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.

Kilkrazy wrote:Jervis saying the game is "narrative" is just an excuse for not bothering or not being able to make a balanced set of rules.

No it shows he knows his target audience and is not going to stray because you want to cry like a little child when you don't get your way.

whatwhat wrote:
"nothing would be unatractive" Please give me an example of a game anywhere in history where there aren't unattractive options? Theres going to be unatractive options in either game wheter its competetive or a narative game its just there gonna be different.

Part of having a game is the idea that people do have to make choices. And, as such, you're right, at any given point in time, in any game, you can find one option that is less attractive than the other. In chess, there are times when having a pawn is more valuable than having a queen...

However, it's about how unattractive, and application. Currently, in the horribly unbalanced 40k universe, you have such wild disparity as a Killa Kan going for 35 points, and a similarly armoured, yet open-topped Penitent Engine going for 80. In some armies, unit A is better, because it works better with the other parts of the army. In other armies, unit B has more synergy. This should be the sort of challenge that a game like this presents the player. Not "identify that unit A is always better in all cases than unit B, and take as many unit A as you can."

I can't be bothered explaining what a narative game is anymore, i dont even play it ffs.

In other words, you realize that you're wrong, and are taking the cop-out answer. A narrative game is one based around a storyline, where the forces are chosen to fit the story, not because they're the most effective choices in the codex. And, a narrative game loses nothing based on having the points-costs in the codexes more balanced. If your narrative game becomes less enjoyable when the two forces you're using are more closely matched, perhaps you should re-evaluate your storytelling abilities.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.....

And I step to address to problems here. (I will probably bounce all over the place here )

We have a many mindsets at work here. Casual gamers wondering why game has to be competitive. Hardcore tourneys guys looking for better system of rules. Then some
in-betweeners.

Every game has this same ol' arguement. I used to be the tourney organizer for a card game for like 6+ years. I'd hear all the time "Why they always have to power game at these tourneys?" I'd think to myself "Duh, it's a tourney with prize on line"

There is nothing wrong with the "fluffers" wanting to play their narrative story-line campaign style games. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with the powergamer rolling in and kicking ass to win the Battleforce or whatever the prize. Usually when these two meet things regress. People's idea of fun are completely different.

You have to know going to tourney that the 10 year fluff army that you worked on is probably not going to do so hot AND bringing the "Godzilla" to an infantry only campaign setting is just as bad.

Thinks about where you are going when you play 40k and adapt to surroundings.

leaves

Confusing double post.

whatwhat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Narrative games don't require any rules at all.

They don't but that doesn't mean you cant have a narrative game with rules.

Peole really need to learn what a narrative game is before they start saying competetive and narative games are one and the same, I can't see point anyone has said here against that argument either, save from people who don't understand why it's called a narative wargame.

I'm not saying you cant play this game competitively but don't expect the rules to work for you.

I still don't get whats wrong with tournament rules either.

Kilkrazy wrote:Jervis saying the game is "narrative" is just an excuse for not bothering or not being able to make a balanced set of rules.

the term narative wargame has been used by gw long before any of this whining came about.

That's not the same as stating that tournament players won't be supported.

JokerGod wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Jervis saying the game is "narrative" is just an excuse for not bothering or not being able to make a balanced set of rules.

No it shows he knows his target audience and is not going to stray because you want to cry like a little child when you don't get your way.

Thank you for your penetrating analysis of the arguments, incisive wit, and close adherence to forum rules.

You tosser.

whatwhat wrote:Right I have a balanced ruleset in my hands, I realise that theres no point in having this guy, this guy, this guy or that apothecary there cause their not worth the points for what they do.

Ok... you've just described an unbalanced ruleset, one where there are useless units and, presumably, non-useless units that you take over the useless units. Your example is fundamentally flawed.

A balanced ruleset wouldn't have that problem.

BYE

JokerGod wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Jervis saying the game is "narrative" is just an excuse for not bothering or not being able to make a balanced set of rules.

No it shows he knows his target audience and is not going to stray because you want to cry like a little child when you don't get your way.

JokerGod, this is rude and uncalled for. If you disagree with a poster, disagree politely. Please be sure to read the Forum Rules as well.

I also removed your avatar, as it was distracting and drew too much attention to itself (that is, I could be looking on the other side of the screen and it would still grab my eye). Please choose something less flashy.

Thank you.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Right I have a balanced ruleset in my hands, I realise that theres no point in having this guy, this guy, this guy or that apothecary there cause their not worth the points for what they do.

Ok... you've just described an unbalanced ruleset, one where there are useless units and, presumably, non-useless units that you take over the useless units. Your example is fundamentally flawed.

A balanced ruleset wouldn't have that problem.

BYE

Except that the balanced ruleset you are groping for is like true communism. It isn't possible given the nature of the beings who create and use it.

Ratbarf wrote:Except that the balanced ruleset you are groping for is like true communism. It isn't possible given the nature of the beings who create and use it.

Who create it? Correct. GW have to sell shiny new model kits, so there will always be imbalances that allow that to happen. But it isn't impossible.

BYE

I started this thread tongue in cheek. There probably are ways to beat Orks, although I don't know if they can beat Orks AND whoever you play in the next round of the tournament.

Some people think I was crazy for whining about this, but there is now at least two more "orks never lose" threads, one by a reputable Dakkite. So, at least I was whiny, crazy first! I've noticed that Dark Angels players also occassionally express their frustration in the forums...

I guess a better thread topic would be 'I beat Orks, here's how' thread, to spread some Green Skin love around.

Personally, I'd be interested in reading about a. Dual Jetbike Seercouncil WITH Destructor warlocks vs. Orks. b. Sternguard drop vs. Orks. c. Maxed out pie plate Tyranids behind 30 to 60 guants vs. Orks, compared with d. Maxed out close combat Godzilla vs. Orks. e. Land Raider spam, you choose the flavor vs. Orks f. Dual or Triple Marine Whirlwind vs. Orks. g. Single or dual landraider Redeemer down the Ork throat supported by whatever. h. A rematch of Daemons vs. Orks, I've seen wins on both sides. i. SOB with many Immolators, or less Immolators and 3 Exorcists j. Razorback rush with Storm Bolter/Heavy Bolter razorbacks, or is it Assault Cannons/Storm Bolters (I don't think this will work actually....).

My beloved Chaos SM had a very hard day last time against Orks, seems that the SAG drifted right over a squad of my Thousand Sons and then exploded at strength 10-game over. I wondered if Mike Mutsheller (sp?) played and beat Orks at Chicago. Mike was famous, IMO for being the only player in the USA to get a top 10 finish with ordinary Marines under 4th edition-I think others have called him 'tactically sound'.

This may seem really stupid, but how about triple Swooping Hawk/Autarchs with 3 Fire Prism Eldar. Would you get enough templates down over 5 turns to kill a respectable number of Green Skins?

Meantime, if you play against Orks, please do NOT set up a marine gun line in range of the Lootas and a first turn WAAGH when you KNOW you are going second. That would be unsound tactics......

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:Except that the balanced ruleset you are groping for is like true communism. It isn't possible given the nature of the beings who create and use it.

Who create it? Correct. GW have to sell shiny new model kits, so there will always be imbalances that allow that to happen. But it isn't impossible.

BYE

Chess is arguably the most balanced game in the world. (Checkers don't count cause its for five year olds.) And I bet you would always take an army of Queens and knights over an army of pawns.

malfred wrote:

wash-away wrote:
the problem is the guy in the ring is taking steroids and we've been training our whole life. The local gym, practice every week, even trade fitness advice with friends etc, but he's still got the damn steroids and the ref doesn't give a damn.

In the end, you have a longer expected life span.

Assuming you survive the fight.

(Analogies are fun!)

but your career is over,

yes, analogies are fun.

as far as 'narrative play' can't be balanced thats like saying a car can't be fast.

I remember the first narrative wargame I played was called 'army men,' we had such a hard time finding rules for it and anything to support it other then the models that we just made it up and went along. it was very balanced, neither of us lost a game, because as soon as the grilled cheese was done we didn't care.

I'm not playing 40k simply because there's fluff, I don't care about the story, ultramarines can kiss my ass. I'm playing because I enjoy, playing! remember that? playing a game?

JJ shouldn't use the term 'narrative play' to get away with this. I don't enjoy pushing little plastic men around going 'pew pew' anymore. I'm not playing gi joe i'm playing 40k.

the rules should be balanced across the board. I don't see how that hurts gamers, hobbyists (remember those?), narrative play, tourny play, TFG's, or anything else.

honestly I think they do this to boost sale's, nerf the old stuff make the new stuff awsome. the only reason I still play is because it lets me use the same set of models to play in a variety of places. I don't put up with PP models, Battletech, or any other game, because there's no support for it.

Ratbarf wrote:Chess is arguably the most balanced game in the world.

Aside from the Special Rule "White ones go first", yeah.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:Chess is arguably the most balanced game in the world.

Aside from the Special Rule "White ones go first", yeah.

that's not a bad thing mind you, my play style has always been to let my opponent play to their strengths and exploit it.. hopefully

though I guess you could say a bit racist but thats just for activist's with not enough to do.

Queens are broken.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Queens are broken.

BYE

but you both have a queen.

What about if someone brings a red queen?

wash-away wrote:but you both have a queen.

I'm going to assume for a moment that you got I was being sarcastic, and were attempting to join in.

Is this a correct assumption?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

wash-away wrote:but you both have a queen.

I'm going to assume for a moment that you got I was being sarcastic, and were attempting to join in.

Is this a correct assumption?

BYE

Dude, when are you not sarcastic?

And besides, both sides also have 8 closeted queens. It's like the build up to
Mardi Gras. You never know who's going to be riding the float with the half
naked firemen.

Redbeard wrote:

I can't be bothered explaining what a narative game is anymore, i dont even play it ffs.

In other words, you realize that you're wrong, and are taking the cop-out answer.

No, in other words I can't be bothered explaining what a narrative game is anymore.

whatwhat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

I can't be bothered explaining what a narative game is anymore, i dont even play it ffs.

In other words, you realize that you're wrong, and are taking the cop-out answer.

No, in other words I can't be bothered explaining what a narrative game is anymore.

Everyone here was aware of what a narrative game was before you came in and attempted to "Explain" it. The point you don't seem to be getting (or are deliberately failing to understand) is that the ruleset can't negatively affect your idea of a narrative game - saying "Yeah but there will be poor choices in every codex" does nothing to illustrate how a well-written and effective ruleset would somehow harm the narrative experience.

You've been accused of 'copping out' because, instead of attempting to clearly explain your point, you have thrown your hands up in the air and said "Well I can't be bothered to explain anything." Obviously, you're really trying to say "Yeah well I see your point but I don't want to agree with you because that would require admitting I'm either wrong or that my explanation is far from sufficient" but really if you decided that you weren't going to be willing to even begin to explain your position, what makes you think you would do any good by posting in the first place?

And a quick FYI to the "Well JJ obviously knows his target audience" and "GW knows what they are doing so stuff it" crowd: GW has posted substantial losses for FY 2006 and 2007. It will be interesting to see if they can climb out of the hole they are digging given the current economic climate but it's safe to say that they haven't exactly been making awesome decisions that have resulted in tons of profit for the company.

MikeMcSomething wrote:Obviously, you're really trying to say "Yeah well I see your point but I don't want to agree with you because that would require admitting I'm either wrong or that my explanation is far from sufficient"?

Obviously I'm really trying to say is, go back and read my other posts so I don't have to explain it again. But yeh on the subject of giving up, I give up.

MikeMcSomething wrote:And a quick FYI to the "Well JJ obviously knows his target audience" and "GW knows what they are doing so stuff it" crowd: GW has posted substantial losses for FY 2006 and 2007. It will be interesting to see if they can climb out of the hole they are digging given the current economic climate but it's safe to say that they haven't exactly been making awesome decisions that have resulted in tons of profit for the company.

Depends on how you look at it...

Internet Expert would agree with you.

Financial Expert would tend to point out that other companies in the same sector are seeing a slowdown, and this accelerate in GW out of proportion by the LotR come down. Sales are still up on pre-LotR, and quite well so. What they say we are seeing is a natural adjustment to the real market now the Cash Cow has been milked dry. Add in GW getting a bit overzealous in their Management structure, and you see a lower profit margin, so healthy sales look less so. Hence GW's cut back which are aimed at saving millions.

But yeah, lets go with Interweb Experts, they know everything about everything, especially when viewed in isolation of other factors.

Everyone read your posts. The meaning in them was clear. The fact that it does not mean their meaning was logical, or capable of being easily defended, does not mean that people did not understand them.

You are making the point that a better tournament ruleset is worse for narrative play, without demonstrating how that would be the case. When you found out nobody agrees with you, you said "Well screw it I give up" - were you just hoping to generate a flood of "Yes! I too, agree that an excellent ruleset would damage narrative play!" - style responses without having to back up the assertion?

I think financial experts would also saying similar at this point. This company's been a stock dog for two years, in the high point of the business cycle. Now that we're hitting a trough they may be in for a world of hurt.

Admittedly I have not read through all 10 pages of posts so far, just the last two.

That said, what is our/your definition of balanced rules?

Chess always has balanced forces with no randomness from dice rolls or coin flips and the means of winning is completely within the moves, knowledge and experience of the players.

In 40k, for example, we want the variety of different armies (to support the sci-fi storyline) and therefore, each army has different units, different stats, and different costs which create unique forces with unique play styles (shooty, assault, horde, elite, etc.)

But this is an example of balanced armies. What are balanced rules? 5th edition? Are they unbalanced? Or do we mean inconsistent? Or do we mean not tight enough for tournament play?

Why would tournament players need a tighter ruleset than casual players? One could argue that tournament play has "more on the line" in terms of prize support, but if a casual player's goal is to have fun, the same "not-tight" ruleset is going to be just as glaring because the same rule interpretation questions will come up; but instead of have a judge make a ruling at a tournament, casual players have to waste time with the old "4+ and we'll go with my interpretation" thing.

It appears that JJ & Co. have chosen the casual player to be their focus and write their rules and army books with that audience in mind. By this statement GW seems prepared to "lose" tournament customers or know that though there will be griping, we'll all keep playing.

Yes, in a perfect world we should expect GW to sell us a perfect product. Since that won't be, then we the community needs to write our own FAQs and use them and present them as a standard that any tournament organizer in the world can use. My impression is that is what Yakface has done; and it would appear that GW has even "taken" (perhaps with permission) and posted it on their own site.

On one hand I've seen people complain that "GW isn't doing their own work" But does that really make the world a better place? At least something got posted. Something "official". Something you can download, print out and point to as a standard and say "this is the way we will play" whether you are a casual or tournament player.

Jon

MikeMcSomething wrote:You are making the point that a better tournament ruleset is worse for narrative play, without demonstrating how that would be the case.

I gave plenty of examples actually.

Maybe I was unclear, so what. Just because I cant be bothered to explain it again doesn't mean I agree with the oposite argument and wont admit it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:And a quick FYI to the "Well JJ obviously knows his target audience" and "GW knows what they are doing so stuff it" crowd: GW has posted substantial losses for FY 2006 and 2007. It will be interesting to see if they can climb out of the hole they are digging given the current economic climate but it's safe to say that they haven't exactly been making awesome decisions that have resulted in tons of profit for the company.

Depends on how you look at it...

Internet Expert would agree with you.

Financial Expert would tend to point out that other companies in the same sector are seeing a slowdown, and this accelerate in GW out of proportion by the LotR come down. Sales are still up on pre-LotR, and quite well so. What they say we are seeing is a natural adjustment to the real market now the Cash Cow has been milked dry. Add in GW getting a bit overzealous in their Management structure, and you see a lower profit margin, so healthy sales look less so. Hence GW's cut back which are aimed at saving millions.

But yeah, lets go with Interweb Experts, they know everything about everything, especially when viewed in isolation of other factors.

A 78% drop in net income, followed by a pre-tax loss of 2m (indicating a staggering 200% drop in net income) the following year, is not "Quite well so[sic]" And if this was due in large part to the "LoTR slowdown" that you haven't shown to exist (but we'll just assume for the purpose of your argument that it is true, even though it is a highly specuous claim) then that means LoTR makes up such a massively disproportionate share of their revenue that 40k and WHFB were already either losing money for GW the previous two years or were floating dead in the water.

The hypothetical "Financial Expert" you conjured up is looking more like a "GW Apologist" every minute.