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.
Why can’t this target group of players have a separate tournament to guarantee they have fun fair games?
I thoroughly disagree on every other point, but I agree with this. Have a gaming 'event' alongside the big battle of the deathstars and see how many of the casual gamers attend that instead.
i would agree with this point as well, i would love to see a tournament or event geared towards a more casual play style, I think it would be a pain to try to come up with a set of rules to govern it but i think it would be enjoyable. Thats to to say you cant take a "fun" or "themed" army to an event like adepticon and go in expecting to not do well....but at the end of the day no one likes getting curb stomped for a weekend.
Like I said above, allies really reduce my interest in playing 40k competitively, whether its because it hurts my fluff soul to see the combos or just because some many people use the same stuff, I'm just not a fan of the competitive landscape anymore, which is a true shame as in previous editions I really enjoyed going to bigger tournaments and playing the game a bit more serious
I addressed that but my post got caught with the page rollover so quoting it over:
RiTides wrote: AdeptiCon had an "alongside" event this year, but in reverse to what you suggest. Want no holds barred 40k? Go for it! Lords of War, everything was in.
Did I mention the event had 13 players
Yes, it was going up against the Championships, but you can't expect a Con to make the less popular format the main one. If you want unrestricted 40k, there are events for it... you can play in it alongside the main event just like you're suggesting, but in reverse
You can't make the argument you are and then say you don't want Escalation (as you posted above). If it's GW's job to balance alone, then why should TOs care that you might have to face a Revenant behind a Void Shield? Your argument doesn't work or is hypocritical when put into practice... unless you really do want to play that way, but you said above that you don't.
Yeah I think its pretty easy to go that direction tides, anything goes 40k doesnt require much input, Im not sure how you would even run a "casual" event. Aside from doing something small scale like a 500 point kill team game, but again its likely to always be along side the "main" event so participation would likely be small
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 00:01:08
Using the words sensei and guru bother people alot, my sensei doesnt somehow makes him your sensei.
RiTides wrote: AdeptiCon had an "alongside" event this year, but in reverse to what you suggest. Want no holds barred 40k? Go for it! Lords of War, everything was in.
Did I mention the event had 13 players
What does this have to do with me? Yes, I said there should be a tournament with no restrictions because 13 people would play in it, every player counts.
RiTides wrote: Yes, it was going up against the Championships, but you can't expect a Con to make the less popular format the main one. If you want unrestricted 40k, there are events for it... you can play in it alongside the main event just like you're suggesting, but in reverse
Your putting words in my mouth, and making it seem as if I want to force others to do what I think is right when all you have to do is read the last paragraph of the articles to see that I dont care what the restrictions are I will sharpen or dull my list and enjoy the games, I like the competition.
RiTides wrote: You can't make the argument you are and then say you don't want Escalation (as you posted above). If it's GW's job to balance alone, then why should TOs care that you might have to face a Revenant behind a Void Shield? Your argument doesn't work or is hypocritical when put into practice... unless you really do want to play that way, but you said above that you don't.
I get it your trying to make it seem as if the entire article is about escalation allowance which it is not. TOs care because its their job is to make sure that everyone has a good time and facing the titan is not a good time.Players like me enjoy the competition and dont care in the fashion that we lose or win but others do. Restrictions are made to fix that problem so players dont feel like they didnt stand a chance from the jump.
How can you say my arguement when no one is arguing? I made a statement saying GW controls balance and TOs job is to try to make sure that casual players enjoy themselves at tournaments. In your mind its all about escalation, re-read the article.
What article are you taking about? I see no article from you, only from Reecius. Am I genuinely missing a link to an article you wrote somewhere? If you're referring to your original post here, I find it almost illegible because your text is mixed in with Reecius', you didn't italicize all of his and didn't use any quote tags.
In between blocks of his text you have comments like "What the hell are you taking about Willis?". If you want people to take your view seriously, you need to present it better / more clearly.
All I see, in the end, is you don't like the word "balance". I also see you picking and choosing restrictions by calling some "regional". I refer to Escalation because it is the extreme, yet totally legal, example. Is it "regional" to want no Escalation? The fact is, people don't like Escalation because it messes up the game balance even worse by allowing ranged D weapons. It's disallowed for balance. A source limit, missions variations, etc are for the same purpose and also quite widely accepted so far (a bit too early to tell on the source limit, obviously).
If you're not playing with Escalation and Stronghold Assault, you're already adjusting the game for balance. If you don't care if TOs disallow or allow those, as you say above, then I think you're just hung up on semantics with the word "balance". If you prefer to call it "adjusting for player enjoyment" rather than "balance" that's fine by me, but the end result is the same: TOs restricting something beyond the base rules to have a better event. If you're fine with this, I'm not sure what your issue with Reecius' article is. Could you express it much more succinctly and clearly, please? (genuinely asking)
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 02:31:19
I love how it's one wannabee "Elite Player" vs Dakka. I'm smelling troll
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 02:32:12
....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World.
ironicsilence wrote: im not sure this thread is going to go anywhere useful, hopefully i'm wrong and there are some decent nuggets that come out of it,
Just so long as Zwei doesn't see "Balance" in the title and come in and say his piece that gross imbalance is good and fun...
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Greetings. Allow me to shed some light on our 'elite' 40k guru.
Firstly, I know Chad/CKO,personally, and have known him for years.
(S'up Chad, it's Drew, how ya doin' there bucko?)
Our 'elite' player, CKO, has a penchant for being a flake and also fielding less than optimized lists of his own creation.
Last year, I and several friends had put a team together to go to a fairly large tournament some of you may have heard of that requires a 5 man team. Our team leader and team second have both won multiple tournaments (the leader being a Multiple Grand Tournament winner who goes by the handle Prodigalson) and the second being the overall winner of the Kalm before the Waaaagh! the year before last. Both are people I would consider very good and competitive 40k players. Rounding out the team were Me, another friend and brother to the team second (and a very good tournament player as well), and finally, CKO here.
The DAY BEFORE WE WERE TO LEAVE, CKO let us know he was going to have to bow out of the group, citing 'he had to work.'
Bear in mind, we had hotel reservations, entry fees, and several of us had used precious vacation time from work (myself included) to ensure we would all be able to go and enjoy the tournament together as a team and represent out region (the Central and Southern Mississippi area, for those interested).
We scrambled to find someone, ANYONE who could fill in the last spot of the team, but to no avail. With it being such short notice, everyone we could think of to ask either wasn't able to get free or had other plans they couldn't break already.
So, we had to withdraw our team from the tournament, and resigned ourselves to not attending because CKO 'had to work'. Considering we had over seven months of planning, list building, playtesting, and time spent getting our armies prepared and painted, I found his excuse to be a little hollow sounding. I'm not even going to mention the monetary investment required for our entry fees and setting money aside to pay for gas, food, and the hotel rooms, plus planning for the trip and getting everyone to meet and travel together as a team. In hind sight it was a good thing we didn't opt to get team t-shirts made too. But, I digress.
A few months later, I attended a 40k tournament in Hattiesburg, Mississippi at a small local convention called Hubcon. It's been going on for many years and while it isn't big, it's still a great little con to go to. I brought my Imperial Guard (fully painted) with some Grey Knight allies (also fully painted). All of our team from the previously mentioned tournament we had to withdraw from were present at this tournament, and lo-and-behold, so was CKO. Surprise surprise.
This was not long after the space marine codex came out and he brought one of the most laughable army lists I've ever seen fielded in a tournament. The Tournament Organizer let him field it (not making a judgement call here, it wasn't a huge tournament and more the merrier) but to put this list in perspective his 'thunderfire cannons' consisted of a twinlinked lascannon and top plate from a Razorback with a standard looking bolter marine next to it to represent the techmarine. The whole army was proxied like this, and though it had paint on it, mostly,... I hesitate to call the list painted at all. It was hideous, and there were more than a few bare plastic marines.
I didn't get to play CKO that tournament, and I actively ignored him for the most part outside of a courtesy greeting and to hear him offer a less than half-hearted apology for his bailing out on us at quite near the LAST POSSIBLE second which, I'll be honest, made my blood boil just a little bit.
I don't know how he did at that tournament, and don't honestly care, but perhaps he might wish to chime in and explain just how his 'elite' skills managed to carry him in the three round tournament.
For the record, I fared decently with 2 wins and 1 draw in that tournament. Would have been three wins but I derped and didn't realize that my fast attack was a scoring unit until after the game ended, and could have contested an objective with one of my remaining flyers. No biggy, still faired pretty well.
Anyway, just thought I'd share some first hand experiences with you all as fellow Dakkaites.
Lastly, and on a personal note, I wouldn't play in any tournament that CKO ran, or organized. Period. Nothing against him as a person, but just no. So much no, all the no.
Just my thoughts. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
You don't know me son, so I'll explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed.
mikhaila wrote: I love how it's one wannabee "Elite Player" vs Dakka. I'm smelling troll
Why do you think I am against dakka? I am voicing my opinion I havent said this person is wrong or this isnt right. Could you quote me to prove me wrong?
Red__Thirst wrote: Greetings. Allow me to shed some light on our 'elite' 40k guru.
Firstly, I know Chad/CKO,personally, and have known him for years.
(S'up Chad, it's Drew, how ya doin' there bucko?)
Our 'elite' player, CKO, has a penchant for being a flake and also fielding less than optimized lists of his own creation.
Last year, I and several friends had put a team together to go to a fairly large tournament some of you may have heard of that requires a 5 man team. Our team leader and team second have both won multiple tournaments (the leader being a Multiple Grand Tournament winner who goes by the handle Prodigalson) and the second being the overall winner of the Kalm before the Waaaagh! the year before last. Both are people I would consider very good and competitive 40k players. Rounding out the team were Me, another friend and brother to the team second (and a very good tournament player as well), and finally, CKO here.
The DAY BEFORE WE WERE TO LEAVE, CKO let us know he was going to have to bow out of the group, citing 'he had to work.'
Bear in mind, we had hotel reservations, entry fees, and several of us had used precious vacation time from work (myself included) to ensure we would all be able to go and enjoy the tournament together as a team and represent out region (the Central and Southern Mississippi area, for those interested).
We scrambled to find someone, ANYONE who could fill in the last spot of the team, but to no avail. With it being such short notice, everyone we could think of to ask either wasn't able to get free or had other plans they couldn't break already.
So, we had to withdraw our team from the tournament, and resigned ourselves to not attending because CKO 'had to work'. Considering we had over seven months of planning, list building, playtesting, and time spent getting our armies prepared and painted, I found his excuse to be a little hollow sounding. I'm not even going to mention the monetary investment required for our entry fees and setting money aside to pay for gas, food, and the hotel rooms, plus planning for the trip and getting everyone to meet and travel together as a team. In hind sight it was a good thing we didn't opt to get team t-shirts made too. But, I digress.
A few months later, I attended a 40k tournament in Hattiesburg, Mississippi at a small local convention called Hubcon. It's been going on for many years and while it isn't big, it's still a great little con to go to. I brought my Imperial Guard (fully painted) with some Grey Knight allies (also fully painted). All of our team from the previously mentioned tournament we had to withdraw from were present at this tournament, and lo-and-behold, so was CKO. Surprise surprise.
This was not long after the space marine codex came out and he brought one of the most laughable army lists I've ever seen fielded in a tournament. The Tournament Organizer let him field it (not making a judgement call here, it wasn't a huge tournament and more the merrier) but to put this list in perspective his 'thunderfire cannons' consisted of a twinlinked lascannon and top plate from a Razorback with a standard looking bolter marine next to it to represent the techmarine. The whole army was proxied like this, and though it had paint on it, mostly,... I hesitate to call the list painted at all. It was hideous, and there were more than a few bare plastic marines.
I didn't get to play CKO that tournament, and I actively ignored him for the most part outside of a courtesy greeting and to hear him offer a less than half-hearted apology for his bailing out on us at quite near the LAST POSSIBLE second which, I'll be honest, made my blood boil just a little bit.
I don't know how he did at that tournament, and don't honestly care, but perhaps he might wish to chime in and explain just how his 'elite' skills managed to carry him in the three round tournament.
For the record, I fared decently with 2 wins and 1 draw in that tournament. Would have been three wins but I derped and didn't realize that my fast attack was a scoring unit until after the game ended, and could have contested an objective with one of my remaining flyers. No biggy, still faired pretty well.
Anyway, just thought I'd share some first hand experiences with you all as fellow Dakkaites.
Lastly, and on a personal note, I wouldn't play in any tournament that CKO ran, or organized. Period. Nothing against him as a person, but just no. So much no, all the no.
Just my thoughts. Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
Drew I am not even mad with you or this post that attacks my character because I am guilty. I was not able to make the tournament because I was a manager of a store and the assitant manager quit meaning no vacation for me it was work or be fired. I apologize trust me I was just as frustrated about the situation as you were. We know each other but you do not know me personally, have we even played against each other? I understand why you feel the way you do about me and why you wrote your post with such malcious intent especially when you guys never got a chance to show how frustrated you were with me face to face. All of you guys are class acts for handling the situation the way you did and I thank you for that, I am truly sorry once again.
Back on subject I seem to be defending my elite and guru comments more than actually talking about the main part of the op which is balance, I will not respond to anymore elite guru comments in hopes of trying to steer the conversation into the correct direction.
This is an excellent point! The competitive player is going to steamroll the casual player regardless of what restrictions are made. I have to put this in bold letters, THE NICK NANAVATI’s OF THE WORLD ARE GOING TO STEAMROLL CASUAL PLAYERS REGARDLESS OF TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER’S RESTRICTIONS. I understand your concern about the decreasing 40k players as I was one of them. I left the game because they threw everything at us including the kitchen sink with this edition and it was too much change to quickly and I couldn’t handle it. It is ironic that the same thing that pushed me away is drawing me back; I now look at 40k differently. I am going to face crazy super powerful units but I have access to crazy super powerful units, it’s a trade off. We have to make sure that new players when building their armies do not play stuff they have no chance of winning against. We have to literally baby them into the game, which is the way it should be done. Just make sure that before they make a large purchase that they have one game against a crazy super combo list so they can see what true power is.
It comes down to your perception of how the game should be played is different to my perception and both our perceptions probably differ from those of others.
@CKO I would like to ask what your idea of casual players are? I was a casual player, so were most of my group. BUT we still played what could be called tourney optimized lists as well as fluffy and non optimized lists (I always used to take Ragnar, Bjorn, Ulrik and a horde of Blood Claws in my wolves lists). Some games we played with a comp mentality, we played tourneys as well. Most of my wargaming buddies have over 25 years+ of experience with Gw product (and others).
I would think that a good player would win against a so called casual player if both were using non optimized lists (through good tactics). A good player would struggle vs a casual player bringing an optimized tourney list regardless of tactics.
It is fairly obvious to me that certain combinations in army lists offer a powerful route due to the fact their make up and rules inherently decide deployment, tactics and win loss ratios. So much that a lot of the fun is taken away from the game just at the list building stage. The only chance comes from the dice rolling and in tailored lists you can predict to a certain degree how successful you will be before the game even starts.
Generals with lists that a not top of the current meta probably place high in tourneys because of tactics or poor rolling on the part of their opponents, This is the exception rather than the rule.
From a personal view then, I see balance as helping to select great players from good ones. Balance offers greater challenges and better rewards for everyone, tourney event winners to the beer and pretzels gamer who wants some fun. Balance offers inclusivity.
I am glad that TO and event organizers are looking at leveling the playing field somewhat. I would love to be able to know that my space pup pups can go against Taudar screamerstar or whatever star with a liitle uncertainty of who would win. Not asking for the moon, but just a chance when I see my opponents list I may just succeed.
My post above addresses your issue with "balance" CKO, if you'd like to focus on that, just respond to it. Mainly, I asked you to restate Concisely and Clearly what you mean, as your OP is illegible. It seems you are okay with TOs making adjustments (such as excluding Escalation and Stronghold Assault) but would prefer to say this is for "player enjoyment" rather than "balance"? If it's just that, we can call it what you like, but if you're okay with adjustments being made, it seems to me you actually agree with Reecius' article and are just hung up on semantics.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 13:27:30
CKO wrote: Back on subject I seem to be defending my elite and guru comments more than actually talking about the main part of the op which is balance
Which is an excellent sign that the manner in which you arranged and presented your thoughts is detracting from your message. You might want to consider rephrasing. As noted by repeated posters, it's very difficult to sort the "main part" of your post from the tangential comments.
CKO wrote: REECIUS WROTE:
One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.
What the hell are you talking about Willis? lol
I'll do some of your work for you, and actually explain what he meant.
Take a game like Snakes & Ladders, where it's all determined by chance (dice rolls). Hence you can't be "skilled" at it, because there is no skill. You could play five pieces against each other by yourself, and a given piece would be as likely to win as if they were controlled by different players. On the other end, there's chess, where there is no randomness (apart from maybe flipping a coin to see who plays white). A bishop that moves onto the square occupied by an enemy piece will always take that enemy piece, with no uncertainty.
40K is a hybrid game, like most wargames. Skill matters, but the random element can disrupt plans or cause unexpected events, which makes the game less predictable. You know that tricked-out Death Company will probably sweep aside the Grots, but you can't be certain. The element of chance weakens the role of skill a bit--it's possible to outplay your opponent and set up the perfect plan, only for your dice to mutiny--but makes the game more dynamic, tense and gives us all those war stories. And it catches the feel of war, where nothing can be certain and while you can give your troops orders and have a brilliant plan, other factors might cost you victory. So chance is good in a primarily skill-based game, up to a point.
What Reecius argues is that 40K has gone past that point, to a degree where tactics aren't just influenced by luck, but can feel frustratingly irrelevant in the face of luck. For an example from elsewhere in this thread, the "who goes first" roll on turn 1 can take on disproportionate importance when it means either a dead Titan for one side or dead Titan-killers for the other--a huge swing in the game that is unrelated to the actual skill of either player.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
RiTides wrote: It seems you are okay with TOs making adjustments (such as excluding Escalation and Stronghold Assault) but would prefer to say this is for "player enjoyment" rather than "balance"? If it's just that, we can call it what you like, but if you're okay with adjustments being made, it seems to me you actually agree with Reecius' article and are just hung up on semantics.
YES!!
This is exactly what I meant I thought it was clear but the elite guru stuff is throwing people off I will change it though. Re-read the post thinking that I am pro TO decision but I dislike the word balance. I am not hung up on semantics when we use the word balance it makes it seem as something is wrong with the game that has a huge negative effect on players and it pushes them away, thats what I am trying to convey.
CKO wrote: Back on subject I seem to be defending my elite and guru comments more than actually talking about the main part of the op which is balance
Which is an excellent sign that the manner in which you arranged and presented your thoughts is detracting from your message. You might want to consider rephrasing. As noted by repeated posters, it's very difficult to sort the "main part" of your post from the tangential comments.
I did not think people were going to take it so seriously, it is almost as if it affended them but I am going to re-word the first paragraph and hope that it helps.
CKO wrote: REECIUS WROTE:
One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.
What the hell are you talking about Willis? lol
I'll do some of your work for you, and actually explain what he meant.
Take a game like Snakes & Ladders, where it's all determined by chance (dice rolls). Hence you can't be "skilled" at it, because there is no skill. You could play five pieces against each other by yourself, and a given piece would be as likely to win as if they were controlled by different players. On the other end, there's chess, where there is no randomness (apart from maybe flipping a coin to see who plays white). A bishop that moves onto the square occupied by an enemy piece will always take that enemy piece, with no uncertainty.
40K is a hybrid game, like most wargames. Skill matters, but the random element can disrupt plans or cause unexpected events, which makes the game less predictable. You know that tricked-out Death Company will probably sweep aside the Grots, but you can't be certain. The element of chance weakens the role of skill a bit--it's possible to outplay your opponent and set up the perfect plan, only for your dice to mutiny--but makes the game more dynamic, tense and gives us all those war stories. And it catches the feel of war, where nothing can be certain and while you can give your troops orders and have a brilliant plan, other factors might cost you victory. So chance is good in a primarily skill-based game, up to a point.
What Reecius argues is that 40K has gone past that point, to a degree where tactics aren't just influenced by luck, but can feel frustratingly irrelevant in the face of luck. For an example from elsewhere in this thread, the "who goes first" roll on turn 1 can take on disproportionate importance when it means either a dead Titan for one side or dead Titan-killers for the other--a huge swing in the game that is unrelated to the actual skill of either player.
Oh, ok I understand now thank you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:10:52
RiTides wrote: It seems you are okay with TOs making adjustments (such as excluding Escalation and Stronghold Assault) but would prefer to say this is for "player enjoyment" rather than "balance"? If it's just that, we can call it what you like, but if you're okay with adjustments being made, it seems to me you actually agree with Reecius' article and are just hung up on semantics.
YES!!
This is exactly what I meant I thought it was clear but the elite guru stuff is throwing people off I will change it though. Re-read the post thinking that I am pro TO decision but I dislike the word balance. I am not hung up on semantics when we use the word balance it makes it seem as something is wrong with the game that has a huge negative effect on players and it pushes them away, thats what I am trying to convey.
But there is something wrong with the game. It's not balanced as released. Trying to cover that up with "player enjoyment" just feels like you're pissing on someone and telling them it's raining.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Mr. Burning wrote: @CKO I would like to ask what your idea of casual players are?
A casual player is a player who has fun with the game regardless of the results of the game as long as its a good one.
A competitive player is a player who plays to win, they view the game like a sport.
I am like this
That doesnt some how make my opinion on the game more important than others, that is why I had to remove that elite and guru stuff it open up a can of worms when I was just trying to say I am a competitive player.
rigeld2 wrote: But there is something wrong with the game. It's not balanced as released. Trying to cover that up with "player enjoyment" just feels like you're pissing on someone and telling them it's raining.
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 17:43:49
Mr. Burning wrote: @CKO I would like to ask what your idea of casual players are?
A casual player is a player who has fun with the game regardless of the results of the game as long as its a good one.
A competitive player is a player who plays to win, they view the game like a sport.
You do realize you can be competitive and have fun with the game, right?
rigeld2 wrote: But there is something wrong with the game. It's not balanced as released. Trying to cover that up with "player enjoyment" just feels like you're pissing on someone and telling them it's raining.
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
Doesn't change my statement at all. TOs placing restrictions on things to limit the power level is an attempt to bring things back into balance. Your thread title calls this a foolish goal, but you're all for placing restrictions on things to limit the power level in an attempt to increase player enjoyment.
Do you seriously not understand why that statement is insane?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
That's why I said this is just getting hung up on semantics.
Adding restrictions on what can be taken to increase "player enjoyment" is just another way of saying the same thing to increase "balance". Call it what you like, as long as you're A-OK with restrictions (and it seems you are) then I'm done with this debate as we're arguing the same thing with different words . And you actually agree with Reecius' strategy, just not the words he used. This could have been said / discussed a lot more succinctly, you know
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
I tend to disagree with this point, I believe GW's goal is to sell models, they abandoned "competitive" 40k some time ago and now only do things with the intention of selling things. GW isnt writting rules to make a unit strong to balance out against another armies strong units, they are making a unit strong so you go out and buy the new models
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
I tend to disagree with this point, I believe GW's goal is to sell models, they abandoned "competitive" 40k some time ago and now only do things with the intention of selling things. GW isnt writting rules to make a unit strong to balance out against another armies strong units, they are making a unit strong so you go out and buy the new models
I think there has never been that mythical creature called "balanced 40k" (which I think is what is meant with "competitive", as nothing stops having competitions with imbalanced games). Mind you I stopped playing 40k during 4th and 5th editions due to what I perceive silly rules .
mikhaila wrote: I love how it's one wannabee "Elite Player" vs Dakka. I'm smelling troll
Mike, to your previous comment, Im very confused as to how you don't know an elite player when you see one, I mean you've met me after all...
Ah wonderful thread...
In general on posts of these sorts, if you want a discussion to be productive, approach it objectively, avoid hot button words that make you seem over the top as people have mentioned, and try to see it from both sides. There are no credentials to be presented in this, people either know you and respect your opinions because you've earned it, or they don't and no amount of typed up "background" is going to do anything but hurt. All in all I don't mind competitive 40k that much currently, beyond it's getting a bit crazy and hard to keep up with. Balance wise I don't see our current predicament to even be as bad as nidzilla days, tri-holo falcon, csm lash spam, etc. It comes and goes in waves.
We are looking at it from our perspective look at 40k from GWs perspective. There goal is to make it to where every army can bring ridiculous over powered units. If more and more codexes are capable of doing this than in GWs eyes they are balancing 40k bye giving everyone cheese. Our problem is that it creates such a power level difference between list that it can become an auto win before the game starts. It is up to the TOs to place ristrictions to limit the power level so there are no auto wins, but balance to GW is access to cheese.
I tend to disagree with this point, I believe GW's goal is to sell models, they abandoned "competitive" 40k some time ago and now only do things with the intention of selling things. GW isnt writting rules to make a unit strong to balance out against another armies strong units, they are making a unit strong so you go out and buy the new models
To back up this post, GW has on multiple occassions in multiple locations over the last 10+ years stated that 40K was not intended for competitive play. They have never made an effort to achieve balance, either internally or externally, with any of their 40K products.
CKO, i said it was you vs Dakka because the overwhelming majority of people are disagreeing with you, and some downright laughing, and yet you persist at hammering away at everyone and everything. If nothing else, it's amusing in an odd way.
Your ex-team mate had some interesting things to say. And, as others noted. The plot thickens. If there was such a beast as the Elite player, I'm sure that's not the army they'd bring to a GT. And most GT's wouldn't let you field something like that, although their are a couple of exceptions where they might have mercy.
....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World.
Target wrote: Mike, to your previous comment, Im very confused as to how you don't know an elite player when you see one, I mean you've met me after all...
I feel a little bad but this was hilarious
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 21:15:15
Cratfworld Alaitoc (
Order of the Red Mantle (
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (
