36276
Post by: Zweischneid
StarTrotter wrote:
Nope. Because Magic actually cares and GW cares enough to give points but nothing more than thinking "Our fans biggest hobby is buying our stuff"
Also, the card still has a use unlike the flaming chariot which is literally unplayable.
No?
So I can just take any random pile of cards as a deck to a MtG tournament and have an equal chance of winning? Why do people care so much about deck-construction then?
And the flaming chariot is literally playable.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
No.
Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!
Jesus!
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
azreal13 wrote:No.
Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!
Jesus!
So taking a Pentinent Engine might be a bad choice?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Obviously, it's a gak unit.
However, in a balanced system, a bad choice would be to take a load of random gak that didn't have anything in common, didn't synergise, and had no overall plan or focus. There wouldn't be any objectively good or bad units, or at least, only by small degrees, there would be better or worse choices. A Penitent Engine's rules may still not be mindblowing, but if an argument could be made for it's inclusion in a certain list to perform a certain role, then we'd be a step forwards, as it is, there is no argument for its inclusion in any list, other than as a method of handicap.
Taking Magic cards at random doesn't work the same, as you could end up with a deck full of mountains and islands and only black and green spells. But then, you probably didn't realise that.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
However, blance does mean that a player who makes some bad choices has a chance of winning because none of the bad choices are completely bad. They would all have upsides, just maybe not quite as good as some others.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:So now it is a rare junk-unit for "casual" groups?
Sounds a bit like a Pentinent Engine, no?
Maybe, if a penitent engine cost $1 and didn't have to be built or painted before you use it. And if the penitent engine was amazingly useful in the draft format of 40k.
I never claimed that 40K had a draft.
No, but that's not the point. Cards that look like "obvious" balance mistakes to you because they're too weak are actually very well balanced because they're balanced around draft/sealed, not constructed. 40k has no equivalent, so there's no justifying a weak and unplayable 40k unit with "it's good in draft". Automatically Appended Next Post: azreal13 wrote:No.
Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!
Jesus!
This. FFS, why is this so hard to understand?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
A Town Called Malus wrote:However, blance does mean that a player who makes some bad choices has a chance of winning because none of the bad choices are completely bad. They would all have upsides, just maybe not quite as good as some others.
So if I build myself a MtG deck full of Razor Boomerangs and other bad choices, I still have a chance of winning?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Do you understand the difference between "taking A, B and C in the same army is a choice with conflicting strategies and therefore not very effective" and "A is not useful under any reasonable circumstances"?
(Don't bother answering, of course you don't.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote:So if I build myself a MtG deck full of Razor Boomerangs and other bad choices, I still have a chance of winning?
What part of "those cards are balanced for draft/sealed" is so hard to understand?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Zweischneid wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:However, blance does mean that a player who makes some bad choices has a chance of winning because none of the bad choices are completely bad. They would all have upsides, just maybe not quite as good as some others.
So if I build myself a MtG deck full of Razor Boomerangs and other bad choices, I still have a chance of winning?
No, because you can only include four of any non-land card in a deck. So a deck full would be illegal.
You could however, include them in a deck and still win, yes, because you don't rely on every component of your deck every game, whereas you don't only use 1000 of your 1500 points in any given 40K game.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote:
What part of "those cards are balanced for draft/sealed" is so hard to understand?
Well, than we agree that some games may use imbalance as an intentional and perfectly valid method in game design and that the existence of bad choices in the game has no bearing on the quality (positive or negative) of the game as a whole?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Well, than we agree that some games may use imbalance as an intentional and perfectly valid method in game design and that the existence of bad choices in the game has no bearing on the quality (positive or negative) of the game as a whole?
Sigh. I guess you deliberately ignored the part where I said that "bad" cards designed for limited formats are actually very well balanced, and the fact that you call them poorly balanced just shows how little you understand the game you're lecturing us on?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
azreal13 wrote:How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?
Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?
Remember the part where we're talking about sealed/draft, which 40k has no equivalent of? This "need" does not exist in constructed formats.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?
Remember the part where we're talking about sealed/draft, which 40k has no equivalent of?
I didn't claim it has an equivalent.
You're not answering my question.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Zweischneid wrote: azreal13 wrote:How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?
Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?
So, perfect imbalance?
The thing you say isn't balance?
3750
Post by: Wayniac
azreal13 wrote: Zweischneid wrote: azreal13 wrote:How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?
Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?
So, perfect imbalance?
The thing you say isn't balance?
Don't forget the thing he said he acknowledges that 40k doesn't have.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
That's because I've already answered it: what you call "imbalance" is actually very carefully crafted balance. The fact that you label it incorrectly to "prove" your point about 40k does not make you right.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
azreal13 wrote: Zweischneid wrote: azreal13 wrote:How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?
Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?
So, perfect imbalance?
The thing you say isn't balance?
Are you saying there are no imbalances in the individual game components?
Peregrine wrote:
That's because I've already answered it: what you call "imbalance" is actually very carefully crafted balance. The fact that you label it incorrectly to "prove" your point about 40k does not make you right.
Well, there seem to be "better" cards and "worse" cards in MtG.
You yourself called a card "junk".
Which adjective would you have me use to describe this fact? Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Now, I see the answer your fishing for, and you're not going to get it, because there's a whole world of difference between something being "good, but...." and objectively "good" or "mostly poor, but if...." and "unadulterated manure"
Magic has plenty of the formers, 40K has nothing but the latters.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.
Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.
Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice.
And in exactly the same way.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.
Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice.
Great. But than the opposite must also be true.
If a game can be balanced, even if different choices are not all equally good for the player, than the existence of a bad choice for the player does not automatically mean a game is broken or even unbalanced.
Correct?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
Nope. Because Magic actually cares and GW cares enough to give points but nothing more than thinking "Our fans biggest hobby is buying our stuff"
Also, the card still has a use unlike the flaming chariot which is literally unplayable.
No?
So I can just take any random pile of cards as a deck to a MtG tournament and have an equal chance of winning? Why do people care so much about deck-construction then?
And the flaming chariot is literally playable.
Alright then. Tell me why it is good to have a unit of no worth that just gives free first blood? It's an AV10/10/10 5++ fast skimmer that can't shoot a single shot without snapfiring if it moves and can't fire it's flamer if it moves at all. How is thiss good design? How is this "good". ALso, so you really want unplayable?
Tell me, how's that Legion of the Damned codex going. You know, the one you avoided responding to. Yeah, it's a codex that can't be played. BRILLIANT
You sir, are simply fishing for answers. You are stubborn and pretend this is good. Look at how many disagree with you. Look how many are on your side. Now tell me, why is this good for the game? why is having worthless units good?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:You yourself called a card "junk".
Which adjective would you have me use to describe this fact?
"A card that is balanced for something other than what I wanted to use it for". For example, if I win a tournament and open a platinum angel in one of my packs I'll probably be disappointed because it's not a good constructed card (and I can't use those cards in limited events). If I'm playing in a sealed deck tournament and open that same platinum angel I'm going to be incredibly happy because I just got a bomb for my deck. We just shorten that to "junk" in normal conversation because, unless we're specifically discussing limited, we're probably talking about constructed value.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
StarTrotter wrote:
Alright then. Tell me why it is good to have a unit of no worth that just gives free first blood? It's an AV10/10/10 5++ fast skimmer that can't shoot a single shot without snapfiring if it moves and can't fire it's flamer if it moves at all. How is thiss good design? How is this "good".
It probably isn't "good". It probably is a bad choice? No? At least judging from the contempt in your description.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
Alright then. Tell me why it is good to have a unit of no worth that just gives free first blood? It's an AV10/10/10 5++ fast skimmer that can't shoot a single shot without snapfiring if it moves and can't fire it's flamer if it moves at all. How is thiss good design? How is this "good".
It probably isn't "good". It probably is a bad choice? No? At least judging from the contempt in your description.
You. Ignored. My. Legion of the Damned. An entire codex. Okay then, what's your point? So it's good to have a choice that has no redeaming qualities?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote:
Ok.. so now we got things that are "balanced for different uses"?
Is that the PC version?
Sounds like a mouthful, but I can work with that.
So what if a given card/unit/game-element is disappointing to you because it was "balanced for a different use"? Must that automatically invalidate an entire game?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:If a game can be balanced, even if different choices are not all equally good for the player, than the existence of a bad choice for the player does not automatically mean a game is broken or even unbalanced.
No, the existence of bad choices does not make a game automatically unbalanced or broken, especially since your definition of "bad choices" includes deliberately attempting to make the worst possible choices. What makes a game unbalanced is when one or both of two things happen:
1) Options are bad choices under most/all reasonable circumstances. If X is weak overall but great against Y then it has a purpose as a niche counter if Y ever gets too common in the metagame. If X is great with A but terrible with B then it's just a case of conflicting strategies. If X is just plain worse than Z 99% of the time, and you'd rarely even consider taking X, then that's a balance problem.
2) Options are bad choices without serving any greater design goal. For example, "bad" cards in MTG are often there to make sealed/draft function. Bad units/options in 40k serve no similar purpose by being bad, they're just poor design work.
Unfortunately 40k is full of both problems.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
StarTrotter wrote:
You. Ignored. My. Legion of the Damned. An entire codex. Okay then, what's your point? So it's good to have a choice that has no redeaming qualities?
No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.
I have never seen such a choice however.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.
Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice.
Great. But than the opposite must also be true.
If a game can be balanced, even if different choices are not all equally good for the player, than the existence of a bad choice for the player does not automatically mean a game is broken or even unbalanced.
Correct?
You're, somehow misunderstanding "bad choice."
A bad choice in a given context? Absolutely.
An objectively bad choice in which no real case can be made for its inclusion over competing choices in any way other than to handicap yourself? No. Should never exist.
Even your Razor Boomerang can, possibly, have a use in a specific game format, despite being a poor choice in most circumstances. It is very difficult to make a case for a Penitent Engine in anything other than a game that departs so far from a conventional setup as to be verging on RPG territory, more than wargame.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice. Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice. Great. But than the opposite must also be true. If a game can be balanced, even if different choices are not all equally good for the player, than the existence of a bad choice for the player does not automatically mean a game is broken or even unbalanced. Correct? Yes, up to a certain point. In a balanced system (however it may be balanced) a sub-optimal (ie not the most powerful) choice will not inevitably lead to a defeat, no matter what your opponent brought. Several sub-optimal choices may make defeat unlikely but with skilful play and a bit of luck it should still be possible to draw or even win. 40K is past that point and has reached the point where sizeable portions of the game are approaching unplayable due to the extreme power of some units and the lack of power of others. The power difference between an optimal and sub-optimal choice has become too big. That is unbalanced and unfair.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:So what if a given card/unit/game-element is disappointing to you because it was "balanced for a different use"? Must that automatically invalidate an entire game?
No, but that's not at all what we have in 40k. Bad units in 40k aren't bad for me because they're doing something great for someone else and making them balanced for me would mean sacrificing that other person's enjoyment of the unit, bad units in 40k tend to be bad because they're just badly designed. And when you frequently get choices that are bad simply because the designer did a bad job of balancing them and never bothered to fix their mistakes yes, it does "invalidate" the game's claim to quality.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yes, up to a certain point. In a balanced system a sub-optimal choice will not inevitably lead to a defeat. Several sub-optimal choices may make defeat unlikely but with skilful play and a bit of luck it should still be possible to draw or even win. 40K is past that point and has reached the point where sizeable portions of the game are approaching unplayable due to the extreme power of some units and the lack of power of others. The power difference between an optimal and sub-optimal choice has become too big.
That is unbalanced and unfair.
Well, who determines when sub-optimal choices are good, still acceptable, or have gone too far?
How and where is that dividing line drawn?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.
I have never seen such a choice however.
Remember the Legion of the Damned codex that the post you just quoted mentioned? The one that automatically loses the game on the first turn unless you take allies with it? I'm sure that's great balance, and the people who wanted to take fluffy Legion of the Damned armies are just thrilled that they have to ally in some other army just to have a chance to play the game.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
You. Ignored. My. Legion of the Damned. An entire codex. Okay then, what's your point? So it's good to have a choice that has no redeaming qualities?
No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.
I have never seen such a choice however.
First of all, you IGNORED the Legion of the Damned. AGAIN! It can't be deployed as its own despite being a good codex. There is NOTHING redeemable about that. It can't even it gets autotabled turn one.
And the Chariot? There is no redeeming qualities. It doesn't do damage, it gives away FNP, it's fragile, and it has low hullpoints. It's only redeeming factor is giving the enemy FB early on.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.
I have never seen such a choice however.
Remember the Legion of the Damned codex that the post you just quoted mentioned? The one that automatically loses the game on the first turn unless you take allies with it? I'm sure that's great balance, and the people who wanted to take fluffy Legion of the Damned armies are just thrilled that they have to ally in some other army just to have a chance to play the game.
Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
I'm currently 0-100 with my LotD army.
On the plus side, it only took less than a minute for me and my opponent to play all those games, and I didn't even need to transport my models!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.
Then why are you allowed to take it as its own army?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.
I have never seen such a choice however.
Remember the Legion of the Damned codex that the post you just quoted mentioned? The one that automatically loses the game on the first turn unless you take allies with it? I'm sure that's great balance, and the people who wanted to take fluffy Legion of the Damned armies are just thrilled that they have to ally in some other army just to have a chance to play the game.
Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.
And daemons are summoned by humans so they really need to have an ally force in or they auto lose turn one. Oh and Inquisitors requisition forces so they shouldn't be capable of being fielded as an army and regiments are hyper specialized so you can't have a tank with your guard regiment and SM are super rare so you must roll 3 d6 and can only deploy your SM if you roll 3 ones.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.
Then why are you allowed to take it as its own army?
Actually, they are not. The rules seem to prevent that.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Zweischneid wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote: Yes, up to a certain point. In a balanced system a sub-optimal choice will not inevitably lead to a defeat. Several sub-optimal choices may make defeat more likely but with skilful play and a bit of luck it should still be possible to draw or even win. 40K is past that point and has reached the point where sizeable portions of the game are approaching unplayable due to the extreme power of some units and the lack of power of others. The power difference between an optimal and sub-optimal choice has become too big. That is unbalanced and unfair. Well, who determines when sub-optimal choices are good, still acceptable, or have gone too far? How and where is that dividing line drawn? Play testing. Though that is something GW doesn't seem willing to do or, at least, not in a way that would actually work. Gathering around with some friends and just picking a random selection of units is not play testing. Maybe GW staff should be sent to do 6 weeks work experience with a video game company to learn that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense. Then why are you allowed to take it as its own army? Actually, they are not. The rules seem to prevent that. No, the rules prevent you from getting to play with them as your main army without allies, not picking them as your main army without allies. Nowhere does it tell you that LotD may only be taken as allies or require an allied detachment to be played.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Play testing. Though that is something GW doesn't seem willing to do or, at least, not in a way that would actually work. Gathering around with some friends and just picking a random selection of units is not play testing. Maybe GW staff should be sent to do 6 weeks work experience with a video game company to learn that.
Well, let's keep talking about non- 40K games to keep the emotions out.
Two games are developed, presumably with perfect play tests.
Must they both necessarily arrive at the exact same level of sub-optimal choices? Could the games be different? Could one have more sub-optimal choices than the other game, and both games still be valid?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:
Play testing. Though that is something GW doesn't seem willing to do or, at least, not in a way that would actually work. Gathering around with some friends and just picking a random selection of units is not play testing. Maybe GW staff should be sent to do 6 weeks work experience with a video game company to learn that.
Well, let's keep talking about non- 40K games to keep the emotions out.
Two games are developed, presumably with perfect play tests.
Must they both necessarily arrive at the exact same level of sub-optimal choices? Could the games be different? Could one have more sub-optimal choices than the other game, and both games still be valid?
Waaaaaaaah? That doesn't even make sense. Also how'd they be so if they were perfectly play tested?
Also hello moving goal posts
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
StarTrotter wrote:
Waaaaaaaah? That doesn't even make sense. Also how'd they be so if they were perfectly play tested?
Didn't we just say games have bad choices build into the system?
Yes or no?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Seriously, have you had a stroke? You're not even arguing your own point coherently any more?
No, we said there are better or worse choices in a given situation, not objectively good or bad.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Yes. For example, you can take a 200 point army in a 2000 point game. But I don't really see what "you can make stupid decisions" has to do with game balance.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
Waaaaaaaah? That doesn't even make sense. Also how'd they be so if they were perfectly play tested?
Didn't we just say games have bad choices build into the system?
Yes or no?
An entire codex being a bad choice, other codices being bad choices, units being bad choices. No. Bad choice involves throwing together an army that just simply won't work. Not an entire army not working and multiple other bits of a book not working whilst others perform way too well thus invalidating everything.
Oh yeah, and, if they didn't try even slightly for balance. Why is structure costed with points? Why not just make it free to use?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
azreal13 wrote:Seriously, have you had a stroke? You're not even arguing your own point coherently any more?
No, we said there are better or worse choices in a given situation, not objectively good or bad.
Actually, you said bad choices. In big shouty letters too. Moving goal-posts?
azreal13 wrote:No.
Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!
Jesus!
But ok. "relatively better or worse" choices.
Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?
Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: azreal13 wrote:Seriously, have you had a stroke? You're not even arguing your own point coherently any more?
No, we said there are better or worse choices in a given situation, not objectively good or bad.
Actually, you said bad choices. In big shouty letters too. Moving goal-posts?
azreal13 wrote:No.
Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!
Jesus!
But ok. "relatively better or worse" choices.
Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?
Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?
Coming from the guy that spent the last fifty thousand posts moving the goal post. Go on and try to dunk it you haven't netted a single ball and all you've done is yank your post away whilst shoving your fingers in your ears. Oh, and thing is... 40k has broken choices that are basically no better than handing your foe a free point. Good Design! Also, for somebody that ragged on about narrative you seem to forget that the game kinda sucks at narrative.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
No, I said a player can make bad choices.
Or is a deciding one thing when a better option is available not a de facto bad choice?
The relative disparity between what constitutes a good or bad choice is determined by the range of options presented, which lies firmly at the feet of whoever is designing the game.
Edit
I wasn't shouting, I'd hate you to be extracting any glee from the thought I was, shouting would be in capitals, a large font was used in case your problem is with your vision, rather than your thinking n
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
azreal13 wrote:No, I said a player can make bad choices.
Or is a deciding one thing when a better option is available not a de facto bad choice?
The relative disparity between what constitutes a good or bad choice is determined by the range of options presented, which lies firmly at the feet of whoever is designing the game.
Ok. So the "relative disparity between what constitutes a good and a bad choice" it is. That is the variable the game-designer works with?
Could two game designers produce two different games that produce different "relative disparity between what constitutes a good and a bad choice", and still both be valid games?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?
Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?
Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
For heavens sake, perhaps it's your memory.
There should be no such thing as objectively "good" there sure as hell should never be objectively "bad" there should be better or worse in any given situation, which the player is then free to figure out and decide for themselves.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?
Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?
Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.
Ok. Great that we've taken GW out of the discussion for the moment.
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Let's not tangent here, this is a thread about 40K in the 40K discussion forum.
Weird, esoteric, slightly poorly expressed attempts to derail the conversation don't belong here.
I'll just requote myself here, as Zwei seems to be struggling to stay focused...
Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
Why are you assuming that there's a single black and white division between good game design and bad? In reality it's a scale between very good and very bad, with a whole range in between. The problem with 40k is that it's so far on the bad end of the scale that there's really no room for differences of opinion anymore, it's just clear bad design.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?
Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?
Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.
No no. It's more like a company that you come up to the first desk and realize nobody is there. You wait around with dozens of other people as one employee frantically runs around trying to keep everything running but he's obviously exhausted and somewhat embittered. Finally, he randomly picks you after four people that arrived after you got in almost immediately and he sits you down. He goes on a spiel of how everything is a unique flavor and the sorts almost robotically. Then, he hands you the menu. All the food costs around 39 dollars as the general minimum with some food being a max of 60. You raise your brow but shrug it off having heard it has great flavor. Looking around, the place looks pretty great. Lovely art, great modeled statues stand tall here and there. Things look pretty great. Finally, after what feels like half an hour, he comes up with a food in a tray. Placing it down, you find two buns, cheese, meat, tomatoes, onions, and lettuce. He says that they take pride in you building your meal however you want it and place a heater next to you. They note they didn't completely cook the meat to insure you can heat it to whatever level you like. You spend the next while putting your burger together and heating it up until you think it's medium rare. Finally, you chew in. *Crunchsnapcrackle* Jerking your head back, you are bleeding from your mouth. Looking in, you notice that the tomatoes are filled with fine shards of glass and quickly pull them out. You try another crunch. Bleeeeh... something doesn't taste that great. You nibble at some of the leftovers. Ah. It's the cheese. Just... tastes funky. You toss it out. On a side note, the meat was okay but the onion were probably the best part. You almost wish you could have just ordered the onions. It'd probably taste better alone. Still, you munch in until done and leave.
I dunno it seemed fun at the time Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?
Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?
Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.
Ok. Great that we've taken GW out of the discussion for the moment.
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
Thread on general about 40k discussing the problems with 40k.... chose to ignore 40k. Wow.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
Why are you assuming that there's a single black and white division between good game design and bad? In reality it's a scale between very good and very bad, with a whole range in between. The problem with 40k is that it's so far on the bad end of the scale that there's really no room for differences of opinion anymore, it's just clear bad design.
Well, it seems odd that you dispute the existence of a "black and white" divison, yet claim that 40K is indisputably black?
There must be a .. dunno .. a tipping point? A crossing? A sign that you've moved from the realm of "acceptable variance" (which might include choices you personally will not find appealing) to the realm of "unacceptable"? No?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
Why are you assuming that there's a single black and white division between good game design and bad? In reality it's a scale between very good and very bad, with a whole range in between. The problem with 40k is that it's so far on the bad end of the scale that there's really no room for differences of opinion anymore, it's just clear bad design.
Well, it seems odd that you dispute the existence of a "black and white" divison, yet claim that 40K is indisputably black?
There must be a .. dunno .. a tipping point? A crossing? A sign that you've moved from the realm of "acceptable variance" (which might include choices you personally will not find appealing) to the realm of "unacceptable"? No?
White----------------------------------------------------------------Black
............................................................................l............................
......................................................................... 40k.........................
Here ya go.
There's some things that 40k does that are good design. It's just there is more bad design in it.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Yep.
I'd say when your sales figures have inexplicably started to dip while your competition appear to still be going great guns, the shark has well and truly been jumped.
99
Post by: insaniak
Zweischneid wrote:
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
That line is going to depend on the game... But I would think at the very least that the publishing of an army list that automatically loses the game before you even place a single model on the board should be taken as a sign that something is seriously awry.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
azreal13 wrote:Yep.
I'd say when your sales figures have inexplicably started to dip while your competition appear to still be going great guns, the shark has well and truly been jumped.
So no "acceptably designed" game has ever been in commercial trouble?
Seems an unreliable indicator to me.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
azreal13 wrote:No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.
Got examples?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
That line is going to depend on the game... But I would think at the very least that the publishing of an army list that automatically loses the game before you even place a single model on the board should be taken as a sign that something is seriously awry.
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Well, it seems odd that you dispute the existence of a "black and white" divison, yet claim that 40K is indisputably black?
....
Seriously? Are you even trying? Whether or not 40k is black or very-dark-gray-almost-black-unless-you-look-really-carefully it's still a bad game. Its exact position on the bad end of the scale isn't really relevant to this discussion.
There must be a .. dunno .. a tipping point? A crossing? A sign that you've moved from the realm of "acceptable variance" (which might include choices you personally will not find appealing) to the realm of "unacceptable"? No?
What part of "continuous spectrum" is so hard to understand?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Zweischneid wrote: azreal13 wrote:No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.
Got examples?
You want examples of things that haven't happened?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: azreal13 wrote:No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.
Got examples?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?
That line is going to depend on the game... But I would think at the very least that the publishing of an army list that automatically loses the game before you even place a single model on the board should be taken as a sign that something is seriously awry.
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Because nobody will even play the game as is. Because there's no way to see a game where you get auto-tabled turn 1 because you can't even deploy your models. No, they'll ask their foe... can I do this? And they'll likely say yes (or they will be rejected and move on)
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.
Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
KommissarKarl wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario. Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational. Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies. Yet they're a full Codex that lets you field them WITHOUT allies, so no it's not WAI, it's "Oh, we never considered that" which shows either outright incompetence by the designers or just laziness (aka "I don't give a feth") and while yes, it's pretty silly that something so glaring exists, the fact remains it DOES exist by the rules which the designers wrote, so they either didn't even bother to know their own rules or just were too lazy to address it and assumed that everyone would just allow it, which while that's a reasonable assumption it's not 100% guaranteed; while it'd likely make you TFG you could deny a Legion of the Damned player the opportunity to even play their army because, by the rules, they'd auto-lose. Scumbag behavior but technically allowed since the alternative is a house rule, albeit a necessary one. This argument would hold water if the Legion of the Damned Codex said that they could only be fielded as allies, but it doesn't. It LETS them be fielded as their own army and then its "OH HEY SURPRISE, by the rules you actually auto-lose turn one unless we house rule it so you can actually, you know, play a game".
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
KommissarKarl wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.
Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.
Then call it a supplement not a codex.
Also there are rules for a themed game in it that lets them ds turn one so they obviously new the problem and even made a game to play them solo.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
StarTrotter wrote:KommissarKarl wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.
Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.
Then call it a supplement not a codex.
Also there are rules for a themed game in it that lets them ds turn one so they obviously new the problem and even made a game to play them solo.
So GW were fully aware that they need allies to be played as a primary detatchment. Where is the problem here? Everyone knows that Legion of the Damned only show up when the Imperium really needs them, why would you expect them to be fieldable as a standalone force?
I would agree that it should have been called a mini-dex (not a suppliment since it's not supplimenting anything). But then the price point makes it clear that it's not a full codex, anyway that's not the point I was responding to.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Weird things are occurring..
To replace what I'd written,
Why make it possible to take them as a Primary if you don't intend to allow it to work that way.
There's even a rule in the book that allows for turn 1 DS, which would make the whole thing work, it just isn't included where it needs to be.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
KommissarKarl wrote: StarTrotter wrote:KommissarKarl wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.
Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.
Then call it a supplement not a codex.
Also there are rules for a themed game in it that lets them ds turn one so they obviously new the problem and even made a game to play them solo.
So GW were fully aware that they need allies to be played as a primary detatchment. Where is the problem here? Everyone knows that Legion of the Damned only show up when the Imperium really needs them, why would you expect them to be fieldable as a standalone force?
I would agree that it should have been called a mini-dex (not a suppliment since it's not supplimenting anything). But then the price point makes it clear that it's not a full codex, anyway that's not the point I was responding to.
The problem is it's called a codex. Not a supplement. Heck, even an army fully composed of a supplement if fieldable. These guys aren't htough. The thing is, there's a rule to fix this problem in the codex but they specifically ignore this factor. If they would have called this a mini-dex or supporting book or something and openly marketed that it only works with other armies it would be fun. Problem is it isn't.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
azreal13 wrote:Then why allow them to be a primary detachment at all?
They have rules that allow them to be a secondary, non ally space-taking detachment.
The real kicker is this appears in the rules, but only for one of the scenarios...
So that you can take a HQ + up to 6 troops? Rather than the two troops you're limited to as allies. Yeah it's a bit crummy, and frankly a missed opportunity (legion of the damned terminators anyone? Vehicles? Special characters?) but it's still not "broken".
44272
Post by: Azreal13
But they don't have a standard Force Org, you can't take them as HQ and troops.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
azreal13 wrote:But they don't have a standard Force Org, you can't take them as HQ and troops.
Having checked my codex, you're right.
However, Legion of the Damned in a primary detachment count as scoring, which they do not when allied. You also get access to the warlord table, for what that's worth.
So again, pretty crummy but still not broken, or even irrational.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
KommissarKarl wrote: azreal13 wrote:But they don't have a standard Force Org, you can't take them as HQ and troops.
Having checked my codex, you're right.
However, Legion of the Damned in a primary detachment count as scoring, which they do not when allied. You also get access to the warlord table, for what that's worth.
So again, pretty crummy but still not broken, or even irrational.
Well, except when you field them alone. I only really have a problem with this because you can't play them as their own book without extra forces. Namely because other things that really don't make much sense fluffwise work in the game as is.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.
Otherwise, there is obviously no power issue with allowing turn 1 DS, as drop pods have it already, and while strong, is hardly the source of wailing and gnashing, so just cut and past the rule into the section for running them as a Primary Detachment.
Either way would be fine, but we are yet again in a situation when it is not necessarily what they've done, but the lack of communication around it that is causing the issue.
I sincerely believe if they simply said "hey, always meant for there to be something for them to beam down and help, this is the correct way of doing things" or "lol, yeah, should have thought that through, we'll errata it so a Primary Detachment has the Aid From Beyond rule" then the issue goes away, but they don't, we get the traditional wall of silence and it just encourages ill will to fester.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
azreal13 wrote:It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.
How *you* think it should. When I read the codex I assumed that they would have to take allies as they would auto-lose otherwise. To me it is no different than not being able to deep-strike 100% of my deamon army, I just assume I'd need other guys
I don't think players need to have their hands held through this process. It's not difficult - All Legion of the Damned must deep-strike, therefore if you're fielding them as a primary detatchment you'll need allies on the field. Sure they could have included a throwaway line to this effect in the rules, but I don't think it's needed.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
KommissarKarl wrote: azreal13 wrote:It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.
How *you* think it should. When I read the codex I assumed that they would have to take allies as they would auto-lose otherwise. To me it is no different than not being able to deep-strike 100% of my deamon army, I just assume I'd need other guys
I don't think players need to have their hands held through this process. It's not difficult - All Legion of the Damned must deep-strike, therefore if you're fielding them as a primary detatchment you'll need allies on the field. Sure they could have included a throwaway line to this effect in the rules, but I don't think it's needed.
But DA and drop pods can DS turn 1. Heck, there's a rule in it that lets you DS turn one for free. So it's not really like having a simple little rule couldn't have solved it. That, or it would have been nice for it to be advertised as what they really are. Sure, I understand what you mean. I'd never field them alone but the fact that it's not stated and they are sold as a codex does lead to a bitter taste.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
KommissarKarl wrote: azreal13 wrote:It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.
How *you* think it should. When I read the codex I assumed that they would have to take allies as they would auto-lose otherwise. To me it is no different than not being able to deep-strike 100% of my deamon army, I just assume I'd need other guys
I don't think players need to have their hands held through this process. It's not difficult - All Legion of the Damned must deep-strike, therefore if you're fielding them as a primary detatchment you'll need allies on the field. Sure they could have included a throwaway line to this effect in the rules, but I don't think it's needed.
Every other codex, heck, I think every other supplement, can field a primary detachment without being compelled to use another element from what I shall call the detachment tree.
If you are releasing a product that deviates from that, it would be sensible to be clear about it, to avoid just the situation we have.
Again, poor communication, not anything to do with what the product should or shouldn't be.
99
Post by: insaniak
KommissarKarl wrote:Everyone knows that Legion of the Damned only show up when the Imperium really needs them, why would you expect them to be fieldable as a standalone force?
Because the codex lets you field them as a standalone force?
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Zwei, I'm afraid you're too stuck in this philosophical notion of Balance and Imbalance and whatever else that no one really cares about. What we care about is that the expensive units that we really like are actually a liability if we field them. My favorite models in the 40k range are the Penitent Engines but they're so useless that If I take them, I'm actually helping the enemy.
That's not fluffy, its just stupid.
Making the PE's good in certain situations would not make the game worse, it would only improve it because you'd see a greater variety in SOB lists, thus aiding in fluffyness. That does nothing but help the game. I've asked how it would hurt the game like you've insisted but you've never answered the question with anyhting like a specific reason why except "bercause" and "it just would be better."
Everyone, this whole "Balance, imbalance" crap is distracting from the argument because Zwei is using it to avoid answering any questions. Don't play his game.
And if you're playing a game with no intention of who wins or loses, then I'd suggest you write a book, then you can do whatever you want and not have to worry about the rules. You know, when I want to do that, I freaking write a book.
Oh, I did.
http://www.amazon.com/Sins-Prometheus-Zachary-Hill-ebook/dp/B00H7HXOPM/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398578522&sr=1-1&keywords=sins+of+prometheus
Another thing about fluff, also known as "narrative story telling." If you have a character that always wins and there's never a chance of losing, its gets really boring really quickly. If there's no chance of failure, your reader will get bored because there will be no tension, no excitement. What you're suggesting is that our fluffy games where the winner is already decided on is somehow fun, is demonstrably false. A book like that wouldn't be published let alone liked by readers. So, I reject your idea of fluffy games because they're boring and stagnant. Good stories have characters that have a goal and an obstacle. A Riptide list facing Penitent Engines would be really boring really fast because the PE's are not at all a credible threat under any circumstances.
So, even your "narative style" of game play I find incorrect and that's not an opinion, it's been proven in literature over and over again.
But get this, when I want to play a game, I expect a reasonable chance of winning. It may be an uphill battle, but if there's NO/ZERO chance of winning, it's no longer a game, its just an excercise in frustration. Like reading a book where we know the hero is going to lose. (This is different than they may die at the end or lose the war, but sometimes there's a personal goal that they might succeed at, like the movie Sunshine. In one fell swoop they're all dead, but there's still things they can do before they die.)
I'm not going to ask you to answer any questions with actual examples of why, because I know you won't answer them in any substansive way.
Everyone, change the game. Zwei won't go beyond useless generalizing about "balance" and whatever.
Here's an example. New players will be put off when they show up with their SM army and get wiped off the table on turn 2 by a Triptide Taudar list. They get put off and quite the game. Or after repeated loses with the DA army they give up and tell others how pointless the game is.
Now, I enjoy 40k. I played a 2000 pt game with my sisters vs Chaos this weekend and had a blast. But I was playing with my twin brother so we kind of see eye to eye on how to play and read my battle rep, its very fluffy/narrativ-y. So I'm not a 40k hater. I love the game but its very flawed.
So stop your useless rhetoric about vague balance and imbalance and talk about real situations and problems and solutions. Your notion of narative gameplay needs as much work as your notion of what a game is.
Here's something you'd like much better. The rules are non-exsistant, its fluffy and very narrative.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
To me, the problems with 40K are:
The core mechanics are limited, simplistic, outdated and in need of revision. The IGOUGO turn sequence in particular, is a serious defect in what has become a very dense game.
It is meant to be a fairly simple game, but the added complication of more detailed psychics, flyers, D weapons and ever increasing special rules makes it too complicated.
Some of the stuff that has been put into the game does not fit -- fortifications, flyers and Apocalypse units. These IMO should be purely optional units kept out of the core rules and codexes. They are only there for GW to sell more models, which is fine if you want them but the core game ought to be playable without.
Various new stuff has created serious imbalance -- Allies, Flyers, Formations and Strength D weapons -- which are only a way to sell more models. Keep it in the optional rules.
Some of these factors have created a division in the user base. One of the key strengths of 40K was that it was very widely played. It seems that that is breaking down.
The sheer cost! I've given up updating my Tyranid and Tau armies because the 6th edition codexes are too expensive, not to mention the new units I would have to buy to stay current (let alone competitive.)
I miss my Spore Pods.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
No.
I've stated repeatedly that one of the more important design-goals of GW's rules writers is to encourage pre-game communications.
Buy your own words, they seem to have succeeded admirably in this respect with the LoTD Codex.
A rule that succeeds in achieving the intent is not failure, nor broken.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.
Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.
No.
I've stated repeatedly that one of the more important design-goals of GW's rules writers is to encourage pre-game communications.
Buy your own words, they seem to have succeeded admirably in this respect with the LoTD Codex.
A rule that succeeds in achieving the intent is not failure, nor broken.
A rule that succeeds in achieving the intent is not failure, nor broken.
No, it is. Here's the thing. they could have easily fixed this with a single rule. Instead, it punishes you if the player decides to be a jerk or has been having a bad day and says no or, worse yet, if it's for a competitive match or tournament where this would not be permitted at all.
So it fails. GW removed most restrictions to let you deploy what you want. By then restricting it again they aren't even accomplshing that intention.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Well, it seems odd that you dispute the existence of a "black and white" divison, yet claim that 40K is indisputably black?
....
Seriously? Are you even trying? Whether or not 40k is black or very-dark-gray-almost-black-unless-you-look-really-carefully it's still a bad game. Its exact position on the bad end of the scale isn't really relevant to this discussion.
There must be a .. dunno .. a tipping point? A crossing? A sign that you've moved from the realm of "acceptable variance" (which might include choices you personally will not find appealing) to the realm of "unacceptable"? No?
What part of "continuous spectrum" is so hard to understand?
I thought we've established that between two games (A and B), one game (game B) can have more "relatively better or worse choices" (e.g. "bad player choices") build into its game-play than another (game A), without being an unambiguously worse game?
If that is true, that scale is not a sliding scale of "quality", but merely a sliding scale of variety. To use your analogy, "restaurants that have different styles of food."
If that is the case, it matters a lot if 40K is "inside" the spectrum of "different styles of food" or "outside" the spectrum of "not food at all". And that differentiation would need to have a criterion, no?
If that is not the case, than the gaming world should converge to only a single type of food, the "whitest" on your scale, as any move away from pure white would always be an ever so slightly inferior game, no? Automatically Appended Next Post: StarTrotter wrote: worse yet, if it's for a competitive match or tournament where this would not be permitted at all.
But 40K doesn't try to write rules for a competitive match or tournament. It does try to achieve pre-game negotiation (cue the most recent White Dwarf Article by Jervis Johnson).
Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
If you intent to travel to London, arriving in London is not a failure, nor is it a failure that you didn't arrive in Edinburgh.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Well, it seems odd that you dispute the existence of a "black and white" divison, yet claim that 40K is indisputably black?
....
Seriously? Are you even trying? Whether or not 40k is black or very-dark-gray-almost-black-unless-you-look-really-carefully it's still a bad game. Its exact position on the bad end of the scale isn't really relevant to this discussion.
There must be a .. dunno .. a tipping point? A crossing? A sign that you've moved from the realm of "acceptable variance" (which might include choices you personally will not find appealing) to the realm of "unacceptable"? No?
What part of "continuous spectrum" is so hard to understand?
I thought we've established that between two games (A and B), one game (game B) can have more "relatively better or worse choices" (e.g. "bad player choices") build into its game-play than another (game A), without being an unambiguously worse game?
If that is true, that scale is not a sliding scale of "quality", but merely a sliding scale of variety. To use your analogy, "restaurants that have different styles of food."
If that is the case, it matters a lot if 40K is "inside" the spectrum of "different styles of food" or "outside" the spectrum of "not food at all". And that differentiation would need to have a criterion, no?
If that is not the case, than the gaming world should converge to only a single type of food, the "whitest" on your scale, as any move away from pure white would always be an ever so slightly inferior game, no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
StarTrotter wrote: worse yet, if it's for a competitive match or tournament where this would not be permitted at all.
But 40K doesn't try to write rules for a competitive match or tournament. It does try to achieve pre-game negotiation (cue the most recent White Dwarf Article by Jervis Johnson).
Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
If you intent to travel to London, arriving in London is not a failure, nor is it a failure that you didn't arrive in Edinburgh.
So in other words it wishes to restrict the freedom to have fun, slow things down, kill off competitive, kill off fluffy games, make the books worthless by overruling them, and making certain armies suck because why not. Alright then good job 40k great.
99
Post by: insaniak
Zweischneid wrote:Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
It is if the goal is stupid.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
insaniak wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
It is if the goal is stupid.
If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is.
I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Zweischneid wrote: insaniak wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
It is if the goal is stupid. If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is. I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder. It's stupid when it's billed as a requirement to play the game, because you can't always guarantee that everyone you play with will agree with it, or that different people will agree to the same things every time. As I said above it's perfectly reasonable to assume that LotD should only be fielded as allies as this fits the fluff. However, the RULES state they can be fielded as an entire army themselves.. The same rules also state that, unless you're playing that specific scenario or your opponent agrees, you auto-lose on Turn 1 if you play a LotD army as a primary detachment, and how often do you play one scenario exclusively? As I also stated above, while most sane players wouldn't have a problem with ignoring that rule so the LotD player can actually play, they are under no obligation to do so. A tournament that plays by the rules in the book, for example, would prevent any LotD player from fielding it as a primary army if they chose to do so, because it can't function without a house rule. Do you honestly not see why that is a bad thing (and don't spout out that " 40k isn't meant for tournaments" garbage. 40k has always been billed as suitable for all play styles, except it's really not)? Do you honestly think it's fine that a player can auto-lose a game because the rules are so poorly written and the designers are either incompetent or lazy, simply because the rules don't give them a way to play their otherwise-legal army and it's 100% reliant on their opponent agreeing to it beforehand, and/or because they chose to "play the game wrong" by wanting to play in a tournament? Any game should be able to be played at any level the players want - that means competitive or casual. 40k takes the approach of "Casual is the only way" and pretty much gives competitive gamers the finger. No other miniatures wargame *forces* open communication between players before the game is played, and it's compounded by the fact that the most senior designer of 40k (i.e. Jervis) not only thinks this is good but wants to push it more along with other ridiculousness such as random charts - if you want to bring up WD articles I read one where he was espousing how randomness makes things more interesting; not to mention the one after the Imperial Knight was released where he went on this nonsensical diatribe about how the IK is good because it forces people to change things up to deal with it and in the same article stated there should be no such thing as a TAC army, and it's somehow considered a good thing when it basically craps on a portion of the playerbase. Back to the balance issue for a moment, the irony here is that 40k gives competitive/non-casual gaming the finger *as a direct result* of the fact that its rules are imbalanced. A game that is actually balanced (whether that is complete balance or "perfect imbalance"), which 40k is not at all, could satisfy all spectrums of play. The rules would be concise enough to not require house rules, each army and the units therein would have enough balance between them so that virtually every choice, with the right supporting units and tactics from the player, has a roughly equal chance of winning on the battlefield. The game could encourage house rules and narrative scenarios without *forcing* that as the "one true way" of playing and telling everyone else to feth off. This is how most other wargames play, and what do you know they are growing whilst 40k is declining (slowly but surely). Instead 40k is a game where the rules as written often *require* house rules just to fix glaring issues that either the designers overlooked, had no idea it would even be an issue (and hence out of touch with ways the games are played, or worse just assuming everyone plays the way they do) or just not caring to address it, where forces are imbalanced to the point where some armies are completely outclassed in every way and some units have literally zero reason to be taken unless you *want* to lose games, and a game in which hashing out what house rules are needed and what type of game you want to play is all but required under the guise of "forging the narrative" and yet this is somehow a good thing as opposed to the above example of a balanced game, which would in no way prevent talking with your opponent but also not make it a mainstay of the game while pretending everything else is badwrongfun and doesn't exist.
99
Post by: insaniak
Zweischneid wrote:If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is.
I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder.
Cute.
Most of us have no problems talking to our opponent. You know what does get in the way of that conversation? Having to cooperatively write half the damn rules of the game with a complete stranger before you can get around to putting models on the table.
Selling incomplete rules and expecting your customers to just figure the rest out for themselves is not a goal. It's a cop-out.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
Zweischneid wrote: insaniak wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
It is if the goal is stupid.
If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is.
I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder.
This is what I think whenever I see complaints about the game being "broken" or "unplayable". It's playable just fine amongst my friends and I, I honestly think the people who struggle with it struggle with social interaction in general. Not a critisism in any way - I used to have crippling social anxiety, especially when I was younger. But I can see why such people might struggle with a social game like 40k. Hell there's plenty of things I think are stupid simply because they involve too much social interaction for me
3750
Post by: Wayniac
KommissarKarl wrote: Zweischneid wrote: insaniak wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
It is if the goal is stupid.
If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is.
I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder.
This is what I think whenever I see complaints about the game being "broken" or "unplayable". It's playable just fine amongst my friends and I, I honestly think the people who struggle with it struggle with social interaction in general. Not a critisism in any way - I used to have crippling social anxiety, especially when I was younger. But I can see why such people might struggle with a social game like 40k. Hell there's plenty of things I think are stupid simply because they involve too much social interaction for me
There's a big difference between a game that encourages discussion, and a game that requires interaction and communication with people to even start playing, because the rules are a jumbled mess that needs to be hashed out beforehand.
75478
Post by: Musashi363
I figured it out! Between the total religious-like faith in GW and his complete failure to write anything coherent....Zwei works for GW! Please tell me you are Mathew Ward. I have a bone to pick with you about the fluff in the GreyKnight codex.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Bad game design being considered good in order to encourage discussion is one of the crazier things I've heard
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Bad game design being considered good in order to encourage discussion is one of the crazier things I've heard 
Game design you don't like being considered unequivocally bad is one of the most arrogant things I've heard.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
827
Post by: Cruentus
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Game design that requires you to hash it out with your opponent before hand is unequivocally "bad game design".
And in 14+ years of playing GW games, from 2nd edition onward, I never had to "hash it out with my opponent beforehand" to play games anywhere from casual pick-ups at an LGS I never played in before, to RTTs, to GW GTs, to Adepticon, to my regular gaming group.
The only exceptions were two instances in GW GTs where the one player was clearly being a  during the course of the entire game, and the other where the "rules lawyer" brought his photocopied sections of the designers notes, pre-highlighted, to argue his obviously exploitative "tactic", you know, in case he got called on it. So two instances, both in "competitive" situations, in 14+ years clearly indicates bad game design to me. Clearly...
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
So lets see if I can get this right.
I've been trying to follow along for the last 20 pages and even in the other thread that Zweis started this argument in.
So GW makes a rule set where the rules are so bad that people will actively seek to fix the rules between players and create house rules for units to make them playable.
This, to Zwies, is better than the alternative that GW makes a rule set where the rules are more agreeable to the players considerations beforehand leading to less houseruling and so forth.
And to go further, that this would be bad to the game because players are talking less, because they agree more initially. This somehow causes the effect that players will not be open to slightly changing rules, creating custom scenarios, and houseruling units because.... Well I'm sure we'll find out in the next 20 pages.
Do I have it all down so far?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Happy you are in a good mood.
But no. A game design that requires you to do X is not "bad game design". It's simply a game design that requires you to do X.
Magic the Gathering requires you to shuffle your cards. Monopoly requires you to deal a certain amount of money to each player. Most LARPs require you to dress in an uncomfortable costume and put on make-up, and many Casinos require you to not dress "casual" before you can play. Bolt Action requires you to put a bunch of dice in a little bag. Many party games basically tell you to get wasted before playing. X-Wing requires you to line up all those fiddly cards and tokens. 40K encourages you to have a brief chat with your opponent (you can, of course, skip that part with your friends if you like).
Of all these, 40K is probably the quickest to get through the "pre-game" stages.
The horror!!! A game that requires you to do something. It never happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How could they!!
44272
Post by: Azreal13
I just think that the idea Zwei obviously has in his head of a design meeting that went something along the lines of..
"You know what... feth all this gaming gak. What we need..... what we need is to make 40K into something that really, really makes people talk to each other, man! You know, really connect. nobody just hangs out and talks any more!"
Just adorable!
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Would love to take credit, but not my idea.
I guess in your version, game-designers and Tom Kirby got together in a room and decided, well ... feth it, we're going to make our game more like those other games that don't sell 10% of what 40K sells, and we're also gonna do it really badly. Off to work!
It all makes sense now.
I am sure they have a scoring board in the office for awards for "worst rule of the week", so the designers don't get lazy and fail to live up to the internet tin-foil-hat-theories.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
No, my position on GW's attitude is clear, and I've said as much for some time now
"They'll buy what we make, we don't make what they'll buy"
They are so confident in their position/have such little regard for their customers, that they're happy to churn out any old crap.
People who continue to buy stuff and therefore reward all the sub par product they make with cash (all they care about) continue to perpetrate that idea in the heads of those in a position to affect change, so why would they?
It is why I was so pleased to see the dip in figures, not because I want GW or 40K to fail, but because falling sales is the only thing that may result in a change in attitude. I'm thinking you feel the opposite, so you'd better get your credit card out!
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
I presume this means you think they don't make the specific product you / "the internet" would enjoy most?
Nobody doubts that.
No company could, because what people "want" is diverse. Different people want different things.
Steve Jobs wrote:"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.”
Henry Ford wrote:If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.
Companies don't produce what customers ask for (least of all on the internet, where, like it or not, vocal minorities can skew perceptions, irrespective of whether or not that is the case with 40K).
They try to pre-empt the trends and make a product that customers will want, once they see it.
Of course, that kind of experimentation can backfire. But that doesn't mean the attempt to create something that "doesn't yet exist" / "is different from everything currently on the market" is not intentional.
If GW would "listen" to "what the internet wants", all they'd be doing is make next "Beyond the Gates of Antares".
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Yeah...
The difference between Ford and Jobs and Kirby is that the former two were, despite some fairly unpleasant elements to their character (thinking more Ford here, but Jobs had his critics) singular visionaries that one sees only a handful of times, if that often, in each generation.
Kirby used to be a taxman.
But frankly, if you're equating anyone at Lenton with the abilities to be another Ford or Jobs, you need to pull your nose out before you suffocate.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Nobody at Lenton is a Ford or Jobs. Obviously. I was not implying them.
But people at Lenton are smarter than the Rick Priestley-types out there that believe the internet-soundboard would provide an accurate echo of what people will end up spending money on.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is.
Yes, it's absolutely  ing stupid. You know why? Because it doesn't encourage meaningful talk. Having to say "hey, GW hasn't FAQed my broken army yet, can we use the obvious fix" doesn't in any way lead to a discussion about what kind of game each player wants, the fluff of their armies and how to represent it with special mission rules, what level of list-building optimization will lead to a fair game, etc. It just means that every time that Legion of the Damned player starts a game they get a little more annoyed about GW's lack of concern for making a quality product.
I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder.
And for anyone who just wants to take their game out of the box and start playing. The fact that you have to have a pre-game discussion about how to fix the game, which implies being dedicated enough to learn about how the game is broken and how you want it to work, is a major barrier to entry for new players and a compelling reason to just play some other game that can be played right out of the box. When I have some friends over for board game night we don't negotiate about how we want to play the game, we get out a game, pass around the rules for anyone who hasn't played it before, and start playing.
81872
Post by: Veteran of The Long War
Guys I'm pretty sure Zweischneid is trolling you.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:But people at Lenton are smarter than the Rick Priestley-types out there that believe the internet-soundboard would provide an accurate echo of what people will end up spending money on.
Nobody is disagreeing that GW has a plan for getting money. Our point is that we shouldn't start looking for bizarre secret design goals when there's an obvious explanation: GW's target market (hardcore collectors and young children) don't play the game, so GW has sacrificed development funding to the point that they're releasing rough drafts as finished products. You can simultaneously say that this is a profitable business plan (at least for the immediate future) and also an incredibly low-quality product.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
He's too passionate to be a troll, I think he just doesn't see the problem that we're talking about and therefore it looks like we're just complaining or want 40k to be something it's "not". Basically he's acting like I must imagine GW itself acts - they play the game a certain way, so they never see any of the things that others talk about in regards to imbalance, and wonder scratching their heads what the problem is. That's what it looks like to me. Zwei just plays the game completely different to the way we do, but it just so happens he plays it closer to how GW intends, so all of this is like "What on earth are you guys whining about?" rather than acknowledging our complaints are valid. It's roughly the equivalent of a rich investment banker wondering what's all this talk about a recession because they just bought a summer home and a new yacht, so there can't be a recession at all.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Zweischneid wrote:Magic the Gathering requires you to shuffle your cards. Monopoly requires you to deal a certain amount of money to each player. Most LARPs require you to dress in an uncomfortable costume and put on make-up, and many Casinos require you to not dress "casual" before you can play. Bolt Action requires you to put a bunch of dice in a little bag. Many party games basically tell you to get wasted before playing. X-Wing requires you to line up all those fiddly cards and tokens. 40K encourages you to have a brief chat with your opponent (you can, of course, skip that part with your friends if you like).
And of course you miss the key difference here: other games require pre-game actions that are inherently necessary to play the game and couldn't be removed without destroying the game. 40k requires pre-game actions that are only required because GW can't afford sufficient development time to release a finished high-quality product, and they could be removed entirely without losing anything.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
I'm well aware.
We're through the looking glass here.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
I was going through Extra Credit's other videos lately just on a whim and I discovered one that I think does point to a lot of issues with the game. The topic is play testing. More importantly, open play testing. The feedback system is an amazing tool when used right. When collecting information on a game it's more important to get it from the community than in house. As it's been mentioned already, GW codex authors probably play a lot of games in house and against the other authors/play testers with certain decisions already made or a specific objective.
That in itself is fine. It doesn't work for most of the issues with the game though.
Two players for example want to make a game. Player 1 and Player 2 make rules on movement and go over the process in depth using a board and tape measure. When they go to write down the rules they write it in a way that makes sense to them because they've both know how it works already. However when handed the rules Player 3 notices the glaring issue that there rules didn't account for going around obstacles, because 1 and 2 thought it was common sense to them.
Going a bit off topic, in Halo and Halo2 multiplayer there were a few things that would bring the game to a halt. In Halo you could use grenades to launch a Warthog on top of the capture point for capture the flag games. In Halo 2 you could fly Banshees up to a hidden section on the map with the objective and camp there, holding the objective left it in play and the Banshee wouldn't respawn leaving the game stuck in over time. These aren't things that the developers intended and really it's not even there fault for not foreseeing it.
The problem is that GW is making the game with a very close knit group with no community feedback. They are making the game they want to play. This would be fine if they weren't selling it outside their group or if they clearly labeled it as such. If there is even a label for such a thing. GW is every day making the problem even worse though. Look at the extended FOC that exists. There is no way that an inhouse playtester could ever go through 1/10 of the possible combinations from that in a reasonable time, if they could even do it in one edition. They're making the game go beyond the point of play testing because they don't feel that they need it I guess. When you know your opponent and both have an established interpretation of how things are supposed to go, it's figure out where the improvements could be made. The Khorne Lord of War is a great example of this. They knew the price of the thing and probably just played a bunch of random smash ups without ever trying to see if that price was justified.
at around 2:35 is when I think applies the most
10886
Post by: Phanixis
You've apparently abandoned the other thread Zweis, so I am going to re-post my questions here.
Zweischneid wrote:
I repeatedly said why I think it is awesome.
Whether my reasons are similar to those of GW, I cannot say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kain wrote:
What's so narrative about Blood Angels, Ork, or Tyranid failing to even vaguely annoy a Taudar, Imperial mess of allies list, or Tzeentch Daemon list that sweeps them off the table in a storm of firepower without taking any casualties of note?
Again and again and again.
Again my answer.
You have stated your reasons on many occasions, but allow me to explain why I personally disagree.
I have been playing 40k for over 6 years now. Over the years, many armies have slowly vanished into obscurity: Sisters of Battle, Orkz, Blood Angels, Tyranids and Grey Knights to name a few. I no longer have the opportunity to play against these armies, nor does anybody else in my local gaming area. I know many fellow gamers who used to run these armies, and virtually all of them either shelved or sold them for the same reason: playing against the new power gaming armies, your Eldar, Tau, Daemons, etc. week after week with their underpowered armies became frustrating, and they either switched armies or abandoned the game entirely. Their departure takes something away from the 40k community as whole. I would like to see my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Tyranid players return to the hobby and to be able to enjoy the 40k again, and balancing 40k would be a small price to pay to rebuild the community.
On an independent note I have noticed that both myself and my opponent obtain the most enjoyment from a game of 40k in close, tight games that are not decided until the very last round. This situation occurs most frequently when the opposing armies are well balanced. Conversely, when the game balance is skewed, one army just steamrolls the other, and both players tend to get bored and disinterested.
My observations resulting from playing 40k for the past 6 years suggest the game would be vastly improved if GW would balance the various units and factions in the game so everybody could enjoy a fair game regardless of the factions or units they chose. I know the cost of leaving the game imbalanced: people leaving the game permanently, leaving the community poorer. Entire armies vanishing from the gaming scene, to rarely, if ever, be seen or played against. Boring, frustrating and tedious matches that are decided before they began. All of which could be fixed through improved game balance.
Now as you have mentioned you have repeatedly explain why 40k should remain imbalanced. In fact, I count at least three massive threads where these explanations can be found throughout. However, I find myself wholly unable to comprehend or understand most of these explanations. The few I can understand simply aren't satisfactory. You claim you personally prefer imbalanced games as a subjective preference, but that provides me with no further insight into why. You claim it could diminish variety, even though their are methods of balancing the game, such as adjusting the points cost, that do not eliminate any of the options currently available. Finally, you expressed a desired to play various narrative based scenarios, which would be unaltered by any game balanced adjustments made to 40k.
What I fail to understand is how the game could be made poorer if you eliminated the inherent imbalances. How does imbalance enrich the game? What is lost when the game is balanced? What are you no longer able to when the game becomes balanced? You should still be able to run scenarios, come up with your own house rules, ignore rules you dislike, and provide interesting narrative descriptions of the tabletop battles taking place. I know I would be able to do all these just as easily in a balanced game system as an imbalanced game system. So where is the deficiency? What is it? And what is it specifically you would be unable to do if the game were balanced, especially if this were achieved by largely by just changing the point cost associated with each unit so that every option remains available?
What is so important about maintaining game imbalance that improvements cannot be made to bring my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Nid players back into the hobby?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
The other problem with GW's playtesting approach is that they play the game, they don't playtest it. Playtesting involves playing the game with a specific goal, not just playing normal games. For example, if you're trying to balance the new drop pod rules you might only play 2-3 turns of the game, long enough to see how well the alpha strike did, before ending the game and starting a new one. Or you might set up a specific mid-game situation, play the interaction between the units you want to test, and ignore the rest of the game. And even when you're playing full games your goal is to find problems that need to be fixed, not to have fun. So you deliberately push all of the boundaries, take the most overpowered choices, rules lawyer everything you can, etc. And you carefully document all of those things, fix the problems you discover, and repeat until even the most hardcore WAAC TFG can't find anything to break.
GW, on the other hand, don't seem to do this. One of their WD articles from around the 6th edition release described a "playtest" game where they played a game between their personal armies, and then had a third player join in halfway through because it would be "fluffy". That's not playtesting, it's just screwing around. You're not going to get any meaningful information out of it unless there's something so obviously broken that it should have been caught a long time ago.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Phanixis wrote:
You have stated your reasons on many occasions, but allow me to explain why I personally disagree.
All valid. I never claimed people cannot not like 40K or the direction it is heading.
It's the arrogance to mistake your bias for a fact, that should not happen to any rational person.
Phanixis wrote:
I have been playing 40k for over 6 years now. Over the years, many armies have slowly vanished into obscurity: Sisters of Battle, Orkz, Blood Angels, Tyranids and Grey Knights to name a few. I no longer have the opportunity to play against these armies, nor does anybody else in my local gaming area. I know many fellow gamers who used to run these armies, and virtually all of them either shelved or sold them for the same reason: playing against the new power gaming armies, your Eldar, Tau, Daemons, etc. week after week with their underpowered armies became frustrating, and they either switched armies or abandoned the game entirely.
A curious observation for somebody in it for 6 years. Most "dakka-ites" who played not just six years ago, but only 2 or 3 years ago, complained about the exact inverse, that Blood Angels and Grey Knights are allegedly "overpowered" and armies like Tau, Eldar or Daemons serve no no purpose, are not played by anybody, languishing on the shelf.
But if that is your experience, it just proves that all those years of whining about Grey Knights = Overpowered were now a universally shared experience.
Phanixis wrote:
On an independent note I have noticed that both myself and my opponent obtain the most enjoyment from a game of 40k in close, tight games that are not decided until the very last round. This situation occurs most frequently when the opposing armies are well balanced. Conversely, when the game balance is skewed, one army just steamrolls the other, and both players tend to get bored and disinterested.
Great. I have noticed that both myself and my opponent obtain the most enjoyment from the game when we don't concern ourselves with wining or "closeness" of results. Or results.
Phanixis wrote:
My observations resulting from playing 40k for the past 6 years suggest the game would be vastly improved if GW would balance the various units and factions in the game so everybody could enjoy a fair game regardless of the factions or units they chose. I know the cost of leaving the game imbalanced: people leaving the game permanently, leaving the community poorer. Entire armies vanishing from the gaming scene, to rarely, if ever, be seen or played against. Boring, frustrating and tedious matches that are decided before they began. All of which could be fixed through improved game balance.
My observation resulting from at least as many years of playing 40K, on and off, is that 6th Edition is by far the best Edition for my enjoyment. Everybody could enjoy the game more if they'd embrace the idea of a short pre-game discussion to make the game exactly the way they want to do, and no person would ever again need to suffer through the dull, "bean-counter" point games that defined previous editions of 40K, unless they intentionally chose to do so.
Phanixis wrote:
Now as you have mentioned you have repeatedly explain why 40k should remain imbalanced. In fact, I count at least three massive threads where these explanations can be found throughout. However, I find myself wholly unable to comprehend or understand most of these explanations. The few I can understand simply aren't satisfactory. You claim you personally prefer imbalanced games as a subjective preference, but that provides me with no further insight into why. You claim it could diminish variety, even though their are methods of balancing the game, such as adjusting the points cost, that do not eliminate any of the options currently available. Finally, you expressed a desired to play various narrative based scenarios, which would be unaltered by any game balanced adjustments made to 40k.
As noted, the claim that possibility of unaltered narrative emphasis in balanced games, which people repeatedly claim, has not been born out in experience, not in previous editions of 40K and not in other games by other companies.
I am sorry that my reasons do not satisfy you. Above, you claimed that you get the most enjoyment from balanced, close-fought games, but that equally doesn't provide me with further insight into why. Just that you do.
What I fail to understand is how the game could be made poorer if you eliminated the inherent imbalances.
What I fail to understand is how the game could be made poorer if all other options are eliminated. The ability to play balanced games is in no way diminished if you take the time to declare this as the mutual ambition between yourself and your opponent before the game, and ensure that this happens.
But other people enjoy other things, and forcing your preferred style of gaming on other people, just because you feel incapable of a minute of pre-game talk, seems unusually ego-centrist and intolerant to me.
What is so important about maintaining game imbalance that improvements cannot be made to bring my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Nid players back into the hobby?
What is so important about little numbers on a page that you let them stop you from playing the armies you enjoy?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Zweischneid wrote: insaniak wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.
It is if the goal is stupid. If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is. I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder. So GW is discriminating against people on the Autistic spectrum because of their poor rules? How is discriminating against a group which seems (based on the number of members on dakka who are diagnosed at some level of Autism) to be drawn to these types of games good? Why can't people who find it difficult enough to interact with others go into a store and enjoy a game they like without first having to sit down and work through all the poorly written rules. People quite high on the autism spectrum would also find it difficult to deviate from the written rules they've learned, so that makes it doubly bad. Also, as another user said, the term is not antisocial personality disorder, unless you're talking about people who could also be diagnosed as Psychopaths or Sociopaths ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Peregrine wrote: Zweischneid wrote:If you consider the goal of making people talk to each other stupid, I suppose it is.
Yes, it's absolutely  ing stupid. You know why? Because it doesn't encourage meaningful talk. Having to say "hey, GW hasn't FAQed my broken army yet, can we use the obvious fix" doesn't in any way lead to a discussion about what kind of game each player wants, the fluff of their armies and how to represent it with special mission rules, what level of list-building optimization will lead to a fair game, etc. It just means that every time that Legion of the Damned player starts a game they get a little more annoyed about GW's lack of concern for making a quality product.
I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder.
And for anyone who just wants to take their game out of the box and start playing. The fact that you have to have a pre-game discussion about how to fix the game, which implies being dedicated enough to learn about how the game is broken and how you want it to work, is a major barrier to entry for new players and a compelling reason to just play some other game that can be played right out of the box. When I have some friends over for board game night we don't negotiate about how we want to play the game, we get out a game, pass around the rules for anyone who hasn't played it before, and start playing.
Zwei do you even know what antisocial means? No offense but this is just a pet peeve of mine. Antisocial isn't being shy. Antisocial individuals are frequently criminals from con artists to murderers. They are the guys that can act friendly and then push you down the staircase whilst smiling madly.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Zweischneid wrote:
A curious observation for somebody in it for 6 years. Most "dakka-ites" who played not just six years ago, but only 2 or 3 years ago, complained about the exact inverse, that Blood Angels and Grey Knights are allegedly "overpowered" and armies like Tau, Eldar or Daemons serve no no purpose, are not played by anybody, languishing on the shelf.
But if that is your experience, it just proves that all those years of whining about Grey Knights = Overpowered were now a universally shared experience.
?
Your observation skills are pretty dire if that's what you see.
Grey knights were overpowered in fifth. Severely. And tau and eldar were left on a lot of shelves, tau especially.
Then Sixth edition happened. Gw made arbitrary changes. Some things got invalidated and nerfed. Others were broken in turn. It's what happens when gw release new editions. Saying it's not a universally shared experience is a blatant falsehood, and absolute cop out which fails to recognise historical data. In fifth edition, grey knights literally broke the game. It was a stupidly ott codex. It ruined it for many. Back in fourth it was iron warriors. In third it was eldar and blood angels. In sixth it's tau and eldar.
As opposed to, you know, all codices being valid?
A Town Called Malus wrote:
So GW is discriminating against people on the Autistic spectrum because of their poor rules? How is discriminating against a group which seems (based on the number of members on dakka who are diagnosed at some level of Autism) to be drawn to these types of games good?
Why can't people who find it difficult enough to interact with others go into a store and enjoy a game they like without first having to sit down and work through all the poorly written rules. People quite high on the autism spectrum would also find it difficult to deviate from the written rules they've learned, so that makes it doubly bad.
How dare you! Gw are perfect. Unbalanced games are the best. Clearly not being able to communicate means they're simply not good enough fir this hobby and should be playing some other game.
Or something.
(By the way, that's sarcasm, and it's not directed at you malus  )
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
StarTrotter wrote:
Zwei do you even know what antisocial means? No offense but this is just a pet peeve of mine. Antisocial isn't being shy. Antisocial individuals are frequently criminals from con artists to murderers. They are the guys that can act friendly and then push you down the staircase whilst smiling madly.
Hey. I tried my best to find some kind of group of people who could make a some sort of credible claim that 40K may indeed be objectively inferior for their needs in some minor way, rather than only subjectively.
I can't vouch for whether that will hold up to closer scrutiny. Probably not. More likely, it'll be a question of subjective taste for them as well, just like it is for all the rest of humanity.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
So, the answer to the question asked, rather than the one he answered, is, apparently, no.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Yes. Watching some re-runs of Dexter atm....
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I have come to the conclusion that the key problem with 40K is people telling me that the rancid smell of piss on my chips is a high quality exotic vinegar from Games Workshop.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
Zwei do you even know what antisocial means? No offense but this is just a pet peeve of mine. Antisocial isn't being shy. Antisocial individuals are frequently criminals from con artists to murderers. They are the guys that can act friendly and then push you down the staircase whilst smiling madly.
Hey. I tried my best to find some kind of group of people who could make a some sort of credible claim that 40K may indeed be objectively inferior for their needs in some minor way, rather than only subjectively.
I can't vouch for whether that will hold up to closer scrutiny. Probably not. More likely, it'll be a question of subjective taste for them as well, just like it is for all the rest of humanity.
Being antisocial really has nothing to do with it pushing them away though. It really is just a pet peeve of mine because people tend to say antisocial when they mean introverted or shy and antisocial behavior is actually really dangerous. Also, it's not really trying your best. If you look it up even Wikipedia has the right description.
People it could screw over.... Shy people, individuals with anxiety problems, and autistic people. If you want you could also impede upon the chances for two players to have a match and could dissuade individuals with little time to really play.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
StarTrotter wrote: Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
Zwei do you even know what antisocial means? No offense but this is just a pet peeve of mine. Antisocial isn't being shy. Antisocial individuals are frequently criminals from con artists to murderers. They are the guys that can act friendly and then push you down the staircase whilst smiling madly.
Hey. I tried my best to find some kind of group of people who could make a some sort of credible claim that 40K may indeed be objectively inferior for their needs in some minor way, rather than only subjectively.
I can't vouch for whether that will hold up to closer scrutiny. Probably not. More likely, it'll be a question of subjective taste for them as well, just like it is for all the rest of humanity.
Being antisocial really has nothing to do with it pushing them away though. It really is just a pet peeve of mine because people tend to say antisocial when they mean introverted or shy and antisocial behavior is actually really dangerous. Also, it's not really trying your best. If you look it up even Wikipedia has the right description.
People it could screw over.... Shy people, individuals with anxiety problems, and autistic people. If you want you could also impede upon the chances for two players to have a match and could dissuade individuals with little time to really play.
Which is, of course, all great and leads to more variety in play
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
StarTrotter wrote: Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
Zwei do you even know what antisocial means? No offense but this is just a pet peeve of mine. Antisocial isn't being shy. Antisocial individuals are frequently criminals from con artists to murderers. They are the guys that can act friendly and then push you down the staircase whilst smiling madly.
Hey. I tried my best to find some kind of group of people who could make a some sort of credible claim that 40K may indeed be objectively inferior for their needs in some minor way, rather than only subjectively.
I can't vouch for whether that will hold up to closer scrutiny. Probably not. More likely, it'll be a question of subjective taste for them as well, just like it is for all the rest of humanity.
Being antisocial really has nothing to do with it pushing them away though. It really is just a pet peeve of mine because people tend to say antisocial when they mean introverted or shy and antisocial behavior is actually really dangerous. Also, it's not really trying your best. If you look it up even Wikipedia has the right description.
People it could screw over.... Shy people, individuals with anxiety problems, and autistic people. If you want you could also impede upon the chances for two players to have a match and could dissuade individuals with little time to really play.
I never said shy people., or anxious people, or autistic people.
I said antisocial personality disorder. Don't put things into my mouth that I never said.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Wait then why did you use antisocial if you already knew what it meant? Why then claim you tried your best? I don't really know how an antisocial individual might think but considering their habit of being con artists and the sorts... They'd probably cheat the system whenever possible and bring an optimized list to crush foes.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
StarTrotter wrote:
Wait then why did you use antisocial if you already knew what it meant? Why then claim you tried your best? I don't really know how an antisocial individual might think but considering their habit of being con artists and the sorts... They'd probably cheat the system whenever possible and bring an optimized list to crush foes.
I didn't use antisocial.
I used antisocial personality disorder.
I think I was rather precise.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote: Zweischneid wrote: StarTrotter wrote:
Zwei do you even know what antisocial means? No offense but this is just a pet peeve of mine. Antisocial isn't being shy. Antisocial individuals are frequently criminals from con artists to murderers. They are the guys that can act friendly and then push you down the staircase whilst smiling madly.
Hey. I tried my best to find some kind of group of people who could make a some sort of credible claim that 40K may indeed be objectively inferior for their needs in some minor way, rather than only subjectively.
I can't vouch for whether that will hold up to closer scrutiny. Probably not. More likely, it'll be a question of subjective taste for them as well, just like it is for all the rest of humanity.
Being antisocial really has nothing to do with it pushing them away though. It really is just a pet peeve of mine because people tend to say antisocial when they mean introverted or shy and antisocial behavior is actually really dangerous. Also, it's not really trying your best. If you look it up even Wikipedia has the right description.
People it could screw over.... Shy people, individuals with anxiety problems, and autistic people. If you want you could also impede upon the chances for two players to have a match and could dissuade individuals with little time to really play.
I never said shy people., or anxious people, or autistic people.
I said antisocial personality disorder. Don't put things into my mouth that I never said.
Wait how aim putting words in your mouth? I'm saying who it might screw over. I never said you stated it. I was more correcting your assessment as I assumed you were incorrectly using that instead of shy as many do.
You said: I have to admit that it might make the game slightly more difficult to pick up for people with antisocial personality disorder.
Thing is, it might really cause no problems with them. The people it makes more difficult to play are shy people, individuals with anxiety problems, and autistic individuals. Antisocial individuals are an entirely different way to think but they'd probably to wonders in an unbalanced game.
99
Post by: insaniak
That fine line between worthwhile discussion and ridiculous? I think we've crossed it.
Time to give this one a rest for a while.
|
|