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:

 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?

You're, somehow misunderstanding "bad choice."

A bad choice in a given context? Absolutely.

An objectively bad choice in which no real case can be made for its inclusion over competing choices in any way other than to handicap yourself? No. Should never exist.

Even your Razor Boomerang can, possibly, have a use in a specific game format, despite being a poor choice in most circumstances. It is very difficult to make a case for a Penitent Engine in anything other than a game that departs so far from a conventional setup as to be verging on RPG territory, more than wargame.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 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?

Yes, up to a certain point. In a balanced system (however it may be balanced) a sub-optimal (ie not the most powerful) choice will not inevitably lead to a defeat, no matter what your opponent brought. Several sub-optimal choices may make defeat unlikely but with skilful play and a bit of luck it should still be possible to draw or even win. 40K is past that point and has reached the point where sizeable portions of the game are approaching unplayable due to the extreme power of some units and the lack of power of others. The power difference between an optimal and sub-optimal choice has become too big.

That is unbalanced and unfair.

 Zweischneid wrote:
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?

No, but that's not at all what we have in 40k. Bad units in 40k aren't bad for me because they're doing something great for someone else and making them balanced for me would mean sacrificing that other person's enjoyment of the unit, bad units in 40k tend to be bad because they're just badly designed. And when you frequently get choices that are bad simply because the designer did a bad job of balancing them and never bothered to fix their mistakes yes, it does "invalidate" the game's claim to quality.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Yes, up to a certain point. In a balanced system a sub-optimal choice will not inevitably lead to a defeat. Several sub-optimal choices may make defeat unlikely but with skilful play and a bit of luck it should still be possible to draw or even win. 40K is past that point and has reached the point where sizeable portions of the game are approaching unplayable due to the extreme power of some units and the lack of power of others. The power difference between an optimal and sub-optimal choice has become too big.

That is unbalanced and unfair.

Well, who determines when sub-optimal choices are good, still acceptable, or have gone too far?

How and where is that dividing line drawn?

 Zweischneid wrote:
No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.

I have never seen such a choice however.

Remember the Legion of the Damned codex that the post you just quoted mentioned? The one that automatically loses the game on the first turn unless you take allies with it? I'm sure that's great balance, and the people who wanted to take fluffy Legion of the Damned armies are just thrilled that they have to ally in some other army just to have a chance to play the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 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.

First of all, you IGNORED the Legion of the Damned. AGAIN! It can't be deployed as its own despite being a good codex. There is NOTHING redeemable about that. It can't even it gets autotabled turn one.

And the Chariot? There is no redeeming qualities. It doesn't do damage, it gives away FNP, it's fragile, and it has low hullpoints. It's only redeeming factor is giving the enemy FB early on.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.

I have never seen such a choice however.

Remember the Legion of the Damned codex that the post you just quoted mentioned? The one that automatically loses the game on the first turn unless you take allies with it? I'm sure that's great balance, and the people who wanted to take fluffy Legion of the Damned armies are just thrilled that they have to ally in some other army just to have a chance to play the game.

Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.

I'm currently 0-100 with my LotD army.

On the plus side, it only took less than a minute for me and my opponent to play all those games, and I didn't even need to transport my models!

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.

Then why are you allowed to take it as its own army?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
No. A choice with no redeeming qualities is pointless.

I have never seen such a choice however.

Remember the Legion of the Damned codex that the post you just quoted mentioned? The one that automatically loses the game on the first turn unless you take allies with it? I'm sure that's great balance, and the people who wanted to take fluffy Legion of the Damned armies are just thrilled that they have to ally in some other army just to have a chance to play the game.

Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.

And daemons are summoned by humans so they really need to have an ally force in or they auto lose turn one. Oh and Inquisitors requisition forces so they shouldn't be capable of being fielded as an army and regiments are hyper specialized so you can't have a tank with your guard regiment and SM are super rare so you must roll 3 d6 and can only deploy your SM if you roll 3 ones.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.

Then why are you allowed to take it as its own army?

Actually, they are not. The rules seem to prevent that.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Yes, up to a certain point. In a balanced system a sub-optimal choice will not inevitably lead to a defeat. Several sub-optimal choices may make defeat more likely but with skilful play and a bit of luck it should still be possible to draw or even win. 40K is past that point and has reached the point where sizeable portions of the game are approaching unplayable due to the extreme power of some units and the lack of power of others. The power difference between an optimal and sub-optimal choice has become too big.

That is unbalanced and unfair.

Well, who determines when sub-optimal choices are good, still acceptable, or have gone too far?

How and where is that dividing line drawn?

Play testing. Though that is something GW doesn't seem willing to do or, at least, not in a way that would actually work. Gathering around with some friends and just picking a random selection of units is not play testing. Maybe GW staff should be sent to do 6 weeks work experience with a video game company to learn that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Well, as far as I know, the Legion of the Damned comes to the aid of other armies. So that restriction seems to make sense.

Then why are you allowed to take it as its own army?

Actually, they are not. The rules seem to prevent that.

No, the rules prevent you from getting to play with them as your main army without allies, not picking them as your main army without allies.

Nowhere does it tell you that LotD may only be taken as allies or require an allied detachment to be played.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Play testing. Though that is something GW doesn't seem willing to do or, at least, not in a way that would actually work. Gathering around with some friends and just picking a random selection of units is not play testing. Maybe GW staff should be sent to do 6 weeks work experience with a video game company to learn that.

Well, let's keep talking about non-40K games to keep the emotions out.

Two games are developed, presumably with perfect play tests.

Must they both necessarily arrive at the exact same level of sub-optimal choices? Could the games be different? Could one have more sub-optimal choices than the other game, and both games still be valid?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Play testing. Though that is something GW doesn't seem willing to do or, at least, not in a way that would actually work. Gathering around with some friends and just picking a random selection of units is not play testing. Maybe GW staff should be sent to do 6 weeks work experience with a video game company to learn that.

Well, let's keep talking about non-40K games to keep the emotions out.

Two games are developed, presumably with perfect play tests.

Must they both necessarily arrive at the exact same level of sub-optimal choices? Could the games be different? Could one have more sub-optimal choices than the other game, and both games still be valid?

Waaaaaaaah? That doesn't even make sense. Also how'd they be so if they were perfectly play tested?

Also hello moving goal posts

 StarTrotter wrote:

Waaaaaaaah? That doesn't even make sense. Also how'd they be so if they were perfectly play tested?

Didn't we just say games have bad choices build into the system?

Yes or no?

 Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No.

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

Jesus!

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

Seriously, have you had a stroke? You're not even arguing your own point coherently any more?

No, we said there are better or worse choices in a given situation, not objectively good or bad.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Didn't we just say games have bad choices build into the system?

Yes. For example, you can take a 200 point army in a 2000 point game. But I don't really see what "you can make stupid decisions" has to do with game balance.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Waaaaaaaah? That doesn't even make sense. Also how'd they be so if they were perfectly play tested?

Didn't we just say games have bad choices build into the system?

Yes or no?

 Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No.

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

Jesus!

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

An entire codex being a bad choice, other codices being bad choices, units being bad choices. No. Bad choice involves throwing together an army that just simply won't work. Not an entire army not working and multiple other bits of a book not working whilst others perform way too well thus invalidating everything.

Oh yeah, and, if they didn't try even slightly for balance. Why is structure costed with points? Why not just make it free to use?

 azreal13 wrote:
Seriously, have you had a stroke? You're not even arguing your own point coherently any more?

No, we said there are better or worse choices in a given situation, not objectively good or bad.

Actually, you said bad choices. In big shouty letters too. Moving goal-posts?

 azreal13 wrote:
No.

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

Jesus!

But ok. "relatively better or worse" choices.


Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?

Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Seriously, have you had a stroke? You're not even arguing your own point coherently any more?

No, we said there are better or worse choices in a given situation, not objectively good or bad.

Actually, you said bad choices. In big shouty letters too. Moving goal-posts?

 azreal13 wrote:
No.

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

Jesus!

But ok. "relatively better or worse" choices.


Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?

Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?

Coming from the guy that spent the last fifty thousand posts moving the goal post. Go on and try to dunk it you haven't netted a single ball and all you've done is yank your post away whilst shoving your fingers in your ears. Oh, and thing is... 40k has broken choices that are basically no better than handing your foe a free point. Good Design! Also, for somebody that ragged on about narrative you seem to forget that the game kinda sucks at narrative.

No, I said a player can make bad choices.

Or is a deciding one thing when a better option is available not a de facto bad choice?

The relative disparity between what constitutes a good or bad choice is determined by the range of options presented, which lies firmly at the feet of whoever is designing the game.

Edit

I wasn't shouting, I'd hate you to be extracting any glee from the thought I was, shouting would be in capitals, a large font was used in case your problem is with your vision, rather than your thinking n

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I said a player can make bad choices.

Or is a deciding one thing when a better option is available not a de facto bad choice?

The relative disparity between what constitutes a good or bad choice is determined by the range of options presented, which lies firmly at the feet of whoever is designing the game.

Ok. So the "relative disparity between what constitutes a good and a bad choice" it is. That is the variable the game-designer works with?

Could two game designers produce two different games that produce different "relative disparity between what constitutes a good and a bad choice", and still both be valid games?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?

Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?

Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.

For heavens sake, perhaps it's your memory.

There should be no such thing as objectively "good" there sure as hell should never be objectively "bad" there should be better or worse in any given situation, which the player is then free to figure out and decide for themselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?

Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?

Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.

Ok. Great that we've taken GW out of the discussion for the moment.

Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?

Let's not tangent here, this is a thread about 40K in the 40K discussion forum.

Weird, esoteric, slightly poorly expressed attempts to derail the conversation don't belong here.

I'll just requote myself here, as Zwei seems to be struggling to stay focused...

Nobody, or, at best, a tiny minority, is arguing for 40K to be perfectly balanced. When people say 40K "needs to be balanced" it is shorthand for "the outlying units on the power curve need a buff or nerf as appropriate to bring them closer to the centre, so the number of viable units is as close to 100% of the units and equipment choices available as possible, and that list building becomes more an exercise in constructing a force that the player enjoys using, or suits their style, or represents something fluffy than an arbiter of victory before the game starts, and who wins the game is as much about who makes the best decisions with the tools they've chosen to bring to the table as possible."

 Zweischneid wrote:
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?

Why are you assuming that there's a single black and white division between good game design and bad? In reality it's a scale between very good and very bad, with a whole range in between. The problem with 40k is that it's so far on the bad end of the scale that there's really no room for differences of opinion anymore, it's just clear bad design.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?

Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?

Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.

No no. It's more like a company that you come up to the first desk and realize nobody is there. You wait around with dozens of other people as one employee frantically runs around trying to keep everything running but he's obviously exhausted and somewhat embittered. Finally, he randomly picks you after four people that arrived after you got in almost immediately and he sits you down. He goes on a spiel of how everything is a unique flavor and the sorts almost robotically. Then, he hands you the menu. All the food costs around 39 dollars as the general minimum with some food being a max of 60. You raise your brow but shrug it off having heard it has great flavor. Looking around, the place looks pretty great. Lovely art, great modeled statues stand tall here and there. Things look pretty great. Finally, after what feels like half an hour, he comes up with a food in a tray. Placing it down, you find two buns, cheese, meat, tomatoes, onions, and lettuce. He says that they take pride in you building your meal however you want it and place a heater next to you. They note they didn't completely cook the meat to insure you can heat it to whatever level you like. You spend the next while putting your burger together and heating it up until you think it's medium rare. Finally, you chew in. *Crunchsnapcrackle* Jerking your head back, you are bleeding from your mouth. Looking in, you notice that the tomatoes are filled with fine shards of glass and quickly pull them out. You try another crunch. Bleeeeh... something doesn't taste that great. You nibble at some of the leftovers. Ah. It's the cheese. Just... tastes funky. You toss it out. On a side note, the meat was okay but the onion were probably the best part. You almost wish you could have just ordered the onions. It'd probably taste better alone. Still, you munch in until done and leave.

I dunno it seemed fun at the time


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Is it possible that two games are developed, Game A and Game B, and they have different amounts of "relatively better or worse" choices, Game A playing it close and conservative, Game B pushing the "relative good or worse" a bit further?

Or must all games have the exact same level/mix of "relative good and bad choices", for now and all eternity?

Obviously not. But that's like discussing restaurants that have different styles of food. There's a whole range of different choices to make, and then there's the place that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it. And GW is the latter kind. The fact that a range of design choices exists does not in any way justify their poor quality.

Ok. Great that we've taken GW out of the discussion for the moment.

Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?

Thread on general about 40k discussing the problems with 40k.... chose to ignore 40k. Wow.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?

Why are you assuming that there's a single black and white division between good game design and bad? In reality it's a scale between very good and very bad, with a whole range in between. The problem with 40k is that it's so far on the bad end of the scale that there's really no room for differences of opinion anymore, it's just clear bad design.

Well, it seems odd that you dispute the existence of a "black and white" divison, yet claim that 40K is indisputably black?

There must be a .. dunno .. a tipping point? A crossing? A sign that you've moved from the realm of "acceptable variance" (which might include choices you personally will not find appealing) to the realm of "unacceptable"? No?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Now, how would a game designer know that he's reached the end of the scale for "valid" choices? What exactly defines that point where, as you liked to put it, unusual food becomes rotten food? Where is the line that divides an unusual choice in game design from an invalid choice in game design?

Why are you assuming that there's a single black and white division between good game design and bad? In reality it's a scale between very good and very bad, with a whole range in between. The problem with 40k is that it's so far on the bad end of the scale that there's really no room for differences of opinion anymore, it's just clear bad design.

Well, it seems odd that you dispute the existence of a "black and white" divison, yet claim that 40K is indisputably black?

There must be a .. dunno .. a tipping point? A crossing? A sign that you've moved from the realm of "acceptable variance" (which might include choices you personally will not find appealing) to the realm of "unacceptable"? No?

White----------------------------------------------------------------Black
............................................................................l............................
.........................................................................40k.........................

Here ya go.

There's some things that 40k does that are good design. It's just there is more bad design in it.