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.

Can someone point me to this "mythcial" balanced wargame? Every game system I have ever seen has people moaning about this or that being "wrong".

Sure, we all have games we prefer, but for every wargame we prefer; there is someone out there moaning about it.

I guess no one has gotten it right yet, so how do we expect Games Workshop to do it?

Don't be ridiculous. No one is saying 'PERFECTION OR NOTHING!' The call is for more balance, nothing else.

There is a long continuum from perfection to utter garbage. GW sits, for all its experience and resources, further away from the 'Perfect' end of the line than they should. The real problem is that a) they seem to have no interest in moving further that way and b) people seem to think it's either not worth while or not possible. Hence the question.

 Easy E wrote:
Can someone point me to this "mythcial" balanced wargame? Every game system I have ever seen has people moaning about this or that being "wrong".

Very true, none of them are perfect, but most of them seem a lot better. I've never heard anyone complain about balance issues in Warmachine, or any historicals.

I guess no one has gotten it right yet, so how do we expect Games Workshop to do it?

Since GW is by far the biggest company in the market, by orders of magnitude, we'd expect GW to be able to do a much better job of things like rules than smaller companies, especially in some cases they have more writing/design staff than competitors have employees*. Yet GW seems to be particularly bad in this respect so it's got nothing to do with resources or need; it's either that they just suck at it, or they don't care.

I do think most of the balance and rules problems with GW is that they've tried to keep things somewhat compatible with codices from the previous editions, and the marketing requirement for new things to be supercool resulting in an abundance of overlapping and conflicting special rules. They could really do with a complete rules reboot, but I can't see that happening going by the current business direction.


*I think Westwind have 7 staff in total (including warehouse and manufacturing), yet have produced 2 pretty polished sets of rules + expansions that appear to be pretty balanced (I've read but not played them). Admittedly the factions are much smaller and there are less unit types, but again they are a tiny company compared to GW.

Haven't tried Warmahordes so can't comment on that. Infinity, however, is super balanced. No faction is overpowered, no "power lists", no "must have this unit or else I'm uncompetitive" and you even have to try hard in order to make a weak list.

Moaning =/= the game is not balanced. There will always be moaning, but that does not mean that the game is imbalanced. But that does not mean you should ignore the moaning either: sometimes the criticism is legit. But once again, let me point you out to Infinity and you're free to check the official forums. The main consensus is that there's no overpowered tactic and overpowered faction, nor overpowered list. The people who cry that certain parts of the game is imbalanced haven't played it much, therefore they still haven't learned how to counter certain tactics. Infinity is a very unforgiving rules set that can punish you a lot for making tactical errors. And while there are some criticisms about the wording/translation of the rules (which to be fair does not come up in a game 99% of the time), I've never seen anyone who played it for a time criticize it for imbalance so far. Thus the saying "it's not your list, it's YOU!" Some people feel a bit off by that statement, but it has a certain amount of truth in it: Infinity is more about how you use the tools you bring and not about the tools that you bring.

 Easy E wrote:
Can someone point me to this "mythcial" balanced wargame? Every game system I have ever seen has people moaning about this or that being "wrong".

Sure, we all have games we prefer, but for every wargame we prefer; there is someone out there moaning about it.

I guess no one has gotten it right yet, so how do we expect Games Workshop to do it?

There is no perfect balance, but there is far better balance that GW has attained.

There are also two types of balance you have to look at - internal faction balance (intra-faction balance), and inter-faction balance.

Intra-faction balance means having many different options to create a viable lists, without a single list or spamming a few certain units being overwhelmingly better. While the ideal here would be to have every option be just as good as the other, but this is actually very difficult to accomplish across a wide range of options, and even in the best balanced of games some units might come in behind the average, or have niche rolls in the meta game. However as long as there are a good number of viable competitive builds in every faction, and no reasonable build or option is completely uncompetitive, that is enough, you can't ask much more than that. Warmachine, despite it's reputation for balance, has a few units that I couldn't recommend to beginners, because their roll can often be covered better by other options. However, there are so many options and combinations that having a few that are sub-optimal is not unconscionable.

Then there's Inter-faction balance, and this is what most people are talking about when they mention "balance". Now, this is very hard to judge in many cases, but it means that games between players of a similar skill level, and with a reasonable collection of options, should expect to have even odds of winning a game regardless of faction. It also means, for competitive gamers, that at the top levels of the game, no factions are hugely dominant nor unable to win.

Now, the other part of the "balance" argument, is how companies go about working towards "balance". PP's (and other companies) method of constant slow releases for all factions allows one very useful thing - the correction of certain imbalances, both intra and inter, as they come to light. When Cygnar was struggling in the tournament scene, they got a few releases that helped them close some gaps in their capabilities. While "broadside bart" was one of the least competitive Mercenary casters, the release of the Galleon made him into an extremely viable competitive caster again. And, quite importantly, nothing is released without other armies having a good answer to it (which often prompts changes in the Meta game about what people bring), so you don't have situations like Flyer Spam, where a new gizmo simply outshines older options.

Anyway, it would be good if GW worked towards not having particular factions or narrow builds dominate, but not enough play testing, edition creep and long periods between releases make this difficult. I'm not going to go on about what they should do, many others will give their opinions on that, but I will point out that GW does have options for balancing their armies better.

Just to get a few talking points in, here are my thoughts from the last 8 pages. I've spoilered my responses just to save space.

 warboss wrote:
If you haven't already, you need to start playing Palladium RPGs. You'll find them to be the coolest most exciting few hours you're capable of having by your own definition. I personally find them to be a poster child for why games need to be mechanically sound before adding in the "cool" stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. MTG has completely clear rules, and any possible rule question can be answered by simply looking up the answer in the rules (and if it can't be, it will be fixed in the next revision). And yet somehow MTG is still incredibly popular with casual players, including casual players who have no problems at all coming up with house rules for new and interesting ways of playing the game. The clarity of the rules doesn't in any way diminish their enjoyment of the game, it just means that they can focus on playing the game instead of arguing about what the rules should be.

 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.

Paraphrasing wrote:"A balanced game isn't fun..." "If a player just wants to have fun, he shouldn't be playing with the 'big boys' who want to compete... Or he should ask the competitive players to dumb down their armies..." "Some armies are just meant to suck more than others..."

I know my post-count is highly inferior to all of you, but lemme just ask this: are you arguing that imbalance is fun, competitive is superior to casual, some armies simply suck, etc. because you're a huge fan of curbstomping your opponent by abusing loopholes?

In my perfect world, 40k would be balanced well enough that any unit choice isn't automatically a handicap (I'm looking at you DE Mandrakes, DA Vets..), and no unit is so broken that more than one of them is almost an auto win (CSM Heldrakes, DE Venoms...). A little imbalance is good, but not to the point that it has been. There is no logical reason that 4e codexes should be so inferior to 6e codexes, or vice versa. A new codex shouldn't nerf your army, nor should it give you a new unfair advantage.

I think GW working with a second company, where the second company deals with rules-only (with respect to fluff), is an ideal situation. Hell, just having a rules-only division would be an improvement (WHY do people who write the fluff also get to write the rules? So Matt Ward can [insert time where Matt Ward did something ridiculous with the fluff that he then tried to justify in the rules, or he wrote into the fluff something that's strictly impossible ruleswise]? Why is there only one person writing the rules in the first place (Okay, I know there are multiple authors, but at GW it seems to be more of a one-man-show with a bunch of smaller homies behind him shouting, "YEAH!" at everything that one man does)?) The rules could potentially balance themselves out, and the books would possibly end up cheaper... And then GW could focus on making awesome models for every unit (There's no concievable reason that the Voidraven Bomber should have gone this long without a model, ESPECIALLY with the Flyer push and Death from the Skies). Cheaper books would mean we have more money to spend on models, and balanced rules would mean we're spending our money on the better looking models (again, looking at you, Mandrakes).

Who knows... it looks like GW is ramping up to sell itself, so we may get what we ask for sooner than we expect.

rigeld2 wrote:
an 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.

 Elemental wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
an 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.

Huh. No offence or rhetorical point-scoring intended, I just snipped the bit of the quote that I wasn't replying to, as I often do when quoting, to avoid pyramids or piles of irrelevant text (a quick look at my post history should confirm this). You can believe differently if you prefer.

And by doing so completely changed the meaning of my post. And, more importantly IMO, if you'd have read the sentence you snipped your post would've been answered before you typed it.

Also, if you're going to snip please try and leave quote blocks correct for those who quote you.

 heartserenade wrote:

Moaning =/= the game is not balanced. There will always be moaning, but that does not mean that the game is imbalanced. But that does not mean you should ignore the moaning either: sometimes the criticism is legit. But once again, let me point you out to Infinity and you're free to check the official forums. The main consensus is that there's no overpowered tactic and overpowered faction, nor overpowered list. The people who cry that certain parts of the game is imbalanced haven't played it much, therefore they still haven't learned how to counter certain tactics. Infinity is a very unforgiving rules set that can punish you a lot for making tactical errors. And while there are some criticisms about the wording/translation of the rules (which to be fair does not come up in a game 99% of the time), I've never seen anyone who played it for a time criticize it for imbalance so far. Thus the saying "it's not your list, it's YOU!" Some people feel a bit off by that statement, but it has a certain amount of truth in it: Infinity is more about how you use the tools you bring and not about the tools that you bring.

It's worth mentioning that a lot of Infinity's inherent balance comes from the fact that every faction and every unit have the safeguards in place to deal with every situation. First and foremost, every single armed unit has the capacity to deal respectable damage to every other unit. So even though a specific (and overspecialized) loadout may put you at a disadvantage against a certain force, even with the most basic weaponry, you can still actually fight back. Second, every faction has access to essentially the same tools as every other faction, the main difference being how each faction uses these tools.

Granted, this specific form of balance may not work with 40k's larger army based scale, but the idea of making sure that every army has the tools in place to at least deal with every threat should not be something difficult to understand or achieve.

Matney X wrote:
Just to get a few talking points in, here are my thoughts from the last 8 pages. I've spoilered my responses just to save space.

 warboss wrote:
If you haven't already, you need to start playing Palladium RPGs. You'll find them to be the coolest most exciting few hours you're capable of having by your own definition. I personally find them to be a poster child for why games need to be mechanically sound before adding in the "cool" stuff.

Spoiler:

Really? REALLY? There is ZERO balance in the Palladium systems. Every Rifts book tries to one-up the last one, to the point that the maker had to APOLOGIZE for how broken the South America (and I believe Australia?) book was, and that no one should play with it. Not to mention you will spend literal hours creating a single character -- that's ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, I love the worlds Palladium has created (Nightbane is probably my favorite setting, barre none), but there's a reason people are constantly trying to rewrite the rules to fit the d20 system. (I think I've seen three major attempts since WotC released the d20 OGL.)

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. MTG has completely clear rules, and any possible rule question can be answered by simply looking up the answer in the rules (and if it can't be, it will be fixed in the next revision). And yet somehow MTG is still incredibly popular with casual players, including casual players who have no problems at all coming up with house rules for new and interesting ways of playing the game. The clarity of the rules doesn't in any way diminish their enjoyment of the game, it just means that they can focus on playing the game instead of arguing about what the rules should be.

Spoiler:

This and this again. MTGs rules are not only clear, but they hardly ever change -- A player that started in the 90s, and stopped in the 90s, can pick up a new deck and learn the new rules (for their own deck, at least) in one or two games. A 40k player that stopped in the 90s has to completely learn the rules to the game again, plus the rules for their army. Yes, [most of]their models are still playable (which isn't the case with 90s MTG cards), but how effective they are is another matter.

Conversely, MTG is a horrible thing to cite in terms of game balance. There's a reason certain cards have been completely banned from tournaments, even where older cards are allowed.

 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.

Spoiler:

Paraphrasing wrote:"A balanced game isn't fun..." "If a player just wants to have fun, he shouldn't be playing with the 'big boys' who want to compete... Or he should ask the competitive players to dumb down their armies..." "Some armies are just meant to suck more than others..."

I know my post-count is highly inferior to all of you, but lemme just ask this: are you arguing that imbalance is fun, competitive is superior to casual, some armies simply suck, etc. because you're a huge fan of curbstomping your opponent by abusing loopholes?

In my perfect world, 40k would be balanced well enough that any unit choice isn't automatically a handicap (I'm looking at you DE Mandrakes, DA Vets..), and no unit is so broken that more than one of them is almost an auto win (CSM Heldrakes, DE Venoms...). A little imbalance is good, but not to the point that it has been. There is no logical reason that 4e codexes should be so inferior to 6e codexes, or vice versa. A new codex shouldn't nerf your army, nor should it give you a new unfair advantage.

I think GW working with a second company, where the second company deals with rules-only (with respect to fluff), is an ideal situation. Hell, just having a rules-only division would be an improvement (WHY do people who write the fluff also get to write the rules? So Matt Ward can [insert time where Matt Ward did something ridiculous with the fluff that he then tried to justify in the rules, or he wrote into the fluff something that's strictly impossible ruleswise]? Why is there only one person writing the rules in the first place (Okay, I know there are multiple authors, but at GW it seems to be more of a one-man-show with a bunch of smaller homies behind him shouting, "YEAH!" at everything that one man does)?) The rules could potentially balance themselves out, and the books would possibly end up cheaper... And then GW could focus on making awesome models for every unit (There's no concievable reason that the Voidraven Bomber should have gone this long without a model, ESPECIALLY with the Flyer push and Death from the Skies). Cheaper books would mean we have more money to spend on models, and balanced rules would mean we're spending our money on the better looking models (again, looking at you, Mandrakes).

Who knows... it looks like GW is ramping up to sell itself, so we may get what we ask for sooner than we expect.

There ISN'T one person writing the rules. The writing credits go to the person writing the fluff. He is also collating and describing the rules, but they are worked on by the whole design team.I don't want cheaper books. I like the nice, hardcover presentation. I agree about the voidraven though. Chapterhouse, get on it!

The new books are nice, but I can get the same quality book for an RPG for considerably less money. The Pathfinder core rulebook, which clocks in at 516 pages, is only $34 bucks.

I stand corrected on the rules thing. I had assumed it was the same person who wrote the fluff, who then presented it to a small number of people to make sure "it works."

Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.

Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".

We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.

In an RPG, I agree that a more permissive system is good, but tabletop wargaming isn't an RPG. It's competitive, where certain players are more than willing to abuse loopholes and bad wording in their favor (yeah, that happens in RPGs, too, but in that case the GM can look across his coffee table and say, "Steve, you're being a dick," without a TO being called over to make an executive decision.)-- in tabletop wargaming, we need a well structured, less permissive, ruleset.

Matney X wrote:
I It's competitive

That my friend is a huge assumption. However, if you start with that assumption, your conclusion makes logical sense.

I'm starting to think that all this balance nonsense is more of a symptom of GW's "Hook Up" gaming culture or one off, pick-up games with relative strangers.


As an aside: You will note that 40K started with a GM.

I don't mean competitive as in tournaments, but competitive in the idea that you're versus whoever is across the table from you. Granted, you could probably run a single-player escalation campaign with lots of storytelling, with the GM running whatever needs to be ran.

Hell, if you really wanted, you could go and play the Fantasy Flight RPGs, which were actually made for that.

Early 40k may have used a GM, but this isn't early 40k. The game has moved in a completely different direction.

FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.

Matney X wrote:
FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.

40k is a bad rule-set to begin with. And it certainly would never work for an RPG.

 Easy E wrote:

Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".

See, my perspective is that with balanced systems, you're not forced to do that. I don't have to carefully negotiate with my opponent so that my army isn't "too good", I can simply play them. If you mean "makes sense" in terms of what should logically happen vs what the rules say should happen, that's a real minefield of subjectivity.

 Easy E wrote:
We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.

No, that's just a product of GW not being able to just say "You can / cannot play Forgeword stuff / these unusual lists without the approval of your opponent like you can stuff in the codexes." with sufficient clarity. Compare to Privateer's new theme lists from No Quarter which explicitly say "These are official rules, and 100% tournament legal.", and the historical scenarios that clearly say "These are not balanced for regular play, so you can't use these variant rules in regular games without your opponent's permission.". No such arguments there.

Also in my experience, the argument that balanced games lead to a less friendly experience is a complete and utter myth. If anything, I've had less friendly games back when I played 40K, when it gets bogged down with an argument about if you have line of sight, or what happens with a strange rules interaction where a case could be made for either side.

Matney X wrote:
I don't mean competitive as in tournaments, but competitive in the idea that you're versus whoever is across the table from you.

I'm not either. I assume that playing a game is a cooperative act. It takes two (or more) people to play game. If no chooses to play againt you, see what good your fancy list, armies, and models do you then?

Therefore, it is not a competitive siutation, but a cooperative situation. Both players are attempting to play a game for the purpose of enjoyment. Enjoyment various between players.

 Easy E wrote:
Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.

Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".

We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.

So you'd rather have a loose ruleset where games can be halted because of stupid rules issues than a tightly-written and balanced ruleset that has solved all of the rule interaction issues?

Matney X wrote:
FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.

Well, I need only point to PPs Iron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40k RPG based on the TT rules.

I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.

 ProtoClone wrote:

Matney X wrote:
FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.

Well, I need only point to PPs Iron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40k RPG based on the TT rules.

I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.

How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

Matney X wrote:
FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.

Well, I need only point to PPs Iron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40k RPG based on the TT rules.

I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.

How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?

For me it loses validity when it feels like another miniswargame. I liked some aspects of the game, specifically the character creation, but after that it felt like one flimsy excuse after another to move on to the next combat scenerio.

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

Matney X wrote:
FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.

Well, I need only point to PPs Iron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40k RPG based on the TT rules.

I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.

How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?

For me it loses validity when it feels like another miniswargame. I liked some aspects of the game, specifically the character creation, but after that it felt like one flimsy excuse after another to move on to the next combat scenerio.

That could be your particular GM. I played a session of DnD 4th edition that lasted for 8 hours, it was just moving between encounters, no RP. That's not the fault of the game, just the GM.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

Matney X wrote:
FF's rpgs use a different system... I don't know why they didn't just expand on 40k's system., except maybe for... Wait for it... Licensing issues.

Well, I need only point to PPs Iron KIngdoms Full Metal Fantasy as to why we shouldn't have a 40k RPG based on the TT rules.

I like WarmaHordes, but I just do not like IKRPG. I would have liked to have seen a game that was more about being an RPG and not another miniswargame like Inquisitor.

How does a combat system reflecting the TT version take away from its validity as an RPG?

For me it loses validity when it feels like another miniswargame. I liked some aspects of the game, specifically the character creation, but after that it felt like one flimsy excuse after another to move on to the next combat scenerio.

That could be your particular GM. I played a session of DnD 4th edition that lasted for 8 hours, it was just moving between encounters, no RP. That's not the fault of the game, just the GM.

Normally I would agree...but just reading through certain RPGs you see where it is going; Call of Cthulhu, for example, does not make combat a friendly option. I dare say IKRPG does not make role playing a friendly option.
Otherwise I will agree to disasgree to keep this from going off topic of the OP.

 ProtoClone wrote:
Normally I would agree...but just reading through certain RPGs you see where it is going; Call of Cthulhu, for example, does not make combat a friendly option. I dare say IKRPG does not make role playing a friendly option.
Otherwise I will agree to disasgree to keep this from going off topic of the OP.

http://privateerpressforums.com/forumdisplay.php?83-Play-by-Post-(PbP)

Judge for yourself, but I can't see any particular bias against roleplaying there.

 McNinja wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.

Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".

We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.

So you'd rather have a loose ruleset where games can be halted because of stupid rules issues than a tightly-written and balanced ruleset that has solved all of the rule interaction issues?

Since I have played enough war games and been around on planet Earth long enough, I know that a "tightly written and balanced rules set that solved all rule interactions issues" is a Unicorn. Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying.

I would prefer a system that encourages players to work with each other instead of against each other when dealing with the odd situations.

 Easy E wrote:

 McNinja wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Great, then we all agree that when we say "Balance" we understand that it is a moving target with no real "answer" that will satisfy everyone. Even the vaunted bar of balance; Warmachine has things people find more or less optimal.

Also, what do we "lose" with a more balanced suystem? I would argue that you lose the ability to look beyond the rules and decide with your oppoenent what makes sense to the game you are playing. Can you still do it? Sure, but the less "permissive" the rules system is perceived the less likely people are to allow for "permission".

We already have seen it in GW when they made "Forgeworld" optional and came up with Non-Tournament Legal lists such as the Undead Pirates. You can still find the threads where people go around and around about whether something is "legal" and playable. That is what the goal of balance "Uber Alles" brings, stupid legality arguments that turns gamer against gamer.

So you'd rather have a loose ruleset where games can be halted because of stupid rules issues than a tightly-written and balanced ruleset that has solved all of the rule interaction issues?

Since I have played enough war games and been around on planet Earth long enough, I know that a "tightly written and balanced rules set that solved all rule interactions issues" is a Unicorn. Yeah, that is exactly what I am saying.

I would prefer a system that encourages players to work with each other instead of against each other when dealing with the odd situations.

Indeed the perfect rules are non-existant, but all rules writers should be striving towards perfect rules.

I'd prefer a system where the rules are clearly defined and there are minimal odd situations to deal with, allowing players to focus on playing the game and having fun, rather than trying to agree on what's meant to happen next.

All game developers and gamer players expect the odd situation that falls out side the rules as written, to be resolved in a mutually agreed way.
NO one expects absolutely everything possible to be covered by the rules.
However, this idea is exploited to the extreme by lazy rules writers , who expect players just to dice off EVERY poorly defined rule /resolution system they write.

Eg in 20 years of playing Firefly, we had very few instances of a ODDBALL situation NOT covered by the rules .
The one I remember ,(because it was one of my games,)was low flying ground attack aircraft, flying through air burst artillery fire.

The rules for ground attack aircraft at all levels were perfectly clear.
The rules for artillery barrages of all types were perfectly clear.

Just the chance of ground attack aircraft being caught in an air burst artillery barrage was so slim, the rules simply did not include it.

Now compare this to the chance of normal weapon -target interaction in 40k, and the amount of ambiguity in the rules .

40k suffers from this because the rules are written in an exclusive way rather than an inclusive way.