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.

 CKO wrote:

I remember reading that article Reecius did call it, but I don’t think inquisitors are unbalanced. They give their allies access to divination, servo skulls, and grenades for a very cheap price nothing game breaking. What army cannot get re-rolls if they want them? Whenever someone says balance I immediately replace it with power, powerful, or to powerful. So when you say “the imbalance in the game is at an all time high” I see ‘the power in the game is at an all time high”, which to me is a good thing.

Orks don't have access. I take umbrage, sir.
DrG

Epic troll job, CKO.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So how is it balanced for the people who do not yet have access to cheese? The only way to make it balanced for them is to place restrictions.

Nothing a tournament organizer can do to bring balance to orks, they cant get re-rolls with cheap access to divination. There is no way a tournament organizer can truly balance the game for everyone. The tournament can be a success but its not because they accomplished balance but because they did some adjustments with rules, missions, or even terrain to make the game fun for everyone.

Balance is controlled by GW not a tournament organizer.

 doktor_g wrote:
Orks don't have access. I take umbrage, sir.
DrG

The great waaagh is coming I hope they can make people fear the waaagh again! I believe they are getting the next codex but I may be wrong.

 CKO wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So how is it balanced for the people who do not yet have access to cheese? The only way to make it balanced for them is to place restrictions.

Nothing a tournament organizer can do to bring balance to orks, they cant get re-rolls with cheap access to divination. There is no way a tournament organizer can truly balance the game for everyone. The tournament can be a success but its not because they accomplished balance but because they did some adjustments with rules, missions, or even terrain to make the game fun for everyone.

Balance is controlled by GW not a tournament organizer.

But GW is not doing anything to control balance. If they were then all armies would have access to cheese.

So TOs should do it so everyone can have a fun time and not end up playing 3 games which end on the first turn because their whole army gets wiped out by a titan. If that means placing restrictions then that is what should be done. However by trying to make sure that people have a fun time they are also trying to make it more balanced between armies.

The new ork codex will bring balance to the force


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

Nothing a tournament organizer can do to bring balance to orks, they cant get re-rolls with cheap access to divination. There is no way a tournament organizer can truly balance the game for everyone. The tournament can be a success but its not because they accomplished balance but because they did some adjustments with rules, missions, or even terrain to make the game fun for everyone.

Balance is controlled by GW not a tournament organizer.

I may be wrong, but wasn't this the point of what Reese was saying?

Whatever the case, CKO, it is my sincere hope that you can pull off as rad of an event! Seriously. Kidding and Internet cattiness aside. Set a date. Think big. SEC wargaming! Orkansas will represent.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But GW is not doing anything to control balance. If they were then all armies would have access to cheese.

So TOs should do it so everyone can have a fun time and not end up playing 3 games which end on the first turn because their whole army gets wiped out by a titan. If that means placing restrictions then that is what should be done. However by trying to make sure that people have a fun time they are also trying to make it more balanced between armies.

Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.

Hena wrote:

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 .

Perfect example Hena stop playing because of silly rules. What silly rules is he talking about? Most likely he is refering to the things that are quote on quote "unbalance", if we would not use that word balance and just say certain armys are stronger we wouldnt have this balance problem. Instead we could just say we are nerfing 2+ rerollable it is just to powerful.

 doktor_g wrote:
The new ork codex will bring balance to the force

Lol, or atleast a CHOPPA!

 doktor_g wrote:
I may be wrong, but wasn't this the point of what Reese was saying?

Yes, but I am saying balance is impossible but making the game fun for everyone is which is why I agreed with him on the article. The article is not to bash TO but to bash the word balance as it doesnt exist in 40k and never has but it doesnt exist in any table top game as certain factions are just better and no rule change made by a TO can fix that.

 doktor_g wrote:
Whatever the case, CKO, it is my sincere hope that you can pull off as rad of an event! Seriously. Kidding and Internet cattiness aside. Set a date. Think big. SEC wargaming! Orkansas will represent.

I am not a TO, I made this because I recently came back to the game and people were constantly saying the game is not balance the game is not balance. I completely disagree with that some armies are way stronger than others and TOs have to make ristrictions to fix that but there is nothing wrong with the balance of 40k. GW is purposely making it possible to create these godly units and its done on purpose so how can it be called imbalance? We are basically losing players because of the use of the word balance.

 CKO wrote:
Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others.

...which means the same thing.

When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.

They are. That's why people keep complaining about balance.

We are basically losing players because of the use of the word balance.

We are losing players because the game is broken. The words you choose to use won't change that.

Whether we say that the game isn't balanced, or that some armies are stronger than others, or that we all have watermelons on our heads, makes no difference to the balance issues inherent in the game. You don't make the problem go away by just not using a specific word.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

But GW is not doing anything to control balance. If they were then all armies would have access to cheese.

If GW could be arsed to balance their games properly no armies would have access to cheese and there would be no such thing as a net list. Of course GW can't be arsed to balance their games, or even write coherent and consistent rules so we end up with the wargaming abortion that 40k has become. 40k has been about list building rather than player skill for years and as such I find it strange that people persist with attempting to play 40k 'competitively' , you would have more luck teaching a cat to read.

 CKO wrote:
Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.

...

We are basically losing players because of the use of the word balance.

As noted by insaniak, saying some armies are weaker than others is the same as saying the rules are unbalanced.

40K is losing players because of the state of the rules, not the words we use to describe them. I'm glad you agree with TOs making tweaks to address this. I really think you are just hung up on semantics.

The Tyranid codex is a perfect example of a balanced codex - so yes GW can do it.

 RiTides wrote:

As noted by insaniak, saying some armies are weaker than others is the same as saying the rules are unbalanced.

Depending on your definition of balance, all words have several meanings we can change ours if we wanted.

 RiTides wrote:
40K is losing players because of the state of the rules, not the words we use to describe them. I'm glad you agree with TOs making tweaks to address this. I really think you are just hung up on semantics.

Ritides you might be right, I just believe that words have power and that certain words can be misinterpreted and be harmful.

Similar to the way I was misunderstood early on because I used the words elite and guru. I did not know they were power words in our dakka community which would explain why alot of readers were upset. I knew I wasnt a troll or anything but there was a disconnect or misinterpretation somewhere and I could fix it as long as I kept trying. I know it could be viewed as being a troll but I knew a few readers would understand and you are one of them Ritides.

 CKO wrote:
Depending on your definition of balance, all words have several meanings we can change ours if we wanted.

Until someone calls you out on trying to hide problems - which is exactly what you're doing.

Being honest: 40ks rules suck. The balance between armies sucks. For many armies, the balance internL to the codex sucks.
The only thing we as a community can do to save 40k is to essentially rewrite the rulebook, and probably some of the codexes.
Since that'll gain community support the second day after never, you can see the problem.

TL lascannon on a rhino hatch = thunderfire...

I read through this thread, time I'll never get back.

OP- The reception of a message starts in the delivery. You must of missed that part in your management training.

A little OT, but: I do find gamer perception fascinating. I could talk about it at length but won't here. I think editing the OP helped clarify your meaning, but the title could still be taken to mean that most TOs are foolish (whether you meant that or not!). So, as my friend loves to say- "Phrasing!"

That aside, as I said it's great that you agree that TOs must adjust the base rules for their events, but I don't think you'll win folks over that the word "balance" is harmful. It is a pretty well accepted term to discuss almost any game, and a reasonable thing to want in a game, after all .

I don't think a title called '"Balance" Tournament Organizer Foolish Goal' can be interpreted any other way.

 Byte wrote:
OP- The reception of a message starts in the delivery. You must of missed that part in your management training.

, who said I was trained, some people are just given jobs? This is a joke I know how sensative readers can be .

Yes, I agree my choice of words combine with the title it was a big mess it clearly needed more editing.

 heartserenade wrote:
I don't think a title called '"Balance" Tournament Organizer Foolish Goal' can be interpreted any other way.

Yes, good point I can be oblivious to stuff like that because I dont let things get to me easy, I certainly dont let it make me lose my composure and call people out of their name but oh well.

I changed the name also.

Some basic advice.

Something to build onto the basics.

If you're trying to write an article, or to persuade people through the written word, you must master these basic skills. If you'd really like to up your proficiency, then once you've mastered the above information, you might move on to this.

 CKO wrote:
Depending on your definition of balance, all words have several meanings we can change ours if we wanted.

Which won't change the underlying problem... which is a problem with the rules, not with what we call them.

Similar to the way I was misunderstood early on because I used the words elite and guru. I did not know they were power words in our dakka community which would explain why alot of readers were upset.

You misunderstood. People weren't upset. People just found the use of those words either a little peculiar, or a sign that you were apparently approaching the game with a very different view to that taken by most players. Calling the guy who teaches you the game your 'sensei' suggests that you're taking it all a little more seriously than is the norm, even in the 'competitive' arena. And very few of the players who you would apparently class as 'elite' would describe themselves as such.

 CKO wrote:
Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.

Perfect example Hena stop playing because of silly rules. What silly rules is he talking about? Most likely he is refering to the things that are quote on quote "unbalance", if we would not use that word balance and just say certain armys are stronger we wouldnt have this balance problem. Instead we could just say we are nerfing 2+ rerollable it is just to powerful.

One thing that I think needs pointing out is that it's not only about "power", in the sense of one option doing something better than another option. Another problem with the rules as they stand is that they can allow armies which to some degree or another don't play the same game as everyone else through ignoring rules or being hyper-specialised. For example, the all-Knight army is largely immune to low-STR attacks, so potentially, the majority of the opponent's army might as well not actually be there. Or the 2++ rerolled deathstars, that are effectively immune to attacks that aren't D-weapons or extremely lucky.

If I look back on the worst games (as distinct from worst opponents) that I played, they weren't the ones where I simply lost, they were the ones that felt like I might as well have not showed up to, where it didn't feel like the opponent was fundamentally playing the same game as I was, or that the game was decided when the armies were deployed and playing it out was simply a formality. With a balanced system (or another term for "balanced" that means the exact same thing as "balanced", if you prefer), those matches are much harder to stumble into.

Although I'm not as big or well known on dakka I thought I would just add my two cents to this thread. There is no two ways around the point that everyone else has made 40k is unbalanced! Regardles of what words you use. The current ceo of GW tom kirby has already stated before that its all about profits and has basically given many of the fan base to 40k and other gw products a big middle finger. Now I don't have any kind uni qualifications but I do have an understanding of businesses work. GW so long as its entire goal is to make profit it will write these massive cheese units into existance and price them highly because eventually they know a good proportion of people will go out and buy it because most other units are now useless. I think OP should just accept that along the line somewhere 40k is fundamentally broken and it always will be regardless of who is incharge at GW thats not to say it cant everbe balanced to a point where many new players can enjoy the game for its casual and competitive elements

Instead of saying balance between armies we should say some armies are weaker than others. When someone says 40k is unbalance it sounds as if someone is saying the rules are off.

Okay, the way this circular thread is dragging on is maddening, but as a journalist in my non-wargaming life I just can't resist.

CKO, the strength or weakness of a given 40k army is determined by two things -- the BRB and the codices themselves. Codices are small, army-specific rulebooks. If one army is weaker than another, then it is a result of these rulebooks. If the rulebooks result in some armies that have mathematically inferior list possibilities to another, then this is the very definition of "unbalance" in the game as a result of the rules being "off." You may hate that word, but it is the most accurate one-word description of the situation. Also, changing the word will not change the reality. (Ceci n'est pas déséquilibré)

GW's had plenty of time to jump in and address the issue. They won't, or are slow to do so. In the meantime, TO's have to step up and impose restrictions for the events, because people pay good money and don't want to be knocked out by opponents that are just buying or crudely converting their way to victory via net lists.

Yeesh...this thread has derailed quickly. If CKO isn't being concise...let me phrase what he's trying to say. Disclaimer: I don't care what anyone's opinions are in this matter. There is no right, or wrong answer as we can't implement the true solutions of the problem...we can only treat the symptoms.

Now on to my concise explanation of what CKO is trying to say. CKO is trying to say that "balance" of 40k is an illusion built up by the very player base that views this game as needing to be some sort of competitive sport (which if anyone actually follows sports intensely..most pro-sports display a gross imbalance. Which I find ironic in these types of players. I digress). These players are making the assumption that restrictions are somehow going to "fix" or "balance" what they perceive as "imbalance". From CKO's perspective that's false. By adding in restrictions you may bring the enjoyment level of the game to a reasonable level for most...but at the end of the day...the upper crust of the competitive sport gamers will find new ways to exploit the restrictions...and the cycle repeats. Again, no balance achieved. To truly "balance" the game...CKO is correct in the assertion that the burden is on GW. It is only they who can cure the disease as they are the writers and publishers of the rules. TO's merely treat the symptoms...and I think that was CKO's point. My biggest beef with the current edition is that 6th edition has bred an entirely new generation of "experts" and "know-it-alls". Like someone said previously...it all goes in cycles. However, now we have an entirely new generation of people that use the openness of the ruleset as a crutch and build combos that anyone can master given enough practice...yet claiming some sort of "elite" status, or use it as a place to speak authoritatively on "the game" when in most cases...these players are average to good at best. I see lots of players in my area with this attitude and it's amusing. When you take away their uber combos and they actually have to use good tactics, or learn deployment skills, etc. You realize that these guys really aren't so exceptional after all. It is one of the big reasons that people are being turned off to the game. I can say it has definitely soured my enjoyment of the game. When mastery of learning the game is replaced with "take units X, Y, Z and profit". The writing is on the wall. From GW's view point, they don't care. That burden is on the customer. Their job is to make money selling models, and DLC rules now. Either you buy into that, or jump ship. It's that simple. :shrug: For me, I used to be an uber competitive gamer...but then I realized that it's all for nothing and a sunk cost exercise in futility and ultimately a huge money waster. When I look back and realize how much time, effort, and money went into it...then look at the value returned...well the choice was easy to stop doing it. I'd rather use that energy to make more money or improve myself in meaningful ways. YMMV

That was the concise version!?

Paragraphs man, paragraphs....

The fact that you stopped playing competitively (what you talk about in the last third of your above post) is exactly what TOs are trying to avoid. I agree that they are treating symptoms, not the root cause, but that's all TOs can do to try to avoid more people taking the route you did (and stopping playing competitively / attending their events).

What is most interesting to me is that no one seems to be against the fact that this is the course of action that must be taken by TOs... but just hung up on what we call it

I used to play about 2 tournaments per month before my illness got too bad but have stopped doing so now. I tried coming back to it and still do ref'ing, but I lost all interesting in competitive gaming as of 40k's current state. GW fully decided to go into "buy to win" territory and Escalation just sealed its fate. When 8 top 10 lists are almost the same army, then the game is terribly balanced. Readjustments need to be made, but I neither have the time to dive into that territory again (as I am already invested in WHFB and its comp) nor do I want to do the work GW is supposed to do themselves...again. It's sad where comp 40k went to, but casual 40k still is a blast.

It's sad that despite being the best core ruleset now (judging as a late 3rd starter), GW managed to break the game by terrible codices and "expansions".

How are pro sports imbalanced? Don't the teams play by the same rules, have the same number of players? Or am I missing something? It's not like Korean archers get an extra arrow or Filipino boxers get to have free punches before the opponent can punch back.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:


Now on to my concise explanation of what CKO is trying to say. CKO is trying to say that "balance" of 40k is an illusion built up by the very player base that views this game as needing to be some sort of competitive sport (which if anyone actually follows sports intensely..most pro-sports display a gross imbalance. Which I find ironic in these types of players. I digress). These players are making the assumption that restrictions are somehow going to "fix" or "balance" what they perceive as "imbalance". From CKO's perspective that's false. By adding in restrictions you may bring the enjoyment level of the game to a reasonable level for most...but at the end of the day...the upper crust of the competitive sport gamers will find new ways to exploit the restrictions...and the cycle repeats. Again, no balance achieved. To truly "balance" the game...CKO is correct in the assertion that the burden is on GW. It is only they who can cure the disease as they are the writers and publishers of the rules. TO's merely treat the symptoms...and I think that was CKO's point.

This is 100% correct and I am glad Capt was able to sum it up so well. This is my last post on this thread if you dont get what I am trying to say in the original post and you dont understand CaptKaruthors summary you will never get it, and I am tired of defending myself.

So you're trying to say exactly what others have said in this thread?

Good game?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're trying to say exactly what others have said in this thread?

Good game?

No, you don't get to say you quit, I quit first!

I think RITides summed it up last page quite nicely:

 RiTides wrote:

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)

I think Reecius had the right of it.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think Reecius had the right of it.

That too