he not be elite?!
Yes, my first sensei taught me the game by pounding me into the dirt everygame until I started to win, the second sensei taught me how to make list, and the third taught me the importance of the missions but only 2 of them could be considered elite.
I am not elite because I do not meet my definition of elite which is winning a GT.
I was just being an ass. Honestly, I think the terminology you are using is influencing how people are responding to your post. Attaching terms like "elite", "sensei" and "guru" to war gaming and war gamers is rather... pretentious. It gives the impression that you might be taking this a little too seriously as we are discussing the activity of pushing toy soldiers around a game table-not mastering a martial art. Perhaps this is a language translation issue and not someone getting "too deep" into their space-manz obsession, but based on your additional responses I am not sure.
CKO, you don't seem to be aware but mikhaila is a TO (and owner of Showcase Comics up in Philly) and has run GTs for a long time. He's seen a lot of "elite" players at his events, and I think it's a categorization he just can't take seriously.
I personally think you're pretty off-base, and very out of touch with the current meta and state of 40k on many of your points... but I already explained why above (referencing ordinary, "elite" players, and TOs). Most people who are paying close attention agree with the type of things Reecius posted in that article (even if they disagree on the details). Not sure what else to say really, so I'll leave it at that.
In case it wasn't easy to understand CKO by what I wrote I don't agree with you and find your approach to 40k and the idea of elite players just silly. Good players sure. "Elite" players, silly
I would also agree with Dark, and I gather you're intention likely wasnt to come across as it seems like you did, I suspect that you'd get some better feedback with a "softer" approach. Personally I'd rather just discuss your thoughts on the article, but starting the thread off with a "gaming" pedigree will likely get a lot of people on the wrong foot before even getting to the baulk of your points.
Yeah, using the term "sensei" and "guru" just makes you sound pretentious. What you're really saying is a friend at a gaming club played you with tough lists, then another friend helped you see how to min-max a list. That's not mastery of an art form. It's pretty basic maths. I don't call my physics lecturer at university a "sensei" or "guru" and he's discovered around a third of all the currently known star clusters
And the idea of an "Elite" player in a game in which there is an element of chance is ridiculous. You could have the greatest tactical mind of a generation but your flawless strategies fail because you can't roll above a 1.
Yes my first mistake was telling everyone I am a competitive player. It came off as I am good and I know what I am talking about which was not my intent. If you read the article you will see that I am pro TO and whatever decision they make as it makes the game more enjoyable for casual players.
While players like me will enjoy the tournament because of the competition. I am anti "balance" the actual word, using the word balance creates an illusion that 40k has a flaw in its mechanics when in reality its just that the power level of units is at an all time high.
We are going around saying things like, "That unit is unbalance and this one is also" newer players or people thats trying to get used to the power difference will think 40k is mechanically flawed as opposed to you got to figure out a way to kill that deathstar or even create your own powerful unit.
I can prove my point which one sounds worse.
a. You only won because you used that unbalanced unit.
b. You only won because you used that powerful unit.
Option a makes it seem as if there is something wrong with the game while option b just means you used a powerful unit which people have been doing for years.
I have a problem with the word "Balance" not Tournament Organizers. The burden of balance should be on GW not TOs.
Why can’t this target group of players have a separate tournament to guarantee they have fun fair games?
I thoroughly disagree on every other point, but I agree with this. Have a gaming 'event' alongside the big battle of the deathstars and see how many of the casual gamers attend that instead.
CKO wrote: Yes my first mistake was telling everyone I am a competitive player. It came off as I am good and I know what I am talking about which was not my intent.
No, your first problem was using the words "elite" and "sensei". Regardless if what you meant they make you come across as very "better than you". This whole sub forum is about being competitive.
I have a problem with the word "Balance" not Tournament Organizers. The burden of balance should be on GW not TOs.
Agreed. Has GW met this burden? No? So should we just give up and stop doing tournaments, or should we, as a community, do something about it?
AdeptiCon had an "alongside" event this year, but in reverse to what you suggest. Want no holds barred 40k? Go for it! Lords of War, everything was in.
Did I mention the event had 13 players
Yes, it was going up against the Championships, but you can't expect a Con to make the less popular format the main one. If you want unrestricted 40k, there are events for it... you can play in it alongside the main event just like you're suggesting, but in reverse
You can't make the argument you are and then say you don't want Escalation (as you posted above). If it's GW's job to balance alone, then why should TOs care that you might have to face a Revenant behind a Void Shield? Your argument doesn't work or is hypocritical when put into practice... unless you really do want to play that way, but you said above that you don't.
Why can’t this target group of players have a separate tournament to guarantee they have fun fair games?
I thoroughly disagree on every other point, but I agree with this. Have a gaming 'event' alongside the big battle of the deathstars and see how many of the casual gamers attend that instead.
i would agree with this point as well, i would love to see a tournament or event geared towards a more casual play style, I think it would be a pain to try to come up with a set of rules to govern it but i think it would be enjoyable. Thats to to say you cant take a "fun" or "themed" army to an event like adepticon and go in expecting to not do well....but at the end of the day no one likes getting curb stomped for a weekend.
Like I said above, allies really reduce my interest in playing 40k competitively, whether its because it hurts my fluff soul to see the combos or just because some many people use the same stuff, I'm just not a fan of the competitive landscape anymore, which is a true shame as in previous editions I really enjoyed going to bigger tournaments and playing the game a bit more serious
I addressed that but my post got caught with the page rollover so quoting it over:
RiTides wrote: AdeptiCon had an "alongside" event this year, but in reverse to what you suggest. Want no holds barred 40k? Go for it! Lords of War, everything was in.
Did I mention the event had 13 players
Yes, it was going up against the Championships, but you can't expect a Con to make the less popular format the main one. If you want unrestricted 40k, there are events for it... you can play in it alongside the main event just like you're suggesting, but in reverse
You can't make the argument you are and then say you don't want Escalation (as you posted above). If it's GW's job to balance alone, then why should TOs care that you might have to face a Revenant behind a Void Shield? Your argument doesn't work or is hypocritical when put into practice... unless you really do want to play that way, but you said above that you don't.
Yeah I think its pretty easy to go that direction tides, anything goes 40k doesnt require much input, Im not sure how you would even run a "casual" event. Aside from doing something small scale like a 500 point kill team game, but again its likely to always be along side the "main" event so participation would likely be small
Using the words sensei and guru bother people alot, my sensei doesnt somehow makes him your sensei.
RiTides wrote: AdeptiCon had an "alongside" event this year, but in reverse to what you suggest. Want no holds barred 40k? Go for it! Lords of War, everything was in.
Did I mention the event had 13 players
What does this have to do with me? Yes, I said there should be a tournament with no restrictions because 13 people would play in it, every player counts.
RiTides wrote: Yes, it was going up against the Championships, but you can't expect a Con to make the less popular format the main one. If you want unrestricted 40k, there are events for it... you can play in it alongside the main event just like you're suggesting, but in reverse
Your putting words in my mouth, and making it seem as if I want to force others to do what I think is right when all you have to do is read the last paragraph of the articles to see that I dont care what the restrictions are I will sharpen or dull my list and enjoy the games, I like the competition.
RiTides wrote: You can't make the argument you are and then say you don't want Escalation (as you posted above). If it's GW's job to balance alone, then why should TOs care that you might have to face a Revenant behind a Void Shield? Your argument doesn't work or is hypocritical when put into practice... unless you really do want to play that way, but you said above that you don't.
I get it your trying to make it seem as if the entire article is about escalation allowance which it is not. TOs care because its their job is to make sure that everyone has a good time and facing the titan is not a good time.Players like me enjoy the competition and dont care in the fashion that we lose or win but others do. Restrictions are made to fix that problem so players dont feel like they didnt stand a chance from the jump.
How can you say my arguement when no one is arguing? I made a statement saying GW controls balance and TOs job is to try to make sure that casual players enjoy themselves at tournaments. In your mind its all about escalation, re-read the article.
What article are you taking about? I see no article from you, only from Reecius. Am I genuinely missing a link to an article you wrote somewhere? If you're referring to your original post here, I find it almost illegible because your text is mixed in with Reecius', you didn't italicize all of his and didn't use any quote tags.
In between blocks of his text you have comments like "What the hell are you taking about Willis?". If you want people to take your view seriously, you need to present it better / more clearly.
All I see, in the end, is you don't like the word "balance". I also see you picking and choosing restrictions by calling some "regional". I refer to Escalation because it is the extreme, yet totally legal, example. Is it "regional" to want no Escalation? The fact is, people don't like Escalation because it messes up the game balance even worse by allowing ranged D weapons. It's disallowed for balance. A source limit, missions variations, etc are for the same purpose and also quite widely accepted so far (a bit too early to tell on the source limit, obviously).
If you're not playing with Escalation and Stronghold Assault, you're already adjusting the game for balance. If you don't care if TOs disallow or allow those, as you say above, then I think you're just hung up on semantics with the word "balance". If you prefer to call it "adjusting for player enjoyment" rather than "balance" that's fine by me, but the end result is the same: TOs restricting something beyond the base rules to have a better event. If you're fine with this, I'm not sure what your issue with Reecius' article is. Could you express it much more succinctly and clearly, please? (genuinely asking)
ironicsilence wrote: im not sure this thread is going to go anywhere useful, hopefully i'm wrong and there are some decent nuggets that come out of it,
Just so long as Zwei doesn't see "Balance" in the title and come in and say his piece that gross imbalance is good and fun...
Greetings. Allow me to shed some light on our 'elite' 40k guru.
Firstly, I know Chad/CKO,personally, and have known him for years.
(S'up Chad, it's Drew, how ya doin' there bucko?)
Our 'elite' player, CKO, has a penchant for being a flake and also fielding less than optimized lists of his own creation.
Last year, I and several friends had put a team together to go to a fairly large tournament some of you may have heard of that requires a 5 man team. Our team leader and team second have both won multiple tournaments (the leader being a Multiple Grand Tournament winner who goes by the handle Prodigalson) and the second being the overall winner of the Kalm before the Waaaagh! the year before last. Both are people I would consider very good and competitive 40k players. Rounding out the team were Me, another friend and brother to the team second (and a very good tournament player as well), and finally, CKO here.
The DAY BEFORE WE WERE TO LEAVE, CKO let us know he was going to have to bow out of the group, citing 'he had to work.'
Bear in mind, we had hotel reservations, entry fees, and several of us had used precious vacation time from work (myself included) to ensure we would all be able to go and enjoy the tournament together as a team and represent out region (the Central and Southern Mississippi area, for those interested).
We scrambled to find someone, ANYONE who could fill in the last spot of the team, but to no avail. With it being such short notice, everyone we could think of to ask either wasn't able to get free or had other plans they couldn't break already.
So, we had to withdraw our team from the tournament, and resigned ourselves to not attending because CKO 'had to work'. Considering we had over seven months of planning, list building, playtesting, and time spent getting our armies prepared and painted, I found his excuse to be a little hollow sounding. I'm not even going to mention the monetary investment required for our entry fees and setting money aside to pay for gas, food, and the hotel rooms, plus planning for the trip and getting everyone to meet and travel together as a team. In hind sight it was a good thing we didn't opt to get team t-shirts made too. But, I digress.
A few months later, I attended a 40k tournament in Hattiesburg, Mississippi at a small local convention called Hubcon. It's been going on for many years and while it isn't big, it's still a great little con to go to. I brought my Imperial Guard (fully painted) with some Grey Knight allies (also fully painted). All of our team from the previously mentioned tournament we had to withdraw from were present at this tournament, and lo-and-behold, so was CKO. Surprise surprise.
This was not long after the space marine codex came out and he brought one of the most laughable army lists I've ever seen fielded in a tournament. The Tournament Organizer let him field it (not making a judgement call here, it wasn't a huge tournament and more the merrier) but to put this list in perspective his 'thunderfire cannons' consisted of a twinlinked lascannon and top plate from a Razorback with a standard looking bolter marine next to it to represent the techmarine. The whole army was proxied like this, and though it had paint on it, mostly,... I hesitate to call the list painted at all. It was hideous, and there were more than a few bare plastic marines.
I didn't get to play CKO that tournament, and I actively ignored him for the most part outside of a courtesy greeting and to hear him offer a less than half-hearted apology for his bailing out on us at quite near the LAST POSSIBLE second which, I'll be honest, made my blood boil just a little bit.
I don't know how he did at that tournament, and don't honestly care, but perhaps he might wish to chime in and explain just how his 'elite' skills managed to carry him in the three round tournament.
For the record, I fared decently with 2 wins and 1 draw in that tournament. Would have been three wins but I derped and didn't realize that my fast attack was a scoring unit until after the game ended, and could have contested an objective with one of my remaining flyers. No biggy, still faired pretty well.
Anyway, just thought I'd share some first hand experiences with you all as fellow Dakkaites.
Lastly, and on a personal note, I wouldn't play in any tournament that CKO ran, or organized. Period. Nothing against him as a person, but just no. So much no, all the no.
mikhaila wrote: I love how it's one wannabee "Elite Player" vs Dakka. I'm smelling troll
Why do you think I am against dakka? I am voicing my opinion I havent said this person is wrong or this isnt right. Could you quote me to prove me wrong?
Red__Thirst wrote: Greetings. Allow me to shed some light on our 'elite' 40k guru.
Firstly, I know Chad/CKO,personally, and have known him for years.
(S'up Chad, it's Drew, how ya doin' there bucko?)
Our 'elite' player, CKO, has a penchant for being a flake and also fielding less than optimized lists of his own creation.
Last year, I and several friends had put a team together to go to a fairly large tournament some of you may have heard of that requires a 5 man team. Our team leader and team second have both won multiple tournaments (the leader being a Multiple Grand Tournament winner who goes by the handle Prodigalson) and the second being the overall winner of the Kalm before the Waaaagh! the year before last. Both are people I would consider very good and competitive 40k players. Rounding out the team were Me, another friend and brother to the team second (and a very good tournament player as well), and finally, CKO here.
The DAY BEFORE WE WERE TO LEAVE, CKO let us know he was going to have to bow out of the group, citing 'he had to work.'
Bear in mind, we had hotel reservations, entry fees, and several of us had used precious vacation time from work (myself included) to ensure we would all be able to go and enjoy the tournament together as a team and represent out region (the Central and Southern Mississippi area, for those interested).
We scrambled to find someone, ANYONE who could fill in the last spot of the team, but to no avail. With it being such short notice, everyone we could think of to ask either wasn't able to get free or had other plans they couldn't break already.
So, we had to withdraw our team from the tournament, and resigned ourselves to not attending because CKO 'had to work'. Considering we had over seven months of planning, list building, playtesting, and time spent getting our armies prepared and painted, I found his excuse to be a little hollow sounding. I'm not even going to mention the monetary investment required for our entry fees and setting money aside to pay for gas, food, and the hotel rooms, plus planning for the trip and getting everyone to meet and travel together as a team. In hind sight it was a good thing we didn't opt to get team t-shirts made too. But, I digress.
A few months later, I attended a 40k tournament in Hattiesburg, Mississippi at a small local convention called Hubcon. It's been going on for many years and while it isn't big, it's still a great little con to go to. I brought my Imperial Guard (fully painted) with some Grey Knight allies (also fully painted). All of our team from the previously mentioned tournament we had to withdraw from were present at this tournament, and lo-and-behold, so was CKO. Surprise surprise.
This was not long after the space marine codex came out and he brought one of the most laughable army lists I've ever seen fielded in a tournament. The Tournament Organizer let him field it (not making a judgement call here, it wasn't a huge tournament and more the merrier) but to put this list in perspective his 'thunderfire cannons' consisted of a twinlinked lascannon and top plate from a Razorback with a standard looking bolter marine next to it to represent the techmarine. The whole army was proxied like this, and though it had paint on it, mostly,... I hesitate to call the list painted at all. It was hideous, and there were more than a few bare plastic marines.
I didn't get to play CKO that tournament, and I actively ignored him for the most part outside of a courtesy greeting and to hear him offer a less than half-hearted apology for his bailing out on us at quite near the LAST POSSIBLE second which, I'll be honest, made my blood boil just a little bit.
I don't know how he did at that tournament, and don't honestly care, but perhaps he might wish to chime in and explain just how his 'elite' skills managed to carry him in the three round tournament.
For the record, I fared decently with 2 wins and 1 draw in that tournament. Would have been three wins but I derped and didn't realize that my fast attack was a scoring unit until after the game ended, and could have contested an objective with one of my remaining flyers. No biggy, still faired pretty well.
Anyway, just thought I'd share some first hand experiences with you all as fellow Dakkaites.
Lastly, and on a personal note, I wouldn't play in any tournament that CKO ran, or organized. Period. Nothing against him as a person, but just no. So much no, all the no.
Just my thoughts. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Drew I am not even mad with you or this post that attacks my character because I am guilty. I was not able to make the tournament because I was a manager of a store and the assitant manager quit meaning no vacation for me it was work or be fired. I apologize trust me I was just as frustrated about the situation as you were. We know each other but you do not know me personally, have we even played against each other? I understand why you feel the way you do about me and why you wrote your post with such malcious intent especially when you guys never got a chance to show how frustrated you were with me face to face. All of you guys are class acts for handling the situation the way you did and I thank you for that, I am truly sorry once again.
Back on subject I seem to be defending my elite and guru comments more than actually talking about the main part of the op which is balance, I will not respond to anymore elite guru comments in hopes of trying to steer the conversation into the correct direction.
This is an excellent point! The competitive player is going to steamroll the casual player regardless of what restrictions are made. I have to put this in bold letters, THE NICK NANAVATI’s OF THE WORLD ARE GOING TO STEAMROLL CASUAL PLAYERS REGARDLESS OF TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER’S RESTRICTIONS. I understand your concern about the decreasing 40k players as I was one of them. I left the game because they threw everything at us including the kitchen sink with this edition and it was too much change to quickly and I couldn’t handle it. It is ironic that the same thing that pushed me away is drawing me back; I now look at 40k differently. I am going to face crazy super powerful units but I have access to crazy super powerful units, it’s a trade off. We have to make sure that new players when building their armies do not play stuff they have no chance of winning against. We have to literally baby them into the game, which is the way it should be done. Just make sure that before they make a large purchase that they have one game against a crazy super combo list so they can see what true power is.
It comes down to your perception of how the game should be played is different to my perception and both our perceptions probably differ from those of others.
@CKO I would like to ask what your idea of casual players are? I was a casual player, so were most of my group. BUT we still played what could be called tourney optimized lists as well as fluffy and non optimized lists (I always used to take Ragnar, Bjorn, Ulrik and a horde of Blood Claws in my wolves lists). Some games we played with a comp mentality, we played tourneys as well. Most of my wargaming buddies have over 25 years+ of experience with Gw product (and others).
I would think that a good player would win against a so called casual player if both were using non optimized lists (through good tactics). A good player would struggle vs a casual player bringing an optimized tourney list regardless of tactics.
It is fairly obvious to me that certain combinations in army lists offer a powerful route due to the fact their make up and rules inherently decide deployment, tactics and win loss ratios. So much that a lot of the fun is taken away from the game just at the list building stage. The only chance comes from the dice rolling and in tailored lists you can predict to a certain degree how successful you will be before the game even starts.
Generals with lists that a not top of the current meta probably place high in tourneys because of tactics or poor rolling on the part of their opponents, This is the exception rather than the rule.
From a personal view then, I see balance as helping to select great players from good ones. Balance offers greater challenges and better rewards for everyone, tourney event winners to the beer and pretzels gamer who wants some fun. Balance offers inclusivity.
I am glad that TO and event organizers are looking at leveling the playing field somewhat. I would love to be able to know that my space pup pups can go against Taudar screamerstar or whatever star with a liitle uncertainty of who would win. Not asking for the moon, but just a chance when I see my opponents list I may just succeed.
My post above addresses your issue with "balance" CKO, if you'd like to focus on that, just respond to it. Mainly, I asked you to restate Concisely and Clearly what you mean, as your OP is illegible. It seems you are okay with TOs making adjustments (such as excluding Escalation and Stronghold Assault) but would prefer to say this is for "player enjoyment" rather than "balance"? If it's just that, we can call it what you like, but if you're okay with adjustments being made, it seems to me you actually agree with Reecius' article and are just hung up on semantics.
CKO wrote: Back on subject I seem to be defending my elite and guru comments more than actually talking about the main part of the op which is balance
Which is an excellent sign that the manner in which you arranged and presented your thoughts is detracting from your message. You might want to consider rephrasing. As noted by repeated posters, it's very difficult to sort the "main part" of your post from the tangential comments.
CKO wrote: REECIUS WROTE:
One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.
What the hell are you talking about Willis? lol
I'll do some of your work for you, and actually explain what he meant.
Take a game like Snakes & Ladders, where it's all determined by chance (dice rolls). Hence you can't be "skilled" at it, because there is no skill. You could play five pieces against each other by yourself, and a given piece would be as likely to win as if they were controlled by different players. On the other end, there's chess, where there is no randomness (apart from maybe flipping a coin to see who plays white). A bishop that moves onto the square occupied by an enemy piece will always take that enemy piece, with no uncertainty.
40K is a hybrid game, like most wargames. Skill matters, but the random element can disrupt plans or cause unexpected events, which makes the game less predictable. You know that tricked-out Death Company will probably sweep aside the Grots, but you can't be certain. The element of chance weakens the role of skill a bit--it's possible to outplay your opponent and set up the perfect plan, only for your dice to mutiny--but makes the game more dynamic, tense and gives us all those war stories. And it catches the feel of war, where nothing can be certain and while you can give your troops orders and have a brilliant plan, other factors might cost you victory. So chance is good in a primarily skill-based game, up to a point.
What Reecius argues is that 40K has gone past that point, to a degree where tactics aren't just influenced by luck, but can feel frustratingly irrelevant in the face of luck. For an example from elsewhere in this thread, the "who goes first" roll on turn 1 can take on disproportionate importance when it means either a dead Titan for one side or dead Titan-killers for the other--a huge swing in the game that is unrelated to the actual skill of either player.
RiTides wrote: It seems you are okay with TOs making adjustments (such as excluding Escalation and Stronghold Assault) but would prefer to say this is for "player enjoyment" rather than "balance"? If it's just that, we can call it what you like, but if you're okay with adjustments being made, it seems to me you actually agree with Reecius' article and are just hung up on semantics.
YES!!
This is exactly what I meant I thought it was clear but the elite guru stuff is throwing people off I will change it though. Re-read the post thinking that I am pro TO decision but I dislike the word balance. I am not hung up on semantics when we use the word balance it makes it seem as something is wrong with the game that has a huge negative effect on players and it pushes them away, thats what I am trying to convey.
CKO wrote: Back on subject I seem to be defending my elite and guru comments more than actually talking about the main part of the op which is balance
Which is an excellent sign that the manner in which you arranged and presented your thoughts is detracting from your message. You might want to consider rephrasing. As noted by repeated posters, it's very difficult to sort the "main part" of your post from the tangential comments.
I did not think people were going to take it so seriously, it is almost as if it affended them but I am going to re-word the first paragraph and hope that it helps.
CKO wrote: REECIUS WROTE:
One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.
What the hell are you talking about Willis? lol
I'll do some of your work for you, and actually explain what he meant.
Take a game like Snakes & Ladders, where it's all determined by chance (dice rolls). Hence you can't be "skilled" at it, because there is no skill. You could play five pieces against each other by yourself, and a given piece would be as likely to win as if they were controlled by different players. On the other end, there's chess, where there is no randomness (apart from maybe flipping a coin to see who plays white). A bishop that moves onto the square occupied by an enemy piece will always take that enemy piece, with no uncertainty.
40K is a hybrid game, like most wargames. Skill matters, but the random element can disrupt plans or cause unexpected events, which makes the game less predictable. You know that tricked-out Death Company will probably sweep aside the Grots, but you can't be certain. The element of chance weakens the role of skill a bit--it's possible to outplay your opponent and set up the perfect plan, only for your dice to mutiny--but makes the game more dynamic, tense and gives us all those war stories. And it catches the feel of war, where nothing can be certain and while you can give your troops orders and have a brilliant plan, other factors might cost you victory. So chance is good in a primarily skill-based game, up to a point.
What Reecius argues is that 40K has gone past that point, to a degree where tactics aren't just influenced by luck, but can feel frustratingly irrelevant in the face of luck. For an example from elsewhere in this thread, the "who goes first" roll on turn 1 can take on disproportionate importance when it means either a dead Titan for one side or dead Titan-killers for the other--a huge swing in the game that is unrelated to the actual skill of either player.
RiTides wrote: It seems you are okay with TOs making adjustments (such as excluding Escalation and Stronghold Assault) but would prefer to say this is for "player enjoyment" rather than "balance"? If it's just that, we can call it what you like, but if you're okay with adjustments being made, it seems to me you actually agree with Reecius' article and are just hung up on semantics.
YES!!
This is exactly what I meant I thought it was clear but the elite guru stuff is throwing people off I will change it though. Re-read the post thinking that I am pro TO decision but I dislike the word balance. I am not hung up on semantics when we use the word balance it makes it seem as something is wrong with the game that has a huge negative effect on players and it pushes them away, thats what I am trying to convey.
But there is something wrong with the game. It's not balanced as released. Trying to cover that up with "player enjoyment" just feels like you're pissing on someone and telling them it's raining.
Mr. Burning wrote: @CKO I would like to ask what your idea of casual players are?
A casual player is a player who has fun with the game regardless of the results of the game as long as its a good one.
A competitive player is a player who plays to win, they view the game like a sport.
I am like this
That doesnt some how make my opinion on the game more important than others, that is why I had to remove that elite and guru stuff it open up a can of worms when I was just trying to say I am a competitive player.
rigeld2 wrote: But there is something wrong with the game. It's not balanced as released. Trying to cover that up with "player enjoyment" just feels like you're pissing on someone and telling them it's raining.
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
Mr. Burning wrote: @CKO I would like to ask what your idea of casual players are?
A casual player is a player who has fun with the game regardless of the results of the game as long as its a good one.
A competitive player is a player who plays to win, they view the game like a sport.
You do realize you can be competitive and have fun with the game, right?
rigeld2 wrote: But there is something wrong with the game. It's not balanced as released. Trying to cover that up with "player enjoyment" just feels like you're pissing on someone and telling them it's raining.
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
Doesn't change my statement at all. TOs placing restrictions on things to limit the power level is an attempt to bring things back into balance. Your thread title calls this a foolish goal, but you're all for placing restrictions on things to limit the power level in an attempt to increase player enjoyment.
Do you seriously not understand why that statement is insane?
That's why I said this is just getting hung up on semantics.
Adding restrictions on what can be taken to increase "player enjoyment" is just another way of saying the same thing to increase "balance". Call it what you like, as long as you're A-OK with restrictions (and it seems you are) then I'm done with this debate as we're arguing the same thing with different words . And you actually agree with Reecius' strategy, just not the words he used. This could have been said / discussed a lot more succinctly, you know
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
I tend to disagree with this point, I believe GW's goal is to sell models, they abandoned "competitive" 40k some time ago and now only do things with the intention of selling things. GW isnt writting rules to make a unit strong to balance out against another armies strong units, they are making a unit strong so you go out and buy the new models
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
I tend to disagree with this point, I believe GW's goal is to sell models, they abandoned "competitive" 40k some time ago and now only do things with the intention of selling things. GW isnt writting rules to make a unit strong to balance out against another armies strong units, they are making a unit strong so you go out and buy the new models
I think there has never been that mythical creature called "balanced 40k" (which I think is what is meant with "competitive", as nothing stops having competitions with imbalanced games). Mind you I stopped playing 40k during 4th and 5th editions due to what I perceive silly rules .
mikhaila wrote: I love how it's one wannabee "Elite Player" vs Dakka. I'm smelling troll
Mike, to your previous comment, Im very confused as to how you don't know an elite player when you see one, I mean you've met me after all...
Ah wonderful thread...
In general on posts of these sorts, if you want a discussion to be productive, approach it objectively, avoid hot button words that make you seem over the top as people have mentioned, and try to see it from both sides. There are no credentials to be presented in this, people either know you and respect your opinions because you've earned it, or they don't and no amount of typed up "background" is going to do anything but hurt. All in all I don't mind competitive 40k that much currently, beyond it's getting a bit crazy and hard to keep up with. Balance wise I don't see our current predicament to even be as bad as nidzilla days, tri-holo falcon, csm lash spam, etc. It comes and goes in waves.
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
I tend to disagree with this point, I believe GW's goal is to sell models, they abandoned "competitive" 40k some time ago and now only do things with the intention of selling things. GW isnt writting rules to make a unit strong to balance out against another armies strong units, they are making a unit strong so you go out and buy the new models
To back up this post, GW has on multiple occassions in multiple locations over the last 10+ years stated that 40K was not intended for competitive play. They have never made an effort to achieve balance, either internally or externally, with any of their 40K products.
CKO, i said it was you vs Dakka because the overwhelming majority of people are disagreeing with you, and some downright laughing, and yet you persist at hammering away at everyone and everything. If nothing else, it's amusing in an odd way.
Your ex-team mate had some interesting things to say. And, as others noted. The plot thickens. If there was such a beast as the Elite player, I'm sure that's not the army they'd bring to a GT. And most GT's wouldn't let you field something like that, although their are a couple of exceptions where they might have mercy.
Target wrote: Mike, to your previous comment, Im very confused as to how you don't know an elite player when you see one, I mean you've met me after all...
I remember reading that article Reecius did call it, but I don’t think inquisitors are unbalanced. They give their allies access to divination, servo skulls, and grenades for a very cheap price nothing game breaking. What army cannot get re-rolls if they want them? Whenever someone says balance I immediately replace it with power, powerful, or to powerful. So when you say “the imbalance in the game is at an all time high” I see ‘the power in the game is at an all time high”, which to me is a good thing.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So how is it balanced for the people who do not yet have access to cheese? The only way to make it balanced for them is to place restrictions.
Nothing a tournament organizer can do to bring balance to orks, they cant get re-rolls with cheap access to divination. There is no way a tournament organizer can truly balance the game for everyone. The tournament can be a success but its not because they accomplished balance but because they did some adjustments with rules, missions, or even terrain to make the game fun for everyone.
Balance is controlled by GW not a tournament organizer.
doktor_g wrote: Orks don't have access. I take umbrage, sir.
DrG
The great waaagh is coming I hope they can make people fear the waaagh again! I believe they are getting the next codex but I may be wrong.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So how is it balanced for the people who do not yet have access to cheese? The only way to make it balanced for them is to place restrictions.
Nothing a tournament organizer can do to bring balance to orks, they cant get re-rolls with cheap access to divination. There is no way a tournament organizer can truly balance the game for everyone. The tournament can be a success but its not because they accomplished balance but because they did some adjustments with rules, missions, or even terrain to make the game fun for everyone.
Balance is controlled by GW not a tournament organizer.
But GW is not doing anything to control balance. If they were then all armies would have access to cheese.
So TOs should do it so everyone can have a fun time and not end up playing 3 games which end on the first turn because their whole army gets wiped out by a titan. If that means placing restrictions then that is what should be done. However by trying to make sure that people have a fun time they are also trying to make it more balanced between armies.
Nothing a tournament organizer can do to bring balance to orks, they cant get re-rolls with cheap access to divination. There is no way a tournament organizer can truly balance the game for everyone. The tournament can be a success but its not because they accomplished balance but because they did some adjustments with rules, missions, or even terrain to make the game fun for everyone.
Balance is controlled by GW not a tournament organizer.
I may be wrong, but wasn't this the point of what Reese was saying?
Whatever the case, CKO, it is my sincere hope that you can pull off as rad of an event! Seriously. Kidding and Internet cattiness aside. Set a date. Think big. SEC wargaming! Orkansas will represent.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But GW is not doing anything to control balance. If they were then all armies would have access to cheese.
So TOs should do it so everyone can have a fun time and not end up playing 3 games which end on the first turn because their whole army gets wiped out by a titan. If that means placing restrictions then that is what should be done. However by trying to make sure that people have a fun time they are also trying to make it more balanced between armies.
Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.
I think there has never been that mythical creature called "balanced 40k" (which I think is what is meant with "competitive", as nothing stops having competitions with imbalanced games). Mind you I stopped playing 40k during 4th and 5th editions due to what I perceive silly rules .
Perfect example Hena stop playing because of silly rules. What silly rules is he talking about? Most likely he is refering to the things that are quote on quote "unbalance", if we would not use that word balance and just say certain armys are stronger we wouldnt have this balance problem. Instead we could just say we are nerfing 2+ rerollable it is just to powerful.
doktor_g wrote: The new ork codex will bring balance to the force
Lol, or atleast a CHOPPA!
doktor_g wrote: I may be wrong, but wasn't this the point of what Reese was saying?
Yes, but I am saying balance is impossible but making the game fun for everyone is which is why I agreed with him on the article. The article is not to bash TO but to bash the word balance as it doesnt exist in 40k and never has but it doesnt exist in any table top game as certain factions are just better and no rule change made by a TO can fix that.
doktor_g wrote: Whatever the case, CKO, it is my sincere hope that you can pull off as rad of an event! Seriously. Kidding and Internet cattiness aside. Set a date. Think big. SEC wargaming! Orkansas will represent.
I am not a TO, I made this because I recently came back to the game and people were constantly saying the game is not balance the game is not balance. I completely disagree with that some armies are way stronger than others and TOs have to make ristrictions to fix that but there is nothing wrong with the balance of 40k. GW is purposely making it possible to create these godly units and its done on purpose so how can it be called imbalance? We are basically losing players because of the use of the word balance.
CKO wrote: Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others.
...which means the same thing.
When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.
They are. That's why people keep complaining about balance.
We are basically losing players because of the use of the word balance.
We are losing players because the game is broken. The words you choose to use won't change that.
Whether we say that the game isn't balanced, or that some armies are stronger than others, or that we all have watermelons on our heads, makes no difference to the balance issues inherent in the game. You don't make the problem go away by just not using a specific word.
But GW is not doing anything to control balance. If they were then all armies would have access to cheese.
If GW could be arsed to balance their games properly no armies would have access to cheese and there would be no such thing as a net list. Of course GW can't be arsed to balance their games, or even write coherent and consistent rules so we end up with the wargaming abortion that 40k has become. 40k has been about list building rather than player skill for years and as such I find it strange that people persist with attempting to play 40k 'competitively' , you would have more luck teaching a cat to read.
CKO wrote: Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.
...
We are basically losing players because of the use of the word balance.
As noted by insaniak, saying some armies are weaker than others is the same as saying the rules are unbalanced.
40K is losing players because of the state of the rules, not the words we use to describe them. I'm glad you agree with TOs making tweaks to address this. I really think you are just hung up on semantics.
As noted by insaniak, saying some armies are weaker than others is the same as saying the rules are unbalanced.
Depending on your definition of balance, all words have several meanings we can change ours if we wanted.
RiTides wrote: 40K is losing players because of the state of the rules, not the words we use to describe them. I'm glad you agree with TOs making tweaks to address this. I really think you are just hung up on semantics.
Ritides you might be right, I just believe that words have power and that certain words can be misinterpreted and be harmful.
Similar to the way I was misunderstood early on because I used the words elite and guru. I did not know they were power words in our dakka community which would explain why alot of readers were upset. I knew I wasnt a troll or anything but there was a disconnect or misinterpretation somewhere and I could fix it as long as I kept trying. I know it could be viewed as being a troll but I knew a few readers would understand and you are one of them Ritides.
CKO wrote: Depending on your definition of balance, all words have several meanings we can change ours if we wanted.
Until someone calls you out on trying to hide problems - which is exactly what you're doing.
Being honest: 40ks rules suck. The balance between armies sucks. For many armies, the balance internL to the codex sucks.
The only thing we as a community can do to save 40k is to essentially rewrite the rulebook, and probably some of the codexes.
Since that'll gain community support the second day after never, you can see the problem.
A little OT, but: I do find gamer perception fascinating. I could talk about it at length but won't here. I think editing the OP helped clarify your meaning, but the title could still be taken to mean that most TOs are foolish (whether you meant that or not!). So, as my friend loves to say- "Phrasing!"
That aside, as I said it's great that you agree that TOs must adjust the base rules for their events, but I don't think you'll win folks over that the word "balance" is harmful. It is a pretty well accepted term to discuss almost any game, and a reasonable thing to want in a game, after all .
Byte wrote: OP- The reception of a message starts in the delivery. You must of missed that part in your management training.
, who said I was trained, some people are just given jobs? This is a joke I know how sensative readers can be .
Yes, I agree my choice of words combine with the title it was a big mess it clearly needed more editing.
heartserenade wrote: I don't think a title called '"Balance" Tournament Organizer Foolish Goal' can be interpreted any other way.
Yes, good point I can be oblivious to stuff like that because I dont let things get to me easy, I certainly dont let it make me lose my composure and call people out of their name but oh well.
If you're trying to write an article, or to persuade people through the written word, you must master these basic skills. If you'd really like to up your proficiency, then once you've mastered the above information, you might move on to this.
CKO wrote: Depending on your definition of balance, all words have several meanings we can change ours if we wanted.
Which won't change the underlying problem... which is a problem with the rules, not with what we call them.
Similar to the way I was misunderstood early on because I used the words elite and guru. I did not know they were power words in our dakka community which would explain why alot of readers were upset.
You misunderstood. People weren't upset. People just found the use of those words either a little peculiar, or a sign that you were apparently approaching the game with a very different view to that taken by most players. Calling the guy who teaches you the game your 'sensei' suggests that you're taking it all a little more seriously than is the norm, even in the 'competitive' arena. And very few of the players who you would apparently class as 'elite' would describe themselves as such.
CKO wrote: Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.
Perfect example Hena stop playing because of silly rules. What silly rules is he talking about? Most likely he is refering to the things that are quote on quote "unbalance", if we would not use that word balance and just say certain armys are stronger we wouldnt have this balance problem. Instead we could just say we are nerfing 2+ rerollable it is just to powerful.
One thing that I think needs pointing out is that it's not only about "power", in the sense of one option doing something better than another option. Another problem with the rules as they stand is that they can allow armies which to some degree or another don't play the same game as everyone else through ignoring rules or being hyper-specialised. For example, the all-Knight army is largely immune to low-STR attacks, so potentially, the majority of the opponent's army might as well not actually be there. Or the 2++ rerolled deathstars, that are effectively immune to attacks that aren't D-weapons or extremely lucky.
If I look back on the worst games (as distinct from worst opponents) that I played, they weren't the ones where I simply lost, they were the ones that felt like I might as well have not showed up to, where it didn't feel like the opponent was fundamentally playing the same game as I was, or that the game was decided when the armies were deployed and playing it out was simply a formality. With a balanced system (or another term for "balanced" that means the exact same thing as "balanced", if you prefer), those matches are much harder to stumble into.
Although I'm not as big or well known on dakka I thought I would just add my two cents to this thread. There is no two ways around the point that everyone else has made 40k is unbalanced! Regardles of what words you use. The current ceo of GW tom kirby has already stated before that its all about profits and has basically given many of the fan base to 40k and other gw products a big middle finger. Now I don't have any kind uni qualifications but I do have an understanding of businesses work. GW so long as its entire goal is to make profit it will write these massive cheese units into existance and price them highly because eventually they know a good proportion of people will go out and buy it because most other units are now useless. I think OP should just accept that along the line somewhere 40k is fundamentally broken and it always will be regardless of who is incharge at GW thats not to say it cant everbe balanced to a point where many new players can enjoy the game for its casual and competitive elements
Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.
Okay, the way this circular thread is dragging on is maddening, but as a journalist in my non-wargaming life I just can't resist.
CKO, the strength or weakness of a given 40k army is determined by two things -- the BRB and the codices themselves. Codices are small, army-specific rulebooks. If one army is weaker than another, then it is a result of these rulebooks. If the rulebooks result in some armies that have mathematically inferior list possibilities to another, then this is the very definition of "unbalance" in the game as a result of the rules being "off." You may hate that word, but it is the most accurate one-word description of the situation. Also, changing the word will not change the reality. (Ceci n'est pas déséquilibré)
GW's had plenty of time to jump in and address the issue. They won't, or are slow to do so. In the meantime, TO's have to step up and impose restrictions for the events, because people pay good money and don't want to be knocked out by opponents that are just buying or crudely converting their way to victory via net lists.
Yeesh...this thread has derailed quickly. If CKO isn't being concise...let me phrase what he's trying to say. Disclaimer: I don't care what anyone's opinions are in this matter. There is no right, or wrong answer as we can't implement the true solutions of the problem...we can only treat the symptoms.
Now on to my concise explanation of what CKO is trying to say. CKO is trying to say that "balance" of 40k is an illusion built up by the very player base that views this game as needing to be some sort of competitive sport (which if anyone actually follows sports intensely..most pro-sports display a gross imbalance. Which I find ironic in these types of players. I digress). These players are making the assumption that restrictions are somehow going to "fix" or "balance" what they perceive as "imbalance". From CKO's perspective that's false. By adding in restrictions you may bring the enjoyment level of the game to a reasonable level for most...but at the end of the day...the upper crust of the competitive sport gamers will find new ways to exploit the restrictions...and the cycle repeats. Again, no balance achieved. To truly "balance" the game...CKO is correct in the assertion that the burden is on GW. It is only they who can cure the disease as they are the writers and publishers of the rules. TO's merely treat the symptoms...and I think that was CKO's point. My biggest beef with the current edition is that 6th edition has bred an entirely new generation of "experts" and "know-it-alls". Like someone said previously...it all goes in cycles. However, now we have an entirely new generation of people that use the openness of the ruleset as a crutch and build combos that anyone can master given enough practice...yet claiming some sort of "elite" status, or use it as a place to speak authoritatively on "the game" when in most cases...these players are average to good at best. I see lots of players in my area with this attitude and it's amusing. When you take away their uber combos and they actually have to use good tactics, or learn deployment skills, etc. You realize that these guys really aren't so exceptional after all. It is one of the big reasons that people are being turned off to the game. I can say it has definitely soured my enjoyment of the game. When mastery of learning the game is replaced with "take units X, Y, Z and profit". The writing is on the wall. From GW's view point, they don't care. That burden is on the customer. Their job is to make money selling models, and DLC rules now. Either you buy into that, or jump ship. It's that simple. :shrug: For me, I used to be an uber competitive gamer...but then I realized that it's all for nothing and a sunk cost exercise in futility and ultimately a huge money waster. When I look back and realize how much time, effort, and money went into it...then look at the value returned...well the choice was easy to stop doing it. I'd rather use that energy to make more money or improve myself in meaningful ways. YMMV
The fact that you stopped playing competitively (what you talk about in the last third of your above post) is exactly what TOs are trying to avoid. I agree that they are treating symptoms, not the root cause, but that's all TOs can do to try to avoid more people taking the route you did (and stopping playing competitively / attending their events).
What is most interesting to me is that no one seems to be against the fact that this is the course of action that must be taken by TOs... but just hung up on what we call it
I used to play about 2 tournaments per month before my illness got too bad but have stopped doing so now. I tried coming back to it and still do ref'ing, but I lost all interesting in competitive gaming as of 40k's current state. GW fully decided to go into "buy to win" territory and Escalation just sealed its fate. When 8 top 10 lists are almost the same army, then the game is terribly balanced. Readjustments need to be made, but I neither have the time to dive into that territory again (as I am already invested in WHFB and its comp) nor do I want to do the work GW is supposed to do themselves...again. It's sad where comp 40k went to, but casual 40k still is a blast.
It's sad that despite being the best core ruleset now (judging as a late 3rd starter), GW managed to break the game by terrible codices and "expansions".
How are pro sports imbalanced? Don't the teams play by the same rules, have the same number of players? Or am I missing something? It's not like Korean archers get an extra arrow or Filipino boxers get to have free punches before the opponent can punch back.
Now on to my concise explanation of what CKO is trying to say. CKO is trying to say that "balance" of 40k is an illusion built up by the very player base that views this game as needing to be some sort of competitive sport (which if anyone actually follows sports intensely..most pro-sports display a gross imbalance. Which I find ironic in these types of players. I digress). These players are making the assumption that restrictions are somehow going to "fix" or "balance" what they perceive as "imbalance". From CKO's perspective that's false. By adding in restrictions you may bring the enjoyment level of the game to a reasonable level for most...but at the end of the day...the upper crust of the competitive sport gamers will find new ways to exploit the restrictions...and the cycle repeats. Again, no balance achieved. To truly "balance" the game...CKO is correct in the assertion that the burden is on GW. It is only they who can cure the disease as they are the writers and publishers of the rules. TO's merely treat the symptoms...and I think that was CKO's point.
This is 100% correct and I am glad Capt was able to sum it up so well. This is my last post on this thread if you dont get what I am trying to say in the original post and you dont understand CaptKaruthors summary you will never get it, and I am tired of defending myself.
All I see, in the end, is you don't like the word "balance". I also see you picking and choosing restrictions by calling some "regional". I refer to Escalation because it is the extreme, yet totally legal, example. Is it "regional" to want no Escalation? The fact is, people don't like Escalation because it messes up the game balance even worse by allowing ranged D weapons. It's disallowed for balance. A source limit, missions variations, etc are for the same purpose and also quite widely accepted so far (a bit too early to tell on the source limit, obviously).
If you're not playing with Escalation and Stronghold Assault, you're already adjusting the game for balance. If you don't care if TOs disallow or allow those, as you say above, then I think you're just hung up on semantics with the word "balance". If you prefer to call it "adjusting for player enjoyment" rather than "balance" that's fine by me, but the end result is the same: TOs restricting something beyond the base rules to have a better event. If you're fine with this, I'm not sure what your issue with Reecius' article is. Could you express it much more succinctly and clearly, please? (genuinely asking)
This is 100% correct and I am glad Capt was able to sum it up so well. This is my last post on this thread if you dont get what I am trying to say in the original post and you dont understand CaptKaruthors summary you will never get it, and I am tired of defending myself. :snore.
You don't seem to understand that people understand very well what you're trying to say.
Professional sports have put in rules to help "balance" the game from draft rules, salary cap rules, union rules, etc. etc.
Otherwise, you get the NY Yankees playing by themselves because one team can "unfairly" buy the best players.
Where's the fun in that? Even with the tax, the Yankees still overspend and get the best players - but that doesn't mean they win the world series every year because you still have to play the game - and they still have the potential to lose.
I think there is something to what CKO is saying. Is MtG balanced... How about WarmaHordes ? Games like chess and backgammon are inherently balanced since both players have identical armies. I never remember 40k ever being balanced.
Dozer Blades wrote: I think there is something to what CKO is saying. Is MtG balanced... How about WarmaHordes ? Games like chess and backgammon are inherently balanced since both players have identical armies. I never remember 40k ever being balanced.
Chess isn't balanced. Given a perfect game, white always wins.
Anyway, balance isn't a single solitary state: It's a spectrum. No game will be perfectly balanced, but there's certainly games that are better balanced than others. MtG and WarmaHordes aren't perfect, but they're a damn sight better than the job GW does (or rather, doesn't do, given their own statements regarding playtesting).
Dozer Blades wrote: I think there is something to what CKO is saying. Is MtG balanced... How about WarmaHordes ? Games like chess and backgammon are inherently balanced since both players have identical armies. I never remember 40k ever being balanced.
Chess isn't balanced. Given a perfect game, white always wins.
Anyway, balance isn't a single solitary state: It's a spectrum. No game will be perfectly balanced, but there's certainly games that are better balanced than others. MtG and WarmaHordes aren't perfect, but they're a damn sight better than the job GW does (or rather, doesn't do, given their own statements regarding playtesting).
Someone must always go first and the assertion bares no relevance to this discussion.
Dozer Blades wrote: I think there is something to what CKO is saying. Is MtG balanced... How about WarmaHordes ? Games like chess and backgammon are inherently balanced since both players have identical armies. I never remember 40k ever being balanced.
MTG certainly aint balanced, typically you get from 1-4 different deck types that are actually viable by tournament standards.
ironicsilence wrote: im not sure this thread is going to go anywhere useful, hopefully i'm wrong and there are some decent nuggets that come out of it,
ironicsilence wrote: As the op has said he is done with this thread and is no longer interested in debate perhaps its time to put this thread down?
I am finished debating, that doesnt mean I am done paying attention to the thread I like to see others opinion on the matter, especially when the readers are starting to understand my point of view. Do not close the thread as its not all about me others want to voice their opinion.
Dozer Blades wrote: I think there is something to what CKO is saying. Is MtG balanced... How about WarmaHordes ? Games like chess and backgammon are inherently balanced since both players have identical armies. I never remember 40k ever being balanced.
Balance doesn't mean homogeneity, and it doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. WM/H isn't perfectly balanced, there are under- or over-costed units, and occasional "may as well have not shown up" games. But they're both far less common than 40K, and the majority of games I've ever played were decided by skill, and not who had the latest netlist.
Perfect balance may well be impossible while having a dynamic and varied game, but that's no excuse to not try and improve balance, and GW have never tried.
While you can never achieve balance in 40k, there is a huge disaprity amongst the codexes. Generally speaking, the older the codex, the worse it gets.
While I don't think anyone has an expectation from GW for perfect game "balance", we are (at a minimum) looking for:
- well written rules that clearly define what units can and cannot do
- game tested units that are appropriately costed
To date, GW has yet to demonstrate a desire to do either of these two simple things. Now, with 6th edition and the allies system, gameplay has gotten out of hand. I am not against the allies system (I actually like the fluffy combinations), but again, GW completely failed to properly play test the allies charts before releasing it. Consequently, you are seeing droves of players leave the game out of pure frustration.
And, what infuriates most of the people I see here on Dakka, is that GW has no shortage of information (i.e. forums here, BoLS, warseer, etc.) on what their customer base wants. However, in their arrogance, they actively REFUSE to have any online presence and are probably scratching their heads as to why sales are down.
Elemental wrote: Perfect balance may well be impossible while having a dynamic and varied game, but that's no excuse to not try and improve balance, and GW have never tried.
Not only have they not tried, they're actively going out of their way to break it even more.
You know once the rules are released there is not a damn thing GW cares about less.
It is up to the community to try and forge - from GW rules - a game system that is inclusive enough to allow a hard fought competitive battle to take place between two or more opponents. (Notice the total lack of the word balance).
some may want to, others will not.
Of course, this leads to different interpretations but IMO now is the time to just say thanks GW for the outline you have provided we'll just do our own thing to have a fun game/start a tournament etc.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Professional sports have put in rules to help "balance" the game from draft rules, salary cap rules, union rules, etc. etc.
Otherwise, you get the NY Yankees playing by themselves because one team can "unfairly" buy the best players.
Where's the fun in that? Even with the tax, the Yankees still overspend and get the best players - but that doesn't mean they win the world series every year because you still have to play the game - and they still have the potential to lose.
That doesn't mean the game is unbalanced. It means that some players are better than others. The Yankees don't get in-game advantages, like extra points or extra players.
It's like trying to say smart people with tactical minds should be nerfed when playing tabletop wargames.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Professional sports have put in rules to help "balance" the game from draft rules, salary cap rules, union rules, etc. etc.
Otherwise, you get the NY Yankees playing by themselves because one team can "unfairly" buy the best players.
Where's the fun in that? Even with the tax, the Yankees still overspend and get the best players - but that doesn't mean they win the world series every year because you still have to play the game - and they still have the potential to lose.
That doesn't mean the game is unbalanced. It means that some players are better than others. The Yankees don't get in-game advantages, like extra points or extra players.
It's like trying to say smart people with tactical minds should be nerfed when playing tabletop wargames.
Right. Some players (units) are better than others. No problem there.
The resources available to different teams (players) differ - making a good player (unit) cost less, relatively, for team (player) A than an average player (unit) does for team (player) B.
When everyone plays by the same external rules (codex) for acquiring players (units) it's a much more even playing field.
When you have two codexes, and one has obviously superior choices for the same or fewer points than the other, that's imbalanced.
So I come back to the thread and OP seems to have changed his OP a lot
Only two things that struck me in this "new" message, which were that GW know there are powerful options, hence why they are there..
No. They don't.
What usually happens is that a GW Game dev will think of something and think that it sounds cool so will slap it in the new book, and because they don't playtest anymore this means that they don't think how these pieces of Wargear are units will be used by the large proportion of players that play that army.
Second thing that stuck me was the whole "restrictions are put in place for casual players, and competitive players play with everything"
This I also disagree with, mainly because competitive players want to win knowing that they have played with skill and used their minds to achieve that goal.
If competitive players know they can take revrents and death stars, this frustrates competitive players as well as "casual" players mainly because it will feel like the competitive players may have won/lost not because they had better skill and so, were outplayed but because their army had better rules, which frustrates all players from all parts of the spectrum.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Professional sports have put in rules to help "balance" the game from draft rules, salary cap rules, union rules, etc. etc.
Otherwise, you get the NY Yankees playing by themselves because one team can "unfairly" buy the best players.
Where's the fun in that? Even with the tax, the Yankees still overspend and get the best players - but that doesn't mean they win the world series every year because you still have to play the game - and they still have the potential to lose.
That doesn't mean the game is unbalanced. It means that some players are better than others. The Yankees don't get in-game advantages, like extra points or extra players.
It's like trying to say smart people with tactical minds should be nerfed when playing tabletop wargames.
The players would be individual units while the Team is the tourney player.
I was trying to say without limits, the Yankees as a Team do the exact same thing - cherry pick the best and whoop ass. Just like TFG/Elite/WAAC players do. I don't blame them though, but if they wanted to end up playing against the same army they brought - make a different format.
We could Youtube Taudar vs Taudar and watch it on there vs. spending money to go to a tourney and seeing the same thing.
I was trying to say without limits, the Yankees as a Team do the exact same thing - cherry pick the best and whoop ass. Just like TFG/Elite/WAAC players do. I don't blame them though, but if they wanted to end up playing against the same army they brought - make a different format.
I was trying to say without limits, the Yankees as a Team do the exact same thing - cherry pick the best and whoop ass. Just like TFG/Elite/WAAC players do. I don't blame them though, but if they wanted to end up playing against the same army they brought - make a different format.
And what's stopping other teams to do the same?
Nothing in particular, in addition it is a false premise the Yankees Whooping ass anyway. They have had periods when they were great (4 Championships in 5 years in the late 90s), but they have won once in the Last 15 years, Prior to the run in the 90s they had not won for 18 years.
Furthermore over the course of history the Yakees win percentage is 56.8%, and the lowest team, the Tampa Bay Rays is 46.1%.
Also of note no team is prevented from spending the money, they choose not to.
We've gotten a bit far afield with this, and I personally think professional sports sometimes muddy the waters a bit when trying to apply the analogy to 40k... I'd personally prefer to talk about other more similar things (like Warmahordes, MtG, or even Poker) rather than sports, if we need comparisons.
While you can never achieve balance in 40k, there is a huge disaprity amongst the codexes. Generally speaking, the older the codex, the worse it gets.
While I don't think anyone has an expectation from GW for perfect game "balance", we are (at a minimum) looking for:
- well written rules that clearly define what units can and cannot do
- game tested units that are appropriately costed
To date, GW has yet to demonstrate a desire to do either of these two simple things. Now, with 6th edition and the allies system, gameplay has gotten out of hand. I am not against the allies system (I actually like the fluffy combinations), but again, GW completely failed to properly play test the allies charts before releasing it. Consequently, you are seeing droves of players leave the game out of pure frustration.
And, what infuriates most of the people I see here on Dakka, is that GW has no shortage of information (i.e. forums here, BoLS, warseer, etc.) on what their customer base wants. However, in their arrogance, they actively REFUSE to have any online presence and are probably scratching their heads as to why sales are down.
Well said, I'd echo something similar especially your bullet points. IMO40k will never be "balanced" - whatever that may mean but maintaining a decent baseline is all I'd ask for.
Dozer Blades wrote: I think there is something to what CKO is saying. Is MtG balanced... How about WarmaHordes ? Games like chess and backgammon are inherently balanced since both players have identical armies. I never remember 40k ever being balanced.
Chess isn't balanced. Given a perfect game, white always wins.
Anyway, balance isn't a single solitary state: It's a spectrum. No game will be perfectly balanced, but there's certainly games that are better balanced than others. MtG and WarmaHordes aren't perfect, but they're a damn sight better than the job GW does (or rather, doesn't do, given their own statements regarding playtesting).
Someone must always go first and the assertion bares no relevance to this discussion.
Someone must always go first is false. In the game of diplomacy, all 7 players go at the same time.
I forgot to answer your question about relevance. it is very relevance to the discussion here.
Even in Chess the game is inbalance. So is just a matter of degree of inbalance to which we call the game "balance". What CKO is saying that standard/degree should set by GW alone and whatever GW said that degree to be. What Reecius is say the degree of inbalance in 40k right now is unacceptable. So therefore Reecius want to fix it and CKO disagree with 3rd party changing the degree of what define "balance". The rest is just supporting ideas on why their opinions why should one weight in more in their favor. The discussion here is matter of opinions so there are no right or wrong answer to it. It is just up to every gamer to say i accept this degree of inbalance to be "balance" and anything belong that is inbalance.
tyllon wrote: So therefore Reecius want to fix it and CKO disagree with 3rd party changing the degree of what define "balance". The rest is just supporting ideas on why their opinions why should one weight in more in their favor.
It's actually more nuanced than that because CKO said that he's fine with TOs making changes to make their events more enjoyable, he just didn't like it being called making changes to make their events more "balanced". But he was totally OK with the things Reecius was proposing, from the posts he made clarifying things... just not the way Reecius phrased it.
In the end, it sounds like the vast majority of people want something done, and we can call it pickled herring for all I care as long as it gets done!
Let me say that I consider myself to be a very competitive player. I enjoy Winning. But I am able to take getting my butt kicked in stride. What I do not enjoy is giving or getting a butt kicking when the out come is out of my control. Balance is intended to make the game fun for both parties.
There really are three different types of balance in 40 gaming, and 3 different mind sets when it comes to tournaments.
Balance:
1. Army Balance, each individual army has its own balance; they have really good things that have a drawback to fielding. The army onto its self has a hard counter. No one army has distinct advantage over every other army.
2. Player skill Balance, This one is an intangible aspect 0f the game. Some players have better tactics, other players get more luck at rolling of dice.
3. Game rules balance, this where the current set of rules goes way out of control. When you are allowed to ally in option from another army that takes away all or most of your armies weakness make the game basically pointless to play. Models that can basically end the game on turn one, that are meant to be played in very large games (APOK). Really have no place
Mindsets: Now I know these have some gray area. But for the most part you will fall into one of these.
1. Win at all cost player: It is a tournament I will bring the biggest and best things and use every trick in the book, money is no option, I will spend whatever it takes to win. I don’t need skill.
2. Skills mean everything play: I want to prove that I am the best player. I will take the army that I have designed to be competitive. But requires me to play the game move correctly, make correct decisions each round. If I do and my dice do not let me down I should win.
3. I just came to have fun and play new people. I do not care what happens.
If you are able to bring a model(s) that on turn one will end the game. What is the point. Why bother collecting, painting and taking your models to a game. Why not just show up with your lists, and toss a couple dice and call it a day. You would save alot of money. With the current rule set and to some point the last couple of additions, Most experienced players and TOs could gather both lists in any given game, and with 85-90% accuracy tell you before the game is played who is going to win. I know this to be true, I have done this in the past. We had a tournament at my last store where 20 players were in the event. As turn one got underway, I sat down with the TO, we reviewed all 20 lists while turn one games where going on. Individually we recorded who we thought the top 6 would be and in what order, who would win the first round at each table. We had a very simular top 6, and had correctly determined the outcome of each of the first round results. Surprised that we had gotten each one right, we did the same for round two. And we got 9 out of 10 games correct. One guy had some really bad luck. Finally it came down to the final round where we again got 9 out of 10 games correct. Of the final 6 we were again correct on 5 out of the 6. I had the top 3 correct, and the TO had the top 2 his 3rd place had got knocked out in round 2.
The fact that a game that involves rolling dice can be predicted shows just how imbalanced the game has become. Adding or taking away things that make a game un-fun for one or both side is what makes a good tournament. The game is about having Fun. Be honest with yourself, and others you game with, do you really have fun, learn anything for a game that when you look across the table you know what the outcome is going to be, and you know someone is not going to have a good time playing the game.
To me the best games are the ones that go down to the wire, and both sides have to really work to get the victory. If is rewarding to know that you did your very best no matter the outcome. Having taken the time to collect my army, assemble, paint, transport, set up, to turn around and put all my models back into their case after 1-2 rounds is more of a waste of time than a full filling game. That game where we were evenly matched, that went the full amount of turns, and one person squeaked out a win, those are the ones that are the best. I could continue my rant but I will end it here.
I see where you're coming from but I can't agree with you regarding chess. So it's looking like there won't be much change other than incorporating the FAQs, Escalation and SHA. To claim otherwise or use it as a soapbox is a bit much IMO .
Maybe if we're talking about balance and what that means, we should have an example of what it would look like in a perfect world?
A codex is internally balanced when there is a compelling reason to take all units from the codex. Each unit has a particular combination of role, specialties and deficiencies which is at a price point reflective of this combination. If unit A and unit B cost the same amount of points, then unit A should be good at things that unit B is not good at, and vice-versa.
There should not be units within a codex which have the same or better performance in all areas to other units for less points cost. There should not be a unit that no-one would take in a competitive game because it does nothing well or nothing special.
It's harder to define inter-codex balance. What is the *real* difference between making sure your army is competitive by taking anti-tank and anti-infantry, and making sure your army is competitive by taking a seer-star?
I think this can be incorporated in to my definition of internal balance by adding an addendum to 'internal balance': no unit should have so many benefits that, no matter what its points cost, it is an effective unit. I don't think that necessarily solves it, but it's possibly a start.
A balanced game, or a fun game, between people should involve them making two competitive lists, and the skilled player having a greater chance of winning. There shouldn't be a situation where someone has built a 'take al comers' list and immediately loses against particular armies. There shouldn't be situations which essentially boil down to 'do I shoot first?'.
Perhaps we should look at the units/combinations that people consistently consider 'unbalanced'. Or 'unfun', if you prefer that.
* Most ranged Strength D weapons.
* Units with 2+(+) re-rollable saves.
* AV12 Flyers
* Tau Buff commanders; Coteaz; Farseer; The Baron.
* 34 point inquisitors
* FMC or Flyer spam
What is wrong with these things? Why are they unfun? And how can we fix them?
I think cawizkid is pretty much there with Trasvi adding the between armies balance.
I'm not sure inside one army the balance needs to perfect. It's ok if there are two different things which achieve same thing if they are costed similarly. This allows variation to look and feel, however there shouldn't be that many of them. However there also should not be units which you have to take in order to be competitive. Frankly all units in the army should be competitive.
Between armies balance requires two things. First that game rules create need for different kinds of abilities for army which is fielded and that there is no "can win alone" units. For example Siren Prince is example of how not to do it. As an example for 40k rules could be high T multi W units vs vehicles which is (or certainly was when I was playing) poor. As high T and multi W is harder to kill than vehicle.
Perhaps we should look at the units/combinations that people consistently consider 'unbalanced'. Or 'unfun', if you prefer that.
* Most ranged Strength D weapons.
* Units with 2+(+) re-rollable saves.
* AV12 Flyers
* Tau Buff commanders; Coteaz; Farseer; The Baron.
* 34 point inquisitors
* FMC or Flyer spam
What is wrong with these things? Why are they unfun? And how can we fix them?
Like I mentioned earlier, I think it can be summed up as "I'm not playing the same game as you.". Most of these tactics make a large part of the rules (cover, armour, shooting) irrelevant. If those things are important to your army, you're out of luck, the only thing that matters is if you have a very specific counter--and if those specific counters are actually available to you and don't get marked for death and destroyed on turn one.
@Dozer Blades. because the advantage of white is so so small that most will say the game is balance. however, every competitive chess player knows the advantage of white. So chess is not a perfectly balance game. almost but not perfect.
@RiTides. He is an almost elite player so therefore by definition he is not an elite player. His "What the hell are you talking about Willis?" comment really shows how bad he is.
What Reecius is saying, the percentage of winning should be proportionally related to the skill gap between 2 players with a right amount of fluctuation to increase the fun factor. Without the fluctuation, 40k will just become chess like. however, if the basic fluctuation is so great then the skill gap have too little influence over the outcome. In other words, the increase in skill level does not have a strong correlation to the percentage of winning. That a game will play by itself and it is not fun in Reecius's view. I will insert 40k having too much basic fluctuation but that my assumption after i read it not what Reecius is saying.
Any "elite" players will got that and most of non "elite" players too. This is the topic most "elite" players cry about in any 40k tournament and why 8th Fantasy is dead at tournament.
Perhaps we should look at the units/combinations that people consistently consider 'unbalanced'. Or 'unfun', if you prefer that.
* Most ranged Strength D weapons.
* Units with 2+(+) re-rollable saves.
* AV12 Flyers
* Tau Buff commanders; Coteaz; Farseer; The Baron.
* 34 point inquisitors
* FMC or Flyer spam
What is wrong with these things? Why are they unfun? And how can we fix them?
Like I mentioned earlier, I think it can be summed up as "I'm not playing the same game as you.". Most of these tactics make a large part of the rules (cover, armour, shooting) irrelevant. If those things are important to your army, you're out of luck, the only thing that matters is if you have a very specific counter--and if those specific counters are actually available to you and don't get marked for death and destroyed on turn one.
To me, traveling around to play in tournaments and run into the same army from New York to Hong Kong. That the not fun part. Flying 13 hours to a tournament and fighting the same army back home. you got the WTF feeling. btw i live in west coast.
cawizkid wrote: 1. Army Balance, each individual army has its own balance; they have really good things that have a drawback to fielding. The army onto its self has a hard counter. No one army has distinct advantage over every other army.
While I think this is definitely true, IMO it needs to be stronger. One can tailor a hard counter to pretty much any list you could ever think of. But is it reasonable to expect that those counters will be present in a blind encounter? Perhaps: a list is balanced if it is reasonable to think that another non-tailored balanced list capable of beating this army is present at the same tournament. Or even: a list is balanced it it is reasonable that a Take-All-Comers list is able to defeat it.
In this way, Gunline Tau are balanced because while they are powerful, another army of a similarly competitive build from any codex is capable of winning.
However 6 Imperial Knights are not balanced because the only try of army really capable of bringing them down is deep-strike-melta-spam. Which you would need to field in such numbers that it would be bad against most other lists.
-- Now I'm sure that someone will pick on my examples; please realise the specifics aren't the point. Its whether you need to tailor your list to beat the enemy, and whether that tailored list would be a reasonable army to take against other enemies,
I've been involved in organizing a few 40K tournaments over the last 6 months. During the "no holds bared" events the formula to winning was simple,
Did you bring a superheavy with a ranged D weapon?
Did you get first turn?
If you can answer yes to both questions you win.
If either is a no you lose.
In an event where rounds take 2-3 hours, watching a game last less than 5 minutes (elder revenant vs elder revenant) is amusing once, tragic the 5th time that day.
Call it what you like, when balance is an issue, the game suffers, and good companies work to fix that. To take an example from MtG, the few times I can remember that Magic's (Standard) meta became exceedingly limited due to strategies that invalidated almost every other strategy, it was in no way good for the game.
The worst example was during Mirrodin block when you either played affinity or anti-affinity. Anti-affinity was tailored solely to beat affinity decks, because nothing else could stand against it. Players left in droves, and they had to ban the cards that let the affinity deck be so unbelievably efficient.
The difference is, that WotC takes the tournament scene seriously, at least for the standard and modern formats (which are analogous to the current edition of 40k). Say what you will about the quality of their playtesters, the speed at which they correct problems, and their attempts to balance the game, but making an honest effort to keep the most popular play formats balanced keeps the casual tournament player in the game, and keeps the hardcore tournament player from getting bored and moving on to something else.
Mindsets: Now I know these have some gray area. But for the most part you will fall into one of these.
1. Win at all cost player: It is a tournament I will bring the biggest and best things and use every trick in the book, money is no option, I will spend whatever it takes to win. I don’t need skill.
2. Skills mean everything play: I want to prove that I am the best player. I will take the army that I have designed to be competitive. But requires me to play the game move correctly, make correct decisions each round. If I do and my dice do not let me down I should win.
3. I just came to have fun and play new people. I do not care what happens.
Great post, and it's interesting to see this broken down, but I can't help but think that this sort of thinking misses out the vast majority of tournament attendees (and players) who sit in a sort of 2.5.
The majority of tournament attendees I meet are certainly non-competitive sorts, and probably bring the models they like rather than that current top list (for aesthetic/financial/time reasons). But it's not like they don't care what happens. They're not just throwing dice around for fun, like in your number 3. They may not be expecting to win the whole tournament, but they'll probably bring the most competitive list they can with the models they own, and would like to think that they're in with the chance of winning a few games at least, through luck and skill.
Being a 'non-competitive' or 'casual' player doesn't mean that you enjoy being insta-stomped by the current buy-to-win army or ridiculous combo.
If GW had written the rules for chess, it be kinda like:
Black gets 2 to 8 pawns, 0 - 3 knights, 0 - 2 rooks, 0 - 2 bishops, 1 king
White gets 2 to 8 pawns, 0 - 2 knights, 0 - 2 rooks, 0 - 2 bishops, 1 king and 0 - 3 queens
The core rules would be the same.
On everyday but Tuesday white chooses whether to go first.
For each queen white takes, a pawn can be promoted to be any other piece.
The "fluff" would be that white controlled the galaxy. Black were the renegades going against the empires rule. In all books on the subject white would be on the verge of losing but would pull out a win at the last minute.
People would complain at the imbalance of the game asking for white and black to at least have similar power. Others would say it has always been thus and to get over it.
Game players would ask if a white piece could be promoted to being a queen under the queen promotion rule. Some would say that doesn't make any sense and was obviously not intended. Others would say its RAW.
Then some would ask if a piece was promoted to being a queen, wouldn't that unlock yet another piece to be promoted? The same groups would line up to say yes or no.
GW would publish a FAQ on it that says, "work it out with your opponent".
All tournaments would be white vs white. The list would be 1 king and 17 queens. Games would be decided by who goes first. People would complain about te imbalance of it.
Eventually people stop buying chess pieces. Because all that's required to play is to say what you intend to bring and each person rolls a die; highest roll wins. Some players figure out that if it's all down to a chance die roll then craps might be more fun.
Crablezworth wrote: I think the word "fun" is killing this game, the assumption being that it is universal and in no way subjective.
I think the word "game" is killing this game, the assumption being that we're not simply paying to participate in a real-time adaptation of the end-of-year profit report for a manufacturer of the World's greatest Fine Collectibles.
carlos13th wrote: The word balance is only killing the game because GW pretends it doesn't exist or matter.
It's a bit harsh to say that GW pretends balance doesn't matter. GW have always insisted on the narrative being key, rules don't matter so much under this aegis. Competitive play certainly doesn't exist in their eyes.
IMO if you support tourney as competitive play then you should not be relying on GW rulsets as is.
Lack of balance does just affect tournament players it effects every single casual player. Think it's fun for a few guy to pick an army he likes the sound of and make a list that by all accounts should work really well but just get stomped because he choose a sub par army and no matter what list he makes with that army it's a non competitive codex.
Narrative being key is an utter cop out a way of shifting fixing the rules onto the player. Players pay a lot for the rules having to pay for the rules, codex possibly a data slate then all the models that go along with that. The fact that some armies are powerful as feth and others are useless is not narrative, it's bad game writing, not to mention much of the poor game balance actually goes against the fluff and destroys narrative.
I think it's harsh that GW charge for such poorly written rules.
I think the OP made a mistake. The title should read: "Gamesworkshop" One Word That's Killing 40k.
As others have said balance is a benefit to both competitive and casual players. Nobody expects perfect balance in a game that has continual changes but GW could go a long way towards trying to balance the game.
And chess is a very balanced game. Keep in mind in a tournament you will normally play black and white the same number of times (or close as possible). So any issues about white moving first are mitigated by playing both colours. Normally the same in friendly games. This means your gaming experience with chess will be very balanced with regard to the game itself. 40K is nothing like this.
And I agree the arguments about narrative gaming are a cop-out. GW makes many rules that go against narrative or fluff that are not needed or to say another way that there are many times that fluff could easily be represented in the game but GW botches it or doesn't care - hardly focused on the narrative.
And if you don't care about rules or will make/change them as you go along then rules or balance is not a concern for you anyways (and that's fine if you're happy with that) - you can set up your models and throw lego bricks at them to decide which are casualties or just go 'pew-pew' your tac marine is dead'. Rules are needed for a game/contest between two people and when having the same objectives the game needs balance to give each player the same approximate chances of winning (does not mean same army).
carlos13th wrote: Lack of balance does just affect tournament players it effects every single casual player. Think it's fun for a few guy to pick an army he likes the sound of and make a list that by all accounts should work really well but just get stomped because he choose a sub par army and no matter what list he makes with that army it's a non competitive codex.
Or heck, someone who gets a Revenant or Riptides, just because he thinks the models are wicked awesome, and then finds nobody wants to play him, and he's TFG before the game even starts.
carlos13th wrote: Lack of balance does just affect tournament players it effects every single casual player. Think it's fun for a few guy to pick an army he likes the sound of and make a list that by all accounts should work really well but just get stomped because he choose a sub par army and no matter what list he makes with that army it's a non competitive codex.
Or heck, someone who gets a Revenant or Riptides, just because he thinks the models are wicked awesome, and then finds nobody wants to play him, and he's TFG before the game even starts.
There are many power builds that are quite fluffy armies, or are distinctly 'normal' armies that people can stumble upon by accident.
There are going to be a lot of long-time Armoured Company generals taking a lot of hate in the next few months as they show up with ~8 leman russ.
40k is unbalanced and its hurting many peoples' enjoyment of the game to the point where they're leaving for the many other games out there. If GW doesn't fix this they'll find themselves in a slow decline.
MWHistorian wrote: 40k is unbalanced and its hurting many peoples' enjoyment of the game to the point where they're leaving for the many other games out there. If GW doesn't fix this they'll find themselves in a slow decline.
Guess you haven't read the 7th edition rumors. Unbound armies. GW likes to make the internets squirm.
Battle forged armies... GW also isn't stupid (well, you know what I mean!)
Also, at least you'll have a chance to negate those game-altering psychic powers now.
If it makes armies like this one (centurionstar with Tigurius) less effective, then maybe the pendulum will swing back a bit... nothing to do but wait and see at this point. I can't see any TOs making more tweaks until we see how 7th ed shakes out.
RiTides wrote: Battle forged armies... GW also isn't stupid (well, you know what I mean!)
Also, at least you'll have a chance to negate those game-altering psychic powers now.
That, or it's just a blind cash-grab by a company with zero long-term strategy and a complete lack of communication with its customers, and it won't really fix anything, just create bigger problems elsewhere.
If balance is your one and only concern in organizing a tournament you could always write up a generic marine armylist and make everyone use it in the ultimate mirror match.
MWHistorian wrote: 40k is unbalanced and its hurting many peoples' enjoyment of the game to the point where they're leaving for the many other games out there. If GW doesn't fix this they'll find themselves in a slow decline.
Guess you haven't read the 7th edition rumors. Unbound armies. GW likes to make the internets squirm.
They've also reported close to a 30% drop in profits in their last report... I don't think that is the internet that is squirming right now.
aka_mythos wrote: If balance is your one and only concern in organizing a tournament you could always write up a generic marine armylist and make everyone use it in the ultimate mirror match.
Balance in a game about warfare... Question, when has warfare ever been balanced? Take America for instance: one of the largest military forces in all the world and one of the most advanced. Yet looking back at our recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, we haven't exactly dominated as some may expect that we would. We dropped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in both world wars and yet the Vietnamese still got us the hell out of their country. Hell go even further back in history, the Greeks against the Persian Empire. And I don't mean the movie 300 even though the battle at Thermopylae was a huge turning point for the Greeks, the Greek states were small and divided when the Persian Empire showed up and even when they joined forces they still didn't have but half the forces the Persians had but they still beat their ass and sent them packing with their tails tucked between their legs. So to say that a game based on warfare should be completely balanced and even doesn't really make sense to me. The fact that you're rolling dice even doing all the statistics, I've seen marine players roll nothing but ones the whole game and an army of orks roll nothing but sixes the entire game and it was over in five minutes. Not saying something like that is common but it can happen no matter how you do the math. Thinking about it name one game other than chess that is completely balanced...someone makes a wrong move, you take advantage of it and if you don't your an idiot, if you make a wrong move and expect your opponent not to take advantage you're a jackass too. Hell even in videogames based on warfare modern warfare for example, a man running around with a throwing knife or tomahawk shouldn't be able to take first in points and kills throughout the enitre game give all the weapons, upgrades, and options given to all players...have a seen it happen? Countless times! In modern warfare 2 my friend ran around with a riot shield and throwing knives or at most an m9 and I've witnessed him get to score and highest kill to death ratio and he had a shield and a knife! In a game about guns!!! Is that balanced?! Does it make sense that it's possible to do that? I mean I've seen it so I guess yes but if you've never seen it happen and you were handed the controller and you had the knife shield combo you'd be screaming all aw how could I possibly win with just a knife and shield this is so unfair! But if your on the other side of it with a .50Cal and a SAW machine gun and some jackass with a shield keeps sprinting up behind you and throwing a knife in you're head you'd be Freaking Out!!! But I'll tell you what, running around in that game with a knife and shield and doing good was by far the most fun I've ever had regardless of score. Did I think I'd even stand a chance? Hell No, but every kill I got was freakin amazing! Kind of like if a Nids player using a gaunt hoard takes out a Tau army... Is it balanced? Of course not the Tau are gunna annihilate them! However if they roll like gak the whole time and the Nids make it in, then ask both players how balanced it is, the tau players gunna call it all bs and the Nids player will tell you how amazing it felt to finally get in and slaughter those damn tau! Do I think it makes sense that a squad of terminators who's armor was crafted to withstand nukes be taken out by a squad of fire warriors? No but still it's just a game man. Play Halo, Assassins Creed, Baseball, any sport really. Hell for sports tell me the game isn't balanced, the rules are the same for every player on the team, and yet still there's winners and losers. If it were perfectly balanced like 40k players want 40k to be, you could have three year olds tie with the allstar teams. To Test 40k s flaws, play a game of an army list vs itself. Tell me what about the randomness of dice rolling breaks the game when the rules are played by. It's late and No ones gunna read all this so Peace!
Hell for sports tell me the game isn't balanced, the rules are the same for every player on the team, and yet still there's winners and losers. If it were perfectly balanced like 40k players want 40k to be, you could have three year olds tie with the allstar teams
The passage is near unreadable as it is, but this sentance caught my eye. It shows that you have not understood, at all, the point people are trying to make. No, people don't want everyone to have an equal chance of winning *regardless of skill level. People want the outcome of a game to be *Because* of skill level.
It's more like if the rules of basketball stated that one side got smashed in the knee with a hammer before a game, can you say it's fair, because "everyone is playing with the same rules"?
Different medium. Your knife wielded in cod didn't cost you hundreds of pounds and whole weeks to paint. If it doesn't work, you bail, pick a different weapon load out and wait for the next game. Instant gratification. This scenario doesn't apply to wargames.
joemysak311 wrote: Balance in a game about warfare... Question, when has warfare ever been balanced?
The 'but in real war' point is irrelevant, It's a wargame. As opposed to warfare.
Kind of like if a Nids player using a gaunt hoard takes out a Tau army... Is it balanced? Of course not the Tau are gunna annihilate them! However if they roll like gak the whole time and the Nids make it in, then ask both players how balanced it is, the tau players gunna call it all bs and the Nids player will tell you how amazing it felt to finally get in and slaughter those damn tau!
So he gets one game where get rolls nothing but box cars. That's nice. What about the other hundred where he didn't? That's a massive wasted time to fun game ratio. No one is gonna stick it out waiting for that mythical 'one game' where their army performs. And considering the time, money and effort involved in building an army, they've got every right to be annoyed.
If it were perfectly balanced like 40k players want 40k to be, you could have three year olds tie with the allstar teams. To Test 40k s flaws, play a game of an army list vs itself. Tell me what about the randomness of dice rolling breaks the game when the rules are played by. It's late and No ones gunna read all this so Peace!
You could try reading, perhaps?
What you're talking about is snakes and ladders. That's a game anyone can win, as skill has 0 impact. And it's not what people are talking about when we talk about balanced. Balanced doesn't mean 'identical'. Simply put, Balance means everything works. It means that tyranid player has the tools to compete on the same level as the tau player, 'and may the best man win'. It means the tyranid player and tau players are not confined to a single effective 'build' and that there are a variety of 'questions' each army can ask, and multiple 'answers' in which they can respond to those 'questions'.
heartserenade wrote: I feel like sometimes people take drugs, alcohol, then bash their heads with a sledgehammer before they post on forums.
I feel this is the same way too, especially when we come to the topic of 40k or wargames in general since everyone seems to hold onto their own ideals for dear life.
joemysak311 wrote: Balance in a game about warfare... Question, when has warfare ever been balanced? Take America for instance: one of the largest military forces in all the world and one of the most advanced. Yet looking back at our recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, we haven't exactly dominated as some may expect that we would. We dropped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in both world wars and yet the Vietnamese still got us the hell out of their country. Hell go even further back in history, the Greeks against the Persian Empire. And I don't mean the movie 300 even though the battle at Thermopylae was a huge turning point for the Greeks, the Greek states were small and divided when the Persian Empire showed up and even when they joined forces they still didn't have but half the forces the Persians had but they still beat their ass and sent them packing with their tails tucked between their legs. So to say that a game based on warfare should be completely balanced and even doesn't really make sense to me.
The key word there is "game based on warfare", not actual warfare. War is generally not fun, but if a game isn't fun, you can simply play something else--therefore, a game needs to be fun! And losing (or winning) before you start isn't fun, realism be damned. Perhaps the two factions fighting are ludicrously unbalanced in the setting, but in this particular engagement we're simulating right now, they need to have a roughly equal chance of winning, to be decided by player skill.
And you can simulate an assymetric fight very well. Warhammer in the past has done "last stand" scenarios several times, where one side is outnumbered and will inevitably be wiped out. But because victory is defined as "defenders must accomplish an objective before dying, or hold out for X turns", it's possible to make a good game of it, one where both players have a chance of winning (even if one actual army is doomed).
joemysak311 wrote: The fact that you're rolling dice even doing all the statistics, I've seen marine players roll nothing but ones the whole game and an army of orks roll nothing but sixes the entire game and it was over in five minutes. Not saying something like that is common but it can happen no matter how you do the math.
There are different ways to do randomness. Because of how averages work, both sides should have the same distribution of luck throughout the game--and many games give you ways to control your luck at critical moments, such as Malifaux's hand mechanic or Warmachine's boosting mechanic. You said it yourself, the outrageous results are not common, but they do make the game more unpredictable (which is fitting for a simulation of war, representing the fact that the best battleplan seldom survives contact with the enemy), introducing opportunities to take advantage of or setbacks to try and recover from.
But when it's well done, randomness doesn't decide the game, as it can in 40K when a Titan wins the first turn roll and blows away most of the enemy anti-armour before they can do anything.
Thinking about it name one game other than chess that is completely balanced...someone makes a wrong move, you take advantage of it and if you don't your an idiot, if you make a wrong move and expect your opponent not to take advantage you're a jackass too.
You're making a common fallacy, assuming that balance can't be perfect (and it can't), so therefore it can't be made better than it currently is in 40K (and it most certainly can, and many other games have done just that)
Hell even in videogames based on warfare modern warfare for example, a man running around with a throwing knife or tomahawk shouldn't be able to take first in points and kills throughout the enitre game give all the weapons, upgrades, and options given to all players...have a seen it happen? Countless times! In modern warfare 2 my friend ran around with a riot shield and throwing knives or at most an m9 and I've witnessed him get to score and highest kill to death ratio and he had a shield and a knife! In a game about guns!!! Is that balanced?! Does it make sense that it's possible to do that? I mean I've seen it so I guess yes but if you've never seen it happen and you were handed the controller and you had the knife shield combo you'd be screaming all aw how could I possibly win with just a knife and shield this is so unfair! But if your on the other side of it with a .50Cal and a SAW machine gun and some jackass with a shield keeps sprinting up behind you and throwing a knife in you're head you'd be Freaking Out!!! But I'll tell you what, running around in that game with a knife and shield and doing good was by far the most fun I've ever had regardless of score. Did I think I'd even stand a chance? Hell No, but every kill I got was freakin amazing!
Intentionally handicapping yourself to challenge yourself or be a bit silly isn't the same thing as playing an unbalanced game. It's more like if you have Assault Rifle 1 and Assault Rifle 2 that cost the same in-game resources to get, yet AR2 does 20% more damage with no other differences between them. So AR1 will vanish from the competitive scene of the game, and will have no reason to exist other than to frustrate newcomers. Good game companies make it a priority to fix that sort of imbalance, so that all options are viable. If the metagame can be "solved" with a clear best solution that you'd be a schmuck to not take, then a lot of the metagame becomes irrelevant. Casual players get frustrated, expert players get bored at the ensuring lack of challenge, and move on.
Kind of like if a Nids player using a gaunt hoard takes out a Tau army... Is it balanced? Of course not the Tau are gunna annihilate them! However if they roll like gak the whole time and the Nids make it in, then ask both players how balanced it is, the tau players gunna call it all bs and the Nids player will tell you how amazing it felt to finally get in and slaughter those damn tau! Do I think it makes sense that a squad of terminators who's armor was crafted to withstand nukes be taken out by a squad of fire warriors? No but still it's just a game man. Play Halo, Assassins Creed, Baseball, any sport really.
Of course people tend to cry for nerfs when they get beaten by a particular thing. But beyond that, it's possible to objectively see that the same things seem to be winning tournaments time after time, and that some things (2++ rerolled deathstars) fundamentally break the design of the game.
You seem to be saying that playing against an army that's objectively better than yours is okay because in between the slaughters, you'll get one run of luck and be able to overcome the unbalanced rules to pull out a win. I can't really see the merit of that--I'd rather know that my skill in using my army was the tie-breaker, not that I foolishly spent money on units that were duds by the rules, and never really had a chance.
Hell for sports tell me the game isn't balanced, the rules are the same for every player on the team, and yet still there's winners and losers. If it were perfectly balanced like 40k players want 40k to be, you could have three year olds tie with the allstar teams. To Test 40k s flaws, play a game of an army list vs itself. Tell me what about the randomness of dice rolling breaks the game when the rules are played by. It's late and No ones gunna read all this so Peace!
You don't understand the concept of balance. When the rules are equal for both sides, skill is the decider, so the team with 3-year-olds on would almost certainly lose. Imagine soccer where one teams goal was twice as wide as the other, or they had two fewer players on the pitch at the start--that's what we're talking about with imbalance.
Of course, unlike most sports, 40K armies do different things and have different characters, so it's a bit harder to balance. But, as mentioned above, not impossible. it can be done, and has been done. As it stands, the game is riddled with game-breaker combos (to the point where one player can essentially opt-out of large chunks of the rules), and units with costs that do not reflect their actual worth in play.
I'm just going to stop you right there. Adding an adjective in front of balance, you're already making a strawman of what a good chunk of players want.
I would say the ideal is somewhere between chess and go, chess being attrition based and go being essentially about controlling larger areas with fewer but better placed resources.
Elite this, elite that, drone on and on and on... I found the original post quite silly and even condescending As a casual player I would never attend a "serious" tournament. Sweating around the table over the latest will never beat the excitement of drinking beer, chatting, joking, discussing strategies while pushing models around. Sorry, there are much better competitive games out there. That said, nothing beats 40K when it comes to casual play and despite the doom and gloom that surround it, I decided to stay with it .It is basically a sandbox - it's what you make of it. And when your main motive is fun, it delivers.
I completely disagree with you, and agree with Reecius. Someone take a picture, Reecius can attest that that didn't happen often for a while
Since the last time you played competitive 40k was in 2012 (based on your intro above) you're a little behind the times, I think... Reecius would've agreed with you then, most likely.
Wish I was young again as had all of that energy Reecus has... though back to the point. He owns a store and it is successful. Give him coodoes for that. He has successfully ran top tier tournaments and has geared upwards on that aspect. Give credit for that. He has created commercial product for the masses. Again successful.
Reecius has to know the going ons in a larger sphere of influence because he has too to succeed. He has also broadened his horizons on what kinds of product to sell and what not too sell.
With all of that business background and success with his game store, his comments weigh a lot more than many in here.
This is a joke I know how sensative readers can be .
will never beat the excitement of drinking beer, chatting, joking, discussing strategies while pushing models around. Sorry, there are much better competitive games out there. That said, nothing beats 