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.

 StarTrotter wrote:


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.

No?

So I can just take any random pile of cards as a deck to a MtG tournament and have an equal chance of winning? Why do people care so much about deck-construction then?


And the flaming chariot is literally playable.

No.

Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!

Jesus!

 azreal13 wrote:
No.

Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!

Jesus!

So taking a Pentinent Engine might be a bad choice?

Obviously, it's a gak unit.

However, in a balanced system, a bad choice would be to take a load of random gak that didn't have anything in common, didn't synergise, and had no overall plan or focus. There wouldn't be any objectively good or bad units, or at least, only by small degrees, there would be better or worse choices. A Penitent Engine's rules may still not be mindblowing, but if an argument could be made for it's inclusion in a certain list to perform a certain role, then we'd be a step forwards, as it is, there is no argument for its inclusion in any list, other than as a method of handicap.

Taking Magic cards at random doesn't work the same, as you could end up with a deck full of mountains and islands and only black and green spells. But then, you probably didn't realise that.

However, blance does mean that a player who makes some bad choices has a chance of winning because none of the bad choices are completely bad. They would all have upsides, just maybe not quite as good as some others.

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

Sounds a bit like a Pentinent Engine, no?

Maybe, if a penitent engine cost $1 and didn't have to be built or painted before you use it. And if the penitent engine was amazingly useful in the draft format of 40k.

I never claimed that 40K had a draft.

No, but that's not the point. Cards that look like "obvious" balance mistakes to you because they're too weak are actually very well balanced because they're balanced around draft/sealed, not constructed. 40k has no equivalent, so there's no justifying a weak and unplayable 40k unit with "it's good in draft".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
No.

Balance doesn't mean a player can't make bad choices!

Jesus!

This. FFS, why is this so hard to understand?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
However, blance does mean that a player who makes some bad choices has a chance of winning because none of the bad choices are completely bad. They would all have upsides, just maybe not quite as good as some others.

So if I build myself a MtG deck full of Razor Boomerangs and other bad choices, I still have a chance of winning?

 Zweischneid wrote:
So taking a Pentinent Engine might be a bad choice?

Do you understand the difference between "taking A, B and C in the same army is a choice with conflicting strategies and therefore not very effective" and "A is not useful under any reasonable circumstances"?

(Don't bother answering, of course you don't.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
So if I build myself a MtG deck full of Razor Boomerangs and other bad choices, I still have a chance of winning?

What part of "those cards are balanced for draft/sealed" is so hard to understand?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
However, blance does mean that a player who makes some bad choices has a chance of winning because none of the bad choices are completely bad. They would all have upsides, just maybe not quite as good as some others.

So if I build myself a MtG deck full of Razor Boomerangs and other bad choices, I still have a chance of winning?

No, because you can only include four of any non-land card in a deck. So a deck full would be illegal.

You could however, include them in a deck and still win, yes, because you don't rely on every component of your deck every game, whereas you don't only use 1000 of your 1500 points in any given 40K game.

 Peregrine wrote:


What part of "those cards are balanced for draft/sealed" is so hard to understand?

Well, than we agree that some games may use imbalance as an intentional and perfectly valid method in game design and that the existence of bad choices in the game has no bearing on the quality (positive or negative) of the game as a whole?

How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, than we agree that some games may use imbalance as an intentional and perfectly valid method in game design and that the existence of bad choices in the game has no bearing on the quality (positive or negative) of the game as a whole?

Sigh. I guess you deliberately ignored the part where I said that "bad" cards designed for limited formats are actually very well balanced, and the fact that you call them poorly balanced just shows how little you understand the game you're lecturing us on?

 azreal13 wrote:
How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?

Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?

Remember the part where we're talking about sealed/draft, which 40k has no equivalent of? This "need" does not exist in constructed formats.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?

Remember the part where we're talking about sealed/draft, which 40k has no equivalent of?

I didn't claim it has an equivalent.

You're not answering my question.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?

Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?

So, perfect imbalance?
The thing you say isn't balance?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?

Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?

So, perfect imbalance?
The thing you say isn't balance?

Don't forget the thing he said he acknowledges that 40k doesn't have.

 Zweischneid wrote:
You're not answering my question.

That's because I've already answered it: what you call "imbalance" is actually very carefully crafted balance. The fact that you label it incorrectly to "prove" your point about 40k does not make you right.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
How'd you get "imbalanced" from a sentence talking about how things are balanced?

Because things need to be imbalanced at the level of individual game elements (e.g. cards or even whole decks) to allow for bad choices, even if the overall effect of the game balances it out again. No?

So, perfect imbalance?
The thing you say isn't balance?

Are you saying there are no imbalances in the individual game components?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
You're not answering my question.

That's because I've already answered it: what you call "imbalance" is actually very carefully crafted balance. The fact that you label it incorrectly to "prove" your point about 40k does not make you right.

Well, there seem to be "better" cards and "worse" cards in MtG.

You yourself called a card "junk".

Which adjective would you have me use to describe this fact? Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.

Now, I see the answer your fishing for, and you're not going to get it, because there's a whole world of difference between something being "good, but...." and objectively "good" or "mostly poor, but if...." and "unadulterated manure"

Magic has plenty of the formers, 40K has nothing but the latters.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.

Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.

Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice.

And in exactly the same way.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Saying all cards in MtG are balanced would seem to be incompatible with the possibility of bad player choice.

Only under your ridiculous strawman version of balance where a game is only balanced if every choice is exactly as good as every other choice.

Great. But than the opposite must also be true.

If a game can be balanced, even if different choices are not all equally good for the player, than the existence of a bad choice for the player does not automatically mean a game is broken or even unbalanced.

Correct?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


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.

No?

So I can just take any random pile of cards as a deck to a MtG tournament and have an equal chance of winning? Why do people care so much about deck-construction then?


And the flaming chariot is literally playable.

Alright then. Tell me why it is good to have a unit of no worth that just gives free first blood? It's an AV10/10/10 5++ fast skimmer that can't shoot a single shot without snapfiring if it moves and can't fire it's flamer if it moves at all. How is thiss good design? How is this "good". ALso, so you really want unplayable?

Tell me, how's that Legion of the Damned codex going. You know, the one you avoided responding to. Yeah, it's a codex that can't be played. BRILLIANT

You sir, are simply fishing for answers. You are stubborn and pretend this is good. Look at how many disagree with you. Look how many are on your side. Now tell me, why is this good for the game? why is having worthless units good?

 Zweischneid wrote:
You yourself called a card "junk".

Which adjective would you have me use to describe this fact?

"A card that is balanced for something other than what I wanted to use it for". For example, if I win a tournament and open a platinum angel in one of my packs I'll probably be disappointed because it's not a good constructed card (and I can't use those cards in limited events). If I'm playing in a sealed deck tournament and open that same platinum angel I'm going to be incredibly happy because I just got a bomb for my deck. We just shorten that to "junk" in normal conversation because, unless we're specifically discussing limited, we're probably talking about constructed value.

 StarTrotter wrote:


Alright then. Tell me why it is good to have a unit of no worth that just gives free first blood? It's an AV10/10/10 5++ fast skimmer that can't shoot a single shot without snapfiring if it moves and can't fire it's flamer if it moves at all. How is thiss good design? How is this "good".

It probably isn't "good". It probably is a bad choice? No? At least judging from the contempt in your description.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Alright then. Tell me why it is good to have a unit of no worth that just gives free first blood? It's an AV10/10/10 5++ fast skimmer that can't shoot a single shot without snapfiring if it moves and can't fire it's flamer if it moves at all. How is thiss good design? How is this "good".

It probably isn't "good". It probably is a bad choice? No? At least judging from the contempt in your description.

You. Ignored. My. Legion of the Damned. An entire codex. Okay then, what's your point? So it's good to have a choice that has no redeaming qualities?

 Peregrine wrote:


Ok.. so now we got things that are "balanced for different uses"?

Is that the PC version?

Sounds like a mouthful, but I can work with that.

So what if a given card/unit/game-element is disappointing to you because it was "balanced for a different use"? Must that automatically invalidate an entire game?

 Zweischneid wrote:
If a game can be balanced, even if different choices are not all equally good for the player, than the existence of a bad choice for the player does not automatically mean a game is broken or even unbalanced.

No, the existence of bad choices does not make a game automatically unbalanced or broken, especially since your definition of "bad choices" includes deliberately attempting to make the worst possible choices. What makes a game unbalanced is when one or both of two things happen:

1) Options are bad choices under most/all reasonable circumstances. If X is weak overall but great against Y then it has a purpose as a niche counter if Y ever gets too common in the metagame. If X is great with A but terrible with B then it's just a case of conflicting strategies. If X is just plain worse than Z 99% of the time, and you'd rarely even consider taking X, then that's a balance problem.

2) Options are bad choices without serving any greater design goal. For example, "bad" cards in MTG are often there to make sealed/draft function. Bad units/options in 40k serve no similar purpose by being bad, they're just poor design work.

Unfortunately 40k is full of both problems.

 StarTrotter wrote:


You. Ignored. My. Legion of the Damned. An entire codex. Okay then, what's your point? So it's good to have a choice that has no redeaming qualities?

No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.

I have never seen such a choice however.