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:

 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"?

Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable. As I have said countless times.

The sky is blue. The sea is also blue. That does not mean that the sky is the sea which is what your logic would lead to.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable.

As I have said countless times.

Which is wrong.

Plenty of decks in MtG can not be beaten by certain other decks.

If I only bring a "fluffy" deck full of "Pentinent Engine"-equivalents to a MtG tourney, I'll have no chance of winning.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 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"?

Because balance isn't just one thing. Chess is mirror matches. That's how they make balance. In that way, MtG could even become chess. Just make it so the decks are stacked with the same cards and maybe in the same order as well. Imperfect imbalance is a double negative that promotes an overall balance. Everything has a counter, nothing is worthless. Even the weakest model has a use that can even curb stomp the overpowered guys thus making them good. It's balance, just a different form of balance than chess.

And why I did? Because you bring up perfect imbalance and then say you don't want 40k to be perfect imbalance. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? Well because it becomes balanced when you get perfect imbalance so the only way to have a true imbalanced game is if you either throw away points entirely or you continue to use points improperly.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable.

As I have said countless times.

Which is wrong.

Plenty of decks in MtG can not be beaten by certain other decks.

But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.

Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Because chess is played as a mirror game where both sides have the exact same units, whereas magic allows players to bring whatever they want but contains all the tools for no one thing to be unbeatable.

As I have said countless times.

Which is wrong.

Plenty of decks in MtG can not be beaten by certain other decks.

Indeed. And this is a form of imperfect balance. It's all about cards. Thing is, both of those decks are good against other decks. There are going to be a few bad matchups, but there are relatively few. And even then, there is a way for that deck to beat those decks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.

Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?

Nothing can win all the times but look at Screamerstar and Taudar. Bam there you go. Two armies that basically curb stomp a vast majority of other armies. Now play with your Tzeentch armies. Also, unlike MTG, my deck of Tzeentch really can't beat anything reliably. Never.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.

Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?

Screamerstar?

What i dont see about everybody harping on about "rules bad!, GW stupid, How dumb, OMG! lets change it however we want! is WTF is wrong with what weve got? its pretty good and its fun so why do we need idiots like...some...people...changing the game completely!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.

Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?

Screamerstar?

Folds immediately as soon as it touches a D-Weapon. Perfect counter.

But again, you guys are "shifting goal posts", as I've been accused off so often.

Why is MtG considered balanced (assuming perfect imbalance = balance), when I cannot bring a deck full of knowingly sub-par "Vespid"-equivalent and "Pentinent-Engine"-equivalent-cards, perhaps because I like the artwork, and a have a fair chance.

That was the complaint about 40K.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


But that one deck cannot beat every other deck out there, which is what happens in 40K. There will be a counter.

Which army in 40K can beat every other army out there without exception?

Screamerstar?

Folds immediately as soon as it touches a D-Weapon. Perfect counter.

Which counters basically everybody else as well. Curb stomps many armies with no chance of victory, requires a book most things ban, and is designed for a different game entirely. Plus there's not many good D-weapons. The only real big one was the eldar one which is capable of being with taudar which makes them better cool


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vargard Obi-wan wrote:
What i dont see about everybody harping on about "rules bad!, GW stupid, How dumb, OMG! lets change it however we want! is WTF is wrong with what weve got? its pretty good and its fun so why do we need idiots like...some...people...changing the game completely!

Because GW is doing many a thing wrong. Look at their financial page, it's not confirmed unless they do badly again but it's not a good sign. Along with that, they have no PR which only makes matters worse whilst continuing to escalate prices. Along with that, the rules are bad. Look at the armies, look at the competitives. You'll see the same lists constantly dominating and certain codices will hardly exist. Even in casual it can be felt because there is no fun in playing a heldrake against a friend. It's an unbalanced game that punishes you. Or, please play a game with 3 exalted flamers of tzeentch in that lovely chariot. Then come back to me and explain how those things existing is good. Or explain to me how CSM Tzeentch is terrible. His rule being overpriced and bad, his icon being horrid, his special units being bad, his sorcerers being the worst, and his psyker table, the god of psykers, is the worst psyker table in the game.

 Vargard Obi-wan wrote:
What i dont see about everybody harping on about "rules bad!, GW stupid, How dumb, OMG! lets change it however we want! is WTF is wrong with what weve got? its pretty good and its fun so why do we need idiots like...some...people...changing the game completely!

If you can't see the areas where the game could be massively improved, then you probably don''t have a great grasp of the game in the first place.

There is a huge amount wrong with the game which could be fixed from the top down with just a bit of willing, if that isn't happening, then it is unsurprising that people may feel compelled to alter it themselves.

D-Weapons, the weaponry that ignores almost every rule in the game, are the answer. Obviously! How were we so blind?!

So who wants to play against my Revenant Titan. Anyone? I guarantee it will be fun.

 TheKbob wrote:
D-Weapons, the weaponry that ignores almost every rule in the game, are the answer. Obviously! How were we so blind?!

So who wants to play against my Revenant Titan. Anyone? I guarantee it will be fun.

No no! Your revenant titan with waveserpent support . Maybe adding in a riptide for good measure?

Well, again.

If the criteria for "balanced" for MtG is only that each deck has some counter, which army in 40K has absolutely no counter?



If 40K is allegedly "broken" because the Pentinent Engine is seen to be useless, how is MtG not "broken" despite cards like... dunno ... Razor Boomerang or Rod of Ruin?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, again.

If the criteria for "balanced" for MtG is only that each deck has some counter, which army in 40K has absolutely no counter?

The Waveserpent Riptide wraithknight army of course! Also, you ignored this:

Because balance isn't just one thing. Chess is mirror matches. That's how they make balance. In that way, MtG could even become chess. Just make it so the decks are stacked with the same cards and maybe in the same order as well. Imperfect imbalance is a double negative that promotes an overall balance. Everything has a counter, nothing is worthless. Even the weakest model has a use that can even curb stomp the overpowered guys thus making them good. It's balance, just a different form of balance than chess.

And why I did? Because you bring up perfect imbalance and then say you don't want 40k to be perfect imbalance. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? Well because it becomes balanced when you get perfect imbalance so the only way to have a true imbalanced game is if you either throw away points entirely or you continue to use points improperly.

 StarTrotter wrote:
. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .

Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .

Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.

Because "Unit X is garbage and you never want to take it" and "Unit Y is amazing, always take it" adds to the variety of games out there? Oh brother...

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .

Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.

.... so what you are saying is you want Ride to Hell and Aliens: Colonial Marines to exist because it provides bad games which thus make them worthy of existing and the notion of making them good is a bad idea? So a game that could be improved shouldn't because just because? I mean... huh?

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .

Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.

Because "Unit X is garbage and you never want to take it" and "Unit Y is amazing, always take it" adds to the variety of games out there? Oh brother...

Well, apparently people consider MtG to be balanced game

Nobody ever takes a Razor Boomerang or Rod of Ruin.

Why is MtG considered to be "balanced" and 40K considered to be broken.

 Zweischneid wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
. The question is why? If you love imbalance so much, why not want 40k to be perfect imbalance? .

Because other games already do "perfect imbalance". Why would you want to make 40K into something that already exists elsewhere? It only reduces the variety of games out there.

Because "Unit X is garbage and you never want to take it" and "Unit Y is amazing, always take it" adds to the variety of games out there? Oh brother...

Well, apparently people consider MtG to be balanced game

Nobody ever takes a Razor Boomerang or Rod of Ruin.

Why is MtG considered to be "balanced" and 40K considered to be broken.

Relative. MtG tries to and often succeeds. 40k barely tries and hurts more as the thing that sucks is 50 dollars on 70 or whatever dollars upon thousands of dollars of models.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Relative. MtG tries to and often succeeds. 40k barely tries and hurts more as the thing that sucks is 50 dollars on 70 or whatever dollars upon thousands of dollars of models.

MtG doesn't try to balance their cards. As shown, they purposefully let the power deviate for as much as 15% - each way - from what they know (or believe) to be balanced.

Why would they do that, if this - predictably - results in sub-par cards that nobody takes?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Relative. MtG tries to and often succeeds. 40k barely tries and hurts more as the thing that sucks is 50 dollars on 70 or whatever dollars upon thousands of dollars of models.

MtG doesn't try to balance their cards. As shown, they purposefully let the power deviate for as much as 15% - each way - from what they know (or believe) to be balanced.

Why would they do that, if this - predictably - results in sub-par cards that nobody takes?

Then why do they have bans, tournaments, tournaments with multiple restrictions, and an established plan. Thing is MtG has a method. A 15% rate of deviancy. GW doesn't have that, they have nothing. Even then, they do it for a multitude of reasons. One, more cards. Two, many of those sub par cards are built to have perks to make them useful, etc. But you won't care about that. You'll just do what you did to the X-Wing. Look at that one bad Tie Advanced despite how many concur it was a mistake.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Then why do they have bans, tournaments, tournaments with multiple restrictions, and an established plan. Thing is MtG has a method. A 15% rate of deviancy.

I don't believe the Razor Boomerang is banned. It's just useless.

A method that intentionally imbalances individual elements of the game, even though specific elements of the game become useless, because it creates positive dynamics for the game as a whole.

Game Design using imbalance 101.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Then why do they have bans, tournaments, tournaments with multiple restrictions, and an established plan. Thing is MtG has a method. A 15% rate of deviancy.

Yes.

A method that intentionally imbalances individual elements of the game, even though specific elements of the game become useless, because it creates positive dynamics for the game as a whole.

Game Design using imbalance 101.

Yes perfect imbalance is used. Here's the problem, you don't want that for 40k. So it means... NOTHING! Nothing at all. It creates positive dynamics.... but look at the game of 40k? Where is this positive dynamic? Where is this fluid meta? No, it's stagnant. It's not perfect imbalance so your usage of it means little and that you don't even want that means using it as a source is entirely pointless.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Yes perfect imbalance is used. Here's the problem, you don't want that for 40k. So it means... NOTHING! Nothing at all. It creates positive dynamics.... but look at the game of 40k? Where is this positive dynamic? Where is this fluid meta? No, it's stagnant. It's not perfect imbalance so your usage of it means little and that you don't even want that means using it as a source is entirely pointless.

Well, I kept being asked how making the Pentinent Engine "more useful" would be a bad thing for 40K? Why is it not done?

How would making the Razor Boomerang "more useful" be a bad thing for MtG? Why is it not done?

The answer is the same for both.

The imbalance of individual units is a perfectly valid game-design technique.


If the mere existence of the Razor Boomerang does not in itself prove that MtG is "broken", than the mere existence of the Pentinent Engine does not prove that 40K is "broken".

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Yes perfect imbalance is used. Here's the problem, you don't want that for 40k. So it means... NOTHING! Nothing at all. It creates positive dynamics.... but look at the game of 40k? Where is this positive dynamic? Where is this fluid meta? No, it's stagnant. It's not perfect imbalance so your usage of it means little and that you don't even want that means using it as a source is entirely pointless.

Well, I kept being asked how making the Pentinent Engine "more useful" would be a bad thing for 40K? Why is it not done?

How would making the Razor Boomerang "more useful" be a bad thing for MtG? Why is it not done?

The answer is the same for both.

The imbalance of individual units is a perfectly valid game-design technique.


If the mere existence of the Razor Boomerang does not in itself prove that MtG is "broken", than the mere existence of the Pentinent Engine does not prove that 40K is "broken".

Yeah the existence of the Penitent Engine doesn't prove that 40k is broken. It's basically every other unit as well that does. Have a good day.

 Zweischneid wrote:
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).

...

You have got to be kidding. Or at least you lack even the slightest understanding of MTG if you think platinum angels are uncounterable, or even playable in most formats. It's an expensive medium-size creature that dies to creature removal and artifact removal, can be bounced back to your hand (at which point you instantly lose), can be counterspelled, can be killed in combat, etc. Honestly, if you can't deal with one then you just suck at MTG and should probably stop trying to explain how it is or isn't balanced.

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

Wait, you are actually serious about this. See that 5WWW in the top right corner? You're probably dead before you get to play her, and if you manage to hold off your opponent that long you deserve a powerful card. And even then she can still be bounced back to your hand, countered, exiled, or just ignored in favor of killing you. Your "feth it to game balance" card is a junk rare that would only see play in very casual groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Why would they do that, if this - predictably - results in sub-par cards that nobody takes?

Hint: MTG has sealed and draft formats as well as constructed. 40k doesn't.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your "feth it to game balance" card is a junk rare that would only see play in very casual groups.

So now it is a rare junk-unit for "casual" groups?

Sounds a bit like a Pentinent Engine, no?

 Peregrine wrote:


Hint: MTG has sealed and draft formats as well as constructed. 40k doesn't.

I never claimed that 40K had a draft.

I only said that games (and specifically non-40K games, which was asked of me) intentionally use imbalance in game design.

Magic: the Gathering clearly seems to do so, and a "casual" (see above) deck of or "Pentinent Engine"-equivalent cards chosen for "I like the background" in MtG will not stand up a fine-tuned "Screamerstar"-equivalent top-tournament deck made specifically to win games, and win them hard.

Correct?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Your "feth it to game balance" card is a junk rare that would only see play in very casual groups.

So now it is a rare junk-unit for "casual" groups?

Sounds a bit like a Pentinent Engine, no?

 Peregrine wrote:


Hint: MTG has sealed and draft formats as well as constructed. 40k doesn't.

I never claimed that 40K had a draft.

I only said that games (and specifically non-40K games, which was asked of me) intentionally use imbalance in game design.

Magic: the Gathering clearly seems to do so, and a "casual" (see above) deck of or "Pentinent Engine"-equivalent cards chosen for "I like the background" in MtG will not stand up a fine-tuned "Screamerstar"-equivalent top-tournament deck made specifically to win games, and win them hard.

Correct?

Nope. Because Magic actually cares and GW cares enough to give points but nothing more than thinking "Our fans biggest hobby is buying our stuff"

Also, the card still has a use unlike the flaming chariot which is literally unplayable. Oh, and don't forget the Legion of the Damned which auto-lose turn one

Wow, feth me, Zwei YOU'RE STILL HERE!!!!

I can only surmise from this that either you really are a masochist, and getting repeatedly told how wrong you are by strangers in the Internet is right up there with playing 40K "the right way" for you in terms of getting your kicks, you're a troll, or you're too dumb to walk away from a fight you have no hope of winning.

Either way, I haven't played a game of Magic in nigh on 15 years, and I can see that you've not got a clue how to play the game, or even a tentative grasp on the basic mechanics, so prolly best you stop trying to support yourself with samples for it, no?