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.

UsdiThunder wrote:WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers.

God this gets so over-used. I still remember when WHFB was Chess and 40k was Checkers

WM/H is like Magic. It's heavily combo-reliant and requires that you know your list and your opponent's lists. 40k is like chess. You can have 2 really good players who can have an intense, strategic, and well thought out game, but for most people it's 2 guys playing for the hell of it.

They're two completely different games with two completely different purposes.

12thRonin wrote:horsegak. I've never had a game of chess where I failed to take a piece because I failed to roll far enough to move.

I've never had a game of chess where I've failed to kill the king because I didn't roll high enough. Warmachine uses dice too.

Dais explained it better than I did. The flaw in the "Chess and Checkers" comparison is the assumption that chess is somehow better than checkers. Complexity =/= superiority.

mrfantastical wrote: I feel that WM/H offers the closet example of a balanced game, but 40K.... Not so much.

While imbalance is a flaw, 40k isn't supposed to be a balanced game. 40k is offered to tell a story, moreso now with 6th edition in place. Which means that balance isn't so much of an issue.

Negator80 wrote:I guess it depends on who youre asking; whether complexity is better then sandboxish. Sandboxing is a poor excuse for lack of balance, but If can still enjoy it then knock yourself out. As far as stories; you get out what you put in regardless of system.

Out of curiousity, what does 6E do that produces a better narrative then 5E?

Lack of balance doesn't matter when the game isn't built to be balanced, isn't it?

40k's "sandbox" nature isn't a crutch to make up for lack of balance, it's the core function of the game. It can be equally argued that balance is a poor excuse for a lack of "sandbox" nature.

Many of 6th's rules, such as the different power weapons and the allies rules, allow players more freedom and liberties when designing an army. By adding more rules to address situations whose consequences are mostly background related, 6th gives players more flexibility in terms of creating a story.

UsdiThunder wrote:Balance is an issue or else there would not be so many people running from 40k right now.

Price and stupid decisions on GW's part is a much, much bigger factor. And if GW doesn't care about balance, it doesn't matter to them whether or not it's balanced, does it? Our personal demands for balance have 0 impact if GW decides to ignore it.

UsdiThunder wrote:What you call combo reliant is actually what is called synergy.

So when did the words "combo-reliant" become bad? They're the same thing, really.

UsdiThunder wrote:While you may think it's ok that GK or IG curbstomp everyone else because it told a story, some people would like a even fighting chance.

It's easier to make a point when you take stuff out of context, isn't it?

No, it's not "ok" for GK or IG to curbstomp everyone else. Too bad they don't. The only armies that had serious problems in 5th that were absolutely unviable were Tyranids and Tau. The concept that 40k is absolutely and utterly imbalanced is ridiculous. It's not balanced by any means, but it's hardly at the point you describe.

Additionally, the point of that statement was to clarify GW's stance. If GW doesn't care if the game is balanced, then it's not going to be balanced. It was never marketed to be a balanced game. Therefore, if there is imbalance, it is because GW's major priorities are to:

1. Sell models
2. Focus on the "cinematic" qualities of 40k

GW doesn't make a balanced game. That's it. It doesn't make it right or wrong, but that's the fact of the matter. So when you find imbalance in a game that wasn't designed to be balanced, it's somewhat pointless to complain, no?

Buzzsaw wrote:This is the crux of the problem: as I define a "game", balance is an inherent part of it. I see this so often with regards to 40k, that it can't be held to the standard of balance because... it's casual! It's just a beer and pretzels game! It's wacky!

In no way, shape or form does that mean GW is "above" the standard of balance. However, you have multiple statements from the design teams that it isn't meant to be balanced. Because you personally like balance in games has 0 impact on whether or not the game ought to be balanced/should be balanced.

Buzzsaw wrote:I propose, more simply, it's just not a very well designed game.

By your standard. I enjoy it, and I accept that it isn't balanced. I like Warmachine too, which is also a well-designed game. And don't take my opinion either, GW still has a large fanbase, though it is shrinking to a degree.

Buzzsaw wrote: The concept that the players of a game have equal chance to win is essential to gaming.

What is this, Ideal Land? Well then sure, everything is perfectly balanced and both sides always have an equal opportunity all the time.

No. Even in Warmachine, there are bad matchups and stronger factions. Cryx and Legion are both better than other factions, just check PP's forums. Not so much better as to make them broken, but they are better to a degree.

Go play a well constructed Saeryn list. At some points, you literally have to try to lose.

Buzzsaw wrote:The idea that "sandbox", however one wishes to describe it, is essential to a game is obviously and transparently false

Again, easy to make arguments against unsaid points, yes?

It's a core function of 40k. That doesn't make it a core to every game out there.

Buzzsaw wrote:I personally I find the 40k fluff on par with the body of Stephanie Meyer's works

Congratulations. Who cares? I personally find 40k fluff to be interesting, but that opinion doesn't matter either.

Negator80 wrote:Nobody said 40k was utterly imbalanced.

People did imply GW dont do a good job of balancing.

GW also never said they dont care about balancing 40k.

The notion that balance doesnt matter is stupid.

so youre argument that 'its imbalanced for x reason and thats ok' is stupid.

1. GK and IG always winning is a hyperbole. Not fact.
2. People want balance. That doesn't meant GW WILL balance.
3. The notion that balance doesn't matter to you is stupid. To GW, it's right as rain.

Your argument that GW fails to have a balanced game when the designers themselves say that they aren't making a balanced game is stupid.


Do you not get the point that GW isn't making a balanced game? It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, but that's how they make the game.

Don't like it? Don't play.

Buzzsaw wrote:You seem to have some trouble understanding: purposefully neglecting balance means you are not designing a game

What? By whose standards? You can't arbitrarily say that a game needs balance to be a game. You can absolutely ignore balance when creating a game. It's not a wise decision, but it's not impossible.

Buzzsaw wrote:Again, by your own admission, GW is designing without even an attempt to address balance. Your argument about how the example of GK and IG always winning is hyperbole undercuts your own point. If "balance doesn't matter" is a legitimate point of view, then it wouldn't matter that if that example were true (that IG and GK always win, that is, they are unbalanced).

Hmm? I saw a false statement. Yes, it's unbalanced. It's not over-the-top never fun to play GK/IG always win unbalanced, but it's unbalanced, severely towards certain armies, but not to that degree.

Buzzsaw wrote:Examine your own point: why are you claiming that these unequal match-ups don't happen, if "balance doesn't matter"? If "balance doesn't matter", then why object to a specific example where "balance doesn't matter"? The simple answer is, you realize, if on nothing but a subconscious level, that balance does matter.

I'm not objecting and saying every army has an equal opportunity. IG and GK do take more wins, because it's an unbalanced system. However, that doesn't meant that GK and IG always win, they just win more. Believe it or not, you can have an argument that qualifies, rather than refutes or supports, a statement.

Buzzsaw wrote:That's quite a lovely appeal to authority fallacy you have there

Congratulations, you totally got that wrong. No one assumes a lack of intelligence on your part, please don't overly exert yourself to prove so. What you've linked is also not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to popularity.

An appeal to authority would be "Games Workshop says they make the best miniatures in the world, and they would know something about making miniatures, so it must be true!" An appeal to authority is a fallacy when, and this is the fun part, I actually make an appeal to an authority

Meanwhile, an appeal to popularity would be "Games Workshop has so many fans that they must be the most popular miniatures company"

GW has a large fanbase. That's not a false statement, nor is it a statement that GW can exclusively make. This forum is a testimony to that, if anything.

Please tell me that the sentence "Games Workshop has a large fanbase" is false. Please do. This forum, hell the number of Games Workshop based and related forums, proves my point. It's not just opinion, it's a fact. They're not #1, not by any means necessary, but they are certainly big.

Buzzsaw wrote:It's fascinating to see how they describe their own product, isn't it? It's nominally a game, but they are far more interested in talking about the "hobby".

Ok, so let me get this straight. Games Workshop is more interested in talking about the hobby. What can we deduce from this statement?

Well, obviously, they're here to sell models. This is their primary goal, correct? Which means that they aren't necessarily interested in internal balance.


The problem we seem to have here is the concept of balance within a game. SHOULD a game be balanced? Absolutely, it makes sense. However, when a game is designed "balance" is not something that is inherently required. In fact, the only thing really required for a game is a set of rules and a social agreement to follow those rules for the sake of the game. Yes, it might not be a "fun" game, but it is a game nonetheless.

While balanced rules could sell more models, Games Workshop chooses not to have a balanced ruleset, and suffers the consequences for it. It's an illogical decision, but a potential decision nonetheless.

Backfire wrote:I really doubt GW has some sort of committee meetings where they make decisions akin the lines "OK, lets make Razorbacks really powerful so we sell tons of them".

Of course that's not how they do it.

Backfire wrote:I think they just don't care too much if something is unbalanced, as competive gamers are not their chief customers and the game is not specificially aimed to them.

Indeed, it's more like this. "Hey, you know what would be cool? Grey Knight Terminators as Troops! And if you take a certain character, you can get 2 wound Grey Knight Terminators as Troops!"

Backfire wrote:I might also point out that those armies generally regarded as most powerful in 40k 5th edition were often amongst the cheapest to collect. That's why Grey Knights was so insanely popular, you did not need that many models to have a competive army.

True. But IG and DE Venomspam, both popular and competitive, were wildly expensive. However Grey Knight took the cake as the cheapest and most competitive.

Mad4Minis wrote:The reliance on the caster is one thing I see as a big flaw of WarmaHordes.

Naaw, just like Chess is reliant on the king. It's notoriously difficult to kill most warcasters/warlocks easily (Depending on the situation, of course) and you spend more time trying to create vectors to assassinate your opponent's caster/lock. It's a really intuitive system, and I highly suggest everyone try it at least once.

Backfire wrote:Whilst GW isn't particularly well known for their tight rulesets (to put it mildly), I've never found it as particularly big hindrance to gaming enjoyment.

This, for so much win. Exalted.

That's not to say, however, that balance isn't necessary for enjoyment. Some people simply enjoy balance, others need balance. The point being that because one system is balanced doesn't make another system flawed, or less entertaining. The games are aimed a completely different markets and they really need to be compared as such.

If Warmahordes was a movie, it'd be one of those super tense ones where the ending either totally surprises you or lets you down. It's interesting to watch and see how each player plays, because sometimes you never see the ending coming.

40k is more like one of those gore flicks. Entertaining, a little cheesy and hard to bear sometimes, but still fun. I may not be able to see 8 foot tall superhumans crash through walls screaming "For the Emperor!" but I can do the next best thing.

Dais wrote:

Backfire wrote:

malfred wrote:I think of Warmachine and Hordes as the WWF of wargames.

Cute pandas and baby elephants serenely frolicking in the jungle?

Yes. ...until the Skorne arrive.

Which leaves only tortured pandas and baby elephants.