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.

xruslanx wrote:
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.

Well rooks are awesome, especialy black ones.

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.

Doesn't make sense. The only plausible reason GW makes the game not balanced on purpose I see is to sell models, like with Carnifex fiasco when everybody and their dog had one and it had to be nerfed. Other than that you can say GW tries to balance their game which is evident looking at 6th edition codieces power level and more randomness everywhere that is a known poor man's way to balance games. That they fail is because they have too little time, don't give a crap, are not good enough or maybe because it's a huge game with many factions and really is hard to balance, can't say. It's not "for fun", mr Cruddace said in an interview they playtest and invite renowned tourney players to help.

Also you can have balance and all the fun, enjoyment and craziness in the world, those are not contradictory - it will just take more work with dozen factions and hundred USR than with chess, you can put Tzeenth itself on the table just give him adequate point cost. Not talking about perfect balance ofc as that is imposssible but something much better than GW has is surely doable.

 Blacksails wrote:

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.

Clearly you only need to play one game to be an expert in game theory and balance.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
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.

Well rooks are awesome, especialy black ones.

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.

Doesn't make sense. The only plausible reason GW makes the game not balanced on purpose I see is to sell models, like with Carnifex fiasco when everybody and their dog had one and it had to be nerfed. Other than that you can say GW tries to balance their game which is evident looking at 6th edition codieces power level and more randomness everywhere that is a known poor man's way to balance games. That they fail is because they have too little time, don't give a crap, are not good enough or maybe because it's a huge game with many factions and really is hard to balance, can't say. It's not "for fun", mr Cruddace said in an interview they playtest and invite renowned tourney players to help.

Also you can have balance and all the fun, enjoyment and craziness in the world, those are not contradictory - it will just take more work with dozen factions and hundred USR than with chess, you can put Tzeenth itself on the table just give him adequate point cost. Not talking about perfect balance ofc as that is imposssible but something much better than GW has is surely doable.

Well I played 5th edition plenty, where the most powerful army by far was...grey knights. And the most powerful combination of them was Paladins+Draigo, the cheapest army in the game. I think the idea that GW makes things unbalanced to sell models has been pretty thoroughly discredited - in your example above, the carnifex got nerfed...and yet you ignore the dozens of units that *didn't* get nerfed in successive new releases. The new Space Marine codex made tactical squads - probably the most popular unit they sell, though I have no data behind that - even cheaper. They also made the Dark Angel and Chaos codexes, both of which allow you to make a decent army *very* cheaply using Dark Vengeance pieces.

And no, you couldn't give Tzeentch a valid points cost - it is philosophically invalid to claim that *everything* can have a point cost attached. At the very high and low end of the scale, point values become invalid. For example, you couldn't nerf conscripts and make them 2 points a model, and if you want to see how upper scale point values work, play a game of apocolypse with a baneblade.

 heartserenade wrote:

Clearly you only need to play one game to be an expert in game theory and balance.

I'm not an expert in game theory and balance, but I'm betting that very few decent games have been made by people who are

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

That was the point. Why shouldn't I bother?

Do you believe that the 6th edition codex's have better costed units than 5th edition?

 Daedleh wrote:

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

That was the point. Why shouldn't I bother?

Do you believe that the 6th edition codex's have better costed units than 5th edition?

Obviously. Grey Knights, Blood Angels and Vendettas plagued 5th edition. 6th seems alright so far, minus marine players whinging about helldrakes.

xruslanx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

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

That was the point. Why shouldn't I bother?

Do you believe that the 6th edition codex's have better costed units than 5th edition?

Obviously. Grey Knights, Blood Angels and Vendettas plagued 5th edition. 6th seems alright so far, minus marine players whinging about helldrakes.

Right, so you do realise that it is possible to balance things better than they were in the past? Note I did not say that it was possible to balance things perfectly, just better than they were.

 Daedleh wrote:

Right, so you do realise that it is possible to balance things better than they were in the past? Note I did not say that it was possible to balance things perfectly, just better than they were.

Of course. But I never said that 40k was perfect...and I don't think it could be. I also don't think that all problems can be resolved with points adjustments.

Chess isn't balanced at all...white always goes first so clearly the game is biased towards a white win percentage. I've played 40k quite a bit and in 40k the person who goes first has a pretty big advantage, so clearly in chess since one side always goes first it should completely unbalance the game

(seriously though, I do wonder what the win percentage of chess games by color are. I actually know nothing about that game, always seemed to be too much memorizing "the right patterns" for my taste).

xruslanx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

Right, so you do realise that it is possible to balance things better than they were in the past? Note I did not say that it was possible to balance things perfectly, just better than they were.

Of course. But I never said that 40k was perfect...and I don't think it could be. I also don't think that all problems can be resolved with points adjustments.

Right, so take it from those who play other games; other games are balanced better. No-one said perfectly, just better. They're so much better in fact that the minor problems with points are not enough to unbalance a game. Therefore, other games are better at balancing while 40k is extremely poor by comparison. Despite your worries and disbelief of it, they are still packed with character and same breadth of special rules that 40k is.

Edit; dementedwombat Wikipedia says that white has a slight edge over black and wins between 52 and 56% of the time.

 Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

Right, so you do realise that it is possible to balance things better than they were in the past? Note I did not say that it was possible to balance things perfectly, just better than they were.

Of course. But I never said that 40k was perfect...and I don't think it could be. I also don't think that all problems can be resolved with points adjustments.

Right, so take it from those who play other games; other games are balanced better. No-one said perfectly, just better. They're so much better in fact that the minor problems with points are not enough to unbalance a game. Therefore, other games are better at balancing while 40k is extremely poor by comparison. Despite your worries and disbelief of it, they are still packed with character and same breadth of special rules that 40k is.
.

Right but that's such a pathetic point that in my opinion it doesn't even need to be made. If someone told me that I could earn 0.5% more in a different job, that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd immediately change jobs.

I'll take your word that things are better costed in other, less complex game systems then. But I've never denied that 40k couldn't use a load of changes to point values.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Chess isn't balanced at all...white always goes first so clearly the game is biased towards a white win percentage. I've played 40k quite a bit and in 40k the person who goes first has a pretty big advantage, so clearly in chess since one side always goes first it should completely unbalance the game

(seriously though, I do wonder what the win percentage of chess games by color are. I actually know nothing about that game, always seemed to be too much memorizing "the right patterns" for my taste).

You can randomise starting colours in chess if you like.

xruslanx, I love how you seemingly ignored my post, so I'll post it again so you can ignore it again.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
xruslanx, I want you to take your BRB, and any codexs you have, and the FAQs from GW's website and answer every single question, just on the first page even, in the YMDC forum. Go on, I'll wait.

Oh wait, you can't because otherwise we wouldn't have all the mess that is in YMDC. Because those questions would already be answered otherwise in one of those sources. The fact that they are not is the problem I personally have with the 40k ruleset. I love 40k, I hate the rules. No, that's not quite right, I hate all the holes in the rules that GW says to just solve with a 4+ dice roll off.

You say these issues are just the players' fault or minor inconsistencies due to several rules interactions at once. I disagree. Why is it the fault of the players for arriving at a situation that the rules of a game simply fail to address or cover? That is a sign of poor rule design, not some fault of the players.

Feth it, you know what, just answer the questions from GW's latest and greatest, C:SM. Go here and answer all of those question, or tell everyone in that thread that it is their fault and not GW's that these questions even exist.

Yes, GW does occasionally FAQ things, but if you look at the list of actual questions asked compared to the list that GW actually answers, you'll have a much better understanding of why people in general take issue with GW's rules writing and design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This should NEVER happen in a game:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rules don't cover the situation.

Source

xruslanx wrote: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.

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!

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.

You are the only one I'm seeing saying this. No one, except you, has said anything about cutting down on a unit's fluff. No one, except you, has said anything about how balancing 40k will prevent you from having a good time or still "forging a narrative" as GW likes to put it. All I'm asking for is for the rules to be tighter. Feth, leave all the unit costs alone, leave all the fluff as it is now, just make it so there aren't unplayable/contradictory/broken rules in the game. People have suggested how GW could do this. Assuming they don't want to go the PP route and do open testing where they would give stuff away for free for fixing their rules, they could go the WotC route. In house game and rule testing not based on the roll of a 4+. They could actually spend the time designing said cool and fluffy rules to also make sure they interact with other rules properly, or even just with themselves, as well as make sure they are clearly worded so there can be no confusion. There is no reason GW couldn't do these things and the game still be fun, units still fluffy, etc. What is wrong with just getting the rules we currently have addressed and fixed so that they work? Why does this have to detract from your fun? Please answer why being able to have an answer to every single rules question that comes up is a bad thing? Have rules that 1. work and 2. are fun and 3. are fluffy is not impossible and they honestly could keep them how they are if they would just be that much better at either writing the rules in the first place or upon realizing poorly worded or otherwise broken rules have already been printed, to release more timely and numerous answers in their FAQs?

xruslanx wrote:

Right but that's such a pathetic point that in my opinion it doesn't even need to be made. If someone told me that I could earn 0.5% more in a different job, that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd immediately change jobs.

I'll take your word that things are better costed in other, less complex game systems then. But I've never denied that 40k couldn't use a load of changes to point values.

And now do you see why people are getting so frustrated with you? Even when you clearly admit that it is a possibility (if not likely, given the sheer volume of people telling you) that other games are better than 40k at something, you immediately dismiss it as insignificant.

And the other systems are every bit as complex as 40k. Again, has been demonstrated to you time and time again.

You're once again falling back on the "In my opinion: I don't care" excuse.

xruslanx wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
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.

Well rooks are awesome, especialy black ones.

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.

Doesn't make sense. The only plausible reason GW makes the game not balanced on purpose I see is to sell models, like with Carnifex fiasco when everybody and their dog had one and it had to be nerfed. Other than that you can say GW tries to balance their game which is evident looking at 6th edition codieces power level and more randomness everywhere that is a known poor man's way to balance games. That they fail is because they have too little time, don't give a crap, are not good enough or maybe because it's a huge game with many factions and really is hard to balance, can't say. It's not "for fun", mr Cruddace said in an interview they playtest and invite renowned tourney players to help.

Also you can have balance and all the fun, enjoyment and craziness in the world, those are not contradictory - it will just take more work with dozen factions and hundred USR than with chess, you can put Tzeenth itself on the table just give him adequate point cost. Not talking about perfect balance ofc as that is imposssible but something much better than GW has is surely doable.

Well I played 5th edition plenty, where the most powerful army by far was...grey knights. And the most powerful combination of them was Paladins+Draigo, the cheapest army in the game. I think the idea that GW makes things unbalanced to sell models has been pretty thoroughly discredited - in your example above, the carnifex got nerfed...and yet you ignore the dozens of units that *didn't* get nerfed in successive new releases. The new Space Marine codex made tactical squads - probably the most popular unit they sell, though I have no data behind that - even cheaper. They also made the Dark Angel and Chaos codexes, both of which allow you to make a decent army *very* cheaply using Dark Vengeance pieces.

I didn't say they do it, I said that it's the only plausible reason to not balance things I see. It doesn't have to be constant btw, just some little cash grab here or there and I still think Carnifex was a cashgrab, maybe Defiler in CSM 6th too. Can be wrong ofc, I generaly like mr Cruddace Tyranid codex and think it was written with more terrain on the table in mind that is generaly used.

xruslanx wrote:
And no, you couldn't give Tzeentch a valid points cost - it is philosophically invalid to claim that *everything* can have a point cost attached. At the very high and low end of the scale, point values become invalid. For example, you couldn't nerf conscripts and make them 2 points a model,

That depends on how you would define Tzeenth rules wise, if it was some extremly powerful but killable/ vanishable/ whatever form, you could. Infinite invicible know it all in his own domain, obviously not. Not really a weel defined example I admit

xruslanx wrote:
and if you want to see how upper scale point values work, play a game of apocolypse with a baneblade.

Did you just send me to play something to gain better understanding?

 Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Right but that's such a pathetic point that in my opinion it doesn't even need to be made. If someone told me that I could earn 0.5% more in a different job, that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd immediately change jobs.

I'll take your word that things are better costed in other, less complex game systems then. But I've never denied that 40k couldn't use a load of changes to point values.

And now do you see why people are getting so frustrated with you? Even when you clearly admit that it is a possibility (if not likely, given the sheer volume of people telling you) that other games are better than 40k at something, you immediately dismiss it as insignificant.

And the other systems are every bit as complex as 40k. Again, has been demonstrated to you time and time again.

You're once again falling back on the "In my opinion: I don't care" excuse.

Well no. But since I am *aware* of point discrepancies, or at least oddities, and yet I still enjoy 40k. Therefore, to me, it is insignifiant. You can't rationalise or persuade me to care about things that don't affect me.

Similarly I have the insight to recognise that for almost all units, the point inbalance is not as severe as many think. Vendettas got a bit less (but still very much so) overcosted with the spread of anti-air in the new codexes. Blood Angels got flat-out destroyed by sixth edition, and Grey Knights are no longer top dogs thanks to codex creep. You could argue that this imbalance creates a constantly shifting meta game which forces players to change their tactics and lists as new editions and books come out. But I don't think there's any point trying to convince you - or others - of any view other than "GW bad Mantic good" like the sheep in animal farm.

xruslanx wrote:
[
Right but that's such a pathetic point that in my opinion it doesn't even need to be made. If someone told me that I could earn 0.5% more in a different job, that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd immediately change jobs. .
.

You don't have to 'change your job' to use your analogy! but you can at least accept the facts that other jobs are out there, and that a lot of them pay more than yours. Yours isn't the only job, and insisting nothing else is out there, insisting no other jobs are as good as yours, or nothing else that's out there is worth your time, effort, or interest is downright silly.

xruslanx wrote:
[
I'll take your word that things are better costed in other, less complex game systems then. But I've never denied that 40k couldn't use a load of changes to point values.
.

Warmachine/hordes has vastly greater depth and complexity than 40k. And it's far more balanced.

Also, I'll make the point that it's more than just points values that make a game, and it's more than just adjusting points values that balance things. Other games manage to seamlessly integrate vast amounts of special rules and abilities, without any conflicts or issues (again, warmachine/hordes, magic, infinity etc)

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Did you just send me to play something to gain better understanding?

Oh hey, someone with half a brain!

Yes, I did. But unlike the people I challenged, I can use words in leui of observation - as the power of a unit increases, the point cost usually does so linearly - and yet, due to the model being at the upper end of the bell-curve, its power increases exponentially. Put simply, a baneblade works in apoc because its point cost is balanced against titans and apoc formations, yet it would not work in 40k because it is simply too powerful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
[
Right but that's such a pathetic point that in my opinion it doesn't even need to be made. If someone told me that I could earn 0.5% more in a different job, that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd immediately change jobs. .
.

You don't have to 'change your job' to use your analogy! but you can at least accept the facts that other jobs are out there, and that a lot of them pay more than yours. Yours isn't the only job, and insisting nothing else is out there, insisting no other jobs are as good as yours, or nothing else that's out there is worth your time, effort, or interest is downright silly.

xruslanx wrote:
[
I'll take your word that things are better costed in other, less complex game systems then. But I've never denied that 40k couldn't use a load of changes to point values.
.

Warmachine/hordes has vastly greater depth and complexity than 40k. And it's far more balanced.

Also, I'll make the point that it's more than just points values that make a game, and it's more than just adjusting points values that balance things. Other games manage to seamlessly integrate vast amounts of special rules and abilities, without any conflicts or issues (again, warmachine/hordes, magic, infinity etc)

So, gw sucks and everything else is awesome? Cheers for that.

I really don't see much good coming from future replies so, while you're free to reply to this (if you want), I probably won't reply back.

xruslanx wrote:

Well no. But since I am *aware* of point discrepancies, or at least oddities, and yet I still enjoy 40k. Therefore, to me, it is insignifiant. You can't rationalise or persuade me to care about things that don't affect me.

Similarly I have the insight to recognise that for almost all units, the point inbalance is not as severe as many think. Vendettas got a bit less (but still very much so) overcosted with the spread of anti-air in the new codexes. Blood Angels got flat-out destroyed by sixth edition, and Grey Knights are no longer top dogs thanks to codex creep. You could argue that this imbalance creates a constantly shifting meta game which forces players to change their tactics and lists as new editions and books come out. But I don't think there's any point trying to convince you - or others - of any view other than "GW bad Mantic good" like the sheep in animal farm.

Here is the crux of the problem - you think that the balance in 40k is good. It is not. It is terrible compared to other games. The sheer volume of people telling you this, and the consensus from people who do like 40k and play other games confirms it. You do not play other games and therefore have absolutely no qualifications to say that the balance in 40k is good. How many times do we have to say this?

And you're talking about others being sheep whilst blurting out the line that balance doesn't matter or that it somehow adds character to the game? I take it you also don't understand the concept of irony?

Edit: In fact you seem to like your job analogy. So here it is:
You are in a job that you enjoy. Sure, it has its problems that you acknowledge but you're fairly happy so you're not really willing to move on and not interested in looking for a new one. You see a lot of people saying negative things about working for your company, and often see responses to surveys about the company being fairly negative. You ask your ex-colleagues why they like other companies, and they say:
- We get paid about 50% better and get more benefits. (other game systems are cheaper than 40k and have better quality)
- Our bosses are nicer to us and are more appreciative of us. They reward us for our loyalty rather than treat us as slaves. (obvious)
- Our workplace rules and processes make much more sense. The rules in your company are far too complex and often contradict each other (the rules in 40k are more complex than its competitors and contradict each other too much)
- When the workplace is making changes, they collect feedback from their employees to make sure that everyone's happy while yours just makes changes and tells people to leave if they don't like it. (crowdsourcing and open beta testing)
- The company is much fairer to all of its employees and treats them equally. At your workplace there are huge pay discrepancies. (points values)

Note that you've never worked for anywhere else. You don't know what it's like working for other companies and are only going by what the people who have worked at both your company and other companies are saying. Instead of listening to what they're saying, because they have more experience than you, you're just ignoring them and saying they're wrong. When they do point out something absolutely and utterly undeniable (they give you a specific example of changes brought on by feedback), you either ignore it or dismiss it as "insignificant in my opinion".

 Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Well no. But since I am *aware* of point discrepancies, or at least oddities, and yet I still enjoy 40k. Therefore, to me, it is insignifiant. You can't rationalise or persuade me to care about things that don't affect me.

Similarly I have the insight to recognise that for almost all units, the point inbalance is not as severe as many think. Vendettas got a bit less (but still very much so) overcosted with the spread of anti-air in the new codexes. Blood Angels got flat-out destroyed by sixth edition, and Grey Knights are no longer top dogs thanks to codex creep. You could argue that this imbalance creates a constantly shifting meta game which forces players to change their tactics and lists as new editions and books come out. But I don't think there's any point trying to convince you - or others - of any view other than "GW bad Mantic good" like the sheep in animal farm.

Here is the crux of the problem - you think that the balance in 40k is good. It is not. It is terrible compared to other games. The sheer volume of people telling you this, and the consensus from people who do like 40k and play other games confirms it. You do not play other games and therefore have absolutely no qualifications to say that the balance in 40k is good. How many times do we have to say this?

And you're talking about others being sheep whilst blurting out the line that balance doesn't matter or that it somehow adds character to the game? I take it you also don't understand the concept of irony?

No, but in the same sentance that I accepted that 40k was inbalanced, I highlighted how that inbalance was constantly changing

Logically then, do you accept that you want a game with a static meta?

xruslanx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Right but that's such a pathetic point that in my opinion it doesn't even need to be made. If someone told me that I could earn 0.5% more in a different job, that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd immediately change jobs.

I'll take your word that things are better costed in other, less complex game systems then. But I've never denied that 40k couldn't use a load of changes to point values.

And now do you see why people are getting so frustrated with you? Even when you clearly admit that it is a possibility (if not likely, given the sheer volume of people telling you) that other games are better than 40k at something, you immediately dismiss it as insignificant.

And the other systems are every bit as complex as 40k. Again, has been demonstrated to you time and time again.

You're once again falling back on the "In my opinion: I don't care" excuse.

Well no. But since I am *aware* of point discrepancies, or at least oddities, and yet I still enjoy 40k. Therefore, to me, it is insignifiant. You can't rationalise or persuade me to care about things that don't affect me.

Similarly I have the insight to recognise that for almost all units, the point inbalance is not as severe as many think. Vendettas got a bit less (but still very much so) overcosted with the spread of anti-air in the new codexes. Blood Angels got flat-out destroyed by sixth edition, and Grey Knights are no longer top dogs thanks to codex creep. You could argue that this imbalance creates a constantly shifting meta game which forces players to change their tactics and lists as new editions and books come out. But I don't think there's any point trying to convince you - or others - of any view other than "GW bad Mantic good" like the sheep in animal farm.

Yes what with that? Is that a plus for you?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Right but that's such a pathetic point that in my opinion it doesn't even need to be made. If someone told me that I could earn 0.5% more in a different job, that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd immediately change jobs.

I'll take your word that things are better costed in other, less complex game systems then. But I've never denied that 40k couldn't use a load of changes to point values.

And now do you see why people are getting so frustrated with you? Even when you clearly admit that it is a possibility (if not likely, given the sheer volume of people telling you) that other games are better than 40k at something, you immediately dismiss it as insignificant.

And the other systems are every bit as complex as 40k. Again, has been demonstrated to you time and time again.

You're once again falling back on the "In my opinion: I don't care" excuse.

Well no. But since I am *aware* of point discrepancies, or at least oddities, and yet I still enjoy 40k. Therefore, to me, it is insignifiant. You can't rationalise or persuade me to care about things that don't affect me.

Similarly I have the insight to recognise that for almost all units, the point inbalance is not as severe as many think. Vendettas got a bit less (but still very much so) overcosted with the spread of anti-air in the new codexes. Blood Angels got flat-out destroyed by sixth edition, and Grey Knights are no longer top dogs thanks to codex creep. You could argue that this imbalance creates a constantly shifting meta game which forces players to change their tactics and lists as new editions and books come out. But I don't think there's any point trying to convince you - or others - of any view other than "GW bad Mantic good" like the sheep in animal farm.

Yes what with that? Is that a plus for you?

Yes. This explains it, albeit somewhat poorly. Do you find it difficult to cope with the notion that perfection is unattainable?

Before people start making up their own version of what I am saying, I know GW don't have "mathematic, perfect imbalance". But the above video does accurately describe the notion of metagame, changing balance etc.

xruslanx wrote:

No, but in the same sentance that I accepted that 40k was inbalanced, I highlighted how that inbalance was constantly changing

Logically then, do you accept that you want a game with a static meta?

A game can evolve and meta stay the same. Just that different options are available. If those options are balanced within the existing game engine then the meta doesn't change. It's only when something new is introduced that is unbalanced that meta changes, which generally doesn't happen in other game systems.

Just to be clear; I'm not talking about the necessary meta changes brought on by a new edition of a game. I have no problems with flyers changing the meta of the game at the start of 6th. I do have a problem with those flyers then dropping back because Tau suddenly got stupidly good at anti-air.

I don't want to say yes to your question because I think you believe that the only way a game can have static meta is if it never has new releases.

Oh perfect imbalance. It's a bad idea for a tabletop wargame where building an army might take months and loads of cash.

The OP has me on ignore (and me, him, I'm sure many will understand!) so there's little point in me entering into any discussion.

But, as any sort of logic or any number of examples seems to be completely unable to persuade him of his ignorance in this matter, let alone persuade him that he might be wrong, try this..



Yes, its a picture of a cat, but it has as much chance of working as anything else!

 Daedleh wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

No, but in the same sentance that I accepted that 40k was inbalanced, I highlighted how that inbalance was constantly changing

Logically then, do you accept that you want a game with a static meta?

A game can evolve and meta stay the same. Just that different options are available. If those options are balanced within the existing game engine then the meta doesn't change. It's only when something new is introduced that is unbalanced that meta changes, which generally doesn't happen in other game systems.

Just to be clear; I'm not talking about the necessary meta changes brought on by a new edition of a game. I have no problems with flyers changing the meta of the game at the start of 6th. I do have a problem with those flyers then dropping back because Tau suddenly got stupidly good at anti-air.

I don't want to say yes to your question because I think you believe that the only way a game can have static meta is if it never has new releases.

On the contrary, 40k has an ever-changing meta; that's radically different pretty much every where you go. Even amongst a group of friends, the meta can shift and change and develop constantly as people find ways of defeating other peoples' tactics, countering certain units, discovering potent new combos. Some people find this fun, you may not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Oh perfect imbalance. It's a bad idea for a tabletop wargame where building an army might take months and loads of cash.

Having read your sig, it seems pointless arguing with you. You clearly don't like casual gaming at all, so arguing with me - a casual gamer - is pointless as arguing religion.

 azreal13 wrote:
The OP has me on ignore (and me, him, I'm sure many will understand!) so there's little point in me entering into any discussion.

But, as any sort of logic or any number of examples seems to be completely unable to persuade him of his ignorance in this matter, let alone persuade him that he might be wrong, try this..

Spoiler:

Yes, its a picture of a cat, but it has as much chance of working as anything else!

You and me apparently azreal13. You also may want to consider spoilering the image.

I have reported both of you for spam. Feel free to contribute productively if you like.

xruslanx wrote:
I have reported both of you for spam. Feel free to contribute productively if you like.

LOL. I post twice very valid points which you refuse to even acknowledge. I can therefore only assume you have me on ignore. As soon as I make a reply stating as much, you then decide to report me for spam? Ha! Since I know now you can read what I am typing, how about addressing any of the points that I brought up in either of my two previous posts?

You are demanding that I answer every single YMDC question. That's not really productive input, that's demanding i arbitrarily do *work*, for you, for free.

But as I say, if you can make points without childishly demanding I do research on your behalf, feel free.

They're not spamming. They were contributing productively and you were ignoring the facts that they were presenting to you.

xruslanx wrote:

On the contrary, 40k has an ever-changing meta; that's radically different pretty much every where you go. Even amongst a group of friends, the meta can shift and change and develop constantly as people find ways of defeating other peoples' tactics, countering certain units, discovering potent new combos. Some people find this fun, you may not.

Having read your sig, it seems pointless arguing with you. You clearly don't like casual gaming at all, so arguing with me - a casual gamer - is pointless as arguing religion.

Meta change within a group is fine and great! Meta change because of imbalances is not. The group gradually switching away from flyers because people are upping their air defences is fine. The group switching away from air because there's a Tau player and their AA is ridiculous is not.

Once again you're trying to drag the conversation off track once someone points out that you're wrong. Rather than actually defend your position, you try and change it so they have to change track. It's a classic trolling tactic.

No-one is saying that meta changes as a natural evolution of a gaming groups collections is a bad thing. Meta changes because of a poorly balanced codex is.

And to predict you, you're going to snort and say "BUT THE TAU CODEX IS BALANCED". By 40k standards, it is balanced. By the rest of the games out there (which you've stated many times over that you have absolutely no experience of), it is not.

Edit: to give you a specific example. The new Basileans army in Kings of War has a core unit of angels (Elohi) who can fly. If a group gradually evolved its meta because a couple of players picked up Basileans and people now need more options to fight flyers, that's fine. If the meta evolves because the Elohi are ridiculously cheap in points and a few WAAC players pick it up to exploit the latest unbalanced unit, that is not fine.

xruslanx wrote:
You are demanding that I answer every single YMDC question. That's not really productive input, that's demanding i arbitrarily do *work*, for you, for free.

But as I say, if you can make points without childishly demanding I do research on your behalf, feel free.

You obviously failed to understand the meaning behind my post and stopped reading at that point. The fact that we have the numerous questions that are in the YMDC forum without answers in the BRB, codexes, or FAQs is the very problem several people, myself included, have with GW's rules. Without looking at any other games, any other companies, I can turn only to GW's and see the faults that lie within.