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.
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards competitive play, it is a given that both sides should have an even playing field. I don't see how that it is remotely deniable.
Number of players is equitable to number of points in a game. So each player starting with the same number of points is fine, though in my book certainly not a requirement. Football teams may each have 11 players on the field, that doesn't mean that they're anywhere near the same skill level, physical ability, or will react correctly in each instance or even be coached the same. Some teams are better than others, some are coached better than others, some teams don't show up to play or look past their opponents. Some teams get lucky on a freak chance or have calls go against them. I'd say it's probably impossible to point out a professional sporting event (or historical battle) that was ever actually "balanced" in this way. Yet GW is supposed to balance the game for you so that it'll be competitive and you won't have your feelings hurt if things get off to a bad start?
So much of the "I'm competitive, so I have to have it balanced" side of the story seems so clueless to me. If you really are all that competitive why aren't you willing to be on the penalty kill once in a while?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: I also never appreciate people taking the tone of. "If you feel that GW is doing a bad job, please quit the hobby you have invested tons of time and money in" It is an immature stance, as a customer you have a right to complain if you feel things are being done poorly.
I'm not saying that someone should quit, I'm saying that players should take control of their hobby rather than waiting around for GW to do so. They're reacting as most large corporations run by those who don't view their work as a hobby do. They make moves they believe will make them money. That's why they go to work. Catering to any supposed "consensus" of customers is something that generally takes a great deal of time. I'm not apologizing for them, but if you have a problem with all of this costing you money you probably are in the wrong hobby. If that fits your situation, is it immature of me to push people in the direction of rage quitting and selling their stuff to the people who are willing to put up with the shenanigans for cheap? Take it as a lesson learned, and except that things are never going to change with GW. They'll do what they do. If it is making you unhappy, cut your losses while you can.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 12:39:17
Comparing armies to players is a bad analogy. I understand it, but all those players are subject to the same rules, which is not the case for armies in 40k where each has its own set of rules. I would also argue that the "skill level" of players in any particular competitive setting is far closer than the difference between armies in 40k.
As of the Penalty kill, another bad analogy as it doesn't happen for an entire game, and is the result of someone breaking a rule. Now if in 40k we had Refs, and if someone broke a rule the unit in question went into reserves or something...ok...but we don't
In 40k we are the players and the armies are equipment. what you are arguing is akin to saying I should play Icehocky with no pads and Roller Blades against someone in full hockey gear., or that I should have a shorter stick or a larger goal.
Kosake wrote: Yes, units must be ballanced, otherwise a game is not competitive, it turns into some crude sort of rock-paper-scissors. Thats the whole idea behind points for units and equipment. Not every unit must be equally powerfull as other units - they must only be generally able to some use according to their points cost
So, there's no way that a Tier 2 army could ever, EVER, beat a Tier 1 army. Not being balanced, there is simply no way the Tier 2 army can compete?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: As of the Penalty kill, another bad analogy as it doesn't happen for an entire game, and is the result of someone breaking a rule. Now if in 40k we had Refs, and if someone broke a rule the unit in question went into reserves or something...ok...but we don't
In 40k we are the players and the armies are equipment. what you are arguing is akin to saying I should play Icehocky with no pads and Roller Blades against someone in full hockey gear., or that I should have a shorter stick or a larger goal.
No, what I'm saying is that some armies will never be equal to others. Akin to being on the penalty kill and having only four players to your opponents five. That doesn't mean that the underhanded team cannot compete. Saying that a game must always be balanced to be competitive is silly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 12:48:02
Breng77 wrote: I also never appreciate people taking the tone of. "If you feel that GW is doing a bad job, please quit the hobby you have invested tons of time and money in" It is an immature stance, as a customer you have a right to complain if you feel things are being done poorly.
I'm not saying that someone should quit, I'm saying that players should take control of their hobby rather than waiting around for GW to do so. They're reacting as most large corporations run by those who don't view their work as a hobby do. They make moves they believe will make them money. That's why they go to work. Catering to any supposed "consensus" of customers is something that generally takes a great deal of time. I'm not apologizing for them, but if you have a problem with all of this costing you money you probably are in the wrong hobby. If that fits your situation, is it immature of me to push people in the direction of rage quitting and selling their stuff to the people who are willing to put up with the shenanigans for cheap? Take it as a lesson learned, and except that things are never going to change with GW. They'll do what they do. If it is making you unhappy, cut your losses while you can.
Yup, totally immature. I never said I had a problem with the cost. I have a problem currently with the quality of their rules. Now maybe they won't change, and I take plenty of control of my hobby, but the idea that "Well if you don't like it Quit" is a unhealthy, unproductive line of thinking. I have no problem with GW trying to make money, I just think they would make more money creating good rules for all their models (how many more pyrovores could they sell if the model had good rules, or Tzeentch Chariots, etc), actually put effort into making their rules balanced (hint: People typically enjoy close games to blow outs), and put some thought (not tons) into competitve play (if could even be releasing a subset of rules for that purpose) because those players are customers too.
Kosake wrote: Yes, units must be ballanced, otherwise a game is not competitive, it turns into some crude sort of rock-paper-scissors. Thats the whole idea behind points for units and equipment. Not every unit must be equally powerfull as other units - they must only be generally able to some use according to their points cost
So, there's no way that a Tier 2 army could ever, EVER, beat a Tier 1 army. Not being balanced, there is simply no way the Tier 2 army can compete?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: As of the Penalty kill, another bad analogy as it doesn't happen for an entire game, and is the result of someone breaking a rule. Now if in 40k we had Refs, and if someone broke a rule the unit in question went into reserves or something...ok...but we don't
In 40k we are the players and the armies are equipment. what you are arguing is akin to saying I should play Icehocky with no pads and Roller Blades against someone in full hockey gear., or that I should have a shorter stick or a larger goal.
No, what I'm saying is that some armies will never be equal to others. Akin to being on the penalty kill and having only four players to your opponents five. That doesn't mean that the underhanded team cannot compete. Saying that a game must always be balanced to be competitive is silly.
I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 12:51:01
Kilkrazy wrote: As regards competitive play, it is a given that both sides should have an even playing field. I don't see how that it is remotely deniable.
Number of players is equitable to number of points in a game. So each player starting with the same number of points is fine, though in my book certainly not a requirement. Football teams may each have 11 players on the field, that doesn't mean that they're anywhere near the same skill level, physical ability, or will react correctly in each instance or even be coached the same. Some teams are better than others, some are coached better than others, some teams don't show up to play or look past their opponents. Some teams get lucky on a freak chance or have calls go against them. I'd say it's probably impossible to point out a professional sporting event (or historical battle) that was ever actually "balanced" in this way. Yet GW is supposed to balance the game for you so that it'll be competitive and you won't have your feelings hurt if things get off to a bad start?
So much of the "I'm competitive, so I have to have it balanced" side of the story seems so clueless to me. If you really are all that competitive why aren't you willing to be on the penalty kill once in a while?
.
That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
The reason why competitive players like a balanced game is because that means their skill and luck makes the difference, not who has a better codex.
Are there some competitive games or sports in which there is a deliberate built-in lack of balance?
Breng77 wrote: I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
Though teams that have all their first line starters on IR being forced to play against the league leading team happens quite often does it not? Do they always lose?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
Isn't that generally what the football teams are doing? As opposed to banning 3/4's of the players coming out of college because they don't fit into last years "accepted' mold?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/03/28 13:00:37
ummmm....no I don't think teams with all their starters injured happens often. The also still have 5 professional players on the ice. Skill difference is based on players not equipment. So a better player will likely win. Armies should be balanced so that players decide the outcome.
Do you really feel the game is better when some armies are tons better than others? Because that is not really the case in most competitive sports. Where all players follow the same rules.
I don't know about american football , but at least in soccer there are more then one professional and semi professional leagues . Where for me professional is being ablt to live out of someone playing the game . Right now we have Real Madrid playing against some back water 4th league club right now . Technicly the 4th leaguers can win , if RM plays with their second or third squad and if they get lucky and it is RM for fun game and they don't want to get tired before a real league game .
That is true for many american sports. But those teams don't play against one another regularly, certainly not for anything that matters.
The Pro sports analogy also kind of falls apart as that is a job vs a hobby done for fun. I could stand imbalance a little more if someone paid me to do it instead of me paying for it.
Breng77 wrote: I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
Though teams that have all their first line starters on IR being forced to play against the league leading team happens quite often does it not? Do they always lose?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
Isn't that generally what the football teams are doing? As opposed to banning 3/4's of the players coming out of college because they don't fit into last years "accepted' mold?
I don't understand that point. Perhaps I lack the cultural context. I thought that in American Football, the top draft pick was given to the weakest team in the league each year, in order to try and maintain parity.
I think one thing that'd go a decent way to putting a little more balance into the game is a standardized points costing system for everything. It'd really set the game up better than it is now.
Also AP probably could change into an armor save modifier instead of a straight "ignores armor of X or worse" system. That'd make armor saves a little more meaningful again.
And while I'm stealing ideas from Fantasy: cover should modify BS. It's not that hard to implement and would go a long ways for every army.
Breng77 wrote: I knew what you meant and I said there are no games where teams are forced to be on the penalty kill for the entire game. It is a bad starting point.
Though teams that have all their first line starters on IR being forced to play against the league leading team happens quite often does it not? Do they always lose?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, however all football teams at least in theory have the same chance to recruit and train players to an equal standard. That simply isn't true of 40K. If you want a balanced game both sides have to choose the same codex.
Isn't that generally what the football teams are doing? As opposed to banning 3/4's of the players coming out of college because they don't fit into last years "accepted' mold?
I don't understand that point. Perhaps I lack the cultural context. I thought that in American Football, the top draft pick was given to the weakest team in the league each year, in order to try and maintain parity.
All they get is first choice, it doesn't mean they'll go after the best player as that may not be what their team needs. They may need a good Running Back or a good Linebacker over a star Quarterback.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 13:48:57
dracpanzer wrote: I'll never understand this mindset. Competitive play has to have things start on an even playing field? Everything must be equal or it isn't fair? Tactics can only be superior when everything is equal? Things are fair when you've had the opportunity to disect every nuance of every unit, and if you haven't they shouldn't be allowed? Really?
Why WOULDN'T competitive play demand an even playing field? That's why it's a competition; the superior player should win, not the one who uses the best units. That's the crux of competitive play and balance - that all else equal the better "general" wins the game. It's the foundation of all games that involve one person versus another, as opposed to team games like D&D, but even there you need balance or you can end up with one "hero" and everyone else being henchmen because ultimately they aren't needed.
Tactics should be the deciding factor in any wargame, ultimately. 40k doesn't do that - if I bring a balanced Space Marine army and you bring a Screamerstar or Triptide or whatever the current powerhouse lists are, you are going to stomp me no matter what I do, because there isn't balance. In a balanced ruleset, that would not happen. You might have some powerful unit, but there is never such a disparity between lists or even units within the same list that you can basically lose before the first turn because you picked the wrong units/army.
Any other miniatures wargame (from companies that actually realize that's what they do, not pretend they don't like GW) understands that there needs to be thought towards balance without just handwaving it and putting the onus on the players to make things fair. That's why rules need to be balanced around tournament/competitive play to begin with: This would force balanced rules since it would be a cutthroat environment; rules would HAVE to be balanced and well-written to shore up loopholes and reel in broken combos, and then everyone benefits in the end.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the data slates have to be balanced. Tournaments don't have to use them. I do think the core game and codexes should be balanced.
To a point I agree. I like the concept of dataslates as optional extras that aren't meant for competitive play (assuming anything else was) but precisely the kind of thing that helps "the narrative". They could be fun things to try out, and that's where the optional rules like random tables should be, in a $6 dataslate that you can choose to add in if you want more cinematic games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 14:03:04
Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
ClockworkZion wrote: Also AP probably could change into an armor save modifier instead of a straight "ignores armor of X or worse" system. That'd make armor saves a little more meaningful again.
So 2nd edition They tried this and it was cumbersome, hence why they introduced AP in 3rd, to streamline the rules. The problem now is they haven't really changed the core rules since 3rd edition, but editions after 3rd have tried to add more of a random and haphazard feel to the game when the core rules are from the days when they were trying for balance.
It's like they went from wild and crazy (Rogue Trader) to less wild but still crazy (2nd) to streamlined (3rd) and have since then undone a lot of the streamlining. 3rd wasn't without its problems but it just needed some things tightened up (for example 3rd with Overwatch might have helped to stop assaults ruling the day, also I like AP on melee weapons), not the extent of changes they've done since then to go back to the opposite end of the spectrum.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/28 14:10:36
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
In that case tournaments should allow for people to change their armies between games to give everyone the best possible chance of winning (and thus keeping it balanced).
ClockworkZion wrote: Also AP probably could change into an armor save modifier instead of a straight "ignores armor of X or worse" system. That'd make armor saves a little more meaningful again.
So 2nd edition They tried this and it was cumbersome, hence why they introduced AP in 3rd, to streamline the rules. The problem now is they haven't really changed the core rules since 3rd edition, but editions after 3rd have tried to add more of a random and haphazard feel to the game when the core rules are from the days when they were trying for balance.
It's like they went from wild and crazy (Rogue Trader) to less wild but still crazy (2nd) to streamlined (3rd) and have since then undone a lot of the streamlining. 3rd wasn't without its problems but it just needed some things tightened up (for example 3rd with Overwatch might have helped to stop assaults ruling the day, also I like AP on melee weapons), not the extent of changes they've done since then to go back to the opposite end of the spectrum.
It's not really that cumbersome though to say "alright, this is AP6 so your Marines need a 4+ to live."
3rd was the rushed attempt to make 40k a tournament based game. Then they realized they didn't like it so much and tried to back off of it and go back to 2nd ed (which is likely the 40k many of them started during anyways, as outside of Jervis I'm pretty sure everyone else in the Rules Dev team is a later addition to the company).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 14:13:32
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
In that case tournaments should allow for people to change their armies between games to give everyone the best possible chance of winning (and thus keeping it balanced).
An interesting idea but that would really encourage listbuilding. I could maybe see something like how WM/H tournaments tend to let you bring two lists and pick which one you field after seeing who your opponent is, but that doesn't change the fact in 40k there tends to be only one "competitive" type of list anyways. That's the problem that needs to be fixed first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: 3rd was the rushed attempt to make 40k a tournament based game. Then they realized they didn't like it so much and tried to back off of it and go back to 2nd ed (which is likely the 40k many of them started during anyways, as outside of Jervis I'm pretty sure everyone else in the Rules Dev team is a later addition to the company).
If they actually went back to a modified 2nd I wouldn't mind - I started in 2nd and it wasn't that bad other than silly wargear stuff (Virus Outbreak and Vortex Grenades, anyone?). 2nd at least had a lot more flexibility in army building, not the silly way they've done some things now. What they have now is some weird bastardization of 2nd and 3rd that doesn't have the good parts of either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/28 14:16:18
WayneTheGame wrote: An interesting idea but that would really encourage listbuilding. I could maybe see something like how WM/H tournaments tend to let you bring two lists and pick which one you field after seeing who your opponent is, but that doesn't change the fact in 40k there tends to be only one "competitive" type of list anyways. That's the problem that needs to be fixed first.
Oh lots of things need to be fixed. Half the game already focuses on list building anyways.
WayneTheGame wrote: If they actually went back to a modified 2nd I wouldn't mind - I started in 2nd and it wasn't that bad other than silly wargear stuff (Virus Outbreak and Vortex Grenades, anyone?). 2nd at least had a lot more flexibility in army building, not the silly way they've done some things now.
6th seems like an attempt to do just that, but while being saddled with not changing the game design from what they adopted in 3rd by too much.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, but the point is that the rules of the game are designed to give the weakest team the best chance to improve their lineup by choosing the new player they want.
The team coach's skill is part of the process, as he may pick the wrong player.
In that case tournaments should allow for people to change their armies between games to give everyone the best possible chance of winning (and thus keeping it balanced).
WayneTheGame wrote: An interesting idea but that would really encourage listbuilding. I could maybe see something like how WM/H tournaments tend to let you bring two lists and pick which one you field after seeing who your opponent is, but that doesn't change the fact in 40k there tends to be only one "competitive" type of list anyways. That's the problem that needs to be fixed first.
Oh lots of things need to be fixed. Half the game already focuses on list building anyways.
... .
That of course is because the unbalance of the various books is conducive to winning by having a good list, with a deathstar or whatever.
You only have to read the "tactics" forum to realise that most of what people call tactics in 40K is selecting the best units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 14:22:10
Right, but if you really want to argue for balance it should be every tournament. Or at the very least steal on from MTG and give players a Side Board to work with.
Kilkrazy wrote: That of course is because the unbalance of the various books is conducive to winning by having a good list, with a deathstar or whatever.
You only have to read the "tactics" forum to realise that most of what people call tactics in 40K is selecting the best units.
Oh I realized that a long time ago when I saw people outright saying "you should never take X, and you need Y or Z to win". It's very rare that people come along and explain things like deployment strategies or how to counter an opponent's gunline and so on. I feel that the game is only half the fault here though, and that the players are just trying to play the simplest game, regardless of what the game is made to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should probably clarify a bit: based on the personal armies we've seen from GW staffers in the WD, to include how they select old units, not just new (plus that one game where they just decided to bring everything they owned of their respective armies) I feel the way GW has designed the game is you take a mix of everything in the book you think is cool and that's how you build an army.
So in essence I think that's how they intend the game to be played and the fact we don't do that is really our choice.
Of course it'd be nice if they'd recognize that our choices matter too in design, but I strongly feel that as long as they have Jervis that likely won't happen. He's the invisible hand that keeps the game from straying too far crunchwise it seems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 14:36:38
Right, but if you really want to argue for balance it should be every tournament. Or at the very least steal on from MTG and give players a Side Board to work with.
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
I just find it hilarious that we say we need a competitive balance and then we bring up the one big thing that would help prevent bad matches it gets balked. Even professional sports rotate and change rosters as the season goes on. And even MtG and Warmachine have a means to have different things to play as well.
I'm not saying it's fix everything, but if we want a more balanced competitive game then it's something that we should be looking at more closely and seriously.
ClockworkZion wrote: I should probably clarify a bit: based on the personal armies we've seen from GW staffers in the WD, to include how they select old units, not just new (plus that one game where they just decided to bring everything they owned of their respective armies) I feel the way GW has designed the game is you take a mix of everything in the book you think is cool and that's how you build an army.
So in essence I think that's how they intend the game to be played and the fact we don't do that is really our choice.
Of course it'd be nice if they'd recognize that our choices matter too in design, but I strongly feel that as long as they have Jervis that likely won't happen. He's the invisible hand that keeps the game from straying too far crunchwise it seems.
That's not an excuse though. They definitely pick what they think looks cool or fits the theme for their army - this has been the case since forever basically. But IMO that's not a valid reason to put out things that are blatantly overpowered, and shows even worse lack of caring because they can't be arsed to actually look and say "This is too good", even knowing that they'd never field it to actually test it.
I always love looking at the staff armies, because I like seeing the variety. But one thing they have in common is they are rarely, if ever, built around effectiveness. They'll include "bad" units because they look good or it fits the army, and that's fine and should be encouraged but it doesn't change the fact that there shouldn't be "bad" units to the extreme that 40k has.
For example I was reading through the Crusade of Fire 40k campaign book and Matt Hutson (who I remember from 3rd edition) brought his Red Corsairs, and he even says that he built it close to a loyalist army without daemon engines because the Corsairs were a recent renegade chapter. It looked awesome, but I was thinking to myself "Then why not play a loyalist army instead and call them Red Corsairs?" I mean his army looked good but things like that are just intentionally hurting yourself for flavor.
It'd be great if everyone did that, but I don't think it's an excuse to say that "You're playing wrong" instead of making so there's no wrong way to play. That the designers can't fathom combos speaks volumes to their lack of playtesting and/or playtesting only in a certain way so that they'd never ever ever think of fielding 3x Heldrakes, so the idea the Heldrake is overpowered will never even spring to mind.
Biased playtesting is IMO worse than no playtesting at all because at least if you don't bother, you can point to that as an excuse ("We didn't test this"). But when you claim to playtest and are just incapable of testing things outside the box, it shows that you shouldn't be testing at all. If they had sense they should have let some of the top tournament players (back when they had them) playtest the rules for a competitive environment, that way they'd immediately get feedback like "I can take 3x of this unit and it's way too good" or "This unit needs to be better or nobody is going to take it in serious games".
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
I just find it hilarious that we say we need a competitive balance and then we bring up the one big thing that would help prevent bad matches it gets balked. Even professional sports rotate and change rosters as the season goes on. And even MtG and Warmachine have a means to have different things to play as well.
I'm not saying it's fix everything, but if we want a more balanced competitive game then it's something that we should be looking at more closely and seriously.
The reason we want/need official balance is so you have it straight from the horse's mouth. You can come up with your own house rules to fix issues, and that's fine but all it takes is one person to say "Nope, that's not official" and then you don't get to use it. Local metas are disparate like that, which is why you need specific rules for tournaments. Even if GW had a "Tournament Package" that was common FAQs or house rules or whatnot it'd go a long way because then every tournament could say they were using the GW Tournament Pack, which seems to be how other games work as well - Warmachine has specific rules for different types of tournaments, I believe MtG does as well. GW's games are the only games that have zero involvement anymore from the company and is on each individual tourney to set its own standards, which leads to fracturing the playerbase because no official support means it's that much harder to get people to give it thought. If I showed up to my local meta with some rules improvements from here or elsewhere on the internet I'd likely be laughed at because it's not official, so nobody cares.
Having the "endorsement" goes a very long way towards general acceptance. That's why Chapter Approved worked - it came straight from GW in an "official" capacity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/28 14:55:18
WayneTheGame wrote: That's not an excuse though. They definitely pick what they think looks cool or fits the theme for their army - this has been the case since forever basically. But IMO that's not a valid reason to put out things that are blatantly overpowered, and shows even worse lack of caring because they can't be arsed to actually look and say "This is too good", even knowing that they'd never field it to actually test it.
I never said it was an excuse, afterall, I pointed out that they should be respecting the player's desires more as well. There is an obvious disconnect from both sides though and honestly I think it's because neither side wants to admit the other has a valid view of how the game should be played.
WayneTheGame wrote: I always love looking at the staff armies, because I like seeing the variety. But one thing they have in common is they are rarely, if ever, built around effectiveness. They'll include "bad" units because they look good or it fits the army, and that's fine and should be encouraged but it doesn't change the fact that there shouldn't be "bad" units to the extreme that 40k has.
Which is largely how I think, internally at least, GW honestly feels the game should play. I'm not saying that we should have a more balanced game, I'm just saying that I think this is what GW thinks how we should play the game, but at the same time they're very passive aggressive about it since they never come out and just say "this is how you play the game" lest they squash someone's creativity.
WayneTheGame wrote: It'd be great if everyone did that, but I don't think it's an excuse to say that "You're playing wrong" instead of making so there's no wrong way to play. That the designers can't fathom combos speaks volumes to their lack of playtesting and/or playtesting only in a certain way so that they'd never ever ever think of fielding 3x Heldrakes, so the idea the Heldrake is overpowered will never even spring to mind.
I agree that this is a problem for the game as a whole. One that comes from having too many people who only look at the game one specific way and don't see it the same way that the players do. I'm not saying we need to go back to the big playtesting days, but perhaps new units get a release in WD (with the models like they are doing for Scions) they get some player feedback (say by email, or through a forum set up specifically for the new stuff) and then adjust it based on what the player community is saying as a whole. We'd still get new toys, they'd get a chance to refine things and reign in broken combos and then the polished version would be in the next codex. Everyone would be happy.
Tournaments aren't supposed to be part of 40K any more, apparently.
It's up to TOs if they want to add the element of changing your list. It can be fun, but it should not be necessary for balance.
I think tournaments should be balanced by the core rules and codexes being balanced.
I just find it hilarious that we say we need a competitive balance and then we bring up the one big thing that would help prevent bad matches it gets balked. Even professional sports rotate and change rosters as the season goes on. And even MtG and Warmachine have a means to have different things to play as well.
I'm not saying it's fix everything, but if we want a more balanced competitive game then it's something that we should be looking at more closely and seriously.
It isn't the one big thing. The lack of balanced rules and codexes is the one big thing.
Most professional sports actually have rules that limit the amount of roster change during a season and even during a single game.
The reason why competitive players like a balanced game is because that means their skill and luck makes the difference, not who has a better codex.
Are there some competitive games or sports in which there is a deliberate built-in lack of balance?
I believe LoL has a system built on buffing and nerfing units to keep the Meta moving around.
I belive you're refering to a system of perfect imbalance:
I think GW -wants- to do something like that (hence the regular buffing and nerfing things with every release) but it doesn't work so well because how slowly a game like this moves.
Perfect imbalance relies on subtle variance and incomparable mechanics. The imbalance in 40k is about as subtle as power-armoured superhuman riding a giant wolf while revving a chainsword and firing a bolter wildly into the air.
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
PrinceRaven wrote: Perfect imbalance relies on subtle variance and incomparable mechanics. The imbalance in 40k is about as subtle as power-armoured superhuman riding a giant wolf while revving a chainsword and firing a bolter wildly into the air.
I was saying LoL uses Perfect Imbalance. GW -tries- to use Perfect Imbalance by nerfing and buffing things but they're both out of touch with the meta that most of us see and operating in a medium that moves too slowly for it to work.
They tried this and it was cumbersome, hence why they introduced 
