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.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes. Lash. Because including it in your army means you are guaranteed, 100% of the time to win with incredible ease and by a huge margin?

No. Lash. Because including it in your game means you are guaranteed, 100% of the time to be A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE AS A GAMES DESIGNER.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Seriously. Did I say that Fzorgle is a guaranteed auto-win? Did I even say that Fzorgle is the best option in the game? No I did not. I merely said that any games designer with a half a brain would have taken one look at Fzorgle and IMMEDIATELY arrived at the same mind-numbingly OBVIOUS conclusion the rest of us have - that this power is a Very Bad Idea. The decision to include Fzorgle in the Chaos codex demonstrates a level of incompetence so egregious that it is just... bogglesome.

Furthermore do you really intend to stand by the assertion that as long as a game doesn't include anything that is so good that it "guarantees you will win 100% with incredible ease and by a huge margin" then it is "pretty much perfectly balanced"? Seriously? That is one of the stupidest assertions I have ever heard anyone make. In fact I would even go so far to say that the kind of person who would make such an assertion is precisely the kind of person who would think that including Fzorgle in the Chaos codex was a smashing good idea.

Careful Doobie, you're walking that fine line.

Remember at Dakka it's ok to be an idiot, but you're not allowed to call someone on being an idiot.

BYE

Well, first of all, do try to read things in context, instead of simply seeking something to get offended about.

And since you nominated Lash of Submission as an example of a design faux pas, perhaps you would care to explain exactly why a single power is so absolutely awful, something you have, to this point, completely neglected to do.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And since you nominated Lash of Submission as an example of a design faux pas, perhaps you would care to explain exactly why a single power is so absolutely awful, something you have, to this point, completely neglected to do.

No. I am not going to explain why Lash of Submission is powerful, as it should be obvious (or at least obvious to everyone except you and the guy who decided it was a good idea to include it in the codex).

Well, first of all, do try to read things in context, instead of simply seeking something to get offended about.

Nor am I going to explain irony to you. Sorry.

Saying "it should be obvious" really isn't a solid foundation to base an argument on.

Why not? If it's so obvious, humour me. Otherwise one might suspect you've never faced off against it, and are simply repeating Interweb Hyperbole.

There is nothing fundamentally unbalanced in the basic rules. The places where there are problems are units that are either weaker or stronger than cost, or can be taken in quantities which by synergy make them stronger than cost.

Bear in mind that the point of tactics is to make battles unbalanced -- meaning that a skill of a general is to concentrate his strength against his enemy's weakness. This doesn't mean a game should start from a position of imbalance because some armies have better (cheaper) units than others.

Its just to admitt, the version of 40k played nowdays is horribly watered down version of what we had before. Every edition pushing it even further into everything is the same.

It was alot worse in RT regarding balance but considering the huge amounth of time gone since that and all the variety removed really should have made the game pretty much balanced. IF that was what the company wanted, but since they already stated that they dont want that and care about it.. it wont happen. Why should it? Lash is a good example, everyone can see how unbalanced it is compared(in its own) but if the creators dont care and think it looks cool, thats what the gamers will get.

Like many others said beore tho, the rule system isnt very flawed in itself but in some of the choices, making the game overall alot less fun then it used to be.

Again, I don't see the huge problem with Lash. Can someone please explain to me? Moving a single unit d6" is hardly game breaking now, is it?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Again, I don't see the huge problem with Lash. Can someone please explain to me? Moving a single unit d6" is hardly game breaking now, is it?

If you only wanna move them d6 thats up to you.

Look at results and see how well it makes an army competative, only by basing it on lash. Pretty much the same with Orcs, there is a reason for some things dominating others big time.

Oh of course, double lash. But then, thats the limit, isn't it? 2 Lashes tops. How scary. They might pull a unit out of position, unless I somehow figure out the best way to stop this is to kick the Sorcerors teeth down their throats as fast as possible, or shoot them in the pills with a suitably impressive gun.

Or does having Lash somehow make you immune to your enemies tactics perhaps? Or give the Sorceror a 2+ Invulnerable save? No? Of course it doesn't.

Lash of submission moves a unit 2d6, double lash is 4d6. If you wanna jump people you should know the rules before attacking them.

It really is the base of one of the best armies out there and really, just looking at it should show a competent game designer that it might not be the most balanced thing to put into a game. This is not the worst example, just used it cause it already was in the thread.

Modquisition:
We've had several reports on this thread. Please keep your comments polite.

Happy Feast of Samhain, where did I put those sacrificial victims again...
Modquisition off

I think the problem with lash is two fold. First, including a power that lets you move your opponents figures isn't a good idea. I use it occasionally and I always ask my opponent to move his unit where I'd like it to go if the power is successful. Unfortunately there are some players who are not as mature/thoughtful as the rest of us and would just as soon reach across the table and start manhandling my figures, something I don't want anyone to do without my explicit permission.

Second, and this is the rules part of it, lash has such an obvious synergy with plasmacannon toting obliterators that you would have to be blind not to notice. The pair works so well that when you're writing a competitive list it is hard to ignore. That is the lack of balance right there and it has nothing to do with the individual units. It has to do with a pair of units totally overshadowing the rest.

Frankly, I think that anybody that needs explanation why Lash is overpowered is being obtuse, but here goes:

In 40k, models can move, shoot, and assault certain distances. In addition, there are ways to position models to gain benefit: keeping them out of charge range, or in cover, or disperesed to prevent blast weapons from ripping them up.

Lash breaks all of those rules. It takes the ability of a player to control his army away, and allows for an enormous range of fun tricks such as:
-Bringing enemy units into assault range
- Pushing enemy units out of their assault range
- Pulling units out of cover and bunching them up so your oblits can plasma cannon them to death
- pushing units off of objectives
- moving shooty units so they no longer have LOS

Now, these are all pretty cool and useful, but would be tolerable, except that the power is both relatively cheap and available on a platform (Demon prince) that is both fast, durable, and pretty good in assault.

What lash does is to prevent your enemy from countering the rest of your army. Normally, any chaos army can be countered: stay in cover from oblits, stay out of range of berzerkers, etc. The lash dramatically decreases an opponents ability to react to your army.

Oh, and it causes a pinning test as well.

The point of nearly everybody that dislikes the lash is that it's an inherently hard ability to balance: it does no damage, it doesn't make anything tougher, etc. What it is, however, is a tool that becomes dramatically more useful in the hands of a skilled player. This was, I think most people would argue, not a flaw in execution, but a flaw in concept.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:

If the rules were better and more balanced, tournament play would improve - I haven't heard anyone dispute that. What I would like to hear is a cogent argument from anybody that states that improving rules and game balance would have a detrimental effect on non-tournament players.

I would like to hear someone explain this as well. How does more rules balance = worse experience for casual gamers? I would consider myself a casual gamer (I've been to two tournaments in my 20 year life as a mini gamer) and I fail to see how more balance is bad. No one is asking for perfect balance...just more of it. Anyone?

The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Kilkrazy wrote:Bear in mind that the point of tactics is to make battles unbalanced -- meaning that a skill of a general is to concentrate his strength against his enemy's weakness. This doesn't mean a game should start from a position of imbalance because some armies have better (cheaper) units than others.

This is definitely true. I would add that making the battle unbalanced (tactically) also involves concentrating similar units for a net increase in power; for example, having all of your vehicles move up one flank while your infantry moves up the other, making it difficult for both sides of your opponent's gunline unable to cope with the amount of vehicles/infantry. I think that allowing players to do this with armylists (nidzilla, 180 boys, 7 land raiders, etc) can start the game with an unbalance that's beyond simple problems with point costs.

--------

Also, I think that Lash is really closer to, say, a spell from Fantasy than a psychic power for 40k. The key difference is that fantasy has a whole system in play for casting and countering spells, and most armies have similarly powerful spells they can use. 40k's psychic power system is: make a leadership 10 psychic test to use it. If you play eldar or an imperial army, it might be countered, otherwise you're in the clear. The spell is probably some sort of shooting attack.

Look at Lash compared to Bolt of Change, or Nurgle's Rot. It's way better than either, and cheaper than Bolt of Change. That's bad balancing just within the Chaos codex. It also makes sorcerers of Slaanesh the top dogs, while sorcerers of the God of Magic sit at home and wish they were still the far more effective loyalist librarians.

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Why? What's the reasoning or logic here? Saying it is so, does not make it so. What's the explanation?

JHDD/Grotsnik: I find it quite interesting that you would uphold 5th Edition as being "balanced" and for the naysayers to "use tactics" instead of arguing supposed unbalance. While I am in 100% agreement about 5th Edition being a fine ruleset - your arguement that people should use "tactics" is a poor one at best, as 5th Edition has continued the trend started by 4th Edition by removing tactical options...

Options removed by 4th Edition:

1. Assaulting from a transport after moving (open topped excepted).
2. Half squads shooting from a transport.
3. Split shooting and assaulting between targets.

Options removed by 5th Edition:

1. Trapping infantry in destroyed vehicles by blocking hatches.
2. Negative modifiers from attrition based shooting.
3. Consolidating into new combats
4. Using large fodder squads as combat tarpits
5. Hiding behind area terrain - unless are terrain is completely continuous - with no gaps.
6. Protection of special weapons through wound allocation
7. Target priority is gone (This is a good thing, though the -option- of having your opponent fail the check is gone.)

Guys... I will admit that 5th is a more "streamlined" system, but more tactical? Give me a break -

In this game, everything moves at a homogenous rate, small arms fire at a homogenous range. A unit typically performs their action each turn against one enemy opponent. The new rules have made that action more decisive now, so the winner can go on to make their one future action against a future target! The way the writers have made the game, doing anything to surprise your opponent is hard. You can deepstrike, but 2/3 of the time, your guys end up in the wrong spot, and then your guys are stuck standing around for a turn. You can try outflanking, but 1/3 chance, your guys show up in the wrong place... There is little to no synergy between units due to each unit being specacularly unflexible in use!

Example: Say I have a squad of firedragons and a squad of banshees. There are two squads of marines nearby. Given that each unit can only engage one enemy unit due to the idiotic assault what you shoot rule - neither unit can help the other, either by adding shooting casualties, or by lending help in assault (unless the banshees forgo shooting - which would be a bad idea, since each girl is only good for 1/2MEQ on average). In the old days, one could dump all the meltagun shots and pistol shots into one squad, and then jump the remaining one with both aspect squads - which would be the most logical. This is why the game has moved away from combined arms to the more unbalanced type "one trick" armies you see these days.

The game is to random in the wrong places, and too homogenous in the wrong places as well. Fantasy has the right idea with differing movement rates - psychology that actually does something in the game.

keezus wrote:JHDD/Grotsnik: I find it quite interesting that you would uphold 5th Edition as being "balanced" and for the naysayers to "use tactics" instead of arguing supposed unbalance. While I am in 100% agreement about 5th Edition being a fine ruleset - your arguement that people should use "tactics" is a poor one at best, as 5th Edition has continued the trend started by 4th Edition by removing tactical options...

Huh? 5th Edition forces the player to make decisions. If forces player to make choices that have impact. Think about what that means. By definition, it means that the game is more tactical.

Options removed by 4th Edition:
1. Assaulting from a transport after moving (open topped excepted).
2. Half squads shooting from a transport.
3. Split shooting and assaulting between targets.

All of these are excellent, tactical changes that force players to play smarter.

Tactical decisions required in 4th Edition:
1. Move up, or disembark
2. be safe in transport, or shooting outside
3. choose between shooting, assaulting, and which target to eliminate

All good!

Options removed by 5th Edition:
1. Trapping infantry in destroyed vehicles by blocking hatches.
2. Negative modifiers from attrition based shooting.
3. Consolidating into new combats
4. Using large fodder squads as combat tarpits
5. Hiding behind area terrain - unless are terrain is completely continuous - with no gaps.
6. Protection of special weapons through wound allocation
7. Target priority is gone (This is a good thing, though the -option- of having your opponent fail the check is gone.)

Similarly as above
1. rebalance so Transports become more viable as transports, not bunkers.
2. Simplification, but to be fair, you need to note the new option to Go To Ground. That is a game-changer.
3. rebalance, to make assaults unitary, rather than just allowing unlimited, "win more" rampage
4. if large squads can't do any damage via weight of numbers, they *should* run.
5. models are models, not 3-d tokens
6. you still have this, tactically, you only place minimal wounds that allow saves on specialists, rather than no-save & extra wounds.
7. speed-up and remove extra measuring cheating. All good.
Mostly this is preferences, not a problem.

Guys... I will admit that 5th is a more "streamlined" system, but more tactical? Give me a break -

Maybe you should just play better.

In this game, everything moves at a homogenous rate,

Except for Run/Fleet, Bikes, Jump Packs, Fast Vehicles, Beasts, and Transports, yes.

small arms fire at a homogenous range.

Except for Templates and Tau and Eldar, yes.

A unit typically performs their action each turn against one enemy opponent. The new rules have made that action more decisive now, so the winner can go on to make their one future action against a future target! The way the writers have made the game, doing anything to surprise your opponent is hard.

One unit = one target - what's so hard about that concept? If you want to engage more targets, bring more units.

You can deepstrike, but 2/3 of the time, your guys end up in the wrong spot, and then your guys are stuck standing around for a turn.

Really? I thought DS allowed you to choose where your models DS, and then you scatter. If you make a good tactical decision and weigh the risk of scatter appropriately, your guys will end up where they need to be. DS is far more tactical now, almost entirely in the player's control. Problems are when you get greedy and scatter. That's the player's fault.

You can try outflanking, but 1/3 chance, your guys show up in the wrong place...

Nothing forces a player to outflank. It's a tactical (strategic) decision to outflank from reserves vs start on the board. If you gamble, sometimes, you lose. That's fair.

Say I have a squad of firedragons and a squad of banshees. There are two squads of marines nearby. Given that each unit can only engage one enemy unit due to the idiotic assault what you shoot rule - neither unit can help the other, either by adding shooting casualties, or by lending help in assault (unless the banshees forgo shooting - which would be a bad idea, since each girl is only good for 1/2MEQ on average). In the old days, one could dump all the meltagun shots and pistol shots into one squad, and then jump the remaining one with both aspect squads - which would be the most logical. This is why the game has moved away from combined arms to the more unbalanced type "one trick" armies you see these days.

I don't see the problem here. It's not like the MEQs could savage the girls with Bolter Rapid-Fire, then kill the Dragons in assault if the situation were reversed... In fact, the new balance says that the Eldar have the situational advantage being armed with Assault / Pistols vs Rapid Fire which denies Assault. Is there some kind of balance problem that I've missed?

The game is to random in the wrong places, and too homogenous in the wrong places as well. Fantasy has the right idea with differing movement rates - psychology that actually does something in the game.

Then go play Fantasy. 40k isn't for everybody. And GW is deliberately separating 40k from WFB, so they work differently. I happen to prefer 40k over WFB. That's why there are many games out there. More distinctive choices in gaming is better.

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Actually the theory is more like: more balance => boring selection choices. I don't think this has to be the case - it's just that the more choices you have more work it takes to balance them. On the other hand the converse is definitely not true (ie, boring selection choices => more balance) as the latest Chaos codex amply demonstrates.

Acheron wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Why? What's the reasoning or logic here? Saying it is so, does not make it so. What's the explanation?

Well, I don't agree with it. That is just the impression I get from a lot of the postings critical of making a balanced, tournament ready ruleset.

I don't want to be accused of setting up a straw man. Some of my previous posts in this thread have pointed out ways in which a lot of variety can be combined with balance.

Completely balancing the core rules and all codexes as has been stated before would be impossible. Making the core rules and all codexes more balanced than they are now is not impossible. Look in the "Proposed Rules" section, there are *some* very good ideas with regards to things like Kill Points and the cost/abilities of certain units.

To make tournament players happy, GW only has to do one thing, email Yakface with the following:

"We'd like you to expand your Adepticon FAQ with a comprehensive 'Balance Errata' suitable for tournament play. You may have X months to playtest and finalize the initial document, after which time we will sanction it for competitive play. We would like you to provide quarterly/bi-yearly updates to this document based on new releases, tournament data, further playtesting, etc. that would nescessitate changes. All of this is done on a volunteer basis on your part and you are not obligated in anyway to perform any of these requests."

And if they don't, I think Yak should organize and develop a "Dakka Recommended Tournament Errata" document. GW sanctioned events may or may not adopt it, but I'm sure many local leagues and non-sanctioned tournaments would (I know mine would). Who knows, if it received well enough, they very well just might adopt it, like how they've used several of his FAQ items in their latest round of FAQs.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The theory seems to be that more balance = boring selection choices.

Actually the theory is more like: more balance => boring selection choices. I don't think this has to be the case - it's just that the more choices you have more work it takes to balance them. On the other hand the converse is definitely not true (ie, boring selection choices => more balance) as the latest Chaos codex amply demonstrates.

Yes.

The game is a mathematical construction and the number of different possible units is a function of the number of variables and the range of each. There is actually a large range of variables available and we do see quite a bit of variation even in basic troops -- compare IG, Orks, Tau and SMs for example. That is the basic stats, not even counting the weapon variables. To some extent GW do not make use of the variability available. WS makes little difference, for instance.

Wargear and special rules are a way of adding more variability. What you usually have is a basic mathematical mechanism dressed up with a fluffy description. For example, Tau markerlights, SoB Faith points and the Eldar psychic powers all do the same thing -- die roll modifiers -- with a different description.

The big problem is when the designer flips his lid and invents a totally mad power (e.g. Lash.) Some of the major characters fall into this category because of the collection of super stats and wargear they embody.

But Lash isn't a real problem power when you look at what it does. The problem with Lash is that it's needlessly rules-complex / imprecise, like WBB.

What's a problem are global rules, like Rites of Battle. How do you cost that fairly? If you have a lot of infantry in a large game, then making them all Ld10 is huge. If you're more Veteran / Mech, meh, it's hardly worth mention. How do you cost that?

Hi Kilkrazy.
I would like to pick up on your comment about 'totaly mad powers'.
GW game devs primary goal is to help sell the latest range of Citadel Minatures.
Every new release has to be 'shiny and kewler' than everything else.

And eventualy they run out of sensible ideas and options .

If you strip away years of marketing driven development of 40k.You end up with a poor WH clone.

If you started from scratch with a clear idea of game play requirments, and wrote a rule set with this specific game play in mind.
You get much better rule sets.(GWs SGs have lots of examples of great game development.IMO.)

But GW is a minatures company NOT a games company.
Which is a massive hinderance to the GW game devs , and a dissapointment to lots of gamers....

Good job there are lots of great games companies out there!(Thane Games, Ground Zero Games,etc.)

I have a huge amount of respect for Yakface , for putting so much effort into the FAQs etc, (that GW couldnt be bothered to do).
But any ones oppinion is just that , a subjective opinion!
And why should it be up to the customers to put right poor quality product?

If you got a mis cast minature from GW .
And GW said , 'Just buy some more 'green stuff' off us and re sculpt it yourself!'
You would feel GW were not being very fair, wouldnt you?

TTFN
Lanrk.








Happy gameinfg

JohnHwangDD wrote:But Lash isn't a real problem power when you look at what it does. The problem with Lash is that it's needlessly rules-complex / imprecise, like WBB.

What's a problem are global rules, like Rites of Battle. How do you cost that fairly? If you have a lot of infantry in a large game, then making them all Ld10 is huge. If you're more Veteran / Mech, meh, it's hardly worth mention. How do you cost that?

Rules such as WRG Ancients simply charge more points for a figure with a higher morale value.

Right, but RoB is folded into the cost of a single model. It's not like you pay 50 pts for the Captain +1 pt for every other model with base Ld8 and +5 pt for every unit with Ld9.

Lanrak wrote:Hi Kilkrazy.
I would like to pick up on your comment about 'totaly mad powers'.
GW game devs primary goal is to help sell the latest range of Citadel Minatures.
Every new release has to be 'shiny and kewler' than everything else.

And eventualy they run out of sensible ideas and options .

If you strip away years of marketing driven development of 40k.You end up with a poor WH clone.

If you started from scratch with a clear idea of game play requirments, and wrote a rule set with this specific game play in mind.
You get much better rule sets.(GWs SGs have lots of examples of great game development.IMO.)

But GW is a minatures company NOT a games company.
Which is a massive hinderance to the GW game devs , and a dissapointment to lots of gamers....

Good job there are lots of great games companies out there!(Thane Games, Ground Zero Games,etc.)

I have a huge amount of respect for Yakface , for putting so much effort into the FAQs etc, (that GW couldnt be bothered to do).
But any ones oppinion is just that , a subjective opinion!
And why should it be up to the customers to put right poor quality product?

If you got a mis cast minature from GW .
And GW said , 'Just buy some more 'green stuff' off us and re sculpt it yourself!'
You would feel GW were not being very fair, wouldnt you?

TTFN
Lanrk.








Happy gameinfg

Every figure and unit in the whole game isn't a shiny modelfest. It's mostly a few special characters. Look at Tau, they only have three special characters and no one uses Space Pope because he is rubbish.

GW make the real money from having all the players buy more boxes of basic infantry rather than some players buying one special character. I don't own any characters for my Tau (though tell the truth I have just ordered a Shadowsun.) But I've got four boxes of Fire Warriors and two boxes of Kroot.