Switch Theme:

Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 Kanluwen wrote:
Disagree. You can see where the design space was intended to head towards the Auxiliary Detachments, but somewhere along the way it was shifted(and I have my hunches it's from the tourney playtester crowds) to the current soup-y system we have.


Quite possible.
Not to say though that the detachment system itself is the problem but the fact of shared cp Generation and vastly varying strength of stratagems.
It just adds in a way the cherry on top due to some factions not having access to allies.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Outside of Necrons though, who doesn’t have useful allies?
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 LunarSol wrote:
Outside of Necrons though, who doesn’t have useful allies?

Orks, Tau.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 LunarSol wrote:
Outside of Necrons though, who doesn’t have useful allies?


The Blood Angels aren't useful?
   
Made in gb
Yellin' Yoof





I think this might be unpopular and probably impossible given the sheer range and amount of choices in 40k (not to mention the expectations of those who play) but I would be curious to see a more restricted system of choice in place for building lists.

I know why this likely wouldn't work these days, largely because it would involve needing to have a better balance between basic troops across factions, especially since some have more range of troop choices then others, and some are just plain better.

But having a slot and/or percentage system would be interesting. I find currently, that with issues of soup, some factions have a largely unrestricted access that essentially boils down to just taking the best units and ability combinations at all times, in a system that is as poorly balanced as 40k, just results in the painful irony of similar looking armies that give the impression of a restricted system.

I understand that many dislike 'core/troop' taxes, but I think if it could be implemented in a way that still allowed for some variety in forces and keeping those units relevant, might go some way to salving some of 40k's biggest wounds.

Still, the cat is long gone, you can't get the toothpaste back in and Pandora's brain isn't going back in the womb, so I guess it's a bit too late.

I hate children and parents. 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 Wunzlez wrote:
I think this might be unpopular and probably impossible given the sheer range and amount of choices in 40k (not to mention the expectations of those who play) but I would be curious to see a more restricted system of choice in place for building lists.

I know why this likely wouldn't work these days, largely because it would involve needing to have a better balance between basic troops across factions, especially since some have more range of troop choices then others, and some are just plain better.

But having a slot and/or percentage system would be interesting. I find currently, that with issues of soup, some factions have a largely unrestricted access that essentially boils down to just taking the best units and ability combinations at all times, in a system that is as poorly balanced as 40k, just results in the painful irony of similar looking armies that give the impression of a restricted system.

I understand that many dislike 'core/troop' taxes, but I think if it could be implemented in a way that still allowed for some variety in forces and keeping those units relevant, might go some way to salving some of 40k's biggest wounds.

Still, the cat is long gone, you can't get the toothpaste back in and Pandora's brain isn't going back in the womb, so I guess it's a bit too late.


Now that could work but considering that we have armies that field grunts with lasguns in the same game as armies that just field heavy support how would you achieve that?
Force or and specialized force org?
Might work.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in ca
God-like Imperator Titan Commander




Halifax

Battlefield roles that are different from optimising enemy casualties and de-optimising friendly casualties?
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Nurglitch wrote:
Battlefield roles that are different from optimising enemy casualties and de-optimising friendly casualties?


Or crank the size creep a bit back?
Either way it would probably be a easier to balance system.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Me personally I realize 40k will never do those things and will always be a game that is built on min/max whatever you want for fun, and I will follow other game systems instead. Antares is solid. As is Infinity for my sci fi games.

40k has zero for me rules wise that I find enticing or worth spending money on.

Now that Conquest has released, I'm finding I have no use for my AOS stuff anymore either.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 NinthMusketeer wrote:
stratigo wrote:
 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
 Tyranid Horde wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Competive 40k is self contradicting term anyway so what's the matter anyway.


Highly inclined to disagree with you. High level play is completely different to the average beet and pretzels game of 40k.


Dwight Schrute has entered the chat.

Serious: I am a competitive person. Not win at all costs, but I like to know where I stand amongst my peers when anything of skill is involved.That said I much prefer the tournament scene of Age of Sigmar which revolves more around camaraderie and good times had by all with people using optimized armies and know their rules, vs 40k where it seems to be about stepping on someone's back as a means to claw there way to the top of nerd mountain.


AoS balance is so much of a joke that you really can't take it seriously though.
As a big fan of AoS and play both casually and competitively I have to completely agree.

But I am confused as to how that differs from 40k.


I think the main difference is that the armies that are overperforming in 40k aren't skaven level. But if you note my postings, I don't find 40k particularly balanced. I've gotten my craving for a well balanced system satisfied by SBG, where I can't guess with something like a 90 percent accuracy who will win a game down to a dice roll after I see the lists.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Not Online!!! wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
Outside of Necrons though, who doesn’t have useful allies?

Orks, Tau.


Orks have the best allies.... moar orks!
   
Made in ca
God-like Imperator Titan Commander




Halifax

 LunarSol wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
Outside of Necrons though, who doesn’t have useful allies?

Orks, Tau.


Orks have the best allies.... moar orks!


Orks can ally with both Morkers and Gorkers.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





As a big fan of AoS and play both casually and competitively I have to completely agree.

But I am confused as to how that differs from 40k.


Every day I monitor facebook and twitter groups and see variants of "if you want balance, go play chess!" I realize more and more just how little gw fans really want or care about balanced games. Which is why gw will never change. Side rant.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/22 00:16:36


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

 auticus wrote:
As a big fan of AoS and play both casually and competitively I have to completely agree.

But I am confused as to how that differs from 40k.


Every day I monitor facebook and twitter groups and see variants of "if you want balance, go play chess!" I realize more and more just how little gw fans really want or care about balanced games. Which is why gw will never change. Side rant.

I think the main difference is that the armies that are overperforming in 40k aren't skaven level. But if you note my postings, I don't find 40k particularly balanced. I've gotten my craving for a well balanced system satisfied by SBG, where I can't guess with something like a 90 percent accuracy who will win a game down to a dice roll after I see the lists.


It is the McDonald's model - hit 'em with feel-good chemicals when they buy the new stuff cuz the rules are win-buttons, and they can't help coming back.

Ebay and an open source rules system, this is the future - call me a traitor, but the marine in front of GW these days is not a son of my Emperor.

   
Made in gb
Fighter Ace





england

 godardc wrote:
Because "competitive" (as if this word could be used for 40k...) players think themselves smart and smarter than the others 40k players because they listen to podcast telling them how to abuse rules and play probably more often to 40k than normal players.
So they think they are the best persons and casual are just idiots who don't understand the game and deserve the hate.

The competitive scene has always been toxic and a full of cry babies. Not surprised by those people.

This.
My god so much this!!!
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 jeff white wrote:
 auticus wrote:
As a big fan of AoS and play both casually and competitively I have to completely agree.

But I am confused as to how that differs from 40k.


Every day I monitor facebook and twitter groups and see variants of "if you want balance, go play chess!" I realize more and more just how little gw fans really want or care about balanced games. Which is why gw will never change. Side rant.

I think the main difference is that the armies that are overperforming in 40k aren't skaven level. But if you note my postings, I don't find 40k particularly balanced. I've gotten my craving for a well balanced system satisfied by SBG, where I can't guess with something like a 90 percent accuracy who will win a game down to a dice roll after I see the lists.


It is the McDonald's model - hit 'em with feel-good chemicals when they buy the new stuff cuz the rules are win-buttons, and they can't help coming back.

Ebay and an open source rules system, this is the future - call me a traitor, but the marine in front of GW these days is not a son of my Emperor.


Emperor is about as caricatural greedy as it gets.
That's hardly anything new though

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

Not Online!!! wrote:


Emperor is about as caricatural greedy as it gets.
That's hardly anything new though


Greedy? ... odd .
Not in thread context.
Just odd - not the first word that would come to my mind.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 ValentineGames wrote:
 godardc wrote:
Because "competitive" (as if this word could be used for 40k...) players think themselves smart and smarter than the others 40k players because they listen to podcast telling them how to abuse rules and play probably more often to 40k than normal players.
So they think they are the best persons and casual are just idiots who don't understand the game and deserve the hate.

The competitive scene has always been toxic and a full of cry babies. Not surprised by those people.

This.
My god so much this!!!


It's not really accurate to describe these "competitive" players as competitive because these players are not looking for "competitive" games, they're looking to win. Competing for competition's sake isn't the goal. If it were, then really the system wouldn't matter at all. You can compete just as hard with a thematic/narrative list, or even lists you don't build at all (events could just assign lists).

The reality is they aim to win, and the only true competition these players are involved in is to see who can produce the most lopsided victory. Negative play experience is the goal, and whoever produces the most NPE has "won" the real competition.

List building and rule manipulation is their game, not 40k.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/22 16:44:39


 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





 jeff white wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


Emperor is about as caricatural greedy as it gets.
That's hardly anything new though


Greedy? ... odd .
Not in thread context.
Just odd - not the first word that would come to my mind.


Have you seen his fething Gold piles that call themselves custodes?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






 Kanluwen wrote:
Disagree. You can see where the design space was intended to head towards the Auxiliary Detachments, but somewhere along the way it was shifted(and I have my hunches it's from the tourney playtester crowds) to the current soup-y system we have.


I'm not really sure how you arrive at than conclusion.

Yes, auxiliary detachments exist.
But they exist in exactly the same way as battalions do, for exactly as long.
Anything that drives players away from auxiliary detachments is kind of baked in to the design of auxiliary detachment and has been since the start of the edition.
The reason that very few people take Aux detachments is that there is (and has always been) far more negatives than positives to doing so.
About the only time I ever see Auxiliary detachments used is, as the other poster said, to take one particularly powerful unit without a tax..
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






LeperColony wrote:
 ValentineGames wrote:
 godardc wrote:
Because "competitive" (as if this word could be used for 40k...) players think themselves smart and smarter than the others 40k players because they listen to podcast telling them how to abuse rules and play probably more often to 40k than normal players.
So they think they are the best persons and casual are just idiots who don't understand the game and deserve the hate.

The competitive scene has always been toxic and a full of cry babies. Not surprised by those people.

This.
My god so much this!!!


It's not really accurate to describe these "competitive" players as competitive because these players are not looking for "competitive" games, they're looking to win. Competing for competition's sake isn't the goal. If it were, then really the system wouldn't matter at all. You can compete just as hard with a thematic/narrative list, or even lists you don't build at all (events could just assign lists).


Do you play games not looking to win? Like, just show up at the table and make completely arbitrary decisions until the game ends?
I'd wager that you don't. Even if winning isn't the highest priority to you, when you're at the game table I'm guessing there is a mission objective, that you do things that make you more likely to achieve that objective, like maybe moving towards it rather than away from it.
In my experience, as a primarily "competitive" player, that's 99% of competitive players too. They want to win, and are doing things to increase their chance of winning, but at the end of the day the point is to play a bunch of warhammer with some friends. I only get to play 40k a handful of times a month, so I get my fix in concentrated full-day doses.

Does the system not really matter? Sure. I could (and do) play competitively with other games systems (and I will freely admit that 40k is probably one of the worse rules sets out there). But I happen to like 40k, and the social and competitive scene for 40k is by far the biggest and most positive in my community, so I play that competitively too.

Could you compete just as hard with a thematic list?
Well this is where it gets a bit touchy. What exactly is a thematic/narrative list? A Saim-Hann jetbike list is very "thematic", and in 7th edition was also one of the most powerful lists one could build. In fact, if GW is actually doing their job RIGHT, then narrative/thematic lists SHOULD be very powerful lists. In my opinion this is actually where GW gets it wrong at a balance level from both directions - either the thematic units are not powerful enough, or the baseline unit is good but the thematic version (eg space marine bikes vs white scar bikes) is so much better. This is kind of why I started playing competitively in the first place - the majority of my games at the time were pick up games at the FLGS, and half the games with "narrative/thematic" lists would have discussions about what was acceptable or not, but the competitive games were all in agreement about what was acceptable - anything.
Or maybe you mean narrative missions. In which case, sure, I would (and have) play competitively in a narrative event... but my experience is that missions with vastly asymmetrical win conditions are rarely balanced to the point where each player has equal chance of winning. The last narrative event I went to, on the first mission, the "Defenders" won 23 out of the 24 games in the first round. These kind of missions take time and trial and error to get right - hence the symmetrical missions are the "default" for competitive play.

What about assigned lists? Sure, I'd give that a go: If you're going to provide me the army. How many TO's in the world can afford to just have a spare $1000+ army, for *every single player* who comes? Its a logistical impossibility.
Plus, do you think there's a divide between casual and competitive players now? Imagine a casual player wanting to head to an event and finding out that no, he can't play Eldar, it has to be a very specific variety of Space Marines.


The reality is they aim to win, and the only true competition these players are involved in is to see who can produce the most lopsided victory. Negative play experience is the goal, and whoever produces the most NPE has "won" the real competition.

List building and rule manipulation is their game, not 40k.


I'm really sorry if this is your experience with competitive players. As someone who primarily plays competitively it doesn't match my experience at all. Quite often in the first round or two of random pairings I'll end up winning against someone who has just shown up with "a pile of models", and there's not much to be done about that other than to be a good sportsman. I don't think this is any different to any game or sport where there is a mismatch in skill. But my favourite games by far are when I'm paired up against someone with an equally good list, of equal skill, and it comes down to a handful of victory points or crucial dice rolls. Maybe the issue is that the organised play scene isn't big enough to have brackets, and we just end up with people who in other sports might be separated out in different grades all playing against each other with predictable results.

As for rule manipulation... I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. 8th edition rules are pretty much what they say on the tin. There are relatively few loopholes in the rules and GW is a lot better than yesteryear at fixing them up quickly. If you had a bad experience with a cheater and that's colouring your view of 40k events, I stress that those people are a tiny minority, and you should give it another go.
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





LeperColony wrote:
 ValentineGames wrote:
 godardc wrote:
Because "competitive" (as if this word could be used for 40k...) players think themselves smart and smarter than the others 40k players because they listen to podcast telling them how to abuse rules and play probably more often to 40k than normal players.
So they think they are the best persons and casual are just idiots who don't understand the game and deserve the hate.

The competitive scene has always been toxic and a full of cry babies. Not surprised by those people.

This.
My god so much this!!!


It's not really accurate to describe these "competitive" players as competitive because these players are not looking for "competitive" games, they're looking to win. Competing for competition's sake isn't the goal. If it were, then really the system wouldn't matter at all. You can compete just as hard with a thematic/narrative list, or even lists you don't build at all (events could just assign lists).

The reality is they aim to win, and the only true competition these players are involved in is to see who can produce the most lopsided victory. Negative play experience is the goal, and whoever produces the most NPE has "won" the real competition.

List building and rule manipulation is their game, not 40k.


Nonsense, if you are going to a competition your goal is to do as well as you possibly can. The idea that you can "compete" just as well with a thematic/narrative list (this assumes that thematic/narrative lists are lesser quality), is like saying you can enter a drag race with a minivan and "compete" just as well. Or run a marathon in combat boots and compete just as well. It is simply not true, if both players are taking lesser lists by some sort of agreement you can have just as competitive a game as you might (or perhaps a more competitive one) than you would using a tuned up list. But that is the same as 2 people agreeing to a drag race in minivans.

You are asking people to take a self imposed disadvantage without any rules in place to ensure others will do the same. If you don't want OP lists there are 2 scenarios that work.

1.) GW balances the game (which most casual players don't want, because it likely means limiting variety and options)
2.) Tournaments limit the game - which people tend not to like because it doesn't come from GW.

In no other arena of competition are people derided for not taking self imposed handicaps.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





1.) GW balances the game (which most casual players don't want, because it likely means limiting variety and options)


It means both limiting variety and options and having to churn and burn on a regular basis to keep an army ready that isn't an auto-lose against someone else who optimizes their lists because GW can't or won't (or both) balance their games.


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 auticus wrote:
1.) GW balances the game (which most casual players don't want, because it likely means limiting variety and options)


It means both limiting variety and options and having to churn and burn on a regular basis to keep an army ready that isn't an auto-lose against someone else who optimizes their lists because GW can't or won't (or both) balance their games.



No if they limited the options and balanced the game you would not have that issue, the game would be balanced. Now it is possible that GW cannot balance the game, and then you end up with what you suggest which is largely what we have now, and the complaint by the poster I responded to, that competitive players aren't competing in the game just at bending the rules and list building and that somehow it is a reasonable expectation of people taking part in a competition to self handicap with no assurance others will do so.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





I totally understand where you are coming from and agree. The expectation of self handicapping is a losing strategy. Because nothing forces your opponent to do the same thing and no one wants to have their faces grinded into the table because of army selection.

I disagree with the player saying competitive players just want to bend rules. Thats a type of player called a cheat, which has nothing to do with being a competitive player. Cheats are trash.


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Yup, I've played many top players and none of them ever seemed to be trying to bend the rules when we played. They just had more practiced skills with better tuned lists than I did, knew how to answer my list, and made fewer mistakes.

This is largely what I experienced in winning against many players as well.

I think competitive players some times come across as "bending the rules" simply because they do things that other players don't consider.

Largely though any NPE I have had have either been the result of severly unbalanced rules (not any issue with the player just the game) or players with poor attitudes, typically not competitive players, and very rare in my whole gaming career.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Competitive players usually have nice things to say about players they beat; honestly, they usually feel bad about lopsided matchups and are usually quite happy to help people improve if they're open to it (which is often not the case after a bad loss). If you hear competitive players talking down on anyone, its definitely the cheaters and the mid tier crowd, which is where you tend to run into the most of the real WAAC stuff that gives competitive players a bad name.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





As someone that has competed in a bunch of tournaments there are basically 3 layers of gamers at a tournament.

At the very top you have the good players who are there for the challenge of playing other good players (and hopefully winning). They can play on the knives edge but they are having a good time together and don't want to win through lopsides matchups or gotya's.

Below them are the 'tryhards' the people not as good as the top players but who really want to win, these are the ones that give competitive gamers a bad rap because they will happily bend rules and enjoy lopsides matchups (in their favor) because its lets them win and 'winning is all that matter'.

And then you have the 'casual' players who are just there to have a good time, move some models around and maybe drink some beer. Winning is nice but not nearly as important as having a fun time.
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






Breng77 wrote:

You are asking people to take a self imposed disadvantage without any rules in place to ensure others will do the same. If you don't want OP lists there are 2 scenarios that work.

1.) GW balances the game (which most casual players don't want, because it likely means limiting variety and options)
2.) Tournaments limit the game - which people tend not to like because it doesn't come from GW.

In no other arena of competition are people derided for not taking self imposed handicaps.


I know I'm probably agreeing with you here, but as to your point 1):
a) I think that no matter how well GW balances the game, they'll never end up at a point where "a pile of minis" is equal on the tabletop to "an army". And I sincerely hope they do not even try. If we ever get to the point where making absolutely arbitrary decisions has no effect on your win rate, you're not playing chess, you're playing snakes & ladders.

b) I don't think that balance means less variety - on the contrary I think it should end up meaning more.
At the very core of it, I think better balance makes casual games better far more rapidly than competitive games. If two casual players are just taking whatever models they like, one of them is going to luck in to a broken unit and dominate their games. If the units are more balanced, the casual players notice it first (compared to the competitive players who move on to the second most powerful unit).



@Above . As to "mid tier" players being the WAAC guys... I think the mid tier is far more made up of people who are aiming for 50% wins than people who are trying hard but just bad. Maybe 10-20% are going there with realistic aspirations to win the event - the other 80 are just there to play games. Out of our entire local gaming community of 200+ regular tournament goers, I'd count 5 at most who fit in to the "iffy" category.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/03 16:35:01


 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Trasvi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

You are asking people to take a self imposed disadvantage without any rules in place to ensure others will do the same. If you don't want OP lists there are 2 scenarios that work.

1.) GW balances the game (which most casual players don't want, because it likely means limiting variety and options)
2.) Tournaments limit the game - which people tend not to like because it doesn't come from GW.

In no other arena of competition are people derided for not taking self imposed handicaps.


I know I'm probably agreeing with you here, but as to your point 1):
a) I think that no matter how well GW balances the game, they'll never end up at a point where "a pile of minis" is equal on the tabletop to "an army". And I sincerely hope they do not even try. If we ever get to the point where making absolutely arbitrary decisions has no effect on your win rate, you're not playing chess, you're playing snakes & ladders.

b) I don't think that balance means less variety - on the contrary I think it should end up meaning more.
At the very core of it, I think better balance makes casual games better far more rapidly than competitive games. If two casual players are just taking whatever models they like, one of them is going to luck in to a broken unit and dominate their games. If the units are more balanced, the casual players notice it first (compared to the competitive players who move on to the second most powerful unit).



@Above . As to "mid tier" players being the WAAC guys... I think the mid tier is far more made up of people who are aiming for 50% wins than people who are trying hard but just bad. Maybe 10-20% are going there with realistic aspirations to win the event - the other 80 are just there to play games. Out of our entire local gaming community of 200+ regular tournament goers, I'd count 5 at most who fit in to the "iffy" category.


1.a.) Yes it should never be a case where any random selection of minis is equal to another. There should be losing combinations of units (taking nothing stronger than S3 for instance), but the balance should exist where units fill roles and any unit within that role should be relatively balanced in that role. So that any unit can be used as long as a list is built around supporting its use.

1.b.) When I say less variety I don't mean in lists or units we see on the table, I mean customization, the more options units have, and the more choices you have for units the more difficult it is to balance those units, or to have them fill specific roles. It also likely means not having as many outlier units that feel truly special (as that special-ness is often brokenness.) SO on the level that you will see more units if there are no bad choices on the unit level, you are correct. But if a unit of jetbikes has 6 weapon options, making sure they are all equally balanced, and balanced in game is extremely difficult. Essentially I think if you really want balance you are looking at units all being like the current Primaris marines with very few options and very defined roles, rather than say tactical marines who have a huge number of possible build combinations.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: