Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/11 11:38:52
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
I want more games where 2 people bring 150+ models per side. and im not talking 150 conscripts at 2000 points either. I'm talking 150+ units of functional eldar army vs an equivilent point cost of any other army. I would love to see what 7000+ points of Tyranids looks like
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/11 11:46:57
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Imperial Agent Provocateur
The Ocean
|
a completely interactive, projected, holographic experience.
|
Crusader, Honor Guard of the Cardinal's Crimson.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 00:11:43
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Savage Khorne Berserker Biker
|
Nicely put, Agent_Temolo. I fully agree.
What I'd add to the list:
1- Well-distributed releases. Plenty of other games release updates for rules and models that cover all or nearly all factions. 40K is infamous for leaving some armies in the cold for years while showering new stuff on others. Maybe they will work toward that once all new codices are out, but I'm not holding my breath.
2- Better punch/counterpunch thinking. Introducing stuff like flyers/knights/superheavies without a good long moment to ask "So what about the guys who CANNOT counter this?" is not a viable method in the long run. Combined with the issue above, it really makes players of certain armies feel sidetracked and used as mooks for the poster armies.
3- Varied merchandise. You know how imperial players love their tape measures and model cases festooned with aquilas? Well,hold on to something, but you'll be shocked to learn that chaos and eldar players would also love to get merch themed after THEIR armies.
4-Better communication. I'm not even asking for the return of GW forums (I can imagine what a beast that was to manage), but thinking you can be as inescrutable as the Lost Ark in the age of twitter is insane. When Corvus Beli decided to do a new ALEPH faction in Infinity, hey pretty much just posted a topic on the forum asking the players what they'd like or felt would fit the theme. Sure, they discarded the crap, but that's a given, and used a lot of the opinions as inspiration. Hell, if you post a rules question there, odds are decent you might get a Dev to answer on a good day and make things final.
5-Continual updating. Flames of war, Infinity and other games are very quick to spot what is overpowered/underpowered and fixing it in real time. It shouldn't take a whole edition to make some combos stop being auto-win and some units to rise above garbage.
|
In Boxing matches, you actually get paid to take a dive and make the other guy look good.
In Warhammer 40K, you're expected to pay cash out of your pocket for the privilege of having Marines and IG trample all over your Xenos/Chaos. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 00:32:53
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Stalwart Dark Angels Space Marine
|
I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/12 00:35:13
4000
wordbearers 3000
1000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 01:13:37
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
ironhammer2194 wrote:I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out. Personally id wish the game would give you a choice whether to spam or not "and still be relatively viable". at least to stop the labeling. I mean i love seeing a well painted air Elysian army. its fluffy and spam at the same time. id hate to be labeled a waac or a bozo just for taking something like that or a green tide list. its flufspamtastic.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/12 01:14:19
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 01:25:14
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
ironhammer2194 wrote:I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
Firstly, balance would solve this.
Secondly, 'spamming' in and of itself isn't a problem, its the use of each codex's three viable units. Personally, I like lists that are symmetrical, redundant, and fluffy. Some people call it spam, but if I played Eldar, you bet I'd be taking small Guardian squads in Wave Serpents backed up by other grav tanks.
However, for people who don't like lists like that, balance would allow for more varied lists to not be left completely behind.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 01:31:46
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Stalwart Dark Angels Space Marine
|
Desubot wrote: ironhammer2194 wrote:I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
Personally id wish the game would give you a choice whether to spam or not "and still be relatively viable". at least to stop the labeling.
I mean i love seeing a well painted air Elysian army. its fluffy and spam at the same time. id hate to be labeled a waac or a bozo just for taking something like that or a green tide list. its flufspamtastic.
You're right, I was too harsh and made a blanket statement. I'm all for fluffy lists. Pick completely agree with your statement. However it's frustrating looking at the tournament scene and seeing really boring lists that copy/paste the best units. I just think 40k should encourage more variety rather that filling your force org slots with the same unit.
|
4000
wordbearers 3000
1000 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 01:33:42
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Blacksails wrote: ironhammer2194 wrote:I want there to be less spamming. I don't know how to stop this, but it's annoying to have someone come up to me and say, "Hey man, I just came up with this tournament winning list. It's 2 destroyer lords, 3 wraith units, 3 annihilation barges, and four troops in flyers. It's brilliant!" I just think it would be nice to see some variety in lists rather than some bozo thinking he's being innovative by finding the best unit in each category an maxing it out.
Firstly, balance would solve this.
Secondly, 'spamming' in and of itself isn't a problem, its the use of each codex's three viable units. Personally, I like lists that are symmetrical, redundant, and fluffy. Some people call it spam, but if I played Eldar, you bet I'd be taking small Guardian squads in Wave Serpents backed up by other grav tanks.
However, for people who don't like lists like that, balance would allow for more varied lists to not be left completely behind.
That last line in a nutshell. The problem right now is that every army has basically one "go to" list if you actually want to win. Everything else is inferior to that; not always to the point where you can't win at all, but where it's decidedly inferior to the "spam" list, and you are purposely hurting yourself by choosing not to take the spam list. An important part of game design has always been the concept of options, but more than just options is the notion that you should never be put in a situation where you WILLINGLY hinder your own effectiveness - a balanced game makes it so there is never the question of "I'm weaker by taking X, is that worth it?", there are different ways to be effective that are all roughly equivalent. 40k has missed the mark in that aspect for many years now.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 09:18:41
Subject: Re:What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Brainy Zoanthrope
|
Thing is that without absolute perfect balance there will always be a "best" list, the difference between them may be smaller but that best list will still exist.
As such you can assume if 6-7 races are gonna show up there are 6-7 lists you need to be able to take on and the best list becomes obvious. Limited game time and travel to "competitive" play stunts the field far more than the ruleset as even the best horde in the game is gonna be a no show due to deliberate slow play tactics. It's poor sportsmanship but it's a hell of a thing to prove and it does go on, especially if that other player thinks he may lose.
6th has been my favourite edition of recent years (2nd ed was my favourite with all the extra rules but they are simply not suited to the larger scale 40k has moved to) it's fun, has lots of options for fun armies with allies, dataslates, supplements.
The game isn't perfect, there are some rules I'd tweak and there are some rules that could be easily abused in the name of power but with my own gaming group this is not even an issue. If one of us somehow became enamoured with the Riptide and wanted to run 4 because of their love of the model *and* unlike us wanted to run the same list week in week out we would likely just bump the points cost up a little essentially imposing a multi-riptide tax based on the relative players skill until the games involving them evened out. They can still earn a win but don't get it for free because of their army choice.
Now you can argue that GW should do it themselves but each units power is relative to the number of them fielded, the skill of the player, the supporting army elements and dozens of other factors, it's a minefield. As a result the best option is to make little tweaks at your own end based on your own group. The more diverse your available armies the harder it is to balance at a central point.
In conclusion I think 6th is about where I want it to be, it caters to my playstyle and is mutable enough for each game to be different. If someone could get GW to bring the prices down a smidge though that would be nice, we are still in an economic downturn after all.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 09:24:45
Subject: Re:What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
I would like the 40k rule book to be a rule book!
A clearly defined instruction set to tell you how to play the game.Using clear concise language and diagrams to give well defined instructions.
To get rid of the 'cheat on a 4+ ' excuse for poor rules writing, and editing.
Similarly, I would like Codex books to deliver well defined and accurate as possible army unit costs and composition options.
That deliver an ACTUAL wide range of choice , not just the illusion of it!
Why are we paying GW plc for books that have a clear functional requirement that is not being met?
if I just want to put cool models on the table and make up rules for a fun game.I can use lots of FREE to download rules.Why pay PREMIUM PRICES for GW plc half arsed efforts?
But as GW put it they develop the rules for the majority of their customer base.
Collectors that do not care about rules, and children that never get around to play a full game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/12 10:49:12
Subject: Re:What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Hacking Proxy Mk.1
|
Dunklezahn wrote:Thing is that without absolute perfect balance there will always be a "best" list, the difference between them may be smaller but that best list will still exist.
As such you can assume if 6-7 races are gonna show up there are 6-7 lists you need to be able to take on and the best list becomes obvious.
No.
Just... no.
That is not at all how it would go. You, like far too many on this particular sub forum, seem to entirely misunderstand the concept of balance.
In a well balanced game* there is no 'best' list. That is literally the entire concept of balance right there. Make list A as viable as list B or C. There may still, technically speaking, be a list with a tiny advantage over the rest, but we are talking small enough that it is entirely theory, players will not take this supposedly better list over one that suits their tactics better, and that is assuming such a list can even be found. Even in current 40k I doubt anyone could actually tell you what the 'best' list is objectively.
Before I start ranting off topic let me just try to make this perfectly clear.
In a well balanced game a marine biker army might still be, technically speaking, better than any other marine list.
That being said someone who likes tactical marines can take a list full of them and not be handicapped in any way by them.
Nor would someone taking a biker list have a big enough advantage over the tac list to ever call it unfair, a small bit of luck or a slightly better player will beat the biker list.
And while a biker list might be the most cost effective someone who is good with drop pod tactics will find a drop pod list will win him MANY more games than a biker list, because he is better at playing a drop pod list and player skill would be FAR more important than the list.
*Well balanced, not perfect. Perfect is probably impossible but perfect imbalance is the the aim here, create something sooooo close that it doesn't matter if there are tiny imbalances.
|
Fafnir wrote:Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 12:11:48
Subject: Re:What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Brainy Zoanthrope
|
jonolikespie wrote:
No.
Just... no.
Make list A as viable as list B or C. There may still, technically speaking, be a list with a tiny advantage over the rest, but we are talking small enough that it is entirely theory, players will not take this supposedly better list over one that suits their tactics better, and that is assuming such a list can even be found. Even in current 40k I doubt anyone could actually tell you what the 'best' list is objectively.
Yes, just yes. You even admit there would still be a best list but the advantage is small, that's exactly what I said in my previous post. Therefore B and C are not as viable as A, they are weaker. It may only be 1-2% but it is weaker and when people want to win they will play that 1-2%, any advantage no matter how small would be used. The difference in our opinion comes from whether you think people will use that 1% advantage.
jonolikespie wrote:
*Well balanced, not perfect. Perfect is probably impossible but perfect imbalance is the the aim here, create something sooooo close that it doesn't matter if there are tiny imbalances.
Try it, example, a marine terminator is worth X points, your army has 50 of them lets say.
Your opponent shows up with an army that has 5 weapons that ignore their armour, the terminator is very powerful relatively.
Next game you play a race who specialise in killing elite troops, it's their flavour, they have 40 guns that ignore their armour. The terminator is relatively very weak. Is he weak or strong? 10pts or 50pts?
Now what if in your area 7/10 people play elite killers, strong or weak?
So you try to balance the points around the average number of armour ignorers and things seem fine for a while, pockets of discontent exist but you ignore them.
Then the Elite Killer race gets a new codex that changes their guns/units so now their army contains far less armour ignorers, you then need to repoint the entire high armour range spectrum because they are now too good. Ah, but now by making them cheaper other troops are too pricey, on and on in an endless cycle every time a rule changes.
Perfect balance in a game as diverse as 40k is a numerical impossibility without the entire range changing in points every 2 release. Some people want the balance to be tighter, could it? probably, could it be as tight as you want? Never.
For me 40k's little oddities can be smoothed out as part of a group of gamers willing to make little tweaks for the good of making the game decided by game skill not list building and thats where i want it to be.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 12:38:46
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Except that you can, because say you give the non-low AP race more shots, or models so that they can try to swamp those termies, with fire power. And maybe the elite killing race if it loads up on elite killing is not so good at killing say tanks, or hordes or whatever.
In addition if one list is 1% better such that it wins say 51% of the time, I don't think anyone will have an issue, vs whole armies essentially being 30% better like they are right now.
Also the codex changing the elite killers to be worse shoudl never happen because that is a mistake in game design.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 14:03:35
Subject: Re:What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Brainy Zoanthrope
|
Ah but elite killing it a leaning, not an army build, it's a race flavour (in case it was too veiled I'm talking about Eldar) a design philosophy. This comes from wanting some races to have bad matchups against others, a perfectly valid way of designing a game.
Ah but will they not have an issue, how close does it have to be before it reaches critical mass of problem 5% better? 10%? What if a race is 20% better against race a but 20% worse against race B?
The theoretical change doesn't make their army worse, it makes them worse against heavy armour, what if they gained horde killing power? More rebalances.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
Says you, "Think about your opponents army/skill/experience level when designing your army" done. Once the desire to eke out every drop of power from your list is gone most of the problems go with it in my experience.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 14:31:11
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Indeed, I feel that perfect balance (or perfect imbalance) is not possible in 40k. For example, many people that claim that Eldar units are overpriced. I find them laughably underpriced, because I play Armored Battlegroup. Their strength 6 and 7 shooting that is so prevalent is literally helpless against my company of Leman Russ tanks, and so the fact that they pay any points for it at all means that they've put themselves at a disadvantage by that many points. Say, a scatter laser goes for the ridiculously low price of 5 points, and a twin-linked one is 10. That means that, if they have 3 scatter laser war walkers and 6 scatter laser wave serpents, that they are already out 90 points on scatter lasers. Now take into account the, say, 10 points they spend on serpent shields, and they're out 60 more points - that's 150 points down. That means they could've made me drop a whole Leman Russ from my list if they just dropped all their Str 6 and 7 shooting that is helpless anyways. However, against any army that ISN'T armored battlegroup, 5pt scatter lasers are STUPID CHEAP and serpent shields are worth their weight in gold. So how would you price scatter lasers? Would you just ignore Armored Battlegroup and then have the Eldar have a retardedly unbalanced matchup in that instance? Or would you price it in and then have the Eldar stomp on everyone else's face?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 14:31:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 14:37:46
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 14:43:55
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
WayneTheGame wrote:The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
The only way to do that, though, is to cut options.
Unless you seriously think that an army made up exclusively of riflemen should be able to beat an army exclusively made of tanks. I would love to see a justification for that in any ruleset.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 14:50:32
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
The only way to do that, though, is to cut options.
Unless you seriously think that an army made up exclusively of riflemen should be able to beat an army exclusively made of tanks. I would love to see a justification for that in any ruleset.
Of course not, but nobody arguing balance has said that. What I and others want is the option to build armies and have things work in synergy/tandem, rather than have some units be too good, some be average and some just be terrible. An army of infantry should not be able to beat an army made of tanks, of course, but you should be able to build an army using the units you like (within reason) and not just be defeated before you even play because your opponent is using a WAAC netlist.
It's not about cutting choice, it's about making all choices viable either on their own or in tandem with other choices, that provide other tactical applications.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 14:51:43
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 14:55:58
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
WayneTheGame wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
The only way to do that, though, is to cut options.
Unless you seriously think that an army made up exclusively of riflemen should be able to beat an army exclusively made of tanks. I would love to see a justification for that in any ruleset.
Of course not, but nobody arguing balance has said that. What I and others want is the option to build armies and have things work in synergy/tandem, rather than have some units be too good, some be average and some just be terrible. An army of infantry should not be able to beat an army made of tanks, of course, but you should be able to build an army using the units you like (within reason) and not just be defeated before you even play because your opponent is using a WAAC netlist.
It's not about cutting choice, it's about making all choices viable either on their own or in tandem with other choices, that provide other tactical applications.
Right, but what if "a person" wants an all-rifleman army and constantly gets stomped by tanks? He'd probably go onto a forum and moan and complain that his army is helpless and he would just wish that all unit choices were viable.
But the forum would probably tell him to "man up and play a better army" (i.e. eliminating the option to field an all-rifleman army) or to "enjoy losing" (that is, forgoing balance). I personally would rather have people lose with the armies they love, than have a chance to win with armies that they made because the game prevented them from being able to make the army they wanted.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 15:01:28
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Brainy Zoanthrope
|
WayneTheGame wrote:The solution is to make it so various armies are able to win under an equally skilled player, and NOT the rubbish now where all else equal Army X will always beat Army Y because Army X is better.
That's the difference between a game like 40k where the designers don't give a feth about balance and a game that's actually balanced for play without falling to the old saw of coming up with tweaks.
The fact you need to "tweak" 40k is proof that it's not balanced and really shouldn't be lauded as some kind of great design; on the contrary it should be condemned as lazy and poor design, basically foisting the burden of fixing the game onto the players.
And we are saying that unless you want to homogenise 40k that kind of balance is a pipedream. As Unit said balancing a unit in an environment where people play lists like him looks terribly balanced in an environment where everyone played T3-4 infantry. Balancing terminators in an environ with a Plasma fetish means if someone in a balanced army or even say flamer heavy area uses them they seem way too good.
The more diverse your game the harder it is to balance, 40k units are very diverse, as diverse as the people who play it and the tables it is played on. I'd rather have a game where we tweak to balance for our meta than lose the diversity that makes the game great.
Now as I said, it could probably be tightened up in place but I challenge you to balance a single codex against itself (not even all the other books) that the majority of people think is balanced in their meta (heavy terrain/bowling ball, objective heavy/killpoint heavy etc). You will fail. boil the number of units down far enough and eventually you'll get close, but try and emulate factors as diverse as a codex and you will fail. Just look at all the fan dexes and redesigns, most of them have some really good ideas, in some cases mostly good, but there isn't a single one I'd call balanced.
Edit: Fan dexes, not fad.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/13 15:03:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 15:22:15
Subject: Re:What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Dunklezahn wrote:Ah but elite killing it a leaning, not an army build, it's a race flavour (in case it was too veiled I'm talking about Eldar) a design philosophy. This comes from wanting some races to have bad matchups against others, a perfectly valid way of designing a game.
Ah but will they not have an issue, how close does it have to be before it reaches critical mass of problem 5% better? 10%? What if a race is 20% better against race a but 20% worse against race B?
The theoretical change doesn't make their army worse, it makes them worse against heavy armour, what if they gained horde killing power? More rebalances.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
Says you, "Think about your opponents army/skill/experience level when designing your army" done. Once the desire to eke out every drop of power from your list is gone most of the problems go with it in my experience.
Are we really trying to say that eldar are somehow only good at elite killing....because that is far from true.
essentially what it comes down to is sure extreme lists will always be possible, but should always have strengths and weaknesses. Sure it will always be possible for your opponent to be woefully un-prepared to deal with something.
That said what happens now is codices are woefully unprepared to deal with things...which should not happen. X army is really good at killing y army is bad game design. It should work more that x -unit is good at killing unit type y, but not as much unit type z. Take the Hydra flakk tank right now, good against flyers...not so good against other things. More units should be similar to that, where they have a role to play, and can excel in that role for their points.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 15:38:40
Subject: Re:What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Breng77 wrote: Dunklezahn wrote:Ah but elite killing it a leaning, not an army build, it's a race flavour (in case it was too veiled I'm talking about Eldar) a design philosophy. This comes from wanting some races to have bad matchups against others, a perfectly valid way of designing a game.
Ah but will they not have an issue, how close does it have to be before it reaches critical mass of problem 5% better? 10%? What if a race is 20% better against race a but 20% worse against race B?
The theoretical change doesn't make their army worse, it makes them worse against heavy armour, what if they gained horde killing power? More rebalances.
The tweaks you need right now to make 40k not decided (at least in a fairly large part) by army choice and list building are not very small.
Says you, "Think about your opponents army/skill/experience level when designing your army" done. Once the desire to eke out every drop of power from your list is gone most of the problems go with it in my experience.
Are we really trying to say that eldar are somehow only good at elite killing....because that is far from true.
essentially what it comes down to is sure extreme lists will always be possible, but should always have strengths and weaknesses. Sure it will always be possible for your opponent to be woefully un-prepared to deal with something.
That said what happens now is codices are woefully unprepared to deal with things...which should not happen. X army is really good at killing y army is bad game design. It should work more that x -unit is good at killing unit type y, but not as much unit type z. Take the Hydra flakk tank right now, good against flyers...not so good against other things. More units should be similar to that, where they have a role to play, and can excel in that role for their points.
But that's making themed lists basically not an option. It is fluff for the Imperial Guard to have regiments that specialize in one unit. For example, my armored regiment has thirty tanks in three companies, six superheavy tanks in two companies, two Commissariat tanks - and for support options, it has three Hydras, a Manticore Sky Eagle, and a platoon of mechanized infantry.
An Air Defense regiment, on the other hand, might have thirty Hydras in three companies, six Praetor superheavy SAM launchers in two companies, two Commissariat Chimeras, and for support options three Leman Russ tanks, a sentinel squadron, and an enlarged platoon of foot soldiers.
An infantry regiment, on the third hand, would have 450 men in three companies, 180 veterans in two companies, two Commissariat squads, and for support options, three Hellhound flame tanks, a Demolisher, and maybe some more tanks or mechanized infantry.
You would be forcing people to mix regiment types to be competitive, which should be unnecessary and is certainly unfluffy with some rare exceptions.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 15:57:04
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
What they need to do is just allow for themed armies but still make sure the overall rules are balanced. I miss things like being able to take all bikes or assault squads for Space Marines without being required to take a single special character to "unlock" it.
Themed armies shouldn't always mean you are weaker or stronger, just because you are using a themed army, and that's what I am talking about. Units should have synergy so that Unit A and Unit B work well together, while Unit C might work well by itself and Unit D works with A but not that great with B; if you took Unit D and B, you wouldn't auto-lose but you wouldn't be optimal either, so maybe Unit D fits in a certain scenario (e.g. your army is a garrison and Unit D is a particular vehicle), but taking it doesn't automatically hamper your chances of winning.
That's the kind of balance 40k needs. Themed armies should mostly be viable with some exceptions (e.g. if you take an all-Grot army it's not going to be viable in most, if any, cases). All units should have a solid place in a force, whether on their own (a particularly nasty tank or walker) or as part of an overall theme (e.g. an assault unit might be better suited to a fast-moving force versus a gunline, but taking it in a gunline shouldn't be a huge detriment especially if you have use strategy).
40k has none of that. Unit A might be great, Unit B might be terrible and has no place outside of a particular theme, in which case taking it actively harms your chance of winning. If you pick "wrong", you reduce your chances of winning the game simply because you might like Unit B or Unit B fits your theme better, so you have the conundrum of picking a unit which doesn't fit your theme but plays better (Unit A) or a unit which fits your theme but is bad and will likely be a detriment to the gameplay (Unit B).
That conundrum should never exist in a game. Look at Warmahordes for example - there are very few units which outright "suck". Many work in tandem with other units or warcasters, and if you use a specific combo you can win with the right strategy, even against a "superior" combo. The stronger combo might have an easier chance of winning, but a good commander who uses his/her units to their best and can take advantage of the synergy can emerge ahead.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 16:18:04
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
WayneTheGame wrote:What they need to do is just allow for themed armies but still make sure the overall rules are balanced. I miss things like being able to take all bikes or assault squads for Space Marines without being required to take a single special character to "unlock" it.
Themed armies shouldn't always mean you are weaker or stronger, just because you are using a themed army, and that's what I am talking about. Units should have synergy so that Unit A and Unit B work well together, while Unit C might work well by itself and Unit D works with A but not that great with B; if you took Unit D and B, you wouldn't auto-lose but you wouldn't be optimal either, so maybe Unit D fits in a certain scenario (e.g. your army is a garrison and Unit D is a particular vehicle), but taking it doesn't automatically hamper your chances of winning.
That's the kind of balance 40k needs. Themed armies should mostly be viable with some exceptions (e.g. if you take an all-Grot army it's not going to be viable in most, if any, cases). All units should have a solid place in a force, whether on their own (a particularly nasty tank or walker) or as part of an overall theme (e.g. an assault unit might be better suited to a fast-moving force versus a gunline, but taking it in a gunline shouldn't be a huge detriment especially if you have use strategy).
40k has none of that. Unit A might be great, Unit B might be terrible and has no place outside of a particular theme, in which case taking it actively harms your chance of winning. If you pick "wrong", you reduce your chances of winning the game simply because you might like Unit B or Unit B fits your theme better, so you have the conundrum of picking a unit which doesn't fit your theme but plays better (Unit A) or a unit which fits your theme but is bad and will likely be a detriment to the gameplay (Unit B).
That conundrum should never exist in a game. Look at Warmahordes for example - there are very few units which outright "suck". Many work in tandem with other units or warcasters, and if you use a specific combo you can win with the right strategy, even against a "superior" combo. The stronger combo might have an easier chance of winning, but a good commander who uses his/her units to their best and can take advantage of the synergy can emerge ahead.
But what happens if you only want a bunch of Unit A? I think you guys are willing to sacrifice too many options on the altar of balance. In my opinion, some themed armies require all units in the army to do well on their own, other themed armies require great synergy, and still more require bits of both. And the great part about 40k is that these armies can contain the same units! Yes, it is unbalanced, but I'm ok with that, rather than removing a bunch of options to force it to be balanced.
And the choice shouldn't be between "winning" and "theme". If it is, then you're in the wrong game - 40k, at this point, is basically exclusively for people who just play themed armies. There's too much unbalance, hell, I've heard complaints that there are just too many options, for it to be played competitively.
And I've played Warmahordes off and on since Prime Mk II, and I've always been dissatisfied with the balance. I wanted to play Karchev + 5-6 jacks, only to be told that not only was that a terrible build, but that i was not welcome to even play because I wasn't following the rules on page 5. So much for theme.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 16:27:54
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
But you really don't have more or less options than you do now. That is like saying well what if I want to play an army of all pyrovores...I lose with that now and still would in the proposed system. Difference being taking a few pyrovores would be good.
Sorry to me sacrificing the ability to field an army of a single unit for more viable units is adding choices not taking them away.
No one is saying you cannot field and all tank army just that as an extreme case it will be strong against the things it is strong against and weak against those that it is weak against.
I completely disagree with 40k is Theme = winning it is not at all unless your theme is deathstar.
What I'm saying essentially is 15 Leman Russ battle tanks should not be a good army. But mix matching weaponry to specialize roles should be decent, and that it will be weak against anti-tank weaponry, and strong against anti-infantry, and that more often than not a balanced list will have a reasonable chance to fight it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 16:46:04
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Breng77 wrote:But you really don't have more or less options than you do now. That is like saying well what if I want to play an army of all pyrovores...I lose with that now and still would in the proposed system. Difference being taking a few pyrovores would be good. Sorry to me sacrificing the ability to field an army of a single unit for more viable units is adding choices not taking them away. No one is saying you cannot field and all tank army just that as an extreme case it will be strong against the things it is strong against and weak against those that it is weak against. I completely disagree with 40k is Theme = winning it is not at all unless your theme is deathstar. What I'm saying essentially is 15 Leman Russ battle tanks should not be a good army. But mix matching weaponry to specialize roles should be decent, and that it will be weak against anti-tank weaponry, and strong against anti-infantry, and that more often than not a balanced list will have a reasonable chance to fight it. But that isn't how it should be, I don't think. I think 15 Leman Russ battletanks should be good against an army that isn't specialized to fight against them, and get absolutely wrecked against armies that are specialized to fight them. It's like why modern armies don't send helicopter crewmen to fix bridges, combat engineers on special ops, and specialized anti-tank units to do air defense. Specialized units should be great against what they're specialized against, and terrible against everything else. This means that an army that mixes and matches will never have the tools to deal with anything other than an army that also mixes and matches. It won't have enough antitank to fight all tanks, it won't have enough air defense to fight all air, and it won't have enough anti-infantry to beat a rifleman horde. To expect an army that isn't specialized at killing tanks to kill an army that is only tanks is absurd. vis-a-vis To expect an army that isn't specialized at killing heavy infantry to kill an army that is all heavy infantry is similarly absurd.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 16:46:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 16:50:23
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
That idea works well in the real world, but not in a game. There are two extremes: You can demolish your opponent if you know what army he has (aka "list tailoring") and that's just as bad as the "TAC" play where you have one list that is good against everything.
Personally I'd rather have the TAC list than tailor, since in my experience it's very rare to prearrange games so you can't know what your opponent has, since you generally won't know who your opponent is.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 16:51:25
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:And I've played Warmahordes off and on since Prime Mk II, and I've always been dissatisfied with the balance. I wanted to play Karchev + 5-6 jacks, only to be told that not only was that a terrible build, but that i was not welcome to even play because I wasn't following the rules on page 5. So much for theme. This. While I'm all for Wayne's demand for a better balance between fluff and rules, I don't think Warmahordes is a good example. In my limited experience with the game, I've found it quite lacking in the background department and too abstract in its rules. The exact opposite of an atmospheric, themed game. I've written before that I'd hate to see 40k turned into some sort of abstract "tabletop DOTA". That's what Warmahordes feels to me. A good "strategy" boardgame, but not what I expect from a WARgame.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/13 16:51:58
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 16:53:53
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
WayneTheGame wrote:That idea works well in the real world, but not in a game. There are two extremes: You can demolish your opponent if you know what army he has (aka "list tailoring") and that's just as bad as the " TAC" play where you have one list that is good against everything.
Personally I'd rather have the TAC list than tailor, since in my experience it's very rare to prearrange games so you can't know what your opponent has, since you generally won't know who your opponent is.
How about neither player know what the other is playing, and so you you just play it out? You don't need to tailor; I've seen an Air Defense Regiment against a Rifleman Horde, if you really want awkward. I've also taken my Russes up against their hard counter and lost horribly, but with a smile, because that's how it should be. I've also mercilessly crushed an infantry horde undertread because they brought Plasma Cannons and plasma guns, and I've seen that selfsame army turn around and Demolish a deathwing player.
We don't tailor here, we just pick a theme (such as Armored Company, deathwing, or whathaveyou) and roll with it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/03/13 17:14:43
Subject: What do you want your 40K to be?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.
Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|