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.

Yep.
I'd say when your sales figures have inexplicably started to dip while your competition appear to still be going great guns, the shark has well and truly been jumped.

 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?

That line is going to depend on the game... But I would think at the very least that the publishing of an army list that automatically loses the game before you even place a single model on the board should be taken as a sign that something is seriously awry.

 azreal13 wrote:
Yep.
I'd say when your sales figures have inexplicably started to dip while your competition appear to still be going great guns, the shark has well and truly been jumped.

So no "acceptably designed" game has ever been in commercial trouble?

Seems an unreliable indicator to me.

No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.

 azreal13 wrote:
No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.

Got examples?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak 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?

That line is going to depend on the game... But I would think at the very least that the publishing of an army list that automatically loses the game before you even place a single model on the board should be taken as a sign that something is seriously awry.

Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

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

....

Seriously? Are you even trying? Whether or not 40k is black or very-dark-gray-almost-black-unless-you-look-really-carefully it's still a bad game. Its exact position on the bad end of the scale isn't really relevant to this discussion.

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?

What part of "continuous spectrum" is so hard to understand?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.

Got examples?

You want examples of things that haven't happened?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No massively successful, industry leading, three decade old game has ever been in commercial trouble with no apparent outside interference or influence, no.

Got examples?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak 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?

That line is going to depend on the game... But I would think at the very least that the publishing of an army list that automatically loses the game before you even place a single model on the board should be taken as a sign that something is seriously awry.

Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Because nobody will even play the game as is. Because there's no way to see a game where you get auto-tabled turn 1 because you can't even deploy your models. No, they'll ask their foe... can I do this? And they'll likely say yes (or they will be rejected and move on)

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.

Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.

Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.

Yet they're a full Codex that lets you field them WITHOUT allies, so no it's not WAI, it's "Oh, we never considered that" which shows either outright incompetence by the designers or just laziness (aka "I don't give a feth") and while yes, it's pretty silly that something so glaring exists, the fact remains it DOES exist by the rules which the designers wrote, so they either didn't even bother to know their own rules or just were too lazy to address it and assumed that everyone would just allow it, which while that's a reasonable assumption it's not 100% guaranteed; while it'd likely make you TFG you could deny a Legion of the Damned player the opportunity to even play their army because, by the rules, they'd auto-lose. Scumbag behavior but technically allowed since the alternative is a house rule, albeit a necessary one.

This argument would hold water if the Legion of the Damned Codex said that they could only be fielded as allies, but it doesn't. It LETS them be fielded as their own army and then its "OH HEY SURPRISE, by the rules you actually auto-lose turn one unless we house rule it so you can actually, you know, play a game".

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.

Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.

Then call it a supplement not a codex.

Also there are rules for a themed game in it that lets them ds turn one so they obviously new the problem and even made a game to play them solo.

 StarTrotter wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.

Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.

Then call it a supplement not a codex.

Also there are rules for a themed game in it that lets them ds turn one so they obviously new the problem and even made a game to play them solo.

So GW were fully aware that they need allies to be played as a primary detatchment. Where is the problem here? Everyone knows that Legion of the Damned only show up when the Imperium really needs them, why would you expect them to be fieldable as a standalone force?

I would agree that it should have been called a mini-dex (not a suppliment since it's not supplimenting anything). But then the price point makes it clear that it's not a full codex, anyway that's not the point I was responding to.

Weird things are occurring..

To replace what I'd written,

Why make it possible to take them as a Primary if you don't intend to allow it to work that way.

There's even a rule in the book that allows for turn 1 DS, which would make the whole thing work, it just isn't included where it needs to be.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

First of all, something is either broken or not. Preffixing the word "broken" with "utterly" makes you come across as emotive rather than rational.

Secondly I'm pretty sure it's WAI that Legion of the Damned can't fight on their own without allies.

Then call it a supplement not a codex.

Also there are rules for a themed game in it that lets them ds turn one so they obviously new the problem and even made a game to play them solo.

So GW were fully aware that they need allies to be played as a primary detatchment. Where is the problem here? Everyone knows that Legion of the Damned only show up when the Imperium really needs them, why would you expect them to be fieldable as a standalone force?

I would agree that it should have been called a mini-dex (not a suppliment since it's not supplimenting anything). But then the price point makes it clear that it's not a full codex, anyway that's not the point I was responding to.

The problem is it's called a codex. Not a supplement. Heck, even an army fully composed of a supplement if fieldable. These guys aren't htough. The thing is, there's a rule to fix this problem in the codex but they specifically ignore this factor. If they would have called this a mini-dex or supporting book or something and openly marketed that it only works with other armies it would be fun. Problem is it isn't.

 azreal13 wrote:
Then why allow them to be a primary detachment at all?

They have rules that allow them to be a secondary, non ally space-taking detachment.

The real kicker is this appears in the rules, but only for one of the scenarios...

So that you can take a HQ + up to 6 troops? Rather than the two troops you're limited to as allies. Yeah it's a bit crummy, and frankly a missed opportunity (legion of the damned terminators anyone? Vehicles? Special characters?) but it's still not "broken".

But they don't have a standard Force Org, you can't take them as HQ and troops.

 azreal13 wrote:
But they don't have a standard Force Org, you can't take them as HQ and troops.

Having checked my codex, you're right.

However, Legion of the Damned in a primary detachment count as scoring, which they do not when allied. You also get access to the warlord table, for what that's worth.

So again, pretty crummy but still not broken, or even irrational.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But they don't have a standard Force Org, you can't take them as HQ and troops.

Having checked my codex, you're right.

However, Legion of the Damned in a primary detachment count as scoring, which they do not when allied. You also get access to the warlord table, for what that's worth.

So again, pretty crummy but still not broken, or even irrational.

Well, except when you field them alone. I only really have a problem with this because you can't play them as their own book without extra forces. Namely because other things that really don't make much sense fluffwise work in the game as is.

It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.

Otherwise, there is obviously no power issue with allowing turn 1 DS, as drop pods have it already, and while strong, is hardly the source of wailing and gnashing, so just cut and past the rule into the section for running them as a Primary Detachment.

Either way would be fine, but we are yet again in a situation when it is not necessarily what they've done, but the lack of communication around it that is causing the issue.

I sincerely believe if they simply said "hey, always meant for there to be something for them to beam down and help, this is the correct way of doing things" or "lol, yeah, should have thought that through, we'll errata it so a Primary Detachment has the Aid From Beyond rule" then the issue goes away, but they don't, we get the traditional wall of silence and it just encourages ill will to fester.

 azreal13 wrote:
It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.

How *you* think it should. When I read the codex I assumed that they would have to take allies as they would auto-lose otherwise. To me it is no different than not being able to deep-strike 100% of my deamon army, I just assume I'd need other guys

I don't think players need to have their hands held through this process. It's not difficult - All Legion of the Damned must deep-strike, therefore if you're fielding them as a primary detatchment you'll need allies on the field. Sure they could have included a throwaway line to this effect in the rules, but I don't think it's needed.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.

How *you* think it should. When I read the codex I assumed that they would have to take allies as they would auto-lose otherwise. To me it is no different than not being able to deep-strike 100% of my deamon army, I just assume I'd need other guys

I don't think players need to have their hands held through this process. It's not difficult - All Legion of the Damned must deep-strike, therefore if you're fielding them as a primary detatchment you'll need allies on the field. Sure they could have included a throwaway line to this effect in the rules, but I don't think it's needed.

But DA and drop pods can DS turn 1. Heck, there's a rule in it that lets you DS turn one for free. So it's not really like having a simple little rule couldn't have solved it. That, or it would have been nice for it to be advertised as what they really are. Sure, I understand what you mean. I'd never field them alone but the fact that it's not stated and they are sold as a codex does lead to a bitter taste.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It is broken, in the sense of it doesn't function as it should, because everything else is voluntary. You are not obliged to take allies, and one would think one of their little "designer notes" explaining that it was for things to work would have been justified.

How *you* think it should. When I read the codex I assumed that they would have to take allies as they would auto-lose otherwise. To me it is no different than not being able to deep-strike 100% of my deamon army, I just assume I'd need other guys

I don't think players need to have their hands held through this process. It's not difficult - All Legion of the Damned must deep-strike, therefore if you're fielding them as a primary detatchment you'll need allies on the field. Sure they could have included a throwaway line to this effect in the rules, but I don't think it's needed.

Every other codex, heck, I think every other supplement, can field a primary detachment without being compelled to use another element from what I shall call the detachment tree.

If you are releasing a product that deviates from that, it would be sensible to be clear about it, to avoid just the situation we have.

Again, poor communication, not anything to do with what the product should or shouldn't be.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Everyone knows that Legion of the Damned only show up when the Imperium really needs them, why would you expect them to be fieldable as a standalone force?

Because the codex lets you field them as a standalone force?

Zwei, I'm afraid you're too stuck in this philosophical notion of Balance and Imbalance and whatever else that no one really cares about. What we care about is that the expensive units that we really like are actually a liability if we field them. My favorite models in the 40k range are the Penitent Engines but they're so useless that If I take them, I'm actually helping the enemy.

That's not fluffy, its just stupid.

Making the PE's good in certain situations would not make the game worse, it would only improve it because you'd see a greater variety in SOB lists, thus aiding in fluffyness. That does nothing but help the game. I've asked how it would hurt the game like you've insisted but you've never answered the question with anyhting like a specific reason why except "bercause" and "it just would be better."

Everyone, this whole "Balance, imbalance" crap is distracting from the argument because Zwei is using it to avoid answering any questions. Don't play his game.

And if you're playing a game with no intention of who wins or loses, then I'd suggest you write a book, then you can do whatever you want and not have to worry about the rules. You know, when I want to do that, I freaking write a book.
Oh, I did.
http://www.amazon.com/Sins-Prometheus-Zachary-Hill-ebook/dp/B00H7HXOPM/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398578522&sr=1-1&keywords=sins+of+prometheus
Another thing about fluff, also known as "narrative story telling." If you have a character that always wins and there's never a chance of losing, its gets really boring really quickly. If there's no chance of failure, your reader will get bored because there will be no tension, no excitement. What you're suggesting is that our fluffy games where the winner is already decided on is somehow fun, is demonstrably false. A book like that wouldn't be published let alone liked by readers. So, I reject your idea of fluffy games because they're boring and stagnant. Good stories have characters that have a goal and an obstacle. A Riptide list facing Penitent Engines would be really boring really fast because the PE's are not at all a credible threat under any circumstances.

So, even your "narative style" of game play I find incorrect and that's not an opinion, it's been proven in literature over and over again.

But get this, when I want to play a game, I expect a reasonable chance of winning. It may be an uphill battle, but if there's NO/ZERO chance of winning, it's no longer a game, its just an excercise in frustration. Like reading a book where we know the hero is going to lose. (This is different than they may die at the end or lose the war, but sometimes there's a personal goal that they might succeed at, like the movie Sunshine. In one fell swoop they're all dead, but there's still things they can do before they die.)

I'm not going to ask you to answer any questions with actual examples of why, because I know you won't answer them in any substansive way.

Everyone, change the game. Zwei won't go beyond useless generalizing about "balance" and whatever.
Here's an example. New players will be put off when they show up with their SM army and get wiped off the table on turn 2 by a Triptide Taudar list. They get put off and quite the game. Or after repeated loses with the DA army they give up and tell others how pointless the game is.

Now, I enjoy 40k. I played a 2000 pt game with my sisters vs Chaos this weekend and had a blast. But I was playing with my twin brother so we kind of see eye to eye on how to play and read my battle rep, its very fluffy/narrativ-y. So I'm not a 40k hater. I love the game but its very flawed.

So stop your useless rhetoric about vague balance and imbalance and talk about real situations and problems and solutions. Your notion of narative gameplay needs as much work as your notion of what a game is.

Here's something you'd like much better. The rules are non-exsistant, its fluffy and very narrative.

To me, the problems with 40K are:

The core mechanics are limited, simplistic, outdated and in need of revision. The IGOUGO turn sequence in particular, is a serious defect in what has become a very dense game.

It is meant to be a fairly simple game, but the added complication of more detailed psychics, flyers, D weapons and ever increasing special rules makes it too complicated.

Some of the stuff that has been put into the game does not fit -- fortifications, flyers and Apocalypse units. These IMO should be purely optional units kept out of the core rules and codexes. They are only there for GW to sell more models, which is fine if you want them but the core game ought to be playable without.

Various new stuff has created serious imbalance -- Allies, Flyers, Formations and Strength D weapons -- which are only a way to sell more models. Keep it in the optional rules.

Some of these factors have created a division in the user base. One of the key strengths of 40K was that it was very widely played. It seems that that is breaking down.

The sheer cost! I've given up updating my Tyranid and Tau armies because the 6th edition codexes are too expensive, not to mention the new units I would have to buy to stay current (let alone competitive.)

I miss my Spore Pods.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

No.

I've stated repeatedly that one of the more important design-goals of GW's rules writers is to encourage pre-game communications.

Buy your own words, they seem to have succeeded admirably in this respect with the LoTD Codex.

A rule that succeeds in achieving the intent is not failure, nor broken.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Seems a highly theoretical problem. I've never seen, or even heard of a gamer lose an actual game due to that theoretical scenario.

Of course not, because anyone who plays a Legion of the Damned army is going to ask their opponent to agree to fix the obvious balance problem and allow their army to work without automatically losing. But by asking for that solution you're admitting that the game as provided by GW is utterly broken.

No.

I've stated repeatedly that one of the more important design-goals of GW's rules writers is to encourage pre-game communications.

Buy your own words, they seem to have succeeded admirably in this respect with the LoTD Codex.

A rule that succeeds in achieving the intent is not failure, nor broken.

A rule that succeeds in achieving the intent is not failure, nor broken.

No, it is. Here's the thing. they could have easily fixed this with a single rule. Instead, it punishes you if the player decides to be a jerk or has been having a bad day and says no or, worse yet, if it's for a competitive match or tournament where this would not be permitted at all.

So it fails. GW removed most restrictions to let you deploy what you want. By then restricting it again they aren't even accomplshing that intention.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

....

Seriously? Are you even trying? Whether or not 40k is black or very-dark-gray-almost-black-unless-you-look-really-carefully it's still a bad game. Its exact position on the bad end of the scale isn't really relevant to this discussion.

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?

What part of "continuous spectrum" is so hard to understand?

I thought we've established that between two games (A and B), one game (game B) can have more "relatively better or worse choices" (e.g. "bad player choices") build into its game-play than another (game A), without being an unambiguously worse game?

If that is true, that scale is not a sliding scale of "quality", but merely a sliding scale of variety. To use your analogy, "restaurants that have different styles of food."

If that is the case, it matters a lot if 40K is "inside" the spectrum of "different styles of food" or "outside" the spectrum of "not food at all". And that differentiation would need to have a criterion, no?

If that is not the case, than the gaming world should converge to only a single type of food, the "whitest" on your scale, as any move away from pure white would always be an ever so slightly inferior game, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
worse yet, if it's for a competitive match or tournament where this would not be permitted at all.

But 40K doesn't try to write rules for a competitive match or tournament. It does try to achieve pre-game negotiation (cue the most recent White Dwarf Article by Jervis Johnson).

Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.

If you intent to travel to London, arriving in London is not a failure, nor is it a failure that you didn't arrive in Edinburgh.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

....

Seriously? Are you even trying? Whether or not 40k is black or very-dark-gray-almost-black-unless-you-look-really-carefully it's still a bad game. Its exact position on the bad end of the scale isn't really relevant to this discussion.

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?

What part of "continuous spectrum" is so hard to understand?

I thought we've established that between two games (A and B), one game (game B) can have more "relatively better or worse choices" (e.g. "bad player choices") build into its game-play than another (game A), without being an unambiguously worse game?

If that is true, that scale is not a sliding scale of "quality", but merely a sliding scale of variety. To use your analogy, "restaurants that have different styles of food."

If that is the case, it matters a lot if 40K is "inside" the spectrum of "different styles of food" or "outside" the spectrum of "not food at all". And that differentiation would need to have a criterion, no?

If that is not the case, than the gaming world should converge to only a single type of food, the "whitest" on your scale, as any move away from pure white would always be an ever so slightly inferior game, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
worse yet, if it's for a competitive match or tournament where this would not be permitted at all.

But 40K doesn't try to write rules for a competitive match or tournament. It does try to achieve pre-game negotiation (cue the most recent White Dwarf Article by Jervis Johnson).

Not achieving something it doesn't try to achieve is not a failure. Successfully achieving something you tried to do is not failure either.

If you intent to travel to London, arriving in London is not a failure, nor is it a failure that you didn't arrive in Edinburgh.

So in other words it wishes to restrict the freedom to have fun, slow things down, kill off competitive, kill off fluffy games, make the books worthless by overruling them, and making certain armies suck because why not. Alright then good job 40k great.