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.

Funny thread. I agree that 40k is too complex without much depth.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
all i have seen in critisism is whinging about a hyper-literal interpritation of the rules being invalid (which is the fualt of the gamer, not the rules)

So you're just going to continue to ignore complaints I've made about things like how the IGOUGO turn structure sucks

That could work imo with proper overwatch, for example modified 2nd edition one. What do you think is the best systems btw?

 Peregrine wrote:
or how GW has no consistency in scale (having air strikes/artillery appropriate to a huge game along with nitpicking the details of power weapons like it's a 10-model skirmish game).

Isn't the artillery thing only with IG? I mean if that's so it would only take removing it from the board and give it to HQs to call to kill that scale thing, I don't think it's that big of an issue. Flyers yes they kill the suspension of disbelief a bit just like weapon ranges but I'm willing to sacrifice that for the added mobility on the field and yes, tactical depth they bring.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, hyper-literal interpretations are not the fault of the players. Other games manage to have rules that function exactly as intended no matter how literal you get, GW only fails to do the same because they're incompetent and/or lazy.

To be a devil's advocate, 36 months to release all the codieces for 40k and fantasy is not that much. They set the deadlines themselves obviously though, still that explains a bit imo.

 Kojiro wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Nearly all of the latter are a result of the sheer complexity of 40k; each new special rule will, by nessesity, interact with dozens of special rules (and the rules that they themselves interact with). Such complexity is bound to create bugs, how could it not? Certainly when i compare 40k to video game systems, it comes out on top.

Just to put this to bed, last I checked (and I'm happy to provide the spreadsheet if you'd like proof), prior to Convergence, Warmachine/Hordes had approximately eight hundred and thirty *unit rules. This does not include USR like Pathfinder, Tough etc. Nor does it include the literally hundreds of Feats or spells. Now I don't know how many special rules 40K has but I'm quite sure it's significantly less.

*Yes, I totally get why people say the game is too complex for their taste but that is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that over a thousand unique game effects interact with barely a handful unresolved issues.

Since it's obvious that the other people in this discussion simply can't understand the abstract notion I'm trying to discuss, do *you* have the ability to explain how a game system can have hundreds of special rules,all involving interaction with other special rules, without creating balls-ups? The total number of combinations of special rules is far in excess of the number that can reasonably be play-tested.

Since it's obvious that other people have brought up actual examples of games more complex than 40k (but for some weird reason, you choose to ignore) that has significantly less screw ups than 40k, I don't know if you're going to acknowledge any example he can give you even if it wore a tutu and danced the Macarena in front of your future grandchildren.

 heartserenade wrote:
Since it's obvious that other people have brought up actual examples of games more complex than 40k (but for some weird reason, you choose to ignore) that has significantly less screw ups than 40k, I don't know if you're going to acknowledge any example he can give you even if it wore a tutu and danced the Macarena in front of your future grandchildren.

If you can't be bothered to describe ideas rather than simply pointing at them, you probably shouldn't be engaging in conversation. Try to explain *why* things are the case, rather than simply "omg this thing is totally awesome". Try to articulate *why* you think the way you do.

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Since it's obvious that other people have brought up actual examples of games more complex than 40k (but for some weird reason, you choose to ignore) that has significantly less screw ups than 40k, I don't know if you're going to acknowledge any example he can give you even if it wore a tutu and danced the Macarena in front of your future grandchildren.

If you can't be bothered to describe ideas rather than simply pointing at them, you probably shouldn't be engaging in conversation. Try to explain *why* things are the case, rather than simply "omg this thing is totally awesome". Try to articulate *why* you think the way you do.

We've all done that, many times. You simply seem to ignore those posts.

I like Dystopian Wars because it doesn't use a you-go-I-go system so I don't end up sitting there for half an hour while I wait for my turn. I also think the damage mechanics work brilliantly for that scale, the idea that a full strength dreadnought can fire at 5 different targets and sink 4 of them (as opposed to 40k where they can only shoot 1 target for some stupid reason), but a badly hurt dreadnought is practically crippled (again compared to 40k where in my experience killed outright was far more common for a vehicle than all weapons destroyed + immobilized = killed).

I like that X wing rules are all of 30 pages of a pamphlet and yet I haven't come across a scenario where the rules haven't clearly explained how X interacts with Y.



As Heartserenade said, we have given examples, all we have got in reply is "Give an example" and "That example is invalid because I personally haven't had that problem".

xruslanx wrote:

Since it's obvious that the other people in this discussion simply can't understand the abstract notion I'm trying to discuss, do *you* have the ability to explain how a game system can have hundreds of special rules,all involving interaction with other special rules, without creating balls-ups? The total number of combinations of special rules is far in excess of the number that can reasonably be play-tested.

We can understand perfectly, thank you. And as for me, I am quite willing and able to refute your points.

Is the notion you are trying to discuss 'is gw is perfect, and I am unwilling to hear any other opinions or counter points that disprove my assertion'.bdo you understand the points we've made? Do you accept them? Are you willing to entertain the possibility that people have made valid points, backed up with evidence and examples? Are you willing to take these points on board?

Both myself, and others have given examples of games with hundreds of special rules interacting without any issues. Again, Look at warmachine, and it's hundreds of spells, abilities, feats, and special rules, all co-existing without any balls up.

Why?

Privateer press have the attitude of producing clear, watertight rules with zero ambiguity. Everything is defined, everything is nailed down. There are no grey areas. When pp introduce new units (and each expansion of the game has brought more, from cavalry, battle engines, ciollossals, gargantuans etc) they've been able to seamlessly integrate them into a ore existing game with no balls up, as you pit it.

And trust me, warmachine/hordes has vastly more complexity and depth than gw's offerings, and they can pull it off. You'd know all about it if you played other games.

So as for this 'abstract' discussion, I fully understand it, and have played my part. Now it's your turn. Are you willing to accept my points? Or will you ignore them and pretend they don't exist, yet again.

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Since it's obvious that the other people in this discussion simply can't understand the abstract notion I'm trying to discuss, do *you* have the ability to explain how a game system can have hundreds of special rules,all involving interaction with other special rules, without creating balls-ups? The total number of combinations of special rules is far in excess of the number that can reasonably be play-tested.

We can understand perfectly, thank you. And as for me, I am quite willing and able to refute your points.

Is the notion you are trying to discuss 'is gw is perfect, and I am unwilling to hear any other opinions or counter points that disprove my assertion'.bdo you understand the points we've made? Do you accept them? Are you willing to entertain the possibility that people have made valid points, backed up with evidence and examples? Are you willing to take these points on board?

Both myself, and others have given examples of games with hundreds of special rules interacting without any issues. Again, Look at warmachine, and it's hundreds of spells, abilities, feats, and special rules, all co-existing without any balls up.

Why?

Privateer press have the attitude of producing clear, watertight rules with zero ambiguity. Everything is defined, everything is nailed down. There are no grey areas. When pp introduce new units (and each expansion of the game has brought more, from cavalry, battle engines, ciollossals, gargantuans etc) they've been able to seamlessly integrate them into a ore existing game with no balls up, as you pit it.

And trust me, warmachine/hordes has vastly more complexity and depth than gw's offerings, and they can pull it off. You'd know all about it if you played other games.

So as for this 'abstract' discussion, I fully understand it, and have played my part. Now it's your turn. Are you willing to accept my points? Or will you ignore them and pretend they don't exist, yet again.

Your "point" is that somethign I have no experience in is better than 40k. If you can't, or refuse to explain why, then demanding that I accept it is simply grandstanding. Offer me rational explanations for *why* these things are better, not just anecdotes.

xruslanx wrote:
Your "point" is that somethign I have no experience in is better than 40k. If you can't, or refuse to explain why, then demanding that I accept it is simply grandstanding. Offer me rational explanations for *why* these things are better, not just anecdotes.

Again, we're doing that, you're ignoring us..

xruslanx wrote:
Since it's obvious that the other people in this discussion simply can't understand the abstract notion I'm trying to discuss, do *you* have the ability to explain how a game system can have hundreds of special rules,all involving interaction with other special rules, without creating balls-ups? The total number of combinations of special rules is far in excess of the number that can reasonably be play-tested.

Sure. The system is called Warmachine.

Now, how did they do it? Well Privateer Press- who have less experience, less staff, less money and less overall resources- decided to, prior to the release of Warmachine MK2, do what they called the 'Field Test'. The Field Test allowed anyone who desired to to create an account and recieve all the Warmachine/Hordes rules, unit stats and costs in PDF form. Free, no strings attached. And it allowed anyone who cared to to submit feedback directly to PP. They even updated the FT while it was running. PP got more or less it's entire player base to check over their work for everything from typos to broken combos and general balance. And the player base was thrilled. It was fantastic to be able to submit feedback and get responses. I mean first up it was entirely optional and secondly you didn't have to submit feedback at all. You could just get all the rules for free if you wanted.

THAT is how you make a system with hundreds of special rules run smoothly. GW has orders of magnitute more resources than PP and a fraction of the special rules. There is no good reason they can't or shouldn't be expected to do as well as PP.

 Kojiro wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Since it's obvious that the other people in this discussion simply can't understand the abstract notion I'm trying to discuss, do *you* have the ability to explain how a game system can have hundreds of special rules,all involving interaction with other special rules, without creating balls-ups? The total number of combinations of special rules is far in excess of the number that can reasonably be play-tested.

Sure. The system is called Warmachine.

Now, how did they do it? Well Privateer Press- who have less experience, less staff, less money and less overall resources- decided to, prior to the release of Warmachine MK2, do what they called the 'Field Test'. The Field Test allowed anyone who desired to to create an account and recieve all the Warmachine/Hordes rules, unit stats and costs in PDF form. Free, no strings attached. And it allowed anyone who cared to to submit feedback directly to PP. They even updated the FT while it was running. PP got more or less it's entire player base to check over their work for everything from typos to broken combos and general balance. And the player base was thrilled. It was fantastic to be able to submit feedback and get responses. I mean first up it was entirely optional and secondly you didn't have to submit feedback at all. You could just get all the rules for free if you wanted.

THAT is how you make a system with hundreds of special rules run smoothly. GW has orders of magnitute more resources than PP and a fraction of the special rules. There is no good reason they can't or shouldn't be expected to do as well as PP.

That sounds like a pretty poor idea. I would rather funds went into creating codexes as something other than a dispassionate list of rules, but each to their own. I also think the notion of "balance" is directly contrary to fluff and enjoyment, but I can see the appeal of fixing loopholes in such a way.

So I'm pretty sure I'm on your ignore list now but what you're saying there is that there is literally no point arguing with you, you've made up your mind, you don't care that it has problems, you simply refuse to give any thought to the idea that 40k is not a good game no matter what we say?

xruslanx wrote:

I also think the notion of "balance" is directly contrary to fluff and enjoyment

This is quite possibly the single stupidest thing you've said so far.

You have yet to actually respond to any of the points made against the 40k rule set, and refuse to back any of the points you make.

I challenge you to elaborate on the gem I quoted above.

Explain to us why and how balance could ever be contradictory to fluff and enjoyment. Convince us. Stop dodging points and airily dismissing valid criticisms because you simply don't like them.

I want you to defend this statement, which is quite possibly the single most flawed thing you've said in this thread.

xruslanx wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Since it's obvious that the other people in this discussion simply can't understand the abstract notion I'm trying to discuss, do *you* have the ability to explain how a game system can have hundreds of special rules,all involving interaction with other special rules, without creating balls-ups? The total number of combinations of special rules is far in excess of the number that can reasonably be play-tested.

Sure. The system is called Warmachine.

Now, how did they do it? Well Privateer Press- who have less experience, less staff, less money and less overall resources- decided to, prior to the release of Warmachine MK2, do what they called the 'Field Test'. The Field Test allowed anyone who desired to to create an account and recieve all the Warmachine/Hordes rules, unit stats and costs in PDF form. Free, no strings attached. And it allowed anyone who cared to to submit feedback directly to PP. They even updated the FT while it was running. PP got more or less it's entire player base to check over their work for everything from typos to broken combos and general balance. And the player base was thrilled. It was fantastic to be able to submit feedback and get responses. I mean first up it was entirely optional and secondly you didn't have to submit feedback at all. You could just get all the rules for free if you wanted.

THAT is how you make a system with hundreds of special rules run smoothly. GW has orders of magnitute more resources than PP and a fraction of the special rules. There is no good reason they can't or shouldn't be expected to do as well as PP.

That sounds like a pretty poor idea. I would rather funds went into creating codexes as something other than a dispassionate list of rules, but each to their own. I also think the notion of "balance" is directly contrary to fluff and enjoyment, but I can see the appeal of fixing loopholes in such a way.

but it's not created as a dispassionate list of rules, it's created carefully to incorperate fluff and enjoyment in the gameplay. war beasts can throw and push, and can trample though and over ranks of infantry.
Warcasters and warlocks need to be carefully balanced to utilise there potency and keep them safe, and you build your war bands around there Strengths and weaknesses.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

I also think the notion of "balance" is directly contrary to fluff and enjoyment

This is quite possibly the single stupidest thing you've said so far.

You have yet to actually respond to any of the points made against the 40k rule set, and refuse to back any of the points you make.

I challenge you to elaborate on the gem I quoted above.

Explain to us why and how balance could ever be contradictory to fluff and enjoyment. Convince us. Stop dodging points and airily dismissing valid criticisms because you simply don't like them.

I want you to defend this statement, which is quite possibly the single most flawed thing you've said in this thread.

I'm not "dodging" anything. Balance is clearly contradictory to fluff because it makes everything stale. Just look at the most perfectly balanced game - chess. Do you hear people rave about how awesome the white bishops are? Or the awesome fluffy rules that black pawns get? Nope, because they have none.

Contrast this to 40k, where a unit can be made cool or fluffy without having to castrate it, and you actually get to get excited about the rules. I bet you were one of those people complaining about the new Space Marine doctrines, because some are clearly more powerful than others. For shame GW, letting people play fluffy armies rather than tayloring your games under the assumption that everyone who plays it is a munchkin!

No, GW know that people *enjoy* playing their games, and that a ruleset is more than its binary data. Hence why nerds like me got excited at the new marine chapters, or why the Demon codex is badass. Of course *some* semblance of balance has to be in the game or it would be unplayable, but that doesn't mean everything has to be distilled down and quantified. Such a "perfect" game would certainly not be as popular as 40k is at the moment.

Except we've explained before many times that several other games have as many, if not more, or at least comparable amounts of unique units and rules, all of which are different, fluffy, special, and play in a unique manner.

You seem to believe that if GW spent more time balancing the game, it would automatically turn into some boring game where two armies faced off against eachother with identical rules. I want you to imagine that balance isn't necessarily predicated on how many rules a unit has. Its several combinations that include its availability, its internal competition, its price, and its capability in the role its designed to accomplish. You can balance these things with even a little more effort. Again, people making games out of their basement have made better, more balanced rules with as much variety as 40k.

Hell, look at the IG codex. The FA slot exists solely to load up on Vendettas. You can actually make the game more interesting by balancing the vendetta appropriately so that the other options are more viable. Now, you have the same number of units with the same general rules, but they're all worthy choices! Now a Guard player can bring a better variety of units and still play competitively. This has the secondary side effect of reducing the gap between 'fluff' players and 'competitive' players.

This isn't a hard concept to understand, and I feel you'd have a very, very different opinion if you actually played other games. 40k isn't some magical game where its the only one with unique units that all behave differently. Many other games do precisely that, and even more so, yet are even more balanced. These games also adhere to their own fluff better than GW, and all the armies play very differently while being balanced.

So no, balance is in no way contrary to fluff and enjoyment. Many other games prove this to be false, and even tweaking 40k to be more balanced would both bring units into being more accurately adherent to the fluff and make the game more enjoyable by all by reducing the gap between fluff players and competitive players. Every army would be viable, and every build new and interesting.

You haven't actually replied to me. Do you think that everything in a game should be quantitative?

xruslanx wrote:
You haven't actually replied to me. Do you think that everything in a game should be quantitative?

What?

First of all, I did reply to you. Don't know how you're getting that.

Second, what do you mean by quantitative? I'm aware of the definition, but in this context I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Do you mean balanced?

...no, I mean quantitative. Should everything in a ruleset be numerical and defined only in terms of its numerical boundries?

xruslanx wrote:
...no, I mean quantitative. Should everything in a ruleset be numerical and defined only in terms of its numerical boundries?

There's no black and white answer to this. Yes, a unit should be based at least in part by its expected damage and survivability and points cost, being the numerical boundaries. No, it shouldn't be entirely based on just those numbers, as other factors are required, as I mentioned in my post above this.

So...I think you be asking if everything should be balanced. At the very least actively attempt to make it more balanced than 40k, which as many of continue to point out, has been done by several games.

xruslanx wrote:


I'm not "dodging" anything. Balance is clearly contradictory to fluff because it makes everything stale. Just look at the most perfectly balanced game - chess. Do you hear people rave about how awesome the white bishops are? Or the awesome fluffy rules that black pawns get? Nope, because they have none.
.

And you're reference for this doozy that balance comes at the expense of fluff is a game for which no fluff has ever been written.

Please - try infinity or warmachine. Both are extremely well balanced games with excellent fluff, and excellent fluff represented on the tabletop. I've actually given examples of this earlier in The thread.

xruslanx wrote:


Contrast this to 40k, where a unit can be made cool or fluffy without having to castrate it, and you actually get to get excited about the rules. I bet you were one of those people complaining about the new Space Marine doctrines, because some are clearly more powerful than others. For shame GW, letting people play fluffy armies rather than tayloring your games under the assumption that everyone who plays it is a munchkin!.

I actually demonstrated earlier in this thread how other games also accomplished cool units both in fluff that people could get excited over on the table top. This isn't a gw thing.

xruslanx wrote:

! No, GW know that people *enjoy* playing their games, and that a ruleset is more than its binary data. Hence why nerds like me got excited at the new marine chapters, or why the Demon codex is badass. Of course *some* semblance of balance has to be in the game or it would be unplayable, but that doesn't mean everything has to be distilled down and quantified. Such a "perfect" game would certainly not be as popular as 40k is at the moment.

People get excited with new things in warmachine as well, and they don't necessarily break the game.

I'm sorry, this is not constructive or helpful in any way and people will probably get mad at me for it, but I can't resist.

This is the perfect example of the saying "playing chess with a pigeon". Paraphrased to fit our current situation:

"Debating with xruslanx on the topic of GW rules is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Doesn't matter if you bring up well-thought of arguments backed up with evidence and example. He'll just ignore your explanation, or "refute" it (without actually refuting it), and claim knowledge of something he admits he's not really well-versed about. He'll ask for evidence and logical arguments, and when given to him he'll handwave it as "irrelevant". And when asked for HIS evidence to back his claims, he'll say that he has no evidence (BUT IT MAKES SENSE TO HIM) and nothing can be proved objectively (now that doesn't make any sense). It's like trying to explain to a blind person what the color blue is.

I personally think this thread needs to die. OP is not really interested in discussion, or at least, in smart discussion where one does not just dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit his worldview. No one's gonna convince him, and i'm sure as hell his "arguments" won't convince anyone. So let him believe what he wants to believe, because the funny thing about truth is that it doesn't cease to be true whether you disbelieve in it or not.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
...no, I mean quantitative. Should everything in a ruleset be numerical and defined only in terms of its numerical boundries?

There's no black and white answer to this. Yes, a unit should be based at least in part by its expected damage and survivability and points cost, being the numerical boundaries. No, it shouldn't be entirely based on just those numbers, as other factors are required, as I mentioned in my post above this.

So...I think you be asking if everything should be balanced. At the very least actively attempt to make it more balanced than 40k, which as many of continue to point out, has been done by several games.

No one would disagree that point costs could be tweaked here and there. That's no reason to strip fluff and flavour from the rules, and I see no connection between those two ideas.

Or are you literally just saying "40k is crap because I've played more games than you". Because in terms of what *you* have said to *me*, that's what it seems to boil down to.

Just out of curiosity xruslanx, do you understand the concept of a points system? In that something can be extremely powerful, but rightfully costs a large amount of points? Do you understand that units can be too cheap for their power (Vendettas, Helldrakes) and others can be too expensive (Flash Gitz, stormtroopers)?

Do you therefore understand that balancing a game comes down to getting those points values correct? A unit can be SUPER AWESOME and something to be REALLY EXCITED over and not because it's stupidly overpowered for how many points it costs, but because it's really cool and you can't wait to use it.

Do you think that the 6th ed codex's so far have been fairly well balanced (relative to 5th ed codexes)?

xruslanx wrote:

That's no reason to strip fluff and flavour from the rules, and I see no connection between those two ideas.

And nowhere have I said you had to do that. What I'm suggesting is to add more balance which would actually *add* flavour.

Or are you literally just saying "40k is crap because I've played more games than you". Because in terms of what *you* have said to *me*, that's what it seems to boil down to.

No, I'm saying 40k could be a lot better, and you'd understand all the points we're making a lot more if you played more games.

Right now, you have absolutely no idea what else is out there. You have nothing to compare to. You just have 40k, which is fine, but don't talk like you even have a clue about how other games have created fluffier, more exciting, more unique and interesting, and better balanced units.

 Daedleh wrote:
Just out of curiosity xruslanx, do you understand the concept of a points system? In that something can be extremely powerful, but rightfully costs a large amount of points? Do you understand that units can be too cheap for their power (Vendettas, Helldrakes) and others can be too expensive (Flash Gitz, stormtroopers)?

Do you therefore understand that balancing a game comes down to getting those points values correct? A unit can be SUPER AWESOME and something to be REALLY EXCITED over and not because it's stupidly overpowered for how many points it costs, but because it's really cool and you can't wait to use it.

Do you think that the 6th ed codex's so far have been fairly well balanced (relative to 5th ed codexes)?

Yes but I also understand that...if you read my posts above you'll find that what I find so objectionable is the notion that *everything* can be finely costed. We all know there are units in 40k that are over or under costed, why that means that all of 40k is a useless unplayable mess, I don't know.

A degree of imbalance is inherant in a game as complex as 40k. Take a meltagun, usually these cost 10 points, which on a tactical or infantry squad might be fair. But then, they cost the same amount on a squad that can deep-strike...deep striking improves a melta's efficiency by (roughly) two-fold, so that melta gun just got a lot more offensive for a lot less than the price. And is it only one meltagun? One meltagun on an assault squad is one thing, a squad full of melta guns with a high BS is quite another, yet still they cost the same. And a unit could have an ability that gave it more accurate deep-striking, increasing the efficiency of the meltagun even more.And they could have a special rule or ally that improved it even more...yet it's the same old melta gun, same point value.

That level of complexity is imbued in every single wargear, every special rule, every unit entry. In things like psyker powers and special rules especially, perfect balance is actually impossible, due to the huge scope of outcomes that could arise from said rules/powers...but I happen to think that most of these are the more fun, but in a "perfectly balanced" system they simply wouldn't exist. Hence why fun and perfect balance are mutually exclusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

That's no reason to strip fluff and flavour from the rules, and I see no connection between those two ideas.

And nowhere have I said you had to do that. What I'm suggesting is to add more balance which would actually *add* flavour.

Or are you literally just saying "40k is crap because I've played more games than you". Because in terms of what *you* have said to *me*, that's what it seems to boil down to.

No, I'm saying 40k could be a lot better, and you'd understand all the points we're making a lot more if you played more games.

Right now, you have absolutely no idea what else is out there. You have nothing to compare to. You just have 40k, which is fine, but don't talk like you even have a clue about how other games have created fluffier, more exciting, more unique and interesting, and better balanced units.

Gee that's awesome. Clearly nothing further is going to come from this discussion - you refuse to express actual grievances with 40k beyond "Vendettas are undercosted", and I refuse to learn other game systems just because someone on the internet told me to.

xruslanx wrote:

I'm not "dodging" anything. Balance is clearly contradictory to fluff because it makes everything stale. Just look at the most perfectly balanced game - chess. Do you hear people rave about how awesome the white bishops are? Or the awesome fluffy rules that black pawns get? Nope, because they have none.

Seams pretty close to space marines vs space marine games...

Balance doesn't mean unit X for 100 point is exacly the same as unit Y for 100 point. A squad and a battle tank don't have to do the same "things" to cost the same number of points. Hell, even in chess a bishop and a knight cost 3 points, and their role is different!

Fluff rules are good, and without them, the game would be in fact uninteressting... but that don't mean they sould not be costed correctly.

I like to play a balanced game, which is for me a game where I have 50% of achieving the victory condition before I start to play. I may lose all the time, because I'm a bad player. That doen't change the fact that I should not shot me in the foot just because I wanted to take a "fluffy" unit.

edit to answer that:

xruslanx wrote:

A degree of imbalance is inherant in a game as complex as 40k. Take a meltagun, usually these cost 10 points, which on a tactical or infantry squad might be fair. But then, they cost the same amount on a squad that can deep-strike...deep striking improves a melta's efficiency by (roughly) two-fold, so that melta gun just got a lot more offensive for a lot less than the price. And is it only one meltagun? One meltagun on an assault squad is one thing, a squad full of melta guns with a high BS is quite another, yet still they cost the same. And a unit could have an ability that gave it more accurate deep-striking, increasing the efficiency of the meltagun even more.And they could have a special rule or ally that improved it even more...yet it's the same old melta gun, same point value.

And what if a melta gun was costed differently depending on the unit that takes it? Would this break the game?

xruslanx wrote:

Yes but I also understand that...if you read my posts above you'll find that what I find so objectionable is the notion that *everything* can be finely costed. We all know there are units in 40k that are over or under costed, why that means that all of 40k is a useless unplayable mess, I don't know.

A degree of imbalance is inherant in a game as complex as 40k. Take a meltagun, usually these cost 10 points, which on a tactical or infantry squad might be fair. But then, they cost the same amount on a squad that can deep-strike...deep striking improves a melta's efficiency by (roughly) two-fold, so that melta gun just got a lot more offensive for a lot less than the price. And is it only one meltagun? One meltagun on an assault squad is one thing, a squad full of melta guns with a high BS is quite another, yet still they cost the same. And a unit could have an ability that gave it more accurate deep-striking, increasing the efficiency of the meltagun even more.And they could have a special rule or ally that improved it even more...yet it's the same old melta gun, same point value.

That level of complexity is imbued in every single wargear, every special rule, every unit entry. In things like psyker powers and special rules especially, perfect balance is actually impossible, due to the huge scope of outcomes that could arise from said rules/powers...but I happen to think that most of these are the more fun, but in a "perfectly balanced" system they simply wouldn't exist. Hence why fun and perfect balance are mutually exclusive.

You are correct but once again you're ignoring/missing the point.

Do you, or do you not, accept that it is possible to balance things BETTER? Such as the 6th edition codexes versus 5th edition?

xruslanx wrote:

Gee that's awesome. Clearly nothing further is going to come from this discussion - you refuse to express actual grievances with 40k beyond "Vendettas are undercosted", and I refuse to learn other game systems just because someone on the internet told me to.

You know, except for the pages of other points people have brought up that you continue to ignore.

But sure, I've obviously refused to express my grievances, you win, I'm wrong. You clearly have a far better understanding of game balance and design than everyone in this thread, with you being the only one who can enlighten us.

Here's a thought, maybe you should try another game system to expand your horizons, try something new, and become better educated on the topic.

I'm done here.

 Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Yes but I also understand that...if you read my posts above you'll find that what I find so objectionable is the notion that *everything* can be finely costed. We all know there are units in 40k that are over or under costed, why that means that all of 40k is a useless unplayable mess, I don't know.

A degree of imbalance is inherant in a game as complex as 40k. Take a meltagun, usually these cost 10 points, which on a tactical or infantry squad might be fair. But then, they cost the same amount on a squad that can deep-strike...deep striking improves a melta's efficiency by (roughly) two-fold, so that melta gun just got a lot more offensive for a lot less than the price. And is it only one meltagun? One meltagun on an assault squad is one thing, a squad full of melta guns with a high BS is quite another, yet still they cost the same. And a unit could have an ability that gave it more accurate deep-striking, increasing the efficiency of the meltagun even more.And they could have a special rule or ally that improved it even more...yet it's the same old melta gun, same point value.

That level of complexity is imbued in every single wargear, every special rule, every unit entry. In things like psyker powers and special rules especially, perfect balance is actually impossible, due to the huge scope of outcomes that could arise from said rules/powers...but I happen to think that most of these are the more fun, but in a "perfectly balanced" system they simply wouldn't exist. Hence why fun and perfect balance are mutually exclusive.

You are correct but once again you're ignoring/missing the point.

Do you, or do you not, accept that it is possible to balance things BETTER? Such as the 6th edition codexes versus 5th edition?

Feel free to explain what "the point" is. If "the point" is that units should be costed better, then don't bother.