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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

And goodwill has to start somewhere, so instead of blaming other people and continuing on playing the game in a horribly unbalanced way perhaps start playing it nicely and properly and many people will begin to follow.

Thats how we weeded out a lot of the power gaming at the the club i go to. All it takes for those Power Gamers nobody likes to realize when the player on the other side is not having fun. If both players made a list designed to have fun, not to utterly crush then everyone enjoys it more.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

You are thinking that everyone wants to get the same thing out of the game. Some people play this game to compete and win and get their enjoyment out of that. Not everyone plays the game as a social event between friends exclusively. Of course, humans are going to take every advantage they can get when being competitive. It's just how we are, there is no shame in it.

So, I don't blame people for taking Penta-Riptide lists. They are just doing what's natural to everyone. The fault lies with the creator of the rules who allows this advantage to be taken.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im simply saying not all the blame is on GW as its perfectly easy, fun and possible to p-lay fun balanced lists and enjoy the game win or loose.

Nobody likes that guy who spent tonnes of money buying all the decent stuff and knows that they will table all our armies simply because we made armies we enjoy. Not armies designed to win win win.

And goodwill has to start somewhere, so instead of blaming other people and continuing on playing the game in a horribly unbalanced way perhaps start playing it nicely and properly and many people will begin to follow.

Thats how we weeded out a lot of the power gaming at the the club i go to. All it takes for those Power Gamers nobody likes to realize when the player on the other side is not having fun. If both players made a list designed to have fun, not to utterly crush then everyone enjoys it more.

So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Except you know what would help? That if balance was good enough that you could take *anything* and still be making a good list, not. Thousand sons are trash and its far far far better to take a heldrake.

It would allow for more strategies aside from holding back, it'd allow choices to be made that hows off more of the game, but instead we have the balance See-Saw. Where you'll either end up low, or you end up high.

To all of you saying its the players fault for trying to win, think of it from a different perspective. When people play games like Chess, stratego, risk, starcraft, warmahordes, malifaux, etc. you don't see people blaming the opponent for trying to win or taking good things, why? Because its balanced and if you see somebody spamming zerglings you know what units to take to not get stomped by it, or when you see somebody rushing europe when they get t1 in risk or rushing australia to turtle all game you know that his units will be spread out and you can cripple them easily or that the enemy in australia will have no presence in the rest of the continents do its open game for you.

40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

Except that we have math on our side for some useless units. Thousand Sons for example are very poor in the niche they are supposed to be good in, to the point where it's better to take a normal squad of CSM rather then to take thousand sons.

Not to mention if you are bad at your role, you aren't doing good at it regardless.

azreal13 wrote:In no way should any game be reliant on its players' good nature in order to ensure both parties have a good time.

TheCustomLime wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

Sure, they didnt force it but they allowed it.

Welcome to a little concept called "liberty".

GW isn't responsible for players creating a bad gaming environment.

TheCustomLime wrote:So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Exactly.

TheCustomLime wrote:You are thinking that everyone wants to get the same thing out of the game. Some people play this game to compete and win and get their enjoyment out of that. Not everyone plays the game as a social event between friends exclusively. Of course, humans are going to take every advantage they can get when being competitive. It's just how we are, there is no shame in it.

So, I don't blame people for taking Penta-Riptide lists. They are just doing what's natural to everyone. The fault lies with the creator of the rules who allows this advantage to be taken.

Of course, people can try and get whatever they want out of a game.

What's the problem is when one kind of player defines this in a way where anyone can have fun playing the game, and when another group defines it in a way in which they can not. 40k isn't another excuse for people to take as much advantage of a situation for personal gain. In fact, NO system is designed for that purpose, because when selfishness is the only prerogative the system itself falls apart as those who choose strength express tyranny over the weak, and everyone else eventually gets sick of that kind of behavior.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

That is the worst assumption in the realm of gaming.

 Ailaros wrote:

azreal13 wrote:In no way should any game be reliant on its players' good nature in order to ensure both parties have a good time.

TheCustomLime wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:You cant tell me that GW makes people buy and use the models in an OP way. Thats the players choice. So who is at fault. I point the finger at the guy who went out of his way to buy and use the models the way they do. Simple.

Sure, they didnt force it but they allowed it.

Welcome to a little concept called "liberty".

GW isn't responsible for players creating a bad gaming environment.

TheCustomLime wrote:So instead of blaming GW look at yourselves (if your one of "THOSE" players) and play better. Its people like you guys that push a lot of people away from gaming. Especially in 40k.

Exactly.

TheCustomLime wrote:You are thinking that everyone wants to get the same thing out of the game. Some people play this game to compete and win and get their enjoyment out of that. Not everyone plays the game as a social event between friends exclusively. Of course, humans are going to take every advantage they can get when being competitive. It's just how we are, there is no shame in it.

So, I don't blame people for taking Penta-Riptide lists. They are just doing what's natural to everyone. The fault lies with the creator of the rules who allows this advantage to be taken.

Of course, people can try and get whatever they want out of a game.

What's the problem is when one kind of player defines this in a way where anyone can have fun playing the game, and when another group defines it in a way in which they can not. 40k isn't another excuse for people to take as much advantage of a situation for personal gain. In fact, NO system is designed for that purpose, because when selfishness is the only prerogative the system itself falls apart as those who choose strength express tyranny over the weak, and everyone else eventually gets sick of that kind of behavior.

Yes, but some people will of course use it for those reasons and 40k really lends itself to be abused like that. While no system is designed to be abused on purpose there are certainly systems that, through incompetent design, are able to exploited like hell and you can't expect people to not go for it. While some people will certainly keep themselves under control some will try to gain every advantage they can since they want to win. This issue is magnified horribly in the tournament scene where the whole point is to win. The biggest condemnation of Gee Dubs horrible game design is in how the same armies place high in big tournaments regardless of who is playing them.

More relevant to the topic is this reflects on how Games Workshop playtests their game. They probably get casual players to playtest the game which is terrible since these players will simply be satisfied in enjoying the game and only point out the most obvious design flaws. Or, less likely, they get competitive players to test their system and simply ignore their advice in the name of making the game more "Cinematic". I personally do not believe they write the rules to sell models since a lot of their new kits aren't that great (Such as the Centurions).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives. While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

Except that we have math on our side for some useless units. Thousand Sons for example are very poor in the niche they are supposed to be good in, to the point where it's better to take a normal squad of CSM rather then to take thousand sons.

I never said that no units weren't over or under costed. Clearly some units just aren't good enough, but we can throw around individual examples of everything all day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

That is the worst assumption in the realm of gaming.

Some people play for fun. Other people play to win. These are different types of people, though only one of those groups assumes its playstyle is universally and objectively superior. Competative players might also play for fun, but fun players can also play to win.

Casual does not mean less competitive. Just those annoying players that exploit the game are what we hate. Competitve and fun is easily possible. Exploitation is taking the joy out of gaming which is pretty much people always playing like its a tournament.

Both styles are still competitive just one sucks the joy out of playing. And that one is Power Gaming.

If you look at a casual game there are few arguments at worst and things are relaxed and people are chatting away as it goes. This does not mean they are aiming to loose or playing pooryl.

In a game of Power Gamers we see heated arguments, rule twisting, and few smiles. The people watching it dont find it enjoying and it gives off a bad atmosphere. No body likes the little kid screaming at the TV playing COD, same goes for wargaming.

Casual does not mean not playing to win. It means winning while keeping to the spirit of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will add its fine to OP if your opponent wants to do so, obviously.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

IOW, GW are utterly incompetent and can't figure out how to write a game where it is still balanced and fun even when people try their best to win.

I'd talk about how other games do it better and don't need to have the players compensate for the bad rules, but you'll just ignore them like you've ignored every other example of other companies doing stuff that you consider "impossible".

Hence all the nonsence about unit x,y or z being 'useless' when in reality it is simply not as over-powered as its alternatives.

So you admit that overpowered units exist? And you still think that GW are somehow good game designers?

While some units are genuinely useless (rough riders in sixth edition) more often than not they fulfil a different role than their more powerful contemporaries.

Yeah, there are lots of them that fill the awesome role of "making your list weaker so you don't crush the poor newbie you're about to play".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Just those annoying players that exploit the game are what we hate.

How is taking a powerful list exploiting the game? We aren't talking about rules-lawyering obscure interpretations of the rules, they say very clearly that you're permitted to do things like take 4-5 Riptides in your Tau army.

Both styles are still competitive just one sucks the joy out of playing. And that one is Power Gaming.

Actually I think constantly worrying about whether or not I'm bringing a list that is too powerful for my opponent's arbitrary rules about how powerful your list is allowed to be is much, much less fun. At least with "power gaming" you don't have to worry about your opponent whining and crying because you did something they don't approve of.

In a game of Power Gamers we see heated arguments, rule twisting, and few smiles.

Not really.

Casual does not mean not playing to win. It means winning while keeping to the spirit of the game.

A "spirit of the game" which is unique to every person, and completely arbitrary. Though I guess it does give you a convenient excuse when you lose.

This is coming from someone who used to power game back in the day. I would frequently wipe people out before turn 3. But one day i slowed down and looked at the faces of those on the other side of the table and (surprise surprise) they weren't having fun. Im not saying GW is not at fault, but hey if people buy their product then why would they see the need to put more effort into it?

What i am saying is at least the players have a responsibility for how they play games.

I mean the way i see Power Gamers is that they are showing a huge amount of narcissism in their personality. What joy is a game where you aim to crush the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is a reason movies are dragged out and the story generally involves a struggle that both sides are trying to overcome. Why? So everyone finds it entertaining.

People want the same in a wargame. You cant tell me your opponents enjoy a game where they are killing nearly nothing but are loosing everything. So why do it? Why aim for it? Why is it a goal? The aim should be to make it an intense, enjoyable, balanced game. GW has made this possible, either buy accident or on purpose, because we have a huge amount of customization with our armies. Huge amount.

So why is the goal to crush as quickly and ruthlessly as possible your opponent when instead it should be to have a fun, interesting and involving game for all.

No one can fix GW and what they do, but its easily possible to fix player attitudes. To me Power gaming can be fine, granted its what both players want. But it seems players are pressed into making uber lists just to keep up with the OP players. I have been told many times on this forum what i should and shouldnt take, but it shouldnt be about that it should be this unit IS ABLE TO do this when used like this. Not dont use it because its not (insert typical "auto includes here"). I dont wanna fight an imperial guard army and almost always see the same few slots taken, talk about unimaginative and bland.

The coolest and best armies to play is where both armies are heavily themed based on what each persons flavour and tastes are. If you like riptides go ahead and take one, but are they so cool that you need 7? Surely you didnt play tau to use 3 different types of units, Or you didnt play guard to copy and paste your troops 3 times, and take 3 vandettas.

I mean its cool if your making a nam based list and want troops dropping in and stuff but if you just took them to win (and generally you can tell by what else is on the list what their intentions are) then wheres the fun in that? There isnt.

I mean you all complain that the game is not balanced then why not balance it by taking a bit of "good stuff" and a bit of "bad stuff"?

Its an easy fix.

Seen this conversation before, had it myself even, and I can tell you its pointless - especially when your conversational partner is Perry "brick wall" Grin. I've met people IRL who have quit the forum after arguing with him I gak you not

Heck ive been here for a few weeks and i can tell Peregrine and i are not gonna get along haha. The problem is im just as stubborn at times. But i can definitely see him driving people away. Sigh but i guess if everyone had the same point of view then things could be a bit boring... maybe...

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've met people IRL who have quit the forum after arguing with him I gak you not

Really? Who were they? And did they quit the game as well?

 Swastakowey wrote:
Im not saying GW is not at fault, but hey if people buy their product then why would they see the need to put more effort into it?

Professional pride? Desire to get more sales? Fear of continued decline in sales costing them their market dominance? Why else do companies put out good products even though a garbage product would still sell a few copies?

I mean the way i see Power Gamers is that they are showing a huge amount of narcissism in their personality. What joy is a game where you aim to crush the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I mean the way I see "casual" gamers is that they are showing a huge amount of narcissism in their personality. What joy is there in a game where you bring a weak list and get crushed in 2-3 turns without giving your opponent an entertaining challenge?

GW has made this possible, either buy accident or on purpose, because we have a huge amount of customization with our armies. Huge amount.

GW hasn't made it possible at all. The players have made it possible despite GW's incompetence in making a balanced game with a wide variety of equally-effective options to choose from instead.

but it shouldnt be about that it should be this unit IS ABLE TO do this when used like this.

It should be. Blame GW for making a game where there are obvious auto-includes, obvious bad units that you only include if you want to make your list weaker, and not much in the middle. Until GW fixes their game I see no reason to pretend that bad units are viable choices and imagine ridiculous situations where they could contribute something.

The coolest and best armies to play is where both armies are heavily themed based on what each persons flavour and tastes are.

That's your personal preference. Some people think the coolest and best army to play is one where both armies are optimized for competitive play and both players are trying as hard as possible to win the game.

I mean you all complain that the game is not balanced then why not balance it by taking a bit of "good stuff" and a bit of "bad stuff"?

Because when I pay $50 for a rulebook I shouldn't have to spend a lot of time and effort trying to make a list that fits some other person's arbitrary standard for how much "good stuff" I'm allowed to take.

Didn't quit the game, and not gonna say.

Sorta reminds me of the argument thats happening here. Some people go "oh look, my opponent ain't having fun, so neither am I" and others don't give a gak.

Meanwhile, some people would say that if their debating has driven people off of this site it should be considered a bad thing, and others put a notch in their bedpost so to speak

That's your personal preference. Some people think the coolest and best army to play is one where both armies are optimized for competitive play and both players are trying as hard as possible to win the game.

That is true . But theme or no theme , stuff should work. It is ok if someone wants to player a weaker army or weaker unit , that is their choice . But Being weaker , shouldn't mean that the unit has 0 chance to work , no matter what the player does . Rough raiders shouldn't be ground vendettas , but if they are ment to be melee units , then they should be able to get in to melee . They can do this for some dex and can't do it at all for other. No one is going to say that vespids are the bomb , but they do what they do , which is shoting for too many points . Those eldar jet bike cavalery are the same . And then you look at something like venguard veterans and they just don't make sense in the same codex as honor guard , assault terminators etc.

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks.

That is a very interesting thing considering that most of the writers are British .

If nobody took power gaming, optimized, copy paste lists would you?

Probably, since that's what I like to get out of the game, provided it broadly covered a theme I would want to do with that army anyway.

Well theres nothing actually wrong with those lists, as long as thats what both players are bringing and expecting.

My issue is only with tournaments pretty much only advancing the one at the expense of the other due to a universal lack of comp and deemphasis of soft scores.

Yes i hope i made it clear its all good to do it if both players want to that sort of thing in my opinion, but it should be pre arranged to do so rather than people expecting it.

Dakkamite wrote:Well theres nothing actually wrong with those lists, as long as thats what both players are bringing and expecting.

My issue is only with tournaments pretty much only advancing the one at the expense of the other due to a universal lack of comp and deemphasis of soft scores.

Isn't that the point of a tournament though? Bring your chessiest, beardiest, dirtest list possible and smash the crap out of people doing the same?

The soft-scores thing is a whole different issue worthy of its own thread tbh.

Nah, thats just one interpretation of it. Different events for different folks really.

In all honesty given what we pay for the game (taking about the core rules and codex costs) we should be getting a perfectly well balanced and enjoyable game that we dont have to jump through hoops in order to have a balanced game. Something is seriously wrong with your rules set when players have to modify them in order to have good games, that says you haven't written very good rules

Yep, armies should be fluffy *and* powerful, with no wasted units or models, and a less draconian legal team etc etc

Theres plenty of games out there that provide that, yet this is the one everyone (myself included) plays the most =/

Mysteries of life and all that

This isn't about a social contract with each other, this about Games Workshop's incompetent game design. If they didn't intend players to be "dicks" why did they allow them to be? All they had to do was add "You may only take 0-3 Riptides per army" or that "The Wave Serpent's shield may only be used once per game" and a lot of issues would've been solved with those sentences yet they never did. They allow these big oversights and charge $50 for clearly flawed books. Either they intend for huge imbalance for "Cinematic" purposes or they really suck at their jobs.

Sure, no one beat in "You must take a Penta-Riptide list! You must take a Penta-Riptide list!" into their heads but no one stopped them either (Them refers to the fielders of such lists). It's like having large bowls of candy on Halloween with no rules on how much of it can be taken and getting pissed at people for taking as much as they want. It's a dick move, yeah, but they haven't done anything wrong.

To make long things short, players shouldn't have to restrain themselves in the first place. People should be able to take whatever they want and still have a well balanced game. The fact that games can be decided by lists alone is mostly GW's fault.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Whenever video games are released people quickly find glitches or bugs or issues that they can EXPLOIT. The same is very true for Wargames too. No amount of play testing will stop people finding loop holes or issues that can be exploited for the players benifit. However unlike a video game they cant just release a patch, so it shows more in wargames.

...

...

Actually, GW have had eight editions of Fantasy and six of 40K to find and fix a lot of their bugs, as well as the frequent errata and FAQs they release.

The blunt fact is that if there are serious problems in GW rules it is because they aren't interested in fixing them.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Nah, thats just one interpretation of it. Different events for different folks really.

Than what is the point of having the a tournament in the first place, its like competing in a triathlon then getting the gaks when someone trains for endurance in the lead up.

brother marcus wrote:
I don't know how long they play test for but I did see them do it once at warhammer world.

One guy was using the new marines against chaos, they seemed to get quite offended when I told them that the codex was pretty much the same and still sucked lol

Playing a normal game isn't play testing, it is just playing the game.

Proper play testing of a miniature game rules implicates several repetitions of actions and allot of "lets reset this back and try this other situation instead". So much so that for an outsider it wouldn't even resemble a proper game being played.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
40k is written with the assumption that players won't be dicks. That doesn't mean that there is no baslance, and point adjustments in codexes reflect that the devs are aware of this.

IOW, GW are utterly incompetent and can't figure out how to write a game where it is still balanced and fun even when people try their best to win.

Oh peregrine, peregrine, peregrine. What do you think about the people who *do* enjoy 40k? Do you consider them to be an inferior species? Or are they all drunk?

Has it not occurred to you in the slightest that you might not be 40k's target audience, as far as rules are concerned?

So you admit that overpowered units exist?

Of course they do. Because if every single unit were just as powerful as all the others it'd be a fething dull game.

And you still think that GW are somehow good game designers?

Yup.

Yeah, there are lots of them that fill the awesome role of "making your list weaker so you don't crush the poor newbie you're about to play".

Or alternatively, not everyone wants to play IG with 6 vendettas + Forgeworld cheese. You are a powergamer, and that's fine. But not everyone is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've met people IRL who have quit the forum after arguing with him I gak you not

Peregrine doesn't give a damn about actual ideas, he'll just quote you to death. I would advise keeping up with him for as long as you're able, then bail.