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.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).
I wasn't trying to suggest older players were the largest proportion, just that the game was once "Mono-Faction" only and so we KNOW it can work that way. And yes, there would be some players put off by this change, as with any change, but I don't think it would be as large a group as you might think. It isn't as if Mathced play is the ONLY way. The most common, sure, but just like I can still run an Eldar list with Windriders as my core (like when they were my only Troops) mulit-faction list will still be playable in either Open or Narrative play or even in Matched play games in which both players agree to ignore the restriction.
What the restriction will do, however, is shift the balance between the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of faction taking allies to plug weaknesses that absolutely should be present in a competitive setting. Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for this change, just saying it wouldn't be a bad one. There are certainly better ways, but this would be an easy "fix"
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/26 15:47:38
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).
I wasn't trying to suggest older players were the largest proportion, just that the game was once "Mono-Faction" only and so we KNOW it can work that way.
And yes, there would be some players put off by this change, as with any change, but I don't think it would be as large a group as you might think.
It isn't as if Mathced play is the ONLY way. The most common, sure, but just like I can still run an Eldar list with Windriders as my core (like when they were my only Troops) mulit-faction list will still be playable in either Open or Narrative play or even in Matched play games in which both players agree to ignore the restriction.
What the restriction will do, however, is shift the balance between the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of faction taking allies to plug weaknesses that absolutely should be present in a competitive setting.
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for this change, just saying it wouldn't be a bad one. There are certainly better ways, but this would be an easy "fix"
-
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/26 16:00:01
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/26 16:06:06
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/26 16:29:21
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/26 16:51:53
Every faction has, in theory, weaknesses that can be exploited. When you start mixing factions, those weaknesses can be mitigated. The main offense to mixing factions in tournaments is that not every faction can do so. Non-Aeldari Xenos factions, for example, have little to no way to mitigate their inherent faction weaknesses by adding another faction.
Competition should always be fair. Either restrict all armies the same (mono-faction) or allow all factions to mix. That is the most fair way to go about it. Alternatively (And more preferably), reduce the advantages of mixing factions so that there isn't such disparity between those that can do it and those that cannot
-
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/09/26 16:59:39
Galef wrote: Every faction has, in theory, weaknesses that can be exploited. When you start mixing factions, those weaknesses can be mitigated.
The main offense to mixing factions in tournaments is that not every faction can do so. Non-Aeldari Xenos factions, for example, have little to no way to mitigate their inherent faction weaknesses by adding another faction.
Competition should always be fair. Either restrict all armies the same (mon-faction) or allow all factions to mix. That is the most fair way to go about it.
Alternatively, reduce that advantages of mixing factions so that there isn't such disparity between those that can do it and those that cannot
-
I agree the allies need work. I'd much rather just open things up so that the more 'isolated' factions can ally more liberally. Tau have lots of converts, for example, let them bring Guard, Renegades, even some Space Marines and Eldar.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Galef wrote: The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often.
Each player's local meta will play a big role as well.
SG
40K - T'au Empire
Kill Team - T'au Empire, Death Guard
Warhammer Underworlds - Garrek’s Reavers
*** I only play for fun. I do not play competitively. ***
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
Tyel wrote: GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.
Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.
GW only has one objective... selling models which makes money for the company. Any other concerns, like a tabletop game, are very far down the list.
SG
40K - T'au Empire
Kill Team - T'au Empire, Death Guard
Warhammer Underworlds - Garrek’s Reavers
*** I only play for fun. I do not play competitively. ***
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/26 17:05:03
Tyel wrote: GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.
Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.
GW only has one objective... selling models which makes money for the company. Any other concerns, like a tabletop game, are very far down the list.
SG
I don't believe you. If this was true, I believe that they wouldn't have came out with 8th edition, or with all the FAQ's or with all the errata, or with actually being somewhat communicative to the player base.
While what your saying has been true, at this I feel your doing a disservice to them.
Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.
I used to believe this but Dakka has convinced me otherwise. Look at this thread, half the people just want to ban stuff and remove options. I rather do without that sort of 'balance.'
Tyel wrote: GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.
Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.
GW only has one objective... selling models which makes money for the company. Any other concerns, like a tabletop game, are very far down the list.
SG
I don't believe you. If this was true, I believe that they wouldn't have came out with 8th edition, or with all the FAQ's or with all the errata, or with actually being somewhat communicative to the player base.
While what your saying has been true, at this I feel your doing a disservice to them.
As a company this is true.
The individuals working on the game truly care about it though.
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
The 'specific example' isn't actually that specific. "40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?" is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered.
'Fun' may be a poor metric, but it's ultimately what sells models, aside from those who are pure hobbyists and not players. So it's one we need to consider very heavily. While some people find 'allies' unfun, GW basically settled that debate in 6th Edition. They wouldn't have been reiterated so many times if they weren't helping the company.
AnomanderRake wrote: (Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
I'd still like to see like three or four battalions of Kabalites on Venoms. No limit on troops and transports... seems like that list would be incredibly nasty (especially since the vehicles are open topped and the Kabalites have poison weapons).
SG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/26 17:09:25
40K - T'au Empire
Kill Team - T'au Empire, Death Guard
Warhammer Underworlds - Garrek’s Reavers
*** I only play for fun. I do not play competitively. ***
Honestly, would this game be so bad if re-rolling the dice just wasn't a thing?
You throw your dice, and you get what you get. End of story.
So much of the anger I see from players seems to center around who can re-roll what, when and how. I mean, isn't it a bit silly that Leviathan Dreadnoughts hit on 2's and re-roll 1's when a Chapter Master is standing near them? This is just one example of a unit that can do this, but why even bother rolling the dice at that point? 1/36 literally will not matter 95% of the time. That's the accuracy of an aimbot in a video game...
To me, the glaring issues with this game and its rules aren't going to ever be addressed until we all acknowledge the elephant in the room:
The d6 system and the current stat-line is too restrictive. I go-you go is out of date and encourages even more min/maxing.
Until we start to acknowledge this, nothing will change and any issues that creep up with power-creep will just be nerfed by making "x,y, or z" "x-amount of more points than it was."
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
The 'specific example' isn't actually that specific. "40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?" is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered.
'Fun' may be a poor metric, but it's ultimately what sells models, aside from those who are pure hobbyists and not players. So it's one we need to consider very heavily. While some people find 'allies' unfun, GW basically settled that debate in 6th Edition. They wouldn't have been reiterated so many times if they weren't helping the company.
The specific example is 'removing soup: good or bad'. That has been the topic of most posts for some pages at this point.
The reason it is being proposed as a solution is because through much debate in many many threads, soup keeps recurring as a source of issues people are having with the game. And because clearly, whether or not it ultimately makes the game more fun, it does make balancing factions significantly easier.
I don't expect or advocate for allies to disappear completely. I just think 8th went too far with regards to IMPERIUM especially and CHAOS and AELDARI too, and the freedom to mix within those super-factions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/26 17:16:25
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
limitations are fun too. Otherwise we may as well just all be playing unbound. It would be cool if tournaments were faction v faction. It would also make balance a gakload easier to get tighter going forward, as trying to balance 10 factions as a single entity while adding to that number as they progress, is a losing battle.
This is a massive strawman. No one said limitations aren't fun. The point was just allies and stratagems are popular. You can have a very balanced game that absolutely no one wants to play because it's boring. There's absolutely no reason it can't be both fun and balanced, however.
Not to mention we're not talking full factions entirely either. Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Imperial Knights, Legion, even Custodes, these are not fully fleshed out factions.
I don't think you can prove much of this. The part about Allies being why 40K is expanding in 8th.
Most games do have a more limited tourny edition of the game. Look at FFG, limits on ship types, look at PP.. well maybe not PP, their main game is tourney play ready.
Audustum said a lot of things were guesswork. That was part of the point of Audustum's post. We don't know how a lot of things would go and you may kill the reemergent scene.
Or it might work awesomely! We don't know, your position is no stronger here.
If we just stuck to the cold hard facts this forum would be an empty place.
I think anything that takes away 'fun factors' even if it produces balance should probably be classified as a 'bad' decision. Narrative and Open exist, but there's a reason just about every forum/gathering of the playerbase considers them a joke. Matched Play is the de facto standard.
What about something that increases the 'fun factor' but reduces balance? Is that fine then, indefinitely?
I don't think you believe that. So maybe the optimum point is somewhere a little more balanced than where we are even if it does remove down fluffy options FOR MATCHED PLAY.
The general consensus seems to be we are on the wrong side of balanced. Removing some options may be necessary to remedy that.
You're right, it might work awesomely, but considering these were part of the big three changes (the third being the simplified ruleset) my instinct is to doubt it. When you market based on something, it's not illogical to attribute an upswing in popularity to that marketing.
You're also making a strawman here. No one said fun was greater than all else. It was said that GW should work to make balance while preserving fun elements. That's a night and day difference.
The point I'm making though is that if we want significantly better balance then some sacrifices may need to be made on some things people find fun.
You made it sound like this was a line in the sand for you, that nothing that could be considered fun was on the table for balance purposes.
Let's put it this way, I was saying it's just good game design that you should balance while preserving fun instead of stripping it off. This isn't rocket science, you can easily keep one while doing the other. Lots of companies do.
In the abstract sure. But we're talking about a specific example. You also have to consider that there are people who view soup as unfun, as well as those who view it fun.
Yes, removing it will remove something some people find fun. But it might make the game as a whole more fun overall by virtue of improving balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically fun is a poor metric here, hah
The 'specific example' isn't actually that specific. "40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?" is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered.
'Fun' may be a poor metric, but it's ultimately what sells models, aside from those who are pure hobbyists and not players. So it's one we need to consider very heavily. While some people find 'allies' unfun, GW basically settled that debate in 6th Edition. They wouldn't have been reiterated so many times if they weren't helping the company.
The specific example is 'removing soup: good or bad'. That has been the topic of most posts for some pages at this point.
The reason it is being proposed as a solution is because through much debate in many many threads, soup keeps recurring as a source of issues people are having with the game. And because clearly, whether or not it ultimately makes the game more fun, it does make balancing factions significantly easier.
I don't expect or advocate for allies to disappear completely. I just think 8th went too far with regards to IMPERIUM especially and CHAOS and AELDARI too, and the freedom to mix within those super-factions.
Correction: 7th was actually easier to soup. 8th scaled it back a bit.
As to to the rest, I addressed this. See this line: "'40k in 8th Edition is unbalanced, how do we fix it?' is the general topic. Some have proposed removing allies, but no basis why that is necessary or the only option is offered". I've read this entire thread and that's where we are.
Stux wrote: Other options are offered. This is the option being discussed right here right now.
I've given my reasons for why I believe it could be necessary. I don't feel inclined to go over it yet again just for your benefit I'm afraid.
In a topic this broad, all options are always being discussed. You're trying to artificially limit the conversation.
I haven't seen anything besides "well, removing allies might work" but lots of things might work. That's no reason to just jump in and do them. We have scenarios where we can keep what we have and balance the game. GW should prioritize those even if it difficult.
SHUPPET wrote: I find a balanced game to be more fun than allies
They aren't opposites. We can say that GW can't balance the game with allies. But they can't balance it without allies either so... what are we gonna do?
Personally, I would accept all kind of limitations to allies, cp related, etc... before banning them.
Or well. Why don't tournaments start doing different formats? In Spain you have "fullhammer" tournaments where everything goes, and then you have ITC, ETC, tournaments, and those don't use Forgeworld for example, and have other limitations like not having the same detachment more than once (Both use the max 3 detachment at 1-2k points)
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Stux wrote: Other options are offered. This is the option being discussed right here right now.
I've given my reasons for why I believe it could be necessary. I don't feel inclined to go over it yet again just for your benefit I'm afraid.
In a topic this broad, all options are always being discussed. You're trying to artificially limit the conversation.
I haven't seen anything besides "well, removing allies might work" but lots of things might work. That's no reason to just jump in and do them. We have scenarios where we can keep what we have and balance the game. GW should prioritize those even if it difficult.
I wasn't trying to artificially limit anything. At that time there were multiple people having a discussion about that particular sub topic.
OK! So we're all agreed then! Castellan's need nerfs because CP is OP because Guard has OP Relics that Make Castellans OP because their Stratagems are never meant to be used with the ammount of CP that Guard can generate because Soup and allies are OP?
Jesus, it's hilarious to me that Castellan apologists are almost the exact same as Guard apologists. "MY UNIT ISN'T OP, LOOK AT THIS UNIT OVER HERE!!! STOP NERFING MY FAVORITE OP UNIT!"
A while back I posted a thread about soup and why it wasn’t going away. The thesis to my argument there is “Unless it’s more profitable for GW to remove soup then keep they won’t, FURTHERMORE it extremely unlikely that soup will ever affect game balance enouugh to make any significant nerfs to it a profitable decision.”One thing to note is that most people’s response to my thread was “no duh, of course money only matters.” Yet here we are when many posters doubting that sentiment.
I don’t want want repeat myself too much so I’m just going to post a link to that thread
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: OK! So we're all agreed then! Castellan's need nerfs because CP is OP because Guard has OP Relics that Make Castellans OP because their Stratagems are never meant to be used with the ammount of CP that Guard can generate because Soup and allies are OP?
Jesus, it's hilarious to me that Castellan apologists are almost the exact same as Guard apologists. "MY UNIT ISN'T OP, LOOK AT THIS UNIT OVER HERE!!! STOP NERFING MY FAVORITE OP UNIT!"
Honestly I too do think that the Castellan is fine. Is all the rest that isn't. If the Castellan is not played with the 4++ trait, the Cawl's Wrath and a load of CPs, the point cost is fine.
It's the trait, the stratagem and most of all the relic that make it OP.
I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).
I wasn't trying to suggest older players were the largest proportion, just that the game was once "Mono-Faction" only and so we KNOW it can work that way.
-
I wanted to highlight this part as someone that started in 4th edition.
We KNOW the game can be played this way. The question is: did it actually work like you say it did? Internal balance was still wonky and bad, so only specific armies worked.
Internal balance is always the issue here, sorry. Everyone can blame allies and soup all they want, and all you really have to do is look at 5th edition to know what the actual consistent issue is.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
