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.
Your incompetence in your inability to argue effectively is insulting enough.
Soooo more insulting?
Spade a spade, good sir. You haven't answered anyone's question with a clear answer. How is a Penitent Engine good for the game? Please site facts. Let's add the Exalted Flamer Chariot to this dicussion, why is it good for the game being a literal waste of point in it's ability to do nothing?
Please, no wishy-washy response, give use a measurable reason. If you cannot, then my comment holds accurate, thus not an insult. If you cannot, you can also add troll to this list of facts about yourself, to boot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:11:04
AegisGrimm wrote: Balanced 40K= every codex considered "Tier one" regardless of individual strengths and weaknesses.
Exactly. And balanced game aren't fun.
That makes absolutely no sense. Blood Angels shouldn't be sub-par compared to Grey Knights, just for the sake of fun. Because when everyone doesn' field the sub-par choices, only the powerful ones are present, and completely skews the rubric!
Evidently your version of "fun" would be to force your opponent to play one of the sub-par armies. Or are you willing to be the one that takes the bullet so they can have fun?
Each codex, regardless of strengths vs. weaknesses (measured internally) should have 100% the chance of mechanically winning a game, before taking all the ever-present variables of terrain and player skill into consideration. Every codex should be appealing at exactly the same level to the prospective players looking begin that army, regardless of which particular part of the game that army excels at compared to being weak in others.
"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."
I support having absolutely hideous, expensive models be slightly more powerful. It's fun watching someone try to justify buying a massive expensive piece of gak that he hates, saying how it'll let him 'win'.
And I actually like certain fluffy choices being slightly underpowered. That way they become more unusual and when you bring your demonhosts to the table your opponent is like "What the heck is that? I've never heard of those before!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:11:17
The points in the debate go round and round, round and round, round and round, the points in the debate go round and round; all the thread long.
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.
And I actually like certain fluffy choices being slightly underpowered. That way they become more unusual and when you bring your demonhosts to the table your opponent is like "What the heck is that? I've never heard of those before!"
Totally agree. But they shouldn't underpowered in general. They should either have good abilities to balance the bad ones, or a low(er) points cost. Underpowered generally means they are too expensive for what they do.
It would be like saying that Grots have to be priced at 25pts each so no one will take them "for the sake of the fun of the game".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:15:03
"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."
The points in the debate go round and round, round and round, round and round, the points in the debate go round and round; all the thread long.
Don't get mad at him, just point that his answers have absolutely zero substance and is currently typical of the most devout fans or supporters of the game.
Most people I know or have met that still play 40k all agree that it's pretty bad and that Games Workshop is not doing so hot. I have provided actual facts, data, and expert analysis on how GW is on a course for failure. Zwei has provided absolutely nothing of value. So until he changes such, his value added to this discussion is next to nothing.
Why not? Explain to me exactly why they are not fun and why what is fun about an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced one.
Sure.. but as always, my reasons for enjoying unbalanced games are likely full of personal bias and in no small parts the result of my personal experience.
There is no "objective" reason for somebody to like chocolate over vanilla, or vanilla over chocolate.
My personal preference for unbalanced games does not imply universal superiority of unbalanced games. I am happy to accept that other people have different tastes and enjoy balanced games better, possibly even for narrative gaming.
Because, in my experience, all games (and previous versions of 40K) with more emphasis on balance, have resulted in a "mind-set" in which rules and points and mindbogglingly inappropriate concept such as "legal" are considered sacrosanct and a final authority on almost everything, which in turn has led me to enjoy the games less than I do the current iteration of 40K.
"Balanced" rules have this odd quality of suggesting a "hard line", where everything "inside" the rules is fair game, and everything "outside" the rules is off-limit.
Only GW, to my knowledge, has managed to at least partially break this and create a "soft line", where there is a common understanding that not everything "inside" the rules is always appropriate in all games, and not everything "outside" the rules is by default off limit, for no other reason than that it goes against the rules.
And yes, people will say that you could, of course, go all the way to a game with "no line", no point values, no FoC, no nothing.
But I don't tend to believe in extremes. Between the extremes of absolute hard "legal" rules on one hand, and the extreme of absolutely "no" rules on the other, I prefer the golden "soft-line" middle-ground of contemporary 40K.
It has provided my with the the by far best wargaming experiences in nearly 20 years of wargaming. GW managed to turn (compliance with the) rules, again, in what they were (IMO) meant to be, a means to an end (among other means), whereas to many wargamers - in my experience - have come to consider playing in compliance with the rules a virtue in itself.
AegisGrimm wrote: But they shouldn't underpowered in general. They should either have good abilities to balance the bad ones, or a low(er) points cost.
It would be like saying that Grots have to be priced at 25pts each so no one will take them "for the sake of the fun of the game".
Yeah, that's true. I was jesting a little before (although I really love being that guy who doesn't care about winning, and has an army that's almost completely dissimilar to all the standard builds.)
I think that GW should occasionally see what people are playing and what people aren't playing, and strengthen the units and factions that people aren't using.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:16:58
My personal preference for unbalanced games does not imply universal superiority of unbalanced games. I am happy to accept that other people have different tastes and enjoy balanced games better, possibly even for narrative gaming.
You haven't provided any facts yet.
Also, you would be perfectly fine playing against nigh invulnerable death stars on a routine, if not permanent, basis from this point forward? Let's boil it down further, would you be okay with losing every single game you play of 40k from this point forward?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:17:22
TheKbob wrote: Let's boil it down further, would you be okay with losing every single game you play of 40k from this point forward?
Sure.
To be fair, I don't even know if I won or lost the last 20 or so games of 40K I played.
They were all awesome games, but I rarely tend to count the beans at the end. If the game rocks, both participants win.
Would you enjoy it if all your games were against Screamerstars and 2++ rerollable seerstars?
Or a Reaver Titan showing up and nuking half your army off in one go?
Or a 2++ rerollable uber-daemon prince?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:22:43
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.
Zweischneid wrote: Well, even if it is only the TIE Advanced (and no other pilots, upgrades, etc.., that nobody ever uses?), that is a full 8.3% of the entire game that fulfills this. A good deal more than an entire Codex in 40K.
And you know what? People generally consider the TIE advanced a mistake. Pretty much any game has at least one mistake that you can point to, but that doesn't really say anything interesting about their respective balance approaches. Yes, FFG made a mistake with the TIE advanced, probably because it was designed around Vader (who is decent as-is, and would be blatantly overpowered in a better ship) and the other cards exist only to meet the expectation of having at least two unique and two generic pilots in each box. But overall their balance approach is much more successful than 40k's.
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.
Would you enjoy it if all your games were against Screamerstars and 2++ rerollable seerstars?
Maybe, maybe not.
I would certainly work with my partner as recommended by the "Spirit of the Game" box and other instructions in the rulebook to make it as fun as possible.
I certainly wouldn't let some rule stop me from having fun.
TheKbob wrote: Let's boil it down further, would you be okay with losing every single game you play of 40k from this point forward?
Sure.
To be fair, I don't even know if I won or lost the last 20 or so games of 40K I played.
They were all awesome games, but I rarely tend to count the beans at the end. If the game rocks, both participants win.
Then we have different opinions on the matter, however you are extremely reductive of those that care about the actual strategic element that GW markets the game as. And doing a disservice to a massive part of the player base; potentially the most lucrative one, as well.
I know even the most fluffiest players I have met have ditched the game because they do not want to lose every single time.
In the mean time, I will gladly crush your army in two turns any time you'd like with an overpowered mess. That way we can get in three games versus one. And don't argue with me, because this is how I interpet "spirit of the game" because I play Eldar, and I have very little population left, so I must either hit you hard and crush you or retreat. Narrative forged.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:26:58
Zweischneid wrote: They were all awesome games, but I rarely tend to count the beans at the end.
So, again, why bother to play a game with rules at all? Why not just push your models around the table and talk about an awesome story you're imagining? You seem to be so obsessed with the idea that caring about winning is shameful that you're missing the whole point of a narrative game: the victory conditions exist to build a story around them. Your tactical squad moves up to claim the objective because doing so helps you win the game, and then you imagine a narrative around their brave advance under fire to claim the sacred spot upon which an important religious figure was martyred. If you don't even bother to see if your army succeeded at its goals at the end of the game then what's the point of having goals in the first place? Do you just end the story at "they shot each other a bunch" and never bother to talk about the outcome of the battle?
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.
Would you enjoy it if all your games were against Screamerstars and 2++ rerollable seerstars?
Maybe, maybe not.
I would certainly work with my partner as recommended by the "Spirit of the Game" box and other instructions in the rulebook to make it as fun as possible.
I certainly wouldn't let some rule stop me from having fun.
The fun is having a narrative. If your narrative is that your heroic legion makes planetfall looks at the enemy menacingly and immediately dies, it's not a good narrative and thus it isn't fun.
If I knew that a certain build, a certain army, or something else reliably annihilated me every time I played against it, I'd refuse to play against it further. It's just not fun.
AegisGrimm wrote: Balanced 40K= every codex considered "Tier one" regardless of individual strengths and weaknesses.
Exactly. And balanced game aren't fun.
So having every army on the "good" spectrum isn't fun, but having 2-3 "good" and a few "bad" is? Do you actually understand what you're saying, or do you think it means something else?
Zweischneid wrote: Well, even if it is only the TIE Advanced (and no other pilots, upgrades, etc.., that nobody ever uses?), that is a full 8.3% of the entire game that fulfills this. A good deal more than an entire Codex in 40K.
And you know what? People generally consider the TIE advanced a mistake. Pretty much any game has at least one mistake that you can point to, but that doesn't really say anything interesting about their respective balance approaches. Yes, FFG made a mistake with the TIE advanced, probably because it was designed around Vader (who is decent as-is, and would be blatantly overpowered in a better ship) and the other cards exist only to meet the expectation of having at least two unique and two generic pilots in each box. But overall their balance approach is much more successful than 40k's.
I am sure 40K has it's mistakes as well.
I also acknowledged that the entire 6th Edition could be a mistake. I have not evidence to rule out this possibility.
But - conversely - it seems illogical to assume that the broader direction of the game must be entirely the result of a mistake.
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
You ever stop to think why every other OG team member from GW has left but Jervis Johnson?
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
You ever stop to think why every other OG team member from GW has left but Jervis Johnson?
Hint: Nobody likes how he ran the game.
Conjecture.
But if it were true, it would indicated (not prove, but indicate), that Jervis Johnson has an intention with where he is going. No?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:31:32
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
You ever stop to think why every other OG team member from GW has left but Jervis Johnson?
Hint: Nobody likes how he ran the game.
Conjecture.
I feel a well known phrase about pots and kettles is appropriate here....
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.
Zweischneid wrote: But - conversely - it seems illogical to assume that the broader direction of the game must be entirely the result of a mistake.
The alternative is to assume that GW's rule authors are so utterly stupid that they deliberately make unbalanced choices with no apparent reason behind them. I admit that this is in theory possible, but I think it's more likely that GW as a company just refuses to pay for sufficient development time to make a quality product, and all that nonsense about "spirit of the game" is just making excuses for why you should buy it anyway.
Given the writings by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly in the White Dwarf, the "Spirit of the Game" and "Forge the Narrative" boxes, I fail to see how anybody could absolutely and with 100% certainty reject the possibility that the current direction is intentional, the result of some (unknown, not "perfect imbalance") game-design principle.
We can reject it because appealing to some mysterious "principle" that is so subtle that nobody can see even the faintest hint of it is just insane.
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.
Why not? Explain to me exactly why they are not fun and why what is fun about an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced one.
Sure.. but as always, my reasons for enjoying unbalanced games are likely full of personal bias and in no small parts the result of my personal experience.
There is no "objective" reason for somebody to like chocolate over vanilla, or vanilla over chocolate.
My personal preference for unbalanced games does not imply universal superiority of unbalanced games. I am happy to accept that other people have different tastes and enjoy balanced games better, possibly even for narrative gaming.
Because, in my experience, all games (and previous versions of 40K) with more emphasis on balance, have resulted in a "mind-set" in which rules and points and mindbogglingly inappropriate concept such as "legal" are considered sacrosanct and a final authority on almost everything, which in turn has led me to enjoy the games less than I do the current iteration of 40K.
"Balanced" rules have this odd quality of suggesting a "hard line", where everything "inside" the rules is fair game, and everything "outside" the rules is off-limit.
Only GW, to my knowledge, has managed to at least partially break this and create a "soft line", where there is a common understanding that not everything "inside" the rules is always appropriate in all games, and not everything "outside" the rules is by default off limit, for no other reason than that it goes against the rules.
And yes, people will say that you could, of course, go all the way to a game with "no line", no point values, no FoC, no nothing.
But I don't tend to believe in extremes. Between the extremes of absolute hard "legal" rules on one hand, and the extreme of absolutely "no" rules on the other, I prefer the golden "soft-line" middle-ground of contemporary 40K.
It has provided my with the the by far best wargaming experiences in nearly 20 years of wargaming. GW managed to turn (compliance with the) rules, again, in what they were (IMO) meant to be, a means to an end (among other means), whereas to many wargamers - in my experience - have come to consider playing in compliance with the rules a virtue in itself.
You didn't answer my question. I asked why the fun you have with an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced game. You only said that having it balanced meant that some players expect other players to use the rules given, rather than come up with their own.
That doesn't mean you can't.
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.
Zweischneid wrote: But - conversely - it seems illogical to assume that the broader direction of the game must be entirely the result of a mistake.
I don't think the broad direction of the game is a mistake. I think it's the result of a deliberate choice to sacrifice quality in favor of cost reductions, done with the assumption that GW's main target markets rarely, if ever, actually play the game and therefore don't need quality rules (which are more expensive to produce). The mistakes are the individual rules, and are the inevitable result of a policy of rushing out new content as fast as possible without investing in sufficient development time to fix those mistakes. Every game has mistakes like that in initial design, the difference between a good game and a bad game like 40k is how much time and effort the designers invest in fixing those mistakes before publishing it. WOTC spends a months-long development cycle on each new product, and the result is good balance and excellent rule clarity. GW, on the other hand, publishes rough drafts and charges you $50 for them.
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.
You didn't answer my question. I asked why the fun you have with an unbalanced game can never happen in a balanced game. You only said that having it balanced meant that some players expect other players to use the rules given, rather than come up with their own.
That doesn't mean you can't.
I never said it cannot happen. I only said it never happened to me yet.
The gaming experience of 40K "played the studio-way" (or what I think they mean by that) has, for me, consistently and repeatedly proven vastly superior to any other wargame out there.
That is all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:38:05
I've met enough Ex-GW employees along the way of my time in wargaming to know most left because of how the corporation was ran. Ronnie Renton has said a few choice words too. Privateer Press folks have also kept a pretty up n up clean slate on the matter, but are always more open to talking to their fans, more so than Jervis "Ivory Tower" Johnson.
There's proof of it littered across the internet. The corporate trial with Chapterhouse has them say on record that their fanbases' favorite hobby was buying their product (lol, wat?!). Tracking all of it down over years and years isn't my idea of fun. You can find it if you look. Or you can just choose to ignore more data points. The choice is yours, but remember one thing...
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 20:52:34
TheKbob wrote: I've met enough Ex-GW employees along the way of my time in wargaming to know most left because of how the corporation was ran. Ronnie Renton has said a few choice words too. Privateer Press folks have also kept a pretty up n up clean slate on the matter, but are always more open to talking to their fans, more so than Jervis "Ivory Tower" Johnson.
There's proof of it littered across the internet. The corporate trial with Chapterhouse has them say on record that their fanbases' favorite hobby was buying their product (lol, wat?!). Tracking all of it down over years and years isn't my idea of fun. You can find it if you look. Or you can just choose to ignore more data points. The choice is yours, but remember one thing...
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
Fair enough. So Jervis Johnson is an A-hole?
A great many people making great products are. The late Steve Jobs was a first-rate one allegedly.
It's not like I am gaming with Jervis Johnson personally.
All I am saying is that (a) I like Warhammer 40K 6th Edition (personal bias) and (b) the things that speak to me in that product could be (but don't have to be) there as a result of intentional design.
