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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Actually, thinking about it, I'd quite like to see a WH40k musical (but only if it's a comedy)

So what you're asking for is a... Space Opera?

Space Opera is something 40k often gets defined as (check the first one under "Tabletop Games").

You miss the joke like a Tau in close combat.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?

Basically if you play 40k as nothing more than a dispassionate set of data, you're doing it wrong. Try reading some of the background fluff/material, especially in your codex.

xruslanx wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?

Basically if you play 40k as nothing more than a dispassionate set of data, you're doing it wrong. Try reading some of the background fluff/material, especially in your codex.

Pretty much on the money. That's why I laugh at the people who complain about 40k being, well 40k. It's more than just mechanics, it's a narrative game, meant to tell stories, inspire players to write their own missions, units or even full codexes and be more than just a means to make yourself feel better by pasting the other person's army.

What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.

Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.

While it is better for everyone, the game isn't exactly in any real dire straits here being less balanced than a more competitive game may be.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.

Ehhhh...That's debatable actually. Yes you do need people to spend money, and the arms race the competitive market does is pretty good at that, but I don't think anyone needs to be some kind of hardcore competitive player to be tactically sound. That's actually a backhanded insult to the less competitive side because it's accusing them of not being able to be tactical without help.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?

Basically if you play 40k as nothing more than a dispassionate set of data, you're doing it wrong. Try reading some of the background fluff/material, especially in your codex.

Pretty much on the money. That's why I laugh at the people who complain about 40k being, well 40k. It's more than just mechanics, it's a narrative game, meant to tell stories, inspire players to write their own missions, units or even full codexes and be more than just a means to make yourself feel better by pasting the other person's army.

How lovely to be laughed at.

Why you think that good background makes game balance unnecessary I neither know nor care, but different people have different leanings and as there is zero reason why game design and fluff need to be mutually exclusive things, it's pretty tiresome when every complaint about one is followed by you saying we should only care about the other.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.

Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.

Except, 40k *is* balanced for casual play. You just want it balanced for competative play. Just admit that and we can all move on.

xruslanx wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.

Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.

Except, 40k *is* balanced for casual play. You just want it balanced for competative play. Just admit that and we can all move on.

By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?

 troa wrote:
As long as everyone has access, and with escalation they do (money constraints aside), 40k is still competitive. Now, what the scene looks like and whether it's just titans going around bashing each other is another issue.

That sounds like warmhordes in SPAAAAAAACE...

knas ser wrote:

By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?

No, I mean it's balanced for casual play. By that I mean that units' powers and abilities are not grossly disproportionate to the extent that it would be obvious during a casual match (or more accurately, in a casual list). One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.

I wouldn't say 40k was *perfectly* balanced, as there are examples were some armies are simply more powerful than other armies, though that was a lot worse in 5th edition. But I certainly wouldn't want 40k to become the boring mess that many want it to become.

xruslanx wrote:

knas ser wrote:

By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?

No, I mean it's balanced for casual play. By that I mean that units' powers and abilities are not grossly disproportionate to the extent that it would be obvious during a casual match (or more accurately, in a casual list). One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.

I wouldn't say 40k was *perfectly* balanced, as there are examples were some armies are simply more powerful than other armies, though that was a lot worse in 5th edition. But I certainly wouldn't want 40k to become the boring mess that many want it to become.

That's pretty much what I was saying - that if it's not balanced for competitive play but it is for 'casual' play, then that's because of self-imposed limitations in casual play. And if a game is dependent on self-imposed limitations if we're required to - how it seems to me - tip toe around lots of easy wins in order to make the game work, that's the lower standards I'm talking about. If a game is filled with 'gentlemen's agreements' to not use things, then it brings in many, many problems when it comes to playing anyone other than long-term regular players.

I also strongly disagree that the choice is between balance and "the boring mess that many want it to become". That you interpret our posts as the latter is rather worrying, to be honest.

xruslanx wrote:
Except, 40k *is* balanced for casual play. You just want it balanced for competative play. Just admit that and we can all move on.

Either it's balanced, or it isn't. It isn't.

Balancing a game for casual or competitive play is identical. See Sirlin, Juul, Adams, Salen & Zimmerman, Koster, Brathwaite, etc.

Casual players are less likely to notice that a game is unbalanced than are highly competitive players. but that doesn't make the imbalances any less egregious.

xruslanx wrote:
One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.

How about one Revenant?

Sure, one Revenant is devastating.

But then again, once the meta is ruled by Revenants/baneblades/whatever, you wont see any more deathstars.
You will see a surge of "super melta pinpoint target annihilation armies" like SoB (hello 18+ S8AP1 shots on turn 1.), Enclaves (18 double-fusion suits? yes we can!), necron warrior spam (ALL THE GAUSS) and other MSU armies that while each individual unit is not much of a loss, they can each contribute to whittle down a superheavy.
Now these armies take down your superheavies, but look! here comes to the rescue the horde armies, where the armies that brought plenty of anti-tank weapons took down superheavies easy, they can't deal with a horde of essentially worthless units.
And so on ans so on.

By the fact Escalation increases the number of silly overpowering units that can hit the field, it REDUCES their apperance, as it becomes less profitable to field singular units who cost alot and pull the army by themselves, you are better serves by having plenty of individualistic units where even wiping out whole units at a time gets you nowhere, because these units were of no importance to the army.

And the superheavies themselves have built-in killswitches.
They give the enemy higher sieze chance, something that CAN bite you hard.
They give a new, POWERFUL warlord trait list. one that can and will ruin the superheavie's own day.
And they give the important victory points. and as tau ethereal shown us, its a double egged sword to have something that is crazy strong, but grants VP on death.

And if someone points me back to that vid from before, remember they got the rules WRONG about formations, and actually fitting that much in is abysmally hard (they needed 4 more broadsides, that's a minimum of 260 points if they had no wargear)
Also, just glossing on the chaos army, his list was almost purposefully bad. heck it was designed by all the guildings of "what are super-heavies best against" it was a video made with a purpose, and that purpose was to try and make the Revenant as OP as possibly, and even then the chaos almost took him down.

knas ser wrote:
How lovely to be laughed at.

I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.

Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.

Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.

Pre-set terrain, time limits, brackets, prizes, rounds, and sometimes even comp, removing/limiting allies, and more, all play into tournaments but have entries in the main rulebook. I'm not saying that tournaments are wrong (I do, however, disagree with the mentality that some tournament players have that makes them no fun to play with), but I am saying that the game you play in a tournament is already a departure from the game as it's written. Rather hilarious in its own right when you consider that many of the tournament players play "rules as written" but fail to take into account that some of those rules they're playing under are not actually rules of the game.

knas ser wrote:
Why you think that good background makes game balance unnecessary I neither know nor care, but different people have different leanings and as there is zero reason why game design and fluff need to be mutually exclusive things, it's pretty tiresome when every complaint about one is followed by you saying we should only care about the other.

Unnecessary? I wouldn't go that far. Better balance is always good. As for the game design/fluff being different I'd like to introduce you to Gameplay and Story Segregation. It's a common thing in games where the story says, or shows one thing, but the mechanics work differently. It happens all the time.

Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.

So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing. I always hope for the game to be "better" just so these kinds of discussions can go the way of the dinosaur, but until then I recognize that with what the game is, an abstraction of a setting that acts as a toolset for the players to forge narratives with instead of a simulation that has been written for more competitive players at their focal point.

 BoomWolf wrote:

And if someone points me back to that vid from before, remember they got the rules WRONG about formations, and actually fitting that much in is abysmally hard (they needed 4 more broadsides, that's a minimum of 260 points if they had no wargear)
Also, just glossing on the chaos army, his list was almost purposefully bad. heck it was designed by all the guildings of "what are super-heavies best against" it was a video made with a purpose, and that purpose was to try and make the Revenant as OP as possibly, and even then the chaos almost took him down.

They mentioned afterwards the confusion about the formations. In reality what they got wrong with the formation is really minimal compared to what actually happened in the game. If you paid attention to how much damage the Titan did on it's own, the rest of the army was really more garnish than anything else.
Also the opponent's list wasn't bad. They mentioned before in one of the threads here and I think in the video that the list was a standard and decent tournament list and his opponent a good player. Your justification is that the guy brought a list that would hold it's own in the current meta and wasn't customized to a list that was in all fairness "Add Titan, fill the rest with whatever".

@SavageConvoy: In brief then, we're saying that a tournament list designed for a specific meta is less good against a list that doesn't conform to that meta? Not really a good comparison the.

Also where are all the claims that CSM are a crap army now when this happens? Suddenly the community goes from "CSM are the worst army in 6th and Eldar are soooo much better" to "OMG! That CSM army lost to the Eldar one with the titan! Titans are so OP!"

Sorry, but it doesn't work both ways. If CSM are being pitted against an army that the competitive scene claims is better all the time then we need to see a better comparison, like that Eldar list versus something like Triptide or a Grav bike army. Put the claims of cheese against armies that are always being called cheese, not the ones that are called crap.

No, he brought a list without ANY SH solutions, not even simple ones.

Not even deepstirking oblits, who are a GOOD unit, and can do a real number on superheavies.

I did the math on another thread, honestly a good old fasions 5ED list with multiple DS melta units SHOULD exterminate the revenant. it takes about 15 shots with melta alone to take it down when you assume BS4, hiting the front, and having no special rules that assist tank killing.
15 melta shots is within the realm of reason. and it can be further reduced by hitting rear (to 6 shots if all hit rear), hitting with extra stuff (still front 12 rear 10, any S7 gun is a possible threat) or increasing BS.
And yes, I am talking number of shots fired on average, not even hits required. and I did take the holo-field into account.

Its just...not that many. less then I would pack in my army BEFORE superheavy threat.
Its even within T1 kill possibility for many armies, and T2 kill range for many others.
So as long you dont have units worth enough points to make the D weapons pay off, you are actually usually better off being the one assuming enemy superheavies and spamming AT mobile answers, then taking a super yourself.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for a single army to have access to a single model that effectively makes all current lists obsolete? Is that it? Not just meta changing, but it completely neutered that list in short order. The only thing the Chaos guy had that could do anything was a flyer that couldn't get hit and using the Titan itself.

Secondly, I still see a lot of Chaos/CSM armies in use and doing well in the tournament lists. Regardless, the Titan by itself cleared TWO armies worth of models in just a few turns.

What he COULD do, is bring anti-tank.
He brought ZERO anti-tank units, and a whole lot of expensive MC who are the prefect target for a revenant.

Yes, superheavies require some preperations. yes they invalidate armies.
What armies they invalidate?
Armies with zero anti-tank
Armies that relies on a one trick pony superunit. (a bit like the superheavy itself)

The first is nothing more then idiotic.
The second, I'm glad to see gone.


But alas, you will ignore my simple "fix" to his army-less points sank into expensive MCs, more cheapish AT units, preferably deep-striking ones.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So what you're saying is that it's okay for a single army to have access to a single model that effectively makes all current lists obsolete? Is that it? Not just meta changing, but it completely neutered that list in short order. The only thing the Chaos guy had that could do anything was a flyer that couldn't get hit and using the Titan itself.

I doubt that was "the only thing the Chaos guy could do". That's all he could do building for a meta that already stomps on his army pretty hard perhaps, but that wasn't the only thing he could do.

"One model that completely makes all lists obsolete"? Heldrake, Wave Serpent, Riptide in that order. It happens all the time in the tournament scene. One titan doesn't really make that particularly different.

Also we have more options coming from FW so we may be seeing CSM Titans as an option to fighting back.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Secondly, I still see a lot of Chaos/CSM armies in use and doing well in the tournament lists. Regardless, the Titan by itself cleared TWO armies worth of models in just a few turns.

Not doing nearly as well as Eldar or Tau in the tournament scene. Even without the Titan the Chaos Player had the short end of the stick. If someone wants to prove that a tournament army would have issues with it, then they need to put it against a top table army, which is mostly Tau and Eldar, not one that averages out to be in the middle at best.

You can add Daemons to top table armies. Possibly the FMC spam with Belakor as blasts can't hit flyers.

Gosh it's almost like jy2 only had the (competitive to the meta before Dec. 1st) army he was already making with him when they decided to try out Escalation for the first time like they explained in the Baneblade/Stompa video. Silly jy2, why didn't you use your omniscience to know about that spontaneous decision ahead of time and tailor against Adam's list!?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Actually, thinking about it, I'd quite like to see a WH40k musical (but only if it's a comedy)

So what you're asking for is a... Space Opera?

Space Opera is something 40k often gets defined as (check the first one under "Tabletop Games").

On a related note, the Common Sci-Fi setting is exactly Wh40k

The way I see it is that for the price GW expects us to pay for their rules, I in return expect a rule set balanced significantly more than the current iteration.

Saying a game is balanced for casual play but not for competitive play means the game isn't balanced. It means *your* idea of balanced is different from many other people's. And then we have to further define what casual is, as it differs greatly between person and gaming groups.

Competitive balancing on the other hand is universal; give a player base enough time and they'll find the broken, overpowered, and underpowered elements of the game. This would apply equally to anyone trying to win at any tournament.

Sure, 40k is fine for beer and pretzels, but so is every other wargame out there. They can all 'forge narratives', and provide 'cinematic' experiences or whatever other keyword you wish to toss around. The difference between 40k and nearly every other game available is that those games also work well at a competitive level. In these other games, every unit is balanced and worth taking in any list against any other list.

And here's the clincher. A game that is balanced is *more* casual than a game that is not. It means you can build the fluffiest list you want, or any list in between, and it will still work without having to discuss with your opponent before hand about how strong their list is.

I think part of the argument is that 40k's fluff is so large and seeps into the game quite a bit. Just imagine the same fluff and models, but everything would be balanced. It would be more cinematic, more beer and pretzel-y, more fun, and completely eliminate this absurd gap between competitive and non-competitive gamers/games. Arguing otherwise just feels like needlessly defending mediocrity for the sake of the status quo.

I just can't get behind the idea that 40k is somehow 'balanced' and 'great at being a casual game' when you consider the obscene cost of the game and how a simpler, better written rule set with balanced factions and units would make it better for everyone for everything.

So, in summary, there is no reason that a more balanced and better written ruleset wouldn't:
1) Increase cinematic or narrative experiences
2) Make it any less of a casual, 'beer and pretzels' game
3) Make it stagnate without crazy power creep (40k is nowhere near being the ideal 'perfect imbalance' some video games have, not even close)

Don't just accept mediocrity. This game could be universally better for all if GW took after some other companies on the market. There is certainly an element of subjectivity, but I'm sure everyone could get behind the idea that Vendettas would no longer be an auto-include, and ratlings might even see the light of day. This is better for everyone in every way imaginable. There's no downside. The rulebook should be clearer in their wordings; their rules should be play-tested to find the weird situations; their codices should work with the rules, not against them; the codices should be internally and externally balanced; and then everything would be better for everyone.

After looking at the stronghold and escalation books I fail to see anything that makes 40k non competitive.

I see things that can counter current certain deathstars, that is all.

I for one welcome our new super heavy and fortification masters and look forward to more tactical decisions and options in 40k games.

knas ser wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

knas ser wrote:

By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?

No, I mean it's balanced for casual play. By that I mean that units' powers and abilities are not grossly disproportionate to the extent that it would be obvious during a casual match (or more accurately, in a casual list). One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.

I wouldn't say 40k was *perfectly* balanced, as there are examples were some armies are simply more powerful than other armies, though that was a lot worse in 5th edition. But I certainly wouldn't want 40k to become the boring mess that many want it to become.

That's pretty much what I was saying - that if it's not balanced for competitive play but it is for 'casual' play, then that's because of self-imposed limitations in casual play. And if a game is dependent on self-imposed limitations if we're required to - how it seems to me - tip toe around lots of easy wins in order to make the game work, that's the lower standards I'm talking about. If a game is filled with 'gentlemen's agreements' to not use things, then it brings in many, many problems when it comes to playing anyone other than long-term regular players.

I also strongly disagree that the choice is between balance and "the boring mess that many want it to become". That you interpret our posts as the latter is rather worrying, to be honest.

it's no more difficult than any other social etiquette. I think that making the most powerful list possible is probably very difficult for the average gamer, even with internet access. The very idea of trying to be as powerful as possible is alien to most 40k players, since that isn't what 40k is about, any more than it should be about infantry spam or terrainhammer.

So with that in mind i don't see why a game that people enjoy should be changed and made into something else, simply because they said so. 40k is a mainstream game with a high street presence - it isn't a serious wargame, and it doesn't try to be. There is as much justification in saying '40k should be balanced for competative play' as there is in saying '40k should only have tanks'.

 Talore wrote:
Gosh it's almost like jy2 only had the (competitive to the meta before Dec. 1st) army he was already making with him when they decided to try out Escalation for the first time like they explained in the Baneblade/Stompa video. Silly jy2, why didn't you use your omniscience to know about that spontaneous decision ahead of time and tailor against Adam's list!?

Well then that just makes it even worse to use as any real yardstick to judge how "good" this titan really is, now isn't it? He didn't plan for this game, and shot himself in the foot from his lack of anti-armor in the list.

If you get surprised by this, you did something wrong setting your game up by failing to communicate with your opponent, or failing to notice that you signed up for an event that permitted Lords of War and you didn't bring anything to handle them. Unless your opponent intentionally faked you out to sneak a Lord of War on the table (then you have more issues than that Lord of War, like a shifty opponent) it's not anyone's fault but your own for not preparing, or making it clear you didn't want to play against it.

Spot on, Blacksails.

A 40K ruleset that allowed you to set up and play in reliably 45-60 min for a standard-sized game (say 1500 pts or so), moving up to the 90-min mark for a really big game, would be better for both tournament and casual play.

And, absolutely, a 40K in which deciding to do an army of Thousand Sons backed up by Defilers and allied to Gretchin-heavy Orks, wasn't a huge disadvantage going up against your mate's shooty Tau/Eldar force, would be much, much better for casual and tournament play alike.

 Selym wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Actually, thinking about it, I'd quite like to see a WH40k musical (but only if it's a comedy)

So what you're asking for is a... Space Opera?

Space Opera is something 40k often gets defined as (check the first one under "Tabletop Games").

On a related note, the Common Sci-Fi setting is exactly Wh40k

I'm not sure what to call all of you xD. Stop with the tv tropes. Think of the children!

Anyways, yeah they really need to test out the revanant against lists better made to fight them (and then one that is built to be a TAC against both vehicles, MC spam, and the other popular list types). Until then, we have no clue how it will influence it.