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.

Traditio wrote:
My answer to all of that is "the points system is supposed to effect balance."

Period. End of statement.

If you are telling me that I need the new shiny, then balance has not been effected.

Period.

End of story.

GW has to move product.. they released a bunch of new MCs that are hard for traditional methods to deal with... so they released grav.. cycle will continue.

And taking exactly what you said there are grav options that are point efficient to a wraithknight.. so I am not sure what the problem is..your just stuck not wanting to adapt. Sry it's not working for you..

Grizzyzz wrote:GW has to move product.. they released a bunch of new MCs that are hard for traditional methods to deal with... so they released grav.. cycle will continue.

And taking exactly what you said there are grav options that are point efficient to a wraithknight.. so I am not sure what the problem is..your just stuck not wanting to adapt. Sry it's not working for you..

Have you played Dark Souls 1 and 2?

Traditio wrote:

Grizzyzz wrote:GW has to move product.. they released a bunch of new MCs that are hard for traditional methods to deal with... so they released grav.. cycle will continue.

And taking exactly what you said there are grav options that are point efficient to a wraithknight.. so I am not sure what the problem is..your just stuck not wanting to adapt. Sry it's not working for you..

Have you played Dark Souls 1 and 2?

40K isn't Dark Souls...

CrownAxe wrote:40K isn't Dark Souls...

Humor me. I have a point in asking the question.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:40K isn't Dark Souls...

Humor me. I have a point in asking the question.

Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.

40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:40K isn't Dark Souls...

Humor me. I have a point in asking the question.

Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.

40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.

Exactly.

And I have only played the first one.

When designing a list you can't take an "all comers" anymore. You take an "about 60% coverage" list. You design to take on a few of the most popular builds across multiple armies and hope you don't get paired with that 40%..

The whole GMC toe in cover thing makes the WK unkillable for BA. Grav guns can't cause enough wounds, and they will be the first thing the Eldar shoot off the table.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:40K isn't Dark Souls...

Humor me. I have a point in asking the question.

Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.

40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.

Exactly.

And I have only played the first one.

When designing a list you can't take an "all comers" anymore. You take an "about 60% coverage" list. You design to take on a few of the most popular builds across multiple armies and hope you don't get paired with that 40%..

Which is a bit of a failure of game design, imo.
It is for this reason why I prefer DzC's rule set; that game is designed in such a way that it strongly encourages all comer lists, due to how the units interact.

There's no fun in playing a 2 hour game of Rock Paper Scissors. Especially one full of random tables and special rules.

In Starcraft, I can scout your rock and build paper. You can still out-micro me, though like with banelings vs marines.

Martel732 wrote:
In Starcraft, I can scout your rock and build paper. You can still out-micro me, though like with banelings vs marines.

If you try to do that in WH40k, it's called "list tailoring". : D

Also in Starcraft you can change your army composition as the game progresses.

Also also in Starcraft, the game developers have access to tons of actual data on how games play out and can make adjustments to the rules and re-balance all units and sides constantly, whereas in 40k, GW only re-does one army at a time, changes the basic rules independently of those army updates, and is very scarce with errata and FAQs.

Also Starcraft is a computer game, so the rules don't suddenly change just because your opponent disagrees with your interpretation and won the roll-off.

Blizzard gak canned several expansion units because they couldn't get the balance right. Like the Warhound or the Protoss mimic unit.

Martel732 wrote:
Blizzard gak canned several expansion units because they couldn't get the balance right. Like the Warhound or the Protoss mimic unit.

If GW did the equivalent, they'd be scrapping millions of dollars worth of molds for plastic models.

I wish they'd thrown the scatterbike and WK in the trash can for sure. Although all they'd have to do is make them much more expensive.

CrownAxe wrote:Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.

40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.

Grizzy essentially is making the argument that the rules for the newer models are not and should not be fair because this would be bad for business. Why would you buy a wraithknight if it were fairly costed? Why buy the tactical marines kit for the grav cannon upgrades if you just as easily could use missile launchers?

You have to make the newer stuff OP, and make the older stuff basically obsolete, so you can keep selling expensive models at a premium.

That business model actually makes me LESS inclined to buy stuff from GW and LESS inclined to play against the people who do.

Why do I keep bringing up Dark Souls?

Because that game is pretty much the definition of balance:

Which is better: crossbow or bow? Zweihander or broadsword? Broadsword without magic or a broadsword with fire?

Which is better: Havel's armor or leather armor?

There's no obviously right answer. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of your personal style of play.

Even in Dark Souls II, the only "no brainer" upgrade I can think of is the upgrade from the broadsword to the drake keeper's sword. But even then, there's a trade off: 3 units of weight in exchange for 6. And you're trading the B strength scaling and D dex scaling (at level 10 upgrade) for the broadsword in exchange for C scaling for both stats for the drake keeper's sword.

The only "flaw" of Dark Souls II is that equipment weight doesn't slow you down like it did in Dark Souls I.

I'm sure you get my point. Every piece of equipment (with the exception of the rings; a level 2 ring of the same kind is obviously better than a level 1 ring of that kind) has its place and is potentially usable depending on how you want to play.

What is my point?

In Dark Souls, you don't take the newest, most OP piece of equipment you can find. You find the piece of equipment that you find aesthetically most pleasing and most suitable to your style of play.

If wraithknights were 400 points per model, people would still find a place for them. They wouldn't be an auto-pick, of course, but they would still have their place.

If grav cannons were either more costly pointswise, or else, were nerfed somewhat, people would still find a place for them. Again, they wouldn't be an auto-pick, of course, but they would still have their place.

If Warhammer 40k were more like Dark Souls, that wouldn't be bad for the game, and it wouldn't be bad for business. Yes, few people would buy the new shinies en masse. Instead of buying 3 wraithknights, people might only buy 1. But with that and a few other steps, I bet that overall sales would be up, and the customer base would be much larger. Instead of 1 person buying 3 wraithknights, perhaps 5 people might buy 1 wraithknight, a box of striking scorpions and a few boxes of dire avengers.

And even if people are buying this stuff second hand, you know what? Even the people buying this stuff second hand need paint. Citadel makes some pretty darned good paint. Plus even the people buying stuff second hand need to buy the codices.

And by the way, for all of your protests to the contrary, if you read the rulebooks, what I am describing is essentially the game that GW PROMISED to give us, vis-a-vis their points system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Which is a bit of a failure of game design, imo.

With the exception of the phrase "a bit of a," I completely agree with this.

You want to see pretty much perfect balance in games? Look at Dark Souls. 40k needs to be more like Dark Souls.

Then, and ONLY then, would Tau and Eldar players be entitled to say "git gud." Unless and until then? I'd like to see them play Chaos Space Marines (without spamming the best units in the codex and without using Forge World) and tell people to "git gud."

Yes it would be great if 40k was a balanced and everything was a viable option to be played with no matter what you played against...

BUT THAT'S NOT 40K IS. 40K IS NOT BALANCED AT ALL.

Their are a ton of things that literally can't be hurt by certain weapons (vehicles and high toughness). There are a ton of ways to make units functionally invincible (2++ rerollable invul and invisibility). There are attacks that kill you with no recourse (Stomp and Str D). And unlike Dark Souls, there is a time limit of 5-7 turns so taking something ineffecient is a death sentence and the game will be over before you killed anything of note.

Sure, 40k SHOULD be more balanced like Dark Souls. But that's not what it is. That's not what GW gave us. GW took their game of rock paper scissors and added diamonds and nukes so now if you want to compete with the diamonds and nukes you have to take diamonds and nukes, not rock, paper, or scissors.

You have to play to what the game is, and not what the game SHOULD be.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes it would be great if 40k was a balanced and everything was a viable option to be played with no matter what you played against...

Great. Then you ultimately agree with me. What's your beef?

BUT THAT'S NOT 40K IS. 40K IS NOT BALANCED AT ALL.

I agree. I'm making the claim that it should be.

Their are a ton of things that literally can't be hurt by certain weapons (vehicles and high toughness).

I think that formations go a long way to "fixing" this. If you run a full battle company, you HAVE to run two squads of devastators, and if you read the fluff, it's pretty obvious that you're supposed to bring anti tank weapons.

There are a ton of ways to make units functionally invincible (2++ rerollable invul and invisibility).

There shouldn't be.

Sure, 40k SHOULD be more balanced like Dark Souls.

You keep agreeing with me, but for some reason, you keep arguing against me.

I don't understand this.

Look, I'm going to ask a question:

"A wraithknight should cost a minimum of 400 ppm. True or false? Why or why not?"

If you then say "no, because grav," I'll then ask you:

"Grav should be nerfed. True or false? Why or why not?"

It doesn't what it should be. If you don't want to lose to wraithknights, you need to take the tools to beat a 300 pt Wraithknight.

 CrownAxe wrote:
It doesn't what it should be. If you don't want to lose to wraithknights, you need to take the tools to beat a 300 pt Wraithknight.

Or I could simply refuse to play games which involve wraithknights.

In point of fact, that's what I already do.

So you refuse to use good tools because you refuse to fight anything in the game your outdated army can't handle?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So you refuse to use good tools because you refuse to fight anything in the game your outdated army can't handle?

Refer to my "Litany of a Scrub" thread.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So you refuse to use good tools because you refuse to fight anything in the game your outdated army can't handle?

Refer to my "Litany of a Scrub" thread.

Oh the thread where everyone disagreed with you and you insisted on arguing everyone with "See OP"?

CrownAxe wrote:Oh the thread where everyone disagreed with you and you insisted on arguing everyone with "See OP"?

Hey, as I said:

You field your wraithknight.

You call my army outdated all you want.

And I'll find something better to do than play 40k with you as my opponent. All day long.

Traditio wrote:
Grizzy essentially is making the argument that the rules for the newer models are not and should not be fair because this would be bad for business. Why would you buy a wraithknight if it were fairly costed? Why buy the tactical marines kit for the grav cannon upgrades if you just as easily could use missile launchers?

You have to make the newer stuff OP, and make the older stuff basically obsolete, so you can keep selling expensive models at a premium.

On the contrary never once have I said anything of the sort.

-------

To comment on the whole dark souls thing. That's sounds great. But guess what.. that's not currently how it is. Since we are comparing apples to oranges I'll toss in a fruit.

40k to me is like DOTA. Some heroes are better then others , some counter some but not all. Put a combination of 5 together and you can make up for weaknesses and protect yourself from your counters. If you play an opponent and he happens to counter you, there is just enough balance and just enough opportunity that if you play a perfect game and your opponent makes a mistake you can pull out a win.

CrownAxe wrote:

Sure, 40k SHOULD be more balanced like Dark Souls. But that's not what it is. That's not what GW gave us. GW took their game of rock paper scissors and added diamonds and nukes so now if you want to compete with the diamonds and nukes you have to take diamonds and nukes, not rock, paper, or scissors.

You have to play to what the game is, and not what the game SHOULD be.

Precisely.

Grizzyzz wrote:On the contrary never once have I said anything of the sort.

My point throughout this thread is that a fair price for a Wraithknight is 400 ppm. I further argued that this is the case because that's how many points of devoted traditional anti-tank weapons are required to defeat one.

You then responded: "BUT YOU CAN USE THE NEW SHINIES! GW GOTS TO SELL THE NEW SHINIES!"

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It doesn't what it should be. If you don't want to lose to wraithknights, you need to take the tools to beat a 300 pt Wraithknight.

Or I could simply refuse to play games which involve wraithknights.

In point of fact, that's what I already do.

No one here is arguing with you about your views on game balance.

We are all giving advice that if you want to take down a WK and you play space marines.. then you need to take grav. All arguments about balance aside.. that is how it is right now.

So.. bottom line. if you don't want to use grav, then that is fine. But don't complain about how hard hardmode is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Grizzyzz wrote:On the contrary never once have I said anything of the sort.

My point throughout this thread is that a fair price for a Wraithknight is 400 ppm. I further argued that this is the case because that's how many points of devoted traditional anti-tank weapons are required to defeat one.

You then responded: "BUT YOU CAN USE THE NEW SHINIES! GW GOTS TO SELL THE NEW SHINIES!"

Grizzyzz wrote:No one here is arguing with you about your views on game balance.

We are all giving advice that if you want to take down a WK and you play space marines.. then you need to take grav. All arguments about balance aside.. that is how it is right now.

So.. bottom line. if you don't want to use grav, then that is fine. But don't complain about how hard hardmode is.

No, no.

I completely agree with the main gist of this. In concreto, what you are saying is simply true.

Given that wraithknights cost 295 ppm without upgrades, you MUST use grav in order to defeat one in a points effective manner.

That said, that simply doesn't address the point that I've been making, namely:

Wraithknights should not cost 295 ppm.

I should not have to use grav in order to kill one.

Thus:

You're playing a wraithknight? Fine. Then play it against someone else. I'm not interested in that game.

I do sincerely offer my apologies if I've misrepresented you; that said, that's effectively how what you have said has come off to me in the course of this thread. Regardless of what you may have intended, that's what I've "heard," so to speak.

Whether rightly or wrongly.

I really don't know how else to say it. No one is arguing with you about game balance.

Guns < Kevlar < armor piercing ...

GW releases cool new MCs.. people buy them. They then realize in their rolling cycle that marines traditional methods don't work.. GW releases new product to counter.. cycle continues.

If customer refuses to purchase then they will have a tough time dealing with said MCs..

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Oh the thread where everyone disagreed with you and you insisted on arguing everyone with "See OP"?

Hey, as I said:

You field your wraithknight.

You call my army outdated all you want.

And I'll find something better to do than play 40k with you as my opponent. All day long.

I don;t play Eldar. I just can't stand how whiny, pretentious, and self centered you are in pretty much all of you posts on dakka.

I wouldn't want to play you either. You are worse then WAAC players.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I really don't know how else to say it. No one is arguing with you about game balance.

Guns < Kevlar < armor piercing ...

GW releases cool new MCs.. people buy them. They then realize in their rolling cycle that marines traditional methods don't work.. GW releases new product to counter.. cycle continues.

If customer refuses to purchase then they will have a tough time dealing with said MCs..

Again, I agree with everything that you've just said.

The problem is that we're arguing past each other.

I'm not interested in the factual claim, which is what you're interested in.

I'm interested in the normative claim.

GW should not be engaging in this cycle of codex creep/BUY THE NEW SHINY!!!!eleventy111!. They should make the game more like Dark Souls.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Ultimately, we're talking past each other:

Me: The game should be more like Dark Souls!
You: This game is not like Dark Souls.

Note that these claims are not contradictory propositions. They're mutually compossible.

Traditio wrote:


I do sincerely offer my apologies if I've misrepresented you; that said, that's effectively how what you have said has come off to me in the course of this thread. Regardless of what you may have intended, that's what I've "heard," so to speak.

Whether rightly or wrongly.

I appreciate it. There is only so many ways you can type something out. Sometimes it doesn't always come across.

That said.. hop on the grav train because things ain't slowen down


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Ultimately, we're talking past each other:

Me: The game should be more like Dark Souls!
You: This game is not like Dark Souls.

Note that these claims are not contradictory propositions. They're mutually compossible.

I agree to an extent. I think there are major changes to be made. Making any weapon useful in every situation is where I respectfully disagree. Where I think single shot weapons currently need to be better (hp canned them) I don't think one made for a tank should be directly effective against a MC. And of course vice versa.

What's the saying? Don't show up with a knife to a gun a fight.