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.

You can forge a narrative about how abaddon and his feared black legion were killed to a man by a Tau/Eldar alliance in a few seconds flat.

Actually, that would be a good story.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.

Oh.... you have no idea. So then, have you ever heard of my White Scar army? They are very... narrative. As per my daemons, why, would you like my FMC spam list? I have a fluffy explanation why! Those heldrakes? This is the vanguard assault. Always.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.

Zwei, will you tell us the story of how an army of all Legion of the Damned never shows up to battle?

Or the story of the Little Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch that Couldn't (shoot)?

Or the story that tanks actually don't get cover saves because cover saves are only for wounds?

Or the story of Uncle Joe taking a bullet for Knight Commander Pask by performing a "Look Out, Sir"?

He still hasn't answered my question.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.

Zwei, will you tell us the story of how an army of all Legion of the Damned never shows up to battle?

Or the story of the Little Exalted Flamer Chariot of Tzeentch that Couldn't (shoot)?

Or the story that tanks actually don't get cover saves because cover saves are only for wounds?

Or the story of Uncle Joe taking a bullet for Knight Commander Pask by performing a "Look Out, Sir"?

Oh please do.

I understand what he's saying. I have a hard time accepting it, but based off what they publish, I have to admit that GW intends this to be almost a cooperative game. It's stupid, and makes traveling outside your play group VERY difficult, but it is the ONLY explanation for the way they do things.

I suspect that GW also would expect self-policing from players in order to "forge the narrative". Basically, they want you to do the work of making their game fair and interesting for them.

GW's unit balance is atrocious. Absolutely atrocious. Blizzard fans get pissed when a 200 mineral, 100 gas unit is undercosted by say 25 gas, because over many units, this adds up to a big advantage. GW isn't even the same ballpark on their units. A game with thousand sons also has the Riptide. Because fluff. Or author laziness. Or just random writing. Or something. GW obviously doesn't give a feth, just like Zwei. I have no idea how they find list construction interesting when they have to negotiate with their opponent, but I'm not British. Or something. The whole thing makes no sense, but it obviously makes perfect sense to Zwie and evidently thousands of others.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.

Oh.... you have no idea. So then, have you ever heard of my White Scar army? They are very... narrative. As per my daemons, why, would you like my FMC spam list? I have a fluffy explanation why! Those heldrakes? This is the vanguard assault. Always.

A White Scars Army isn't "fluffy" or "not fluffy". Whether or not it is depends on the opponent, the scenario, the table, etc..

As (presumably?) a Bike army, it wouldn't be very fitting for a Battle of Void Span Point Scenario for example, where all 3 players deploy by flyers and than move into a "space-hulk-style"-setting.



In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

So... Did I miss the part where you finally explained how a rule set that encourages min- power gaming is good for narrative play?

To my knowledge, it is impossible to min-max(?) power game in narrative play. Or if in doubt, adjust the scenario.

Oh.... you have no idea. So then, have you ever heard of my White Scar army? They are very... narrative. As per my daemons, why, would you like my FMC spam list? I have a fluffy explanation why! Those heldrakes? This is the vanguard assault. Always.

A White Scars Army isn't "fluffy" or "not fluffy". Whether or not it is depends on the opponent, the scenario, the table, etc..

As (presumably?) a Bike army, it wouldn't be very fitting for a Battle of Void Span Point Scenario for example, where all 3 players deploy by flyers and than move into a "space-hulk-style"-setting.



In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.

Ummmm..... a biker white scar list is basically the most fluffy thing possible. I don't even know what the heck you are talking on and on about now. Like, wah man? If they can't do that, then there's no real use to playing White Scars. That's basically their whole thing. It's like playing salamanders but taking away their flamers and meltas. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT MAAAAN!?

Also, moving scenery. And next you will roll for the time of day and if it is morning the SM will get a buff and if night Eldar shall get a buff. Fine then, battlesuit tau army is pretty good and will almost always best a tzeentch army especially when ti can take along Riptides and some pathfinders, maybe a buffmander for good measure. Fluffy. So what is your point?

And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.

Interesting to follow this. It is unfortunate that Zweischneid is being so directly attacked by so many posts, I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.

There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument.

And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.

You can't say in one breath "Oh screw you Zwei no one plays anything but the book scenarios at 2k points" and then in the next breath use armies and builds virtually no one uses to make your own points. You can't have a game with this much stuff in this many combinations and not have some falter. Can you talk about the majority of the game and not just the top 3 lists versus the bottom 3 lists?

Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues? It really is not hard to see Zewi's point that the game is clearly buiilt intentionally toward that guy, and neither of the two extremes.

I run a club full of these middle-of-the-ground types and we find little issue with powerful units or lists. Why? Well, for one, everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army. You can't claim the game is less balanced than ever while it is in a state where most of its content is available across more players than ever before.

And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing. Even if it does...explain exactly what "hurting the game" even means?

You want to talk about what's wrong with the game? Earlier I said the player base. As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game -- a bunch of people who think that THEIR way to play the game is the RIGHT way and the ONLY way and that anyone else is a fool.

Of course. Yes, 40k is an irreparably broken mess that can only be enjoyed by the most ignorant people who've ever wargamed.

Thanks for the update. I'm going to go back to enjoying the game now.

 StarTrotter wrote:


And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.

Dunno. I find Thousand Sons dull, sitting on the planet of sorcerers doing nothing (when they aren't chasing their arch traitor Ahirman).

Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).

Or perhaps use an old Space Hulk set to do an Ahriman vs. Harlequins, Prodigal Sons trying to get into the Black Library scenario.

Etc...

 Fenris Frost wrote:
And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing. Even if it does...explain exactly what "hurting the game" even means?

Ignoring all my anecdotal evidence that points to the contrary...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/589125.page#6718720

You could try that... (Was referenced earlier, but here's the proof).

And you don't see this absurd/obscene armies or these rules concerns pop-up, you play in a very small group. I've played 6E across the country now. This stuff pops up. And it's not fun to deal with.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Interesting to follow this. It is unfortunate that Zweischneid is being so directly attacked by so many posts, I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.

There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument. You can't say in one breath "Oh screw you Zwei no one plays anything but the book scenarios at 2k points" and then in the next breath use armies and builds virtually no one uses to make your own points.

Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues? It really is not hard to see Zewi's point that the game is clearly buiilt intentionally toward that guy, and neither of the two extremes.

I run a club full of these middle-of-the-ground types and we find little issue with powerful units or lists. Why? Well, for one, everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army. You can't claim the game is less balanced than ever while it is in a state where most of its content is available across more players than ever before.

And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing.

You want to talk about what's wrong with the game? Earlier I said the player base. As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game -- a bunch of people who think that THEIR way to play the game is the RIGHT way and the ONLY way and that anyone else is a fool.

As always -- the playerbase is the biggest downside to this game.

Yes, 40k is an irreparably broken mess that can only be enjoyed by the most ignorant people who've ever wargamed. Thanks for the update. I'm going to go back to enjoying the game now.

Wrong. I'm... I'm somebody that uses these models. I try. I TRY MAN! Tzeentch is like my man yo. Yeah, he might backstab me often but he's always got my back in the end. That's how we roll even if it hurts.

Actually, it is extremely easy. Want to know why? Ding ding ding the starter forces. Now then, when I was a new little lad we played DA versus CSM. We were too new to know that DA had more points nor did we realize DA were kitted out to always beat CSM in almost every match unless the dice gods really hated the DA player that day. It crushed my mood. There, the end. Along with that, there's still the fact that the CSM codex is still vastly inferior to a codex like Eldar (and so on). Finally, the average player says. HEY LOOK! The heldrake looks awesome let us use him. *Heldrake slaughters DA constantly that have worthless AA* Well time to shelf this model I guess.

Not every army has a super powerful unit and not all of those powerful units are equal. Along with that, not all of us can be Tau and ally with Eldar perfectly or be Imperial and ally with basically everybody. Some of us play Nids where we can't even ally to one army, not even ourself.

Look at it? You do know the last fiscal year showed them losing stock, even before then they were not gaining any wealth despite increasing costs, the 40k market is slowly shrinking as other games cannibalize it... Yeah it is hurting. It's just 40k is so popular the death will be a slow one much like WoW.

The reason people are so rabid is because he is the one guy that has been here for basically a day and is in a minority opinion that has spouted falsehood, faulty arguments, flawed conceptions, spouted that tailoring makes the game fair, and all sorts of other illogical things. We are human and eventually we all get tired. Plus, this isn't the first time for many of us that we have argued with him. I actually am fine with Zwei when we aren't in this argument. Much like how I'm usually fine with Peregrine whenever it's not a discussion about CC. But shove them in these places and I have already grown tired of it all.

Finally, 40k is a broken mess that can be fixed. It can also be enjoyed by anybody with a liking for it due to the diversity of its purpose from a building/conversion hobby, to a painting hobby, to a collector hobby, to a player hobby, to a bad competitive hobby, and is all washed in deep lore. If you ask people here, you'll find many play it still. I certainly do, in fact, I'm looking forward to going back to town and kicking up a campaign because I love them. That said, the rules are bad, the only real part of the game I truly dislike and I'd like to see them improved so I could actually use what I love.

 Zweischneid wrote:
In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.

So... if you play a completely different game instead of 40K, it's great for 'forging a narrative'...

 Zweischneid wrote:
Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).

But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.

Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.

Dunno. I find Thousand Sons dull, sitting on the planet of sorcerers doing nothing (when they aren't chasing their arch traitor Ahirman).

Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).

Or perhaps use an old Space Hulk set to do an Ahriman vs. Harlequins, Prodigal Sons trying to get into the Black Library scenario.

Etc...

No no I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how to make them actually worth using. Where they actually have a sense of purpose and use. Thousand Sons are deep. They aren't just sitting there doing nothing. They are planning their plots, sewing their seeds, and striking in the night. They are the plotters that only come out when they must. A Thousand Son army would often have cultists and standard marines as bodyguards as the sorcerer lords leads his fiersome automaton brothers to battle. My big problem is that the things you gave me for balance involve set piece games and mirror matches. I can create that, but I need it so I can play against any army. I want to make fluffy battles that follow a narrative that is balanced so we can have fun and weave our own story. Not have to limit ourselves drastically.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).

But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.

Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.

Oh what a tangled web he weaves. Getting caught up in your own arguments there Zwei?

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.

So... if you play a completely different game instead of 40K, it's great for 'forging a narrative'...

I am not. I follow the 40K rules to the letter

...

MiniRuleBook p. 8 wrote:
Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. [,,,] What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job [is] also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

I have the suspicion that you aren't playing 40K, since you seem to ignore these rather specific prompts.

When was the last time you played proper 40K in compliance with the above writing, i.e. with adding something to the games mechanic that was entirely born from your own creativity? If you haven't in a while, you've not been playing 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).

But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.

Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.

Oh what a tangled web he weaves. Getting caught up in your own arguments there Zwei?

Didn't I say I find Thousand Sons boring too? Yes I did. I was only offering suggestions for the more "Warmachine-minded".

I also recommended mirror-matches previously, for people who care about balance (e.g. not me).

 Fenris Frost wrote:
There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument.

Are you suggesting people should cite less effective examples to support their arguments when better ones are available in order to make the debate more even?

You really HAVE been spending too much time in GWland!

Fenris Frost wrote:Interesting to follow this. It is unfortunate that Zweischneid is being so directly attacked by so many posts, I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.

There's a lot of cheap talk, here. People say "imbalance hurts the game" but then have to cite specific examples of the worst cases to support that argument.

And please, oh please tell me how to play Thousand Sons, Tzeentch units that are CSM codex and not DP, Tzeentch sorcerers, and how to play the exalted flamer.

[1]You can't say in one breath "Oh screw you Zwei no one plays anything but the book scenarios at 2k points" and then in the next breath use armies and builds virtually no one uses to make your own points. You can't have a game with this much stuff in this many combinations and not have some falter. Can you talk about the majority of the game and not just the top 3 lists versus the bottom 3 lists?

[2]Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues? It really is not hard to see Zewi's point that the game is clearly buiilt intentionally toward that guy, and neither of the two extremes.

I run a club full of these middle-of-the-ground types and we find little issue with powerful units or lists. Why? Well, for one, [3]everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army. You can't claim the game is less balanced than ever while it is in a state where most of its content is available across more players than ever before.

And this talk. It "hurts the game." Look at the profits, the playerbase, the number of posts on forums like these across the internet...it isn't hurting a thing. Even if it does...explain exactly what "hurting the game" even means?

You want to talk about what's wrong with the game? Earlier I said the player base. As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy [4] because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game -- a bunch of people who think that THEIR way to play the game is the RIGHT way and the ONLY way and that anyone else is a fool.

Of course. Yes, 40k is an irreparably broken mess that can only be enjoyed by the most ignorant people who've ever wargamed.

Thanks for the update. I'm going to go back to enjoying the game now.

[1] No-one plays these builds, because they are kinda horrible in-game.

[2] They will have issues in one of two scenarios (maybe more). A) They run into one of these units someone else has in a casual game, or B) They get shunned when they bring an overpowered unit they thought was cool.

[3] Please, tell me of these "Allies" I can take.

[4] I would be perfectly willing to discuss, if he actually had some valid arguments.

Also, you need to understand some rather thick sarcasm to recognize it, but here:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

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.

Game ain't working.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
In a different scenario... say one matching it against Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, possibly with moving scenery to simulate speed, it could be extremely awesome.

So... if you play a completely different game instead of 40K, it's great for 'forging a narrative'...

I am not. I follow the 40K rules to the letter

...

MiniRuleBook p. 8 wrote:
Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. [,,,] What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job [is] also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

I have the suspicion that you aren't playing 40K, since you seem to ignore these rather specific prompts.

When was the last time you played proper 40K in compliance with the above writing, i.e. with adding something to the games mechanic that was entirely born from your own creativity? If you haven't in a while, you've not been playing 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Thinking of it, a Prodigal Sons + Ahriman trying to escape a group of Thousand Sons sorcerers trying to grill him, inspired by the recent John French novel, could make a fun game. It would also be "balanced" by virtue of being a near-mirror-match (except for having one named character on one side, and unnamed ones the other).

But that's what makes... Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity, etc. etc. ... all so boring. No diversity.

Your words. But now that same concept could be fun.

Oh what a tangled web he weaves. Getting caught up in your own arguments there Zwei?

Didn't I say I find Thousand Sons boring too? Yes I did. I was only offering suggestions for the more "Warmachine-minded".

And I said how to play them and make them actually good. here's the problem. Ksons, and tzeentch for chaos suck. There's no answer, no solution. he just does, his icon is soul fire, his mark gives a +1 to invuln which either means a 6+ invuln that is overpriced or a highly pricey +1 to your invuln when it'd be better to take the mark of nurgle possibly even for cheaper. Ksons themself are worse at killing Tac marines than Chaos Marines that themself are inferior to Tac Marines. And thing is? Both Ksons and Chaos marines die at the same rate. How is this good? How can I "forge the narrative" when this is so?

Why should I roll for my tests when I could just "forge the narrative" explaining my psyker would know this already and my warlord would know what he is good at from the get go. At this point, why not script it, push it and kill models as I chose for a general "cinematic theme" with "epic" duels that totally go counter to the theme of a Tzeentch leader.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I honestly think it would be a more productive discussion if people saw both sides of it.

People would be more likely to see both sides of it if one side took the time to actually explain their point of view in a way that makes some kind of sense.

Do you guys really think the average player, one with a working knowledge of the game and no particular commitment to either a fluffy army or a powerful one, has any of these issues?

Yes.Absolutely. I have seen players come into the game, build an army based on what they thought looked cool, or on a cool story they thought up, and then give up in frustration when they continually lost games to armies that were vastly further up the power scale. I've seen players accused of being WAAC power gamers because they built an army based around some models they liked without realising that the wider community views those models as being hideously unbalanced. I've seen players lose patience with the game because their army that was a decent take-all-comers army when they built it is now practically unplayable due to everyone else being updated (in some case twice) while they get stuck with a codex that is 2 editions out of date.

None of that would be an issue in a more balanced game.

Well, for one, everyone can take tons of allies and often get a similarly powerful unit in their own army

Yeah, the allies rules went a long way towards fixing the problems faced by Tyranid players...

As I watch people react to Zweischneid's remarks with near-rabid rage and slowly form into a gang against the guy because he doesn't share the popular opinion...it's all too apparent what is wrong with the game

People on forums assuming that because someone disagrees with someone else, that they are in some sort of frothing rage...?

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should I roll for my tests when I could just "forge the narrative" explaining my psyker would know this already and my warlord would know what he is good at from the get go. At this point, why not script it, push it and kill models as I chose for a general "cinematic theme" with "epic" duels that totally go counter to the theme of a Tzeentch leader.

You probably should do that for a year or so, if only to wean yourself off that misguided mind-cuffed focus on "standard games".

 Fenris Frost wrote:


I'll give you an example:

Player A: "You can only move in a straight line!"
Player B: "You can bend the tape and move however you want!"
Me: "What does the book say?"
Player A: "It says you move 6 inches!"
Me: "Is bending the tape 'moving 6 inches'?"
Player A: "..."

Has that actually happened to anyone? Or was this an example of silliness from "weak" rules?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should I roll for my tests when I could just "forge the narrative" explaining my psyker would know this already and my warlord would know what he is good at from the get go. At this point, why not script it, push it and kill models as I chose for a general "cinematic theme" with "epic" duels that totally go counter to the theme of a Tzeentch leader.

You probably should do that for a year or so, if only to wean yourself off that misguided mind-cuffed focus on "standard games".

The hell? Have you not noticed me mention that I still occasionally play such a sub par army and have several house rules to improve Nids, DA, CSM, and even orks? Or have you noticed that I have mentioned my love of campaigns and creating narratives setting up cities with designs and all that jazz? Well, I didn't mention the cities and all but gosh darn it I love doing that a lot. I've built fortifications for the enemy where I got extra points and had to siege/break through it to slaughter the inhabitants and more. That said, we don't always want to plan things out in this grand context. Sometimes we just want a quick game or to just duke it out on a rather even playing-field with no real tweaking here. Along with that, by doing so, you disregard the attempt at balance by random dice rolls (even if it is flawed) and just pick the most optimal choice every time. I love narrative games, but a better balanced/perfect imbalance game would only make my love for the game more. At this point, what is the meaning to buying supplements or the main rulebook when I'm just going to tear it up for being terrible and create my own rules entirely?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Personally I'm just trying to understand and getting very confused.

Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Wrong. I'm... I'm somebody that uses these models. I try. I TRY MAN! Tzeentch is like my man yo. Yeah, he might backstab me often but he's always got my back in the end. That's how we roll even if it hurts.

Actually, it is extremely easy. Want to know why? Ding ding ding the starter forces. Now then, when I was a new little lad we played DA versus CSM. We were too new to know that DA had more points nor did we realize DA were kitted out to always beat CSM in almost every match unless the dice gods really hated the DA player that day. It crushed my mood. There, the end. Along with that, there's still the fact that the CSM codex is still vastly inferior to a codex like Eldar (and so on). Finally, the average player says. HEY LOOK! The heldrake looks awesome let us use him. *Heldrake slaughters DA constantly that have worthless AA* Well time to shelf this model I guess.

Not every army has a super powerful unit and not all of those powerful units are equal. Along with that, not all of us can be Tau and ally with Eldar perfectly or be Imperial and ally with basically everybody. Some of us play Nids where we can't even ally to one army, not even ourself.

Look at it? You do know the last fiscal year showed them losing stock, even before then they were not gaining any wealth despite increasing costs, the 40k market is slowly shrinking as other games cannibalize it... Yeah it is hurting. It's just 40k is so popular the death will be a slow one much like WoW.

The reason people are so rabid is because he is the one guy that has been here for basically a day and is in a minority opinion that has spouted falsehood, faulty arguments, flawed conceptions, spouted that tailoring makes the game fair, and all sorts of other illogical things. We are human and eventually we all get tired. Plus, this isn't the first time for many of us that we have argued with him. I actually am fine with Zwei when we aren't in this argument. Much like how I'm usually fine with Peregrine whenever it's not a discussion about CC. But shove them in these places and I have already grown tired of it all.

Finally, 40k is a broken mess that can be fixed. It can also be enjoyed by anybody with a liking for it due to the diversity of its purpose from a building/conversion hobby, to a painting hobby, to a collector hobby, to a player hobby, to a bad competitive hobby, and is all washed in deep lore. If you ask people here, you'll find many play it still. I certainly do, in fact, I'm looking forward to going back to town and kicking up a campaign because I love them. That said, the rules are bad, the only real part of the game I truly dislike and I'd like to see them improved so I could actually use what I love.

I actually really liked this post because it isn't rooted in hyberbole like a lot of the other counterpoints, and believe it or not I feel similarly; we shouldn't have to say "0-1 Heldrakes 0-1 Riptides" to have a decently matched game. And I agree with a lot of the other sentiments, too; however, I don't think it is NEARLY as bad a problem as it is depicted. Playing across the country and seeing a lot of tough lists is one thing; this game obviously has the intent that you will be playing it with other people you know for the fun of the story it enacts, rather than other people you've never met on purely competitive grounds. So in ways, even though I agree with both sides of the coin, I take exception only because Zweischneid's point that the game is simply not meant to address any of these concerns is, in itself, a valid one.

Either way, I considered it a good post, as it makes a lot of points that are very relevant without being so "zOMG how could you be so stupid!" about it. So thanks for that.

@Crazy Carnifex, another good post that puts a lot in perspective. That is a much more valid way to say the game isn't fulfilling, to point out that the Nids don't actually do that on the table. I don't think that means the game is busted or unplayable but I'm not ignorant or blind to the fact that there is a big gulf in mechanics versus the fiction that leads to awkward stuff. That's a lot more valid than just saying "Guys who play three Riptides exist, the whole game is ruined." Or this whole "tell me why a Penitent Engine is good" thing, that's not really proving anything more than saying "tell me how often you can capture a queen with a pawn! What do pawns add to the game!?"

As for my comments about extreme examples, I'm not looking for anything literal; but think about it. We talk about power lists versus boned lists all the time in the 40k community. There's no middle? There are no guys that win some and lose some? No people who, with an uphill battle might beat a netlist, or who might lose despite having one? I'm just saying, we should step back a bit and consider where the majority focus of the game lies, for GW's attitude toward development (and our own, toward the state of the game) to have some context.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.

I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.

Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.

As soon as models have a comparable point cost in a game, the game designers have shown an attempt at "balancing" models/units.
If the game was all about narrative their would not be any point cost for units, only rules.

As for the rules for 40k, they are in many cases unclear or even incomprehensible, something that a company with the resources like GW should have caught before printing.
Then add in the lack of balance between the various codecies, topped with rules were units hardly ever resembles the capabilities suggested by their fluff.
Also the points costs that appears arbitrary with no real guideline, lots of units that have unique special rules when USR would do fine.
Overall the codecies appears to be made from people who take the "Beer" part of "Beer and Peanuts game" very serious.
If you want to play a narrative campaign you can, but you have to make up lots of rules yourself in order to make the models playable on the table.

Having a complete balance between the codecies would be more or less impossible because some units are simply fail by design from a fluff pov.
That said each codex could be made to have some units builds that could work in a competitive environment while still being able to make a varied fluff based army.
GW could simply invite some tournament winners from some of the larger non-comp tournaments for some "early testing" against a new codex with their tournament army and balance it based on those tests to make a few tournament builds.
Could also make for some good White Dwarf battle reports.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Zwei, answer my question. How is having a useless unit like the Penitent Engine good for the game because you've said such imbalance is indeed good. So, explain.

I am not sure you grasp the concept of imbalance.

Imbalance means some things are better, some things are worse. If nothing was worse, and everything was equally valid, there wouldn't be any imbalance.

And many people have agreed with you that certain slight imbalances can benefit a game by promoting an always evolving meta-game.

His question is how does that unit (and many others) being so incredibly far from balanced benefit the game or it`s players?

I agree that perfect imbalance is where codexes/armies have weaknesses that don't relegate them to the shelf, because they have other strengths. However, GW does not do that well. Theoretically, Blood Angels should be able to be played just fine against Tau.

Yeah, right.