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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.

We have every fact pointing to GW seeing it's customer basis as a pool of unwashed masses readily milked of their money. The track record of releasing slipshod releases suggests they do no balance their games. From my research and breadth of anecdotal evidence from across the US finds that unless you're in one of two types of player scenes, you probably aren't playing the game much (either the hardcore or the we don't give a damn). The former is wrestling, and the latter has frustration creeping into it.

Everything is not "alright" with 40k, more so with the company that produces it. The problem with 40k is Games Workshop and their problem is not building a sustainable business on a product that relies on a loyal and faithful consumer fanbase. Given that a great majority of people who sign up for something called a "game" expect something remotely fair and perceived balance, even some units are better than others, the framework that is the game now fails at this assumption. This failure burns players and makes them quit the game. People quitting is bad for business.

You're in the minority, from my research and experience, Zwei. And the minority will not sustain GW due to it being a publicly traded company. Any shrinking of the company can start a death spiral on the financial side.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.

Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.

To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).



And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).

To assume GW's decline is the direct cause of the rules seems improbable, especially as the game that took the biggest hit was Fantasy, not 40K.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.

Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.

To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).

Name one game (and do not say 40K, you've just said there are other cases) that actively encourages it's players to have imbalanced games which are not based on historical battles which were themselves imbalanced.

Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Name one game (and do not say 40K, you've just said there are other cases) that actively encourages it's players to have imbalanced games which are not based on historical battles which were themselves imbalanced.

Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.

Magic is totally different. In magic, picking the cards that you want to use from the crap in booster packs is half the piking game.

Whereas if you spend $40 on Vespid in 40K and you get something that's ass-all and not worth using, it's not something that should happen.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.

Perfect Imbalance is not balance.

But for the sake of not using that example, X-Wing is another obvious other one.

Even if the TIE-Advanced is a "mistake" (and it might not be), powerful add-ons, a notorious example being the "Howlrunner" card, which encourages people to buy TIE-Fighters in the more expensive Expansion, rather than the discounted starter box, are clearly attempts to fish for money through overpowered additions to the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).

Lol

GW are not "in financial trouble."

Demonstrating shrinkage in a market where others are showing growth and where there is evidence of increased spending?

Yes.

In need of taking action if the trend continues?

Absolutely.

Trouble?

Not yet, not even close.

Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?

 Zweischneid wrote:


Perfect Imbalance is not balance.

Yes it is.

 Zweischneid wrote:

And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).

To assume GW's decline is the direct cause of the rules seems improbable, especially as the game that took the biggest hit was Fantasy, not 40K.

Your first statement needs no further argument. We've proved otherwise ad nauseum. I will just disagree with you as we have facts that say otherwise. Until you produce them, please stop.

The other half is just marketing. I wouldn't believe the spin Tom Kirby produces. Having reviewed the financial reports from other game companies, like EA, you only see spin. The worst things are always spun to brightest like.

I have linked earlier discussion from another thread that GW, as a whole, has gone down double digits in market share while the entire market for wargaming has gone up by double digits. That suggest not only is GW shrinking, but they are doing so against the trend of the entire industry; simply put, they're doing bad. This is the Occam's Razor, their poor business practices are sinking their ship, to include terrible game/rule support, not executive spin.

They are almost entirely "all-in" on Warhammer 40k. The pittance they give Fantasy isn't much and I'm sure The Hobbit is just kicking around because of contractual obligation. The fact that the models are so ugly and limited in release would suggest this. And Warhammer 40k is a crap show right now. The game almost couldn't be more "pay to win" at this point. That does not make a good game.

 azreal13 wrote:


Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?

Less shops and fewer average opening hours among the remaining shops, leading to a fall in sales through the retail chain (while online/direct sales are up and sales through the trade are more or less constant).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?

Less shops and fewer average opening hours among the remaining shops, leading to a fall in sales through the retail chain (while online/direct sales are up and sales through the trade are more or less constant).

I find that interesting as pretty much everything they are doing would make their internet sales grow by limiting a great deal of product. I expect third party store sales are down because of their terrible new trade practices. Their one man shop design is terrible. All of this was outlined in the article I had linked earlier.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Just out of curiosity, do you know the reasons Kirby cited for the downturn?

Less shops and fewer average opening hours among the remaining shops, leading to a fall in sales through the retail chain (while online/direct sales are up and sales through the trade are more or less constant).

You really give that credence?

Wow.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


Perfect Imbalance is not balance.

Yes it is.

If it is, how can there be different qualities in balanced games on one hand (e.g. Chess) and perfectly imbalanced games on the other (e.g. MtG).

And how can underpowered MtG-decks (far more useless than the Pentinent Engine could ever be) exist if it is balanced?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.

To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).

Zwei, you’re doing it wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Yet again, you are mistaking cause for effect. Points are a tool. Using points is a game mechanic to help define both game structure, and game balance. You do not use points to achieve imbalance – that's simply bad game design.

Imbalance is the end result of not using the points mechanic correctly. It is the result, not the intention.

Simply put, you do not use points to achieve imbalance, imbalance is achieved by using points poorly.

Effect. Not Cause.

Creating imbalance from the use of the points mechanic is the effect of bad games design, and poor mechanical theory. Nothing else.

 TheKbob wrote:

I find that interesting as pretty much everything they are doing would make their internet sales grow by limiting a great deal of product. I expect third party store sales are down because of their terrible new trade practices. Their one man shop design is terrible. All of this was outlined in the article I had linked earlier.

So you acknowledge that their logistic side may quite likely be a major factor in their downturn?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


Perfect Imbalance is not balance.

Yes it is.

If it is, how can there be different qualities in balanced games on one hand (e.g. Chess) and perfectly imbalanced games on the other (e.g. MtG).

And how can underpowered MtG-decks (far more useless than the Pentinent Engine could ever be) exist if it is balanced?

Chess is a mirror game, that is Balanced.

For every strong card in Magic, there is another card which can beat it in some other way and then there's a card that can beat that one and so on and so forth. That is perfectly imbalanced which, overall, leads to a balanced game. Every player can have the tools to counter every opponent.

As to underpowered MtG decks, that is a player not getting the most out of cards. They haven't built synergies etc.

Compare that to 40K where some armies flat out do not have the tools to deal with some opponents.

Deadnight wrote:

Zwei, you’re doing it wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Yet again, you are mistaking cause for effect. Points are a tool. Using points is a game mechanic to help define both game structure, and game balance. You do not use points to achieve imbalance – that's simply bad game design.

Imbalance is the end result of not using the points mechanic correctly. It is the result, not the intention.

Simply put, you do not use points to achieve imbalance, imbalance is achieved by using points poorly.

Effect. Not Cause.

Creating imbalance from the use of the points mechanic is the effect of bad games design, and poor mechanical theory. Nothing else.

Deadnight.

You are letting your personal bias get into the way of logic.

You dislike the idea of imbalanced game systems, and you disapprove of the idea of using point systems to imbalance a game.

But your dislike for it does not make it an impossibility, or prevent it from being an option other people might see as worthwhile.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


Perfect Imbalance is not balance.

Yes it is.

If it is, how can there be different qualities in balanced games on one hand (e.g. Chess) and perfectly imbalanced games on the other (e.g. MtG).

And how can underpowered MtG-decks (far more useless than the Pentinent Engine could ever be) exist if it is balanced?

Perfect Imbalance, is in essence, a double negative. Imbalance by definition, cannot be perfect if balance is your objective.

If perfect imbalance isn't balanced, then it's just imbalance!

Balance does not exclude the possibility of bad choices. There are poorer and better Magic cards, of course, but they're much closer to the middle than better or worse 40K units, but it is more about how they are used, and in conjunction with what, than inherent power issues. Then of course, usability of cards will also vary depending in game format, something in a sealed deck format that is very useful, may not see much use in open, say, but at least there is a place in the game for it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

For every strong card in Magic, there is another card which can beat it in some other way and then there's a card that can beat that one and so on and so forth. That is perfectly imbalanced which, overall, leads to a balanced game. Every player can have the tools to counter every opponent.

Plenty of MtG cards have (currently) no direct counter. Platinum Angel being the most blatant example (and also the most obvious "purposeful" example, there is no way it could be a mistake).

Avacyn, Angel of Hope is just a plain feth it to game balance.

They are simply very, very, very, very, very good cards. No downsides.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

For every strong card in Magic, there is another card which can beat it in some other way and then there's a card that can beat that one and so on and so forth. That is perfectly imbalanced which, overall, leads to a balanced game. Every player can have the tools to counter every opponent.

Plenty of MtG cards have (currently) no direct counter. Platinum Angel being the most blatant example (and also the most obvious "purposeful" example, there is no way it could be a mistake).

Admittedly it's been a while since I've played, but are you seriously saying that there's no counter to a 4/4 creature?

Have they taken all the creature removal from black, all the direct damage from red and all the counter from blue?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and an 8 mana, 3 white creature is so slow to cast, if you're able to get it down on the table, you're probably winning regardless.

I also suspect "indestructible" may not be as obvious as it first appears as a game term.

 azreal13 wrote:


Admittedly it's been a while since I've played, but are you seriously saying that there's no counter to a 4/4 creature?

Have they taken all the creature removal from black, all the direct damage from red and all the counter from blue?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and an 8 mana, 3 white creature is so slow to cast, if you're able to get it down on the table, you're probably winning regardless.

I also suspect "indestructible" may not be as obvious as it first appears as a game term.

Well, buy that logic, the Riptide isn't overpowered, since AP2 weapons exist, last I checked.

For what they do and how easy they are to get (and protect), they are not remotely balanced.

So, a 15 second Google, as I'm woefully out of date with magic, reveals this..



Which is apparently in regular circulation anyway.

So, yeah, this is like claiming the Riptide isn't overpowered. As long as every army had access to a 48" AP2 instant death weapon that conferred PE: Tau on its bearer and cost 10 points.

Also, with MTG, imbalance enriches the game via Draft formats, where the point is to work around the weaker cards. In Wargames there is no draft format, so imbalanced units usage is skewed.

 Zweischneid wrote:


So you acknowledge that their logistic side may quite likely be a major factor in their downturn?

I believe logistics would imply getting the product on the shelf and into the users hand, which has some blame. They are limited their product to their webstore which has negatives associated with it. A third party store gets a much smaller cut on website restricted products, souring their interest in further carrying GW. Unless they have a large player base, they're more likely to drop it*.

Price elasticity and customer service are not logistics and I believe these have equal merit. Also, their cost cutting measures are not well placed.

Essentially it's the drive for short term gains of a publicly traded organization versus the more sustainable approach of a private entity, their competitors.

*I have seen this sentiment given by many current and former game store owners over the past few years as I have traveled. They do not like the new trade agreements in place. I have yet to see one happy about it or "enjoying" selling GW product. More like it's a requirement for their customers rather than a want.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Also, with MTG, imbalance enriches the game via Draft formats, where the point is to work around the weaker cards. In Wargames there is no draft format, so imbalanced units usage is skewed.

Perhaps, but that does not preclude the possibility that imbalance can enrich other games (not necessarily 40K) in other ways.

Zweischneid, it boils down to the fact that you find any attempt at winning a game a ‘childish pursuit.’ So your talk of balance is merely obfuscation for your desire to play something where apparently none of your decisions really matter. In that context it is no wonder you support GW’s current rules writing. To you this game is simply a recreational activity, not a constraint with rules and competition.

Others disagree so vehemently because they have a vested interest in the latter, and are either unaware or just disappointed that GW moved the goal posts. GW’s bait and switch business model is catching up to them however; so don’t be surprised if the company changes its spots in the coming months.

Maybe the next discussion might benefit everyone if you just got to the point instead of leading everyone around like the pied piper of illogic…unless of course that’s how you get your kicks.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Also, with MTG, imbalance enriches the game via Draft formats, where the point is to work around the weaker cards. In Wargames there is no draft format, so imbalanced units usage is skewed.

Perhaps, but that does not preclude the possibility that imbalance can enrich other games (not necessarily 40K) in other ways.

Yeah, but a $60 model costs a lot more than any of the drafts I've gone to.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

As long as you only ascertain this and nothing further, than you're posing an opinion. Games are designed by their very nature. And balance is a core part of the game; given that GW uses mechanics readily used as balancing factors, it readily implies that some attempt at balance is given. If not, everything would be given a statline and told "go forthe, and dice roll." So it's not a dicussion of the game lacking balanced but is it incompetence or ignorance.

Not true. As demonstrated in several non-40K cases, imbalance, instead of balance, can be a conscious, intentional goal of game-design. And imbalance does not equal arbitrary "no rules at all" either, but is a complex thing to implement.

To do so, point systems offer a tool to do so (perhaps not the only or even the best tool, but a tool).



And yes, GW is in financial trouble. Occam's Razor would suggest the reasons are exactly the ones outlined by Tom Kirby in the financial reports. Other possible reasons could of course be their insane pricing strategy or simply the shrinking wargaming market (which, as a whole, appears to be bucking the growing board/card-game market).

To assume GW's decline is the direct cause of the rules seems improbable, especially as the game that took the biggest hit was Fantasy, not 40K.

What are these cases?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Do not use Magic. That is balanced by way of Perfect Imbalance.

Perfect Imbalance is not balance.

But for the sake of not using that example, X-Wing is another obvious other one.

Even if the TIE-Advanced is a "mistake" (and it might not be), powerful add-ons, a notorious example being the "Howlrunner" card, which encourages people to buy TIE-Fighters in the more expensive Expansion, rather than the discounted starter box, are clearly attempts to fish for money through overpowered additions to the game.

But it is darling. And also, stop using perfect imbalance as an example when you are just going to turn around and then say b-but i don't want m-mah 40k to have perfect imbalance.

 amanita wrote:
Zweischneid, it boils down to the fact that you find any attempt at winning a game a ‘childish pursuit.’ So your talk of balance is merely obfuscation for your desire to play something where apparently none of your decisions really matter. In that context it is no wonder you support GW’s current rules writing. To you this game is simply a recreational activity, not a constraint with rules and competition.

I never said I want to play something were decisions don't matter. The "childish" part was admittedly ill-considered, but you can only spend so much time amid people who mistake insults for arguments before slipping yourself a little bit. At least I do. I'll try to be better.

 amanita wrote:

Others disagree so vehemently because they have a vested interest in the latter, and are either unaware or just disappointed that GW moved the goal posts. GW’s bait and switch business model is catching up to them however; so don’t be surprised if the company changes its spots in the coming months.

Possibly. If GW changes the game in ways that don't appeal to me, I will likely move on. If they (or another company) changes their game in ways that do appeal to me (as GW did with 6th Edition), that's where I will likely spend my money.

 amanita wrote:

Maybe the next discussion might benefit everyone if you just got to the point instead of leading everyone around like the pied piper of illogic…unless of course that’s how you get your kicks.

All right. Let me try again.

(1) Imbalance (not arbitrary whatever-nothing-I-dont-care) can be used intentionally to enrich some games. Not all game designs strive for balance over imbalance in everything or all the time.
(2) Point systems can be used to create imbalance by providing unequal points to equal units, or equal points to unequal units

Ergo, the simple existence of a point system in a game - without any further information - does not allow the conclusion that balance was the game designer's intention.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Zweischneid, it boils down to the fact that you find any attempt at winning a game a ‘childish pursuit.’ So your talk of balance is merely obfuscation for your desire to play something where apparently none of your decisions really matter. In that context it is no wonder you support GW’s current rules writing. To you this game is simply a recreational activity, not a constraint with rules and competition.

I never said I want to play something were decisions don't matter. The "childish" part was admittedly ill-considered, but you can only spend so much time amid people who mistake insults for arguments before slipping yourself a little bit. At least I do. I'll try to be better.

 amanita wrote:

Others disagree so vehemently because they have a vested interest in the latter, and are either unaware or just disappointed that GW moved the goal posts. GW’s bait and switch business model is catching up to them however; so don’t be surprised if the company changes its spots in the coming months.

Possibly. If GW changes the game in ways that don't appeal to me, I will likely move on. If they (or another company) changes their game in ways that do appeal to me (as GW did with 6th Edition), that's where I will likely spend my money.

 amanita wrote:

Maybe the next discussion might benefit everyone if you just got to the point instead of leading everyone around like the pied piper of illogic…unless of course that’s how you get your kicks.

All right. Let me try again.

(1) Imbalance (not arbitrary whatever-nothing-I-dont-care) can be used intentionally to enrich some games. Not all game designs strive for balance over imbalance in everything or all the time.
(2) Point systems can be used to create imbalance by providing unequal points to equal units, or equal points to unequal units

Ergo, the simple existence of a point system in a game - without any further information - does not allow the conclusion that balance was the game designer's intention.

And how is designing points to make imbalance good in a system that ensures that you are inferior in all ways and there is no balnce in the form of perfect imbalance

 StarTrotter wrote:


But it is darling. And also, stop using perfect imbalance as an example when you are just going to turn around and then say b-but i don't want m-mah 40k to have perfect imbalance.

Why not. People explicitly asked me to not use 40K as an example. Perfect Imbalance seems a good non-40K example that people here are familiar with.


If "Balance = Imperfect Imbalance", why is "Chess =/= MtG"?