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.

SWCCG was strangely the only cargame I've ever played, maybe beacuse it was so cool... I'm still trying to complete my Decks (save special edition, which was gay)

Oh and on topic:
I think there are certain limits you can go...for example i defended my all-melee tyranid army for a long time. Sure it wasn't that competitive but was fun and had some punch. But i have to admit that the new codex doesn't support this style of play that well...it's just that...no beating round the bush!

Greets
Schepp himself

I wasn't specifically responding to your post before Stonefox but I am this time.

You say you agree with the man on points 5 and 6, I assume that means you don't agree with him on points 1-4?
You also seem to be focusing more on the application than on the theory behind it.

Ignore everything Rosewater is saying about cards.
Regardless of the product all of these points are valid.

1. applies when releasing codexs and army lists. GW is constantly reworking their format. If they didn't give each army a range quality in their units the only way to re-design units would be to make them stonger. "Unfortunately, this solution would ultimately destroy the game as the power level would keep increasing until it spun madly out of control. (MR-When Cards Go Bad)"

2. applies universally. No matter what the game. One of GW's stregths is that it is many things to many people. There are tournament players and club players. There are those that build fluffy armies and those that build weak armies for the challenge. There are players that will buy the models but will never buy the rules and players that will buy the rules but never buy the models. "Its adaptability allows each gamer to shift the game to his or her liking. The downside to this cool aspect of the game is that players have to realize that [there will be units] designed for other types of players."(MR, edited by me)

3. is my favourite point. The only reason people think some units are "not worth" playing is because they have played them! It's a conclusion they have developed on their own and part of learning how to play the game. "Can you remember key times where you finally “got” some concept?"(MR) For example, when you realized that a 500 point HQ unit with all the bells and whistles looks really pretty on paper but just doesn't accomplish as much as 3 units of troops for the same price.

4. should be intuitive for some people but others need to be told. The only thing that makes a unit choice "good" is comparing it to "bad" ones or how you use it in your army.

Also everything I've said about units also applies to upgrades and wargear.
When you said "Wargames have very few choices compared to card games and there's less combinatorial power with the different choices." you were just plain old fashioned wrong or need to broaden your concept of a combo. Considering all the characters, upgrades, war gear and special powers that can be applied to a sigle model, much less across an entire 3000 point army, I say there is at least equal combinatorial power and choices than in CCG and probably more.

As to the original question:

Point of veiw. If someone doesn't think that their army is underpowered, possibly because they win more than they lose, and are having fun, then all the posts in the world may not convince them otherwise. Doesn't make them wrong, or the other guy right.

Sort of like telling the woman with the black eye that she's a battered wife, and ignoring the whip in her hand, and the four battered males that she keeps chained around the house to clean, cook, and occaisionally rape.

Very true, Mikhalia. I know a local player with an Ork army that fits that description. In all the years I've known him, he's never lost a tournament game and outside tournaments I'm guessing he wins about 80% of the time.
He just laughs when he hears people talk about how worthless orks are.

I would love to see his list. Something tells me that a shooty marine list would probably have little trouble agains it unless it's Ferals.

Odd - Sure, I was responding to yours even if it wasn't for me. Anyway..

I don't exactly disagree with 1-4, but I agree more with 5 and 6. I like to point out the application since to me it's easier to see how the theory works. Now, if you look at the fact that business theory must be mixed into whatever game theory the designers decide to use, you'll see both card games and minis games are also different. For card games, designers can get away with crap cards since they get to sell more boxes that way. For miniatures games, it doesn't make as much sense since you'd expect mini businesses to want people to get all of their minis. I acknowledge that perhaps it's probably the same by feigning variety since you can just create more models of the popular models and only make a limited amount of the crappy ones.

1. I take this more-or-less as obvious fact since we'd all be playing with pawns (or all rooks if you'd like) if it was a chess game. However, like I said above, it makes more sense for a CCG company to create crappy cards to fill packs.

2. Subjective opinion. While "good and bad" is relative, I don't think subjective opinion can really match itself up against mathematical scrutiny. You might be able to say something like, "but these units are good if you're under these conditions where your basic math assumes those conditions," but you'd still be able to create a list of pros and cons for each unit and declare one marginally, significantly, or no-contest better. Of course, you'll get the occasional "these are too similar in power level" ties, but we're not complaining about those unless one costs more than the other.  This point also used the "flavorful" (or for 40k, fluffy) excuse. Heh.

3. While you may think the number of wargear creates possible combinations anywhere close to 300+ cards per set in a card game...but I digress. Sometimes it is indeed true that a previously unfound gem lurked behind certain army lists. Feral orks armies came out way after the list was originally printed, right? How long did it take for powerhouse 3rd ed tyranid armies to emerge? However, for the majority of the cases, I think GW makes their armies extremely superficial and it really doesn't take much brainpower to figure out what combos work - just give it a month or two. Furthermore, for many of these armies you can only really create ONE powerhouse army, which is sad. I know of at least half a dozen ways you could play Endor Rebel Strike Team (that was from only a few cards in one set) back in SWCCG or the different versions of the red burn decks for magic. The article goes on about the internet... With less "cards" to use in 40k, it becomes all too easy to transmit ideas and find use out of formerly crappy units.

4. Power levels are relative, blahblah, yes. I agree. Sure, when GW creates a new ruleset and gimps a bunch of old choices, people need to create new lists - like the article said. Problem is, the magic article also uses card game reasons for this point. Again, card games rely on combinations to create good decks. That's what makes it different from 40k/fantasy. In 40k, you can play marines and know that each of your squads don't even need to even work with each other to win. For other armies, you might need that. But, the game itself doesn't revolve around combos.

Anyway, you gotta remember that with Magic, old cards get turned over and no longer see play every few months for Type 2 tournaments. Most of the tournaments they host are Type 2, correct? Therefore, you can't really argue that certain cards are "good" but rather that players are forced to use them because the better cards can't be used. I doubt you'd find any reasonable Magic player that will think that your Type 2 deck, from any generation, can hope to beat a Type 1 deck. Ancestral recall, Lotus, Time Warp, Wheel, etc. For warhammer, decklists stay the same for ages since while people might complain about gimped units, and every now and then gimped armies, for the most part the metagame stays static. The only real overhaul was in the transition from 2nd to 3rd for 40k (don't know if fantasy's ever had that) but other than that the same codex is used for years and years. That compounds the problem even more - there aren't many combos to start out with and then you'll be forced to live with the same playable ones for a looooooong time.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 09/27/2006 9:11 AM
I would love to see his list. Something tells me that a shooty marine list would probably have little trouble agains it unless it's Ferals.

For the last couple of months he has been running a Feral Ork list.  However, he runs standard Ork armies and does extremely well with them also.  I'll get you his lists as soon as I see him again.

  One thing to know is that around here, we set up at least 25% of the table in terrain so games don't turn into a Napoleonic style line the boys up and shoot 'em down affair.

  This gives Orks and other types of  CC oriented armies, like bugs, an equal footing with shooty armies and improves the games quit a bit over some I've played in other parts of the country where terrain on the tables is a foreign notion.

Posted By Relapse on 09/27/2006 3:03 PM

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 09/27/2006 9:11 AM
I would love to see his list. Something tells me that a shooty marine list would probably have little trouble agains it unless it's Ferals.

For the last couple of months he has been running a Feral Ork list.  However, he runs standard Ork armies and does extremely well with them also.  I'll get you his lists as soon as I see him again.

  One thing to know is that around here, we set up at least 25% of the table in terrain so games don't turn into a Napoleonic style line the boys up and shoot 'em down affair.

  This gives Orks and other types of  CC oriented armies, like bugs, an equal footing with shooty armies and improves the games quit a bit over some I've played in other parts of the country where terrain on the tables is a foreign notion.

Ferals are a completely different ballgame than other Ork armies, they're one of the strongest armies in the game IMO.  But as for 25% it helps but not completely, most of the really dangerous armies are mobile and shooty and it won't make a difference against a real power army.

I'll try to get the guy to post here and let you know how he handles his army and the tactics he's evolved over the years with it.
He'll probably agree with you on some points you bring up, but all I can tell about shooty mobile armies is that he's played against his share of them and ripped more than a few apart.

The difference between 40K or CCGs and historical miniatures is that you get to choose your forces (within certain restrictions.) In historical obviously you get the army that he government can afford. Some real generals (e.g. McClellan, ACW) were always complaining their army wasn't big enough, others (e.g. Jackson) just got on and made the most of what they had. From that viewpoint, points costs are irrelevant.

Posted By stonefox on 09/27/2006 1:32 PM
For card games, designers can get away with crap cards since they get to sell more boxes that way. For miniatures games, it doesn't make as much sense since you'd expect mini businesses to want people to get all of their minis.

I'm not so sure about that.  Suppose Johnny buys 200 pts worth of Crap Unit X.  Then he plays some games with them and finds out that they're totally crap.  Now he has to go out and by 200 pts worth of different models to replace Crap Unit X.  If Crap Unit X hadn't been crappy then Johnny wouldn't have had to buy a unit to replace them.  So from a business standpoint really crappy 40k units can serve a purpose.

That said, I don't think GW makes gives units crappy rules for this reason.  I'm more inclined to think it's just incompetence or laziness.

Wow, thanks. Somehow I overlooked that! Combine "ZOMG TIHS UNIT IS SO COOL! THESE GUYZ R NINJA SPACE ELVS SO DAY GOTTA B COOL RITE?" with "They cost twice as much as they should" and you have an absolute winner. Anyway, my point with that was the underlying motives for crappy cards/units other than semi-BS reasons of "variety" and "fluffiness."

I think the problem with most underpowered choices come from the general cookie cutter battles that are played in tournaments.

If there were more variety/special rules. Some of the less desireable units could be useful.

 Fog: where you can only see 12inches

Mud where every thing is difficult terrian

Predatory vines were units must move or take wounds. 

high winds where anything not on the ground scatter d6 inches in a random direction things like jump packs and skimmers and deepstrikers.

it's the standard set them up and mow them down missions that are the killers.

The reason combo works in Magic is because so many of the cards have global effects.  Imagine Magic where EVERYTHING was a targeted effect that hit only one, or rarely two, cards and you have something similar to wargaming mechanics.  No balance, no wrath, no board clearing, no global damage, no global enchantments.  In this case, going up against somebody with Lightning Bolt (3 dmg for 1 mana) when you have only modern nukes (usually 2 dmg for 1 mana) puts you at a clear disadvantage. 

Combo is literally 'this' + 'that' = I win.  It is these global effects that make card games so much more complex to analyze than wargames, or perhaps so much simpler.  Almost anything in 40k can be wrecked by terrain and/or strategy in some way, while Wrath of God always works unless countermagic is employed.  Amount of terrain and quality of strategy cannot be calculated, while the % of your opponents likely to employ counters and the # of counters that work can be. 

Furthermore, the options available for any one army list pale in comparison to even a Block magic tourney.  Most wargear just doesn't count the same way, same with unit sizes. 

Posted By skkipper on 09/30/2006 5:17 PM

I think the problem with most underpowered choices come from the general cookie cutter battles that are played in tournaments.

If there were more variety/special rules. Some of the less desireable units could be useful.

 Fog: where you can only see 12inches

Mud where every thing is difficult terrian

Predatory vines were units must move or take wounds. 

high winds where anything not on the ground scatter d6 inches in a random direction things like jump packs and skimmers and deepstrikers.

it's the standard set them up and mow them down missions that are the killers.

If a tournament used that fog or predatory vines rules, I wouldn't go back.  Those totally kill shooty armies.

Posted By skyth on 09/30/2006 7:23 PM

Posted By skkipper on 09/30/2006 5:17 PM

I think the problem with most underpowered choices come from the general cookie cutter battles that are played in tournaments.

If there were more variety/special rules. Some of the less desireable units could be useful.

 Fog: where you can only see 12inches

Mud where every thing is difficult terrian

Predatory vines were units must move or take wounds. 

high winds where anything not on the ground scatter d6 inches in a random direction things like jump packs and skimmers and deepstrikers.

it's the standard set them up and mow them down missions that are the killers.

If a tournament used that fog or predatory vines rules, I wouldn't go back.  Those totally kill shooty armies.

Exactly because your list isn't balanced.

Yeah, how dare I not take close combat units in my Tau army?

who decidess if they are crappy? the player?? or so called experienced vets who rucn beardy list?? its a game, played for FUN. If somethings crap, feel free to change it but just as in life not everybody has the best car etc not everybody has the best army/ It KARMA/

Having thought about it a lot, I disagree that it's essential and unavoidable that some units are overpriced in terms of points/game value.

It makes sense in the context of CCG where you can't choose what cards you buy. It's a way for the publisher to pad out the card packs. Beneficially, it lets the player have the fun of discovering, collecting and discarding to make aperfect pack. But this is irrelevant to a game like 40K where the unit capabilities are known in advance, and players can choose exactly what to buy.

Human error by the game's designer may lead to imbalances, but this is not desireable, and should be eliminated if possible.

Posted By skkipper on 09/30/2006 8:32 PM

Posted By skyth on 09/30/2006 7:23 PM

Posted By skkipper on 09/30/2006 5:17 PM

I think the problem with most underpowered choices come from the general cookie cutter battles that are played in tournaments.

If there were more variety/special rules. Some of the less desireable units could be useful.

 Fog: where you can only see 12inches

Mud where every thing is difficult terrian

Predatory vines were units must move or take wounds. 

high winds where anything not on the ground scatter d6 inches in a random direction things like jump packs and skimmers and deepstrikers.

it's the standard set them up and mow them down missions that are the killers.

If a tournament used that fog or predatory vines rules, I wouldn't go back.  Those totally kill shooty armies.

Exactly because your list isn't balanced.

Actually, my lists tend to be very balanced as in the take all comers ability.  But both those missions make it so Guard or Tau have basically no chance of winning.

Any mission should be balanced so that any army can win it.  Those aren't.  You shouldn't lose because of the mission.

I see alot of people here speak of environmental factors.

Its interesting to note how some previously "crappy" units (penitent engines for example) are so much better now in Cities of Death.

Cities of death, with its very slight rules changes opened up a whole new sales strata and game strata for players. The environment was always there, it just took "sanctioning"' a type of environment to bring them to the fore.

This is relative with other games like magic. Introduce a new set and suddenly a card like "disciple of the vault" becomes a key component in a winning strategy. I dare say that the ravager affinity deck wouldnt be nearly so good, or even created without that card's help. In fact, with the help of  "skullclamp" that card soon became banned along with many archetypes found in ravager affinity. The crap card "disciple of the vault" was simply that good.

I hope GW continues to introduce such things in the future, as this will keep many players happy that their mandrakes suddenly have a use (just kidding...lol) and it will keep GW in business as they sell more units to make people armies complete. Hell, people will want a complete army with every available option just so they can take the right choice for whatever environment they happen to be in.

Interesting thread.

Posted By skkipper on 09/30/2006 5:17 PM

I think the problem with most underpowered choices come from the general cookie cutter battles that are played in tournaments.

If there were more variety/special rules. Some of the less desireable units could be useful.

 Fog: where you can only see 12inches

Mud where every thing is difficult terrian

Predatory vines were units must move or take wounds. 

high winds where anything not on the ground scatter d6 inches in a random direction things like jump packs and skimmers and deepstrikers.

it's the standard set them up and mow them down missions that are the killers.

You know, I've had a rant related to this topic building in me for some time.  It hasn't yet gotten to the point where it has to be lanced like a boil, but it's getting close.

I largely think the tournament environment has lead GW and players towards the bland cookie cutter approach to both army design and scenario design.

In the interests in winning tournaments, and making it possible to win tournaments, many of the most dedicated players have taken a lot of time in both setting up lists that can "win" for a given army (Drop Pod, Deamon Bomb, 'Nidzilla, the Hot Karl Tau builds, etc) and also taken a look at the maths behind the units to maximize the performance of the units relative to their size and points cost.  Space Marine bikes suck for the points, and Penetent Engines or Arcoflagellants also blow (except, now, in CoD, the latter don't so much)

At the same time, tournament organizers have taken missions and done just about everything they can to make them standardized; removing anything that could randomly give an advantage to one side or another.  I think this started when GW was doing more Rouge Trader and Grand Torunaments, about 5 to 8 years ago.

I freely admit I can't point you towards any mathmatical or emperical proof of my hypothesis, but anecdotally, I would point you towards issues of White Dwarf, or older issues of Citadel Journal.  Those magazines had different and non-standard scenarios that weren't meant to be balanced.  And they included things that we just don't see today either, cardstock buildings for those scenarios, extra plates for the Space Hulk or Warhammer Quest games, scratch built vehicles - all things that were new and different and forced the consumer to take some time and effort to invest themselves in. 

And oddly enough, most people with long enough "memory" in the hobby seem to think that the quality of the GW hobby and White Dwarf magazine were far better then than they are today.  Again, that's anecdotal, but even I recognize a fundamental wind shift in White Dwarf from my first issue in January 2001 (WHFB 6th edition Dwarves cover, I believe) to now.  Find an old issue from the low to mid 100's at your next convention and tell me I'm not wrong.

Don't get me wrong though, tournaments do have their place, I've played in them and I've run them.  But I think the larger emphasis upon tournaments is actually retarding our hobby's growth more than it is benefitting it.  In some respects, places like Dakka, or AWC are a double edged sword, they certainly contribute to the hobby, but at the same time, their strong tournament emphasis really also retards innovation.

In my mind gentle reader, that's the sad part.

And now, I end my post, prepared to get shouted down by the tournament crowd for my heresy...

Posted By Brother Tiberius on 10/02/2006 4:19 AM

In my mind gentle reader, that's the sad part.

And now, I end my post, prepared to get shouted down by the tournament crowd for my heresy...

Sorry Tiberius, but I'm going to have to agree with you.  I was a Tourny Player (back when GW had only a couple Tourneys a year).  They had comp, painting, sportmanship, and battle points - things currently decried in the hobby as only being fit for wimps in the current 'lets compare out manhood' type tournies.

Used to be that a tournament would bring people out of the woodwork to see the conversions (stunning stuff every year from the same people who would bring all new armies), and all the well painted armies.  Now its all about which half of the room is black undercoat with boltgun drybrushing, and which half is warlocks.  *yawn*.

The tournament shift to one of complete competitiveness has led to the cry for tighter rules and tighter army selection, which has led to loophole seeking, which has led to more OTT cookie-cutter lists, which, as you say, probably does more to dumb down the hobby than anything else.  And this vicious circle will continue until it carves itself its own circle within Dante's Hell

Of course, its different strokes for different folks when it comes to tournaments, and even to 'friendly' play.  I'm just fortunate that the group I play in has a similar mindset.  I tend to get put off when there is so much drama around a hobby that I participate in to have fun

I think a tournament setting with a mixed bag of table types would be good. Some tables set with lots of terrain and some with less terrain would make players work more on getting balanced armies out there since they wouldn't be sure of what they would be playing on.
In the Dakka battle reports section that sometimes includes pictures from GT's, it seems like shooty armies are heavily favored by tables with almost no cover.  It looked from all the pictures that these are the only table types in the tournaments.

I pitied the Tyranid player I saw in one of these as he was across the table from an extremely shooty army, and it seemed like the only cover was from a silo set up on the tables far side. Predictably, he got smoked.

In regards to the first post by VooDoo Boyz I completely agree. It is the pansies that cannot play well in a strong environment that makes such statements.

I played the alternate 'rules of engagement' missions for a while, and they were a lot more interesting than say, Cleanse or Recon. Unfortunately, in ROE each player rolls randomly for their own mission, and some missions (ie the defensive ones) are *much* easier than others. Also, placement of the objective markers became as important than tactics, in a lot of cases. We ended up house-ruling that the opponent gets to place the marker that's in your own deployment zone, which helped a bit.

But ROE is a lot more fun in general than the standard book missions. It's sad that most people only want to play the standard missions just because it's more practice for tournaments or something.

Maybe I'll work out a mission-dependent objective marker placement scheme for ROE and post it...

I have an idea. If we agree there are only a handful of army builds that represent the top tier in competitive tournament play, why don't they ban all other armies from playing in tournaments? That way competitive players can be assured that they're only going to face the toughest builds, and less competitive players won't get aggravated by facing a 40-man Seer Council. I think that would really improve our hobby.

Obviously (or maybe not so obviously to some), I'm being sarcastic. But I think the development of different mindsets is quite real. In the earlier USGTs, I think there was overall less disparity between the most and least competitive types. Most players cared about their army appearance beyond the points it'd net them, and spent more time on their fluff. As the tournament scene grew, you saw the development of tournament players, who really didn't care much about modeling or fluff.

This is probably what Cruentus was picking up on. The lines are drawn much more sharply now. I don't know that it's a good or bad development for the hobby...IMO, it's more of an evolution and is what it is. Tournaments are gun fights now, and you just can't bring a knife anymore. This is kinda mirrored in what's happened to Golden Daemon. More of the winners used to actually play...now it's become a "pro painter tour" of sorts. If you're at one extreme or the other, you're probably happy with these developments. If you're smackdab in the middle, you're probably not as happy.

The designers' job is probably harder than we think. Oh, they definitely screw up. But it's not the easiest thing to satisfy the friendly non-tournament players, the most hardcore tournament players, the pro painter crowd, and everyone in between with a new army release. These are hugely different interests and mindsets, and it's probably challenging to create single product launches that appeal to each of those audiences equally. Not that GW's blameless...honestly, it was the expansions of GD and the GTs that created this evolution in the first place.

"The designers' job is probably harder than we think. Oh, they definitely screw up. But it's not the easiest thing to satisfy the friendly non-tournament players, the most hardcore tournament players, the pro painter crowd, and everyone in between with a new army release. These are hugely different interests and mindsets, and it's probably challenging to create single product launches that appeal to each of those audiences equally. Not that GW's blameless...honestly, it was the expansions of GD and the GTs that created this evolution in the first place. "

That is undoubetdly true. It's the task that GW have set for themselves by claiming to be "The Hobby" on which the sun never sets.

Wow.  That Article was really well done.  (And made me realy glad that I don't play card games)

I think his points are very applicable to 40K

1. There will always be units defined as "bad." (Even great units can be defined as "bad" when compared side-by-side to other, slightly better, units.)
2. Some units are “bad” because they aren’t meant for you or your gaming enviornment.
3. Some units are “bad” because they’re designed for a less advanced player.
4. Some units are “bad” because the right enviornment for them doesn’t exist yet.
5. “Bad” units reward the more skilled player.
6. Some players enjoy discovering good “bad” units.
7. Some “bad” units are simply Games Development goofing up.