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.

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool

You're getting a lot of gak over this post but I agree with you. I'm not a veteran player like many players here but my gut feeling is that GWS never really intended for this to to be the super-competitive game it has become and they have actively tried to squash those elements of it.

The question remains, why are you assuming there has to be a choice between a fun game and a balanced one? My experience tells me that when the rules design is competent, those two things can co-exist just fine.

 DeffDred wrote:
One thing could clear up all these problems.

A split between friendly gaming and competative.

All rulebooks split into two halves.

A tournement legal list would be in each codex/rulebook so that when you went to a tournement it would be balanced.

That seems a bit defeatist. Balancing a wide and varied model range can be done; it has been done.

 Elemental wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool

You're getting a lot of gak over this post but I agree with you. I'm not a veteran player like many players here but my gut feeling is that GWS never really intended for this to to be the super-competitive game it has become and they have actively tried to squash those elements of it.

The question remains, why are you assuming there has to be a choice between a fun game and a balanced one? My experience tells me that when the rules design is competent, those two things can co-exist just fine.

That's the problem. People, especially GW, assume they can't. Games-Workshop has dug themselves a hole where they are pestered constantly about updating their rules, yet they keep throwing stupid gak like "it's cinematic!" in there. I don't know if this is intended as a balance mechanic or what, but that is the complete wrong way to go about it. Having competent people write competent rules that random people on the internet don't need to house rule in order to make it play better would be a step in the right direction. Just purchase FFG, fire the writers from GW and hire them as FFG, though outright purchase of FFG would result in the degradation of that company the same way GW is degrading, and that would be bad.

 McNinja wrote:
On the subject of privateer press making the rules: why on earth would you want your competition to make your rules? How wwould that make sense at all?

You have to divorce the idea from the current status. I'm more curious as to people's reaction to the idea of it, not the current competitive relationship they share. It seems some people who love 40K or Fantasy would recoil and avoid a PP re-write (however they came to be doing it- just skip that for the moment) based merely on the fact it was PP doing it, as if there was some great track record of power imbalances and sloppy rules. I think GW should be looking at the areas where PP (and other companies) have had more success than them and copying/adapting it. Be it rules, bits, release schedule or whatever but there are people who would oppose such just because PP did it first.

As for Fun vs Tight in rules I'll say this: Never in all the years of playing different tabletop games has a rules dispute or poor unit balance enhanced my enjoyment of the game. It has however several times detracted from it.

 Elemental wrote:
That seems a bit defeatist. Balancing a wide and varied model range can be done; it has been done.

Sure, it's just not profitable.

 Easy E wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
That seems a bit defeatist. Balancing a wide and varied model range can be done; it has been done.

Sure, it's just not profitable.

On the contrary, a system that balances factions adequately, so that none are left behind, while allowing a flow through of newer models, will be more attractive to more players, and will grow the game. You make changes to the meta that flow through to the armies that people are using, and encourage a variety of viable units and play styles, to encourage a breadth of army building. It can certainly be very profitable.

 BryllCream wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
DeffDred, That is a brilliant idea---the one about making all SM armies; all DE armies; all Tau armies; etc. identical for competitive play.

GW could change up the list every year, say, so they could keep selling models. No bikes? This season you must field 5 Space Marines on bikes. Better buy some bikes.

If they kept the points values reasonable, people might be tempted into building multiple armies for a season.

They could also do tourneys with historical refights.

You'd need to double the amount of play/testing time of course. Still it might give the Fantasy guys something to do

So FOUR games :O

 Maddermax wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
That seems a bit defeatist. Balancing a wide and varied model range can be done; it has been done.

Sure, it's just not profitable.

On the contrary, a system that balances factions adequately, so that none are left behind, while allowing a flow through of newer models, will be more attractive to more players, and will grow the game. You make changes to the meta that flow through to the armies that people are using, and encourage a variety of viable units and play styles, to encourage a breadth of army building. It can certainly be very profitable.

Sorry, let me clarify.

The suits at GW don't agree with you. I'm sure the suits at Privateer Press do.

However, one method is much harder to do successfully than the other.

 warboss wrote:

 Balance wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Balance would make the game boring

Mind = Blown

And I'm sorry, really. I am. Ruining everyone's fun.

LOL... you've been waiting for a comment like that!

Years! (Actually, I've used this net.alias for a long time, back to the BBS era, even.)

Rules make models sell... Why give away the ability to create such a great sales leverage .

AFAIK there are two ways to increase minature sales with rules.

Organic growth, which is popular with most GAMES companies.
You write the most elegant and intuitive rule set you can, which delivers great game play perfect game imbalance.
This means ALL minatures are viable and bought ALL the time by many players.
And the company can update and add new minatures/units to the game with regular updates to the rules army lists.
(A campain book adding new units to the factions taking part in the campain is quite popular method.)

This appeals strongest to gamers who grow the market share and player base of the game and associated minatures by word of mouth.

Cyclical promotion.
Spend a fortune developing new minatures every few months then pimp them mercilessly with 'special rules' to make the new releases appeal to the 'core demoghraphic'.
(11 to 16 year old boys, apparently)
Then spend a fortune on B&M stores so you can use isolationist marketing to artificially raise the price to cover the cost of development , production and retail.

This messes up game play, and raises the barrier to entry of the game.(Fiscal scaling and all that.)

IF GW plc are writing rules PURELY for narrative co-operative games, as many say.Then simply get rid of PV in the codex/army books and just print senarios for campain play, etc.Then NO ONE would complain about the awful game balance and over complication in the rules.

A well defined intuitive and elegant rule set can be used for ALL play types.
Its much easier to house rule fun(weird) stuff onto a well defined intuitive and elegant set of rules.
Than it is to try to get better game play from a diffuse, and counter intuitive rule set.

"You'd need to double the amount of play/testing time of course."---referring to fixed set armies where all, for example, Space Marine forces in tourney play consist of the same units and model load-outs)..."

I'd think it would be even easier and less time intensive for any playtesting.
Since the designers know what each army comprises they should be able to relatively quickly balance stuff out.
If they this included historical rematches where even the terrain (and possibly even deployment positions) are pre-mapped, playtesting would be even easier for them.

Even if you don't balance the forces, in a historical refight you could have both players always play two games (once as blue force and once as red).
That would help get away from list building being the end-all of things AND sell each player a core rulebook; scenario book; and possibly two fixed set armies.

Of course, the main problem being that, short of army customization, the 40k ruleset doesn't have much going for it to begin with.

Why do people find it difficult to separate "balance" from "wel written rules"?

I'd be fine with different tier codexes, etc. if the rules were better written.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why do people find it difficult to separate "balance" from "wel written rules"?

I'd be fine with different tier codexes, etc. if the rules were better written.

If players of the same skill level are incapable of playing at (near) the same level because of decisions that take place before the game even begins, then the rules are inherently poorly written.

I disagree with that assertion absolutely.

So you're okay with a person not being able to reasonably win in a game because his favourite army is incompetently designed (the codex, not the army list) and lacks the tools needed to address its threats?

 Fafnir wrote:
So you're okay with a person not being able to reasonably win in a game because his favourite army is incompetently designed (the codex, not the army list) and lacks the tools needed to address its threats?

Yes, I am. A "fluffy" player wouldn't care and a "competitive" player wouldn't complain about having to jump armies.

Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?

Clearly Fafnir you're supposing the existence of some kind of crazy hybrid player who enjoys fair competition and winning on merits AND likes his army for more than it's stats. How many people like fairness and chose their armies because they thought they were cool?

 Fafnir wrote:
Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?

... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)

I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.

The same reason as always: they want all the money they can get, and are dumb guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?

... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)

I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.

Or go play Warpath, pretty much: balanced 40k with no silly childshy rules of randomnes doom...

"...Or go play Warpath, pretty much: balanced 40k with no silly childshy rules of randomnes doom..."

I like Mantic, and all, but WP in its current form needs additional work.
The 2.0 version is a big improvement but it's not ready for prime time esp. when it's competing with entrenched games from bigger companies.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?

... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)

I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.

So your solution is to tell my opponent to sandbag. That's just a bad experience for everyone. My opponent doesn't get to play what they want, and I know that any victory I earn is based on my opponent letting me have it.

House rules and handicaps are not solutions. They do not carry over well to random games, and fail to address the actual elements of bad game design, doing more to limit gameplay options on a whole.

If you care only about fluff, disregard the rules entirely, and make a diorama.

 Kojiro wrote:
Clearly Fafnir you're supposing the existence of some kind of crazy hybrid player who enjoys fair competition and winning on merits AND likes his army for more than it's stats. How many people like fairness and chose their armies because they thought they were cool?

Why should someone have to choose between an army they like and an army they stand a chance of winning a game with?

Since it costs so much to jump armies, and you may not realise how poor they are until after you've invested a lot of time and money into your first army, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that army to have the same odds of winning as any others. Not everyone things getting tabled every game is fun, or that having to bend the rules to avoid getting tabled (handicaps, or sandbagging) is fun either.

I'm assuming the vast majority of players just want to pick a faction they like the look of, build up a force, and play with it, with a reasonable chance of victory.


I'm also in the camp that doesn't understand why it has to be balanced OR casual, as no other game I've got/read/played casually has the same balance issues.

Herzlos wrote:
Why should someone have to choose between an army they like and an army they stand a chance of winning a game with?

Just to be clear I was being sarcastic. I'm firmly in the camp of balance > fluff. No one should have to choose between fairness and army preference.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?

... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)

Seems like a lot of work & potential aggro that could be avoided by just having well-written rules, so we can both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?

 Elemental wrote:

Seems like a lot of work & potential aggro that could be avoided by just having well-written rules, so we can both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?

They lose the crutch?

 Elemental wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?

... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)

Seems like a lot of work & potential aggro that could be avoided by just having well-written rules, so we can both jump in and play and know that skill in playing was the biggest factor. Again, what does anyone lose with balanced rules?

If you hadn't removed the last line of that post, you could have read my answer. Instead you choose to attack part of the post.
That's very poor form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Disregarding silly labels, what about someone who just wants to have a good and fair game with an army they like?

... They still can? Outside of a competition, ask your opponent to play down.
Hell, write some handicap rules (so bad codexes get more points, and modify those when new FAQs/rules drop)

I'm just saying that the two goals, while not mutually exclusive, are not attached at the hip either.

So your solution is to tell my opponent to sandbag. That's just a bad experience for everyone. My opponent doesn't get to play what they want, and I know that any victory I earn is based on my opponent letting me have it.

Most of the time when I play I don't care about the result, it's the rolling dice and social experience that I enjoy.

House rules and handicaps are not solutions. They do not carry over well to random games, and fail to address the actual elements of bad game design, doing more to limit gameplay options on a whole.

I meant official handicaps - I could've been clearer with that.
And it's more of a "whoops. Until we address this with new rules (change the point value | blue guys get X more points | other solution)" kind of thing.

If you care only about fluff, disregard the rules entirely, and make a diorama.

Could you maybe exaggerate my point a little more? That'd be great.

But you do not speak for every casual player out there. I'm a casual gamer wargaming-wise and I still care about the results of the game. It's not fun to lose most (if not all) the time just because the army you like fluff-wise is underpowered. It's also not fun to tell your opponent to pull the punches, both to him/her and to me since I'm taking away and dictating to him/her what he/she should play, and I feel inadequate that I have to basically neuter my opponent in order to win. I doubt it if anyone feels better playing a handicapped game.

Balance and fluffiness are not joined in the hip, yes. But balance just makes the gameplay better. So why not have balance?

Since people continue to misrepresent or ignore my point, ill bow out. Have fun.