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.
azreal13 wrote: Ah, so, reading between the lines, nobody would play you in the way you wanted, until the game degenerated to a point where they pretty much had to.
Consequently, you're happy and couldn't give a gak about the happiness of the player base in general and the general state of the game.
This has been a very long thread to come to that realization. He could have just said so.
Consequently, you're happy and couldn't give a gak about the happiness of the player base in general and the general state of the game.
My new SoB codex deleted a character, made two units that were bad before now almost unplayable, dumbed down Acts of Faith a second time to the point they are forgotten usually, and contained nothing new outside of some pieces of wargear that can be taken on our worst HQ choice.
My local play scene is "two source" meaning I cannot even play the "Witchhunters" codex anymore through allies. Game's so much fun for me right now, tell you what...
Farseer Faenyin wrote: I might be alone on this one, but I'm super happy that competitive 40k is so silly broken right now.
For once in my career of gaming in 40k, casual players in my area are having far more fun with the game than those that are competitive. And even then, since there are so many units/rules/expansions/semi-expansions that are added to the game....it forces people to have a civil discussion before the game to iron out any possible issues....which tends to make games more enjoyable for both when it does happen.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but this is my utopia of gaming.
I have a problem with it because I can't field my favorite armies without being at a significant disadvantage and my friend has a big thing for riptides. It's painful to play Tzeentch Marines against his riptide spam. Problem is, neither of us are competitive. He just really loves Riptides for their look.
I think the response is going to be to work something out with your foes to make it fun. Even though so many players design their lists to NOT be fun for their opponents.
azreal13 wrote: How is it that you get to receive multiple answers to multiple questions, yet MWHistorian has been waiting for days for a single answer to a single question from you Zwei?
I answered several times.
Because in imbalanced games, not all things can be equally valid. If they were, it wouldn't be imbalanced.
MWHistorian probably would have more fun if the game was balanced and his Pentinent-Engine for its points equally valid to everything else. He seems like someone who prefers balanced games.
"Fun" is subjective. No game can please everyone. Which is why it is important that we have both balanced and imbalanced games on the market.
For "why" imbalanced games are (to me, subjectively) superior (even if it means that some units suck), go back and read all our discussions on the narrative, on imperfect imbalance, on avoiding a "competitive-mindset" in the community, on encouraging pre-game communication and "non-standard" play, etc.., etc., etc.., etc., .
You disagreed with everything, and in your ego-centrist world, everything you disagree with is automatically "wrong". You, unfortunately, tend to confuse with "I don't like it" with "I proved you wrong". For you, there seems to be no place in the world for tastes and opinions that are different than your own. Unfortunately, there can probably be no "absolute" right or wrong on fun.
I can only encourage you to give it a try playing "the studio-way". You already have the models and you clearly hate the way you game at the moment. What do you have to lose?
Perhaps you'll be surprised when you actually have fun with your Pentinent Engine again when you play "the studio-way".
Question. How is this associated with your argument? Wasn't your complaint about balance is that it would make the gaming environment static? But as you say, not all units are valid, heck, not all codices are equally valid. You say that balance is bad because it limits variety but then promote something that restricts it. What?
So, Zwei, How is having a completely stupidly useless unit somehow good? Give your answer directly and specifically.
Because the game as a whole is better if it is imbalanced, even if it sucks that your unit sucks.
It's like asking what is good about paying taxes. Nothing, if you just look at the taxes leaving your account. The merit of taxes is that it finances all the public amenities of the nation you live in, e.g. the system as a whole is improved.
The only way the game would be good imbalance is if they either make it perfect imbalance or they throw points out the door and make it entirely narrative based. Those are the only two ways. As of now the only thing this benefits is jerks that cheat the system and crush their friends that are new to the game or don't go all guns a-blazing.
Lanrak wrote: @Zweischnied.
Just to clarify, if all of a sudden GW plc released well defined intuitive rule set for 40k , that delivered more balance and variety of game play than the current rules.
And made the game enjoyable for everyone.
Because those wanting to enjoy pick up and play games could.
And those who want to forge a narrative could just ignore anything they do not like, and make stuff up like they do now.
Why in the name of all logic would you not be able to ignore the rules you do not like, and make stuff up to include stuff cool ideas that appeal to you when you use the new 'balanced rule set.'
When you advocate everyone SHOULD HAVE TO do this to justify the imbalanced rule set that is 6th ed 40k?
Because, in my experience, all games (and previous versions of 40K) with more emphasis on balance, have resulted in a "mind-set" in which rules and points and mindbogglingly inappropriate concept such as "legal" are considered sacrosanct and a final authority on almost everything, which in turn has led me to enjoy the games less than I do the current iteration of 40K.
"Balanced" rules have this odd quality of suggesting a "hard line", where everything "inside" the rules is fair game, and everything "outside" the rules is off-limit.
Only GW, to my knowledge, has managed to at least partially break this and create a "soft line", where there is a common understanding that not everything "inside" the rules is always appropriate in all games, and not everything "outside" the rules is by default off limit, for no other reason than that it goes against the rules.
And yes, people will say that you could, of course, go all the way to a game with "no line", no point values, no FoC, no nothing.
But I don't tend to believe in extremes. Between the extremes of absolute hard "legal" rules on one hand, and the extreme of absolutely "no" rules on the other, I prefer the golden "soft-line" middle-ground of contemporary 40K.
It has provided my with the the by far best wargaming experiences in nearly 20 years of wargaming. GW managed to turn (compliance with the) rules, again, in what they were (IMO) meant to be, a means to an end (among other means), whereas to many wargamers - in my experience - have come to consider playing in compliance with the rules a virtue in itself.
Isn't that already quite so? Like at how many people reject FW because it isn't GW?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 18:51:29
Isn't that already quite so? Like at how many people reject FW because it isn't GW?
And how many people still believe they can "force" other players to accept FW - whether they like it or not - because it is allegedly."legal", rather than appealing to mutual fun and enjoyment? Lots of roadwork to do there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 18:58:04
Isn't that already quite so? Like at how many people reject FW because it isn't GW?
And how many people still believe they can "force" other players to accept FW - whether they like it or not - because it is allegedly."legal", rather than appealing to mutual fun and enjoyment? Lots of roadwork to do there.
Maybe because people like to actually be able to use their models and armies? You know, kinda like how balance in general would let everything be playable because nothing would be broken or drastically underpowered?
Question. How is this associated with your argument? Wasn't your complaint about balance is that it would make the gaming environment static?
Now, that was an argument from the "perfect imbalance" video, which I cited specifically to break the circularity of the argument and add a non-40K example, so that people would see one or two reasons by other people for creating imbalance.
Unfortunately, people afterwards kept implying I said Warhammer 40K was an example of "perfect imbalance", which I never said. I only said that some of the arguments in the perfect imbalance video, specifcially those where they differentiate between balanced games like chess and imbalanced games like MtG, could show you that there are other reasons, over and above my personal ones, as to why a game designer might intentionally opt for imbalance in some shape or form.
Maybe because people like to actually be able to use their models and armies? You know, kinda like how balance in general would let everything be playable because nothing would be broken or drastically underpowered?
Sounds like you would enjoy a balanced game more than Warhammer 40K.
The only way the game would be good imbalance is if they either make it perfect imbalance or they throw points out the door and make it entirely narrative based. Those are the only two ways.
Perhaps.
GW (thus far) seems to be slowing moving in that direction. Maybe they are experimenting with whether or not they can or should push it that far. Maybe they'll reel back after the recent poor financial results and this little experiment will come to an end. Maybe a "middle-of-the-road"-solution will prove more sustainable in the long run.
Time will tell.
But even if they "turn back", I would argue that this little experiment thus far - reading all the Jervis Johnson articles, etc.. .- was fully intentional.
And I don't think (again, personal bias) any absolute extreme towards one end or the other will ever be a better solution than "a little bit of both".
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 19:11:45
But even if they "turn back", I would argue that this little experiment thus far - reading all the Jervis Johnson articles, etc.. .- was fully intentional.
Ah yes, quoting the other sci-fi product that's done nothing bu crap the bed and infuriate the fans to make a quick buck.
I think young Anekin had a quote that fits the nature of Zwei and his posting...
You play a game using its rules? Or are you just pointlessly obfuscating again?
I'll go with the latter.
Most people claiming to play "RAW" purposefully ignore the higher-order of instructions situated throughout the rulebook in boxes such as "Spirit of the Game" or "Forge the Narrative".
As noted previously, these take precedence over things like point values, armour saves or weapon strengths, and the later were, as the rulebook says "Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."
If you're serious about playing "by the rules"; start there.
If you "house-rule" those boxes out of the game, you can't really blame GW if the result isn't to your liking.
In civil law there is something called hierarchy of sources (and I'm sure the same concept exists in common law).
I will be using Italy as an example because its legal system is the one I am familiar with.
Considering only internal sources we have four levels of sources:
1) Constitution
2) Laws (as passed by parliament) and equivalents
3) Rules (as passed by the government, the "prime minister", or a simple minister)
4) Customs.
In case of conflict between two dispositions, there are different ways to solve the issue (applied in the order I present them):
Higher sources trump lower sources. In 40k we have something similar (Codex > Rulebook).
Specific rules trump general rules of equal or lower rank, even if older. 40k has a plethora of special rules that alter the basic ones.
Newer sources trump older sources of equal or lower rank. Again, 40k has its own version of this (New editions replacing the old).
If we consider 40k to be akin to a civil law system (which seems reasonable to me, given that both have written-down rules, a multitude of sources for those rules and a way to solve conflict between different rules), your claim that "forge the narrative" and "spirit of the game" are higher instruction is false. Under this assumption they would be of equal rank at best.
House-ruling those boxes out of the game is not playing 40k as much as house-ruling anyhing else out of the game (which you don't really seem to have a problem with by reading your posts. If my impression is incorrect then you have my apologies).
Moreover, all the "Forge the narrative" boxes I could find in the Dark Vengeance mini rulebook either have no bearing at all on game mechanics (E.G. giving names to your models) or suggest possible alternative to very specific rules (E.G. agreeing on terrain effects with your opponent as opposed to rolling on the appropriate table). The latter type always comes with a condition though: agreeing with your opponent.
From this we can gather that:
1) Rules and the narrative aspect of the game are not mutually exclusive
2) Modifying rules to increase the narrative value is encouraged as long as there is an agreement between the players
Let's look at the "Spirit of the game" section, which you used to justify chucking essentially everything else out of the window.
I have highlighted passages that I consider relevant to my argument.
Spoiler:
The sprit of the game
Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable
game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey.
What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player.
Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game.
Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.
Following the rules is not a player's only job but it is a part of said job nonetheless. Nobody can stop you from tossing the rulebook out of the window and playing however you like, but you'd be playing "pewpew aliens, superhumans and regular lads in space" and definitely not Warhammer 40k. Adding your own touch is encouraged especially in aspects that have largely no impact on the rules. When your touch does impact the rules, the general principle seems to be "agree with your opponent".
Rules are a framework to allow two complete strangers to have an enjoyable game without having to agree on every aspect of the gaming system (or better, to allow them to play without building a gaming system from scratch). If you want to subvert the rules to fit a narrative scenario, see the above paragraph.
From the "Spirit of the game" section I would also argue that the game is intended to be balanced. This, however, requires accepting as reasonable a few strong assumptions. Here's my reasoning anyway.
Key words that emerge from "The spirit of the game" are: Enjoyable, Freedom, Open-endedness, "Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat".
HP1) Players are somewhat rational. They play for fun.
HP1.1) Players are not masochists.
HP1.2) Helplessness, frustration, shelling out quids (dollars, yen, euros, whatever) for a new army every few months just to have a shot at victory are not enjoyable feelings/events.
HP2) Freedom, Open-endedness, "Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat" all imply that there should be no battle (played according to the rules) that is impossible to win for one player.
Playing battles you have no chance of winning (or indeed, battles where you have no chance of doing anything meaningful at all) are not fun. They generate frustration as you are helpless against your opponent.
Said battles have pre-determined outcomes to the point where you may leave your models. This contrasts with the principle of open-endedness.
If you want to have a chance at victory you have to field the OP list of the month. This is, again, not fun. You may be forced to spend more money on a new army (and if you don't have the resources to acquire a new army you fall back into the circle of autowin frustration), you may be forced to play an army you don't particularly like and/or be forced NOT to play an army you love in order to have a chance at a fair game. This violates the principle of freedom and quite possibly compounds the issue of enjoyment even further.
HP3) In order to have an enjoyable game (as in gaming system), you have to have a chance to win any match. This also complies with the principle of open-endedness.
HP4) Being able to have an enjoyable game (I.E. having a chance at winning) with multiple builds/lists adds to enjoyment by allowing a player to field exactly the army he wants. This has the added benefit of compliance with the principle of freedom.
By having a properly balanced game we would have a chance at winning not only with every codex regardless of matchup (albeit matchups could and should affect the entity of such chance) but also with multiple army lists from the same codex.
It seems to me that having balance in 40k would make room for MORE narrative play (by making all matchups at least playable you could also forge a narrative for every match. As things are at the moment, some narratives would read like "and the taudar strike force autowon against X".) and more varied lists (no more mandatory deathstars in order to be able to win against all comers). If you wanted to have fun by playing a total stranger using the "vanilla" rules you could, whereas with the current rules/codices combination you may very well end up with an automatic loss without even deploying your models. If you wanted to have narrative-heavy games dependant on some house rules (for example, point/FOC handicaps in order to portray a small garrison bearing the brunt of a planetary invasion) you could do so in much the same way you can with the current rules/imbalances.
All things considered, having a balanced game (by tweaking existing options so that all are viable both in absolute terms and relative to other options, not by taking them away) seems like a win-win proposition to me. You can have narrative games with a bit of preparation and discussion beforehand or you could just play a casual/competitive and enjoyable game just using the standard ruleset. People who want to play narrative-heavy games with house rules would still be able to do so, while all the people who want to play against random people using the standard rules would be able to do so without having to worry about deathstars and auto-losses, making the game more enjoyable on the whole. A more enjoyable game would also have the benefit of a better player retention rate (and perhaps the ability to attract and keep new blood into the fold. Who knows, maybe among those new recruits there would be those who enjoy narrative-heavy games, further adding to the enjoyment of the narrative-minded people).
Welcome to Dakka, and well done on clearly putting some real thought and effort into your first post!
Unfortunately, Zwei can't answer your question because he doesn't have one, he will be along shortly to answer a question that somewhat resembles your question which he can respond to, and will then claim to have answered yours.
Thank you for choosing Zweischneid Logic Twist, we at Dakka appreciate that you have a choice in evasive double talk, and really appreciate your business.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ashiraya wrote: As much as I find Zwei's posts... Non-ideal, there is no need to be belittling. Rule #1, people.
I'm not belittling him, I'm accusing him of being evasive and intellectually disingenuous, something that there is copious evidence for in this and many other threads.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ashiraya wrote: As much as I find Zwei's posts... Non-ideal, there is no need to be belittling. Rule #1, people.
I think he was more opting for a warning. He's done this for a year or even years. Heck, just in this week he managed to push on basically two threads by himself and when questions arose he'd either push the field goal or evasively avoid topics and questions. He's fine outside of balance arguments. Problem is when you get into them there's no reasoning that is possible. That, or he just says you are now moving the field post even if you show evidence contrary to him.
I still can't wait to hear an answer to MWHistorian's question. All I'm reading are long, evasive answers that avoid the question and amount to "because I said so".
While they are singing "what a friend we have in the greater good", we are bringing the pain!
feth these technicalities and entailments and gak, the point of entry level philosophy papers is to be able to come to useful conclusions, not argue bs points on the internet.
The only sort of imbalance I approve of is "blah blah orks are hordey so we made their troops cheaper". If your balance isn't this no matter how many entailments or whatever deductive reasoning you try to apply your balance is terrible and doesn't improve the game one iota
I don't get it. I don't get how you can come in here and defend them. Yes, you can play 40k and have fun, usually. But the notion that somehow the game is in this acceptable state and everything's good, and that them supporting competitive play, good rules, and a slightly more balanced set of armies is somehow a bad thing is just.... sadly laughable. You're blindly defending a company's policies because you love the game 40k, but my god man, open your eyes. You are nothing more than a golden goose to them, and they do two things to get as much money as possible from you: jack up their prices to the maximum they can and minimize their re-investment (i.e. spending minimally on developing/play testing good rules). They're not some omnipotent bunch of geniuses who have developed the perfect game and the player base is just too stupid to play it the right way, they're a bunch of stockholders who overwork and under support their development in the name of maximizing profit in the short term.
Kilkrazy wrote: A balanced game is one in which a player's chance of winning is restricted by his ability and luck, not by the codex of his army.
.
An imbalanced system is one where the value of things* is not judged against the benchmark of "winning".
-----------
* including, say, the "value" or "usefulness" of the Pentinent Engine
Why does there have to be a dichotomy here?
You can easily have a funny, casual, and narrative game (i.e., not focused on winning) with a set of balanced rules.
You still haven't answered the fundamental questions that I and several others have asked you: how is imbalance better for variety (I refer you to my earlier example) and how does having balanced rules precluding having a narrative game?
Explain why I must suffer through several subpar codices for my army of choice but the Taudar and Daemons can repeatedly sweep everything they see with Guided triptides, Dakka serpents, and Screamer stars.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 12:04:06
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Kain wrote: Explain why I must suffer through several subpar codices for my army of choice but the Taudar and Daemons can repeatedly sweep everything they see with Guided triptides, Dakka serpents, and Screamer stars.
I have explained several times why - for me - imbalanced systems work better for narrative gaming. Most recently here.
If you disagree with my reasoning, I cannot possibly "prove" it to you.
If I find chocolate to be the best ice-cream flavour there is, I can describe to you in great detail why that is my personal preference,and why I spend my money on Chocolate ice-cream over vanilla..
If you despise chocolate, it is unlikely any of my reasoning will convince you. If you keep insisting that vanilla is just as good and everyone could enjoy ice-cream just as much if there was only vanilla, what do you want me to answer?
I firmly believe that a world with both chocolate and vanilla ice-cream is a better one than a world with only vanilla.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 12:17:39
Kain wrote: Explain why I must suffer through several subpar codices for my army of choice but the Taudar and Daemons can repeatedly sweep everything they see with Guided triptides, Dakka serpents, and Screamer stars.
I have explained several times why - for me - imbalanced systems work better for narrative gaming. Most recently here.
If you disagree with my reasoning, I cannot possibly "prove" it to you.
If I find chocolate to be the best ice-cream flavour there is, I can describe to you in great detail why that is my personal preference,and why I spend my money on Chocolate ice-cream over vanilla..
If you despise chocolate, it is unlikely any of my reasoning will convince you. If you keep insisting that vanilla is just as good and everyone could enjoy ice-cream just as much if there was only vanilla, what do you want me to answer?
I firmly believe that a world with both chocolate and vanilla ice-cream is a better one than a world with only vanilla.
This doesn't explain why my Tyranids are hovering near the bottom of the game's power levels and need to take hideous losses to do anything (while simultaneously being poorer at taking casualties than my Conscript heavy Guard) while my Screamerstar Daemons rip just about everything they see to shreds without so much as blinking or even taking any casualties on anything important.
Or why my Necrons can scythe down army after army in a virtual storm of tesla but my Orks repeatedly get their faces smashed unless everything goes exactly right.
I should not be punished for my preferences in armies.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
This doesn't explain why my Tyranids are hovering near the bottom of the game's power levels and need to take hideous losses to do anything (while simultaneously being poorer at taking casualties than my Conscript heavy Guard) while my Screamerstar Daemons rip just about everything they see to shreds without so much as blinking or even taking any casualties on anything important.
Or why my Necrons can scythe down army after army in a virtual storm of tesla but my Orks repeatedly get their faces smashed unless everything goes exactly right.
I should not be punished for my preferences in armies.
What reasons do you want me to give beyond those I've already given? I continue to describe why I like it. People do not agree. Fine. Horses for courses.
I am sorry you don't enjoy the game. I sincerely wish you would.
However, I do enjoy the game better that way, again for reasons you find in the link above, and I applaud Games Workshop for the way they have taken Warhammer 40K in 6th Edition. Personally, I find it awesome.
I should not be punished for my preferences in games.
Kain wrote: Explain why I must suffer through several subpar codices for my army of choice but the Taudar and Daemons can repeatedly sweep everything they see with Guided triptides, Dakka serpents, and Screamer stars.
I have explained several times why - for me - imbalanced systems work better for narrative gaming. Most recently here.
If you disagree with my reasoning, I cannot possibly "prove" it to you.
If I find chocolate to be the best ice-cream flavour there is, I can describe to you in great detail why that is my personal preference,and why I spend my money on Chocolate ice-cream over vanilla..
If you despise chocolate, it is unlikely any of my reasoning will convince you. If you keep insisting that vanilla is just as good and everyone could enjoy ice-cream just as much if there was only vanilla, what do you want me to answer?
I firmly believe that a world with both chocolate and vanilla ice-cream is a better one than a world with only vanilla.
So all you have is anecdotes and your own personal opinion?
Please tell me then; why should we care? What's the point of debating with a person who's unwilling to change his opinion, even when shown to be wrong?
This doesn't explain why my Tyranids are hovering near the bottom of the game's power levels and need to take hideous losses to do anything (while simultaneously being poorer at taking casualties than my Conscript heavy Guard) while my Screamerstar Daemons rip just about everything they see to shreds without so much as blinking or even taking any casualties on anything important.
Or why my Necrons can scythe down army after army in a virtual storm of tesla but my Orks repeatedly get their faces smashed unless everything goes exactly right.
I should not be punished for my preferences in armies.
What reasons do you want me to give beyond those I've already given? I continue to describe why I like it. People do not agree. Fine. Horses for courses.
I am sorry you don't enjoy the game. I sincerely wish you would.
However, I do enjoy the game better that way, again for reasons you find in the link above, and I applaud Games Workshop for the way they have taken Warhammer 40K in 6th Edition. Personally, I find it awesome.
I should not be punished for my preferences in games.
I like the game, I've sunk what I estimate to be a third of a million dollars into it over the course of my life and pretty much blew everything I won in a small lottery on it due to my questionable purchasing habits. I thus like to think that GW is doing something to make me think I'm getting my money's worth for everything I buy.
Having a blast only some of the time and then miserably removing Tyranid model after Tyranid model whenever lady luck does not favor me in every possible way she can should I not be using formations or house-ruling is not my idea of a well designed game.
I actually liked the game enough to obsessively fine-tune and houserule it with my friends and loving wife until we got something that was substantially less likely to screw you over if someone showed up with a 2++ rerollable daemon prince when you don't happen to have D-weapons in your pocket.
It's the fact that I love the game that makes me all the more unhappy with GW's very haphazard favoring of some armies over others.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/26 12:39:24
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Ya know how you look at damned near any unit in the game and there's options that are blatantly obviously better than others? Choices that you'd have to be silly to take (or not take depending on the situation)? Its amazing that GW can't even figure out something as simple as balancing a unit's options let alone balancing an entire game.
So all you have is anecdotes and your own personal opinion?
Please tell me then; why should we care? What's the point of debating with a person who's unwilling to change his opinion, even when shown to be wrong?
Well, there are things you can be shown to be right or wrong. And there are things that are personal bias. Look at the following.
(a) The current direction of Warhammer 40K must be the result of incompetence, it cannot be the result of intention.
(b) The current direction of Warhammer 40K might be the result of incompetence, but it could also be the result of intention.
A lot of the discussion over the recent days has been over these. People have been adamantly insisting on (a), because there allegedly can be no goal in game-design other than balance. I have tried to show that varieties of intentions in game design exist and that (b) is the correct view.
That is not a question of personal preference, but a dilemma that could be resolved with logic. I don't think I have been "proven wrong", but perhaps I missed it.
Look at the other case.
(1) I greatly enjoy the direction Warhammer 40K has taken.
(2) I despise the direction Warhammer 40K has taken.
These two are questions of personal bias. They can, admittedly, never be resolved to the extend that (1) or (2) is proven to be "wrong". However, online-communication can serve to inform other people as to why a person sees himself to be standing on either (1) or (2). But yes, it is impossible for you to prove me wrong on (1), just as it is impossible for me to prove you wrong on (2).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/26 12:57:23
Also, if you actually happen to not be enjoying 40K at the moment, yet already own the miniatures, I would recommend trying to play it "as the studio recommends"; Forge-the-Narrative-and-all, in a non-cynical, non-snarky way.
Again, what do you have to lose? What is the worst that could happen? If you still hate it afterwards, you've lost nothing. Are you afraid you might actually enjoy it?
I am surprised people are so adamantly convinced that something is broken which they never genuinely tried.
I tried several times , in different systems too . People play games only by the rules . If they play against a better player with a better army , but know they have a chance to win , they are happpy. If someone says he wants to play of last defense of X , there is no fun in it . One player knows he wins and the other knows he loses , and then the games loses the little charm it has to mindless dice rolling and checking if it takes 6 or more turns to wipe someone out . Other games have objectives , there are missions ,there is never full balance , but I have never seen someone flip the table , because their opponent has an infinity army that works well in 0G or cygnar army that is good at tar piting . With w40k it is the case either me or my opponent fliping the table all the time . Either my list is better or his is , to a point where skill and playing with the list is less important , then the prebuild army list GW codex designers made.
People play tabel top games , because they want to play table top games and not do something GW calls "shaping the narrative" which has nothing to do with table top gaming . It can do something with GW wanting to sell more models or covering their butts for their inability to write rules. There is no way anyone can tell me that GW didn't knew that the eldar+ally system is going to break the game , now if they still did it , because they are incompetent or they think it will make people army hop and generate more sales is a different thing .
2375
/ 
1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
