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.

No, what I mean is balance can be better (please read what i say) but not balanced. Not without standardizing and reducing the possible game sizes. Balance is not possible without heaps o changing. As you have yourself admitted.

And thats an assumption. There will always be a divide regardless.

When I used to play at a club (so semi-competitively) it seemed to me that it was often the person who argued the most about the little points of contention that won. I just didn't care enough about a game of toy soldiers to spend my time arguing (but still had a decent record). For me, the competitive scene is the antithesis of what this game is all about, and against what the designers clearly intended it to be.

So maybe the split is more simple - those who attach significance to winning a game of toy soldiers, (I.e. "I am somehow better than you because I beat you") and those who don't. My sense of self-worth doesn't come from winning games of 40k.

However I don't think the divide is an issue - it's really simple to choose who you do or do not play against.

viewfinder wrote:
stop whining about balance. I have yet to hear a chess player who plays black cry that the game is out-of-balance. either play or stop complaining.

Two issues with that, first the only "imbalance" in chess is white goes first, everything else is balanced, and in more competitive environments the players usually switch position

NamelessBard wrote:I can't imagine that someone wishes for an unbalanced rules.

Lots of people do.

People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games. It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to. It's why list building is considered a skill.

If everyone showed up with the same chance of winning, you might as well play flip-a-coin. It's the opportunity to use one's intellect to advantage that's important, and you can't do that without game imbalance.

On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.

Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.

" It's the opportunity to use one's intellect to advantage that's important, and you can't do that without game imbalance. "

Patently untrue, because of the concept of "different, but equal".

"Equal" defies "advantage".

If you spend hours doing research and calculation and careful list building, and in the end you have the same chance of winning as anyone else, that's going to be deeply frustrating to anyone who wants to be able to use their cleverness to their advantage.

 Ailaros wrote:
"Equal" defies "advantage".

If you spend hours doing research and calculation and careful list building, and in the end you have the same chance of winning as anyone else, that's going to be deeply frustrating to anyone who wants to be able to use their cleverness to their advantage.

Use your cleverness on the battlefield. Too much of this game is already decided with codex choice and the list building step. Too many battles are foregone conclusions after set up. The game becomes easier to predict the more dice that are rolled, since each player then becomes a slave to averages because of the law of large amounts of dice.

You're missing the point, though.

If the only thing you want is to win, then you're going to want as many avenues as possible to gain an advantage over your opponent. If choosing one 40k list over another had no more impact on the result of the game than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking red in settlers of ctan, then you've closed off a method for gaining advantage over your opponent, and thus, of winning.

It's not to say that if you close off one option that means that therefore there are no options. But it doesn't change the fact that less is less.

It's why people who play games to win don't play simple, easy games, generally. Over time they engage in very complicated things like warfare or pit fighting. Or, in contemporary times, they will bias towards games that have huge, complex systems, like playing the stock market or 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:
People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games.

No, they want balanced games because games with poor balance are easy to "solve" even if you're a less-skilled player. When every random newbie can spend a few minutes searching online and discover Riptide spam the "skilled" player has no real advantage. What they actually want is a balanced game because it makes identifying the advantages in list building much more difficult and excludes the less skilled/determined players.

The only people who want poorly balanced games are the seal clubbers who take the most powerful lists possible and then refuse to play anyone who isn't a newbie or "fluff" player with a weak list. But those people are so rare that they might as well not exist.

It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to.

Lol, no.

1) Everyone has access to FW. It's 2014, buying FW stuff online is no more difficult than buying some new orks online.

2) FW rules are not an auto-win no matter how many times you keep claiming it. Most of them are weaker than average, and the few overpowered things aren't any more overpowered than the overpowered codex stuff. So WAAC players will obviously exploit the overpowered FW rules in a FW-legal environment, but they would prefer to ban FW so they can exploit the cheaper codex rules instead and win just as easily.

On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.

Yeah, it's just awesome that the only way to use, say, rough riders is if you want to deliberately take a weak list to give yourself a bigger challenge. If you just like the fluff/models then too bad, have fun losing games. This is so obviously superior to the alternative, which is a balanced game where you make things harder on yourself by taking fewer points.

Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.

No, you just don't understand what game balance is. Balance doesn't mean that every combination of choices, no matter how bad, is equally effective. It means that every option has an appropriate price and is a viable choice in the right situation, and that there is a wide range of potential winning strategies to use. It doesn't mean that you can deliberately make the worst list you can and still have a chance of winning.

But of course you know this because we've told you countless times. I expect you'll just continue to ignore it and keep posting the same ridiculous claims.

". If choosing one 40k list over another had no more impact on the result of the game than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking red in settlers of ctan, then you've closed off a method for gaining advantage over your opponent, and thus, of winning. "

Not true. That's where "different, but equal comes in". Think of the Starcraft paradigm where marines counter immortals which counter tanks which counter banelings that counter marines. These units are not the same, yet are all fair, since there is a circle of counter units.

Too many units in 40K have inefficient counters, because the rules for that unit are too strong.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
When I used to play at a club (so semi-competitively) it seemed to me that it was often the person who argued the most about the little points of contention that won. I just didn't care enough about a game of toy soldiers to spend my time arguing (but still had a decent record). For me, the competitive scene is the antithesis of what this game is all about, and against what the designers clearly intended it to be.

Same here, at our gaming group we all hate playing against "that guy" because every single thing will be contested. Your units will never get cover but his always will, he can see behind buildings, he tended to move his models very quickly after measuring distances, etc. So we all just avoid playing him. Even if I play against someone with a powerful tau list that i have little chance of beating, at least i'll have fun playing it.

I think it's pretty obvious by how certain people conduct themselves online what sort of player they are. Honestly with some of the things people say, especially in rules disputes where people justify insane bending of the rules to do things that were clearly never intended, but in their minds that's "just playing by the rules", I'm surprised some people can find anyone to play with at all.

1) Everyone has access to FW. It's 2014, buying FW stuff online is no more difficult than buying some new orks online.

It is you can order stuff from online shops and you don't pay additional taxs ,and you can pay on delivery , you don't need a credit card to buy stuff. You can also order stuff at an online store and pick it up in their brick and mortar stuff. We have a GW in Poland and people though it is going to be awesome way to buy FW , till on open day they were told that they can view the FW stuff , but can order it only from FW directly.

2) FW rules are not an auto-win no matter how many times you keep claiming it. Most of them are weaker than average, and the few overpowered things aren't any more overpowered than the overpowered codex stuff. So WAAC players will obviously exploit the overpowered FW rules in a FW-legal environment, but they would prefer to ban FW so they can exploit the cheaper codex rules instead and win just as easily.

Because leting a limited number of people upgrade their armies with FW , while most can't would help the balance. I would rather play against taudar, seerstars all weekend , then have to play them and FW eldar titans or warhounds.

Makumba wrote:
It is you can order stuff from online shops and you don't pay additional taxs ,and you can pay on delivery , you don't need a credit card to buy stuff. You can also order stuff at an online store and pick it up in their brick and mortar stuff. We have a GW in Poland and people though it is going to be awesome way to buy FW , till on open day they were told that they can view the FW stuff , but can order it only from FW directly.

I admit that maybe things suck in Poland, but that was in reply to someone living in the US. And here there's no excuse for whining about how FW is "hard to get" because it isn't any harder than buying from "main" GW or ordering a pizza.

Because leting a limited number of people upgrade their armies with FW , while most can't would help the balance. I would rather play against taudar, seerstars all weekend , then have to play them and FW eldar titans or warhounds.

That's a problem with escalation, not FW. You'll note that the Revenant titan is in the "core GW" escalation book, even though the model is sold by FW. You can buy the escalation book from GW and then scratchbuild a model without ever having to touch a FW product. Meanwhile non-escalation FW units are no worse than the codex units you already have to deal with.

The only way I can see Forgeworld being harder to obtain is if you don't want/can't get a credit card. Even then I am sure you could just pay a relative to order the crap for you with their credit card. So, yeah, that argument is complete crap.

Question, Makumba. If the Titans themselves were made by Games Workshop would you be more okay with them?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The only way I can see Forgeworld being harder to obtain is if you don't want/can't get a credit card. Even then I am sure you could just pay a relative to order the crap for you with their credit card. So, yeah, that argument is complete crap.

You can also use a debit card, which is just cash in a more convenient package. The only people in the US who might find it difficult to get FW models are young children who don't have their own bank accounts or permission to buy stuff online.

Of course, to be fair, Makumba lives in Poland where apparently things are different and it's much less common to have a credit card or buy stuff internationally.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The only way I can see Forgeworld being harder to obtain is if you don't want/can't get a credit card. Even then I am sure you could just pay a relative to order the crap for you with their credit card. So, yeah, that argument is complete crap.

You can also use a debit card, which is just cash in a more convenient package. The only people in the US who might find it difficult to get FW models are young children who don't have their own bank accounts or permission to buy stuff online.

Of course, to be fair, Makumba lives in Poland where apparently things are different and it's much less common to have a credit card or buy stuff internationally.

I was under the impression that they could only accept a select few debit cards as in none of the more popular ones. That's what it says on the FW site anyway.

Yeah, I guess that is true so for people living in Poland the argument holds water.

 Ailaros wrote:
"Equal" defies "advantage".

If you spend hours doing research and calculation and careful list building, and in the end you have the same chance of winning as anyone else, that's going to be deeply frustrating to anyone who wants to be able to use their cleverness to their advantage.

So Chess players are unable to use their cleverness?

Because aside from white going first the game is balanced

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I was under the impression that they could only accept a select few debit cards as in none of the more popular ones. That's what it says on the FW site anyway.

I don't know about elsewhere, but debit cards in the US are effectively just credit cards that take money out out of your bank account instead of putting it on credit. You use them exactly the same way, and whoever you're buying from doesn't see any difference.

I haven't really seen a division between tournament and casual in Warmachine. Pretty much everyone goes in tournaments at some point or other, because tournaments are sort of like just big game days where you get to play a bunch and maybe you win a coin or a prize! And there might even be catering.

The argument about balance making things samey is fascinating, because part of what causes balance problems in 40k is units being too similar. When you have two units that do the same thing, but one does it better, you just take the better unit and forget the other one exists (unless you really like its fluff, in which case you probably buy one, paint it up, then never run it, ever, just ponder it broodingly as it sits on the shelf). In most games, the way to do it right is to give the units a meaningful difference so that one unit is better in some context and another unit is better in a different context. That way, alright, maybe your favourite model ever isn't the best under all circumstances, but you can make it work by playing to its strengths and putting it in the right army.

I think if the game is balanced well then tournament and casual players are at least playing the same game. That was my experience with Warmachine, but someone mentioned Starcraft 2 earlier so let's go with that. Even quite poor players are still playing the same game as the pros, and the same things matter. The contact area between the two groups is larger. I think that's good and helps people find good games and have more fun and less frustration.

Inasmuch as these better-balanced games have a separation between tournament and casual players, it's not because they're playing different games as you sort of see in 40k, it's more a gradation of skill levels - you want to get better at the same so you naturally (but not exclusively) talk to other people around your skill level.

To me it depends on tourny or casual,if oyu play tourny and oyu pay money heck yea you play hard,but there is time for fun and stuff,you have to know when to play and have fun.

So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?

And don't forget that the casuals claim that WAAC armies aren't a personal problem for them anyway , because they are beating them with their casual lists all the time .

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?

No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.

 Ailaros wrote:

People who want to win games want the game to be imbalanced because that allows them to use skill to exploit imbalances to win games. It's why WAAC players have traditionally flocked to forgeworld and demanded that they be allowed to use those advantages that other players don't have access to. It's why list building is considered a skill.

I disagree. And the millions of folks who play chess would also like to have a word.

Imbalance doesn't allow 'skill' to win. Take a welterweight versus a heavyweight. Any amount of skill won't cover the sheer physical imbalance between the two. Imbalance skews things so that skill is actually far less relevant.

As to the forgeworld comment - forgeworld is no worse than the rest of gws offerings. Some good, plenty bad. The tau stuff as a whole is mediocre. Id imagine people tend to flock to it for awesome models, more so than broken rules,

List building in balanced games like warmachine is a skill. In 40k, you go to dakka, find the latest netlist, spam what's good and win.

 Ailaros wrote:

If everyone showed up with the same chance of winning, you might as well play flip-a-coin. It's the opportunity to use one's intellect to advantage that's important, and you can't do that without game imbalance.

Utter rubbish. People should have access to the sane tools of the sane quality, but how they use them determines the winner. Balance does bit equal sameness. You have to use your intellect to a far greater degree when the other guy's roster is as good as yours. Imbalance substitutes for intellect.

 Ailaros wrote:

On the other side of the spectrum, players that want diversity and want challenge want an imbalanced game as diversity is nearly meaningless and your ability to challenge yourself is diminished if you don't have stronger and weaker units, and stronger and weaker combinations.

Rubbish. Challenge in an imbalanced game sways between seal clubbing and being clubbed by a seal clubber. Balanced games encourage greater diversity and challenge, for the simple reason that the game doesn't boil down to 'the one list who rules them all'. There is more reason to take other stuff, and you'll get more use out if it. Having stronger and weaker units simply has the result of focusing on what's stronger to the exclusion if everything else, the game ends up skewed. Balance suffers. Variety suffers. You're not more skilled as a result.

 Ailaros wrote:

Really, anyone who shows up to the game of 40k excited about the fact that they can build their own army lists, and choose which miniatures they bring is excited about the game being imbalanced. Otherwise their decisions wouldn't make any more difference than picking the shoe in monopoly or picking white in Go or Chess.

No, they do it in spite of the game being unbalanced, not because they like the fact that it's unbalanced.

Saying otherwise their decisions won't make any difference is utter tosh. Tactical choices matter. How you play matters. Heck, playing warmachine opens me up to no end of killer combinations. Twin black dragons? Winter guard and iron fangs? Cavalry? Nyss hunters and kayazy? Rifle korps? Men o war bricks? How about casters? Hmm? Or warjacks? All allow me to play completely differently, and still compete at a high level. It's the same story in infinity. There is no 'one list'. To the extent that the unofficial motto is 'it's not your list, it's you'. ** I have a huge array of choices both at the list building stage, and in tactical play. All in a balanced game.

**Please note folks: I'm not saying these games are 'better'. They are my preference, but this is not the thread fir that argument. I'm just trying to illustrate the point that balanced games are tactical, and offer both variety and challenge. **

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?

No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.

So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?

Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?

 SaintTom wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?

No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.

So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?

Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?

I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?

No we care about the game play itself. Not the result. So when someone ruins the game play they naturally avoid playing them again. Nothing to do with result, simply game play.

So then why all the problems with wanting balance between codexes and the ruleset?

Why do so many people on the "casual" side want to keep the rules unbalanced, just not when its their army that's on the weaker side?

I dont know about others but we like the current rules. We see no reason to change. We dont abuse the rules and we play to create good game play. So the rules are good for this so why should it have to change. Thats for me anyways. I like things the way they are going, caters to my group and how we play.

I know I won't get a answer your side never answer but I'll ask anyways.

How does balancing the rule set we have now change any of that. And if someone does have the balls to answer give a samlpe not just "becouse it limits chose" how would it limit choose is what I want to know.

I don't see how a balanced rule set would be anything but a benefit for casual and tournament players alike.

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Yes, this is what I observed. Casual players seem to care about the game they are playing is fun, which when playing a WAAC list doesnt happen.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:
So let me get this straight, casual players are those who play with what they like and don't care about if they win or lose.. unless its against people who do create a more effective army and thus automatically do care to win and are WAACers of course.

But casuals stress that we should all play armies we like, unless that army is better than their army, then its cheese of course.

So the answer seems to be that if you're blamed for bringing cheese or being WAAC then just take 2 lists with you, your normal list that you actually like and enjoy, and then a kiddie list for those who complain.

I mean its not their fault that they complain about armies other people like to build and play with. They don't care about winning or losing, just about what it is they lose against.

Yes, this is what I observed. Casual players seem to care about the game they are playing is fun, which when playing a WAAC list doesnt happen.

There shouldn't be WAAC lists. That's the whole point.