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.
carlos13th wrote: Perfect imbalance is pretty much a red herring due to it being no different to what most people mean when they say they want a balanced game. People who say nonsense like well if it was perfectly balanced all units would be the same or every game would end up in a draw are either intentionally building straw men or have no idea what people mean when they say they want a balanced game.
People who want a balanced game want every army to have its place in the current meta and have every unit to have a role if used. They don't want units that you would never take for any reason whatsoever that only fill the role of wasting points.m
Personally, I want neither a balanced 40K, nor a perfectly imbalanced 40K.
If I'd wanted a (near-perfectly) balanced game, I'd play Chess.
If I'd wanted an imperfectly balanced game, I'd play MtG.
Independent of my personal biases and preferences however, the example of perfect imbalance serves to illustrate the different approaches to game-design exist (e.g. chess... striving for balance, and MtG... striving for perfect imbalance). If a variety of 2 can exist, so can a variety of 3. Or 4. Or a Million.
All perfect imbalance proves is the existence of variety in game-design.
If variety in game-design is possible, the game-design variant pursued by GW (which is neither balance, nor perfect imbalance) may be intentional, and must not necessarily be a "mistake" as people keep claiming.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/26 12:00:13
Makumba wrote: So GW wanted to make taudar and baron stars...
I've seen nothing, been shown nothing, that would lead me to reject this possibility and be 100% certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was incompetence.
Makumba wrote: So GW wanted to make taudar and baron stars...
I've seen nothing, been shown nothing, that would lead me to reject this possibility and be 100% certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was incompetence.
How about the fact that their current method makes whole armies and, therefore, whole swathes of their own miniatures line obsolete and worthless.
No business wants to make a line they are still selling and manufacturing obsolete. It is a waste of resources, time and money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 14:43:05
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
How about the fact that their current method makes whole armies and, therefore, whole swathes of their own miniatures line obsolete and worthless.
No business wants to make a line they are still selling and manufacturing obsolete. It is a waste of resources, time and money.
If true, that is a reason that would make it seem unwise.
That is not a reason that would reject the possibility in all instances and beyond reasonable doubt. Businesses have been known to make bad business decisions.
I think we've established in great detail that you consider the current direction of the game of Warhammer 40K to be unwise. I disagree, but that is just my opinion.
In either way, unwise must not mean impossible, or does it?
Wait so you actually think that 40k is fine being an unbalanced mess where some units are so bad you never want to take them, and actively taking them reduces your chances of winning just because you picked bad units, while other units are so good that you always want to take them and you hurt your chances of winning by not taking them?
Even if your meta doesn't have that problem you have to at least recognize that GW's design is flawed BECAUSE it has almost zero semblance of balance. You can recognize a problem exists even if you never once encounter it.
Anything else is completely insane, because there IS a problem, whether or not you know it's there. If you pretend to not even acknowledge a problem, then I'm sorry but you're either delusional and have your fingers in your ears, or you're a troll because I can't imagine any other way someone could be oblivious and argue that what GW does is good design in any way, shape or form.
WayneTheGame wrote: Wait so you actually think that 40k is fine being an unbalanced mess where some units are so bad you never want to take them, and actively taking them reduces your chances of winning just because you picked bad units, while other units are so good that you always want to take them and you hurt your chances of winning by not taking them?
Even if your meta doesn't have that problem you have to at least recognize that GW's design is flawed BECAUSE it has almost zero semblance of balance. You can recognize a problem exists even if you never once encounter it.
Anything else is completely insane, because there IS a problem, whether or not you know it's there. If you pretend to not even acknowledge a problem, then I'm sorry but you're either delusional and have your fingers in your ears, or you're a troll because I can't imagine any other way someone could be oblivious and argue that what GW does is good design in any way, shape or form.
Zwei believes that having the game imbalanced creates variety and allows for "narrative games"
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Yeah, Two Tailors logic argues with itself. The current set up discourages variety and encourages each side to have the exact same armies facing off against one another as they are the only viable options to play a fair game.
I have a sneaking suspicion, that he may be one of the "flavor of the month" players that only fields the new awesomness. Without the auto-win button, those players would have a hard time having a good time.
MWHistorian wrote: If by "Greater Variety" Zwei means "the same power lists over and over again" then yes, I suppose terrible imbalance does create "Greater Variety."
No.
By greater variety I mean the market for games as a whole. Warmachine, Infinity, Chess, Cowboys & Indians, Warhammer Fantasy, My Little Pony the CCG, etc.. .
In such an environment, people who like balanced competitive games could, for example, play chess. People who like imbalanced games could, for example, play 40K.
If one type of game where to perish, for example balanced "chess-type" of games, and everybody would be forced to play 40K-style, that would be a sad day. The gaming hobby would be diminished. The same is true vice versa.
The variety of games suggest a demand for different types of games. If all people would demand the same thing from games, the market would converge to a single game that caters to this demand better than the rest.
In the currently (luckly) varied market of gaming, I've found Warhammer 40K to be the best game for me atm.
I'm still waiting for why some players should suffer for their choice in armies while others get lathered in benefits.
And please have this be an answer that makes sense to anyone not from the Moon.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Grimtuff wrote: Who the feth likes an imbalanced game? Well, you seem to do. Are you some kind of wargaming masochist?
Some people do.
CT GAMER wrote: Having finally had a chance over the past few days to read, reread and absorb the 6th edition rulebook I have to say that I think it is the best edition of WH40K yet.
Marzillius wrote: As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.
SkavenLord wrote: Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now.
Polonius wrote: 40k is not Magic, or a board game, or even like previous editions of 40k. You can't just pick up and play a game by the "basic rules." They don't exist anymore. You need to own your game.
pm713 wrote: Every problem I've had comes from players.
wufai wrote: The core ruleset is the best out of all editions. There are still a lot of rules debate but just comparing previous editions this is the best so far.
Jimsolo wrote: I've been playing since 3rd, and this is my favorite edition.
6th is far better to me than any previous ed simply through variety, this edition I have seen a plethora of different armies rather than just marines, as a marine player myself it's nice to see
Kain wrote: I'm still waiting for why some players should suffer for their choice in armies while others get lathered in benefits.
And please have this be an answer that makes sense to anyone not from the Moon.
I've given you my reasons for why I prefer 40K over other, more balanced games. You don't like my answer and now I should make up new ones? Which answer do you want to hear?
It doesn't make sense to me either that people would care over childish things like "winning" or bureaucratic banalities like "objectives" or "rounds" or "victory points" over the story.. but hey, different people like different things. Who am I to judge?
As long as there are different games out there to cater to different tastes, everyone can be happy, right?
Kain wrote: I'm still waiting for why some players should suffer for their choice in armies while others get lathered in benefits.
And please have this be an answer that makes sense to anyone not from the Moon.
I've given you my reasons for why I prefer 40K over other, more balanced games. You don't like my answer and now I should make up new ones? Which answer do you want to hear?
That wasn't the question asked though was it?
Do we need to show you the Paxo video again?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
"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."
AegisGrimm wrote: The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
However having two strong codices who can improve on the strengths of each other allying (eg Tau and Eldar) will always create a stronger army than a weaker one allying in a stronger one to try and patch its weakness.
Tau and Eldar don't ally to patch a weakness in CC, they ally to massively increase their offensive ranged power. Who cares if you're weak in close combat if nobody can get there?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 18:09:29
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
AegisGrimm wrote: The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
How nice. Allies seem to remove the weakness of "bad" codicies then.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
Kain wrote: I'm still waiting for why some players should suffer for their choice in armies while others get lathered in benefits.
And please have this be an answer that makes sense to anyone not from the Moon.
I've given you my reasons for why I prefer 40K over other, more balanced games. You don't like my answer and now I should make up new ones? Which answer do you want to hear?
It doesn't make sense to me either that people would care over childish things like "winning" or bureaucratic banalities like "objectives" or "rounds" or "victory points" over the story.. but hey, different people like different things. Who am I to judge?
As long as there are different games out there to cater to different tastes, everyone can be happy, right?
You know what?
The main distinction of a game from other forms of entertainment is that there is a win or lose condition. Traditionally speaking, a game can still be enjoyed even if victory is not achieved if the defeat is handed out fairly.
In Dwarf Fortress you will constantly and repeatedly lose as you struggle to understand the game and it's lethal mechanics, but once you get the hang of it and master it, you start seeing the fun in it because the system is to a degree, fair. It is not arbitrary, if you lose, it's typically purely of your own fault.
In 40k, if you happen to pick a certain army you like that happens to be lower tier than the foe you are playing against, you are immediately disadvantaged and are faced with an uphill battle. One that can be made worse by the contents of the list.
Thus, when an Ork or Tyranid player gets creamed by a Taudar gunline/Wave serpent circus because his army is several editions out of date/his codex was terribad and filled with underpreforming units he doesn't feel like he truly earned a defeat, he feels like he just got smashed with a ton of Bricks because the rules authors were too lazy to see if they were screwing over people for playing what they wanted to use in a setting outside of the twisted nether realm that is whatever passes for GW's playtesting.
Balance, imbalance, whatever; what matters is fairness.
Because at the moment we have matchups that are the equivalent of the Russian Ice Hockey Superleague going against the Tuckahoe middle school penguins. And that just isn't fair. That's not a contest, that's one guy putting you to the curb and stomping on your head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote: The balance/imbalance of each unit/codex as a whole is completely pointless with the rampant use of allies. No army has a weakness, because their player has allied unit in from another codex that has a strength in that area.
Tyranids.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 18:12:26
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Some people like bad things. Shocker. People defending GW are hilarious, though. The company sees you as a walking wallet, and now by defending them, a walking billboard. At no extra cost.
Allies just turned the game further into an exercise in min/maxing.
Kain: Tyranids.
Urk. Lol, forgot about them. (much like GW)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 18:14:44
"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."
Grimtuff wrote: Who the feth likes an imbalanced game? Well, you seem to do. Are you some kind of wargaming masochist?
Some people do.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between "I like a game that happens to be imbalanced" (what you posted) and "I like a game because it is imbalanced" (what you were asked to provide)? Or do you just think that someone saying "I like that they finally standardized melee weapon profiles" is praising 6th edition's poor balance?
Zweischneid wrote: It doesn't make sense to me either that people would care over childish things like "winning" or bureaucratic banalities like "objectives" or "rounds" or "victory points" over the story.. but hey, different people like different things. Who am I to judge?
So why do you even play a game with rules at all? Why don't you just put your models on the table, push them around, make some machine gun noises and yell some fun dialogue, and talk about how awesome a story you're writing? Why do you care about childish things like "rolling to see if you hit instead of doing what is best for the story", or bureaucratic banalities like "armor saves" or "range" or "movement distance"?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ally with yourself with Skyblight Formation Because respawning, incontestable scoring units plus 7 FMCs makes all the friends!
Unless they shoot back with the Death Corps' own respawning units and spammable Hydras.
It's a never-ending infantry mosh-pit.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Grimtuff wrote: Who the feth likes an imbalanced game? Well, you seem to do. Are you some kind of wargaming masochist?
Some people do.
CT GAMER wrote: Having finally had a chance over the past few days to read, reread and absorb the 6th edition rulebook I have to say that I think it is the best edition of WH40K yet.
Marzillius wrote: As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.
SkavenLord wrote: Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now.
Polonius wrote: 40k is not Magic, or a board game, or even like previous editions of 40k. You can't just pick up and play a game by the "basic rules." They don't exist anymore. You need to own your game.
pm713 wrote: Every problem I've had comes from players.
wufai wrote: The core ruleset is the best out of all editions. There are still a lot of rules debate but just comparing previous editions this is the best so far.
Jimsolo wrote: I've been playing since 3rd, and this is my favorite edition.
Have you considered that they enjoy the edition in spite of it's terrible balance and instead because of it? I have not seen very many people who enjoys 40k's poor balance. Not even in real life where us whiners are supposed to be in the minority.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Because at the moment we have matchups that are the equivalent of the Russian Ice Hockey Superleague going against the Tuckahoe middle school penguins. And that just isn't fair. That's not a contest, that's one guy putting you to the curb and stomping on your head.
I support this description of 40K.
It's crazy when games of Epic can be more mundane than a game of 40K.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 18:16:50
"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."
Kain wrote: Thus, when an Ork or Tyranid player gets creamed by a Taudar gunline/Wave serpent circus because his army is several editions out of date/his codex was terribad and filled with underpreforming units he doesn't feel like he truly earned a defeat, he feels like he just got smashed with a ton of Bricks because the rules authors were too lazy to see if they were screwing over people for playing what they wanted to use in a setting outside of the twisted nether realm that is whatever passes for GW's playtesting.
This. And don't bother justifying this as "narrative", because a one-sided slaughter is not a very interesting story. For that you need a relatively balanced game where each side has a reasonable hope of victory, and a reason to care about the outcome.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: