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.

Deschenus Maximus wrote:


Its only fun if both players self-restrict the power level of their list..

Which they should.

Self-restricting your list isn't hard (especially (!) if you take to the game more seriously, and want to stage events with a more competitive edge).

Self-restricting your "skill" in a more balanced game like Chess is arguably impossible.

Exactly. In this particular game of toy soldiers, no one expects you to not play to the best of your skill, but in friendly games to bring an army that it'll be fun for your opponent to play. Hence the term, "friendly."

Tournament-quality lists vs. tournament quality lists is fun. Tournament quality lists vs. the models a new player liked and collected is not fun, for either player.

I am planning on eventually getting an Imperial Knight. I think the fluff is way cool, and the model is way cool. I also expect I'll get to actually run it on the table like, twice? None of my friends play very competitively because we've kind of built a culture more about the modeling and painting aspect than the tabletop game itself (which is really awesome to be part of, btw). I actually don't play very competitively, and I'll be honest it's because I am a very compeititve person so losing when I'm actually trying stings. At least I'm adult enough to realize I can occasionally be a poor sport after losing a game even as ultimately meaningless as Competitive Yahtzee Warhammer 40,000.

It seems to me a lot of people can't quite seperate playing for enjoyment and playing with the express purpose to win.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Maybe it was just because that was the early days of the internet but I don't recall a single time that the actual units chosen were abused when I played 2nd edition (most of the abuse was uber characters with Vortex Grenades and the like) other than perhaps Wolf Guard Terminators who just had broken rules.

Codex Space Wolves was guilty of both of the big ones: The Wolf Guard Terminator with Cyclone and Assault Cannon army, and the Blood Claw with Jump Pack, chainsword and powerfist army.

Eldar jetbike/skimmer armies were also a little broken due to the rules allowing them to hide behind terrain and make pop-up attacks, and being able to choose to be invulnerable to close combat attacks.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:
You are arguing balance is detrimental to the tournament scene because the tournament scene is actually played in a casual/friendly way.

No, I'm not. I'm saying lack of balance is detrimental to the tournament scene, because the tournament scene is for many players played in a casual/friendly way.

Lack of balance hurts both 'competitive' and 'casual' players, because (for most players) it makes it less enjoyable to play lower-tier armies. There are exceptions (there's a fairly highly ranked local player who rather enjoys using bottom-tier armies just to see if he can do well with them) but for the most part, extreme imbalance results in smaller tournaments, and more complaining about cookie-cutter armies.

A balanced system results in a wider spread of armies being used. Which is good for everyone.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Galorian wrote:


And there is absolutely nothing in this that would make a more balanced game less fun for casual players. On the contrary, it would make casual games better.

I disagree.

Put a Chess-newb who only started playing 2 months ago against a semi-experienced player with 2 years of experience into a game, casual or not, and see how it goes. Than put the 2 year veteran against a 20-year veteran.

As said, balanced and skill-based games are fiendishly punitive to newbies, precisely because they need to learn and train and build up game-experience and skill, often over years.

40K works, because it mitigates the skill-advantage in often brutal ways. What you knew about 40K 2 years ago (or 20 years ago) doesn't matter. You can pick up the latest army, study the game for 2 months and you can (potentially) be king of the hill in most match-ups.

In that sense, 40K is a lot more casual than .. to stick with the example .... chess. And that is the reason I enjoy 40K more than games like chess. That is why I like 40K exactly the way it is now. If I want to scratch the "competitive itch", there are millions of games out there that do that for me. There are very few "feth balance, lets have fun" games in the vein of 40K. Hence why it's worth protecting.

The chess analogy is downright dumb- chess is a simple game with few variables and no random chance, the two sides are identical in all but color and who gets the starting move and at higher levels winning is determined almost entirely by memorization of perfect plays.

No one is arguing for "perfect balance", no one here wants all the armies to be identical or even particularly similar to one another and we aren't calling for the removal of variety and "cool rules" from the game, all we want is that point values will properly reflect the in-game worth of a model in such a way that every codex will be able to stand a chance at holding its own in tournament play if played properly by a skilled player and that some thought be given to prevent blatant abuses that break the game system such as re-rollable 2++ saves or Serpent Shield spam.

I am not a competitive player, I restrict my list building to keep thing fun and I have never fielded my Transcendent C'tan (a kit I bought before escalation was revealed because it looks fething awesome) in any game without being explicitly asked to and I play with a largely friendly gaming community where I usually already know the people I'm playing against, and this does not stop me from being annoyed by the fact that the game is blatantly unbalanced, mortified by the fact that my 3rd rate sub-optimal lists often crush the best that some of my friends can field with pathetic ease and aggravated by the fact that I feel the need to skew my model "wish list" to avoid buying too many "cheesy" models rather than just buy the models that I like and think are awesome but would end up leaving on the shelf collecting dust because I'm too nice a guy to play a proper flying circus or wraithwing list against my friends.

I hate the fact that for an upcoming tournament where each player brings two army lists to choose from each game I felt the need to make one of them a T C'tan list just in case one of the Tau or Eldar players that could show up might field the Riptides and Serpents I know they have (leaving me with one "conventional" TAC list to play against "non-cheesy" opponents, which both forced me to make it a stronger list than I usually field and actually put me at a serious disadvantage against some armies).

 Zweischneid wrote:

Deschenus Maximus wrote:


Its only fun if both players self-restrict the power level of their list..

Which they should.

Self-restricting your list isn't hard (especially (!) if you take to the game more seriously, and want to stage events with a more competitive edge).

Self-restricting your "skill" in a more balanced game like Chess is arguably impossible.

You expect too much out of the community; if what you were asking for was possible, "tfg" would be a term no one would have ever heard from.

No, much better to have balance at the source than having fruitless expectations that the players will police themselves.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Deschenus Maximus wrote:


Its only fun if both players self-restrict the power level of their list..

Which they should.

Self-restricting your list isn't hard (especially (!) if you take to the game more seriously, and want to stage events with a more competitive edge).

Yeah, and self-restriction also has the ability to potentially kill my fun just because I like units that are considered "too strong". I have just as much right to play with my triptide list as you have to play with your footslogger Thousand Sons. If you tell me to "self-restrict" then you are ruining my fun.

 Bottle wrote:
Broken balance between armies affects "forging a narrative" play, & does not affect Tournament play

Categorically and demonstrably false.

Broken balance affects everyone.

 AtoMaki wrote:


Yeah, and self-restriction also has the ability to potentially kill my fun just because I like units that are considered "too strong". I have just as much right to play with my triptide list as you have to play with your footslogger Thousand Sons. If you tell me to "self-restrict" then you are ruining my fun.

If people would focus on making sure their opponent is having fun, and worry less about whether or not they themselves have fun, the whole thing would sort itself naturally.

And there is no "right" to anything. It's a voluntary hobby between 2 (or more) consenting people. Neither you nor I have the "right" to anything.

But if you can make a convincing case that playing your three Riptides is fun for me, and I can make a convincing case that playing my footslogging Thousand Sons is fun for you, everyone wins (either by having a mutually enjoyable game, or by parting ways before wasting precious hobby-time on an un-fun game).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deschenus Maximus wrote:


You expect too much out of the community; if what you were asking for was possible, "tfg" would be a term no one would have ever heard from.

No, much better to have balance at the source than having fruitless expectations that the players will police themselves.

I disagree. Balance severely diminishes the game (see all those inferiour, far-less fun "balanced" games like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..) for everyone, those that abuse the imbalances and those that handle them with proper maturity.

Sure, 40K can be abused, but those "tfg" as you call them aren't numerous enough to warrant gelding the game simply to stop a minority of spoilers.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Which they should.

Why? Why should anyone need to 'self restrict' their lists?

And if there was greater balance in the game, you wouldn't need to self restrict.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Which they should.

Why? Why should anyone need to 'self restrict' their lists?

And if there was greater balance in the game, you wouldn't need to self restrict.

Of course you would. See the chess-example from the very post you took that quote from, and you'll see your answer.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I disagree. Balance severely diminishes the game (see all those inferiour, far-less fun "balanced" games like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..) for everyone, those that abuse the imbalances and those that handle them with proper maturity.

A triple strike in absurdity there Zwei. Are you trying to go for some sort of record? Ok, so, from the top:

1. Balance severely diminishes the game. Ok, you’re going to have to offer some proof for that outrageous statement. Oh wait, you have offered proof, such as it is.
2. “[S]ee all those inferior, far-less fun ‘balanced’ games like Warmachine, Infniity, etc.”. See, here’s the problem Big Z. You’re attempting to use your personal opinion of other games as ‘proof’ of how balance is bad. Everything you say here is the very definition of subjective. Inferior? Based on what? Far-less fun? Due to what exactly? As such your first statement, that balance diminishes the game, hinges on your proof of "inferior, far-less fun” games that are only so because you deem them to be. Great job buddy!
3. And now we’re making judgement calls of character. People are either mature and don’t abuse the game, or are immature and do. Or… the game is balanced (insofar as the goal being ‘imperfect balance’, as complete balance is impossible) and maturity doesn’t factor into it at all. But that’s a nice swipe at this bringing good units though. They’re ‘immature’.

We get it Zwei, you hate tournaments, and you think everyone who plays in them is some WAAC nut-case. You’ve made that case time and time again. But this – this stuff of yours above – is next-to-insane. Balance diminishes a game? For real?

And all this from the guy who says he only argues for logic… yikes!

 Zweischneid wrote:
See the chess-example from the very post you took that quote from, and you'll see your answer.

As has been pointed out to you already, your chess example is inadequate and does not represent the situation at hand. Chess is always the same game. It always has the same forces. Every unit operates the same way every time. There's no random element or element of chance. It is a balanced game (or imperfectly balanced, as one side has to go first).

 Zweischneid wrote:

If people would focus on making sure their opponent is having fun, and worry less about whether or not they themselves have fun, the whole thing would sort itself naturally.

But my enemy is also supposed to think about me having fun, so the big conflict ball of "How should we have fun?" will keep bouncing all over the place.

 Zweischneid wrote:

And there is no "right" to anything. It's a voluntary hobby between 2 (or more) consenting people. Neither you nor I have the "right" to anything.

Of course you have rights. Like the right of having fun while playing this game. Otherwise, we wouldn't debate here.

 Zweischneid wrote:

But if you can make a convincing case that playing your three Riptides is fun for me, and I can make a convincing case that playing my footslogging Thousand Sons is fun for you, everyone wins (either by having a mutually enjoyable game, or by parting ways before wasting precious hobby-time on an un-fun game).

I dunno, but this negotiation element sounds pretty surplus. I mean, if I liked to convince people then I would be a lawyer or a salesman. But I just want to play a friggin' game with my toy soldiers and not waste my precious time with arguing whether my army is fun or not .

What is the point of grabbing the worst units? In the end, it's likely still unbalanced even there for all we know.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


We get it Zwei, you hate tournaments, and you think everyone who plays in them is some WAAC nut-case.

Not really. I love tournaments. I'm the South-East England DreadBall Champion and fancy myself a fair chance of winning the Nationals next weekend.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

2. “[S]ee all those inferior, far-less fun ‘balanced’ games like Warmachine, Infniity, etc.”. See, here’s the problem Big Z. You’re attempting to use your personal opinion of other games as ‘proof’ of how balance is bad. Everything you say here is the very definition of subjective.

I'd be happy to skip that point if people would stop bringing in the equally subjective point that Warhammer 40K is allegedly some kind of bad game and in "need of a fix", when it isn't (outside of objective opinions, of course).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

3. And now we’re making judgement calls of character. People are either mature and don’t abuse the game, or are immature and do. Or… the game is balanced (insofar as the goal being ‘imperfect balance’, as complete balance is impossible) and maturity doesn’t factor into it at all. But that’s a nice swipe at this bringing good units though. They’re ‘immature’.

Bringing in units of any kind is not related to maturity.

Lack of consideration of your opponent's enjoyment of a mutually shared hobby-time is what's immature.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


1. Balance severely diminishes the game. Ok, you’re going to have to offer some proof for that outrageous statement. Oh wait, you have offered proof, such as it is.

Everybody keeps banding about the claim that balance "is good for everyone" without proof either.

Big Z lost me at "(see all those inferiour, far-less fun "balanced" games like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..)".

So much for logic, proof, fact based anything, etc.

 Alpharius wrote:
Big Z lost me at "(see all those inferiour, far-less fun "balanced" games like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..)".

So much for logic, proof, fact based anything, etc.

Fair enough. Once Infinity/Warmachine surpass 40K as a consequence of their superiour rules swaying gamers all around the world to their side, I'll happily eat my words.

If you have a better "non-subjective" measure than aggregate popularity, let me know. Other than that, your opinion of Warmachine > 40K seems no less biased than my opinion of 40K > Warmachine.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Everybody keeps banding about the claim that balance "is good for everyone" without proof either.

It would promote greater diversity through more viable unit selection? It would allow for more thematic lists that aren't focused around abusing a few strong options or a broken combination? It wouldn't require you to negotiate the power level of the game you're looking for with your opponent? It would be tactically deeper and placing more burden on player skill than list building/size of wallet/model availability?

I don't know how you can honestly say with a straight face that balance is bad. If you're arguing that, you probably also must think that further imbalance would improve the game. Which is patently absurd.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Big Z lost me at "(see all those inferiour, far-less fun "balanced" games like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..)".

So much for logic, proof, fact based anything, etc.

Fair enough. Once Infinity/Warmachine surpass 40K as a consequence of their superiour rules swaying gamers all around the world to their side, I'll happily eat my words.

If you have a better "non-subjective" measure than aggregate popularity[u], let me know. Other than that, your opinion of Warmachine > 40K seems no less biased than my opinion of 40K > Warmachine.

So popularity defines superiority?

So by your definition, one direction are the greatest band ever, because they're popular....

Yeah, your argument fails bud.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


1. Balance severely diminishes the game. Ok, you’re going to have to offer some proof for that outrageous statement. Oh wait, you have offered proof, such as it is.

Everybody keeps banding about the claim that balance "is good for everyone" without proof either.

Well, for one, if the game was balanced, then I could just pour whatever units I want to the battlefield and my opponent could do the same and have fun. It would be, like, absolute army building freedom. No matter what I squeeze out of my codex, it will have exactly the same power level of the other combinations of the other codices so I don't have to give even a single ounce of thought about building my army. Just take whatever I like and have fun!

Unrestricted fun, that is .

 Blacksails wrote:

It would promote greater diversity through more viable unit selection?

Perhaps. But if so, I've yet to see an example of how more unit diversity creates more balance. Most concrete suggestions (I have seen) appear to revolve around restrictions (remove allies, make Riptides 0-1, etc..).

 Blacksails wrote:

It would allow for more thematic lists that aren't focused around abusing a few strong options or a broken combination?

How does the presence of strong/broken combinations force you to abandon your thematic list?

 Blacksails wrote:

It wouldn't require you to negotiate the power level of the game you're looking for with your opponent?

Which would be the single most counter-productive step backwards in the history of gaming. The very fact that we've come tantalizingly close to making the pre-game negotiation an accepted part of the game, and possible are going away from a "legalistic" approach to game rules, is possibly the single greatest thing in gaming since the invention of the D6.

 Blacksails wrote:

It would be tactically deeper and placing more burden on player skill than list building/size of wallet/model availability?

Of course, I acknowledged that more balanced would place more burden on player skill (e.g. like Chess as one, of course imperfect, comparison), which is the reason I like 40K (better than Warmachine, Infinity, Chess, etc..).. Because it is imbalanced, it does not place the burden on skill, making it a more casual game. That's the point.

Zweischneid's just doing his usual routine here.

It is...tiresome.

Deadnight wrote:


So popularity defines superiority?

I think you are confusing "defining" and "measuring" (through an imperfect proxy/indicator, of which others and better ones could exist)

As I said, I am open to other measurable indicators for rules-quality.

It's the whole shifting goalposts thing again, isn't it?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Perhaps. But if so, I've yet to see an example of how more unit diversity creates more balance. Most concrete suggestions (I have seen) appear to revolve around restrictions (remove allies, make Riptides 0-1, etc..).

You have it backwards. Better balance promotes greater diversity. That is a good thing, and I think you'd be hard pressed to debate otherwise.

How does the presence of strong/broken combinations force you to abandon your thematic list?

Again, backwards. Better balance would promote thematic lists at all levels of play. Currently, those of a competitive mind use strong/broken combinations that are not entirely fluffy or thematic. Better balance would alleviate this for everyone.

Which would be the single most counter-productive step backwards in the history of gaming. The very fact that we've come tantalizingly close to making the pre-game negotiation an accepted part of the game, and possible are going away from a "legalistic" approach to game rules, is possibly the single greatest thing in gaming since the invention of the D6.

Pre game discussion are great for terrain, scenarios and other often accepted introductions before a game.

Telling me one of us is going to have to re-do their list to better fit the other side is not a good thing.

Of course, I acknowledged that more balanced would place more burden on player skill (e.g. like Chess as one, of course imperfect, comparison), which is the reason I like 40K (better than Warmachine, Infinity, Chess, etc..).. Because it is imbalanced, it does not place the burden on skill, making it a more casual game. That's the point.

Well, I guess that's part of the disconnect here, but I can't see a downside to improving the current tactical depth of 'line up your big guns and shoot the best units first in descending order'.

 Alpharius wrote:
It's the whole shifting goalposts thing again, isn't it?

Is it? Did I say "defining" and move away from it now?

I don't know - did you?

 Blacksails wrote:


You have it backwards. Better balance promotes greater diversity. That is a good thing, and I think you'd be hard pressed to debate otherwise.

Greater diversity is always a plus. I agree. I know no game more diverse than 40K.

As said, if you find a way to balance the game by increasing diversity, I am all for it. All "balanced" games appear to work with far less (and more "mirror-style" armies) to achieve it.

I might look at it from the "wrong side", but at least I am not looking at it from some "hypothetical game" that only exists as a vague dream in some people's head. Surely there must be an example of a game both more diverse and more balanced than 40K in the sense you promote, so we have something with a bit of meat to discuss.

 Blacksails wrote:

Again, backwards. Better balance would promote thematic lists at all levels of play. Currently, those of a competitive mind use strong/broken combinations that are not entirely fluffy or thematic. Better balance would alleviate this for everyone.

I don't see the automatism you claim. Even if everything is 100% balanced, there would still be "unfluffy" combinations, unless you put in extra restrictions (to the detriment of diversity).

 Blacksails wrote:


Pre game discussion are great for terrain, scenarios and other often accepted introductions before a game.

Telling me one of us is going to have to re-do their list to better fit the other side is not a good thing.

Nobody is "telling you" to re-do your list. But if people perceive that they have the "right" to bring anything they goddamn please, just because it is in some rulebook, they are putting "the book" over the "social aspect" and that can never ever be a good thing.

 Blacksails wrote:


Well, I guess that's part of the disconnect here, but I can't see a downside to improving the current tactical depth of 'line up your big guns and shoot the best units first in descending order'.

I guess you haven't tried getting into some competitive Chess, etc.. yet. Give it a go and see if you like to spend your weekends like that instead.


---

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
I don't know - did you?

No, I didn't. Though Deadnight claimed I did, so I put things right. How is that "moving goal-posts"?

Either way, how about you suggest an objective measurement for "rules-quality" that we can use to compare Infinity vs. 40K, etc.., since you were the one asking for proof, and you are also apparently not satisfied with the (admittedly very blunt) measure of relative popularity/sales.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:


Pre game discussion are great for terrain, scenarios and other often accepted introductions before a game.

Telling me one of us is going to have to re-do their list to better fit the other side is not a good thing.

Nobody is "telling you" to re-do your list. But if people perceive that they have the "right" to bring anything they goddamn please, just because it is in some rulebook, they are putting "the book" over the "social aspect" and that can never ever be a good thing.

If I want "social aspect" in my fun then I go out with my friends and not play 40k .

I think we’re at the point where we all need to walk away. Big Z is at the level where virtually every second post is his, so his strategy (beyond red-herrings, no-proof arguments, and the legions of straw men that are helping him move those goalposts back and forth) is to ware us down so that one of us cracks and goes for the jugular, and he claims a moral victory.

It’s a pretty boring and obnoxious posting style, so I think it’s best to revert to my wall strategy. Big Z is a wall. Walls are difficult to get through. But walls can’t follow you. Walk away from the wall and it loses its significance (assuming it even had any to begin with).

I’m walking away.

Good call.

I've had enough Vitamin Z for today.