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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

The thing you're missing is that banning D weapons and double force org is not people saying GW should do that to balance the game, that's people trying to fix the mess GW made.

The ideal solution here is not to get rid of those option, the ideal solution is for GW to balance the game in such a way that D weapons and double force org are not broken. If GW did a better job with the rules there would be no need for restrictions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

But those options never should have been included in the first place. What you're proposing is a completely broken system where every random idea GW publishes has to be included in the game forever, regardless of whether it is good for the game.

Why shouldn't they have been included? And what do you mean by "good for the game"? Do you mean 'good' as in 'won't kill the game'? Because it seems to me the game is alive and well despite the available options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

The thing you're missing is that banning D weapons and double force org is not people saying GW should do that to balance the game, that's people trying to fix the mess GW made.

The ideal solution here is not to get rid of those option, the ideal solution is for GW to balance the game in such a way that D weapons and double force org are not broken. If GW did a better job with the rules there would be no need for restrictions.

I get that's what everyone is saying. I just don't think that it's possible for GW to balance the game such that every single option (out of the howevermanythousand are available) is balanced. I think that's asking for the impossible. You will have to remove options at some point.

But I wouldn't have a problem with trying.

But if a game is balance for tournaments it is balanced for everyone . The fluff player will pick models he wants and thinks are fluffy , even if being in a codex automaticly makes stuff fluffy and it will work and will do good . While the tournament player will take the build he likes the most and play with it .

And not what we have now , where the tournament players has 2-3 codex to pick from and the fluff player whines about stuff that isn't that good at all , but blast his footslogging scout army off the table turn 2.

Makumba wrote:
But if a game is balance for tournaments it is balanced for everyone . The fluff player will pick models he wants and thinks are fluffy , even if being in a codex automaticly makes stuff fluffy and it will work and will do good . While the tournament player will take the build he likes the most and play with it .

And not what we have now , where the tournament players has 2-3 codex to pick from and the fluff player whines about stuff that isn't that good at all , but blast his footslogging scout army off the table turn 2.

1) It is balanced for everyone. But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

3) I don't whine about crappy stuff. I will happily pick my never-wins-games armored battlegroup off of the table time and again, but I will have a helluva time doing it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) It is balanced for everyone. But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

What you are saying there is "this problem you speak of doesn't effect me personally so there is no need to fix the problem".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

But blancing the game doesn't mean that suddenly gets taken away, it just means 'fluffy' lists aren't pretty much auto lose to 'competitive armies'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) I don't whine about crappy stuff. I will happily pick my never-wins-games armored battlegroup off of the table time and again, but I will have a helluva time doing it.

See 1). Because this doesn't effect your enjoyment of the game we are just supposed to shut up about it, is that it?
Some of us are greatly put off the game when the list we built out of the fun, fluffy units have no chance of winning.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

Of course you care about balance. Would you enjoy a game where your army is entirely destroyed on the first turn and there's nothing you can do about it? Where your only option to avoid that situation is to refuse to play against that list/player again? Of course not. Narrative games are much better when the rules are balanced and player choices matter more than which unit happens to have the most overpowered rules.

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

Except they don't, because there's a long list of "options" that are only viable if you have extensive house rules that ban everything that's more powerful. Simplifying the number of options (in the process of fixing balance) would mean less stuff to pick from in theory, but would greatly increase the amount of choices you have in a random pickup game. And fluff games are a lot more enjoyable when you can bring that awesome fluffy army you've invested those countless hours into and still have a fair chance of winning and a lot of confidence in your chances of enjoying the game. This is a much better situation than having lots of options but never getting to play anything besides a baby seal clubbing if you ever use any of them.

Also, having lots of options isn't necessarily better for fluff, even if you ignore balance. It's better to have a smaller number of good options that are all very fluffy than a giant pile of bland ones. Reducing the number of options allows you to spend more effort on making the ones you keep more interesting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why shouldn't they have been included?

Because they add nothing to the game. D-weapons are just completely broken and the basic concept of "titan killer" could easily be represented by something saner (like STR 10 AP 1 armorbane) along with a reduction in the template size and/or number of shots for titan D-weapons. Double FOC is just plain bad for the list-building aspect of the game and favors spamming your best units in the extra FOC slots instead of having to get creative and try to get good options out of every slot in a single FOC. There was no reason at all to add those rules, so we shouldn't be reluctant to get rid of them just because it means fewer rules in the game.

And what do you mean by "good for the game"? Do you mean 'good' as in 'won't kill the game'? Because it seems to me the game is alive and well despite the available options.

I mean that their presence in the game produces a more enjoyable experience than an alternative game in which those rules don't exist. And that's not the case here. Double FOC and D-weapons made the game less fun for a lot of people, which means they should not have been included.

You will have to remove options at some point.

Well yeah, but that's because GW's rules are a bloated mess. You need to get rid of options, especially useless options that exist just for the sake of having options. It's much better to have an elegant game with fewer options that are all interesting than a game with lots of boring options-for-the-sake-of-options.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) It is balanced for everyone. But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

What you are saying there is "this problem you speak of doesn't effect me personally so there is no need to fix the problem".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

But blancing the game doesn't mean that suddenly gets taken away, it just means 'fluffy' lists aren't pretty much auto lose to 'competitive armies'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) I don't whine about crappy stuff. I will happily pick my never-wins-games armored battlegroup off of the table time and again, but I will have a helluva time doing it.

See 1). Because this doesn't effect your enjoyment of the game we are just supposed to shut up about it, is that it?
Some of us are greatly put off the game when the list we built out of the fun, fluffy units have no chance of winning.

1) No, I am simply saying it is possible to have fun in the current rules environment. The crux of my argument is 2.

2) It does mean that it suddenly gets taken away. People are slashing options, cutting out huge portions of official rules, and gutting 40k in ways that are appalling in an effort to find this sacred 'balance'

3) No, you can talk about it. But just like any discussion, there will be input. My input is that it is possible to have fun with the game, and that it could be fixed with a change in the game (which might be good or bad) or a change in personal mindset. I know which one of the two is easier to change for an individual though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) No, I am simply saying it is possible to have fun in the current rules environment.

Sure, but that's not saying very much. It's possible to have fun despite the bad rules if you love the fluff/models/other players enough. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't have more fun if the game had better balance.

2) It does mean that it suddenly gets taken away. People are slashing options, cutting out huge portions of official rules, and gutting 40k in ways that are appalling in an effort to find this sacred 'balance'

Again, those options shouldn't have existed in the first place. Options are not good just because they're options, they're only good if they add something constructive to the game. And the simple fact is the things that are targeted most frequently for removal don't just fail to improve the game, they actively make it worse. Reducing the effectiveness of screamerstar lists is technically removing an option (or at least making it less appealing), but doing it makes the game a lot more enjoyable. If nothing else there's now a standard rule that everyone agrees on and you don't have to negotiate your list before every game.

3) No, you can talk about it. But just like any discussion, there will be input. My input is that it is possible to have fun with the game, and that it could be fixed with a change in the game (which might be good or bad) or a change in personal mindset. I know which one of the two is easier to change for an individual though.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

Of course you care about balance. Would you enjoy a game where your army is entirely destroyed on the first turn and there's nothing you can do about it? Where your only option to avoid that situation is to refuse to play against that list/player again? Of course not. Narrative games are much better when the rules are balanced and player choices matter more than which unit happens to have the most overpowered rules.

Thanks for telling me what I would and would not enjoy. I had no idea you could control my brain in such ways!

But seriously - the example of a game you gave me would be unfortunate, but not really unenjoyable - as long as I could shoot back (i.e. if I had the top of first turn) it would be an interesting challenge to see what these horribly outclassed Imperial tanks can do to stop whatever inexorable force has happened upon them! And if I didn't get the top of the turn, we'll roll off next game - it's not always going to be the bad guys!

 Peregrine wrote:

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

Except they don't, because there's a long list of "options" that are only viable if you have extensive house rules that ban everything that's more powerful. Simplifying the number of options (in the process of fixing balance) would mean less stuff to pick from in theory, but would greatly increase the amount of choices you have in a random pickup game. And fluff games are a lot more enjoyable when you can bring that awesome fluffy army you've invested those countless hours into and still have a fair chance of winning and a lot of confidence in your chances of enjoying the game. This is a much better situation than having lots of options but never getting to play anything besides a baby seal clubbing if you ever use any of them.

Also, having lots of options isn't necessarily better for fluff, even if you ignore balance. It's better to have a smaller number of good options that are all very fluffy than a giant pile of bland ones. Reducing the number of options allows you to spend more effort on making the ones you keep more interesting.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Because I don't limit myself to what's "viable." No army does that in the narrative. Someone who wishes to do that is de-emphasizing the fluff in favor of chance-of-victory on the tabletop, which is ok - but not my thing, and if you impinge upon my thing in your quest for the sacred "balance" I will have problems.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why shouldn't they have been included?

Because they add nothing to the game. D-weapons are just completely broken and the basic concept of "titan killer" could easily be represented by something saner (like STR 10 AP 1 armorbane) along with a reduction in the template size and/or number of shots for titan D-weapons. Double FOC is just plain bad for the list-building aspect of the game and favors spamming your best units in the extra FOC slots instead of having to get creative and try to get good options out of every slot in a single FOC. There was no reason at all to add those rules, so we shouldn't be reluctant to get rid of them just because it means fewer rules in the game.

They add nothing to the game? They give me a framework in which I can field superheavies. Why is that nothing? The problem with your implementation of D is that it does a single wound to an Ork Nob while having a high chance of half-killing a Titan. Not fluffy. As far as rate of fire, sure, nerf it. Whatever - as published they do need tweaking, just not removal. As for double FOC sure it allows spamming. But spamming is fluffy - armies tend to have lots of the same type of tank, etc, lying around.

 Peregrine wrote:

And what do you mean by "good for the game"? Do you mean 'good' as in 'won't kill the game'? Because it seems to me the game is alive and well despite the available options.

I mean that their presence in the game produces a more enjoyable experience than an alternative game in which those rules don't exist. And that's not the case here. Double FOC and D-weapons made the game less fun for a lot of people, which means they should not have been included.

They also make the game more fun for some people. I like the double FOC because I can have a Command Tank where a real Imperial Guard Armored Company would have a Command Tank. D weapons I'm not that keen on, but I think removing them would cripple a lot of the Eldar superheavies and in the fluff their superheavies are some of the most fearsome, and I feel GW chose to reflect that with their rules for D weapons. Also, a D weapon really should evaporate anything it hits....

 Peregrine wrote:

You will have to remove options at some point.

Well yeah, but that's because GW's rules are a bloated mess. You need to get rid of options, especially useless options that exist just for the sake of having options. It's much better to have an elegant game with fewer options that are all interesting than a game with lots of boring options-for-the-sake-of-options.

I disagree with your definition of better. For me, a better game is one where I can make my force feel truly 'mine.' And if that includes putting armored track guards on my Leman Russ tanks for 10 points, then why shouldn't I be able to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) No, I am simply saying it is possible to have fun in the current rules environment.

Sure, but that's not saying very much. It's possible to have fun despite the bad rules if you love the fluff/models/other players enough. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't have more fun if the game had better balance.

2) It does mean that it suddenly gets taken away. People are slashing options, cutting out huge portions of official rules, and gutting 40k in ways that are appalling in an effort to find this sacred 'balance'

Again, those options shouldn't have existed in the first place. Options are not good just because they're options, they're only good if they add something constructive to the game. And the simple fact is the things that are targeted most frequently for removal don't just fail to improve the game, they actively make it worse. Reducing the effectiveness of screamerstar lists is technically removing an option (or at least making it less appealing), but doing it makes the game a lot more enjoyable. If nothing else there's now a standard rule that everyone agrees on and you don't have to negotiate your list before every game.

3) No, you can talk about it. But just like any discussion, there will be input. My input is that it is possible to have fun with the game, and that it could be fixed with a change in the game (which might be good or bad) or a change in personal mindset. I know which one of the two is easier to change for an individual though.

But personal mindset is only part of the problem. Yes, making a conscious effort to reduce the power of your lists helps if the problem is a person who is too competitive for the group and only makes their choices based on what wins games. But it doesn't help at all if you happen to enjoy units/lists that are overpowered. For example, if your armored company list suddenly got D-weapons on all of its tanks in the new codex would you really be happy that now you have a choice between games of baby seal clubbing or abandoning your beloved fluffy army and replacing it with a bunch of infantry platoons so that you don't dominate games?

(And that's not just a hypothetical, that's exactly what happened with my Tau. They were my first army, and now I can't enjoy them because they're so overpowered.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But seriously - the example of a game you gave me would be unfortunate, but not really unenjoyable - as long as I could shoot back (i.e. if I had the top of first turn) it would be an interesting challenge to see what these horribly outclassed Imperial tanks can do to stop whatever inexorable force has happened upon them! And if I didn't get the top of the turn, we'll roll off next game - it's not always going to be the bad guys!

No, I'm talking about a game where nothing you do matters. If you get the first turn, you roll some meaningless dice and then your opponent wins the game during their turn. If your opponent gets the first turn you lose before you ever get a turn. Nothing you do has any impact on the outcome of the game, and there is no reasonable expectation that the game will go any differently if you play it a few more times. I seriously doubt you're going to enjoy this game at all.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Because I don't limit myself to what's "viable." No army does that in the narrative. Someone who wishes to do that is de-emphasizing the fluff in favor of chance-of-victory on the tabletop, which is ok - but not my thing, and if you impinge upon my thing in your quest for the sacred "balance" I will have problems.

Except that "viable" matters because in a random pickup game you either take viable options or you expect to be on the wrong end of a baby seal clubbing. Sure, you might be masochistic enough to enjoy it, but that's the kind of fun-destroying experience that drives a lot of people to quit the game.

They give me a framework in which I can field superheavies.

Superheavies are not D-weapons. I've already said that big tanks in normal games is an idea with some potential and the biggest problem is the execution of the idea, especially D-weapons.

The problem with your implementation of D is that it does a single wound to an Ork Nob while having a high chance of half-killing a Titan.

STR 10 is instant death to virtually all infantry models. Bring back the old system where bikes and similar equipment don't raise your toughness for ID purposes and STR 10 destroyer weapons are only failing to kill a rare few special characters and similar unique units.

But spamming is fluffy - armies tend to have lots of the same type of tank, etc, lying around.

It's also incredibly boring. Games are a lot more fun when you have to play with a diverse range of choices instead of just copying the same unit a dozen times. The single FOC offers a good balance between the two: enough space to take a good theme list with duplicate units (especially with variant lists like the armored company that emphasize certain aspects of an army), but not so much space that you only have to look at part of your codex to build an army.

I like the double FOC because I can have a Command Tank where a real Imperial Guard Armored Company would have a Command Tank

What does that have to do with double FOC? Your command tank is an HQ unit (and even in the codex it should be an HQ unit, not your fifth heavy support choice).

For me, a better game is one where I can make my force feel truly 'mine.' And if that includes putting armored track guards on my Leman Russ tanks for 10 points, then why shouldn't I be able to?

Because those track guards add more rules to the bloated mess without actually making the game more interesting. Imagine a hypothetical alternate world in which that upgrade was never added to the army list. Do you really think that you'd be unhappy in that alternate world? Or would you have lots of fun playing your army and never even consider that something could be missing? Now imagine in that hypothetical alternate world removing the option made the game more balanced AND allowed some of the other remaining options to be more interesting because the designers could spend more time on each option instead of obsessively adding lots of options to everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because they enjoy the challenge of seeing how far they can get towards defeating the list before being wiped out. That's a great mindset! Losing games isn't unfun.

You really are a bunch of masochists. Struggling against the odds is interesting as an occasional story game maybe, but I can't imagine having any fun when the best I can possibly hope for is to maybe do a little more damage than last time before getting mercilessly wiped off the table with no hope of victory. Losing games can still be fun, but there has to be a reasonable chance of victory for both players and a reason to care about the outcome, not just a baby seal clubbing where you're doomed before the game even begins because the rules aren't balanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But seriously - the example of a game you gave me would be unfortunate, but not really unenjoyable - as long as I could shoot back (i.e. if I had the top of first turn) it would be an interesting challenge to see what these horribly outclassed Imperial tanks can do to stop whatever inexorable force has happened upon them! And if I didn't get the top of the turn, we'll roll off next game - it's not always going to be the bad guys!

No, I'm talking about a game where nothing you do matters. If you get the first turn, you roll some meaningless dice and then your opponent wins the game during their turn. If your opponent gets the first turn you lose before you ever get a turn. Nothing you do has any impact on the outcome of the game, and there is no reasonable expectation that the game will go any differently if you play it a few more times. I seriously doubt you're going to enjoy this game at all.

I wouldn't enjoy that game at all. I haven't encountered that yet, though, so until then...

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Because I don't limit myself to what's "viable." No army does that in the narrative. Someone who wishes to do that is de-emphasizing the fluff in favor of chance-of-victory on the tabletop, which is ok - but not my thing, and if you impinge upon my thing in your quest for the sacred "balance" I will have problems.

Except that "viable" matters because in a random pickup game you either take viable options or you expect to be on the wrong end of a baby seal clubbing. Sure, you might be masochistic enough to enjoy it, but that's the kind of fun-destroying experience that drives a lot of people to quit the game.

People really define 'fun' as whether or not they can win? Derp.

 Peregrine wrote:

They give me a framework in which I can field superheavies.

Superheavies are not D-weapons. I've already said that big tanks in normal games is an idea with some potential and the biggest problem is the execution of the idea, especially D-weapons.

The problem with your implementation of D is that it does a single wound to an Ork Nob while having a high chance of half-killing a Titan.

STR 10 is instant death to virtually all infantry models. Bring back the old system where bikes and similar equipment don't raise your toughness for ID purposes and STR 10 destroyer weapons are only failing to kill a rare few special characters and similar unique units.

What about MCs? My Leman Russ tank is no match for a D weapon, but the similarly priced Tervigon is like, eh, whatever, I probably am T9 with IWND anyways because psyker.

 Peregrine wrote:

But spamming is fluffy - armies tend to have lots of the same type of tank, etc, lying around.

It's also incredibly boring. Games are a lot more fun when you have to play with a diverse range of choices instead of just copying the same unit a dozen times. The single FOC offers a good balance between the two: enough space to take a good theme list with duplicate units (especially with variant lists like the armored company that emphasize certain aspects of an army), but not so much space that you only have to look at part of your codex to build an army.

Eh, I don't find it that boring, but that's a subjective judgement so I'll drop it. I don't mind the FoC itself, because it reflects fluffy organization of armies within the setting. Doubling it reflects twice that same organization - that doesn't really seem bad to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

I like the double FOC because I can have a Command Tank where a real Imperial Guard Armored Company would have a Command Tank

What does that have to do with double FOC? Your command tank is an HQ unit (and even in the codex it should be an HQ unit, not your fifth heavy support choice).

Squadron command tanks (of which there are 3 in a company) are command tanks, and of course the company command tank is a fourth, making exactly the double FOC worth of command tanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

For me, a better game is one where I can make my force feel truly 'mine.' And if that includes putting armored track guards on my Leman Russ tanks for 10 points, then why shouldn't I be able to?

Because those track guards add more rules to the bloated mess without actually making the game more interesting. Imagine a hypothetical alternate world in which that upgrade was never added to the army list. Do you really think that you'd be unhappy in that alternate world? Or would you have lots of fun playing your army and never even consider that something could be missing? Now imagine in that hypothetical alternate world removing the option made the game more balanced AND allowed some of the other remaining options to be more interesting because the designers could spend more time on each option instead of obsessively adding lots of options to everything.

It's more interesting for me. And I wouldn't be unhappy but I would be less happy, in such an alternate world. After losing Armored Track Guards in the 4th-5th Armored Company-Armored Battlegroup list changeover, I missed Armored Track Guards considerably. If removing the option made the game more balanced - keep the option. There are other games where people like balance can go. And the remaining options are all interesting in their own way, and I'm sure someone out there puts Extra Armor on Leman Russes (I don't) and I wouldn't take that away from them either.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because they enjoy the challenge of seeing how far they can get towards defeating the list before being wiped out. That's a great mindset! Losing games isn't unfun.

You really are a bunch of masochists. Struggling against the odds is interesting as an occasional story game maybe, but I can't imagine having any fun when the best I can possibly hope for is to maybe do a little more damage than last time before getting mercilessly wiped off the table with no hope of victory. Losing games can still be fun, but there has to be a reasonable chance of victory for both players and a reason to care about the outcome, not just a baby seal clubbing where you're doomed before the game even begins because the rules aren't balanced.

Your definition of fun and ours are different. And there's always a chance of victory; the game hasn't gotten so bad that a single list has won 100% (or even over 75%) of its games in our local area.

Eh, I don't find it that boring, but that's a subjective judgement so I'll drop it. I don't mind the FoC itself, because it reflects fluffy organization of armies within the setting. Doubling it reflects twice that same organization - that doesn't really seem bad to me.

until some faction can self ally with their own codex , BB with formations . Then one side has like 1 , maybe 2 options which don't even synergise so well , while other can cherry pick from 8+ codex/formations.

Your definition of fun and ours are different. And there's always a chance of victory; the game hasn't gotten so bad that a single list has won 100% (or even over 75%) of its games in our local area.

We have 2 people using the eldar titans right now , they both havn't lost a single game in 7 rounds of two team tournament, they came first and second in the christmas tournament and have not lost a game while they were testing their armies . If it was 5-6 games I would say yes , no army before escalation had a 100% win ratio , not even taudar , even if they did cross the 75% easily . Right now they are clearly dominating the field and people know their list , they play against them daily in our FLGS , so there is no suprised aspect to playing against them . The armies play like clockwork and do almost the same things no matter what builds opponent brings , aside maybe for those rare reserv lists .

Ok I have to disagree with Peregrine on the matter of including things like allies in the game. They are, in theory, a nice addition and I would like to see them stay.

Having said that the way they are implemented is stupid. I am not saying balance the game by removing allies, removing D weapons and limiting riptides to 1 per army.
I am saying GW need to overhaul the entire game and make it so that D weapons are not as OP as they are, either by raising the points on them or by lowering their effectiveness. Same with allies and OP units like the Riptide. Nothing needs to be removed, nothing needs to be restricted, but the game does need to be balanced if they want to appeal to anything other than the hardcore fluff players.
Like it or not there is a significant number of players who want the rules to operate better in a competitive environment and what I am proposing here would not restrict the fluffy players in any way unless you want to make an idiot out of yourself and say that because it's fluffy some units cost a lot less points than they are worth because X army is better than all others in the fluff and the game should reflect that by giving them a leg up.

Makumba wrote:

Eh, I don't find it that boring, but that's a subjective judgement so I'll drop it. I don't mind the FoC itself, because it reflects fluffy organization of armies within the setting. Doubling it reflects twice that same organization - that doesn't really seem bad to me.

until some faction can self ally with their own codex , BB with formations . Then one side has like 1 , maybe 2 options which don't even synergise so well , while other can cherry pick from 8+ codex/formations.

It's true; in the fluff, some armies are more flexible than others as far as combat formations go. I'm glad that's reflected in the game, though - I wouldn't want an organization as diverse and flexible as the Imperial Guard having the same rules as the hierarchical organization and unitary-mind of the Tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I have to disagree with Peregrine on the matter of including things like allies in the game. They are, in theory, a nice addition and I would like to see them stay.

Having said that the way they are implemented is stupid. I am not saying balance the game by removing allies, removing D weapons and limiting riptides to 1 per army.
I am saying GW need to overhaul the entire game and make it so that D weapons are not as OP as they are, either by raising the points on them or by lowering their effectiveness. Same with allies and OP units like the Riptide. Nothing needs to be removed, nothing needs to be restricted, but the game does need to be balanced if they want to appeal to anything other than the hardcore fluff players.
Like it or not there is a significant number of players who want the rules to operate better in a competitive environment and what I am proposing here would not restrict the fluffy players in any way unless you want to make an idiot out of yourself and say that because it's fluffy some units cost a lot less points than they are worth because X army is better than all others in the fluff and the game should reflect that by giving them a leg up.

Now this kind of balance I agree with. If you can balance the game without removing options, that's fething awesome.

It's true; in the fluff, some armies are more flexible than others as far as combat formations go. I'm glad that's reflected in the game, though - I wouldn't want an organization as diverse and flexible as the Imperial Guard having the same rules as the hierarchical organization and unitary-mind of the Tyranids.

explain to me how tau are battle brothers with eldar or how eldar who have a super vendetta war against dark eldar bb with each other . Or how SM who are known for their low respect for human troops are the same as those space marines that are viewed as humanities protectors ? How BT fluff says they work offten view sisters and have a big respect for each other are less an ally which sisters view as marines who claim that the God Emperor isn't realy a god.

Makumba wrote:

It's true; in the fluff, some armies are more flexible than others as far as combat formations go. I'm glad that's reflected in the game, though - I wouldn't want an organization as diverse and flexible as the Imperial Guard having the same rules as the hierarchical organization and unitary-mind of the Tyranids.

explain to me how tau are battle brothers with eldar or how eldar who have a super vendetta war against dark eldar bb with each other . Or how SM who are known for their low respect for human troops are the same as those space marines that are viewed as humanities protectors ? How BT fluff says they work offten view sisters and have a big respect for each other are less an ally which sisters view as marines who claim that the God Emperor isn't realy a god.

1) The Eldar created the Tau according to some theories, and even discounting those, they're both perfectly rational races with comparable fighting styles who would be interested in mutual defense. I can see a pair of company-sized forces getting along quite well, actually.

2) Not all SM look down on human troops, and in fact some of them will lash out against other Marines who suggest that human lives are worthless - as for the protectors part, when most of your nation relies on myth and legend for stories about its protectors, they're bound to be pretty unreal.

3) I played BT (now Iron Hands) and I haven't seen the fluff where they work often with sisters. Even so, you can "work often" with someone and still "not like" them. The rest of your third point I can't parse because of grammar errors.

EDIT: If by "which" you meant THAN:

The Codex: Space Marines represents several different chapters. Some of them may believe the Emperor is a God, some may not. Either way, it would be unfair to the ones that do believe in the godhood of the Emperor to not be able to ally with sisters because of the ones that don't. It's better to have the option to ally as BB than to remove the option, when confronted with contradicting fluff.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

Banning D-weapons is a result of the rules for them being unbalanced and badly thought out. If you're in favour of variety and narrative options in the game, then you should be in favour of it being changed to be better written and thought out. Were it so then, in your example, you would find D-weapons not being banned by players and groups and tournaments, thus fewer people objecting to you fielding them if you thought they were narratively appropriate to your army.

This is the point. I frequently see the same people arguing against better balance and more tactically deep rules also being the first to complain about "spam" or "cheese" lists. Fix the problems with the rules and you'll see more variety and thematic choices. People are forced to choose between flavourful armies and effectiveness. Make it not such a hard choice and you'll see more of the former because players wont be penalized as much for choosing what is thematic or aesthetically interesting to them. Do you see?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

People really define 'fun' as whether or not they can win? Derp.

I would say that uncertainty of outcome is very engaging to me. I'd also say that variety of outcome is very engaging to me. I'd also say that achievement is satisfying to me. I'd also say that these things are also true of my opponents. And if whether or not a side can win is already pretty much pre-determined by unbalanced lists and rules, then each of these factors is removed from the game.

Aside from the fact that no-one you're arguing against actually said the above or implied that it was the whole definition of fun, and that you just phrased it in such a way that you can look down on people for it (Derp? really?) then even if you really are personally so immune to these aspects of the game, you should at least appreciate that most people like the uncertainty and therefore you will get more games with people that way because more people will play. If you have zero interest in uncertainty of outcome, then you might as well sit alone without any rules and just move figures around the table as you will without any framework at all.

Think of a typically "fluffy" Marine army. A half company.

Captain
Command Squad in Razorback
3 Tactical Squads in Rhinos
1 Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad

The game will approach balance when such an army can fight against a Tau army heavy in battlesuits and Riptides or an Eldar army with a titan, with perhaps a 40% chance of victory. As it currently stands I'd say it's closer to 1%.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Think of a typically "fluffy" Marine army. A half company.

Captain
Command Squad in Razorback
3 Tactical Squads in Rhinos
1 Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad

The game will approach balance when such an army can fight against a Tau army heavy in battlesuits and Riptides or an Eldar army with a titan, with perhaps a 40% chance of victory. As it currently stands I'd say it's closer to 1%.

Considering that's about 1285 with a reasonable build, I would say it wouldn't do that shabbily against a 900 point titan + gribblies (provided terrain works) and against random tau spam.

You're overestimating the performance of those units. Significantly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Think of a typically "fluffy" Marine army. A half company.

Captain
Command Squad in Razorback
3 Tactical Squads in Rhinos
1 Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad

The game will approach balance when such an army can fight against a Tau army heavy in battlesuits and Riptides or an Eldar army with a titan, with perhaps a 40% chance of victory. As it currently stands I'd say it's closer to 1%.

Considering that's about 1285 with a reasonable build, I would say it wouldn't do that shabbily against a 900 point titan + gribblies (provided terrain works) and against random tau spam.

I'm not that convinced to be honest. It seems to me that against a revenant, what you'd see would be first turn it goes, the Devastator and Command Squad would get D-weaponed. The Farseer and a couple of small squads of Eldar jetbikes would be tucked away somewhere out of harms way (but with the farseer close enough to boost the titan). Anyway, once any threats to it had been removed, the game should still be long enough for the titan to mop up what's left.

Not that I'm necessarily advocating for a game where the above configuration ought to win against a revenant titan, just that it starts to become more possible. Titans are a bit of a special case and hard to balance, but certainly the game ought to let it be viable against the Tau example and at least playable against the Titan example. If it were, then that would be great as it would open up more narrative and flavourful options, too.

i'm lost. Is this a fluffy army-v-competitive army, which is better thread or a thread asking what we see as a competitive game?

I can respect people not willing to ban Escalation in order to keep invasive custom rules to a minimum, but not banning Escalation because "I don't see the problem with it"? That's kinda whack.

Voorn wrote:
i'm lost. Is this a fluffy army-v-competitive army, which is better thread or a thread asking what we see as a competitive game?

I think it's a bit of both.

I see a competitive game as one where both parties can bring the units they like from their respective Codexes, and (assuming similar player skill) have a fair chance (no worse than 33%) of winning.

I would like to see a game that fluff bunnies and tournament players can both enjoy, because as it stands even if fluff bunnies play other fluff bunnies, if one fluff bunny happens to like Tau or Eldar, and the other likes something else, then the Taudar bunny is going in with a significant advantage.

Any game where the players are not co-operating to arrive at a common goal is competitive game.

Eg if there is an objective a player has to achive to win the game that stops the opposing player form reaching his objective and winning the game .

Lots of competitive war games use PV and FOC to allow enough balance for fun and entertaining pick up and play games.
So new and in experiance players can simply bring the same number of points using appropriate army lists and arrive at a fun and interesting engagement.

Games that have rules written specifically for the intended game play , and size and scope of the game. Have a much easier time of achiving this level of BASIC game balance.

Because the rules are written inclusively, so cover far more game play with much fewer pages of rules.(Clarity Brevity and Elegance. )


The discussion between Unit and Peregrin sort of highlights this IMO.

Peregrin is right to point out the slap dash way things have been thrown into 40k with poor concept and implementation being ignored over the level of possible short term inspiration.
(Make the latest releases sound cool, and hope no one finds out how game breaking any of it turns out to be...)
And IF you were to continue to use bastardized WHFB in SPAACE rules , with lots of poorly applied patches.
A great deal of cutting away of poorly conceived and implemented ideas would be needed to refine any level of meaningful balance...

However, IF a new rule set was written to cover the current game play with ALL the diverse units 40k currently has.
The much easier to balance INCLUSIVE rules , would allow similar levels of diversity without the monumental levels of over complication and imbalance 40k currently has.

However, a more tactical focused rule set would not appeal to GW plc current demoghraphic.
BUT as I am not an 'enthusiastic teenager goobering over the latest releases', or 'a collector first and foremost, gamer second if at all'.
A cleaner more tactically focused rule set would appeal to me.

The only reason ALL gamers can not enjoy 40k together is because the rules infer balance that is NOT present.