Switch Theme:

CA Point Changes - a mix of excitement and disappointment  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan






Salt donkey wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:
How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)

I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.


Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples

During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.

Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.

So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.

BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”


I was talking about Guilty Gear. Not a tabletop, but a game system notoriously harder to balance than one, and Guilty is one of the wackiest. 25 crazy characters with more mechanics than nearly any other fighter, and still extremely balanced. It's definitely possible to achieve balance with between 15+ different factors. It's even easier for a tabletop when you can assign and tweak a points cost to literally anything.

I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been, and I love how much GW have improved it. I'm a big supporter of 8th, and I'm supporting CA as another good addition to it.

However I'm not going to pretend that balance isn't achievable. It absolutely is (again that doesn't mean perfect symmetrical balance). It will probably just take more work than GW is capable/willing to putting in.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/12/09 08:15:20


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Salt donkey wrote:
This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .

On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.

I'm sorry but are you saying that the people saying Grey Knights are bad have no right to complain about it?

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.
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.


Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.

Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
ITC is basically the go to competitive format here in the states. It's basically the regular game with some house rules. It really doesn't change what units are good or bad. Good units are just good or what units are bad.


At competitive levels, aka tournaments, there's no SM faction. There's the imperium faction which is the current top tier. If you're ok with soups you can't complain about SM since their faction is already too powerful. It's like complaining that the court of the archon or killa kanz are bad if their armies are top tiers. GW decided that SM are just part of a bigger faction, and among those 1000000 entries that the entire faction can chose from, there are several overpowered and undercosted ones that belong to other codexes, that's the only issue about SM.

In any real meta, friendly or semi-competitive, pure SM armies are certainly ok.

We also shall see about those top tier orks. At the moment I think SM have more solid data than them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/09 08:43:17


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 SHUPPET wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:
How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)

I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.


Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples

During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.

Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.

So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.

BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”


I was talking about Guilty Gear. Not a tabletop, but a game system notoriously harder to balance than one, and Guilty is one of the wackiest. 25 crazy characters with more mechanics than nearly any other fighter, and still extremely balanced. It's definitely possible to achieve balance with between 15+ different factors. It's even easier for a tabletop when you can assign and tweak a points cost to literally anything.

I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been, and I love how much GW have improved it. I'm a big supporter of 8th, and I'm supporting CA as another good addition to it.

However I'm not going to pretend that balance isn't achievable. It absolutely is (again that doesn't mean perfect symmetrical balance). It will probably just take more work than GW is capable/willing to putting in.


I have never played Guilty Gear, but i doubt that any versus game can reach the complexity of 40K.
You talk about 15 factions against 25 characters, but those 25 characters do not have internal builds. You only have to balance 25^2 combinations. The combinations in 40K are in the order of billions.
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Spoletta wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:
How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)

I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.


Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples

During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.

Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.

So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.

BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”


I was talking about Guilty Gear. Not a tabletop, but a game system notoriously harder to balance than one, and Guilty is one of the wackiest. 25 crazy characters with more mechanics than nearly any other fighter, and still extremely balanced. It's definitely possible to achieve balance with between 15+ different factors. It's even easier for a tabletop when you can assign and tweak a points cost to literally anything.

I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been, and I love how much GW have improved it. I'm a big supporter of 8th, and I'm supporting CA as another good addition to it.

However I'm not going to pretend that balance isn't achievable. It absolutely is (again that doesn't mean perfect symmetrical balance). It will probably just take more work than GW is capable/willing to putting in.


I have never played Guilty Gear, but i doubt that any versus game can reach the complexity of 40K.
You talk about 15 factions against 25 characters, but those 25 characters do not have internal builds. You only have to balance 25^2 combinations. The combinations in 40K are in the order of billions.

that would imply you need every single unit to be useful in every single match up. No. Lascannon's don't have to be balanced against and Ork horde to still be worth their points for the Knight match up. Part of the skill of this game is being able to build a list that can take on as much as possible, with enough units to be able to compete across different match ups, understanding some will pull their weight more than others in each match up for them to be useful. Every single unit does not need to be balanced in every single match up, just enough need to be balanced in every match up for the armies to both be able to play evenly against each other.

But yeah as someone who plays both games, I can assure you Guilty absolutely does have the complexity of 40k, in fact likely much more so. Just blocking a button can have about 6 different properties based on how you block it, each of which will give you different options based on the range you blocked it at. Every frame is relevant in the game. Don't be exactly what he just talked about, someone who handwaves the complexity of something they aren't familiar with. It was the first game with a lot of characters and great balance that jumped into my head, I could probably think of others.

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.

Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.

 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 Blackie wrote:
Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.

Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.


can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 Blackie wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.


Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.

Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.


You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?

Let's put it this way: A Grey Knights player could make his army competetive by buying Knights and Guardsmen, and removing all the Grey Knights from the army. Would you not agree that it's more than a wee bit silly to yell "IMPERIAL BIAS!" at the fact that he has the option to start playing an entirely different army? An Ork player could do the exact same thing. The Grey Knights player presumably wants to play his Grey Knights, the same way the Ork player wants to play his Orks, so the fact that the Grey Knights player can buy an entirely different army doesn't mean squat for him, and yet people keep whining about how Imperium players get all the good things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 11:33:10


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 SHUPPET wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.

Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.


can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.


Also GW releases patches, most of the for free.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.


Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.

Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.


You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?

The reality is that while people are playing 8th edition no-one is really playing the same game its really about 5 or 6 sub games.
40K ITC with and without allies, 40K CA with and Without Allies, 40k ETC and 40k Basic rules for fun.

By with and Without Allies I mean if you started 8th edition with 2k of marines if thats now 1 guard battalion a Castellen and some Custodes your playing with allies, if its still 2k of marines your not and that makes a huge difference to people's perception of balance.
Castellen with 15 CP fron 1K of Guard is a totally different power level than 3 knights and 2 armigers. Same with 2k of Custodes is different power to that same Guard powerup army plus dawneagle spam.

If your playing a codex without allies it's the same power in a with and without allies format, but going from codex Craftworld to Souo Codex Aledari is nothing like the same power.

No-one is going to agree untill everyone is actually playing the same game.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.


Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.

Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.


You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?

Let's put it this way: A Grey Knights player could make his army competetive by buying Knights and Guardsmen, and removing all the Grey Knights from the army. Would you not agree that it's more than a wee bit silly to yell "IMPERIAL BIAS!" at the fact that he has the option to start playing an entirely different army? An Ork player could do the exact same thing. The Grey Knights player presumably wants to play his Grey Knights, the same way the Ork player wants to play his Orks, so the fact that the Grey Knights player can buy an entirely different army doesn't mean squat for him, and yet people keep whining about how Imperium players get all the good things.


Those orks players see the issue from a different point of view which involves competitive gaming. There isn't a GK or SM faction vs orks, there's the imperium soup vs orks. An example of something unfair: twin weapons cost less than 2x of the same weapons for imperium but exactly 2x for orks.

In any friendly meta, where people tailor their list in order to get a balanced game, SM vs orks means a lot of fun on both sides. I'm going futher: a random collection of SM models can definitely outperform a random collection of orks since the greenskins absolutely need to rely on optimized lists in order to avoid being trash tier. Also pure GK can play decent games in a friendly meta or open play.

If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 11:53:55


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Wyzilla wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:
This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .

On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.

Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.

Uh, 5th edition?

I tried every single book that came out during it, sometimes playing opponent's army, and it never felt like an uphill battle, sure, some armies were stronger (IG/SW) but at worst it was like 45:55, certainly it was nothing like 6th/7th edition Eldar/Tau (if only because Phil Kelly didn't update his pet book in 5th...) and while 8th has better rules, I'd actually put 5th as best balanced edition ever overall, and with most varied lists on top of it due to troop swaps - you could have played say BA in 5 different ways, something pretty unthinkable in pretty much every other edition.

And before someone complains, the only people who I seen having any problems in 5th were ones playing bad 3rd/early 4th edition book (which is in no way 5th editions fault), those who put together armies using worst units of their respective book (as despite good overall balance some armies had a lot of dud units, admittedly), or those who refused to adapt and exploit enemy weaknesses in order to win (especially the dreaded IG and GK had glaring holes in their lists, and even the first book of the 5th edition, the SM, had pretty good chance against either, something even 8th was unable to replicate).
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 Irbis wrote:
Uh, 5th edition?


Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





Spoletta wrote:



I have never played Guilty Gear, but i doubt that any versus game can reach the complexity of 40K.
You talk about 15 factions against 25 characters, but those 25 characters do not have internal builds. You only have to balance 25^2 combinations. The combinations in 40K are in the order of billions.

Which is why you trim the fat and remove redundant options. Consolidate all Chapters into a single codex. Punt the big things over to a completely separate re-mark of Apocalypse where balance goes to die and people enter knowing it's going to be an unfair game. Remove Characters in favor of customized generic lords able to represent characters but have costs easier to adjust. Redundant vehicle templates get folded into a single page with modifiers based on the variant of the base chassis. Likewise to increase the speed of releasing changes for affordable prices that fleece the players, strip out most artwork and fluff in lieu of the old rulebooks from fantasy and 40k and release companion books containing that information if players want it, which also doesn't need to update as frequently due to lacking rules. Primaris and the way GW are going forward with it in some respects is the right idea - veteran units are just direct upgrades to existing units without a need for a separate sheet.

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 Blackie wrote:

If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.


But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




edit: delete me i'm salty

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 12:59:24


 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 Blackie wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.

Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.


can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.


Also GW releases patches, most of the for free.

By your own logic then, 40k is easier to balance than Guilty.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 13:33:18


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.


But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?


Captains and scouts? Never included in competitive lists?

The fact that SM stuff is out of the most performing imperium lists doesn't mean they're garbage, just that there's something even more powerful. Sorry but ultra competitive gaming isn't for long time collectors, in order to compete you have to re-buy the entire stuff on the list, or most of it, every 6-18 months, that's how GW works at those levels. In 7th edition lots of stuff in the SM codex was top tier, at the beginning of 8th guillimans lists and stormraven spam were absolute protagonists, now it's more AM+IK, maybe SM will get other units at highest levels before the new edition, maybe only after the release of 9th. If you chase the most competitive lists you have to accept that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 SHUPPET wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.

Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.


can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.


Also GW releases patches, most of the for free.

By your own logic then, 40k is easier to balance than Guilty.


No because the ultimate goal for GW isn't to create a 100% balanced game, but to sell more stuff. Those patches released for the videogame are an attemp to cure something that has already been sold by the company. I don't know if those patches are for free or not but selling a game or an edition of a game is way different than aiming to sell multiple kits and supplies without waiting years. 40k also has way more elements in its universe, it's not just a clash between a handful of characters.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/09 13:58:24


 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 14:04:59


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Trickstick wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
Uh, 5th edition?


Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.


You say that, but unless I'm mistaken there were very few units that could actually exploit wound-allocation to any meaningful level. Nobz, Paladins, Tyranid Warriors, I think one of the Blood Angels units . . . that was about it. And even with those units I don't recall it being especially strong (especially since they were all pretty expensive).

It could be a little irritating, sure, but it was still far less annoying and far less exploitable than the wound-allocation systems in 6th/7th.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 vipoid wrote:
You say that, but unless I'm mistaken there were very few units that could actually exploit wound-allocation to any meaningful level. Nobz, Paladins, Tyranid Warriors, I think one of the Blood Angels units . . . that was about it. And even with those units I don't recall it being especially strong (especially since they were all pretty expensive).

It could be a little irritating, sure, but it was still far less annoying and far less exploitable than the wound-allocation systems in 6th/7th.


I guess it was personal experience. My meta had loads of Draigo+paladin players, doing annoying circles to mitigate blasts. That was because my demolishers were the best thing for taking them out, as they avoided the worst of the allocation. The rest of my army's fire just got spread around. It was also really tedious to work out where the wounds went.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

The thing is people keep saying how complicated 40k is, but most of the "complexity" is minutiae that shouldn't matter or should be grossly simplified.

That GW wants to keep a ton of options to give the illusion of "Look how many complicated things you can do!" is part of the problem, not an excuse to get out of the solution.

Half the stuff in the game doesn't need to be separate datasheets and can and should be consolidated as upgrades you take rather than a totally different unit with its own set of things. Half the options are absolutely worthless with no viable reason to take them over other choices that do the same thing for cheaper/better. That's not choice.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden



 Blackie wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.


But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?


Captains and scouts? Never included in competitive lists?


From the Space Marine Codex? No.

 Blackie wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.


But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?


Captains and scouts? Never included in competitive lists?

The fact that SM stuff is out of the most performing imperium lists doesn't mean they're garbage, just that there's something even more powerful. Sorry but ultra competitive gaming isn't for long time collectors, in order to compete you have to re-buy the entire stuff on the list, or most of it, every 6-18 months, that's how GW works at those levels. In 7th edition lots of stuff in the SM codex was top tier, at the beginning of 8th guillimans lists and stormraven spam were absolute protagonists, now it's more AM+IK, maybe SM will get other units at highest levels before the new edition, maybe only after the release of 9th. If you chase the most competitive lists you have to accept that.



I KNOW. That's my entire point! The whole "WAAH! Imperium is so much stronger than Orks, it's unfair!" whining completely overlooks that everyone who has an army that is nominally Imperium is in exactly the same position as the Ork players: buy new stuff or your army is going to suck.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in it
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





 Cephalobeard wrote:
No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.

It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.

you can find some extra rules in expansion Vigilus defiant, dont know if there is something about demons

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 15:00:14


3rd place league tournament
03-18-2018
2nd place league tournament
06-12-2018
3rd place league
tournament
12-09-2018
3rd place league tournament
01-13-2019
1st place league tournament
01-27-2019
1st place league
tournament
02-25-2019 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I KNOW. That's my entire point! The whole "WAAH! Imperium is so much stronger than Orks, it's unfair!" whining completely overlooks that everyone who has an army that is nominally Imperium is in exactly the same position as the Ork players: buy new stuff or your army is going to suck.


I don't see Ork players complaining because they are not competitive compared to Codex: Space Marines, or any specific imperial codex or hell, even any specific Eldar codex. The problem is that at the highest levels an ork player can not ally with anyone to fill in weaknesses that are inherent to Codex: Deep strike ....Sorry I mean Codex: Orkz. On the other hand, any Imperial faction player can go out and spend $100 for a Knight, hop on Ebay and buy a guard battalion for $50 and then soup to their hearts content for the low price of $150. So if Orkz lack anti-armor we have to build our lists in such a way to compensate for that weakness, an imperial player can just take some Blood Angel smash captains or a Knight. So that means that the Ork codex needs to be tooled with literally the same options as the entire imperial faction in order to function at the highest competitive levels with the Imperial Faction.

But, and here is the part that I do see a lot of ork players upset about, we have to then pay higher prices for a similar unit/weapon OR we have to pay the same cost for a sub par unit/weapon. I've given examples in the past but lets rehash some.

Powerfists are now significantly cheaper than Powerklaws, even though they do LITERALLY the same thing. Now the counter argument I see a lot from the opposition side of this is that Orkz should have to pay more points because our base model that takes a Powerklaw is S5 compared to S4 so therefore we gain more benefits from our PK then imperial players do from their PFs. My immediate rejoinder is "If that is the case, why are Twin Lascannons 40pts (1/5th cheaper) but my Twin Rokkitz are 24pts (Exactly the same price as 2 rokkitz) but you clearly gain more from a 3+ to hit compared to my base 5+ to hit, shouldn't my Rokkitz be significantly cheaper and even more cheap if I Twin them?. Or for that matter, why is a Scatter laser the same price as a Big shoota but has higher strength and is on a model with BS4 as opposed to BS5? Why can Space Marines take a 2pt shield that gives them 3++ but the best I can do is a 6+++ for 5pts on 1 in 5 models, or if you want to compare Invuln for invuln, i can take a KFF on a Big Mek in Mega armor for 119pts which gives a 6' bubble a 5++ invuln save.....For the same price a Space Marine player can give a 3++ to 59.5 models.

So it isn't so much that imperial players each have a codex that is better then orkz, its that orkz can't simply bring in allies for relatively cheap in competitive settings and therefore need more help to make their monobuild codex competitive. AND that yet again, orkz are paying premium prices for things that Imperial players get for cheaper or better.


 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

But that's my point: if I want to compete at the top level I also have to go out and spend those $150 because my army is even worse.

Sure, the pricing differences are annoying. You know what I think is annoying though? How much better Ork Boyz are than anything I can field as Black Templars. The grass really isn't greener on the other side.

By all means, complain away about the weird and unfair rules interactions. What I'm tired of is the constant ripping on any army that has the keyword Imperium just because some specific soup lists that include 0 units from that army are the current meta. There is a point to playing Orks in a competetive setting, because they do things no one else does, and can still be reasonably competetive. Complaining about shortfalls in the Ork Codex is fine; ripping on others who are even worse off than Orks is petty.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in nl
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




 Cephalobeard wrote:
I'm glad we wasted hundred upon hundred of pages discussing Infantry Squads costing more.


Well, they SHOULD, but hey. I'm going to enjoy my Storm Shield... err, Space Wolves. Well, except for TWC because they still have SS at 10 ppm
   
Made in se
Executing Exarch






 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.


No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/12/09 18:39:59


 
   
Made in ie
Fresh-Faced New User




As a blood angels player I am disappointed. GW killed Sanguinary Guard and Death Company by dropping points for vanguard vets + jumpacks while keeping SG and DC the same. There is absolutely no reason as to why you would take SG and DC over VV. Dante dropping to 175 points is also not great, 0 special unique rules and we pay 175 just to get chapter master special rule and jumpack while Valoris or Azrael that does so much more for an army and as a single model for just 10 points more. Dreadnought point drops and their wargear is nice , mephiston going up 15 points was expected but not its much better to take Librarian Dreadnought over Mephiston lol.Sanguinor dropping to 150 from 170 is ok, would prefer to have him at 135 when looking at what characters from other codexes do around his points cost. Very disappointed that a generic space marine unit is better than 2 unique dedicated blood angels units are suppose to be doing.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 SHUPPET wrote:
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.

According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad

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.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: