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.

 Nem wrote:
It's much down to personal preference in what you like in the games and your general attitude towards it.

Do I wish some rules were written better? Yes - but that has little to do with balance.
Do I wish armies were more balanced? Unlikely to effect me....
Do I wish people would give up going on and on and on about the balance in 40k? Yes.


Revolving door type can also be a good thing. Keeps the game moving, keeps things different and keeps it new and interesting. I don't want to play with the same models game in and game out, I want to math hammer new builds or new uber builds, there's only 3 or 4 units in the entire game I think one of the designers were smoking something funny, even then it's only through players exploiting those they become a burden for some players.

Balance is not the be all and end all for many people. Bad balance doesn't automatically mean not fun. I recently played a doubles game where mine and my partner's lists were completely ill adept at handling our opponents when we turned up (Nids & White Scars VS Guard & SM /w Knight /w Fortress). Even worse the dice were against us, after scouting bikes forward and starting with FMC's on the table our opponents stole the initiative - don't think I need to explain the outcome but everyone had a good game and everyone had fun.

Like I say it really depends on what you want to the game. I have a friend who will complain about the balance of 40k on a weekly basis, he does currently play Dropzone and X-Wing. He has played Warmahorde - but did not keep that up. Obviously while the game balance annoys him, that system while good in balance, is lacking in something else.


Sad thing is it is probably the epic situations, adrenaline and drama created by iffy balance.



[edit] Wish people wouldn't use the words auto win and auto lose units like it actually exists. We all know while we can % up likelihoods and lists there is still a hell of a lot of strategy in 40k lets not forget those damn dice.

For warmachine, it can be many a thing. It could be fewer players, less appealing models, less interesting fluff, or the fact that no other game fields the platoon/company sized army that 40k does. Also depends on your friends. As you mentioned, you had fun with others. That said, it wasn't because of the game per say but instead all of you having a blast. Basically beer and pretezels. Thing is, how does improving the rules ruin this in any way? Yeah, I can have fun now. But my entertainment for this game would only improve if it was more "balanced".

 StarTrotter wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.

The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.

I shortly mentioned it but admittedly didn't keep to long to it. It's also one of the few forms of ap3 that is actually good in the game.

we were doing some basic math that goes like this.

12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)

baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...

numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.

lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)

so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one

To be fair, you are comparing it to a codex that just came out focusing entirely upon damage without losing any units and against what is theorized to possibly be the best (or at least one of) the best units in the IG codex.

to be fair the helldrakes been hated on for how long because its the best unit in the codex, and now no longer justified, and people still beg for it to be nerfed.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
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.

On the flipside, for how much we pay the erratas/FAQs should occur a lot more often (I'd say MONTHLY) to address issues.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
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.

On the flipside, for how much we pay the erratas/FAQs should occur a lot more often (I'd say MONTHLY) to address issues.

i can get behind that. maybe not errata, but def FAQ... that way they can sell the next rulebooks/codecies as the time comes...

WayneTheGame wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that video apply to video games, and not tabletop games?

You can apply it to all games, but in non-digital games it can actually be a hinderance instead of a boon because updates take longer and unless we're getting new rulesets every month things just won't change fast enough to really keep the community in a perpetual shifting meta. It does feel like what GW is trying to do though.

EDIT: @TheKbob: GW has said many times in the past that there is no mathematical formula for determining points costs (I'm currently playing around with one but it's one of those things where you really have to decide how much things are worth and that can be subjective. I mean it's great if everything is pointed to the same yardstick but if one special rule is priced too high or low it can cause problems. The system I made (which has 0 play testing and was me mostly just kind of poking things) makes a Marine 32 points, a Guardsman 20 and a Carnifex 76 (and that was AFTER adding a 50 point "Monstrous Creature"tax (which mostly is to cover the dozen rules they get plus the high toughness) to thing) and generally we'd all be playing 4,000+ to fit our current armies in, which isn't a BAD thing but the bigger the numbers might just create a mental stigma in player's minds). Instead developer basically play around with points and try to get what "feels right".

 Zweischneid wrote:
It only matters than some things are better than others. That's how you kick-off "list-building" and "meta-gaming" and an "evolving state of play".

No, it's NOT how you kick off those things. If X is clearly better than Y it's something for a new player to learn, but once they figure it out (or go online and let someone tell them) all that means is they're always going to play with X instead of Y. You don't have an interesting metagame, you just have lots of lists with X and a bunch of Ys collecting dust on the shelf.

An interesting metagame starts to develop when X is better than Y if A is more common than B, and the opposite is true if B is more common then A. Then you have to constantly evaluate your choices depending on the choices other players are making. But that's not what 40k has.

Other games do it just like it. X-Wing players only play TIE-Fighters for so long, before they realized that they "need" Howlrunner, or "need" to have a few PtL cards that are so much better for 3 pts. than most others talents, or need Advanced Sensors on their B-Wing, etc.., etc.., etc...

Nope, you still don't understand X-Wing. Howlrunner is obviously powerful, but there are plenty of imperial lists (even TIE swarms) that don't use her. PTL seems powerful at first, but then you realize how predictable getting stressed every turn makes you and those other options start to look a lot more appealing. Advanced sensor B-wings are great, but so are B-wings with FCS or cheaper B-wings with no upgrades at all.

Does that mean my "fluffy" TIE-Fighter "New Hope" Squadron led by Vader (or even worse, led by Maarek Stele) instead of Howlrunner is inferior for its points? Yes it does. Does that mean my "fluffy" B-Wing Squadron without Advanced Sensors looted from the Imperial Shuttle is inferior? Yes it does. People accept that as a price for the underlying "imbalanced" game-design. And every new release will bring a new hotness. Things that were hot and one point are fading, or will be fading soon.

Yes, but the point you keep missing is that:

1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.

2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.

These games are made that way on purpose (and possibly not even in the sense that game-designers decide that X should be a power-combination, but simple in the sense that game-designers allow enough "variance" so that power-combos occur "naturally").

No they aren't. For example, there's general consensus that the X-Wing balance problems are mistakes, not deliberate choices. And we see FFG making an effort to fix those mistakes: assault missiles to break up swarms, stress abilities to make PTL less of an automatic choice, a -2 point "upgrade" for A-wings to fix their point cost issues, etc.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
That's not the sole issue with the Drake, although I'd agree with what you've written, it's other issues are that it excels at removing power armour (the most popular army type, and also making it effective against anything else pretty much) from the table by the handful, is resilient (especially for a unit type that is traditionally fragile to balance out it's speed and evasiveness) and gains extra utility from its ability to Vector Strike.

The test is that you could even put the Drake rules in the Eldar or Tau books and it will still be a very strong choice, that it isn't in a book that exactly shines on every page of the army list just makes it looks that bit better.

I shortly mentioned it but admittedly didn't keep to long to it. It's also one of the few forms of ap3 that is actually good in the game.

we were doing some basic math that goes like this.

12 small blasts on a squad should net roughly 30-36 hits.
based off 30 hits 75% will wound T4. 22.5 wounds
3+ armor will save 66% leaving you with 7 wounds on marines
(correct me where wrong)

baledrake may get 5 models with the flamer. 1 may not get wounded...

numbers swing even further with weaker armor. the tanks will get more turns shooting. etc etc.. so if presuming a 5 turn game.
Drake turn 2 = 20 marines. Wyvern 35
drake turn 3 = 15 marines wyvern would still get 35.
and it gets worse.
presumption being 3 wyverns to drop the 12 blasts, and the drake killing everything under the template.

lets not forget the damn thing has to move every turn so can be out positioned for a turn or more to shoot due to board directions etc. so even turn 2 may not be able to use the flamer ( though unlikely)

so no. the drake is ok at killing marines, the reason its still listed these days is that it was the first and it made a huge impression... now its not so scary, infact its a risk of 170 ppm, because if its not in turn 2 what can happen? you may get locked in combat turn 3 and it did nothing because it can only hit their back field obj holder. dont get me wrong its a great tool, and it will be a CSM mainstay, but its no longer the king of all marine killers... just an effective one

To be fair, you are comparing it to a codex that just came out focusing entirely upon damage without losing any units and against what is theorized to possibly be the best (or at least one of) the best units in the IG codex.

to be fair the helldrakes been hated on for how long because its the best unit in the codex, and now no longer justified, and people still beg for it to be nerfed.

The heldrake is caught at a dilemma. The competitive lists nowadays can crush it (and chaos). The problem is, in a casual environment it is far too strong. A buffing of Chaos in general, nerfing of baledrake, and probably a buff to the dakkadrake is the most optimal solution. The problem is the heldrake isn't that appealing because of its codex.

Just to use a bit of logic.
A rule set for a game is by its definition'instructions to play the game.'
So you should just be able to read the rules and know how the game is played.And everyone should be able to do the same.

IF you have to second guess what the game developer intended to write, the rule set FAILS ITS PRIMARY FUNCTION!
RAW should be good enough not to need RAI.

The ONLY reason to include point values and army organization, it to allow the games to be balanced enough for pick up games / competitive play.

Rule sets written for narrative play ,(like Stargrunt II ), DO NOT USE POINTS VALUES!!!

IF the 40k rule book is just supposed to be a 'general guide line for narrative co-operative gaming .'
I have NO PROBLEM with that.
Just leave out the PV and F.O.C and use scenario ideas and campaign books.
That way 'competitive' players can not argue the rules and PV should be more balanced .(Because nothing would be over costed or under costed because nothing would be costed!)

And GW would find out if the people who play 40k exactly the same way as the studio is a big enough market to keep them in business.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, but the point you keep missing is that:

1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.

2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.

You keep missing the point as well.

Are the gaps smaller? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".

Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.

Well GW doesn't seem to be very good with either balance or imbalance.

Balance works well , if all armies or factions are bad the same way ,or the balance is like something in starcraft.

Imbalance works well , if everything is over the top . No unkillable units , everything kills everything and the game leaves two craters when it finishes.

GW doesn't do any of those things. They let the same armies dominate for years , while others are always bad. There are units with no viable counters or armies that counter most of the playfield. And again they do it for years , not weeks or months like it is in the case of starcraft.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, but the point you keep missing is that:

1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.

2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.

You keep missing the point as well.

Are the gaps smaller? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".

Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.

A game where only limited choices are in anyway effective does not give you more choice it gives you less, it does not help stoke the imagination it limits it server it reduces available options and forces someone to either play a smaller selection of lists or resign to have little to no chance to have a competitive (as in both have a good chance on winning not for tournaments) game between both players. This stifles creativity it doesn't promote it.

I haven't seen you make a single good argument for the imbalance in 40k you also seem to have severely misunderstood the perfect imbalance video if you think it in anyway relates to 40k.

40ks imbalance is either a result of incompetence or apathy. They are not using imbalance as tools to great a better game.

A good game does not need to be perfectly balanced what it does need to do is have players be able to actually be able to not get destroyed unless they choose a particular set of narrow options. You need matches to not be practically over before it even begins.

Balancing the game better would allow the player far more choice in customising their force, their playstyle and choosing their army without being punished for creativity. It's entirely illogical to think that giving the player more useable options will give them less options.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, but the point you keep missing is that:

1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.

2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.

You keep missing the point as well.

No, he's not. Please, just stop this internet contrarian shtick. It's getting tiresome.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, but the point you keep missing is that:

1) There's a much smaller gap in power between the good list and the weak list. Unless you bring a truly awful list (and probably one that is deliberately designed to be bad) you're going to have a decent chance of winning. Contrast this with 40k, where even reasonably powerful lists might as well not even bother playing if their opponent brought the most overpowered list.

2) There are a lot fewer choices that are at the extreme ends of the power scale. With the exception of the TIE advanced (which has problems because Vader is the only one that should exist) and a couple unique pilots pretty much every ship and upgrade is a viable choice in at least some lists. You might not have much luck putting X in the same list as Y and Z, but if you really love X you can probably find a way to make it work with A and B instead. And there are also very few, if any, choices that are automatic because they're so obvious powerful that every list wants them. In 40k, on the other hand, there are tons of choices that are either so weak that they might as well not exist, or so overpowered that the only reason not to use them is to avoid crushing a weaker opponent.

You keep missing the point as well.

Are the gaps smaller? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

Are there fewer choices that are at extreme ends of the power scale? Perhaps. Doesn't matter.

The point is that things are - purposefully - not balanced (to what degree that is a good thing or a bad thing is a discussion for a different time). (Degrees of) Imbalance (are) is a conscious choice in game design, and not a "mistake".

Balance is is not inherently superior to Imbalance. Both are equally but tools in a game-designers tool-box.

Alright then time to tear in. The thing is, gaps being smaller DOES matter. Having fewer choices that are absolutely horrid or absolutely broken good DOES matter. Having these makes things good! This is best. It leads to more variety, more choice, more diversity.

Onto your next point, did you even read him? He mentioned these big variances where something is too good to be flaws, mistakes. They aren't, they are unintended consequences that get answered later on to help balance things out whilst providing a capability to still field it the old way. This is closer to perfect imbalance.

Yes, balance is not inherently superior to perfect imbalance. Problem is, you are arguing for true imbalance, not perfect imbalance.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Alright then time to tear in. The thing is, gaps being smaller DOES matter. Having fewer choices that are absolutely horrid or absolutely broken good DOES matter. Having these makes things good! This is best. It leads to more variety, more choice, more diversity.

Perhaps. I'll think about it and consider. I don't have an immediate answer to this. Perhaps smaller gaps are better. Perhaps they are not. Either way, that discussion is outside of the argument I am making. For the sake of simplicity, assume he is right with this for the time being.

Onto your next point, did you even read him? He mentioned these big variances where something is too good to be flaws, mistakes. They aren't, they are unintended consequences that get answered later on to help balance things out whilst providing a capability to still field it the old way. This is closer to perfect imbalance.

As are probably many of the more problematic issues in 40K. Mistakes. I am never said there were none.

Yes, balance is not inherently superior to perfect imbalance.

Thank you.

Problem is, you are arguing for true imbalance, not perfect imbalance.

No. I am merely advocating people stop with this misleading obsession about balance. Not that companies can also fail at trying to make a good imbalanced game (I don't think GW has failed here, but I am obviously in the minority there).

If somebody goes out for fishing, and fails to bring home a good catch, you can criticize him for being a bad fisherman. But if you criticize him for being a bad fox-hunter, you're missing the point. He never tried hunting foxes in the first place.

Once people finally stop bashing GW for being a bad fox-hunter, we can start talking about how they could become better fishermen.

40k has one of those communities that will bitch no matter what.
Obviously 40k wasnt meant to be played hardcore or in a tournament scene
Should it be?
Yes at least a little.
But does it have to be for the game to still be fun?
No.

Zwei's out of touch.

Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.

The game 40k needs more balance. As I stated, it's hard swings. To argue otherwise means you don't read anything on the internet about this game or you're just trolling.

The Heldrake is bad because it takes zero skill to use and unlike the Wyvern, it can crack a rhino in the movement phase with no saves and then burninate the squad on the inside. Also, even if the Wyvern was "OP" you'd have to remember that two wrongs and all. Plus, maximizing spacing, you'd realistically get only about 15~ hits which would be about 7.5 wounds or 2~3 dead marines (fast math, so could be off). Small blasts suck at 2" spacing. The flamer would still kill more marines.

The game as written now has no form of balance and is nothing but hard swings. It's filled with absolutely game breaking units; broken in both directions. We have units that flat out don't work (Mandrakes, Pyrovores, Exalted Flamers, etc.) or books that don't work (Legion of the Damned Codex auto-loses). This implies little to no actual game design. This is then magnified by the opposite end of the spectrum with units that ignore nearly every restriction in the game or stacks a reroll on every dice roll.

Balance is better for all players still. And it's super easy to a balanced game and "forge a narrative" [sic] than to do vice versa. And paying $50 to troubleshoot your own books with friends is asinine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Once people finally stop bashing GW for being a bad fox-hunter, we can start talking about how they could become better fishermen.

Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree. There still has not been another game company yet presented as argument who strives for a busted game as you imply. Even most RPGs, narrative focused games that are actually designed with balance between classes in mind and errata'd, FAQ'd. Historical miniatures, designed with imbalances in mind to recreate narrative events, are still designed with that balance in mind. There is no "grand design" that springs forth from GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Njal Stormpuppy wrote:

But does it have to be for the game to still be fun?
No.

Good game design practices say otherwise.

 TheKbob wrote:


Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.

Exactly, it has precisely the problems the video identifies, among other things, for Starcraft during that game's "balanced phase". Stale, repetitive, devoid of strategy.

 TheKbob wrote:


Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.

Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.

Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.

The $50 price tag for most new releases, watering-down of said releases, and over charging for single character special rules begs to differ; all while claiming to be a premium model company.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.

Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.

The $50 price tag for most new releases, watering-down of said releases, and over charging for single character special rules begs to differ; all while claiming to be a premium model company.

I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.

I don't think we are at odds about the fact that GW's products could be cheaper. We are at odds about whether they should be more balanced or not.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.

Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.

Incorrect, it's not narrative in the slightest. A narrative game would have imperfect balance where units aren't unplayable and other units so horrendously good that they make a joke of the game. Things would be all of varying levels. many in the middle with some that are generally better but weak to some ones that are generally worse. As is, it's not like that at all. There's still no counter to the riptide (as mentioned before) and certain codices are just better in every way to every other codex whilst some are just worse than every other codex. CSM are 1 point cheaper but lose dozens of rules and gain a bad rule. For just one point of difference. GW also plays by the mentality of making everything random rolls (how is random warlord traits and psyker spells narrative?). No, a narrative game would toss out the rules and points and instead start talking about general theming concepts using the points as approximates usually recommending a flexible range of some 200 points or something to give one the edge over another. But it doesn't and its rules actually hurt narrative games more than they help.

If you disagree with me, build a Chaos Space marine codex composed of Tzeentch units or better yet Thousand Sons army. Oh, and don't forget to compare how "amazing" Tzeentch sorcerers are to other sorcerers. Also don't forget how narrative it is for them to be some of the best psykers and have divination. Oh wait, they suck and don't have divination.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


Yea, Warmachine might be boring to you, but it's exactly as the video you linked is.

Exactly, it has precisely the problems the video identifies, among other things, for Starcraft during that game's "balanced phase". Stale, repetitive, devoid of strategy.

Nope, Warmachine is Starcraft II or the MOBAs, filled with subtle imbalances. Your manor of speech about the game suggest you haven't really played it, but just dabbled and wrote it off. And you could always house rule it and make things more exciting? Why not trying to Forge the Narrative and all?

 StarTrotter wrote:
No, a narrative game would toss out the rules and points and instead start talking about general theming concepts

Give it another 2 or 3 years.

 Zweischneid wrote:


I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.

I don't think we are at odds about the fact that GW's products could be cheaper. We are at odds about whether they should be more balanced or not.

They are flat out selling busted rules, as noted before, for the markets highest cost. Balance or no-balance, flat out BROKEN units and rules. Things that do no work. And they are not FAQ'd or given errata.

Even setting aside the balance issue (balance is still better, period) there's no disagree on that!

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:


Once GW stops selling their busted fox pelts for twice the market value and acting like they are the king's of their craft, we can agree.

Personally, I think GW is very transparent and open about their priorities for narrative gaming over "balanced" and "tournament" play.

The $50 price tag for most new releases, watering-down of said releases, and over charging for single character special rules begs to differ; all while claiming to be a premium model company.

I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.

I don't think we are at odds about the fact that GW's products could be cheaper. We are at odds about whether they should be more balanced or not.

Not quite. As per Watering-down releases and over charging single characters, it's actually like taking away characters in a fighter game that are already on the cd (and if you hacked you could get them) and then releasing them as DLC.

Onto the next aprt, I don't think it's quite that. In fact, it seems like TheKbob also agrees that perfect imbalance is the way for 40k to go. He and I just disagree with you upon it being good now. It's not, it makes no sense and it isn't even close to perfect imbalance. In fact, I think most people here want perfect imbalance rather than balance balance. It's just that, to get to perfect imbalance, things will end up becoming more balanced as perfect imbalanced is based upon subtle factors isntead of overt riptides and heldrakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
No, a narrative game would toss out the rules and points and instead start talking about general theming concepts

Give it another 2 or 3 years.

And that point I'll drop this game like a piece of trash and tell all of my friends to stop playing that piece of game and to stop supporting it's quality. If you want that, makes books for some themes. If you want that, go FW, give me a delicious book with lots of units, fluff, and themed rules/ideas. Bam, that way you can satisfy all customers but throwing it all away? That's plain stupid and lazy (Perfect imbalance is the most difficult probably, balance is the second most, imbalance is the easiest)

Correct most (if not all) advocates of balance want "better" balance. Not perfect balance. We want units to be different, function differently etc. What I personally would like is for all units to be good at what they are supposed to do....currently they are not.

 Zweischneid wrote:


I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.

Gw purposefully releases overpowered models at high price tags and purposefully releases books that break balance (Escalation) to further support the former. I think that's kinda wrong. Though...maybe they are trying to forge a narrative by doing so. Or maybe it's boring to not go "pay to win".

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


I am not sure what price has to do with the balanced-vs-imbalanced design-philosophy problem.

Gw purposefully releases overpowered models at high price tags and purposefully releases books that break balance (Escalation) to further support the former. I think that's kinda wrong. Though...maybe they are trying to forge a narrative by doing so. Or maybe it's boring to not go "pay to win".

I'd be rather surprised if this were the truth. If so, they'd be buffing Pyrocasters and other similar units up all the time and always releasing new models with broken rules. Thing is, they also break units like the waveserpent that is a model a lot of old players already play. Along with that, look at the competitive Chaos list. It's cultists with sometimes Plague Marines, a DP, maybe a lord, heldrakes, and obliterators. The only real new thing here is that cultists exist and have largely taken over the Plague Marine's spot and the heldrake is new. The rest is still the same and still arguably good-very good.

Zweischneid wrote:
You can disagree with these design choices, but you shouldn't be so stupid as to believe these design-choices weren't intentional.

Actually, you can't be so stupid as to believe that GW's "design choices" are intentional.

I mean, in a vacuum, the video you link to puts forth an interesting take on balance. Not necessarily correct, but not necessarily wrong either. But, and here's the kicker, the guy who made the video understands what he's talking about, while you're just parroting and throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

Back to GW, compared to other game companies...

I think it's pretty obvious that most companies want to sell models. Models have high margins. Rules have low margins. You sell one rulebook to someone, but you can sell them multiple of the same miniature and make money. At their heart, these companies, none of them, are writing games out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it to make money, and they make money by selling models, not by selling rules.

All models have a fixed cost associated with them too. For single pewter models, you're paying a sculptor, making a mold, and doing some marketing. For plastic kits, there's a much larger up-front cost in tooling the mold.

This is one of the reasons that GW (and probably other companies) should strive to make new models desirable, so they can recoup these costs quickly. And, as many people note, in GWs case, new models are often overpowered. They want to sell as many Valkyries, Helldrakes, and Riptides as possible, as soon as possible, because they need to pay for those molds (or, more likely, the next set of molds).

There's clearly a motive to make new stuff good. Here's why I cannot believe that their design choices are intentional:

Tau Flyers. Possessed Marines. Flayed Ones. Bloodcrushers. The Taurox. Etc.

For each new codex, they release new models. These are the models with the greatest incentive to sell. And some are so blatantly overpowered that it's obvious what the goal is. But then there are those others, expensive models, that are rubbish. No sane person would make the investment in a new model, and then consciously make it so lackluster that no one wants to buy them. That's where the argument that GW knows what they're doing falls apart. This isn't CCG game design, where you sell unknown game items and let the secondary market define the relative values, this is a business where the fixed costs are known, and need to be recouped, and where you can't count on someone buying 20 random boxes hoping to get a helldrake instead of a hellbrute.

It's also where your lack of understanding of why balance is needed really falls apart. Because it's okay to have some models better at some things and others better at other things. But it's not okay to have some models that are good at no things, because those models don't sell, and it's a business. Not only do they not sell, they drive customers away, because someone who makes the mistake of buying the "bad models" (without consciously accepting that they're buying bad models for some alternate purpose) will feel burned and will walk away from the game.

This is pretty entertaining to watch. None of you on either side of this argument has considered the possibility that this is by design, have you?

For one thing, war isn't balanced. This game is supposed to have its root in the story around it; it is not a competition of skill and mental acumen between two players, it is meant to be a way that a 41st millennium battlefield in 40k fiction plays out in front of us. So the idea that it needs to be perfectly balanced is ridiculous. People want the game balanced because they want to use it to be hardcore competitive sorts but at the end of the day, this game is not about that. Now, you can have competitions, of course, and those who exploit the balance most effectively do have an advantage. But "auto win" armies are only "auto win" against their ideal targets. When you have balanced lists people tend to have at least a fighting chance. Let's not pretend like 250 points of Guardsmen are supposed to be able to cover all the bases a Land Raider does just because they are comparable points costs.

No one ever considers the game as a whole, either. Would Tau be as broken if every time they set foot in terrain we rolled to see if it was a forest that would eat them, like it says to in the book? Would the Aegis Line be as ubiquitous as it is if it got put down before any terrain is on the table, like the book says to initially? Would the Wave Serpent be as good if people mysterious objective bonuses were worth having?

These are rhetorical, speculative questions of course, but it is true that the less desirable elements of the game are rarely considered. When people talk about the broken Heldrake, they are talking about three of them @510pts, over a quarter of most tournament lists, in an army with no way to enhance its reserve rolls.

This brings me to my next and ultimate point: GW historically puts things in the game with a mind toward future rule changes (Grey Knights are a good example -- OP as hell at intro in 5th but thanks to 6th ed PW changes, mundane by comparison now). So for all we know, things like the Heldrake and Riptide are put in with a mind toward such things. I would not be surprised if 6.5/7th changes the Torrent rule or Flyer rules and renders the Drake's price suddenly sensible, for example.

Also, generally, people really need to calm down about certain units. There are dozens more units in this game than the Heldrake, the Riptide, the Wraithknight, and the Night Scythe. You'd never know it from the way people cry about these four things.

The problem with 40k is, as it's always been...its playerbase's relentless crying.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This is pretty entertaining to watch. None of you on either side of this argument has considered the possibility that this is by design, have you?

For one thing, war isn't balanced. This game is supposed to have its root in the story around it; it is not a competition of skill and mental acumen between two players, it is meant to be a way that a 41st millennium battlefield in 40k fiction plays out in front of us. So the idea that it needs to be perfectly balanced is ridiculous. People want the game balanced because they want to use it to be hardcore competitive sorts but at the end of the day, this game is not about that. Now, you can have competitions, of course, and those who exploit the balance most effectively do have an advantage. But "auto win" armies are only "auto win" against their ideal targets. When you have balanced lists people tend to have at least a fighting chance. Let's not pretend like 250 points of Guardsmen are supposed to be able to cover all the bases a Land Raider does just because they are comparable points costs.

No one ever considers the game as a whole, either. Would Tau be as broken if every time they set foot in terrain we rolled to see if it was a forest that would eat them, like it says to in the book? Would the Aegis Line be as ubiquitous as it is if it got put down before any terrain is on the table, like the book says to initially? Would the Wave Serpent be as good if people mysterious objective bonuses were worth having?

These are rhetorical, speculative questions of course, but it is true that the less desirable elements of the game are rarely considered. When people talk about the broken Heldrake, they are talking about three of them @510pts, over a quarter of most tournament lists, in an army with no way to enhance its reserve rolls.

This brings me to my next and ultimate point: GW historically puts things in the game with a mind toward future rule changes (Grey Knights are a good example -- OP as hell at intro in 5th but thanks to 6th ed PW changes, mundane by comparison now). So for all we know, things like the Heldrake and Riptide are put in with a mind toward such things. I would not be surprised if 6.5/7th changes the Torrent rule or Flyer rules and renders the Drake's price suddenly sensible, for example.

Also, generally, people really need to calm down about certain units. There are dozens more units in this game than the Heldrake, the Riptide, the Wraithknight, and the Night Scythe. You'd never know it from the way people cry about these four things.

The problem with 40k is, as it's always been...its playerbase's relentless crying.

Oh god please don't bring up the war isn't balanced *rolls eyes* well, I guess we should break chess and make black win 90% of the time and win white wins, flip a coin. If heads then black still wins because war is not fair. Please, cry me a river. Along with that, nobody is really vying for true perfect balance. Most people are arguing for units to be viable. This means a relatively balanced game or perfect imbalance. As of now, you have units that claim how amazing they are in fluff but are utter when it comes to table top and you have units that are just godmode for no reason. Look at the fluff and tell me why CSM are inferior to SM and why Ksons are terrible and Tzeentch armies are bad in every way if CSM or why Tzeentch sorcerers are some of the worst psykers in the game. Along with that, auto wins are still auto wins. The GK list that could auto-table daemons on turn one was bad design. Am I supposed to accept it because it was their ideal targets? This also ignores things like heldrakes that are good against basically half of the game and riptides that are basically good against everything. Also, those 250 points of guardsman bring other things to the table than a land raider (and the guardsman in this unbalanced game likely do it better).

Have you seen that many forests? Also it adds more randomness to clutter it and increase book keeping. Also, the book says to put it down which becomes cheese where the enemy invalidates the thing entirely or you can opt for the NARRATIVE option which is just as recommended in the book itself. It also doesn't recommend LoS blocking terrain that is vital to close range/combat armies does it? Serpents would still likely be good, just drop the troops and let the serpent do it's thing.

The heldrake can improve its reserve rolls by bringing and aegis with a recon thing to improve the reserve roll.

And where is the counter to the riptide? It still doesn't exist and there still isn't an answer to the heldrake for many of the armies that need it most. Why is it that the flamer got 360 on a faq making it better? They obviously didn't plan that. Also, that implies that GW predicted their very first codex of 6th edition to be influenced by rules years down the line when they can't even build a tyranid codex or CSM codes or a DA codex properly.

Also, it's because those units are great and pull more of their weight. And the problem with this fanbase is that 40k has a crappy developer and people will excuse it by saying war isn't balanced.

I'd agree that it was designed if they actually made logical choices. Instead, they often focus on short sighted aspects and don't make cheap tactics. Logically, they'd buff the really bad units to be really good and make all their new releases good so they'd be big and sell. Thing is, they don't. For every riptide they release, there is also the exalted flamer. For every heldrake releases, rules make the waveserpent devestating.

Addition: Anyways, apologies for it being a bit on the rude side. Couldn't sleep and I've been doing three senseless debates for hours now and your IT IS A WAR SO IMBALANCE just was too much. It just supports lazy design and incompetent balancing and supports us eating .