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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
So imbalances between units and Codexes might simply be a contribution to the casual enjoyment of the game.

In theory maybe, if the imbalances are subtle. But in a game like 40k, where the imbalances are obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes looking at a codex, it doesn't really add much enjoyment. But it's much better if the game is balanced, since decisions in a balanced game are much more interesting and more difficult to make.

I am not quite following you.

So the imbalances are so obvious, that it is not fun to figure them out, yet they are subtle enough, that figuring them out is still considered a tournament-relevant skill?

On instinct, I would have sequenced it as follows.

1. Everything perfectly balanced.
2. Very subtle imbalances (finding the "good stuff" takes serious, tournament-worthy skill).
3. Mostly obvious imbalances (finding the "good stuff" is great fun for 12-year olds, but not much skill or dedicated effort is required.)
4. Blatant imbalances (no fun or skill for everyone).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
So imbalances between units and Codexes might simply be a contribution to the casual enjoyment of the game.

In theory maybe, if the imbalances are subtle. But in a game like 40k, where the imbalances are obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes looking at a codex, it doesn't really add much enjoyment. But it's much better if the game is balanced, since decisions in a balanced game are much more interesting and more difficult to make.

I am not quite following you.

So the imbalances are so obvious, that it is not fun to figure them out, yet they are subtle enough, that figuring them out is still considered a tournament-relevant skill?

You're confusing difficulty and relevance. List building is a skill necessary for tourney play, that doesn't mean it's subtle in any way or all that hard to do.

I think the way that some units are spammed clearly shows that list building often focuses around picking the most powerful units and taking many of, while leaving a large selection of units untouched. There's nothing particularly clever about list building in this manner. Ideally every unit available should make you think and have a practical use, but that spamming is so commonly effective is a result of a poor design and inappropriate costing related to power.

 jonolikespie wrote:


You're confusing difficulty and relevance. List building is a skill necessary for tourney play, that doesn't mean it's subtle in any way or all that hard to do.

Well, if there is no difficulty involved, it's not a "skill" in any sense of the word.

Or, if it is, tournaments defined as a "test of skill", where the skill on test is "not in any way or all that hard to do" seem to me a rather pointless affair. It'd be like holding a tournament in closing shoes with Velcro fasteners.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think the way that some units are spammed clearly shows that list building often focuses around picking the most powerful units and taking many of, while leaving a large selection of units untouched. There's nothing particularly clever about list building in this manner. Ideally every unit available should make you think and have a practical use, but that spamming is so commonly effective is a result of a poor design and inappropriate costing related to power.

Which just proves that point that tournaments aren't about "testing your skill".

If they were, tournament players would naturally build the weakest lists possible, as to insulate their results and rankings from any association with obvious and childishly-easy list-building advantages, that are not in any way hard to replicate (and thus confer no prestige as a means to win a "test of skill".)

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


You're confusing difficulty and relevance. List building is a skill necessary for tourney play, that doesn't mean it's subtle in any way or all that hard to do.

Well, if there is no difficulty involved, it's not a "skill" in any sense of the word.

Or, if it is, tournaments defined as a "test of skill", where the skill on test is "not in any way or all that hard to do" seem to me a rather pointless affair. It'd be like holding a tournament in closing shoes with Velcro fasteners.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think the way that some units are spammed clearly shows that list building often focuses around picking the most powerful units and taking many of, while leaving a large selection of units untouched. There's nothing particularly clever about list building in this manner. Ideally every unit available should make you think and have a practical use, but that spamming is so commonly effective is a result of a poor design and inappropriate costing related to power.

Which just proves that point that tournaments aren't about "testing your skill".

If they were, tournament players would naturally build the weakest lists possible, as to insulate their results and rankings from any association with obvious and childishly-easy list-building advantages, that are not in any way hard to replicate (and thus confer no prestige as a means to win a "test of skill".)

Ok so your argument is that tourney's aren't about testing skill, then what are they about?

If they were, tournament players would naturally build the weakest lists possible, as to insulate their results and rankings from any association with obvious and childishly-easy list-building advantages, that are not in any way hard to replicate (and thus confer no prestige as a means to win a "test of skill".)

Odd all those sport tournaments and profesional leagues are not full of sports man that cripple themselfs to check their real skills.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Ok so your argument is that tourney's aren't about testing skill, then what are they about?

I don't know.

As has been pointed out, probably an organized form of casual "for fun" game play with the added guarantee of "getting a game": That is why the differentiation between "tournament play" and "casual play" as done by the OP is a fallacy.

Of course, that doesn't negate the option that many WAAC-style people enter in tournaments for the baser gratification of "winning", something they can actually get in 40K (as opposed to other, truly skill-based games like chess), precisely because winning in 40K takes no skill, but simply a willingness to violate the implicit "let's have fun" social contract of the community and the explicit "it's about the narrative" guideline by Games Workshop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

If they were, tournament players would naturally build the weakest lists possible, as to insulate their results and rankings from any association with obvious and childishly-easy list-building advantages, that are not in any way hard to replicate (and thus confer no prestige as a means to win a "test of skill".)

Odd all those sport tournaments and profesional leagues are not full of sports man that cripple themselfs to check their real skills.

Sure. Look at Formula 1. They literally spend millions, if not billions, to make sure no unfair advantages are intrinsic to the cars. In competitive swimming, sharks-skin swim-suits were quickly banned, because they dilute the swimming-skill as a contribution to outcomes, etc..

As said, a "skill-based" 40K tournament would be easy to organize. Something like

- Only one Codex with a pre-determined list is allowed.

or

- Everyone brings an army, but armies are than distributed randomly for each game.

Etc...

It's not difficult to take the list-building element out of 40K to make it a skill-based tournament, if that is what people wanted to do. But nobody wants to do that.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Ok so your argument is that tourney's aren't about testing skill, then what are they about?

I don't know.

As has been pointed out, probably an organized form of casual "for fun" game play with the added guarantee of "getting a game": Hence the differentiation between "tournament play" and "casual play" as done by the OP is a fallacy.

Of course, that doesn't negate the option that many WAAC-style people enter in tournaments for the baser gratification of "winning", something they can actually get in 40K (as opposed to other, truly skill-based games like chess), precisely because winning in 40K takes no skill, but simply a willingness to violate the implicit "let's have fun" social contract of the community and the explicit "it's about the narrative" guideline by Games Workshop.

Right, so tourney's are full of WAAC players who suck the fun out of the game because there is little skill involved. Hence why balance is important.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Right, so tourney's are full of WAAC players who suck the fun out of the game because there is little skill involved. Hence why balance is important.

To make 40K a tournament-game, if the intention were to create a tournament-capable game, yes.

Balance would be key for genuine competitive gaming (unlike the argument made by the OP).

And no, 40K-tournaments are not "full" of WAAC players. But 40K tournaments are vulnerable to one or two WAAC-Players getting in and spoiling most people's fun.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok so your argument is that tourney's aren't about testing skill, then what are they about?

From my experience, for most they're about exactly the same thing as casual gaming: having some fun and playing some Warhammer 40K.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Right, so tourney's are full of WAAC players who suck the fun out of the game because there is little skill involved. Hence why balance is important.

To make 40K a tournament-game, if the intention were to create a tournament-capable game, yes.

Balance would be key for genuine competitive gaming (unlike the argument made by the OP).

What's to stop a WAAC player showing up to a random pick up game and ruining it for someone else there then? Sure you can refuse to play them but at the same time they aren't breaking any rules.
If the game were reasonably well balanced players wouldn't be put in that situation to begin with, and considering how many other games there are out there which aren't perfectly balanced but are good enough to get buy without issues it really doesn't seem like it would be that hard.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Right, so tourney's are full of WAAC players who suck the fun out of the game because there is little skill involved. Hence why balance is important.

To make 40K a tournament-game, if the intention were to create a tournament-capable game, yes.

Balance would be key for genuine competitive gaming (unlike the argument made by the OP).

What's to stop a WAAC player showing up to a random pick up game and ruining it for someone else there then? Sure you can refuse to play them but at the same time they aren't breaking any rules.
If the game were reasonably well balanced players wouldn't be put in that situation to begin with, and considering how many other games there are out there which aren't perfectly balanced but are good enough to get buy without issues it really doesn't seem like it would be that hard.

Of course. WAAC-Players are an abomination whenever and whereever they appear.

But to strip the game of all of it's diversity just to prevent a few spoilers from ruining it on occassion seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. WAAC players and "overtly competitive" players are a blight, but they - luckily - are not as common as the internet makes them out to be.

 jonolikespie wrote:
What's to stop a WAAC player showing up to a random pick up game and ruining it for someone else there then?

What makes it worse is that a casual player showing up to that pick up game with a list that he picked because he liked some particular models gets branded a WAAC player for running broken units.

The player's reasons for taking a particular list have no impact on how unbalanced that list is. The fact that it is possible to make that list in the first place is the problem. Whether it's a tournament game or a casual pickup game makes no difference to that.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Of course. WAAC-Players are an abomination whenever and whereever they appear.

But to strip the game of all of it's diversity just to prevent a few spoilers from ruining it on occassion seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. WAAC players and "overtly competitive" players are a blight, but they - luckily - are not as common as the internet makes them out to be.

Bah, back to this argument then.
Care to explain why balance somehow strips the game of it's diversity? Or restricts players?
No one asking for balance is saying we have to remove allies, or certain units, or even superheavies and D weapons. Those are fixes for tourney's trying to make the best of what their given but if GW themselves reworked the rules none of that would be necessary.

 Zweischneid wrote:
But to strip the game of all of it's diversity just to prevent a few spoilers from ruining it on occassion seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Sure. It's much better to have players quitting the game because they spent a whole bunch of money on models that hey liked that turned out to be completely incapable of winning a game. Or to have them show up to a game with their shiny new models and be branded a power-gamer for taking units that are more powerful than they should be.

Again, WAAC players aren't the problem. The structure of the game that allows both WAAC players and casual players alike to build over-powered lists is the problem.

Just a quick bit of input, but why do people assume that casual games involve bringing piss poor units to make them fun?

I rather have a competative game with a friend and a few drinks, and both of us enjoy it more.
Does not mean im goin to fun flayed ones as my elites just to make it "fun"

You need to keep in mind that a fun game of 40k has a different meaning to alot of people.






Also, 40k may be a game of dice, but its by no means just random.
Yes, it has randomness, but the odds can be stacked in your favour by making certain moves or playing certain units.

So, something with a 50% chance to succeed can be increased to 75% chance.
This removes alot of the dice work and shows a level of skill, rather than just randomness.

Yes, weird and wonderful things do happen in 40k. (grots killing termies as an example)
However, if you can push up that chance to favor you more, it then becomes more based on skill than it does relying on random dice.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Of course. WAAC-Players are an abomination whenever and whereever they appear.

But to strip the game of all of it's diversity just to prevent a few spoilers from ruining it on occassion seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. WAAC players and "overtly competitive" players are a blight, but they - luckily - are not as common as the internet makes them out to be.

Bah, back to this argument then.
Care to explain why balance somehow strips the game of it's diversity? Or restricts players?
No one asking for balance is saying we have to remove allies, or certain units, or even superheavies and D weapons. Those are fixes for tourney's trying to make the best of what their given but if GW themselves reworked the rules none of that would be necessary.

The argument was the OP's claim that (a) tournaments are a "test of skill", and as a consequence of that (b) balance was of no relevance to "competitive gaming"

Both (a) and (b) cannot be true at the same time.

If 40K tournaments (in the mistaken believe that they are a competitive sport of some kind) attempt to bring in fixes, that is only another proof that balance is generally a concern for "competitive players".

Whether or not "more balance" is desirable for "casual only" gamers, may or may not be a worthy discussion, but it should be held separately from the odd round-about argument of tournament/competitive kinds that "we actually don't care about balance, but it would help the "casual" crowd, so we fight for more balance "in their name".

The first step is to purge this oddly hypocritical pretense, where tournament players couch their interests in some fake and misleading good-Samaritan smokescreen.

Than, if narrative people find balance-problems to be inhibiting their enjoyment of a scenario they play, a re-creation of a famous 40K-battle, etc.., let them argue and lobby for the changes they want to see in the game on their own terms.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


You're confusing difficulty and relevance. List building is a skill necessary for tourney play, that doesn't mean it's subtle in any way or all that hard to do.

Well, if there is no difficulty involved, it's not a "skill" in any sense of the word.

Or, if it is, tournaments defined as a "test of skill", where the skill on test is "not in any way or all that hard to do" seem to me a rather pointless affair. It'd be like holding a tournament in closing shoes with Velcro fasteners.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think the way that some units are spammed clearly shows that list building often focuses around picking the most powerful units and taking many of, while leaving a large selection of units untouched. There's nothing particularly clever about list building in this manner. Ideally every unit available should make you think and have a practical use, but that spamming is so commonly effective is a result of a poor design and inappropriate costing related to power.

Which just proves that point that tournaments aren't about "testing your skill".

If they were, tournament players would naturally build the weakest lists possible, as to insulate their results and rankings from any association with obvious and childishly-easy list-building advantages, that are not in any way hard to replicate (and thus confer no prestige as a means to win a "test of skill".)

Not exactly, list building is part of the skill as is playing the game. That's why some people netdeck for mtg and still lose. The skill is in picking the cards and knowing how to use them. The issue with spamming in 40k is that it isn't skilled or thoughtful, there's no craftsmanship to taking a pile of the most overpowered unit.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


Not exactly, list building is part of the skill as is playing the game. That's why some people netdeck for mtg and still lose. The skill is in picking the cards and knowing how to use them. The issue with spamming in 40k is that it isn't skilled or thoughtful, there's no craftsmanship to taking a pile of the most overpowered unit.

It still doesn't add up for me.

If - lets call it - "picking the right units AND using them" in 40K is a skill of tournament-worthy sophistication, in other words a prize-worthy achievement only few truly master, why would removing it benefit casual players?

If, on the other hand, it is far too simple and obvious and "un-craftsmanship-like" to provide even the basic enjoyable "kicks" for people only tinkering with it on a superficial and casual level, how can it be a subject worthy of "serious competition"?

If the "list-building-only" aspect of playing 40k is the offending element, while the rest is sound (and a sufficiently sophisticated skill to master), why don't tournaments concerned with the competitive aspect remove that "list-building-part" (for example, but not limited to, with perfect-mirror-match-tournaments) to sidestep this interfering factor?

------------

Ultimately, if winning 40K tournaments/competitive games does indeed take considerable skill, even though the game is allegedly ill-suited for casual gaming, 40K would be the perfect tournament-game already, no?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Whether or not "more balance" is desirable for "casual only" gamers, may or may not be a worthy discussion, but it should be held separately from the odd round-about argument of tournament/competitive kinds that "we actually don't care about balance, but it would help the "casual" crowd, so we fight for more balance "in their name".

The first step is to purge this oddly hypocritical pretense, where tournament players couch their interests in some fake and misleading good-Samaritan smokescreen.

Than, if narrative people find balance-problems to be inhibiting their enjoyment of a scenario they play, a re-creation of a famous 40K-battle, etc.., let them argue and lobby for the changes they want to see in the game on their own terms.

I've never seen anyone argue that they want balance to help casual games but don't care about it themselves. I've seen plenty of people argue for balance to help the competitive scene, and then have people, such as yourself, argue that it would restrict the non competitive scene and then that discussion just dissolves from there as they try to argue that it would help BOTH styles of play.

I really don't think any of this hypocrisy exists, but I have seen people who like narrative play wanting more balance. I'm either missing some fundamental part of your argument here or you seem to have a very wrong idea about who is arguing for what and why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Ultimately, if winning 40K tournaments/competitive games does indeed take considerable skill, even though the game is allegedly ill-suited for casual gaming, 40K would be the perfect tournament-game already, no?

Your argument is that IF it takes considerable skill, the entire problem with competitive 40k at the moment is that it DOESN'T. It's easy to find the best units and once you have those best units you have a serious leg up on anyone who doesn't, leading to a situation where it only takes a significant amount of skill if both players are playing one of a VERY narrow window of lists.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I've never seen anyone argue that they want balance to help casual games but don't care about it themselves.

I was under the impression that this was the OP's argument (and thus the thing discussed in this thread).

 Bottle wrote:



A tournament player is out to win. To win you should choose the best combinations of units. Some armies have better combinations of units than others. Therefore you bring the best army to the tournament. I therefore think army balance has no sway over 40k being a good tournament game or not.

...

but when the armies have big imbalances it's hard to play the game for fun.

Emphases mine.

But in a nutshell, it's "balance = not important for tournaments" but "balance = key for casual gaming".

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I've never seen anyone argue that they want balance to help casual games but don't care about it themselves.

I was under the impression that this was the OP's argument (and thus the thing discussed in this thread).

Sorry I perhaps should have said "don't care about it for our own tournament play". Your argument was that tourney players were fighting for balance in the casual player's name. I don't see that.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Your argument is that IF it takes considerable skill, the entire problem with competitive 40k at the moment is that it DOESN'T. It's easy to find the best units and once you have those best units you have a serious leg up on anyone who doesn't, leading to a situation where it only takes a significant amount of skill if both players are playing one of a VERY narrow window of lists.

So how would the winner of a competitive tournament game know whether he (a) beat his opponent "by skill", or (b) if he beat a (perhaps better-skilled) opponent by "his list", where the selection of the list is a no-brainer not worthy of any accolades?

The only rational response for anybody seriously interested in "testing their skill" would be to make sure (b) is not the case, by holding back in the list-building part, creating a natural "race-to-the-bottom" for the worst list in any genuinely competitive environment.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Your argument is that IF it takes considerable skill, the entire problem with competitive 40k at the moment is that it DOESN'T. It's easy to find the best units and once you have those best units you have a serious leg up on anyone who doesn't, leading to a situation where it only takes a significant amount of skill if both players are playing one of a VERY narrow window of lists.

So how would the winner of a competitive tournament game know whether he (a) beat his opponent "by skill", or (b) if he beat a (perhaps better-skilled) opponent by "his list", where the selection of the list is a no-brainer not worthy of any accolades?

The only rational response for anybody seriously interested in "testing their skill" would be to make sure (b) is not the case, by holding back in the list-building part, creating a natural "race-to-the-bottom" for the worst list in any genuinely competitive environment.

Except that it probably is a test of true skill, among those placing at a tourney. It's the rest of the field that suffers because those top placers brought cheesy lists.

 jonolikespie wrote:


Except that it probably is a test of true skill, among those placing at a tourney. It's the rest of the field that suffers because those top placers brought cheesy lists.

Why is list-building (and using that list) "at the top" suddenly a true test of skill, but not below that? Where is the line? Why is there a line? How is that line defined? How can you be sure it's not "no skill" all the way to the top, if there is so blatantly "no skill" below the top. It would seem only human that top-ranking players who made serious investments would be rather averse to the notion that there was no skill involved in their achievement, possibly to the point of self-delusion.

And in the end, what you are saying then, is that 40K's lack of balance is impairing the fun of casual gamers while playing at competitive tournaments? That is the beef?

Let me tell you, balance doesn't fix that. If you're a casual chess-player, and you enter a world-class tournament, you'll not have fun. Probably far less so than with 40K. That is the main problem with balanced and skill-based games. They have huge entry-barriers to the new and casual players, which the "easy-to-see-list-building"-advantages fix, precisely because they take skill out of it (for the most part).

On the subject of balance, 40k needs serious rework. It doesn't even truly allow narrative play because some things just can't be done, or can't be done without some weird special character (who should be rare) allowing it. For example if you wanted to do the 1st Company of a chapter, oh well you can't because those guys are Elites, not Troops but maybe there's an SC who can let you take Veterans and Terminators as Troops.

I really think the answer, for all the things it might do, is to get rid of the FOC. Make it like it was in 2nd edition again. In 2nd edition all your main troops were available so you could better theme armies. Wanted a 1st Company army? You could take all Terminators without any issues at all. Wanted to have a special ops group made up of your Assault Marines backed up by the 8th Company's reserves? You could have that too.

The 2nd edition "FOC" had three parts and it differed per army, but covered all the reasonable bases for the various themes of that army. For example a standard Space Marine Chapter using Codex: Ultramarines (I'm pretty sure the others had the same, maybe not Space Wolves) had the following:

HQ (50%)
Squads (25%+): Anything not a vehicle/walker
Support (50%): Tanks, dreadnoughts

Imperial Guard had the following:

HQ (50%)
Battle Line (25%+): Squads and tanks
Support (25%+): Allies, basically (You could pick an force from Space Marines, Eldar, etc.)

For example for Space Marines Tactical, Assault, Devastators, Terminators, Scouts and Bikes were all Squads and you had no limit on what you could take. So you could do a 1st Company/Deathwing army with all terminators (and have a much smaller army, of course) just as easily as you could do a Battle Company, or a Reserve Company (as much as those were fielded in full force) or even a Scout Company if you desired; it was all based on what YOUR army wanted to be. So if you wanted let's say a Raven Guard assault force, you might take mostly Assault Marines. If you wanted an Imperial Fists garrison, maybe more Tactical or Devastator squads designed to stay in place. Now THAT'S "forging the narrative"!

Maybe it was just because that was the early days of the internet but I don't recall a single time that the actual units chosen were abused when I played 2nd edition (most of the abuse was uber characters with Vortex Grenades and the like) other than perhaps Wolf Guard Terminators who just had broken rules.

IMO 40k should go back to something like that and put a cap on things that are meant to be uber rare like Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights, etc. Make them 0-1 or even 0-2 to be nice, and make them cost more of course. In fact, I'm all for upping the points cost of everything again so armies become smaller, not larger; that doesn't really impact the people who want huge games because you just play like a 4,000 point battle instead of a 2,000 point battle and you could still use your nasty FW toys, but the standard games have less per side so there's less spamming of units, so you would be encouraged to take a balanced force. I liked when a 2,000 point Space Marine army in 2nd edition was like 30 guys and a vehicle or two.

Listbuilding is a skill, but it shouldn't be, at least not to the extent it where listbuiding is just as much if not more than actually playing the game. You shouldn't be penalized for picking units that fit the fluff of the army's background or your idea for the force, and you shouldn't be penalized because let's say you really like Dreadnoughts and want to field one, but their rules are crap.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Except that it probably is a test of true skill, among those placing at a tourney. It's the rest of the field that suffers because those top placers brought cheesy lists.

Why is list-building (and using that list) "at the top" suddenly a true test of skill, but not below that? Where is the line? Why is there a line? How is that line defined? How can you be sure it's not "no skill" all the way to the top, if there is so blatantly "no skill" below the top. It would seem only human that top-ranking players who made serious investments would be rather averse to the notion that there was no skill involved in their achievement, possibly to the point of self-delusion.

And in the end, what you are saying then, is that 40K's lack of balance is impairing the fun of casual gamers while playing at competitive tournaments? That is the beef?

Let me tell you, balance doesn't fix that. If you're a casual chess-player, and you enter a world-class tournament, you'll not have fun. Probably far less so than with 40K. That is the main problem with balanced and skill-based games. They have huge entry-barriers to the new and casual players, which the "easy-to-see-list-building"-advantages fix, precisely because they take skill out of it (for the most part).

Competitive players would love the game to be more balanced- that way there would be actual skill required for list building in tournaments. As it stands list building a tournament winning list means picking one of a very small number of extremely cheesy and well known lists, which requires no skill whatsoever (save possibly some basic googling skills), and later at the tournament leads to easy wins against any list that isn't equally cheesy. The only point at which actual player skill may come into play in such a scenario is if two players playing such lists face off against one another, though in this case the lists are usually so cheesy and unbalanced that there's little room for player skill in using them and it all comes down to random chance as they butt heads against one another.

Competitive players do not enjoy that, but all too often their desire to have a decent chance at winning the tournament would lead them to use such lists themselves despite the fact that it sucks the enjoyment out of the game (and it's not as if getting your ass kicked by a cheesy list is particularly fun either). Competitive players play to win, and would love nothing more than for the game to allow actual skill and intelligent listbuilding to be the deciding factor in a tournament rather than it being a contest decided according to which player could afford the most cheese and stomach fielding it in an actual game.

A better balanced game would allow competitive players to put actual thought into their listbuilding- things like coming up with tactics that would fit the rules of the tournament and figuring out the best combination of units with which to employ them, trying to ascertain the local meta and figuring out what your opponents would likely field and adjusting your list and the tactics its built around to take that into account, trying to come up with something unexpected that would shake things up and blindside people who were expecting you to field something completely different. Afterwards it will allow actual skill to matter in the game since without blatantly overpowered or underpowered units using your models for effect better than your opponent does his would require having a better gameplan, instincts and, of course, luck.

And there is absolutely nothing in this that would make a more balanced game less fun for casual players. On the contrary, it would make casual games better.

-

 Galorian wrote:


And there is absolutely nothing in this that would make a more balanced game less fun for casual players. On the contrary, it would make casual games better.

I disagree.

Put a Chess-newb who only started playing 2 months ago against a semi-experienced player with 2 years of experience into a game, casual or not, and see how it goes. Than put the 2 year veteran against a 20-year veteran.

As said, balanced and skill-based games are fiendishly punitive to newbies, precisely because they need to learn and train and build up game-experience and skill, often over years.

40K works, because it mitigates the skill-advantage in often brutal ways. What you knew about 40K 2 years ago (or 20 years ago) doesn't matter. You can pick up the latest army, study the game for 2 months and you can (potentially) be king of the hill in most match-ups.

In that sense, 40K is a lot more casual than .. to stick with the example .... chess. And that is the reason I enjoy 40K more than games like chess. That is why I like 40K exactly the way it is now. If I want to scratch the "competitive itch", there are millions of games out there that do that for me. There are very few "feth balance, lets have fun" games in the vein of 40K. Hence why it's worth protecting.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Galorian wrote:


And there is absolutely nothing in this that would make a more balanced game less fun for casual players. On the contrary, it would make casual games better.

I disagree.

Put a Chess-newb who only started playing 2 months ago against a semi-experienced player with 2 years of experience into a game, casual or not, and see how it goes. Than put the 2 year veteran against a 20-year veteran.

As said, balanced and skill-based games are fiendishly punitive to newbies, precisely because they need to learn and train and build up game-experience and skill, often over years.

40K works, because it mitigates the skill-advantage in often brutal ways. What you knew about 40K 2 years ago (or 20 years ago) doesn't matter. You can pick up the latest army, study the game for 2 months and you can (potentially) be king of the hill in most match-ups.

In that sense, 40K is a lot more casual than .. to stick with the example .... chess. And that is the reason I enjoy 40K more than games like chess. That is why I like 40K exactly the way it is now. If I want to scratch the "competitive itch", there are millions of games out there that do that for me. There are very few "feth balance, lets have fun" games in the vein of 40K. Hence why it's worth protecting.

Its only fun if both players self-restrict the power level of their list. The fact that a newb can learn everything about the game in 2 months will not help at all if he runs into taudar and he didn't bring an equally powerful list. Hence, balance is important, even for casual play.