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.

Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

It's all about perception of value for your money. Look at this kit.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Mirkwood-Rangers

10 Guardsman sized minatures with no options at $10 more than the Imperial Guard squad box. You may have to buy more of those boxes but you don't get quite the same amount of stuff for you buck.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Elrond-Foot-Mounted

Two character minis with one on a horse for $40 again. You can get a tank for that much. Would you rather buy a tank or two crappy guys?

Now, a lot of their other boxes aren't so bad of a value for your money but when you see how much they charge for some of their stuff you tend not to want to invest in such a game. 40k's models also come with a lot more options to customize your dudes which further increases your perceived value of the items.

You could argue that FW's offerings are the worst offenders in this area as their models are expensive as feth, are usually subpar in terms of casting and lack options unless you buy separate and still overpriced kits. The thing is that they increase the perceived value (I keep using that term, I know) by not only increasing the quality of the sculpt but by branding themselves as a sort of GW platinum. Branding affects a lot of how you perceive the value of an item. Apple's computers are waaay too expensive for what they offer but you'll pay those prices because the brand commands value in of itself. The same for Forgeworld. FW also does novelty stuff like the Not-Superheavy IG stuff and custom lists for the various factions which adds more value.

The Hobbit brand doesn't have much value. Their LotR stuff has traditionally been cheaper than even their fantasy offerings which gives people an even bigger sticker shock when the see how much they "raised" the prices. It's a new brand, sure, but it's associated with the LotR stuff because it's the same general IP. In addition, the Hobbit seems like a line that is meant to cash in on the success of the Hobbit films. The Hobbit films, while successful, weren't the runaway successes they were as the LotR stuff which reduces the brand recognition. People won't cough up for that crap just because it has "Hobbit"on it especially at the prices GW ask for.

I think another compelling argument I have heard is from Matt of MWG fame. He said that the reason Hobbit/LotR doesn't sell as well is because there isn't much room for the player to expand him/herself in. It's basically a "historical" game which is further reinforced by the way Games Workshop structures the factions. I'm sure you could simply play Good v Good games but those aren't encouraged by the rules. X-Wing gets away with this because 1) You don't have to paint the miniatures and 2) Star Wars is all about the struggle between the rebels versus the empire. You want to see the X-wing blow up the TIE (Or, in my case, vice-versa) because that is very iconic of the Star Wars franchise. It's a game that allows you to play out those iconic moments. LotR's battles, while exciting, aren't as iconic. So one isn't as compelled to act them out in a stringent way. People would rather build their own chapter/warband/regiment or whatever which 40k encourages you to do. I think this is why Fantasy isn't as popular either since the world of Fantasy isn't nearly as open to the player to expand in as 40k is. That, and the whole "Everyone must move in huge blocks! A $40 box of minatures only comprises 1/3 of each block of which you need five just for your troops alone!" thing.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

And...you completely missed the point, yet again. People don't want to play a balanced game if the aesthetics and style of the game don't appeal to them. It's not that people don't want a balanced game, it's that they don't want a Lord of the Rings game even if it is balanced.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

And...you completely missed the point, yet again. People don't want to play a balanced game if the aesthetics and style of the game don't appeal to them. It's not that people don't want a balanced game, it's that they don't want a Lord of the Rings game.

Perhaps.

But given the choice between

Game A - Aesthetics people don't like, but balance people do like.
Game B - Aesthetics people like, but lack of balance people don't like.


Such a clear and univocal "vote-with-your-wallet" for Game B should tell you how little balance matters in a pinch.

I dont think very many people are even aware that the Hobbit is balanced.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

It's like you didn't even read my post before responding to it. Did you see the part where I mentioned the "all my friends are playing it" and "I've already invested $999999 into it" factors? It doesn't matter of LOTR is the best game by some objective standard if you've already spent all your money on a WHFB army, or if all of your friends play Warmachine.

And LOTR isn't competing with 40k because they're completely different games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Such a clear and univocal "vote-with-your-wallet" for Game B should tell you how little balance matters in a pinch.

Way to state the obvious there. Yes, in a genre of games that involves spending countless hours building and painting your models and encourages you to imagine fluff for your army and battles, balance isn't going to be the most important factor. People who just want a perfectly balanced tournament game and don't care about all that other stuff aren't going to play miniatures games at all, they'll be perfectly happy pushing cardboard tokens around a map or just playing chess/video games/etc.

But this does not in any way excuse poor balance. A flawed game is still flawed even if it has other reasons for people to buy and play it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dont think very many people are even aware that the Hobbit is balanced.

And this. Most current gamers, and virtually all potential customers, probably have no real knowledge of how well balanced the LOTR games are. GW certainly doesn't make any effort to market them based on their (supposed) high-quality rules, so how exactly is anyone supposed to use that information in deciding what game to play?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It's all about perception of value for your money.
Two character minis with one on a horse for $40 again. You can get a tank for that much. Would you rather buy a tank or two crappy guys?

I want a tank running over two crappy guys, now THAT'S value

Cool, the Hobbit is a better game and is balanced?

Or I could just go buy one of the many others that are cheaper, aesthetically pleasing, and balanced games with companies that don't treat you like a wallet with legs.

Warhammer 40k survives on iconography, nostalgia, and generally being an awesome setting. As stated, most people don't know about The Hobbit and playing games of it just isn't an option without a player base. Most Warhammer players started with Warhammer and just assume the false splitting of a player base is common in all other tabletop games until they branch out.

It's like, if GW had this team of devoted fans that would have promoted their games in local communities to demo their good products and support league, campaign, and competitive play, the Hobbit might have succeeded? Huh...

((And note: the Hobbit / LotR figures are the reason I don't play that game more so than anything else. Malifaux 1E could have been the second coming and I'd have still ignored it because it has the same problem as the current Hobbit game... the models look/looked like they were sculpted out of luke warm butter.))

Warhammer survives , because people know that , if they start it they will find opponents. There is little sense starting other games , if your not sure that there is a large playgroup for it.

 Peregrine wrote:

And LOTR isn't competing with 40k because they're completely different games.

And Warmachine isn't a completely different game?

It's better not to increase/decrease a number of points avaliable to player but rather increase/decrease the point value of units and gear. Cause one eldar player might have a boring list with dozens of waveserpents and wraithknights for 1500 pts while another eldar player will field a fluffy footguard list with rangers and banshees for the exact 1500 game.

So, it won't shift the game performance to more fun, interesting and ballanced lists. The change is gona work for competitive tournaments though cause you are not supposed to get fun ballanced games in the first place when you join competitive tournaments. You're supposed to do everything possible for winning.

And don't forget, there are allies and escalation that make everything much-much more complex.

Also, there are such things like counter-meta units. It's a rock-paper scissor game to some extent. That's why you sometimes see an ork or dark eldar in top-five. Cause battlewagon rush is good vs most common tau lists but just can't handle fmc spam if you're not lucky with groundings. And Dark Eldar are great vs AV14 spam and higher-toughness stuff. They'll have far less problems vs bikerspam while bikerspam will have good chances vs serpentspam thanks to gravgunz unlike ANY dark eldar lists that'll just get wiped by turn 3-4 cause they can't hurt serpents and can't survive ignore-cover s7 shots. And the exact same Wagon rush will have significant problems vs tau the moment tau players swap riptides for fusion-crysises.

WH40K is just too complex for such changes to ballance it out.

Nothing is too complex to balance. Most Warhammer 40k players are just so used to terrible balance over decades that they believe this nonsense.

It takes some effort to archive, of course. The issue is GW not willing to spend any effort on it at all.

Comping doesn't work for one reason and one reason alone. Two different codexes will see a unit very differently.

Here's an anecdote.

I played a 750 tournament a few weeks ago, came fourth because my comp score was so low. (and I got beaten twice, but that's the dice with daemons - good showing to my opponents, in case that wasn't implied). I ran up against a kid, probably 13? I don't know, around that age, who, like me, had a pretty solid list - he had a maulerfiend and a heldrake, and a bunch of other units. Anyway, I could comfortably ignore his heldrake. Why? Because I wasn't denied my 3++ by his baleflamer. (For the record, I tabled him as he placed his flyer in an awkward place and he had to fly off on the turn I removed everything else, but that was just bad timing rather than any amount of skill coming into play.)

So, what does this little ditty have to do with anything?

Heldrakes may be the most broken thing in the world (they clearly aren't), but the simple fact is that my codex doesn't feel hurt by them. As a result, it's normal for me to say "I don't care if you have a heldrake", because seriously - I don't when I run that list. The difference here is, a marines player is seriously neutered by a heldrake - so much so, in fact that many have noticed a shift away from 3+ saves on scoring units because it's just simply not worth the time of day. In this example, I wouldn't comp hit a CSM heldrake. However, my buddy who plays marines, will want to comp them much more.

On the flip side, I will want to comp grey knights a lot more than my space marine pal will, simply because grey knights make a damn decent counter to daemons.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

People play games for various reason, balance being just one of those reasons. Just because another game that is more balanced isn't as heavily played doesn't mean balance isn't as important as X, Y and Z. LOTR is a smaller scale game. That's one thing I personally don't like. The Hobbit is massively over priced, if it weren't I can safely say I would own Hobbit models as there's several I like. The amount GW pushes one product or another definitely affects it as well.

I personally do own a decent sized Rohan force and a few models from other LOTR factions as well. LOTR was actually more popular in one of the clubs here up until at least 3 years ago, it might still be more popular, I haven't been to that particular club for about 3 years.

 Jidmah wrote:
Nothing is too complex to balance. Most Warhammer 40k players are just so used to terrible balance over decades that they believe this nonsense.

It takes some effort to archive, of course. The issue is GW not willing to spend any effort on it at all.

Wrong.

A, nothing can ever be perfectly balanced. Even Chess isn't 100%, as has been pointed out. The more complexity, the more "imbalances" must appear.

Furthermore, static point-systems are inherently not balanced, because they cannot account for multiples, situationalism and context.

The 10th Razorback you add to your army in a 2000 pts. game has a different "value" than the first. Facing an Ork Horde, every additional Flamer included in your army "rises" in value, and should cost more than the one before it. Facing a Deathwing Army, additional flamers bring less added value and point-costs should probably decrease the more you take.

Add to that variation in table-size, terrain, etc..

Or consider synergies. The old 4th CSM "Lash-and-Blast" was often cited to be too powerful. But how would you "point" it correctly? How much is the Lash "worth" on a puny sorcerer with limited mobility in a CSM army without blast-weapons on a table with little terrain and how much is the Lash "worthy" on a tough, highly mobile, winged Deamon Prince in an army full of blast weapons to capitalze on it on a table with plenty terrain to hide your DP and exploit the Lash & Blast tactics (and slow down "spoiler"-units from your opponent)?

Of course, randomizing psychic powers available is a good method to improve balance, as it reduces the ability of players to cherry pick ahead of the game and forces them to think on their feet during the game, but by the popular opinion of Dakka, most 40K players actually preferred the less balanced, less random 5th Edition approach to the more random, more balanced 6th Edition one.



Every unit that has a "fixed" point value is by default imbalanced. The exact same point-value will "undercost" it in some cases and "overcost" it in others.

Which is why "the Pentinent Engine is useless" or the "Riptide is too powerful" whining misses the point. In a different setting, the assessment of these two units at the same point costs can easily be inverted. Their "power" or "usefulness" at a given point value depends on the game and context.

A game using point values will never be balanced without player taking the effort to adapt it to a specific game and context (if balance is what they are looking for).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

People play games for various reason, balance being just one of those reasons..

Which is fine.

If people play games for various reasons, with balance being one of the reasons for some people, but not everybody, then why can't we just leave it at having various games that cater to this diversity of demand among players, including games such as 40K which don't care about "balance", because they don't try to appeal to people who care about balance?

It's not like, as frequently pointed out, more balanced alternatives (in the eyes of people disliking 40K) don't exist:

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

People play games for various reason, balance being just one of those reasons..

Which is fine.

If people play games for various reasons, with balance being one of the reasons for some people, but not everybody, then why can't we just leave it at having various games that cater to this diversity of demand among players, including games such as 40K which don't care about "balance", because they don't try to appeal to people who care about balance?

It's not like, as frequently pointed out, more balanced alternatives (in the eyes of people disliking 40K) don't exist:

40K is meant to be balanced, otherwise there would be no points system or any rules defining how you're meant to field your army. If it didn't care about balance you could take whatever you wanted in your army. You can't.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, if LOTR is competing with all other GW games, and LOTR is the most balanced among them (going by the BGG-rating... not perfect, I know), it should be the the one winning that competition, at the very least among tournament players, no?

People play games for various reason, balance being just one of those reasons..

Which is fine.

If people play games for various reasons, with balance being one of the reasons for some people, but not everybody, then why can't we just leave it at having various games that cater to this diversity of demand among players, including games such as 40K which don't care about "balance", because they don't try to appeal to people who care about balance?

It's not like, as frequently pointed out, more balanced alternatives (in the eyes of people disliking 40K) don't exist:

40K is meant to be balanced, otherwise there would be no points system or any rules defining how you're meant to field your army. If it didn't care about balance you could take whatever you wanted in your army. You can't.

Quite the opposite. The existence of a point-value system shows you that it isn't balanced, because point-systems are never balanced.

Take it from a game-designer, if you don't believe me.

http://quirkworthy.com/2011/10/15/design-theory-why-points-systems-will-always-be-broken/

Moreover, the very, very, very explicit "Forge-the-Narrative" boxes on just about every page tell you exactly what the game-designers intended to do, and balance doesn't appear in a single one of them.

If you think that "points" imply balance, you've fallen prey to your own wrong assumptions. Unfortunate, but hardly the fault of GW.

I find the idea that LOTR not being GWs best selling game says anything about balance laughable.

It couldn't be that it has a tiny player base (I started 40k because friends of mine were playing it, and were not playing 40k)

It couldn't be that 40k had a 14 year head start building a player base, which leads to the first point.

It couldn't be that the other fantasy based game from the same company had a 18 year head start (so people interested in a fantasy miniatures game were already playing something else)

It couldn't be that it was originally designed as a skirmish game not an army scale game.

It couldn't be that people wanted a Sci-fantasy setting.


Balance alone does not sell games. I would argue the ability to play a game is the best selling point, because investing a ton into models I never get to use is a big turn off.

That said if I knew anyone who play LOTR when I got into 40k and it was on anywhere near the same level of player base I would have picked it up in a minute. The same holds true for Warhammer fantasy. But my area is mainly 40k so that is the game I play.

 Zweischneid wrote:


Furthermore, static point-systems are inherently not balanced, because they cannot account for multiples, situationalism and context.

They can, actually. Take more stuff, you spend more points on it. Devestators heavy weapons v tac squad heavy weapons, as an example. Situationalism is determined by tactics.

 Zweischneid wrote:


Or consider synergies. The old 4th CSM "Lash-and-Blast" was often cited to be too powerful. But how would you "point" it correctly? How much is the Lash "worth" on a puny sorcerer with limited mobility in a CSM army without blast-weapons on a table with little terrain and how much is the Lash "worthy" on a tough, highly mobile, winged Deamon Prince in an army full of blast weapons to capitalze on it on a table with plenty terrain to hide your DP and exploit the Lash & Blast tactics (and slow down "spoiler"-units from your opponent)?
t:

Start with Separate entries for puny sorcerer and daemon princes. Separate costs apply.

Then define terrain requirements for the game and factor that element in.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Of course, randomizing psychic powers available is a good method to improve balance, as it reduces the ability of players to cherry pick ahead of the game and forces them to think on their feet during the game, but by the popular opinion of Dakka, most 40K players actually preferred the less balanced, less random 5th Edition approach to the more random, more balanced 6th Edition one.
:

Random powers do not 'improve balance', they just randomise it. Add to that that they both remove choice, and suck away the narrative (really, he woke up with a random set of psychic powers or warlord traits than the day before. Yeah, disconnected right there.) as opposed to, you know, a valid set of balanced options which would encourage variety.

You also mix up cause and effect with the lash princes. The only reason it was preferred was because the other options were terrible: the functionality of an option is a big deal. Lash was viable. The other options were terrible, ergo not taken. Lash was preferred as a consequence of terrible balance making other choices invalid; not because people preferred imbalance. had other choices been valid (you know... Balanced) lash would not have been the only choice- ergo better balanced options would only have improved variety and valid, functional choices. Amusing really - the imbalance you champion do readily was the cause of mono build chaos armies.

Breng77 wrote:


Balance alone does not sell games. I would argue the ability to play a game is the best selling point, because investing a ton into models I never get to use is a big turn off.

Which is the point.

Balance is hardly a reason to sell (all) games. Many people have many different reasons for buying games, hence there is a variety of games, including some which care a great deal about balance, making it a strong selling-point for gamers that care about it, and some which do not care at all, or even consider it detrimental to kind of gaming experience they want to offer with their game.

So let these games be what they want to be, and stop criticizing them for things they aren't trying to achieve.

You can criticize a game that actively sells itself as a balanced and/or competitive and/or tournament game for failing to do that. But you can't level the same criticism at a game that does not aim to do that, and very explicitly too.

40K's ability to play it - as intended by the designers and spelled out in minute detail, is in no way depended on balance. Indeed, they actively say that player need to change rules to fit their preferences. If you don't change the rules, you probably picked the wrong game. At the very least, you play it against the intend (which is fine too, but just not what the rules were written for).

Oh my god guys, there's this one game which everyone claims is the MOST balanced, right? But there's a bloody problem with it. One army always goes first. What bs, right?

PS: I invoke the godwin's law of game balance!

Obviously no game system like 40k could ever be perfectly balanced. I think we can all agree on that. Further, I think we can agree that there is some point at which *imbalance* would make a game like 40k unplayable. Everything in between is a gradient, and different people are clearly ok with different levels of imbalance.

That said, it would be dead simple to improve balance in a game like 40k simply by having more interaction with the developers. Things like periodically tweaking point values or adjusting rules, all based on observations once the game is "in the wild", would be a welcome improvement. But that would require giving a crap about balance, or gameplay, or customers.

People fret so much about balance I think they forget about fun.

Seriously, I've been having a blast with 40k lately. I haven't won many games really (not having any scoring units will do that ) but it's been incredibly fun.

And not just in my local area with friends - I live in State College (where I do play with friends) but I go to Harrisburg some weekends, and get pickup games there. Or I'll head to Altoona with one other buddy to play people I've never met, or to Center Hall where there's all sorts of people.

And I've had a blast in all of these places. I've seen the triptide list, the FMC doom list, Warhound and Revenant titans stomping about with 4 D blasts...

...and it's been singularly awesome.

Don't engage with Zwei. Everything he's parroting here has been shot to pieces in the 14 page thread. His avatar is as he acts; a troll. Until he brings facts to the table and answers questions in the other thread (which he won't), there's no point talking with him.

For Reference:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/591366.page

Competitive 40k is Deathstar 40k. I like the "Deathstar" in theory because the thought of elite units championing the battlefield by themselves is awesome. But some are just far too powerful to even be considered reasonable for anything but competitive play, even though they are fluffy. They should be high risk, high reward playstyles not the default strategy for success as they are now.

I don't think he's a troll. I think his view of the game is so different that he looks like a troll.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think he's a troll. I think his view of the game is so different that he looks like a troll.

You may have differing view, that's fine. But by not providing any facts, sticking to said views, and ignoring questions that readily make the platform you stand on topple, makes you a troll. We may disagree on game design, but at least I can point to several well accredited resources on the topic versus anything he has offered. And what he has offered only supported his opposing view, not his own.

So, spade a spade, and what not.

 TheKbob wrote:
And what he has offered only supported his opposing view, not his own.

Example?

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think he's a troll. I think his view of the game is so different that he looks like a troll.

Repeating your own opinion over and over, not providing any argumentative basis and refusing to accept anything that rightfully undermindes your opinion must not necessarily mean you're trolling, but it certainly ressembles troll behavior.

Isn't the quality of a game subjective though?

Like, he and I can both think that the game is awesome, and you all can think that the game is wrong...

...and that's ok. Like, he and I aren't trolling (I know for a fact that I'm not).

We really do enjoy 40k in its current incarnation and would be sad to see it go.

Is that so reprehensible that you must ostracize and demean our viewpoints?

When did you start playing 40K? It has changed a lot since 6th edition came out.

Many of us who are unhappy with the current state of affairs are long term players. I'm not claiming a superiority from that, just a different perspective.