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.

Deadnight wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
I admit, I may have seen a bunch of complaining had I actually had internet back in 2nd ed. But the thing is, any one of our group members could sit down and make a list with whatever army they chose and still have (or at least felt like they had) just as good of a chance at winning a game than anyone else in the group.

They all had 2-3 times more models per army than I had (I was the youngest of the group) But I still felt like I had just as good a chance to beat anyone of them in a battle.
.

Ever think they were just going easy on the kid? You know, tailoring from their larger collections so you could keep up?

Get out your second ed books. Play some second ed games. See it for what it is rather than what youd like to imagine it is. It's a flawed mess of a game. Sure, it doesn't have fliers and what not. But it did have vortex grenades... That's the thing with nostalgia. When nostalgia meets cold hard reality, it shatters into dust.

I played a lot of 2nd Edition and agree with Dreadknight, it was an absolute mess. As bad as Vortex grenades were, I played Orks in 2nd Edition and lived in dread of the Virus Grenade. Until the codex finally came out and forced me to take a Painboy in order to negate it. I think the VG was maybe 15 points, and it could potentially wipe out an Ork army (and generally ONLY an Ork army as just about everybody else was immune).

I wasn't that young that they would "take it easy" on me, I was between 16-18 yrs of age during that time.

I remember vortex grenades, always purchased them but hardly actually used them.

I've not gone back through the rules because I'm honestly trying to give 7th a fair shake since that is what most are playing and with all it's faults, I love warhammer. No other wargame has the nostalgia or has gripped me like WH, so if I want to play I need to play what the majority does.

*edit*
never bought or used VGs either. In fact, I don't really recall grenades being used a whole lot by anyone in our group. (the occasional vortex grenade, but that's about it)

All the math in game design is simple stuff learned in primary and high school.

You sir, are sadly mistaken. I finish my degree 2 years ago, and I did my share of game theory (3 math course). You use stuff from primary and highschool to learn game theory, but you don't use primary and high school to be a game theorician.

 Blacksails wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

Agreed.

Ever seen the pictures or read accounts of the early GW/citadel studio days?

It was a bunch of guys drinking/taking acid and kicking back with their buddies.

It wasn't a controlled scientific experiment...

kaotkbliss wrote:
I wasn't that young that they would "take it easy" on me, I was between 16-18 yrs of age during that time.

I remember vortex grenades, always purchased them but hardly actually used them.

I've not gone back through the rules because I'm honestly trying to give 7th a fair shake since that is what most are playing and with all it's faults, I love warhammer. No other wargame has the nostalgia or has gripped me like WH, so if I want to play I need to play what the majority does.

*edit*
never bought or used VGs either. In fact, I don't really recall grenades being used a whole lot by anyone in our group. (the occasional vortex grenade, but that's about it)

Well, if you're gonna say second is better than seventh, then you need to have a proper reference for comparison. Play the game again.

And you can't say the game worked better when you only ever used certain parts of it.* You need to examine the whole. Play the game again. Or else you're just being intellectually dishonest, and deluding yourself.

And 16 to 18 is young. That's still what I'd consider to be a 'kid'...

* and to be fair, how is seventh any different? You don't like fliers or formations? Then. Don't. Use. Them. Just like not using vortex grenades in 2nd. It's not an earth shattering revelation...

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

Agreed.

Ever seen the pictures or read accounts of the early GW/citadel studio days?

It was a bunch of guys drinking/taking acid and kicking back with their buddies.

It wasn't a controlled scientific experiment...

They might have used math though...

...to weigh the drugs.

 Blacksails wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

Agreed.

Ever seen the pictures or read accounts of the early GW/citadel studio days?

It was a bunch of guys drinking/taking acid and kicking back with their buddies.

It wasn't a controlled scientific experiment...

They might have used math though...

...to weigh the drugs.

Did any of them ride a motorbike? Because it just occurred to me that Doomrider could have been a self-insert turned up to 11.

Deadnight wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
I admit, I may have seen a bunch of complaining had I actually had internet back in 2nd ed. But the thing is, any one of our group members could sit down and make a list with whatever army they chose and still have (or at least felt like they had) just as good of a chance at winning a game than anyone else in the group.

They all had 2-3 times more models per army than I had (I was the youngest of the group) But I still felt like I had just as good a chance to beat anyone of them in a battle.
.

Get out your second ed books. Play some second ed games. See it for what it is rather than what youd like to imagine it is. It's a flawed mess of a game. Sure, it doesn't have fliers and what not. But it did have vortex grenades... That's the thing with nostalgia. When nostalgia meets cold hard reality, it shatters into dust.

It's like watching Friends again, with a modern context.

Ross is an unbearable homophobe, and Chandler is just a dill weed - somehow, after all these years, Joey ends up being the least creepy guy on the show. Who knew?

Mmh, must be some nostalgia mixed up in this, because I don't recall a time when 40K has been balanced. The period before the new Necron book looked quite promising, but said book and Eldar broke it down again.

I don't know many miniaturegames that are well balanced ( no, not even WM/H these days, stop with that ) but perhaps better.

Then again, the amount of variety in the game be it scenarios and army compositions currently makes it almost impossible to make lists that can handle everything another player can put together - a kind of pseudobalance in itself. Next to that the most effective things are starting to resemble Diablo 2 PvP - everyone oneshots everyone - which in the end is a kind of balance in itself.

Weapons technology has always outstripped armour technology, I guess.

That said, there has never been a time that I am aware of that GW had any kind of math formula for actually creating their stat lines. They said as much in the VDR.

 Runic wrote:
Mmh, must be some nostalgia mixed up in this, because I don't recall a time when 40K has been balanced. The period before the new Necron book looked quite promising, but said book and Eldar broke it down again.

I don't know many miniaturegames that are well balanced ( no, not even WM/H these days, stop with that ) but perhaps better.

Then again, the amount of variety in the game be it scenarios and army compositions currently makes it almost impossible to make lists that can handle everything another player can put together - a kind of pseudobalance in itself. Next to that the most effective things are starting to resemble Diablo 2 PvP - everyone oneshots everyone - which in the end is a kind of balance in itself.

Infinity and Malifaux are pretty damn well balanced. And WMH is still a long way ahead of 40k whether you wanna accept it or not.

ImAGeek, I like your new avatar.

 Ashiraya wrote:
ImAGeek, I like your new avatar.

Thanks, it's a damn cool picture right? Ironically yours is the other one I considered

Now kiss!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
Butt the guardsman w/PF was a lot cheaper than a CM w/PF because the lower stats. so for every 1 CM, you would have 2 guardsmen. So yes, it did work but people who complained it didn't felt their army should be OP and crush everyone.

True, but the two guardsmen also die a lot easier than a marine hero

I do remember some older books where things like power weapons were cheaper on 1W models than heroes. Makes sense as they die easier and have weaker stats to put the weapon to use. And heavy weapons were more expensive in squads that could take several, since they were more effective when concentrating on one task compared to a TacSquad where that one Lascannon shot at a Landraider meant the other nine guys were useless,

AND nobody used Devastators because of that.

The basic idea was sound - heavy weapons are worth more on devastators. The problem is the one system GW *does* seem to adhere to most of the time, especially since 3rd edition, is that unit/weapon costs must a) always come in 5 point increments and b) always decrease slightly with each new edition to get people to buy more.

The result is that you literally don't have enough gradations to account for the difference in value between a heavy bolter and a missile launcher in a tactical squad. So a heavy bolter must cost more than a bolter (+5 points) and naturally a missile launcher must cost more than a bolter (+10 pts), so you end up with this price creep until lascannons are 35 points for a dev and you can't even take a dev squad without crippling your army.

In reality the tac squads heavy weapons should all have been free (hell some of those weapons should have cost negative points), and the dev squads should have been paying tac squad points for their weapons. Or the real solution, basic marine bodies should have been much cheaper (since functionally they're bullet-catchers for the special/heavy weapons anyway), then bake the true points cost of the unit into their weapon upgrades. This would have allowed more of a range in unit prices based on their actual effectiveness.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Filch wrote:
How does GW sell miniatures? By releasing a new codex with broken over powered models that break the rules! Those who want to win will buy those models from that army. They also nerf or overcost the previous mvp to make the rookie look golden.

The game rules are ment to be written poorly to be interpreted by dice roll off. The point system is ment to be unbalanced to allow the new dex to be op and imba.

How do you explain it when a new codex sucks, then?

oh you mean like CSM? Nids? Orks? They are npc that are meant to die to Spesh Mah Reens!

 ImAGeek wrote:
Infinity and Malifaux are pretty damn well balanced. And WMH is still a long way ahead of 40k whether you wanna accept it or not.

 Runic wrote:
that are well balanced ( no, not even WM/H these days, stop with that ) but perhaps better.

And I already essentially stated what you trotted along to spout, whether you accept it or not. Thanks for the reinforcement I guess?

I haven't played either game but I've been told there are numerous balance issues with both games you mention by quite a lot of mates who play them. And yes, less than with 40K in the end however. This was some time ago though so I don't know if there has been improvement in either games balance.

What I do know is both 40K and WM/H have a rock-paper-scissors factor in competitive play and it dictates how the match will go most of the time. In that they aren't too different.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

Agreed.

Ever seen the pictures or read accounts of the early GW/citadel studio days?

It was a bunch of guys drinking/taking acid and kicking back with their buddies.

It wasn't a controlled scientific experiment...

They might have used math though...

...to weigh the drugs.

Did any of them ride a motorbike? Because it just occurred to me that Doomrider could have been a self-insert turned up to 11.

Chambers?

I've only recently started playing with IG, and lack experience with most other armies. But I am pretty sure that it's generally accepted that anyone would be crazy to give a 5 point guardsmen sergeant with S3 T3 5+ a 25 point power fist. I've never heard of anyone taking them on their sergeants either. I do believe it, and other power weapons, should be cheaper for guardsmen to reflect that, and make it an option that someone would actually consider taking.

It also seems generally accepted that the only infantry that seems to be worth taking competitively would be veterans, either in a transport and/or in carapace. I'm sure there are many ways to make the other infantry choices more attractive.

I'm not sure if 40k was ever balanced, I would be surprised if it was. I don't think it needs to be balanced perfectly. I would just like it to be balanced reasonably enough so that I can take the fun/fluffy options, without severely crippling my army. There are some obvious places to start in every codex I'm sure.

 Jambles wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
I admit, I may have seen a bunch of complaining had I actually had internet back in 2nd ed. But the thing is, any one of our group members could sit down and make a list with whatever army they chose and still have (or at least felt like they had) just as good of a chance at winning a game than anyone else in the group.

They all had 2-3 times more models per army than I had (I was the youngest of the group) But I still felt like I had just as good a chance to beat anyone of them in a battle.
.

Get out your second ed books. Play some second ed games. See it for what it is rather than what youd like to imagine it is. It's a flawed mess of a game. Sure, it doesn't have fliers and what not. But it did have vortex grenades... That's the thing with nostalgia. When nostalgia meets cold hard reality, it shatters into dust.

It's like watching Friends again, with a modern context.

Ross is an unbearable homophobe, and Chandler is just a dill weed - somehow, after all these years, Joey ends up being the least creepy guy on the show. Who knew?

Exalted! Made my day!

Colehkxix wrote:
I've only recently started playing with IG, and lack experience with most other armies. But I am pretty sure that it's generally accepted that anyone would be crazy to give a 5 point guardsmen sergeant with S3 T3 5+ a 25 point power fist. I've never heard of anyone taking them on their sergeants either. I do believe it, and other power weapons, should be cheaper for guardsmen to reflect that, and make it an option that someone would actually consider taking.

Indeed. Power fists are just the most obvious ones, but it happens all the time. GW insist on costing weapons the same regardless of who is holding them and decided that their customers are too stupid to understand point increments smaller than 5pts.

Because of that so often it's blatantly obvious that certain options are underpowered compared to other options.

A guardsman with a lasgun is 5pts, a Veteran is 6pts. That might be a fair appraisal. But the problem comes when a guardsman with a meltagun is 15pts compared to a Veteran with a meltagun is 16pts. That is just silly, the Veteran with a meltagun is obviously worth more than 1pt more than a guardsman with a meltagun. You can't just boost the cost of Veterans to compensate because then Veterans WITHOUT melaguns become overpriced, you simply have to realise that a meltagun is worth more in the hands of a veteran than a guardsman.

And that's just one example. Others would be melee special weapons on any type of IG unit. Another would be Grenade Launchers.

The stupid thing is, GW used a "master wargear list" back in 2nd edition, in 3rd they seemed to have realised it was stupid but now they've devolved back to it again This is why us long time gamers get annoyed, not because "well it always had bad balance so you can't complain" it's "why the feth does it STILL have bad balance after all these years"?.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
This is why us long time gamers get annoyed, not because "well it always had bad balance so you can't complain" it's "why the feth does it STILL have bad balance after all these years"?.

This was actually the point I was going for, although I did beat around the bush about it and completely got off-track.

I never said 2nd ed was perfectly balanced, just that it seems to be more balanced than the current. Normally I would think a company would fix the rules that they do have and make them better instead of remaking half the game each edition. Sure they remove half the issues by removing half the game, but they also add new issues to the new half that they're adding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

Seven players with a limited set of armies (2x eldar, 3x marine favour, orks and nids) with which to draw conclusions, and in your case, a limited collection.

You forget, at that time, that was pretty much all the armies they had (no Tau or Necrons yet and nearly all SM chapters were just lumped in the generic space marine list) although in that list I did forget that the nid player also had IG (he was the type who liked to try everything and I think towards the end he started picking up dark elder as well)

Also, as far as 2nd goes, my collection definitely was not "limited" except in tank and character choices (which characters could be proxied). I had models for every troop type available at that time.