Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi!

Most threads that deals with balance in miniature-games, most commonly in discussions about the lack of balance in GW-games, sooner or later ends in some kind of discussion about casual vs competitive play. Why is this? Don't we all want the same thing, a game that is well done and fun to play? And does balance necessarily means its not suited for casual play? Warmachine is a balanced game and even though the community promotes competitive play you can still play it casually and have fun.

I would say I'm a casual player but I still want to know that I have a shadow of a chance to beat my opponent other than for the occasion when he makes a crappy list, got some real bad luck och plays badly! Too much imbalance would make most games boring, even though I do not have to win, the goal of most games is to defeat your opponent and winning Is still fun and nice to do it every one and a while. I'm sure most people agrees to this. And isn't a part of the fun not know how the game will end? And if there would be so much imbalance that the outcome is given before the game even begins, there wouldn't be any reason to play would there, you could just meet your opponent and have a chat over a coffee instead?

So, why this dichotomy? Why can't you have both, side by side?

You can but this is the internet where only extremes can exist or that allot of people.

In the real world this is hardly ever a problem, since everyone notionally plays to win a game but isnt really all that bothered if they loose (even in a tournament) so long as the enjoy it. Obviously the odd Jackass will be the exception, the internet just allows people to release the inner jackass more easily I suppose.

Yeah, I suppose your right about most of it, but I'll say it dose pose a problem IRL since GW can throw out one imbalanced game after another with the excuse that "we don't care for competitive gaming". But I would argue that competitive or casual play got nothing to do with producing a crappy game. Well, the system is not crappy in itself but the imbalance makes it boring in the long run. So if people argue that "I don't care for balance 'cause I'm a casual gamer" there wont be an incentive for change does it?

I'm a casual gamer and do I care about balance and I think its about time GW-gives their customer the game we deserves!

But seriously, we spend a lot of cash (not to forget all the time and effort) on this, the lest that we can demand is that GW or any other gives a damn about what we want (what I want anyhow )!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Yeah, I suppose your right about most of it, but I'll say it dose pose a problem IRL since GW can throw out one imbalanced game after another with the excuse that "we don't care for competitive gaming". But I would argue that competitive or casual play got nothing to do with producing a crappy game. Well, the system is not crappy in itself but the imbalance makes it boring in the long run. So if people argue that "I don't care for balance 'cause I'm a casual gamer" there wont be an incentive for change does it?

I'm a casual gamer and do I care about balance and I think its about time GW-gives their customer the game we deserves!

But seriously, we spend a lot of cash (not to forget all the time and effort) on this, the lest that we can demand is that GW or any other gives a damn about what we want (what I want anyhow )!

Yeah.... Good luck with that.

GW has stuck with this model for over 20 years, I seriously doubt that they will change their entire business model now.

I dont accept that the rules are imbalanced, there can be some scope for bending them, which is where the afore mentioned jackasses come in.

There really isn't too much that two normal adults (or indeed children) can not resolve easily.

Allot of the perceived imbalances usually come from the "Wah I want my army to have the new cool stuff" brigade. Ignore it and the game become allot more enjoyable.

Warmachine's not balanced. Its one of the most hyper competitive games at the tournament scale. You can have games for fun in a buddies basement, but that game is all about smash face quick and dirty. Some armies in that game do it better then others. Don't get me wrong, I love that game, and would gladly play it over GW games.

PhantomViper wrote:
GW has stuck with this model for over 20 years, I seriously doubt that they will change their entire business model now.

That's the spirit to change things, "yaaay let's sit nicely, keep quiet and see if they can read or minds and if they do, respect or wishes"! You'll have to fight for change!

notprop wrote:Allot of the perceived imbalances usually come from the "Wah I want my army to have the new cool stuff" brigade. Ignore it and the game become allot more enjoyable.

What do you mean exactly, shouldn't we allow the new stuff? If game designers cared about balance those people wouldn't be half as annoying!

njpc - In what way isn't WM balanced? I'm not saying everything is dead even, and its more balanced at some pts-levels than others but you'll have to look for a more balanced game. Sure it rewards creative thinking but that isn't a bad thing is it? And isn't all games about smashing faces, quicker than your enemy, in the end?

To say GW makes balanced games is to stick your head in the sand and go "lalalala everything is good an nothing bad ever happens, GW wishes me well"

HI folks.
GW plc has managed to shift the blame to the gamers for not playing the game 'properly'.
(The artificial fluffy- WAAC divide,)
Rather than simply admit GW plc doesnt care about game play or game ballance ONLY selling toy soldiers to children.

Using inapropriate game mechanics and resolution methods that only cover a fractions of the interactions.Allows them to add reams of additional 'special rules' to help sell the latest minatures.

If you look at GAMES companies they tend to update ALL armies at the same time. (Mantic PP, Battlefront,etc,)Better rules sell MORE of the existing minatures!

GW plc just publishes book full of Kewl picture and stories (backed up by new special rules) to help sell the new minature range.

According to Jervis less than 1/3 of GW customer actualy play games, and senior managment belive 85% of customer leave the hobby before they collect a 'full army ' and/or play a 'full game' of 40k/WH.

GW plc are targeting the wrong demoghaphic..(11 to 16 year old boys.)They should be targeting gamers in general IMO..

Because a lot of people do not have either the willpower, desire, or the capacity to escape the "us vs them" mentality.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
GW has stuck with this model for over 20 years, I seriously doubt that they will change their entire business model now.

That's the spirit to change things, "yaaay let's sit nicely, keep quiet and see if they can read or minds and if they do, respect or wishes"! You'll have to fight for change!

Its not the spirit to change anything its the reality of how GW operates, I've been a part of the "GW hobby" for over 15 years, believe me that I know how they think as much as anyone... We are talking about the company that decided to shut down their own forums instead of listening to the feedback from their playerbase!

Lanrak wrote:HI folks.
GW plc has managed to shift the blame to the gamers for not playing the game 'properly'.
(The artificial fluffy- WAAC divide,)
Rather than simply admit GW plc doesnt care about game play or game ballance ONLY selling toy soldiers to children.

Hahaha! This wouldn't surprise me at all, aaah GW sweet old GW please abuse my intellect!

Lanrak wrote:If you look at GAMES companies they tend to update ALL armies at the same time. (Mantic PP, Battlefront,etc,)Better rules sell MORE of the existing minatures!

One would think so anyhow, is that a fact?

Lanrak wrote:GW plc just publishes book full of Kewl picture and stories (backed up by new special rules) to help sell the new minature range.

According to Jervis less than 1/3 of GW customer actualy play games, and senior managment belive 85% of customer leave the hobby before they collect a 'full army ' and/or play a 'full game' of 40k/WH.

GW plc are targeting the wrong demoghaphic..(11 to 16 year old boys.)They should be targeting gamers in general IMO..

Hehe, I couldn't agree more, according to GWs business policy from last year (if I remember correctly) their goal is to create the best miniature game ever, for whom one might wonder? For the gamers or their pockets?

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people do not have either the willpower, desire, or the capacity to escape the "us vs them" mentality.

That is probably one sad truth...

PhantomViper wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
GW has stuck with this model for over 20 years, I seriously doubt that they will change their entire business model now.

That's the spirit to change things, "yaaay let's sit nicely, keep quiet and see if they can read or minds and if they do, respect or wishes"! You'll have to fight for change!

Its not the spirit to change anything its the reality of how GW operates, I've been a part of the "GW hobby" for over 15 years, believe me that I know how they think as much as anyone... We are talking about the company that decided to shut down their own forums instead of listening to the feedback from their playerbase!

Yeah I know, I've been playing the their games for 15+ years as well, the future doesn't look bright... But if they don't listen to reason there is one rather radical but effective solution, stop buying their stuff! Buy alternative minis from other miniature ranges, get their books through other means than from a store and so on. If enough of people would do it, they would have to listen to us eventually! That is the only power we have and we shouldn't be afraid of using it.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
Yeah I know, I've been playing the their games for 15+ years as well, the future doesn't look bright... But if they don't listen to reason there is one rather radical but effective solution, stop buying their stuff! Buy alternative minis from other miniature ranges, get their books through other means than from a store and so on. If enough of people would do it, they would have to listen to us eventually! That is the only power we have and we shouldn't be afraid of using it.

They've lost roughly 40% of their customers in the last few years. If that hasn't made them change, why would anything else make it happen?

The only thing you could do is decide what is best for you. If you aren't happy then you should do just that and change the games you play. I've done that several years ago and so have countless others, that's the reason that companies like BF, PP, Spartan, Wyrd, Ambush Alley and many others are expanding while GW is loosing customers.

Lanrak wrote: If you look at GAMES companies they tend to update ALL armies at the same time. (Mantic PP, Battlefront,etc,)Better rules sell MORE of the existing minatures!

One of the reasons I play 40k is the background. No. I lie. THE reason I play 40k is the background. It's much richer, and partly this is because of the massive number of factions and units available for the game. Each faction can be played in lots of different ways, giving you endless possibilities of army. This isn't possible in Warmachine or Battlefront, which have a smaller range of model types/miniatures/factions/background.

I think it's one thing for PP to update their five or so WM factions at once, compared to expecting GW to update sixteen massively more complicated factions all at once. If they adopted this policy, I think we'd see huge simplifiction of 40k, and a huge reduction in the number of units in a codex. This would be a bad thing.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:To say GW makes balanced games is to stick your head in the sand and go "lalalala everything is good an nothing bad ever happens, GW wishes me well"

Again, same problem. PP have a hell of a lot less to balance than GW does. If 40k consisted of only Dreadnoughts, Psykers and limited small squads of Infantry, it would be a different story, but 40k is much MUCH more complex than that. I don't want to see any reduction in the amount of options 40k has, so I can cut them some slack that they're game isn't going to be as balanced.

I'm agreeing with notprop here - 40k may not be amazingly balanced, but it's nothing two adults can't easily sort out between themselves. Myself and my friends have multiple armies, all of different tiers of competitiveness. Rarely do we ever play a completely one-sided game, because we know how to pitch our armies to be a good match for our opponents.

There are a lot of people for whom Warhammer is not a game, but a way of life and an occupation to support it. The Most Important Rule doesn't apply to them. I have gamed with too many of these people, ranging from those who verbally declare every single decision they are making and ask permission for fear of breaking a rule and disqualifying themselves to the people who can't understand the meaning of compromising over a rules discrepancy, rather calling over every judge they can till they get a "fair" ruling.

It's just a fricking game, people! Have fun!

ArbitorIan wrote:One of the reasons I play 40k is the background. No. I lie. THE reason I play 40k is the background.

I'll second that, the fluff of 40k is hard to compete with! but that doesn't mean I don't like a well balanced game

ArbitorIan wrote:Each faction can be played in lots of different ways, giving you endless possibilities of army.

Are you sure your'e not actually talking about warmahordes now? Because that would be true if that were the case. Because sure there are lots of options in 40k, but not the rules to make them useful.

ArbitorIan wrote:I think it's one thing for PP to update their five or so WM factions at once, compared to expecting GW to update sixteen massively more complicated factions all at once. If they adopted this policy, I think we'd see huge simplifiction of 40k, and a huge reduction in the number of units in a codex. This would be a bad thing.

Since Warmachine and Hordes practically is the same game, there are 11 factions and they were all updated pretty much simultaneously and still creating one (well two) of the most balanced games. Come on, GW has been doing this for how long? A little more than 25 years isn't it? And now I'm only considering the years post 40K, otherwise it's 37 years!? And they still can't make a balanced game, is it all due to those five extra factions? Come on, if GW have wanted it to be in any other way it would have been so!

And about those complex factions SM got about 40 different options (16 hq (of which two are command squads), 5 troop including dedicated transport (6 with telion), 9 elite, 7 fast and 7 heavy choices (8 with chronus) so that would be 43 different options (plus wargear)). Khador from Warmachine on the other hand got close to 60 different options (11 warcasters, 14 warjacks, 12 solos, 19 units (not including unit attachments) and one battle engine which gives us 57 different options) sure there aren't as much wargear to choose from, well any as a matter of fact except unit attachments but there is far more diversity in the khador range than in the SM range (or an ork, eldar close to any 40K range) if we are to stick with the contemporary range.

ArbitorIan wrote:PP have a hell of a lot less to balance than GW does.

In what way exactly? Have you ever played Warmahordes?

ArbitorIan wrote:40k is much MUCH more complex than that. I don't want to see any reduction in the amount of options 40k has, so I can cut them some slack that they're game isn't going to be as balanced.

As stated above they have got over 25 years to fix this, how much more slack do they need!?

ArbitorIan wrote:I'm agreeing with notprop here - 40k may not be amazingly balanced, but it's nothing two adults can't easily sort out between themselves. Myself and my friends have multiple armies, all of different tiers of competitiveness. Rarely do we ever play a completely one-sided game, because we know how to pitch our armies to be a good match for our opponents.

I can't see how any of this exclude a more balanced game?

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:There are a lot of people for whom Warhammer is not a game, but a way of life and an occupation to support it.

Yeah, and doesn't all those hard core gamers deserve a game-company that gives a damn about their opinion?

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:It's just a fricking game, people! Have fun!

A moment ago, it was a way of life, close to a cult considering your description, and now its just a game? How do you want it? And if its just a game then you guys wouldn't bother if it got a little more balanced right? Come on It is just a game, how big a deal can it be!?

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Yeah, I suppose your right about most of it, but I'll say it dose pose a problem IRL since GW can throw out one imbalanced game after another with the excuse that "we don't care for competitive gaming". But I would argue that competitive or casual play got nothing to do with producing a crappy game. Well, the system is not crappy in itself but the imbalance makes it boring in the long run. So if people argue that "I don't care for balance 'cause I'm a casual gamer" there wont be an incentive for change does it?

I'm a casual gamer and do I care about balance and I think its about time GW-gives their customer the game we deserves!

But seriously, we spend a lot of cash (not to forget all the time and effort) on this, the lest that we can demand is that GW or any other gives a damn about what we want (what I want anyhow )!

There are balanced game out there, just not 40K.

What do you do, invest in a game where you don't have to hope the company well someday, fix there broken game.

I still play 40K, even have 2 armys. But, thats becouse it's a fun Beer and Pretzel game, to waste a few hours on. Excepting anything else form it is a waste of time and money.

What some people fail to understand that game balance is important for both the 'casual' and the 'competitive' crowd. I know 'casual' players (more personally invested in the Hobby than I could ever be) who go on about how game balance is not important (or how the game is balanced and anyone can win with anything, etc), but then as soon as a new codex is released, decry it and talk about how horribly OP and broken it is and that anyone who plays it is a WAAC donkey-cave. They're wrong on both accounts.

Balance is integral for competitive play because it allows competitive play to be worth while. Granted, true balance will always be impossible in any game with multiple factions/characters/etc to use, especially within a metagame that evolves as new techniques are learned and new factions are released, but striving to achieve a level of balance where it's not entirely one sided is important, since it allows for varied styles of play that are entertaining both to spectators and the people involved in the game itself.
For casual play, balance is also important because it helps to stop the normally uninteresting experience of a 'curb-stomp battle.' Granted, factions that require more skill to succeed will end up losing more at lower levels of skill, but the general idea should be that in giving every faction the possibility to realistically succeed, casual play can remain varied and interesting. Furthermore, where there is no strong focus on min-maxing like there would be in a competitive environment, casual metagames still continue to evolve as players become more skilled and learn how to optimize their play more, whether it be through list construction or gameplay technique.
Competitive balance is just the most important aspect of game balance generally, since it's typically the highest (known) level of play.

Noir - Yeah, don't try to change anything for gods sake, things might actually get better!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir - I couldn't phase it any better, that is exactly my point!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
Fafnir - I couldn't phase it any better, that is exactly my point!

Uh, his point is that everything is fine. So if that's also your point, why start this thread?

The fact is that miniatures wargaming has its roots in scenario play and a more RPG approach to playing then the competative "sportshammer" that seems so popular in this day and age.

I have seen and played in games that are intentionally unbalanced as a matter of conveying a specific scene/scenario: doomed last stands, etc.

The point of play can be to tell a story in miniatures form, to replay a historic event/hypothetical situation,etc. that demands a certain imbalance to be represented faithfully, etc.

I have played scnearios in various systems in which the forces I played had very little if any chance of winning, yet (gasp) it was still fun to play. I have also seen sportshammer players completely lose their minds trying to figure out why we/I would bother with such an "unfair" game.

And that is the divide you are dealing with at times.

OF course there is a lot of middle ground in between as well...

CT GAMER wrote:The fact is that miniatures wargaming has its roots in scenario play and a more RPG approach to playing then the competative "sportshammer" that seems so popular in this day and age.

I have seen and played in games that are intentionally unbalanced as a matter of conveying a specific scene/scenario: doomed last stands, etc.

The point of play can be to tell a story in miniatures form, to replay a historic event/hypothetical situation,etc. that demands a certain imbalance to be represented faithfully, etc.

I have played scnearios in various systems in which the forces I played had very little if any chance of winning, yet (gasp) it was still fun to play. I have also seen sportshammer players completely lose their minds trying to figure out why we?i would bother with such an "unfair" game.

And that is the divide you are dealing with at times.

OF course their is a lot of middle ground in between as well...

But you can still have those scenarios in a completely balanced game. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

As a matter of fact, I'm reminded of those scenarios that came out in some chess publications (yeah, yeah, white pieces always start first, they are OP ), where you where given a very limited number of pieces vs your opponent and were then asked to give check mate in 3 plays, or try to play for a draw if you were in a horrible disadvantage.

That is one example of those last stand scenarios that you mention in the context of a game that is as balanced as possible.

PhantomViper wrote:

But you can still have those scenarios in a completely balanced game. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

Of course you can, but that isn't the issue.

Some people approach gaming from different core perspectives.

Some people demand balance as the prime requisite.

Some see the game as more of a sport or statistical exercise that demands mathematical balance between participants and are constantly evaluating and debating said balance. For them the game must have it or constantly be striving for it.

Others are more willing to find other aspects of wargaming or formats of play to focus on and find enjoyment in.

Still, a balanced game gives you more options than an unbalanced one. Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection. A truly balanced game makes all of the available options viable, allowing for more styles of play.

You can adapt a balanced game for scenario play, but an unbalanced game is inherently broken and can only be competently played in a small selection of ways.

Fafnir wrote: Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection.

And thus Greyknights were born...


Your assertion still assumes that a given player's prime objective is in min/maxing his own force or that he is focused first and foremost on "mathhammer".

I have fielded and seen people field units/models/themed lists that try to emulate fluff or a specific historic force, even in spite of their being other more "viable" choices. Again it comes down to personal motivations, the format/scenario at hand, player culture involved, etc.

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote: Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection.

And thus Greyknights were born...


Your assertion still assumes that a given player's prime objective is in min/maxing his own force or that he is focused first and foremost on "mathhammer".

I have fielded and seen people field units/models/themed lists that try to emulate fluff or a specific historic force, even in spite of their being other more "viable" choices. Again it comes down to personal motivations, the format/scenario at hand, player culture involved, etc.

I respectfully disagree. If you have a reasonably balanced game then those people that choose units based on the characteristics that you mentioned will still have a fair chance at winning that game. What puzzles me the most is that in a game like 40K or WHFB you'll actually lessen your chances of wining considerably, even against players of lesser skill than you, if you choose units based on anything other than said min / maxing, while in a game like WM it will come down to player skill rather then what units you choose (assuming that both players have some skill difference, in a case where both players are of the exact same skill then army list will play a much bigger role).

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Noir - Yeah, don't try to change anything for gods sake, things might actually get better!

Or you can do what I did and stop buying GW stuff, been almost year for me. The year before I only spent 150ish on there stuff, now with other model companys I never need to buy there products again.

Thats the only way to get your point across, MONEY.

So like I said you want balance, invest in some other game. Then stop buying there stuff, when enough people do this to effect there bottom line, until then your just telling then it OK what there doing. No matter how much you or anyone else complains.

PhantomViper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote: Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection.

And thus Greyknights were born...


Your assertion still assumes that a given player's prime objective is in min/maxing his own force or that he is focused first and foremost on "mathhammer".

I have fielded and seen people field units/models/themed lists that try to emulate fluff or a specific historic force, even in spite of their being other more "viable" choices. Again it comes down to personal motivations, the format/scenario at hand, player culture involved, etc.

I respectfully disagree. If you have a reasonably balanced game then those people that choose units based on the characteristics that you mentioned will still have a fair chance at winning that game. What puzzles me the most is that in a game like 40K or WHFB you'll actually lessen your chances of wining considerably, even against players of lesser skill than you, if you choose units based on anything other than said min / maxing, while in a game like WM it will come down to player skill rather then what units you choose (assuming that both players have some skill difference, in a case where both players are of the exact same skill then army list will play a much bigger role).

This.
I think everyone can just agree on that there will always be the competetive crowd and the casual crowd (and those in the middle ground).
The problem is that even if you're a casual-type gamer, you still want to have a fair shot at winning. In unbalanced games this becomes conflicting with your interest in using thematic units. The only way around it is to stop caring about winning, which I've done, but I think that's a stupid solution. Even if it's ok to lose, you still have to aim at winning, and you want that possibility with your not min/maxed list.
A competetive gamer does not have this issue, having foregone all the interest in themes and cares only for the best.
However, of course most people aren't one or the other, but stand in the middle ground, like on a scale.
Because I think every gamer has a will to delve into both the concept of winning and the concept of theme/fluff in wargaming, not being forced to choose one or the other.

Good game balance helps competitive players and either has no impact on, or helps, casual players. There is no reason to not want a well balanced game.

DarknessEternal wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
Fafnir - I couldn't phase it any better, that is exactly my point!

Uh, his point is that everything is fine. So if that's also your point, why start this thread?

Well in that case I horribly misunderstood what was written.

CT GAMER wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

But you can still have those scenarios in a completely balanced game. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

Of course you can, but that isn't the issue.

Some people approach gaming from different core perspectives.

Some people demand balance as the prime requisite.

Some see the game as more of a sport or statistical exercise that demands mathematical balance between participants and are constantly evaluating and debating said balance. For them the game must have it or constantly be striving for it.

Others are more willing to find other aspects of wargaming or formats of play to focus on and find enjoyment in.

Well what is the issue then and in what way does balance in a game got anything to do with it? Where does this fear of balance come from? Why stubbornly hold on to the notion that some people "don't care for balance" as an reason not to have balance in a game!? In what way would balance hurt anyone? Its like saying "why put safety-belts in a car, I have a car 'cause I like to fiddle with it as my hobby" assuming all others drive cars only to be safe. But can't you fiddle with a car even with a safety-belt? In what way would balance stop you from enjoying "other aspects" of the game other than gaming by which I suppose you mean modeling, painting, fluff etc.?

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote: Unbalanced games quickly become overcentralized, limiting viable options to a very small selection.

And thus Greyknights were born...


Your assertion still assumes that a given player's prime objective is in min/maxing his own force or that he is focused first and foremost on "mathhammer".

I have fielded and seen people field units/models/themed lists that try to emulate fluff or a specific historic force, even in spite of their being other more "viable" choices. Again it comes down to personal motivations, the format/scenario at hand, player culture involved, etc.

First and foremost, why is it that as soon as someone is requiring some balance, people seem to assume that you are some math geek without any interest in fluff? It probably helps to know how to handle statistics if you want to evaluate certain units, since the basis of of miniature game systems its math, like it or not. If the game designers grasped that idea the game might actually be a fairly balanced one. But to get to the point, I'm terrible at math and only field units that I believe is cool, but yeah if of two cool units one is better then I'll often go with the better one and so I expect most people to do...

And about these "heroic" people that field units to emulate certain events, and really "suffer for the art", what stops them from doing that in an balanced game? Unless the whole point with the army is to loose horribly and take some pride in doing so for being true to the fluff, I don't get how it couldn't be done within a balanced game system where you can field the same units? And if you still want to loose or have the game going in a special direction, apply special scenario rules instead! Wouldn't that be a somewhat better option for everyone? Or does a game have to be imbalanced if you, and the people you seem to be representing, are to feel satisfied? I do see the beauty in emulating events where one side is sure to loose, but not to build a whole gaming system around it unless its an historical game! And even in those games there must be some balance, otherwise you could just read some historical account of the battle and move the miniatures accordingly, no need to roll dices and you will get your certain defeat.

Noir wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Noir - Yeah, don't try to change anything for gods sake, things might actually get better!

Or you can do what I did and stop buying GW stuff, been almost year for me. The year before I only spent 150ish on there stuff, now with other model companys I never need to buy there products again.

Thats the only way to get your point across, MONEY.

So like I said you want balance, invest in some other game. Then stop buying there stuff, when enough people do this to effect there bottom line, until then your just telling then it OK what there doing. No matter how much you or anyone else complains.

Which is what I have been promoting.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:Good game balance helps competitive players and either has no impact on, or helps, casual players. There is no reason to not want a well balanced game.

And what makes you think so? Have you ever played a balanced game? If there is balance, casual and competitive players alike can enjoy a more fair game where what you do matters more than what army you happen to like! All armies should have a fair chance of beating any other army in the game and not just under very special circumstances, or would this take the fun out of gaming for you?

I am also very much in the camp that casual and competitive players both deserve good, well-balanced, challenging games and that the perceived "divide" is more about an us vs them mentality, or an attempt to discredit other players by what is essentially a meaningless argument: "you/they are fluff bunnies/WAAC players and therefore not playing the game as it is meant to be played". In certain cases, it can also be caused by very partisan monosystem/company players attempting to justify to themselves why they are still playing a game with a certain weakness (which can be anything from a lack of background to bad rules/balance to miniatures that look like shait) without really admitting to that weakness.

ArbitorIan wrote:
One of the reasons I play 40k is the background. No. I lie. THE reason I play 40k is the background. It's much richer, and partly this is because of the massive number of factions and units available for the game. Each faction can be played in lots of different ways, giving you endless possibilities of army. This isn't possible in Warmachine or Battlefront, which have a smaller range of model types/miniatures/factions/background.

Asides from the (already mentioned) fact that WM/H (and FoW? I do not know that game very well) has a much larger number of viable options due to better internal balance on average, it sort of looks like you are saying here that the real world (FoW WW2) is not as "rich" a bakground as 40k. Which would be sort of sad