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:

f2k wrote:


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.

It has to be A because B makes no business sense. Why would GW as a business want to not sell models, due to their unbalanced rules, which it would otherwise be possible to sell?

If you can answer that, with a proper financial argument which has nothing to do with "Forging-the Narrative" or any other marketing terms, then I am listening.

As an example: Would it benefit Ford as a business if their large cars ran well, in fact better than some of their competition, but all their smaller cars caught fire as soon as you turned the ignition?

After all, their larger cars are still okay but they just made a sizeable amount of their products useless to a large proportion of potential customers.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


It has to be A because B makes no business sense. Why would GW as a business want to not sell models, due to their unbalanced rules, which it would otherwise be possible to sell?

That assumes that unbalanced rules have no audience, no customers.

Which may even be true (I don't think it is, but hey.. that's my personal bias), but you don't know if you don't give it a try.

If Ford would've never dared to experiment a little, they'd still be selling horse carriages.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


It has to be A because B makes no business sense. Why would GW as a business want to not sell models, due to their unbalanced rules, which it would otherwise be possible to sell?

That assumes that unbalanced rules have no audience, no customers.

Which may even be true (I don't think it is, but hey.. that's my personal bias), but you don't know if you don't give it a try.

If Ford would've never dared to experiment a little, they'd still be selling horse carriages.

And, you fail to answer the question. How does not selling miniatures due to bad rules benefit GW as a business?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


And, you fail to answer the question. How does not selling miniatures due to bad rules benefit GW as a business?

I don't. Lets for the moment assume that it IS bad for business.

Is it absolutely 100% impossible that a business could act against something that you consider good business sense?


Are you therefore absolutely 100% sure that the current direction of 40K cannot possibly in any way be intended, even by reasons you consider bad from business perspective?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


It has to be A because B makes no business sense. Why would GW as a business want to not sell models, due to their unbalanced rules, which it would otherwise be possible to sell?

That assumes that unbalanced rules have no audience, no customers.

Which may even be true (I don't think it is, but hey.. that's my personal bias), but you don't know if you don't give it a try.

I'm not seeing many people weighing in to support you in this or the other thread you've made about this subject, so this, and general life and gaming experience tells me you're likely in the minority, maybe in the extreme minority.

Now, niche marketing is definitely a valid approach to a business, but trying to turn the largest, most ubiquitous product in a market into a niche product is just fething stupid.

If Ford would've never dared to experiment a little, they'd still be selling horse carriages.

More likely, someone else would have had the idea and then we'd all be hailing Smith or Jones as the inventor of the modern automobile.

That aside, experimentation is all well and good, but any business that experiments needs to a) very carefully select what is worth taking a risk on and b) be prepared to walk away if it isn't working.

GW has painted itself into a corner where their portfolio of products is so narrow that A isn't feasible and their "character" as an organisation historically suggests that B would be very tough for them.

Here's what I understand of Zwei's position.

"I like 40k. It's a total mess where some units are utterly useless and some units are way better than everything else. I like how half the units are never played because they suck and others are always taken because they're obviously better thus ensuring I see the same armies over and over again. But somehow this increases variety because of reasons. I like it when a BA player has no chance of winning and when a Taudar has no chance of losing. I think that's awesome though I won't say why. I think its dumb that a player should expect at least a chance of winning. People don't play games to win. GW is doing great financially so shouldn't change their business model at all because Banshees sucking to the point of hilarity has ZERO impact on how they sell and that's good business strategy! So you all who think the codices should at least be in the same ballpark of ability can go to hades because I'm right and I won't support with reasons why I am."

That's pretty much how I've interpreted what you're saying. If that's not what you're saying you should restate your ideas in a clear way (without so much Logic 101) and with specific reasons why.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like it when a BA player has no chance of winning and when a Taudar has no chance of losing.

It's not only about winning or losing, as stated repeatedly in the 40K rulebook.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like it when a BA player has no chance of winning and when a Taudar has no chance of losing.

It's not only about winning or losing, as stated repeatedly in the 40K rulebook.

What's so narrative about Blood Angels, Ork, or Tyranid failing to even vaguely annoy a Taudar, Imperial mess of allies list, or Tzeentch Daemon list that sweeps them off the table in a storm of firepower without taking any casualties of note?

Again and again and again.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think that's awesome though I won't say why.

I repeatedly said why I think it is awesome.

Whether my reasons are similar to those of GW, I cannot say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:

What's so narrative about Blood Angels, Ork, or Tyranid failing to even vaguely annoy a Taudar, Imperial mess of allies list, or Tzeentch Daemon list that sweeps them off the table in a storm of firepower without taking any casualties of note?

Again and again and again.

Again my answer.

This is hilarious. It's like King Canute combined with every politician ever.

Zwei, just stop. We've taken away the shovel yet you continue to dig.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Here's what I understand of Zwei's position.

"I like 40k. It's a total mess where some units are utterly useless and some units are way better than everything else. I like how half the units are never played because they suck and others are always taken because they're obviously better thus ensuring I see the same armies over and over again. But somehow this increases variety because of reasons. I like it when a BA player has no chance of winning and when a Taudar has no chance of losing. I think that's awesome though I won't say why. I think its dumb that a player should expect at least a chance of winning. People don't play games to win. GW is doing great financially so shouldn't change their business model at all because Banshees sucking to the point of hilarity has ZERO impact on how they sell and that's good business strategy! So you all who think the codices should at least be in the same ballpark of ability can go to hades because I'm right and I won't support with reasons why I am."

That's pretty much how I've interpreted what you're saying. If that's not what you're saying you should restate your ideas in a clear way (without so much Logic 101) and with specific reasons why.

You forgot "Competitive player are the bane of existence and ruin 40k with their mere presence"

Guy, I know that this is a discussion forum and all, but Zwei has been like this for a year+ now, and I have no reason to believe that any amount of proof, logic, or explanation will change his mind. Just do what I did and put him on your ignore list. I promise your lives will be better off.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think that's awesome though I won't say why.

I repeatedly said why I think it is awesome.

Whether my reasons are similar to those of GW, I cannot say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:

What's so narrative about Blood Angels, Ork, or Tyranid failing to even vaguely annoy a Taudar, Imperial mess of allies list, or Tzeentch Daemon list that sweeps them off the table in a storm of firepower without taking any casualties of note?

Again and again and again.

Again my answer.

Rubbish reason.

You insist repeatedly, and incorrectly that 40k is the seemingly the only game that allows player input, and creativity to create games outside what's in the book. I can and have done that with plenty other games, whether infinity, warmachine, flames of war or any number of 'balanced' wargames. I like interesting scenarios. I like unique once off games that have no how-to guide in its rulebooks. But I can achieve that on my own, the 40k rules set does not help, or assist in this.

Despite what you seem to think, an unbalanced rules set does not foster creativity on the part of its players. It does not foster variety in what appears on the table top.

this type of game requires one thing, and One thing only:a group of like minded individuals. Unbalanced rules are not needed, just creativity. At the end of the day, Balanced rules won't hurt my group when we run cool unique scenarios. But when I play this game elsewhere, whether in tourney mode or a casual pick up at the lgs, balanced rules are required. Imbalanced rules simply do not help in either situation.

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

I'm willing to concede that game systems geared towards competitive play tend to attract competitive gamers.
I'm using competitive instead of balanced here because in order to play competitively there has to be some form of balance, but balance does not necessarily imply that a game is geared exclusively towards competitiveness.
Buying into a system explicitly geared towards something you dislike would be shooting yourself in the foot.

40k has always had a strong focus on the fluff and narrative aspects of the game (remember the campaign rules with xp gain in the 3rd edition rulebook? or themed missions at the end of some codices such as Dark Eldar or Space Marines, also in 3rd edition?). In my opinion, such strong background appeals to people who like narrative games while being irrelevant to competitive gamers (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as a 100% competitive 0% narrative gamer).
Having a balanced gaming system combined with the huge potential of 40k background and fluff would cater to both ends of the spectrum. It would allow competitive players to just play games without thinking of the fluff, it would still retain all its potential for narrative games (if you want to play unbalanced scenarios you can still whip up a house rule or two for that scenario, which is what you seem to advocate doing anyway) AND it would allow people to experiment with another way of gaming. If a narrative player wanted to take a break and play a total stranger without having to come up with a fluffy backstory for the match, he could. If a competitive gamer wanted to experience a narrative campaign, he could. The ability to play both ways (and 40k is uniquely positioned to allow people to do so).

Back to the point.
A "broken" (balance-wise) 40k may be more "narrative" but not in a healthy way. It's not that the game tends to attract more narrative players than it does competitive ones but rather tends to drive away everyone else faster than it does narrative players (who are less affected by broken rules since they are more likely to use house rules anyway).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like it when a BA player has no chance of winning and when a Taudar has no chance of losing.

It's not only about winning or losing, as stated repeatedly in the 40K rulebook.

It's also about the uncertainty of the outcome, as stated in the 40k rulebook. Specifically, in that "Spirit of the game" section you are so fond of (Freedom, Open-endedness etc...).
Taudar or screamer star autowinning is not "narrative" (certainly not more than an uncertain match) and most definitely not open-ended. You know the outcome of the match before deployment.

Deadnight wrote:

Rubbish reason.

You insist repeatedly, and incorrectly that 40k is the seemingly the only game that allows player input, and creativity to create games outside what's in the book. I can and have done that with plenty other games, whether infinity, warmachine, flames of war or any number of 'balanced' wargames. I like interesting scenarios. I like unique once off games that have no how-to guide in its rulebooks. But I can achieve that on my own, the 40k rules set does not help, or assist in this.

Despite what you seem to think, an unbalanced rules set does not foster creativity on the part of its players. It does not foster variety in what appears on the table top.

this type of game requires one thing, and One thing only:a group of like minded individuals. Unbalanced rules are not needed, just creativity. At the end of the day, Balanced rules won't hurt my group when we run cool unique scenarios. But when I play this game elsewhere, whether in tourney mode or a casual pick up at the lgs, balanced rules are required. Imbalanced rules simply do not help in either situation.

Well put.

I played two games of Infinity last night and watched a third. More narratives were forged than any of my recent games of 40k. I didn't need to worry about list composition or anything, just points level and play.

Seeing a man-sized God trying to steam roll an army being put down by a brave trooper that stood up to face him was hilarious.

Seeing a remote control mech being wasted by soul-less automatons standing their ground to the bitter end was awesome.

And the games were done in 40 minutes. So you got creamed, wanna do it again?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 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 your definition of narrative is that Tau, Eldar, and Daemons should usually win, CSM, Orks, and Nids should usually get tabled, Thousand Sons and Tzeentch armies without daemons should get curb stomped, and so on? Alright then so narrative!

... this is asking for Narrative Doge... but I cba to create one.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think that's awesome though I won't say why.

I repeatedly said why I think it is awesome.

Whether my reasons are similar to those of GW, I cannot say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:

What's so narrative about Blood Angels, Ork, or Tyranid failing to even vaguely annoy a Taudar, Imperial mess of allies list, or Tzeentch Daemon list that sweeps them off the table in a storm of firepower without taking any casualties of note?

Again and again and again.

Again my answer.

You have stated your reasons on many occasions, but allow me to explain why I personally disagree.

I have been playing 40k for over 6 years now. Over the years, many armies have slowly vanished into obscurity: Sisters of Battle, Orkz, Blood Angels, Tyranids and Grey Knights to name a few. I no longer have the opportunity to play against these armies, nor does anybody else in my local gaming area. I know many fellow gamers who used to run these armies, and virtually all of them either shelved or sold them for the same reason: playing against the new power gaming armies, your Eldar, Tau, Daemons, etc. week after week with their underpowered armies became frustrating, and they either switched armies or abandoned the game entirely. Their departure takes something away from the 40k community as whole. I would like to see my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Tyranid players return to the hobby and to be able to enjoy the 40k again, and balancing 40k would be a small price to pay to rebuild the community.

On an independent note I have noticed that both myself and my opponent obtain the most enjoyment from a game of 40k in close, tight games that are not decided until the very last round. This situation occurs most frequently when the opposing armies are well balanced. Conversely, when the game balance is skewed, one army just steamrolls the other, and both players tend to get bored and disinterested.

My observations resulting from playing 40k for the past 6 years suggest the game would be vastly improved if GW would balance the various units and factions in the game so everybody could enjoy a fair game regardless of the factions or units they chose. I know the cost of leaving the game imbalanced: people leaving the game permanently, leaving the community poorer. Entire armies vanishing from the gaming scene, to rarely, if ever, be seen or played against. Boring, frustrating and tedious matches that are decided before they began. All of which could be fixed through improved game balance.

Now as you have mentioned you have repeatedly explain why 40k should remain imbalanced. In fact, I count at least three massive threads where these explanations can be found throughout. However, I find myself wholly unable to comprehend or understand most of these explanations. The few I can understand simply aren't satisfactory. You claim you personally prefer imbalanced games as a subjective preference, but that provides me with no further insight into why. You claim it could diminish variety, even though their are methods of balancing the game, such as adjusting the points cost, that do not eliminate any of the options currently available. Finally, you expressed a desired to play various narrative based scenarios, which would be unaltered by any game balanced adjustments made to 40k.

What I fail to understand is how the game could be made poorer if you eliminated the inherent imbalances. How does imbalance enrich the game? What is lost when the game is balanced? What are you no longer able to when the game becomes balanced? You should still be able to run scenarios, come up with your own house rules, ignore rules you dislike, and provide interesting narrative descriptions of the tabletop battles taking place. I know I would be able to do all these just as easily in a balanced game system as an imbalanced game system. So where is the deficiency? What is it? And what is it specifically you would be unable to do if the game were balanced, especially if this were achieved by largely by just changing the point cost associated with each unit so that every option remains available?

What is so important about maintaining game imbalance that improvements cannot be made to bring my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Nid players back into the hobby?

Phanixis wrote:


What is so important about maintaining game imbalance that improvements cannot be made to bring my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Nid players back into the hobby?

I'd like a flyer...

 TheKbob wrote:

Phanixis wrote:


What is so important about maintaining game imbalance that improvements cannot be made to bring my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Nid players back into the hobby?

I'd like a flyer...

You will buy your overpriced avenger strike fighter and you will like it!

Phanixis wrote:
(...)

I have been playing 40k for over 6 years now. Over the years, many armies have slowly vanished into obscurity: Sisters of Battle, Orkz, Blood Angels, Tyranids and Grey Knights to name a few. I no longer have the opportunity to play against these armies, nor does anybody else in my local gaming area. I know many fellow gamers who used to run these armies, and virtually all of them either shelved or sold them for the same reason: playing against the new power gaming armies, your Eldar, Tau, Daemons, etc. week after week with their underpowered armies became frustrating, and they either switched armies or abandoned the game entirely. Their departure takes something away from the 40k community as whole. I would like to see my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Tyranid players return to the hobby and to be able to enjoy the 40k again, and balancing 40k would be a small price to pay to rebuild the community.
(...)
My observations resulting from playing 40k for the past 6 years suggest the game would be vastly improved if GW would balance the various units and factions in the game so everybody could enjoy a fair game regardless of the factions or units they chose. I know the cost of leaving the game imbalanced: people leaving the game permanently, leaving the community poorer. Entire armies vanishing from the gaming scene, to rarely, if ever, be seen or played against. Boring, frustrating and tedious matches that are decided before they began. All of which could be fixed through improved game balance.
(...)
What I fail to understand is how the game could be made poorer if you eliminated the inherent imbalances. How does imbalance enrich the game? What is lost when the game is balanced? What are you no longer able to when the game becomes balanced? You should still be able to run scenarios, come up with your own house rules, ignore rules you dislike, and provide interesting narrative descriptions of the tabletop battles taking place. I know I would be able to do all these just as easily in a balanced game system as an imbalanced game system. So where is the deficiency? What is it? And what is it specifically you would be unable to do if the game were balanced, especially if this were achieved by largely by just changing the point cost associated with each unit so that every option remains available?

What is so important about maintaining game imbalance that improvements cannot be made to bring my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Nid players back into the hobby?

Exalted.

My gaming group in 5th was nearly destroyed and fractured into small warbands during the 2011 apocalipse, due to a mix of retcons & bad fluff and lack of balance. The new Grey Knight codex was too much for many armies, and for Daemons it was impossible. I saw new, young, competitive players who utterly despised the background of the game mocking veteran players after defeating them in turn 1 just by using warp quake. It poisoned the environment and many people left. Then came the Sisters and more people left. And then the Necrons. And then 6th with compulsory flyers and fortifications: you either got them or you lose.

It is amazing the number of ex-players 40k has, people who left the game after being forced to choose between changing the army they like or accepting they are going to be tabled before turn 4.

While many things Zweischneid says sound reasonable and insightful, the final conclusion is, for me, absurd. The lack of balance and fairness of the game is damaging it. There is nothing (house rules, talking with other players, narrative campaigns) that is needed to be associated with the lack of balance. Quite the contrary I think.

And the concept of Perfect Imbalance (which is it itself another form of balance) works well for something like DotA, but not for 40k. You need factions you don´t get emotionally involved to after investing lots of time and effort on them, you need extremely cheap and easy to change armies on the second, and you need constant changes to keep it flowing. None of that can apply to w40k except for hardcore competitive players with lots of spare money and the desire to keep with the releases, which it seems is GW´s target now.

Phanixis wrote:

(...)
On an independent note I have noticed that both myself and my opponent obtain the most enjoyment from a game of 40k in close, tight games that are not decided until the very last round. This situation occurs most frequently when the opposing armies are well balanced. Conversely, when the game balance is skewed, one army just steamrolls the other, and both players tend to get bored and disinterested.
(...)

^This!!

As a not-competitive player, I care not for who wins of who loses, as long as the battle is fun to play. And fun to play means a tight, hard game where tactics or decisions mean something. When the game balance fails, and one army steamrolls the other, it doesn´t matter to me if I am winning or losing: I do not get any fun.

A curious observation for somebody in it for 6 years. Most "dakka-ites" who played not just six years ago, but only 2 or 3 years ago, complained about the exact inverse, that Blood Angels and Grey Knights are allegedly "overpowered" and armies like Tau, Eldar or Daemons serve no no purpose, are not played by anybody, languishing on the shelf.

Those dakka-ites were in fact correct. Toward the end of 5e edition, both Blood Angles and Grey Knights were among the dominant armies, but both quickly fell into obscurity shortly after the release of 6e. Putting things on a timeline, Sisters were already out of favor when I started gaming. Orkz were strong early 5e but started falling out of favor as 5e progressed. Tyranids starting vanishing after the 5e Tyranid codex was released. Blood Angels and Grey Knights actually saw a resurgence after their associated codices were release, but that resurgence failed to survive the transition from 5e to 6e. In the end, however, all the aforementioned codices have largely vanished from my local gaming scene.

But if that is your experience, it just proves that all those years of whining about Grey Knights = Overpowered were now a universally shared experience.

Not quite. Shortly after the release of their last codex, the Grey Knights were overpowered. The transfer to 6e and the new 6e codices have since altered the game to the point were they are now among the weaker armies. I do not believe they are as crippled as armies such as BA and SoB, but they have definitely fallen in relative power.

Great. I have noticed that both myself and my opponent obtain the most enjoyment from the game when we don't concern ourselves with wining or "closeness" of results. Or results.

The reason I enjoy close games has nothing to do with an explicit interest in the "closeness" of the game. It just so happens that the most interesting elements of the game tend to emerge when the game is close. In close games, considerable portions of both opposing armies remain intact throughout the game while key objectives remain contested. This means each individual decision and troop movement becomes pivotal and players are often forced to resort to unorthodox and unconventional tactics to win the day. It becomes a true test of tactical skill, and makes the game all the more immersive.

In a grossly unbalanced game, one side simply melts and that is it. Basically, nothing really happens. The players roll some dice while one player just slowly packs up their models. I like more from my 40k games than either packing up my own models or watching my opponent do the same over the course of two rounds.

My observation resulting from at least as many years of playing 40K, on and off, is that 6th Edition is by far the best Edition for my enjoyment. Everybody could enjoy the game more if they'd embrace the idea of a short pre-game discussion to make the game exactly the way they want to do, and no person would ever again need to suffer through the dull, "bean-counter" point games that defined previous editions of 40K, unless they intentionally chose to do so.

I am not just concerned with my enjoyment. I am a long time Tau and Eldar player, and thus fairly well off in this edition (although I still prefer 4e). However, a great many others weren't as lucky. They are leaving the hobby. I want to see this exodus stopped. That is why I am pushing for game balance.

As noted, the claim that possibility of unaltered narrative emphasis in balanced games, which people repeatedly claim, has not been born out in experience, not in previous editions of 40K and not in other games by other companies.

This claim simply makes no sense. Let say you create a scenario in which 15 SM terminators must hold a choke point against 100 guants and a hive tyrant, a dramatic last stand of sorts. If the point cost of Tyranid and Space Marine models are then altered to ensure 1000 points of Nids = 1000 points of SM, this scenario is not effected in the slightest, as it never made any reference to point cost to begin with, just model number. This is why I cannot fathom how balancing the game is impacting your narrative based gameplay, their simply is no logical connection between game balance adjustments and narrative scenarions that operate under their own rules.

Furthermore, my experience contradicts your own. I have participated in a great variety of narrative based games in 5e, but yet have had the opportunity take part in a truly narrative based game in 6e. Granted, a lot of the 5e narrative games was thinks to individual players to store owners willing to create the narrative scenarios, but that is kind of the point. The ability to play narrative based games appears to depend entirely on the willingness of individual members of the community to create them, and not contingent upon the particulars of the rules of the particular edition, including balance adjustments.

I am sorry that my reasons do not satisfy you. Above, you claimed that you get the most enjoyment from balanced, close-fought games, but that equally doesn't provide me with further insight into why. Just that you do.

Hopefully I can impress upon you the consequences of 40k's poor imbalance instead, so you can be provided with some objective measure of what is going on.

What I fail to understand is how the game could be made poorer if all other options are eliminated. The ability to play balanced games is in no way diminished if you take the time to declare this as the mutual ambition between yourself and your opponent before the game, and ensure that this happens.

But other people enjoy other things, and forcing your preferred style of gaming on other people, just because you feel incapable of a minute of pre-game talk, seems unusually ego-centrist and intolerant to me.

Here is the situation. A great many of us participate in store hosted events: leagues (seasonal, escalation, etc.), tournaments, campaigns. When you play in such hosted games, you are bound by the stores rules, which typically use RAW. Hence their are many times in which players are bound by RAW. Thus RAW needs to yield a fair game without any sort of house rule modifications.

Conversely, heavily-house ruled narrative games are not bound by RAW in the slightest. They are free to depart in any manner the players desire. Thus, you can satisfy both player bases by balancing RAW so those who play by RAW can enjoy a fair game, while those who don't play RAW are free to modify the game until it plays in a manner that is satisfying to them. I view this as a win-win scenario that satisfies all.

To put it another way, if you don't intend to play according to RAW, than modifications to RAW should no more effect you 40k experience than modifications to X-Wing or Warmachine would. Your not playing by those rules to begin with, so why would you care if they are changed?

What is so important about little numbers on a page that you let them stop you from playing the armies you enjoy?

Those numbers are causing my fellow 40k players to leave the hobby because of how they impact the game as played under RAW. That is why they are important to me. But they don't seem important to you in the slightest, so perhaps you could give the rest of us the courtesy of changing them so we can keep our communities intact.

Phanixis wrote:


Here is the situation. I great many of us participate in store hosted events: leagues (seasonal, escalation, etc.), tournaments, campaigns. When you play in such hosted games, you are bound by the stores rules, which typically use RAW. Hence their are many times in which players are bound by RAW. Thus RAW needs to yield a fair game without any sort of house rule modifications.

Conversely, heavily-house ruled narrative games are not bound by RAW in the slightest. They are free to depart in any manner the players desire. Thus, you can satisfy both player bases by balancing RAW so those who play by RAW can enjoy a fair game, while those who don't play RAW are free to modify the game until it plays in a manner that is satisfying to them. I view this as a win-win scenario that satisfies all.

What is so important about little numbers on a page that you let them stop you from playing the armies you enjoy?

Those numbers are causing my fellow 40k players to leave the hobby because of how they impact the game as played under RAW. That is why they are important to me. But they don't seem important to you in the slightest, so perhaps you could give the rest of us the courtesy of changing them so we can keep our communities intact.

Well, there you identified your problem -- RAW.

RAW is an unfortunately widespread house-rule variation of the 40K that willfully ignores some of the highest-order rulings in the book... "Spirit of the Game"; "Forging the Narrative", "The Golden Rule".

While that is in itself not necessarily bad, the amount of despair and teeth-gnashing the RAW-variant of 40K causes seems cause of some concern.

Try playing the game as the game designers intend it to be played, before making a judgement whether the rules are good or bad.

The designers can hardly be held accountable for your silly RAW-variation that purposefully ignores central tenets of the game. If you change it, and it is no fun, how can that be designers fault?

Phanixis wrote:

To put it another way, if you don't intend to play according to RAW, than modifications to RAW should no more effect you 40k experience than modifications to X-Wing or Warmachine would. Your not playing by those rules to begin with, so why would you care if they are changed?

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.

Here we go again folks...

Zwei, I'm actually interested, could you give us a rough breakdown of how your last game was played?

Not a blow by blow bat rep, unless you're so inclined, but sort of a general, I took this, he took that, turn 1 this happened, turn 2 that happened type of thing, feel free to highlight any particularly cool things that occurred, or steps you took to help the game be more narrative focused.

 azreal13 wrote:
Zwei, I'm actually interested, could you give us a rough breakdown of how your last game was played?

Not a blow by blow bat rep, unless you're so inclined, but sort of a general, I took this, he took that, turn 1 this happened, turn 2 that happened type of thing, feel free to highlight any particularly cool things that occurred, or steps you took to help the game be more narrative focused.

And if you can, lists. I'm kind of interested as well. For all I disagree with you, I'm a fluffer at heart with a tendency for narratives.

On a side note, I'd like to talk about those close games. I agree with Phanixis here. It's not really the closeness of the game that sells it. It's what comes of it. It's that excitement as every decision changes the conclusion, every single mistake makes the odds spin around. The game where you can't tell who will win until the dust is settled. I have some examples cause why not!

It was my daemons versus my friend's Nids. We both didn't bring the most optimized list but it wasn't entirely a joke either. He had tervigons when they were good and leaned slightly on hordes whilst I had a mixture of good and bad units to even the playingfield. On that day, we fought continuously, slaughtering one another. Bloodletters crumpling under hordes of tyranids with almost no mention, Pink Horrors erasing hordes with volleys of magical flame before being erased by gaunts. My skull canon reigned down upon his units in a vicious flurry whilst he tried to tear it apart only for it to miraculously survive with only 1HP. My Lord of Change? I had messed around and managed to create a true monster. Something I'll likely never roll again. He pulled amazing stunts, crushing everything in his path a machine of terror and death that he constantly sent monsters at trying to kill it only to realize my ruse. That was the trap all along. I wanted him to funnel all of his forces to my Lord of Change to distract him. Basically scare tactics are fun. Finally, it hit the last turn for myself. My skull canon fired, missing its target but remaining alive whilst my Lord of Change swept in and killed 5 gaunts that were holding an objective and consolidated to the goal the last gaunt stood on. All that remained was one warrior and one gaunt. His turn came and the warrior swung at the skullcanon trying to finish it off to capture an objective. He failed however. The gaunt though, made a desperate run and just managed to roll a 6 with fleet managing to get him just within range of capturing the one uncontested objective. One more turn and I would have crushed him for good but it really came to the last roll to decide whether it would be a tie or a draw. And that was amazing.

I want that but I want to do that with all units. Those are the stories I remember despite it being nearly a year since this game occured. That's what inspires me and makes me continue to like this game despite it's flaws. Even if I don't really play competitively, I'd want to have this experience with anybody. No tabling, no imbalanced beginning. No, if I want to makee the game in one player's advantage for a narrative game I'll take less units to represent a game where I shall likely fall but continue nonetheless but the original rules shouldn't be in such a way. It's so easy to break things.... it's so difficult to balance them though.

Well, there you identified your problem -- RAW.

RAW is an unfortunately widespread house-rule variation of the 40K that willfully ignores some of the highest-order rulings in the book... "Spirit of the Game"; "Forging the Narrative", "The Golden Rule".

While that is in itself not necessarily bad, the amount of despair and teeth-gnashing the RAW-variant of 40K causes seems cause of some concern.

Try playing the game as the game designers intend it to be played, before making a judgement whether the rules are good or bad.

If I haven't made it clear already, I already have played numerous scenarios using non-RAW variants. And they are indeed enjoyable. And I would never begrudge you, or anyone else, for playing the game the way you want to play. If playing narrative games is what makes you happy, you should be allowed to play the game as you see fit.

However, a lot of us are often stuck playing RAW, regardless of our preferences. When a gaming store host an event, be it a league or a tournament or something else, they are going to be running RAW. And when this happens, you have two choices, you either go to the hosted event and play the game according to RAW, or you stay home. There is, sadly, no middle ground. So RAW might as well be made to work correctly.

The designers can hardly be held accountable for your silly RAW-variation that purposefully ignores central tenets of the game. If you change it, and it is no fun, how can that be designers fault?

Generally speaking, when I follow somebodies instructions to the letter, and their instructions do not work, I consider those instructions flawed. That is exactly what RAW is, it is the designers explicit instructions on how to play the game, and they really ought to work correctly. I have nothing against modifying them, but they still need to work as is.

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.

This is where I have lost you. So you are not playing by RAW, so the games you specifically are playing aren't effected by game balance adjustments to begin with. But game balance still bothers you because they are corrupting the mindset of other players? Did I get that right?

First off, this is seriously questionably. I can't fathom how adjusting the points cost associated with certain units would suddenly make other players completely unwilling to play narrative scenarios. Second, it almost sounds like you want RAW to be broken so players have no choice but to adopt narrative scenarios. But just as you have the right to enjoy narrative based games, shouldn't those people who want to play RAW have the right to enjoy RAW based games? Can't both camps be happy. Maybe even have a shared experience, with the RAW players playing the occasional narrative based scenarios while the narrative players occasional play RAW games. Does RAW really have to be broken simply so you can enjoy narrative based games?

I still see no reason why we cannot satisfy both RAW and narrative players alike.

I had posted something similar to this in the old thread before it was locked (as it was being locked, actually) but the gist of it, Zwei, is that no amount of house rule or discussion can fix actual broken rules. No amount of talking to your opponent beforehand can change the fact that CSM are underpowered, Riptides are OP, allies are broken, etc short of rewriting the rules to be sane.

What you're arguing on the surface is reasonable, but it ignores the fact that it takes a lot more than "Do you want a casual/friendly game?" before playing to deal with some of the glaring errors that 40k allows because the designers don't care.

You seem to be like GW - you play in your own bubble with a meta that doesn't do anything odd or strange and has no problem "forging the narrative", so you are actually incapable of seeing any problem that exists and indeed outright seem to deny that any such problem is there.

Try playing the game as the game designers intend it to be played, before making a judgement whether the rules are good or bad.

I am sorry but this is so ludicrously insane that I can't believe you said it. Try playing the game as the designers intend it? Why don't they write it that way then? Seriously, the fact you actually said this speaks volumes and honestly removes any shred of having a rational discussion with you over it. The way the designers intend it, in any other sane environment, would be the way it's written without this mythical "spirit of the game" or "forge the narrative" that isn't even defined and is up to the individual player(s) to decide.

If the designers intend that the rulebook is NOT the way that the game should be played, then not only are they grossly incompetent but they are fething idiots. When you publish rules you are outlining how the game is to be played, full stop. If the rules allow for X to happen and the designers didn't intend for X to happen, then the designers have failed; you are basically saying that the rulebook is inconsequential to playing the game because the rules aren't the way the game is meant to be played.

That is, to be blunt, absolutely fething stupidity.

Yesterday I walked through a game with someone who'd not only never played 40k, but never played any tabletop war game. Some of the debate in this thread was running through my head as i tried to explain what i meant when i said we were playing with "500 points."

As a thought experiment, try explaining what "points" are without referring to in-game balance or relative power level. Maybe I'm not a great teacher, but I couldn't do it.

Points are like resources or currency allowed to each side much like a budget. It's a set value to determine what your limit is to units and equipment without exceeding your budget.

Did I do it right?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Points are like resources or currency allowed to each side much like a budget. It's a set value to determine what your limit is to units and equipment without exceeding your budget.

Did I do it right?

And why do both sides have the same budget?