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.

"Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?"

Yes they did.

Wasnt that statement made before they even knew the rules of Escalation? So Its not very valid of a statement

You know how GW call players like us? Big growth mans who play with "plastic toys"? It was the reason why i stopped to support GW in any matter.

Their systems right now is a statement of the respect they have for their costumers base. And i think the same about a "community driven ruleset". The only problem? The community will never accept some ruleset as official.

By myself, i would love to se the faked "6th edition leaked-ruleboo" beying this "community embranced ruleset". Sorry, i will stay very skeptical about that, even if i agree entirely with your statement...

 frgsinwntr wrote:
Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?"

Yes they did.

Thimn wrote:
Wasnt that statement made before they even knew the rules of Escalation? So Its not very valid of a statement

The statement was made by the Warhammer World event staff, not by Games Workshop in general, and yes, it was said about a week ago, before the book was released. They don't seem to be the most clue-ed in group in general, having made several odd statements before (e.g. the FW stuff is intended purely for Imperial Armour campaigns, treating Allies as an optional-use rule rather than a player-electable option, etc).

MVBrandt wrote:
I don't believe GW is playtesting or balancing anything, at all, even a little bit. That doesn't mean the game is bad, but the less balance it is, the better it is for power and group gamers ... the worse it is for LGS and average gamers.

I think the exact opposite... As a casual gamer, I don't care too much for balanced, because I'm probably not going to end up playing against a powerlist. The people I personally see complain about balance most often are competetive players

Shas'o_Longshot wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I don't believe GW is playtesting or balancing anything, at all, even a little bit. That doesn't mean the game is bad, but the less balance it is, the better it is for power and group gamers ... the worse it is for LGS and average gamers.

I think the exact opposite... As a casual gamer, I don't care too much for balanced, because I'm probably not going to end up playing against a powerlist. The people I personally see complain about balance most often are competetive players

This is the problem. As a casual player you're going to either a) be playing with a fixed play group (which puts you in the minority) or b) playing at the local game store.

In the case of a, you're covered as I mentioned ... your group already has a clear understanding of what is "ok" and "not ok" to bring. In the case of b), you're at the mercy of the game ... the whackier and more powerful the stuff people can bring, the more likely you are to run into something that creates a one-sided and generally less fun game. It's not very engaging if you show up to the local game store and now there are fortuned revenants standing on skyshields flinging D blasts and making you pick your models up right after you put them down.

The more power gamer someone is, the more they can and will take the time to study the game and what's "best." They're the guys who'll put a Revenant on a Skyshield and Fortune/Prescience it up while applying an allied Farsight 4d6 psy power nullification bubble so you can't puppet master or hallucinate it. They'll be just fine, in fact they'll do even better b/c they gain an even larger lead over YOU the average or casual gamer.

This is the thing people don't anticipate when they see new rules and think GO FOR IT. It NEVER screws power gamers, and it has almost no impact on fixed play groups that have spoken (or over-time-agreed-upon) rules inferring what's socially acceptable to put on the tabletop (i.e., don't show up to the casual game group with 6 wave serpents or get bitched about / shamed / etc.). It TOTALLY mauls average gamers who don't have the time and/or resources to invest in keeping their "regular" army at a place where it can even have an engaging game against the meta of the moment.

IF you want to screw power gamers, take away their ability to build a better mousetrap. Balance the game MORE, make it MORE fair in a take all comers setting (also known as local game store pickup gaming or tournament play). When who wins or lose is determined entirely by what happens AFTER you shake hands ... the game is better for everyone. The more untested and random gak they add, the less the game is about what happens after you shake hands, and more about what you spent time and money on before you showed up.

Just to pile on Mike's post a little, if there is one meme that drives me insane it is "I'm a casual player therefore I don't care about balance."

A balanced game is better for ALL PLAYERS.

Try this thought experiment:

You have a hypothetical game called Roll-Off! where all you do is roll one six-sided die against an opponent. Whoever rolls higher wins. Not terribly interesting, but it is perfectly balanced. You each win about 50% of the time.

Now, imagine that you roll at D6 but your opponent has the choice of rolling a D6 or a D20. (Let's assume you only have a D6). This game is unbalanced. If your opponent chooses to roll the D20, they will win most of the time (though not always). Would you continue to play this game? Is this a fun game to play?

I would posit that players enjoying an unbalanced game are simply balancing it by purposely applying their own house rules (perhaps unspoken) and social norms to even out the imbalance. That is okay, but wouldn't it be better to have a game where you don't need to do that? Where the game is balanced from the start?

It is easy to take a balanced game that supports competitive play and play it casually. It is nearly impossible to do the reverse.

 Kolath wrote:
I would posit that players enjoying an unbalanced game are simply balancing it by purposely applying their own house rules (perhaps unspoken) and social norms to even out the imbalance. That is okay, but wouldn't it be better to have a game where you don't need to do that? Where the game is balanced from the start?

It is easy to take a balanced game that supports competitive play and play it casually. It is nearly impossible to do the reverse.

Very well put! This is indeed what I have noticed about "casual" play- there is just the application of a lot of unspoken rules that force a semblance of balance where there is none. It is highly preferable to have something balanced to work with at the start, instead.

 RiTides wrote:

 Kolath wrote:
I would posit that players enjoying an unbalanced game are simply balancing it by purposely applying their own house rules (perhaps unspoken) and social norms to even out the imbalance. That is okay, but wouldn't it be better to have a game where you don't need to do that? Where the game is balanced from the start?

It is easy to take a balanced game that supports competitive play and play it casually. It is nearly impossible to do the reverse.

Very well put! This is indeed what I have noticed about "casual" play- there is just the application of a lot of unspoken rules that force a semblance of balance where there is none. It is highly preferable to have something balanced to work with at the start, instead.

Which is why we have chess. 40k is not supposed to balanced, never was bro. History is on our side

Yeah, I played 40k in 3rd edition, so I'm aware of the history

But, there are degrees. And my strongest memory from those days was all the unspoken rules that kept our armies playable against one another. Not too much fun, that part.

A push for greater balance, or heck, just the same balance as we had before (which isn't much, but it's something) can only be a good thing in my book.

I definitely agree that a balanced game is in the best interest of the casual players.

I'm both a competitive and a casual player. I enjoy taking my hardcore Eldar list to tournaments as well as rolling with laid-back lists at the club. And throughout 5th edition that worked pretty well. But not anymore. My Eldar with Tau allies obviously wasn't suitable to play against the casual guys with their Grey Knights and Black Templars at the club, so I toned down my list... a lot. I dropped the allies, and I put in my six Vypers that hadn't seen a lot of play in the last few years. I thought that would be enough. I was wrong.

My club also has an Ork player. Or, more precisely, used to have an Ork player. He just can't be bothered anymore, and I can't say I blame him. He just doesn't stand a chance against the top codexes without spending a lot of money to completely reconfigure his army so he can push it to its absolute limits. Unlike me, he doesn't really have any competitive aspirations at all, he just wants to throw down with an army he thinks is cool, but when he keeps getting tabled by people who have even handicapped their armies on purpose it's just lame for everyone involved.

At least in tournaments everyone is on an even footing. You know you're going to a competitive event, and you know that unless you bring a power army you won't win the thing. Some people go for the power army, some people go for the army they know back to front, some people want to challenge themselves with the army they love just to see how well they can do, but in the end it's all okay because success or lack thereof feels like it's in your control.

Casual games are not like that. They're supposed to be casual. Winning or losing is not a big deal, but knowing from the start that you're getting pummeled just feels like a big waste of time.


Of course, as adults we can communicate, employ fixes, and deal with issues, but then what the hell are we paying GW for? It's $125 for a rules book and a codex, and we're supposed to pay that much for a flawed product and then delude ourselves into believing that the flaws are good?

 Sasori wrote:

 InventionThirteen wrote:
I've had no end to terrible once sided battles since the start of sixth and the rise of some seriously rubbish rules writing. (6th ed works but the codexes are getting beyond help). These new escalation rules are the icing on the cake for me. This game needs some serious attention and someone needs to throw out the game design team bar Phil kelly and a few select others. Matt ward not included. He can go.

This post has got to be a joke. Phil Kelly is responsible for two of top three books right, including the hideously broken Seer Council and Screamerstar, but you're advocating keeping him? Seriously? 6th edition was pretty balanced until Phil Kelly started pumping out books for armies he likes.

Well what I was referring to (though my bad that I didn't make it clear) was older editions.
I'm sure Phil has been forced to adapt to the other riddonk codexes and the only real response is to add just as much crazy.

Before I moved away for work, I was in a great gaming group that played 2-3 apoc games a year. They were meant to be the wrap-up of a campaign or something special. I've seen my share of games with super heavies, and it's my belief that they should stay in Apoc games or in one-off scenarios. They tend to dominate the game. I've seen some lucky rolls with combi-melta sternguard taking one out in one round of shooting (and it was freaking awesome), but they generally dominate the game and turn it into "Kill the Titan".

Just like anything, guys, let your opponent know what type of game you want to play. Use that opening in your head that you normally stuff cake into.

Tell them if you are or are not interested in playing Escalation, just like you'd talk about how many points, to Forge World or not to Forge World, Cities of Death or basic rule book missions, competitive or fluffy, etc.

Act like civilized people and remember that it takes 2 to tango, that it's a game, that it should be fun for both people, etc...

And if your local tournaments start running with Super Heavies and you don't like it, then don't go and TELL THEM WHY. Just like the pro/anti Forge World crowds.

xruslanx wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Kolath wrote:
I would posit that players enjoying an unbalanced game are simply balancing it by purposely applying their own house rules (perhaps unspoken) and social norms to even out the imbalance. That is okay, but wouldn't it be better to have a game where you don't need to do that? Where the game is balanced from the start?

It is easy to take a balanced game that supports competitive play and play it casually. It is nearly impossible to do the reverse.

Very well put! This is indeed what I have noticed about "casual" play- there is just the application of a lot of unspoken rules that force a semblance of balance where there is none. It is highly preferable to have something balanced to work with at the start, instead.

Which is why we have chess. 40k is not supposed to balanced, never was bro. History is on our side

40k is supposed to be balanced. It is a game, games are meant for everyone involved to have fun. If one side has a significant advantage over the other before the game even starts, then it becomes less fun for 1 person. I played my first 40k game in several months two weekends ago. I was slaughtered through bad generalship on my part (misjudged a deep strike), a few minor hiccups, and also how good my opponents' armies were (they were practicing for AdeptiCon's team tournament). I still had fun because of who I was playing with, but I did not enjoy starting off with a disadvantage in the game before I put models on the board.

He just can't be bothered anymore, and I can't say I blame him. He just doesn't stand a chance against the top codexes without spending a lot of money to completely reconfigure his army so he can push it to its absolute limits.

How is this different then any other time in 40K? Its the point of GW rulesmaking.

 RiTides wrote:


But, there are degrees. And my strongest memory from those days was all the unspoken rules that kept our armies playable against one another. Not too much fun, that part.

3rd edition had COMP because Troops were not needed for 'missions/objectives' so people often took a 1000pt HQ and 2 minimum troops. That is where the comp of "40% minimum troops, No other slot over 25%". That is why you see such a breakdown on 'Armybuilder'

The two things which 'fixed' needing 3rd edition comp was making troops not only useful, but required for victory and changing HQs from massive units to general a single character. That went a long way to making people want to take troops above 40% and not have deathstars.

The New formations wrecks the forceorg which is a core aspect of balance. Allies does the same thing. Why does one group get 3 HQs due to allies but others cannot?

Maybe the old ratios from 3rd would be good again? Then people are incentivized to not load up on HQs or formations because they need to stay below 25%.

Has anyone here played agaisn't a superheavy in a regular game? On Saturday my Local GW had several games with the Escalation rules and a bunch of people had some games where one player had a super heavy and the other didn't. Not a single person who had a super heavy won that day. The fact is they can be easily killed. Use some drop pods to land a bunch of stern guard all armed with combi melts to kill it. Use flyers to get your troops close by so they can kill it or just use flyers as super heavies tend to have a hard time shooting them down.

xruslanx wrote:
Which is why we have chess. 40k is not supposed to balanced, never was bro. History is on our side

Balance != Mirror. Yes, Chess is balanced, but having identical sides is not required for balance. Magic the Gathering is widely considered a pretty balanced game and it has many different deck builds with lots of complex interactions and strategies that evolve over time. Warhammer 40k could be just as balanced. What it would take is lots and lots of playtesting and a willingness to make balance changes. It is simply a cop-out to say that 40k is not supposed to be balanced because it is "cinematic", "fluffy", "just throwing dice around."

And again, if your game has a balanced, tightly written ruleset, nothing stops you from playing cinematic lop-sided encounters! But what it does do is prevents every game from being that.

Now, I fully admit that we shouldn't take the Magic analogy too far. The business model of a CCG is different than a table-top miniatures game and that has implications for rules. In Magic, some of the best cards are rare, as in few are printed. So having those cards costs money. So, someone who plays a highly competitive magic will spend hundreds or thousands of dollars a year buying cards to keep up with the latest meta. One could argue that this is what tournament players who will buy an entire 6 wave serpent list are doing. But the difference, is that Wizards of the Coast works extremely hard to make sure that no single strategy dominates the game. And I mean that in a very technical sense, when a strategy [i]dominates[/] it means that strategy is strictly better than the alternatives. This is not fun. What you want is several dominant strategies or builds with interesting interactions. When WotC screws up (which they do) they ban cards. I would argue that 2++ re-rollable saves are something that needs to be nerfed. Some of the FW units (such as the insane experimental riptide) should be banned. Some of the suppliment creep is probably overkill. What all these things have in common is that they break the game by offering dominant strategies that reduce the amount of interaction in the game.

 Necrosis wrote:
Has anyone here played agaisn't a superheavy in a regular game? On Saturday my Local GW had several games with the Escalation rules and a bunch of people had some games where one player had a super heavy and the other didn't. Not a single person who had a super heavy won that day. The fact is they can be easily killed. Use some drop pods to land a bunch of stern guard all armed with combi melts to kill it. Use flyers to get your troops close by so they can kill it or just use flyers as super heavies tend to have a hard time shooting them down.

If you know it's coming, you can beat rock with scissors nearly every time. You knew you were going to an escalation tournament and could prepare for it.

How many revanant titans did you see?

MVBrandt wrote:This is the problem. As a casual player you're going to either a) be playing with a fixed play group (which puts you in the minority) or b) playing at the local game store.

While I agree with most of what you said (pretty much entirely, honestly) I think you're incorrect in this making me in the minority. Maybe it's because I'm not hugely invested in the scene, but at my FLGWS pretty much everyone knows every other person there. I can only assume this is similar most places. From my point of view, playing mostly random people would put you in the minority, but that's why the plural of anecdote is not data

Kolath wrote:Now, imagine that you roll at D6 but your opponent has the choice of rolling a D6 or a D20. (Let's assume you only have a D6). This game is unbalanced. If your opponent chooses to roll the D20, they will win most of the time (though not always). Would you continue to play this game? Is this a fun game to play?

Well, aside from the fact that this would be a boring game to begin with (but hey, it's fair! ) let me turn this around - Would you choose to play someone who voluntarily chose that D20? If you did, would you play them again? Would I play someone who has a distinct list advantage over me? Does it matter if I enjoy the process of rolling the dice? My personal answers are probably, probably not, probably and absolutely not

Alfndrate wrote:If one side has a significant advantage over the other before the game even starts, then it becomes less fun for 1 person.

Funny, because I've had loads of fun playing the mission in the BRB where one side starts with 33% less points than the other...

Shas'o_Longshot wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:If one side has a significant advantage over the other before the game even starts, then it becomes less fun for 1 person.

Funny, because I've had loads of fun playing the mission in the BRB where one side starts with 33% less points than the other...

But those games are not the norm, and like it has been said, just because the rules are tightly written and balanced does not prevent you from playing encounters that are lop-sided. I too have had plenty of fun with those types of missions, but never in Warhammer or 40k. If I go into a game of 2000 points and I already feel like I'm going to be down 500 points before I get to do anything, then my fun is going to be killed quicker than Tom Kirby at a 'community event'.

Shas'o_Longshot wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:This is the problem. As a casual player you're going to either a) be playing with a fixed play group (which puts you in the minority) or b) playing at the local game store.

While I agree with most of what you said (pretty much entirely, honestly) I think you're incorrect in this making me in the minority. Maybe it's because I'm not hugely invested in the scene, but at my FLGWS pretty much everyone knows every other person there. I can only assume this is similar most places. From my point of view, playing mostly random people would put you in the minority, but that's why the plural of anecdote is not data

Kolath wrote:Now, imagine that you roll at D6 but your opponent has the choice of rolling a D6 or a D20. (Let's assume you only have a D6). This game is unbalanced. If your opponent chooses to roll the D20, they will win most of the time (though not always). Would you continue to play this game? Is this a fun game to play?

Well, aside from the fact that this would be a boring game to begin with (but hey, it's fair! ) let me turn this around - Would you choose to play someone who voluntarily chose that D20? If you did, would you play them again? Would I play someone who has a distinct list advantage over me? Does it matter if I enjoy the process of rolling the dice? My personal answers are probably, probably not, probably and absolutely not

Alfndrate wrote:If one side has a significant advantage over the other before the game even starts, then it becomes less fun for 1 person.

Funny, because I've had loads of fun playing the mission in the BRB where one side starts with 33% less points than the other...

Here is the thing though.....those missions where you started points down...was likely decided ahead of time for fun....What happens when that is not the case....not so fun anymore. As for the whole choosing to play someone....the game should not be the things to dictate this. say I really like the shape of that D20 and want to use it...but it also means I beat you more often than not...then you don't want to play me with my D20....so now I don't get to use the dice I like the shape of. To take it further. Say the game has a D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20. Should the system be set up that the guy that like tetrahedral dice (the D4) be penalized for that choice.... and the guy that like the D20 doesn't get to play because no one wants to face him.
That is 40k right now to a large extent.

If I spend all of 4th and 5th edition building my Wave Serpent Saim hann army, because I love the Wave serpent. I want to use my Wave serpents. But when I go to my FLGS no one will play me because it is not fun for them because the game is unbalanced, and I table them all the time.....So now either choose to not play models I like because I want games, or I don't get to play games.

Same with say the Ork Player who gets beat all the time, loves his greenskins, spent tons of time painting them up...and he has no shot against the top armies....

It is bad for the game, when the designer says well, if you don't want to play against X choose not to....we don't care that you love the model.

The game would be better were it more balanced.

This just in... WARHAMMER 40k is now Magic the Gathering!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 frgsinwntr wrote:
Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?"

Yes they did.

Thimn wrote:
Wasnt that statement made before they even knew the rules of Escalation? So Its not very valid of a statement

The statement was made by the Warhammer World event staff, not by Games Workshop in general, and yes, it was said about a week ago, before the book was released. They don't seem to be the most clue-ed in group in general, having made several odd statements before (e.g. the FW stuff is intended purely for Imperial Armour campaigns, treating Allies as an optional-use rule rather than a player-electable option, etc).

Nonetheless, the only statement on the record is that GW regard Escalation as a supplement, which will likely not make it to tournaments. There has been no statement of the opposite scenario, the one that inspires the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric that we love so much.

 The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
You know how GW call players like us? Big growth mans who play with "plastic toys"? It was the reason why i stopped to support GW in any matter.

I feel the same way, i am sick of it really and that attitude seems to be a huge thing with their salesmen in stores and so on. One of the big reasons i will avoid spending money at GW whenever i can.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Nonetheless, the only statement on the record is that GW regard Escalation as a supplement, which will likely not make it to tournaments. There has been no statement of the opposite scenario, the one that inspires the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric that we love so much.

Even if it wasn't, if people aren't interested in adding this to their tournament formats, then Tournament Organizers won't allow it as they see fit.

Not really something to worry about. GW isn't going to send tournament inspectors out and "Bring Da Hamma" down on those that don't include their supplements in their tournaments. GW doesn't care about tournaments, only sales.

 Tomb King wrote:
This just in... WARHAMMER 40k is now Magic the Gathering!

Nah, Magic is balanced

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 frgsinwntr wrote:
Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?"

Yes they did.

Thimn wrote:
Wasnt that statement made before they even knew the rules of Escalation? So Its not very valid of a statement

The statement was made by the Warhammer World event staff, not by Games Workshop in general, and yes, it was said about a week ago, before the book was released. They don't seem to be the most clue-ed in group in general, having made several odd statements before (e.g. the FW stuff is intended purely for Imperial Armour campaigns, treating Allies as an optional-use rule rather than a player-electable option, etc).

Nonetheless, the only statement on the record is that GW regard Escalation as a supplement, which will likely not make it to tournaments. There has been no statement of the opposite scenario, the one that inspires the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric that we love so much.

While true, functionally it means nothing outside of Warhammer World tournaments, it's just a TO who hasn't read the book expressing their impression of what it is.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
This just in... WARHAMMER 40k is now Magic the Gathering!

Nah, Magic is balanced

and tested.. and without yearly price increases.. and cheap to get into and simple to play but hard to master.

 Kirasu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
This just in... WARHAMMER 40k is now Magic the Gathering!

Nah, Magic is balanced

and tested.. and without yearly price increases.. and cheap to get into and simple to play but hard to master.

Imagine if all our units became obsolete every 2 years and required us to repurchase totally new and different units?

The nice thing is if a combo is 'broke', it will fall out of the game eventually... And they also ban cards when needed.