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.
Actually X-Wing balance, if memory serves me, isn't that bad. There are some arguably overpowered things, but, if memory serves me thigns are overall relatively balanced. Also, to be fair, X-Wing has one thing you are not mentioning that gives it an edge over Warmachine. The brand. Just by being Star Wars it's going to have some fans already.
X-Wing balance is laughable, for a game that has barely 10 different gaming pieces, only 2 factions and probably less possible combinations than the Space Marines Sternguard entry. It also has blatantly "buy-me-overpowered"-baiting for certain expansions.
But the main thing it has over Warmachine isn't the brand. The main thing it has over Warmachine is the fact that X-Wing is actually fun.
Eh I honestly didn't know. Still, from the snips I have gathered, their balance is superior and they release new things to try and put some balance into the game. And incorrect. Thing is, you are trying to use a subjective matter as an objective fact. To you, X-Wing is more entertaining than Warmachine. The main thing really has to do with it being Star Wars. That IP really influences people's interests in big ways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 22:39:55
Perhaps there is confusion in all this as to what balance actually is.
Let's look at small examples. Riptides. Riptides may be too good as they currently are. Is toning their firepower down, adjusting their cost, and/or limiting the number taken in anyways going to ruin the game for everyone? I think not. I think that it will open Riptides up more in Casual games.
Let's look at another. Thousand Sons. Is making them better so they actually stand a chance of earning their point cost a bad thing? I think not. It would open them up more to Casual and competitive games.
Now if we do both things together, we get a more balanced game... And everything doesn't get set on fire. How would this ruin the game?
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
And before anyone says that there are more casual players or more competitive players than the other, can I see a friggin' statistic before you assume you are the majority opinion and have the most weight in the game?
Can I see a friggin' statistic that shows that "everyone" benefits from a more balanced game. I don't claim to be in the majority. I only claim that not everyone (!) would enjoy a 40K striving to be more balanced.
Some people, believe it or not, buy and play the current edition of Warhammer 40K and like it! Why is that such an impossible concept to grasp for people here?
So you like the fact that some matchups are the equivalent of Alexander Karelin bodyslamming Betty White? Or do you just love fighting uphill battles? Or maybe you are the one always jumping to the new hotness.
Eh I honestly didn't know. Still, from the snips I have gathered, their balance is superior and they release new things to try and put some balance into the game. And incorrect. Thing is, you are trying to use a subjective matter as an objective fact. To you, X-Wing is more entertaining than Warmachine. The main thing really has to do with it being Star Wars. That IP really influences people's interests in big ways.
Well, there is always an element of "subjective" in there.
To me, Warhammer 40K is the most enjoyable wargame out there (even better than X-Wing), and 6th Edition the best Edition of 40K yet.
Star Wars obviously has a certain pull, and it "eases" the entry into the game. It makes things familiar. But there must be a million "Star Wars-themed" war/board/computer/card/etc..-games out there, none of which I touched (or the people I play with, the clubs, etc..), because I (and many other people) don't care (enough). Surely, a quick google could find dozens of "Star-Wars-games" that failed commercially. "Star Wars" alone doesn't explain that runaway success.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/22 22:47:10
Eh I honestly didn't know. Still, from the snips I have gathered, their balance is superior and they release new things to try and put some balance into the game. And incorrect. Thing is, you are trying to use a subjective matter as an objective fact. To you, X-Wing is more entertaining than Warmachine. The main thing really has to do with it being Star Wars. That IP really influences people's interests in big ways.
Well, there is always an element of "subjective" in there.
To me, Warhammer 40K is the most enjoyable wargame out there (even better than X-Wing), and 6th Edition the best Edition of 40K yet.
Star Wars obviously has a certain pull, and it "eases" the entry into the game. It makes things familiar. But there must be a million "Star Wars-themed" war/board/computer/card/etc..-games out there, none of which I touched (or the people I play with, the clubs, etc..), because I (and many other people) don't care (enough). "Star Wars" alone doesn't explain that runaway success.
As per the pull of X-Wing. It's a lot of things. That said, the brand name is a major component in bringing people in. From there, you have a starting force that is relatively balanced and lets you automatically start off the game for a rather low entrance price. You have the models already painted and prepared where people that paint can use their own tactics but individuals that don't care to go through that progress can take it. It's also got enough brand that I can convince most to play it. You remember those awesome scenes where Luke and/or Han are flying around fighting the Empire? Well let's play it! The rules are also rather simple, enough so you can learn them in a bit. Finally, the rules are objectively good whilst the game, for many, has an overall positive experience. Finally, Star Wars already has a die hard fan base that will leap on it from the get-go. So, it is a lot of factors that lead up to its success.
For me, Warhammer is odd. It's, perhaps, my favorite and least liked game. On one hand, I love the setting and the fluff so much that it makes me build possessed, thousand sons, and other things just because of a combination of aesthetics and fluff. On the other hand, it's clunky and imbalanced to the point of agony. I'll play it now and have fun, but that's also because I play this game 95% of the time with my friends only and that really makes it entertaining.
Well, in spite of your corporately loyal opinion, I can say that the current edition of the rules is losing them players, both in my casual circle, and my competitive circle (It is possible to enjoy both types of game).
My casual friends are frustrated that the lists they make, without much knowledge of any meta, get pounded by opponents who know what's good and take it. And my competitive friends, while able to put together the nasty lists, find the play style currently in the offering boring. The result is a dwindling pool of players to play with, and no game is good without opponents. They're moving to warmachine, and to x-wing. Those of us who are fairly committed to 40k, simply because of the money invested in armies, are trying to make the best of it and play around the stupid, but GW doesn't make it easy.
Simply consider the needless differences:
Live Ork inside a Walker: Vehicle Live Marine strapped to front of walker: Monstrous creature Live Eldar inside a walker: Vehicle Live Tau inside a walker: Monstrous creature Dead Marine inside a walker: Vehicle Dead Eldar spirit inside a walker: Monstrous Creature Live heretic strapped to front of walker: Vehicle
All makes perfect sense...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 22:55:47
Erm, how'd you get that from his post? He mentions his friends moving and self identifies as being committed to 40K.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Redbeard wrote: I have drunk PP's kool-aid and I find it refreshing.
Good for you. If you find Warmachine more to your taste, that is what you should play.
Does Redbeard even play PP? From what I gather, he still plays 40k with his friends, even admitting to being dedicated to the game himself. He's just displeased with the rules as is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 23:06:56
Emphasis on "balanced" has - in each and every "balanced" wargame I've ever seen or tried - always fostered a closed-minded mind-set among player of "the-rules-are-more-important-than-imagination" that actively discourages taking things into their own hands and actively ostracizes players who bend/ignore/change rules to improve the narrative/hobby/story.
It inexorably shifts the social pressure of the community towards gaming as a competitive experience of winning or losing, rather than a cooperative experience of creating good narratives, as 40K (to the boon of the gaming-hobby as a whole, where the latter type of game is scarcer than the former) is trying to do.
A hobby with both balanced/competitive (e.g. Warmachine) AND unbalanced/narrative games (e.g. 40K) is a win-win situation for everyone, as everyone can pick the game they prefer.
A hobby with only balanced/competitive games leaves at least half of the hobbyists (probably more, given that 40K is still No. 1) out in the cold.
I see Zwei Quixote has returned. Keep tilting at them windmills!
Why must someone who disputes your obvious gospel interpretation of game design be automatically sided with PP?
Why must someone who enjoys the current iteration of 40K automatically be demeaned as GW-brain-washed?
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
Why must someone who disputes your obvious gospel interpretation of game design be automatically sided with PP?
Why must someone who enjoys the current iteration of 40K automatically be demeaned as GW-brain-washed?
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
For me, it is because Red went on to elaborate his point on the negative qualities of the game whilst all you did was just toss aside his argument, ignore his statements, and say he is a big fan of PP despite him never really implying that.
Hell, Epic: Armageddon actually became more balanced after the fans took it over on the Tac Command forums!
The book became actually useable, too. The actual GW rulebook for that game is one of the most flawed pieces of gak I have ever seen a company attempt to sell, at least judging from the copy you could download off their Specialist Games site before the web update. Units whose picture above the stats didn't match the actual unit, entire stat block entries that were a cut-and-paste repeat from another completely different unit, etc.
GW rules products should not have Errata available the day of the release, for the premium prices they sell them for.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
StarTrotter wrote: For me, it is because Red went on to elaborate his point on the negative qualities of the game whilst all you did was just toss aside his argument, ignore his statements, and say he is a big fan of PP despite him never really implying that.
But that is the point. Red might have stated a bunch of stuff he doesn't like, but he didn't address or acknowledge a single point I made, despite quoting me with an insulting "fake quote" that demeans all the points I made as not worthy of any response, while also seeming looking to respond to me in some way.
If he wanted to simply list/add his grievances about 40K, why the "fake-quote" from me?
If he wanted to respond to me, why not respond to things I actually said?
If he doesn't deign to respond to my elaborated points, why should I suddenly be compelled to respond to the points he elaborated on?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/22 23:26:57
Why not try and at least keep vaguely on topic rather than drag the thread further into "all about me" territory with fake outrage?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Savageconvoy wrote: You're trying to say that making cereal more nutritious while maintaining a large majority of the same great taste somehow ruins a balanced breakfast.
I am saying that - in my experience - nobody has managed to make the cereal more nutritious without ruining the taste (e.g. Warmachine, Infinity, etc..).
I am not saying it is impossible, but unless somebody has proven it works (preferably for a non-40K-game), I'd rather they stick with great taste .. if in doubt.
Also, a lot of great recent cereals (e.g. X-Wing) have cared not one bit about balanced nutrition and still managed to overtake the balanced offerings (e.g. Warmachine) by leaps and bounds, even among tournament players.
QFT. I mean, just look at Tyranids. As my troops rain from the sky in their mycetic spores, hidden Lictors and genestealers leap from their hiding places and rip apart the defenders before they can react. Infinity, however, is completely incapable of representing any kind of infiltrator/aircav force, despite being all futuristic. My commandos come on, and then they just stand their staring at the guy with a flamethrower as he burns them to death.
To be honest there is little arguments to one side saying that a game is balanced and the other side saying the game is fun. Balance is not subjective , fun is. It would be as if I claimed apples were better , because they are cheaper and you saying that oranges are better , because they taste better.
StarTrotter wrote: For me, it is because Red went on to elaborate his point on the negative qualities of the game whilst all you did was just toss aside his argument, ignore his statements, and say he is a big fan of PP despite him never really implying that.
But that is the point. Red might have stated a bunch of stuff he doesn't like, but he didn't address or acknowledge a single point I made, despite quoting me with an insulting "fake quote" that demeans all the points I made as not worthy of any response, while also seeming looking to respond to me in some way.
If he wanted to simply list/add his grievances about 40K, why the "fake-quote" from me?
If he wanted to respond to me, why not respond to things I actually said?
If he doesn't deign to respond to my elaborated points, why should I suddenly be compelled to respond to the points he elaborated on?
Yours was:
Well, there is always an element of "subjective" in there.
To me, Warhammer 40K is the most enjoyable wargame out there (even better than X-Wing), and 6th Edition the best Edition of 40K yet.
Star Wars obviously has a certain pull, and it "eases" the entry into the game. It makes things familiar. But there must be a million "Star Wars-themed" war/board/computer/card/etc..-games out there, none of which I touched (or the people I play with, the clubs, etc..), because I (and many other people) don't care (enough). Surely, a quick google could find dozens of "Star-Wars-games" that failed commercially. "Star Wars" alone doesn't explain that runaway success.
Now then, I won't disagree that he didn't need to make the fake quote with kool-aid. That said, there were no real points made in the thing he responded to. You said to me that it was your favorite wargame. What can he say to that? Then you went to discuss that there's something besides SW that made the game popular which is, admittedly, already slightly off topic from 40k itself.
QFT. I mean, just look at Tyranids. As my troops rain from the sky in their mycetic spores, hidden Lictors and genestealers leap from their hiding places and rip apart the defenders before they can react. Infinity, however, is completely incapable of representing any kind of infiltrator/aircav force, despite being all futuristic. My commandos come on, and then they just stand their staring at the guy with a flamethrower as he burns them to death.
I C WAT U DID THAR
We say people gobbling up 40k right now are crazy because they are actively supporting bad business. No matter if you like the other products in any iota, business model to business model, GW is treating it's customers like walking wallets with overpriced paints, tools, and rules. The kits can be argued based on aesthetic, but no one else charges $30 for single pose plastic minis or raises the price when they transition from metal to resin/plastic. And a great deal of modern plastics, such as Malifaux, are doing what GW does. And the metals from Infinity stomp GW detail; check dem Kum Riders!
We all still like 40k. But to argue that GW is fairly treating their customer base in any fashion and you'll be laughed at.
Or should we try to see Zwei defend the new $150 tools?
Why must someone who disputes your obvious gospel interpretation of game design be automatically sided with PP?
Why must someone who enjoys the current iteration of 40K automatically be demeaned as GW-brain-washed?
Why is my - admittedly - somewhat snarky and perhaps ill-considered rebuttal immediately gone over with a fine comb, but not the idiotic FTFY by Redbeard that inspired it?
Because that's the only way one can enjoy the current iteration of 40k - by completely ignoring all of the blatant issues and pretending none of that exists.
I am sorry but I cannot fathom how even the most casual of players can think that 6th edition is good. Either you subconsciously house-rule the broken things so they never really come up, or you subconsciously ignore them in the course of the game (the more likely scenario). The idea that a balanced game is somehow worse (and balanced does not mean "everything is equal") boggles my mind, almost as much as people who defend GW's every decision with the cry of "freedom". It's not really freedom, it's the illusion of freedom. You are free to take subpar units... if you want to be at a disadvantage and end up likely to lose games because you chose them. That's not freedom, that's fool's gold, and that's a key problem of 40k right now; there are way too many fool's gold choices. That's not to say other games have none - Warmachine has its share (Khador Man-o-War Shocktroopers spring to mind), but picking them isn't nearly as detrimental in other games as it is in 40k. In Warmachine if I want to field let's say 'jack-heavy Khador with Man-o-War Shocktroopers, I'm going to be at a disadvantage (mostly because I'd be overextending myself with 'jacks and Man-o-War troops aren't that good for their points), but I won't pretty much auto-lose a game like I would if I wanted to field mostly CSMs, a Defiler, a Helbrute, Warp Talons and Khorne Berserkers if I played anybody with half a clue who didn't also pick garbage choices to patronize me. That's the key issue. A bad player of 40k with a good list can beat an experienced player with a poor list, because of the power level gap between lists.
That's a fundamental issue of the game. It's not "taking it too seriously" it's that there are literally choices that will cost you a game if you take them for no other reason than their rules are crap, and choices that can almost single-handedly win you games because their rules are too good. There should never, ever be any choice at those extremes in any kind of decently balanced game; everything should be somewhere near the middle, while 40k has many things at either end (too good or garbage) and very few in the middle.
To think otherwise is pretty much crazy talk, because it's outright ignoring the problems - it's like saying how you need to clean your house... while your roof is missing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 23:42:27
Makumba wrote: To be honest there is little arguments to one side saying that a game is balanced and the other side saying the game is fun. Balance is not subjective , fun is. It would be as if I claimed apples were better , because they are cheaper and you saying that oranges are better , because they taste better.
Balance may not be subjective, but it isn't the universally beneficial. As said, it has "downsides" and "trade-offs".
If balance is not solely beneficial, if it has "good" and "bad", than some game somewhere should try being perfectly balanced (point A). Some other game somewhere should try and reject balance completely to minimize on the downsides of balance (point B). Most games will probably fall somewhere into the middle.
Also, presented with a variety of games that, as balance goes, fall somewhere between point A and point B, different players/gamers will have different preferences.
My personal, subjective preferences probably tend to fall more towards point B, at least moreso than the average of people in this thread. Because of that, I am drawn to games like X-Wing or Warhammer 40K. They fulfill the demand for the kind of games I am looking for.
It does in no way invalidate or demean players looking for something different in their games, more "point A", except that they likely won't find it in games trending more towards "point B" (e.g. 40K).
That said, there were no real points made in the thing he responded to. You said to me that it was your favorite wargame. What can he say to that?
If you don't care for 40K, I can't change that. If you care for balance, you probably don't care for 40K.
But what should be obvious is that a broader gaming hobby with games that caters to both "point A" and "point B" is a richer, more inclusive, more diverse hobby for everyone, than a hobby where all games are forced to converge towards "point A".
The point is not that I like 40K. The point is that variety benefits everyone, and trying to make 40k "more like other games" (to which Red's group seem to gravitate) will diminish and lessen the hobby as a whole. Those other games already exist. Let people who enjoy them play these games. Let 40K be different for those that don't enjoy these other games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 23:49:09
What do you enjoy about the current edition which would be ruined by all units having a purpose and utility?
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Eldarain wrote: What do you enjoy about the current edition which would be ruined by all units having a purpose and utility?
This is what I don't get about the "balance would be bad" crowd. How would balanced rules and having all units be viable in any way be bad? How would the idea of using tactics to win versus just playing an OP list be bad? I've never really seen an example of why balance would be bad, but there's this pervasive idea that balanced means like Chess, with everyone having the same thing, when nobody in fact has said that.
Eldarain wrote: What do you enjoy about the current edition which would be ruined by all units having a purpose and utility?
This is what I don't get about the "balance would be bad" crowd. How would balanced rules and having all units be viable in any way be bad? How would the idea of using tactics to win versus just playing an OP list be bad? I've never really seen an example of why balance would be bad, but there's this pervasive idea that balanced means like Chess, with everyone having the same thing, when nobody in fact has said that.
For me personally, because more balanced games have proven (in my subjective experience) more inhibitive of narrative gaming.
From a game-designers perspective, this is a good summary of some of the design-choices against balance.
In my experience, a lot of 40k "imbalance" has been precisely this kind of cyclical meta-game.
Landraider-Deathstars faded with Vulkan-Melta-Droppods, which in turn faded to Razor/MSU-Spam, which faded to Missile-spam/Psyfledread, which faded to Heldrake, etc... It keeps the game from going stale.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/22 23:57:25
Neither, however, change the fact that GW is either actively ignoring any form of balance or is grossly incompetant. They have yet to correct absolutely broken units, many listed already, or broken books, such as C:LotD, and that flat out terrible customer service.
Balance may be a discussion (still an extreme doubter, more so when you charge $50 for rules), but their customer service and business practices are bad.
No, no, Zwei - specific examples, not hand wavy vagaries.
Ooh, and you've posted that video twice in two separate threads today! At least this one hasn't been locked yet!
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that video apply to video games, and not tabletop games? There's a big difference between the two and what constitutes balance in one and balance in another. In WoW for example, you have balance in the sense that (at most levels anyways) no class is more desirable than another, but in PVP you have classes that can more easily defeat others due to how they function - classes are balanced, but there's an imbalance there for the sake of not having everyone play identically.
Wargaming doesn't have balance like that, least of all 40k where the spectrum is way too wide. Nobody wants 40k to be identical armies, but the discrepancy currently is way too much. You should not be punished (by being at a severe disadvantage from the start, before a single die is rolled or a single unit is moved) for wanting to field CSM squads or Howling Banshees, and currently you ARE because those units are just flat out weak. That's the problem.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/23 00:01:40
Makumba wrote: To be honest there is little arguments to one side saying that a game is balanced and the other side saying the game is fun. Balance is not subjective , fun is. It would be as if I claimed apples were better , because they are cheaper and you saying that oranges are better , because they taste better.
Balance may not be subjective, but it isn't the universally beneficial. As said, it has "downsides" and "trade-offs".
If balance is not solely beneficial, if it has "good" and "bad", than some game somewhere should try being perfectly balanced (point A). Some other game somewhere should try and reject balance completely to avoid minimize on the downsides of balance (point B). Most games will probably fall somewhere into the middle.
Also, presented with a variety of games that, as balance goes, fall somewhere between point A and point B, different players/gamers will have different preferences.
My personal, subjective preferences probably tend to fall more towards point B, at least moreso than the average of people in this thread. Because of that, I am drawn to games like X-Wing or Warhammer 40K. They fulfill the demand for the kind of games I am looking for.
It does in no way invalidate or demean players looking for something different in their games, more "point A", except that they likely won't find it in games trending more towards "point B" (e.g. 40K).
That said, there were no real points made in the thing he responded to. You said to me that it was your favorite wargame. What can he say to that?
If you don't care for 40K, I can't change that. If you care for balance, you probably don't care for 40K.
But what should be obvious is that a broader gaming hobby with games that caters to both "point A" and "point B" is a richer, more inclusive, more diverse hobby for everyone, than a hobby where all games are forced to converge towards "point A".
The point is not that I like 40K. The point is that variety benefits everyone, and trying to make 40k "more like other games" (to which Red's group seem to gravitate) will diminish and lessen the hobby as a whole. Those other games already exist. Let people who enjoy them play these games. Let 40K be different for those that don't enjoy these other games.
You linked imperfect balance, not let's throw balance entirely out the window who wants another waveserpent? And you keep on opting for X-Wing to be this unbalanced mess of a game. Yeah, it has its flaws, but the company still tries to balance it as much as they can.
Also, I care about 40k. I also care for balance. I like 40k. I like the fluff, I like the setting, I like the models, I like the unique army, and I like playing it with friends. ESPECIALLY when we get to create a narrative. Why the hell would I still list 7 armies that are all 40k in my descriptions bar if I didn't? I have fun with 40k but it is in spite of the rules which do not comprise all that is 40k.
And who are these point a and point b folks? If it's on the show, apologies, haven't watched it in a while and audio on my desktop is broken.
And I ask again, how is the game being relatively balanced going to influence the game? What is the point of variety when most of the choices are traps? Do you praise the CSM codex for the option to give your unit the mark of tzeentch despite it being overpriced and giving a 6+ invuln that you will often not use due to your own armor save or cover save? That's not a choice, that's an illusion of choice. This game is a socially based game. Make it balanced or at least perfect imbalanced and then break the rules when you want to. If you want to go silly 5 marines versus 3000 orks and give the marines stupdendous rules, have at it and have a blast! But how is it that making the game will diminish and lessen the hobby? It'll not only diversify the competitive environment a bit (whilst there will always be some form of optimal armies as true balance is impossible, it'll increase the number of choices one could field to form an effective army) and would allow one friend that loves himself riptide to fight a Thousand Son/Tzeentch fan without it always being one sided and a mess, not to mention not entertaining in the slightest to play.
2375
/ 
1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
