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.

The thing with Balance..

Is that in a tourney sense there is always going to be a 'Right' build and all others are wrong..

The best we can hope for is that we get more than 3 races with the 'right' build

Its just like a MOBA there is a 'Right' build for every character.. and then maybe 1-2 situational alternatives.. If you are not building to the right build you are doing it wrong

GodDamUser wrote:
The thing with Balance..

Is that in a tourney sense there is always going to be a 'Right' build and all others are wrong..

The best we can hope for is that we get more than 3 races with the 'right' build

Its just like a MOBA there is a 'Right' build for every character.. and then maybe 1-2 situational alternatives.. If you are not building to the right build you are doing it wrong

At least until someone who can make it "right" in certain situations. It may only suit them, but when some does amazingly well against a certain build with an "off" build, people then try to make that "off" build work, and then fail.

Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.

Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern/full#paper

25 decks ranging from 1-8% of the field. Though some might find the cost shocking

It'll be tough for GW to pull that off with 40k. Hopefully the annual review of the points gets things in that direction.

 Jancoran wrote:
ugh. People. Seriously. Who gives a crap why anyone plays this game? Really, does it matter? Is there now a "wrong" MOTIVATION to play as well as a wrong "Way" to play? Is this really a road worth a damn? I think not.

The reality is, there's this game called 40K. if you like playing it...play it. If you lose because you are a so-called "fluffy player" then you got exactly what you wanted out of it... You played a fluffy army and got to push plastic around. If you are REALLY there to compete and win...stop calling yourself a fluffy player and just get down to business.

If youre a tournament player and you play to get better and compete, then you got what you wanted: a pell who calls himself a fluffy player. Dont like soft targets? Play someone else.

Either way who gives a rip. Play or dont. Lets talk about the actual game itself instead of trying to find some weird gamer moral high ground. Lots of crunchy bitz to discuss in this thread that is entitled "New 8th Edition FAQ"
.

smartest thing you ever said.



Theres no consistency in their argument, "fluffy" players whining that competitive players broke the game, and that the point system is not designed to make it so each player has a balanced army worth of units on the field. But reality check, if you are complaining that your fluffy list doesn't win against tournament lists then you aren't a fluffy player, you are just a bad competitor, because if you are out there getting invested in winning against other people, the only difference is that they brought a better build. And acting like it's up to the people trying to play a game competitively to just handicap themselves for the sake of the weaker lists is just ridiculous. The players didn't "break the game", everything is still a part of the game whether they use it or not, they simply pushed themselves to compete in a strategy game at the highest level, and the armies as have been designed do not provide an even playing field.


This thread just tells me people will ALWAYS have an excuse. In other games, you see people try to play off unbalanced stuff as not so bad, and say this is the dev's vision, etc. This game is so blatantly unbalanced that this excuse doesn't work, so now the excuse is that it's the players fault for using the unbalanced stuff. Utterly ridiculous, and only in GW have I ever and probably will I ever see this level of dedication to rejecting reality.

 SHUPPET wrote:

This thread just tells me people will ALWAYS have an excuse. In other games, you see people try to play off unbalanced stuff as not so bad, and say this is the dev's vision, etc. This game is so blatantly unbalanced that this excuse doesn't work, so now the excuse is that it's the players fault for using the unbalanced stuff. Utterly ridiculous, and only in GW have I ever and probably will I ever see this level of dedication to rejecting reality.

It is absolutely your fault that the game was a waste of time if you bring a Reaver Titan, or whatever the lol nope eldar version is called and reliable invisibility without warning. There are units or codex powers which fundamentally change the game into something that doesn't resemble the 'baseline' experience, for which the only counter is familiarity - something that can only be achieved through the random chance of the player's community having decided to include it.

 malamis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

This thread just tells me people will ALWAYS have an excuse. In other games, you see people try to play off unbalanced stuff as not so bad, and say this is the dev's vision, etc. This game is so blatantly unbalanced that this excuse doesn't work, so now the excuse is that it's the players fault for using the unbalanced stuff. Utterly ridiculous, and only in GW have I ever and probably will I ever see this level of dedication to rejecting reality.

It is absolutely your fault that the game was a waste of time if you bring a Reaver Titan, or whatever the lol nope eldar version is called and reliable invisibility without warning. There are units or codex powers which fundamentally change the game into something that doesn't resemble the 'baseline' experience, for which the only counter is familiarity - something that can only be achieved through the random chance of the player's community having decided to include it.

Hows that though? You went to a tournament, what if your opponent brought the same stuff? You now have a game, it's only a waste of time if you DIDN'T bring stuff of that level of power. This whole post just makes no sense to me at all. "The game is only unbalanced if you play unbalanced stuff, from the game, made to be a part of the game!" Yeah, what you are describing is a lack of balance in the game. By this logic, it's impossible for any game ever to be unbalanced.



Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just bringing an army from Codex Eldar vs an army of Codex Dark Eldar is already a massive imbalance. The DE player has to build the strongest list he can imagine and still having a losing match against a randomly generated Eldar list. How in god name you guys spin this to be a fault of the players is absurd.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?

Had a mate who hadn't been to an event before come to a friendly event to encourage newer players.. Brought his Grey Knights and got Complaint against him and lost points because he had 2 Dredknights within the list, but not an optimal layout or list at all.. the guy that did the complaining had done some ganky combo, and was a tourney regular.. (cant remember what is was now.. but it was strong)

Really killed my mates willingness to go to future events

GodDamUser wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?

Had a mate who hadn't been to an event before come to a friendly event to encourage newer players.. Brought his Grey Knights and got Complaint against him and lost points because he had 2 Dredknights within the list, but not an optimal layout or list at all.. the guy that did the complaining had done some ganky combo, and was a tourney regular.. (cant remember what is was now.. but it was strong)

Really killed my mates willingness to go to future events

Yeah its sad to see, sounds very similar what happened here, at least ours was a little less malicious though. Really sucks to have people discredit your wins just because you built a competitive list, must suck even more so if you just threw together the coolest models you can afford. I'm sick to death seeing these so called "fluffy" players rage about losing to better armies than what they brought, and blaming the players for balance, sorry but the players didn't make the game, so either you are competing or you aren't, and if you aren't then don't complain that you lost to the guy who is because you should never be able to beat him, and this sentiment is applicable to every competitive game ever. I've also noticed that the buck stops immediately at their own list. E.G. Tau guy with 1 Riptide loses to guy with three, that's just pure cheese. Won't remove the same model from his list when it comes to mop the guy playing his collection of fluffy Orks though of course. It's such a blatantly self serving mentality, no, the competitive players are NOT responsible for the unbalanced game design, and you will find the people at the highest level of play are the ones pushing the hardest to GET balance. Then you have people handwaving the balance issues and even worse, mindlessly debating the people who are trying to see a higher standard from GW, but then blaming and complaing about the players who beat them because of the balance issues that they were supposedly okay with, because they just play for the "fluff" and not to win, when they clearly are playing to win or they wouldn't be whining about their loss due to balance in the first place. It's such ridiculous, cartoonishly stereotypical behavior, that contradicts itself on multiple levels. I'm not going to participate in this argument with them any further, they are their own worst enemy. Can't logic someone out of a position they haven't logic'd themselves into.

My suggestion for everyone is to see the list they are building as their contribution to the experience of both players. Figure out what kind of experience both you and your opponent want to have and make an appropriate list. Think about your approach to the game and their approach and make the list that gives the game experience that both people want.

Hopefully the new edition will make doing so easier for everyone.

If your goal is a balanced game though, you may have to think about what it means when you select a unit that you know is pointed incorrectly. What it means when you identify the most efficient options and take as many of them as possible. What it means when you look for synergy where the power produced is greater than the individual models and how they are costed.

if it's for an event where that is the norm, then go for it. But then you don't want balance, you want to set up the game for your victory in advance. If that's what you are into, go for it. But don't blame the designer when you succeed. And certainly don't blame them when you take that same list and play someone who is not looking for the same thing from the game and they react negatively to what you are doing.

When you intentionally seek efficiency, synergy and undercosted units when list building, you are seeking out imbalance in the very system meant to help achieve balance. Just admit that and go hard in the tournament and stop blaming others for your actions. And when people don't like what you are doing, don't write them off as making excuses for their own lack of competitive performance. They may not even be looking for a competitive experience. It's also entirely possible that other gamers don't like the idea of the game being decided in the list building stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Really sucks to have people discredit your wins just because you built a competitive list

If the results aren't based on the decisions made during the game, then it sounds like a fake win to me. So the only wins you really should count are those against people who are doing the same thing as you. Those would definitely not be fake as they would be dependent on decisions made during the game.

But those terrible people with their excuses! How dare they not want the game to be decided before it even happens?! What scrubs!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the biggest problem with solely blaming the designer is that it just leaves you stuck. If the players contributed nothing to the imbalance by picking the most efficient options, looking for undercosted units, gaining uncosted power through synergy and so on, then you're just stuck hoping the next codex release or the next edition will fix things. The designers obviously did not make the game sufficiently balanced to stop players who are intentionally seeking imbalance from being able to do so. The design doesn't even stop it from popping up accidentally. So I guess you just hope someone else solves your problem for you with a future published product? Advocate loudly for balance on internet forums?

If you accept the player does have a role, then you can actually do something about problems as they come up. You can be honest with your prospective opponents about what "way to play" you actually are interested in and what approach you are not interested in. And if the system does have actual inherent balance problems (and it does) you'll at least be spared of the additional intentionally created problems that come with making the list building pre-game a key part of the game experience. You'll only have to address the ones that come up by accident.

Accepting that players seeking advantage is a cause of imbalance allows you to actually take responsibility for your game experience (and that of your opponent) and actually do something about it. Rather than hoping someone else will rescue you with a new codex or edition.

Or, if you're having no problem with the current state of 40k because you like the primacy of the pre-game list building deciding things if the opponent doesn't do likewise then just carry on. You have what you want. You can play gunline vs invincible synergy list to your heart's content.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.

Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern/full#paper

25 decks ranging from 1-8% of the field. Though some might find the cost shocking

It'll be tough for GW to pull that off with 40k. Hopefully the annual review of the points gets things in that direction.

I miss Extended.
I was looking forwards to the end of ElDrazi, then Wizards withdraws support from Extended and release new ElDrazi in Standard. Just no winning.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.

Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern/full#paper

25 decks ranging from 1-8% of the field. Though some might find the cost shocking

It'll be tough for GW to pull that off with 40k. Hopefully the annual review of the points gets things in that direction.

I miss Extended.
I was looking forwards to the end of ElDrazi, then Wizards withdraws support from Extended and release new ElDrazi in Standard. Just no winning.

I know exactly what you mean. Eldrazi Winter in modern was awful. Though the local player base really did rally together and refused to play the deck. We had a month solid of players automatically conceding to anyone who played Eldrazi aggro in Modern. So you could play the broken list and automatically win. Actually playing was more important to them than winning in the end it only took a month before we got back to our weekly modern even not being busted. Another store flattened the prizing and then gave an extra pack to everyone who didn't have Eldrazi in their deck.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Even in MtG there are usually only three builds after any new release settles.
There's still the fun of a 'Rogue' deck that is only good against one or two of the top builds but gets lucky and draws those decks for opponents.

Hopefully new 40k turns out to be more like Modern than Standard to use an MTG comparison.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/modern/full#paper

25 decks ranging from 1-8% of the field. Though some might find the cost shocking

It'll be tough for GW to pull that off with 40k. Hopefully the annual review of the points gets things in that direction.

I miss Extended.
I was looking forwards to the end of ElDrazi, then Wizards withdraws support from Extended and release new ElDrazi in Standard. Just no winning.

I know exactly what you mean. Eldrazi Winter in modern was awful. Though the local player base really did rally together and refused to play the deck. We had a month solid of players automatically conceding to anyone who played Eldrazi aggro in Modern. So you could play the broken list and automatically win. Actually playing was more important to them than winning in the end it only took a month before we got back to our weekly modern even not being busted. Another store flattened the prizing and then gave an extra pack to everyone who didn't have Eldrazi in their deck.

Wow, wish things went that way at my FLGS - Eldrazi are popular, people without ElDrazi decks are looked at as oddballs.

GodDamUser wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?

Had a mate who hadn't been to an event before come to a friendly event to encourage newer players.. Brought his Grey Knights and got Complaint against him and lost points because he had 2 Dredknights within the list, but not an optimal layout or list at all.. the guy that did the complaining had done some ganky combo, and was a tourney regular.. (cant remember what is was now.. but it was strong)

Really killed my mates willingness to go to future events

But here's the thing; if the game wasn't so ridiculously imbalanced, that conversation would be much more muted or never even come up.

In 40k there is an accepted truth that you can EITHER play "fluffy" or "competitive." That's not really a thing in other games because they have some semblance of balance! I play Malifaux, so I keep coming back to that. There is no faction that is not viable in that game. However, I play one master and one master only. That master has a lot of weaknesses. Normally, you'll have a handful of masters, and you'll pick one that's good at the objective you're going to do, but I don't do that. I play her into the objectives she's the very worst at too. It's basically the equivalent of "playing fluffy." And while some games are real uphill battles, I never feel like they're completely impossible. At least not until a few rounds in when the game has started to show how it's going to pan out. (I play Colette, for anyone that knows the masters and is wondering.)

It's like taking a full grot list, or a list built around Ratling snipers in 40k and still feeling like you have at least a passing shot at winning every game, no matter how optimised and tournament perfect a list your enemy brings. Can you imagine that?

 frozenwastes wrote:

If the results aren't based on the decisions made during the game, then it sounds like a fake win to me. So the only wins you really should count are those against people who are doing the same thing as you. Those would definitely not be fake as they would be dependent on decisions made during the game.

This, exactly this. It's the whole "bringing a chainsaw to a chess boxing fight" approach. that disrupts the validity of the event. If the armies could be appropriately *classed* so you can operate on the same level as your opponents while going in blind there wouldn't be a problem. Same thing for non-competition games really would make pick ups a lot simpler.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Hows that though? You went to a tournament, what if your opponent brought the same stuff? You now have a game, it's only a waste of time if you DIDN'T bring stuff of that level of power. This whole post just makes no sense to me at all. "The game is only unbalanced if you play unbalanced stuff, from the game, made to be a part of the game!" Yeah, what you are describing is a lack of balance in the game. By this logic, it's impossible for any game ever to be unbalanced.

What i'm describing is the existence of game progression disrupting options which change the underlying expectations of how the game is played in some cases.

What exactly is the point of a spontaneous titan dance off, in an arranged competition event though? Quite reasonably Titans and most other FW stuff are barred from many events because their inclusion means the basic premise of the event itself is changed from "Lets play 40k" to "lets slap each other in the face with our wallets for 6 hours".

 SHUPPET wrote:

Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?

... so why didn't someone come out and explain it to him? If the quality of your community is such that they impose rules without taking the time to explain and demonstrate why they've been applied when it's not immediately obvious to beginners, i'd suggest you're grappling with deeper problems than badly organised power levels.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Really sucks to have people discredit your wins just because you built a competitive list

If the results aren't based on the decisions made during the game, then it sounds like a fake win to me. So the only wins you really should count are those against people who are doing the same thing as you. Those would definitely not be fake as they would be dependent on decisions made during the game.

But those terrible people with their excuses! How dare they not want the game to be decided before it even happens?! What scrubs!

Sounds like you have absolutely ZERO concept of how this game works, to me, to the point that you may as well be playing a different game. If I wanted a game where list building, and taking the smartest list possible for my army was not a part of who wins, I'd be playing Chess. Trying to act like you have to bring the exact same thing as your opponent to be playing "real" 40k is just utterly ridiculous, competitive building is a staple in every modern competitive game. I come to play against other people bringing their A-Game, thus I bring my A-Game myself, no fake wins here. Look at my profile anyway, I'm a Tyranid main, and any of the people in the Tyranid community will tell you I'm a pretty big advocate against spamming fliers. It's not like I'm the one bringing the cheese, here. Doesn't mean I blame the players who do, why would I want them to handicap themselves to some arbitary level set to the strength of my dex? That's not a victory to me. What I want changed is to see their dex balanced, so that they can still build the smartest list they can, but be at a similar power level to the rest of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
M
I think the biggest problem with solely blaming the designer is that it just leaves you stuck. If the players contributed nothing to the imbalance by picking the most efficient options, looking for undercosted units, gaining uncosted power through synergy and so on, then you're just stuck hoping the next codex release or the next edition will fix things. The designers obviously did not make the game sufficiently balanced to stop players who are intentionally seeking imbalance from being able to do so. The design doesn't even stop it from popping up accidentally. So I guess you just hope someone else solves your problem for you with a future published product? Advocate loudly for balance on internet forums?

If you accept the player does have a role, then you can actually do something about problems as they come up. You can be honest with your prospective opponents about what "way to play" you actually are interested in and what approach you are not interested in. And if the system does have actual inherent balance problems (and it does) you'll at least be spared of the additional intentionally created problems that come with making the list building pre-game a key part of the game experience. You'll only have to address the ones that come up by accident.

Accepting that players seeking advantage is a cause of imbalance allows you to actually take responsibility for your game experience (and that of your opponent) and actually do something about it. Rather than hoping someone else will rescue you with a new codex or edition.

Or, if you're having no problem with the current state of 40k because you like the primacy of the pre-game list building deciding things if the opponent doesn't do likewise then just carry on. You have what you want. You can play gunline vs invincible synergy list to your heart's content.

How is that any different at all to relying on the players to make that change? I'm just as stuck hoping that every single player or tournament handicaps themselves to a much lower level of play, if not more so. And how would that be done to the point that dexes like Orks and DE can compete with Eldar, without either banning a MASSIVE amount of someone's dex, or just rewriting the rules ourselves? We pay GW a large premium for the rules for this game, it is our right or even responsibility as consumers to give critical feedback on where we think the game could be improved. If you disagree and it's not a problem for you, good for you! It does not change other people's experience. I can't for the life of me understand why people would argue AGAINST a balanced game, where you CAN take an army of Riptide's because you love anime or whatever, and not be a "cheeser".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 malamis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Plus, you act like its impossible to just stumble on the broke gak. I know a guy a year or so back who had 2 games to his name, loved anime, was encouraged to pick up Tau, fell in love with the Riptide model... and couldn't work out why house rules said his perfectly legal 40k army wasn't allowed to enter the first local tourney he tried to join. That's besides the point, the point is the guy wasn't a cheeser, wasn't some guy who was trying to break the rules, he just wanted to play with as much of the coolest model in his army as he could fit in. Totally his own fault for going out of his way to break the rules that he was still yet to learn though, right?

... so why didn't someone come out and explain it to him? If the quality of your community is such that they impose rules without taking the time to explain and demonstrate why they've been applied when it's not immediately obvious to beginners, i'd suggest you're grappling with deeper problems than badly organised power levels.

This is pretty large amounts of projection based on what I just mentioned, but it's whatever. You're talking to someone who is against those house rules to begin with. I play with the groups I have available because there is no alternative. Some are better managed than others. I'll leave it at that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
This is pretty large amounts of projection based on what I just mentioned, but it's whatever. You're talking to someone who is against those house rules to begin with. I play with the groups I have available because there is no alternative. Some are better managed than others. I'll leave it at that.

Which returns to the issue if the house rules are considered necessary, because people chose things which change the games structure to the point the game itself becomes unrewarding due to a lack of effective functional equivalence. I've been on both sides of it and it's only because we've been around long enough to read armies quickly that it's no longer a problem for me or my group.

 TheIronCrow wrote:
Free rules, app with everything on it, and a community page that you can give feed back for changes?

Amazing. Anyone against this is just dense or backwards.

This is just an appetizer.
You will get the bill afterwards. At the lastest when you want to play your first game.