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.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Okay, here's something. Even if we conceded that GW is a model company first and that rules are just there to sell models... Then how does that justify a complete mess of a rule system?
If I sold pen and paper, but claimed I'm just a paper salesman and that the pens are just complimenting the paper. How can I justify leaky pens that make messes and dry up too quickly? How could I justify selling deluxe limited edition pens while still offering only the basic paper?

Simply put, it doesn't. The quality of any product you put your name on reflects upon the reputation of your entire company.

Exactly. So why do some people try to push the blame off GW's shoddy rules by saying they produce models as well? How does producing two things excuse one of them being almost worthless but charged a premium price for it? With limited collectors editions none the less.

I'm having expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."

The attuitude in the OP showed by the game designers is why i've been sick with 6th.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Exactly. So why do some people try to push the blame off GW's shoddy rules by saying they produce models as well? How does producing two things excuse one of them being almost worthless but charged a premium price for it? With limited collectors editions none the less.

I'm having expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."

I'm not trying to push the blame around; I'm simply making an observation prompted by the quotes in the original post. GW has moved, in recent years, in the direction of giving the advantage in games to the side that's spent more money on their recent armies because they're trying to sell models, not make a balanced, competitive wargame. The two goals aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but GW seems to think they are.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."

They'll get a special rule named "Forged narrative" that allows them to arbitrarily change the game's rules until they roll double sixes on the "is it fun yet?" table.

 Galorian wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."

They'll get a special rule named "Forged narrative" that allows them to arbitrarily change the game's rules until they roll double sixes on the "is it fun yet?" table.

Every result on the table leads to rolling on another table, until you've rolled enough dice that you've reached the point where you've started having fun. Because that's how fun works.

I'm tempted to start a Proposed Rules thread now.

All White Knight models get Unending Optimism: If a White Knight's last HP would be removed, put it into ongoing reserves as it waits for another thread to speak out in.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."

They'll get a special rule named "Forged narrative" that allows them to arbitrarily change the game's rules until they roll double sixes on the "is it fun yet?" table.

Every result on the table leads to rolling on another table, until you've rolled enough dice that you've reached the point where you've started having fun. Because that's how fun works.

Maybe they'll even finally find a use for that weird multiples of 2 die in the dice cube!

And of course, a game where one of the sides has the White Knights as its main detachment has its victory conditions changed to "the player with the heavier self imposed handicaps is the real winner" (making a white knights player who could have fielded his list with Eldar allies and a Tau formation but chose not to the automatic winner of practically any game).

 Galorian wrote:

It's been claimed that GW writes these rules to sell models, but I don't think anyone ever claimed they were particularly competent at it...

Were the purpose of rules to sell models, then would not the rules be less crazily expensive so that they got into more people's hands? If the core book costs £40+ then that's not an optimum way to get people to buy it so that they will then buy models. Clearly selling rules is an end in itself just using such elementary logic.

 Xca|iber wrote:

I'd be much happier if a Black Templars "Black Tide" list would stand a reasonable chance of victory against an optimized Taudar list. You know, because the Black Templars are supposed to be the go-to option for anti-psyker, anti-xeno, fanatical space marine crusaders. Oh, but that would require balance, and we can't have that, can we? Too bad, I guess the entirety of the Black Templars' fluff is about winning against psykers and xenos that have deliberately toned-down their forces to give the poor BTs a fair chance - how polite.

I understand this I really do. Your sarcasm seems to imply that you think I don't, so I want to emphasize that. Against people with similar positions to my own, there's a lot of what sums to be: 'your opinion is wrong / nonsensical.' That makes me think there's still some understanding to be gained concerning my position so I will make a liar out of myself and 'argue the "why's"'. I'm not trying to win anyone over, just explain my thoughts in hopes that everyone will walk away from the discussion having understood each other. It seems to be the only constructive goal to aim for in these types of threads.

You want a game where essentially any reasonable list has a solid chance at winning against the most optimized an army can offer.The only way to fulfill this want is, as many have said, to have a much more apt balancing of each unit. If even one unit is out of balance, it is subject to spamming and thus ruins the whole balance. This is evidenced by the current state of the game. That is, that most units are balanced but a few (but possibly increasing number) unbalanced units or combinations of units ruin the overall balance. In actuality what I want is not very different than what you want. In fact, its almost comically similar given the seemingly irresolvable nature of our stances.

It basically boils down to the word optimized. I don't want an optimal army having an equal chance against an non-optimal one. I really want to maintain the degree of control of the balancing of power between armies that we currently enjoy. Against like skilled opponents I want to have roughly equal powered armies this is true. When I play someone who is a lot worse or better than I, it makes the game a lot more fun for the more skilled person to be at a disadvantage. Points handicaps are another way to do this. While I have no problem with points handicaps and will also utilize them to even the playing field if necessary, getting rid of armies of differing power levels nevertheless limits my options to do so. Intentionally unbalancing the game to restore this freedom is much more difficult than seeing what is imbalanced and electing to reign it in. Balancing the game more reduces my ability to customize it without deviating further from the rules.

If you are to increase balance in the game, 'optimized' looses a lot of its meaning (optimized armies no longer varying widely from unoptimized ones in power). This will lead to a greater variety of armies you see, again as many have said in this thread and others. However, this is only true in a setting where optimized lists are prevalent. The variety this introduces is already manifest in lists that are not optimal. If both parties are taking lists that aren't optimized one can use any unit he wishes. This is done by taking the underpowered units in addition with some overpowered units to average out to an army comparable in power to your opponents. This is not speculation, as this is how I play. I can take Possessed, Mutilators, Warptalons, etc without fear of it being a garunteed one-sided victory. Similarly, I can take powerful units without fear of steamrolling my opponent. Balancing the game more will not add any variety for me as I already see this level of variety.

Narative/Fluffy play, for me, is about the story that is unfolding on the board. I like my stories to characterful. Imbalanced units make this side of the game much more interesting. You really can forge a narrative so to say around that powerhouse unit you brought because you have some expectations about its performance. If all units are equally useful, you're not likely to have any star players in your story beyond lucky dice. You could pile points into the unit assuming it has the options to make it more of a stand out in a balanced game but the resulting lack of points greatly limits what you can for the rest of your army. However, if the unit is inherently powerful you can still take whatever you want for the rest of your army, maybe avoid that one other powerhouse unit in your codex. There's much less restrictions because said restrictions don't have to be spelled out. If the balance is to be explicitly spelled out by GW it will have to be down in a simple way out of practicality. You won't have these powerful units, or they will be so expensive as to define your army just by taking it. A single person's ability to balance their own army is not so strict. We can come up with a myriad of ways to balance each and every list. A similar argument can be made for inherently weak units except obviously you are not expecting them to be all-stars. However, when they do stand out its all the sweeter. A subpar unit like mutilators getting to grips with something widely considered good and taking them out makes for good story telling. In the balanced version you have none of these extremes, either up or down. Balancing the game more will decrease variability and thus hurt narrative gameplay.

I design my list with both myself and my opponent in mind. More accurately I design my list around having a enjoyable game, not to optimize power. I think this attitude is the most important part getting the most out of the game. Yes there are other things to address specific issues like more terrain, rules tweaks, low points levels, etc. but they are secondary things compared to the attitude toward the game. People seem to think this is some impossible arcane art that requires a binder of house rules, only playing with best friends and not being allowed at LGSs but it doesn't. Admittedly, playing this way would be near impossible if every game you have is with a person you've never met before as it benefits from a level of sportsmanship not commonly required of games. I can't even imagine a store with so many people coming through that every time you play its with a new person. Nearly all my games, even pick ups, are with somebody I have played with before. It is a social game, talk to the people you're playing with. It's not hard to find people who want to try new things and may be tired of running the same ol' optimized list. All it takes is saying something like "hey, my tsons list is kinda weak. You have a less powerful list you want to throw against it?" It won't kill you to actually talk to another person. Sure not everyone will bite but some will, and then you're free to try all kinds of things.

Analogies seem popular in this thread so I'll toss in my own. I view this tuning of power level like playing pick up soccer with a group that varies in physical ability (analogous to army power) and soccer skill (analogous to, you guessed it, 40k skill). No one is going to slide tackle the 65 year old dude with the knee brace. Its well within the rules to do so but everyone knows, without even discussing it in this case, not to. In order for everyone to enjoy themselves, people play at a level according to their opponent. By limiting whats allowed when playing against him (self handicapping if you will), getting the ball from him is more of a challenge than breaking both his legs, shrugging, and say "its the rules bro, complain to FIFA". Also, he still enjoys himself because his experience and skill allows him to still stand a chance. I can argue til the cows come home about how everyone playing should be of the same physical ability and skill (like a more balanced game). This would indeed lead to more intense, competitive matches but that's not really the aim of pick up soccer games (nor the aim of my fun-oriented casual hobby).

I don't view it as a 'dumbing down' of my army. I see it as simultaneously taking the things I want while ensuring the game isn't lopsided. Its part of the game for me, what point level, and what power level. Its my hobby, my game, I take ownership of it. I'm not working against GW, I'm working with them to give myself the best experience I can.

Has anyone thought that maybe the style that 40k is going towards is out of date? I saw someone compare warhammer balance of races to Starcraft balance of races. And in starcraft there is that thing where every unit has it uses. And its true not all units in warhammer 40k are useful. And another thing is not being able to counter your opponent on the fly because the list is prebuilt so there is no way to add in what you need.

How about combining the 2 games into a TT game? start the game with 100-200 points of your races most basic troop and an HQ that cant come onto the field untill a certain turn to stop HQ running up and destroying all enemy troops. Your HQ building gives acquisition points every turn. and holding objectives will give you more than your HQ building gives every turn. Each player spends points at the end of the round and brings units in within 6" of their HQ building at the end of the round. Make the objective to destroy the enemy HQ that has 20 hull points and armor 14 all around and cat be reduced by lance weaponry. Make it so units have 12" sight range (18" for scout) and if your army cant see the enemy the enemy gets +1 cover save for every 6" away from you. Give it a fog of war feeling and makes it so that troops are useful for sight to your big guns in the back. Requisition points are used to build units and make it a tech tree that you spend points on to unlock as not to make it so that someone just builds some god unit right from the start. This makes nearly all units useful again whether it be end game units or early game units. Also get rid of the turn limit. the first few turns go very fast and i dont see turns going past 15 or 20 but you can easily get to turn 7 or 8 within 15 minutes. I feel like this game would be best played with 4 players rather than 2 but thats how I see it would most run effectively.

I came up with this in under an hour. I havnt play tested it so it might need some balancing but this is off the top of my head.

JubbJubbz wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:

I'd be much happier if a Black Templars "Black Tide" list would stand a reasonable chance of victory against an optimized Taudar list. You know, because the Black Templars are supposed to be the go-to option for anti-psyker, anti-xeno, fanatical space marine crusaders. Oh, but that would require balance, and we can't have that, can we? Too bad, I guess the entirety of the Black Templars' fluff is about winning against psykers and xenos that have deliberately toned-down their forces to give the poor BTs a fair chance - how polite.

I understand this I really do. Your sarcasm seems to imply that you think I don't, so I want to emphasize that. Against people with similar positions to my own, there's a lot of what sums to be: 'your opinion is wrong / nonsensical.' That makes me think there's still some understanding to be gained concerning my position so I will make a liar out of myself and 'argue the "why's"'. I'm not trying to win anyone over, just explain my thoughts in hopes that everyone will walk away from the discussion having understood each other. It seems to be the only constructive goal to aim for in these types of threads.

You want a game where essentially any reasonable list has a solid chance at winning against the most optimized an army can offer.The only way to fulfill this want is, as many have said, to have a much more apt balancing of each unit. If even one unit is out of balance, it is subject to spamming and thus ruins the whole balance. This is evidenced by the current state of the game. That is, that most units are balanced but a few (but possibly increasing number) unbalanced units or combinations of units ruin the overall balance. In actuality what I want is not very different than what you want. In fact, its almost comically similar given the seemingly irresolvable nature of our stances.

It basically boils down to the word optimized. I don't want an optimal army having an equal chance against an non-optimal one. I really want to maintain the degree of control of the balancing of power between armies that we currently enjoy. Against like skilled opponents I want to have roughly equal powered armies this is true. When I play someone who is a lot worse or better than I, it makes the game a lot more fun for the more skilled person to be at a disadvantage. Points handicaps are another way to do this. While I have no problem with points handicaps and will also utilize them to even the playing field if necessary, getting rid of armies of differing power levels nevertheless limits my options to do so. Intentionally unbalancing the game to restore this freedom is much more difficult than seeing what is imbalanced and electing to reign it in. Balancing the game more reduces my ability to customize it without deviating further from the rules.

If you are to increase balance in the game, 'optimized' looses a lot of its meaning (optimized armies no longer varying widely from unoptimized ones in power). This will lead to a greater variety of armies you see, again as many have said in this thread and others. However, this is only true in a setting where optimized lists are prevalent. The variety this introduces is already manifest in lists that are not optimal. If both parties are taking lists that aren't optimized one can use any unit he wishes. This is done by taking the underpowered units in addition with some overpowered units to average out to an army comparable in power to your opponents. This is not speculation, as this is how I play. I can take Possessed, Mutilators, Warptalons, etc without fear of it being a garunteed one-sided victory. Similarly, I can take powerful units without fear of steamrolling my opponent. Balancing the game more will not add any variety for me as I already see this level of variety.

Narative/Fluffy play, for me, is about the story that is unfolding on the board. I like my stories to characterful. Imbalanced units make this side of the game much more interesting. You really can forge a narrative so to say around that powerhouse unit you brought because you have some expectations about its performance. If all units are equally useful, you're not likely to have any star players in your story beyond lucky dice. You could pile points into the unit assuming it has the options to make it more of a stand out in a balanced game but the resulting lack of points greatly limits what you can for the rest of your army. However, if the unit is inherently powerful you can still take whatever you want for the rest of your army, maybe avoid that one other powerhouse unit in your codex. There's much less restrictions because said restrictions don't have to be spelled out. If the balance is to be explicitly spelled out by GW it will have to be down in a simple way out of practicality. You won't have these powerful units, or they will be so expensive as to define your army just by taking it. A single person's ability to balance their own army is not so strict. We can come up with a myriad of ways to balance each and every list. A similar argument can be made for inherently weak units except obviously you are not expecting them to be all-stars. However, when they do stand out its all the sweeter. A subpar unit like mutilators getting to grips with something widely considered good and taking them out makes for good story telling. In the balanced version you have none of these extremes, either up or down. Balancing the game more will decrease variability and thus hurt narrative gameplay.

I design my list with both myself and my opponent in mind. More accurately I design my list around having a enjoyable game, not to optimize power. I think this attitude is the most important part getting the most out of the game. Yes there are other things to address specific issues like more terrain, rules tweaks, low points levels, etc. but they are secondary things compared to the attitude toward the game. People seem to think this is some impossible arcane art that requires a binder of house rules, only playing with best friends and not being allowed at LGSs but it doesn't. Admittedly, playing this way would be near impossible if every game you have is with a person you've never met before as it benefits from a level of sportsmanship not commonly required of games. I can't even imagine a store with so many people coming through that every time you play its with a new person. Nearly all my games, even pick ups, are with somebody I have played with before. It is a social game, talk to the people you're playing with. It's not hard to find people who want to try new things and may be tired of running the same ol' optimized list. All it takes is saying something like "hey, my tsons list is kinda weak. You have a less powerful list you want to throw against it?" It won't kill you to actually talk to another person. Sure not everyone will bite but some will, and then you're free to try all kinds of things.

Analogies seem popular in this thread so I'll toss in my own. I view this tuning of power level like playing pick up soccer with a group that varies in physical ability (analogous to army power) and soccer skill (analogous to, you guessed it, 40k skill). No one is going to slide tackle the 65 year old dude with the knee brace. Its well within the rules to do so but everyone knows, without even discussing it in this case, not to. In order for everyone to enjoy themselves, people play at a level according to their opponent. By limiting whats allowed when playing against him (self handicapping if you will), getting the ball from him is more of a challenge than breaking both his legs, shrugging, and say "its the rules bro, complain to FIFA". Also, he still enjoys himself because his experience and skill allows him to still stand a chance. I can argue til the cows come home about how everyone playing should be of the same physical ability and skill (like a more balanced game). This would indeed lead to more intense, competitive matches but that's not really the aim of pick up soccer games (nor the aim of my fun-oriented casual hobby).

I don't view it as a 'dumbing down' of my army. I see it as simultaneously taking the things I want while ensuring the game isn't lopsided. Its part of the game for me, what point level, and what power level. Its my hobby, my game, I take ownership of it. I'm not working against GW, I'm working with them to give myself the best experience I can.

I actually started a writing up a decently long, well thought out reply, but then I realized that this post doesn't actually make sense, and that even though I've been explaining the same thing for years, people keep bringing up the same broken points.

Congratulations; you may not be right, but you have broken my spirit.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Hunam0001 wrote:
Play at 1500 points, with a 500 point sideboard (sideboard must consist of full squads), single standard FOC (no allies, fortifications, lords of war etc), best 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5 games.

This wouldn't work out as easily as you think. Most squads aren't just interchangeable. For example I couldn't swap out a Riptide, Crisis suit squad, or Stealth suit squad with one of the others if they were properly kitted out. The points just don't match up that easily. Same thing with Broadsides and the vehicles in Heavy support. You could try a 1,000 point list with multiple 500 point allies available, but even then it's tough to work out on the fly like a side board.

Yeah, it does limit how you can equip your squads, which can be looked at as either too limiting, or adding another layer of strategy in list building. I kinda like the idea of having a trade off between min-maxing vs getting "useful" point values on your squads.

It's also really good at reducing the dreaded "bad match up".

I would like to give GW some credit though, with their limited abilities. Fleshing out... what... 15 armies now? Fleshing out over a dozen armies with the limitations of a d6 and a 10 point stat system is a bit harder than Starcraft having 3 races with computer controlled stats/damages.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I would like to give GW some credit though, with their limited abilities. Fleshing out... what... 15 armies now? Fleshing out over a dozen armies with the limitations of a d6 and a 10 point stat system is a bit harder than Starcraft having 3 races with computer controlled stats/damages.

For what it's worth, more than half of those 15 armies could be easily and sensibly reduced to 2 or 3 books, and the resources could definitely be better spent on making sure everything is done better. A lot of times, simply adding more doesn't equate to better. I'd rather fewer meaningful choices, than an endless amount of superfluous ones.

JubbJubbz wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:

I'd be much happier if a Black Templars "Black Tide" list would stand a reasonable chance of victory against an optimized Taudar list. You know, because the Black Templars are supposed to be the go-to option for anti-psyker, anti-xeno, fanatical space marine crusaders. Oh, but that would require balance, and we can't have that, can we? Too bad, I guess the entirety of the Black Templars' fluff is about winning against psykers and xenos that have deliberately toned-down their forces to give the poor BTs a fair chance - how polite.

I understand this I really do. Your sarcasm seems to imply that you think I don't, so I want to emphasize that. Against people with similar positions to my own, there's a lot of what sums to be: 'your opinion is wrong / nonsensical.' That makes me think there's still some understanding to be gained concerning my position so I will make a liar out of myself and 'argue the "why's"'. I'm not trying to win anyone over, just explain my thoughts in hopes that everyone will walk away from the discussion having understood each other. It seems to be the only constructive goal to aim for in these types of threads.

You want a game where essentially any reasonable list has a solid chance at winning against the most optimized an army can offer.The only way to fulfill this want is, as many have said, to have a much more apt balancing of each unit. If even one unit is out of balance, it is subject to spamming and thus ruins the whole balance. This is evidenced by the current state of the game. That is, that most units are balanced but a few (but possibly increasing number) unbalanced units or combinations of units ruin the overall balance. In actuality what I want is not very different than what you want. In fact, its almost comically similar given the seemingly irresolvable nature of our stances.

It basically boils down to the word optimized. I don't want an optimal army having an equal chance against an non-optimal one. I really want to maintain the degree of control of the balancing of power between armies that we currently enjoy. Against like skilled opponents I want to have roughly equal powered armies this is true. When I play someone who is a lot worse or better than I, it makes the game a lot more fun for the more skilled person to be at a disadvantage. Points handicaps are another way to do this. While I have no problem with points handicaps and will also utilize them to even the playing field if necessary, getting rid of armies of differing power levels nevertheless limits my options to do so. Intentionally unbalancing the game to restore this freedom is much more difficult than seeing what is imbalanced and electing to reign it in. Balancing the game more reduces my ability to customize it without deviating further from the rules.

If you are to increase balance in the game, 'optimized' looses a lot of its meaning (optimized armies no longer varying widely from unoptimized ones in power). This will lead to a greater variety of armies you see, again as many have said in this thread and others. However, this is only true in a setting where optimized lists are prevalent. The variety this introduces is already manifest in lists that are not optimal. If both parties are taking lists that aren't optimized one can use any unit he wishes. This is done by taking the underpowered units in addition with some overpowered units to average out to an army comparable in power to your opponents. This is not speculation, as this is how I play. I can take Possessed, Mutilators, Warptalons, etc without fear of it being a garunteed one-sided victory. Similarly, I can take powerful units without fear of steamrolling my opponent. Balancing the game more will not add any variety for me as I already see this level of variety.

Narative/Fluffy play, for me, is about the story that is unfolding on the board. I like my stories to characterful. Imbalanced units make this side of the game much more interesting. You really can forge a narrative so to say around that powerhouse unit you brought because you have some expectations about its performance. If all units are equally useful, you're not likely to have any star players in your story beyond lucky dice. You could pile points into the unit assuming it has the options to make it more of a stand out in a balanced game but the resulting lack of points greatly limits what you can for the rest of your army. However, if the unit is inherently powerful you can still take whatever you want for the rest of your army, maybe avoid that one other powerhouse unit in your codex. There's much less restrictions because said restrictions don't have to be spelled out. If the balance is to be explicitly spelled out by GW it will have to be down in a simple way out of practicality. You won't have these powerful units, or they will be so expensive as to define your army just by taking it. A single person's ability to balance their own army is not so strict. We can come up with a myriad of ways to balance each and every list. A similar argument can be made for inherently weak units except obviously you are not expecting them to be all-stars. However, when they do stand out its all the sweeter. A subpar unit like mutilators getting to grips with something widely considered good and taking them out makes for good story telling. In the balanced version you have none of these extremes, either up or down. Balancing the game more will decrease variability and thus hurt narrative gameplay.

I design my list with both myself and my opponent in mind. More accurately I design my list around having a enjoyable game, not to optimize power. I think this attitude is the most important part getting the most out of the game. Yes there are other things to address specific issues like more terrain, rules tweaks, low points levels, etc. but they are secondary things compared to the attitude toward the game. People seem to think this is some impossible arcane art that requires a binder of house rules, only playing with best friends and not being allowed at LGSs but it doesn't. Admittedly, playing this way would be near impossible if every game you have is with a person you've never met before as it benefits from a level of sportsmanship not commonly required of games. I can't even imagine a store with so many people coming through that every time you play its with a new person. Nearly all my games, even pick ups, are with somebody I have played with before. It is a social game, talk to the people you're playing with. It's not hard to find people who want to try new things and may be tired of running the same ol' optimized list. All it takes is saying something like "hey, my tsons list is kinda weak. You have a less powerful list you want to throw against it?" It won't kill you to actually talk to another person. Sure not everyone will bite but some will, and then you're free to try all kinds of things.

Analogies seem popular in this thread so I'll toss in my own. I view this tuning of power level like playing pick up soccer with a group that varies in physical ability (analogous to army power) and soccer skill (analogous to, you guessed it, 40k skill). No one is going to slide tackle the 65 year old dude with the knee brace. Its well within the rules to do so but everyone knows, without even discussing it in this case, not to. In order for everyone to enjoy themselves, people play at a level according to their opponent. By limiting whats allowed when playing against him (self handicapping if you will), getting the ball from him is more of a challenge than breaking both his legs, shrugging, and say "its the rules bro, complain to FIFA". Also, he still enjoys himself because his experience and skill allows him to still stand a chance. I can argue til the cows come home about how everyone playing should be of the same physical ability and skill (like a more balanced game). This would indeed lead to more intense, competitive matches but that's not really the aim of pick up soccer games (nor the aim of my fun-oriented casual hobby).

I don't view it as a 'dumbing down' of my army. I see it as simultaneously taking the things I want while ensuring the game isn't lopsided. Its part of the game for me, what point level, and what power level. Its my hobby, my game, I take ownership of it. I'm not working against GW, I'm working with them to give myself the best experience I can.

What I just can't understand is how you and the few others who hold this opinion can claim to understand this game and how it works yet fail to grasp the fact that proper balance will not affect your ability to make lists that are better or worse than others. Proper balance is about making every unit viable in its own role and priced appropriately, it does not prevent it from being a poor choice for a given strategy or playstyle.

To use your soccer analogy, a fit man in his prime playing against a 65 year old with a bad knee will tone down his aggressiveness and take great care not to injure the old man or humiliate him overmuch, but he will not break his own knee in order to "even the playing field".

You want to go easy on a newbie? Come up with an army list that has poor synergy, neglect to use special rules and abilities that you could have but feel are too much to drop on the poor sob at his current level and don't play aggressively.

Seems to me your issue may in fact be one of laziness- in a poorly balanced game it's trivial to make a piss poor list by picking terribad models that no one in his right mind would put in a list he wants to see winning a game, make the game balanced however and you might have to actually think for a bit about unit combinations that won't work well together.

And another thing- currently the game is so poorly balanced that I've on one occasion stomped an IG player flat while playing a fluffy Necron Dark Harvest list that had Flayed Ones for troops and a unit of Lychguard for lolz...

I do agree. Having every of marine attempted to be fully fleshed out does stretch the limits thin and puts an imbalance on the special rules. For example I have no idea what chapters are in the C:SM because I only see White Scars, Ultramarines, Iron Hands, and I hear people crying over the Black Templar thing. I know I haven't seen Dark Angels in months.

Having multiple marine armies really does press the rules to try and make them feel special. Honestly I don't know why. Tau list off several regions and worlds where different armies come from and their differences, but Tau don't get home world tactics. And honestly I think it would put a deserved smile on the face of CSM players to see the loyalists reduced to a few elite founding chapter units.

Wow everyone is so heated in their discussions i feel like my post got skipped over...

 Xerics wrote:
Wow everyone is so heated in their discussions i feel like my post got skipped over...

The problem with what you propose is that it's a lot of added complexity that doesn't do much to solve the core issues of the game, and does little else other than make it play like something else. Keep in mind that a lot of armies currently have no way to answer what others put forth against them, and even if you have a turn-by-turn escalation, that won't change.

What units are there no answers to? Every race has something to kill tanks. and the long range crap gets minimized by the fog of war aspect of it. There are lots of ways to play the game and it does fix alot of core mechanics. Gun line doesnt work due to fog of war. There isn't as much complexity as you think there is. Use poker chips for acquisition points. And it is deffinately more troop based because you need those objectives to build stuff. Does it make it so that it can easily ramp in one persons favor if they have more objectives? yes but you dont just lose as soon as you put your armies on the field and realize you don't have anything to kill that tank. Tell me specifically what it doesn't fix instead of just shooting it down. Add some constructive criticism instead of just saying no. the no answer is the easy way out and isn't helping solve the problem overall in any case that's presented.

But that's the problem. Tau would now be neutered thanks to Fog of War along with armies that rely on actually being able to stay at a distance, like IG.

IK would be impossible to use since they only have two units.

It's not a simple fix that can just be tacked on.

With the fog of war you can use your troops to get that vision for your long range weaponry. Think of it like calling in an airstrike. Someone has to give the coordinates.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I can't help but laugh every time I see someone suggest "just make your own rules."
In general people are pretty terrible at it. Look at GW, they're bad at it and they're professionals with decades of experience.

The difference is, GW just don't give a hoot. You can't make me believe that one of the oldest wargames companies around, operating with a largely similar ruleset to the one they had fourteen years ago, couldn't have balanced the game if they'd put effort into it. When you look at how, say, the rules for Firestorm Armada or Warmachine have improved in less time over fewer editions, there is no defence.

And on "just change the rules to suit you, man!" arguments--apart from anything else, why on earth would I splash out a big pile of cash (bigger than any other game) to get rules, which I then have to spend more time tinkering with? I don't need to buy a huge book to not use the rules in it, you know.

Cladmir wrote:

Please forgive my noob-ness here. But when you say "everything is powerful; if there is a threat on the board, you can deal with it", are you saying that it's not the same as having powerful stuff like screamerstar of serpent-spam? If everything is powerful doesn't that mean that everything is on the same level and therefore nothing is powerful? Or are you saying that 40k would be better if every armies can build a super-powerful build?

If every option is good, then nothing is bad, and every option just degenerates to "average", isn't that right?

And there really that many things that are "bad"? Or are they just "not good enough", which, in a game that can be very competitive, can easily make things that are "not good enough" labeled as "bad"? I would say that, for me, it's not "For every good option, there are a dozen bad ones" but rather "For every good option, there are a dozen less-good ones that will make winning [far] harder than if I picked the good option".

"Broken" is a misleading word. It's more accurate to say that nothing you can take will win a game of Warmachine for you, and though it's not impossible to have a "Might as well have not shown up." game, it usually takes some quite skewed lists on both side (something that the official tournament rules are designed to alleviate by letting you take two lists and switch between them for different games). There are a lot of things which are virtually impossible to deal with one way (so could be seen as "broken"), but fairly easy to deal with another way. It's rare to find yourself completely helpless. Games tend to be adaptive, about trying to prevent the synergies of your opponent while trying to make sure your own go off. And what those synergies are can vary hugely, depending on playstyle and exactly what's in the army. So it's more accurate to say that many options can be both amazing and weak, depending on what they synergise with and how often their ideal circumstances come up.

For example, Khador can deploy infantry against which ranged attacks from more than 5" away miss, and which have a virtually untouchable defence in close combat. This seems horrifying and broken, until you realise that you can fire commonly available AOE weapons among them, which will likely kill them even when they don't directly hit anything.

Also every race has a melee unit. With the fog of war melee armies won't just get shot up from 60" rail guns. Tau would finally have a use for their Kroot and Vespid allies. Everyone has this gunline Tau frame of mind and because thats what tournament players are using thats all they look at. Seems like everyone is a follower rather than a theorycrafter.

Because shooting at stuff is fun?

I don't like CC armies, even if my army is a bit better at it than the run of the mill IG, give me loads of cannons and a trench system to dump my dudes in anytime over having to fight in CC.

You dont have to do CC. you can use your basic cheap troop to give your big 60" guns sight. Dont have to assault. Just have to give sight. Think of it like playing starcraft. A siege tank can only shoot at something it can see. So you might run a marine up the ramp to give sight to allow the siege tank to shoot at enemies on the ridge.

 Galorian wrote:

JubbJubbz wrote:

...

What I just can't understand is how you and the few others who hold this opinion can claim to understand this game and how it works yet fail to grasp the fact that proper balance will not affect your ability to make lists that are better or worse than others. Proper balance is about making every unit viable in its own role and priced appropriately, it does not prevent it from being a poor choice for a given strategy or playstyle.

I do understand that. That is why I was very careful to frame the desire of a balanced game in terms of lists and armies. Its not a binary outcome; either you can or cannot create bad lists, its a question of degree. While in a balanced game each unit doesn't become interchangeably useful (the point I think you're making here) its does not allow for any single unit to be imbalanced as that unit can then be abused. I feel that rules that allow for unit imbalance allow a greater degree of freedom in this regard. Why limit myself to only balanced units when I could have either and create more interesting and dynamic games because of it. Imbalanced rules are like a sandbox for me, I can create balance or imbalance using them.

To use your soccer analogy, a fit man in his prime playing against a 65 year old with a bad knee will tone down his aggressiveness and take great care not to injure the old man or humiliate him overmuch, but he will not break his own knee in order to "even the playing field".

We could break everyone's knees to make it fair so everyone is on the same level, Or put movement restrictive braces on good knees if you want something less... gruesome. Then skill would take over as physical ability has been normalized. No player has an inherent physical (army power) advantage. This is how I see a game with enforced balance. However, if you let each player choose how much to tone themselves down then you allow for a fun game for all. This of course crumbles if even one person goes full tilt regardless but in general folks are pretty reasonable.

You want to go easy on a newbie? Come up with an army list that has poor synergy, neglect to use special rules and abilities that you could have but feel are too much to drop on the poor sob at his current level and don't play aggressively.

Indeed I can, those are good ideas, but I can also do that now. Why limit my options when playing against those less competitive? I would rather have the option to appeal to all these methods.

Seems to me your issue may in fact be one of laziness- in a poorly balanced game it's trivial to make a piss poor list by picking terribad models that no one in his right mind would put in a list he wants to see winning a game, make the game balanced however and you might have to actually think for a bit about unit combinations that won't work well together.

Quite the opposite of lazy, I'm proactive about getting what I want out of the game. Its also trivial to pick the most powerful list if all you are worried about is power. If you create the balance yourself, you get the thing you seem to want. Using non-optimal units takes thought as they tend to be less point and click. Synergy becomes more important because units don't have the sheer power to overcome any obstacle. It takes careful consideration to get any use at all out of warptalons.

Its easy to put the 'balanced 40k' option up on a pedestal, assuming that the ones doing the balancing will do such a fantastic job that all options are viable yet reward intelligent use. This seems rarely the case for balanced things. Options become fewer, differing mostly in name. Unique things become more alike because its easier to balance like objects. It seems like hoping against hope to think that the company you deem puts so little effort into the game will about face and create some intricately balanced system while maintaining the current vast number of options.

 Xerics wrote:
You dont have to do CC. you can use your basic cheap troop to give your big 60" guns sight. Dont have to assault. Just have to give sight. Think of it like playing starcraft. A siege tank can only shoot at something it can see. So you might run a marine up the ramp to give sight to allow the siege tank to shoot at enemies on the ridge.

There's this thing, its called range-finders, all Death Korps heavy artillery crewmen pack come with one of those, don't need to send anyone with those things.

Oh my... You think Kroot and Vespid are CC units. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

Well if someone would actually use kroot and vespid maybe I'd know but as it stands everyone who plays Tau plays cookie cutter Tau. Triptide with eldar allies or O'Veasa Star with Pathfinders for markerlights and broadsides with smart missile systems. Army sound familiar maybe? What about Eldar (and I play eldar mind you) ? Serpent Spam and Jetseer council are the only ways to go if you want to win. Tank Spam Guard. White Scars Bikers. Necron Wraith Star. Demon Screamerstar. Doesn't anyone play anything original or is everyone a bunch of mindless zombies playing the same list tournament playes use and at the same point values even. I'd like to see one of you naysayers play a 7000 point game and put up a battle report on it. I'm willing to bet alot of people can't even get to 7000 points because they buy exactly enough models for 2000 points because thats what tournaments are playing. 2000 points is a skirmish. warhammer should be "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only skirmishes." because nobody plays war anymore. A war isn't 3 tanks a handful of infintry and a MC here and there. A war should look like lines of guardians with jetbike support. Air cover from the skies from at least 6 Crimson Hunters. 5 falcons 8 wave seprents 5 Fire Prisms. Large groups of wraithguard, a few wraithknights and wraithlords with warwalker support fire. a few squads of Fire Dragons, Striking Scorpions, banshees and maybe a troupe of harlequins, backed up by 3 Scorpion Superheavy Grav tanks, 4 towering destroyer knight titans, 2 Revenant Scout titans and a Phantom in the background all led by a farseer council, all the phoenix lords, The Avatar of Khaine and as many Special Characters the Eldar can muster to be there. thats a warhost. Not this measly 2000 points crap of "Oh Escalation/Apocalypse/Stronghold Assault isn't in the BRB so we aren't gunna play it" crap.