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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.

It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.

Actually, I blame the tendency of Games Workshop to never playtest their rules adequately enough to see that some units are being overrepresented in the "Winners circle" so to speak. It's just human nature to not want to lose so people will gravitate to units that overperform. After all, it's not fun when your army accomplishes nothing and gets stomped into to the ground.

Oh this I totally can agree is part of the problem. The same has happened in most of the games I've played over the years. The companies use pros to fix issues of imbalance and rules problems though real balance is never actually achieved in any of them.

*sigh*

The overwhelming majority acknowledge that perfect balance is near impossible.

What most want is better balance.

For, like, the 300th time I've personally had to mention this.

No one is asking for perfect balance. If you had that you'll end up with insanity like the first Starcraft where the game was about button timing. What I am, and I am sure what most players are, asking for is a game where you don't have a meta where the minority of units dominate the majority of games.

Perfect balance is the goal, not a possibility.

Better balance becomes a matter of opinion after gauging what works, what doesn't, weighing the pros and cons of changing the meta and then evaluating from there. GW doesn't do this very well admittedly. Other companies do better at this, but for the most part they ignore the bulk of the players who "think" they know what balance is but really haven't thought about the far reaching consequences of implementing the "balance" changes the majority shouts for.

Stop latching onto one or two words in a sentence and focus on the argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No one is asking for perfect balance. If you had that you'll end up with insanity like the first Starcraft where the game was about button timing. What I am, and I am sure what most players are, asking for is a game where you don't have a meta where the minority of units dominate the majority of games.

This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.

 Lobomalo wrote:
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.

And the point you keep ignoring is that in a game with better balance you don't have this problem. If there is no clear best unit to use then players will not always make the same choices. Please stop blaming "competitive players" for GW's inability to make a balanced game.

And no, it wasn't the FOC that caused this problem. In fact the FOC was one of the few things mitigating it a bit, since the limit on how many copies of the best unit you could bring forced you to look at alternatives in other FOC slots. Now there's very little reason to ever take anything besides the best units.

Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?

Do you understand the difference between anecdotes and data? Yes, you have won some games using bad units. That fact is irrelevant because what we see in competitive tournaments (which draw a wide range of players with the knowledge and experience to identify the best options) is that those bad units are rarely present and rarely finish in the top spots. If you're consistently winning with them it's because you're playing against weaker opponents where perfect list optimization isn't necessary.

Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced.

So let me get this straight: until I re-balance the entire game and provide you with a list of changes I'm not allowed to use the word "balance"?

Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.

No, and nobody is asking for every option to be playable in every single situation. What we want is for every unit/upgrade/etc to be a viable option in a broad range of situations and have clear reasons to use it, instead of having units/upgrades/etc that are clearly inferior options that will never see use unless you're stubbornly insisting on using bad units to "prove" that they can work.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.

The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.

If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.

Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.

GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.

How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.

Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.

Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?

Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced. Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.

Oh ok, so you can make unusable units usable? Great! Tell me how I can win with banshees at a competitive tournament? Or really in any game that your opponents list isnt equally terrible? Please enlighten me.
I have read many a fan dex that is more balanced than the ones that GW makes. Balanced is possible, and why its thrown around so much is because GW has failed at it. Which is disappointing.

 Lobomalo wrote:
This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.

Wrong again. X-Wing has a wide range of top-tier options and very few truly bad choices. Infinity has such a wide range of viable options that the standard response to list-building questions is "play whatever you want, it's about how you use the list, not what you take". Warmachine/Hordes, from what I hear, have much better balance with a wide range of viable options. Now, none of these games are absolutely perfect, but your claim that every game is inevitably like 40k is absolutely absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I'm still waiting for your explanation of how mono-blue decks in MTG exploit the rules. Or are you conceding that you have no clue what you're talking about?

One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Perfect balance is the goal, not a possibility.

No, it is a possibility, just a difficult one to achieve and questionable if it is actually necessary.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No one is asking for perfect balance. If you had that you'll end up with insanity like the first Starcraft where the game was about button timing. What I am, and I am sure what most players are, asking for is a game where you don't have a meta where the minority of units dominate the majority of games.

This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.

Except for all the games where, you know, it isn't.

Most of the big name, non GW, games seem to achieve a much better (not perfect, but much better) level of balance, with many, many fewer redundant units.

This is, despite what some seem to think, with an analogous number of different units (40K distorts this view by having multiple armies that reuse the same unit and/or statline, sometimes without even minor alterations) and directly comparable complexity of gameplay.

 Lobomalo wrote:
One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.

The thing is, competitive play and tournaments should be a thing.
It shouldn't be like 40k where everyone has the exact same or near same list, with near no skill actually playing the battle is involved.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.

Wrong again. X-Wing has a wide range of top-tier options and very few truly bad choices. Infinity has such a wide range of viable options that the standard response to list-building questions is "play whatever you want, it's about how you use the list, not what you take". Warmachine/Hordes, from what I hear, have much better balance with a wide range of viable options. Now, none of these games are absolutely perfect, but your claim that every game is inevitably like 40k is absolutely absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I'm still waiting for your explanation of how mono-blue decks in MTG exploit the rules. Or are you conceding that you have no clue what you're talking about?

Actually I'm ignoring you on MtG as I have shown in an earlier post the most recent results for the International tournament last year, 4 deck of which were U/W. Also, your comments on magic point you as someone who has no real idea what they're talking about and is by no means competitive in magic.

X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.

The thing is, competitive play and tournaments should be a thing.
It shouldn't be like 40k where everyone has the exact same or near same list, with near no skill actually playing the battle is involved.

Except this is what you see in top tier lists with players at these tournaments. The lists do not vary too much from what I have seen. Which shouldn't happen, but it does because people simply want to play what is considered to be the best out there.

Its not just because of the people who take the lists. If GW took more energy in making it a better game, the competitive players dont have to take the same units. They could take different units and lists and still do well.

 Lobomalo wrote:
It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament.

Concession accepted. If it is possible to buy "top-tier" items that "normal" players wouldn't have then there is a balance problem.

Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case

 Lobomalo wrote:
One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.

One thing you'd should realise, Zodiark, is that tournament play represents people looking for every possible advantage in order to win the game. Every skewed probability, every undercosted item, every single item within what ever game you care to mention which in some way represents a greater efficiency over other options.

Therefore, while it is an artificial environment, it exposes any inequalities within the system at all levels, and if one particular faction, playstyle or whatever is winning a disproportionate number of games, it is an excellent signifier of an issue.

GW shouldn't have tried to expand to a larger audience, they should have stayed in their niche group.

That is why people are upset, the older players don't have time/money to keep up and the younger ones are funded by their parents until they get bored of it and move on.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Actually I'm ignoring you on MtG as I have shown in an earlier post the most recent results for the International tournament last year, 4 deck of which were U/W.

Do you understand the difference between U/W winning at ONE TOURNAMENT and the consistent record of "U/W control is unbeatable, the best you can do is also play U/W control and tie" that you claimed existed? You know, the one that is easily disproved by spending a few minutes looking at recent top-8 decklists from major tournaments? Apparently not.

And fine, ignore me instead of providing evidence for your claim that mono-blue decks exploit the rules. I'll just take it as your concession that you made a stupid claim and ran away when someone asked you to back it up.

Except this is what you see in top tier lists with players at these tournaments. The lists do not vary too much from what I have seen. Which shouldn't happen, but it does because people simply want to play what is considered to be the best out there.

THIS IS A BALANCE PROBLEM. Why is it so hard for you to understand that "tournament players always play the same lists because they're the best lists" is about as clear a sign of balance problems as you could ever ask for?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Throt wrote:
What I am trying to do is to get the point across that the problem is subjective. You want to see it as a problem and that is fine. But you are no more right than I am. Because you have this rules problem doesn't automatically create one either.

No, it isn't subjective at all. You just keep insisting that the fact that you didn't play by the rules as-printed means that there was no problem with the rules.

Again the no eye =no los groups had a problem, no one I know did. It did not need any discussion. There was no problem to go away. No problem to fix. Nothing to overlook. Because you had a problem doesn't mean it DID exist.

So you never shot or charged with models wearing helmets in previous editions? Or by "no problem to fix" do you mean that you refuse to admit that you fixed the problem?

No. I mean what I said there was no problem to fix.

It appears you do. Let's look at the no eyes issue. Since you seek clarification then we must have a list of all models with out eyes and what point on all the models we draw line of sight from. Dreadnoughts without eyes, converted models without eyes, monsters with eye stalks, Talos, dark elder with the smooth helmets, tyrant guard and on and on.

Or you just say "eyes or equivalent feature, such as optical sensors" and make it explicit that you're supposed to use some judgement and draw LOS from the best approximation when there are no obvious eyes. Or maybe you just abandon TLOS and draw LOS from base to base. Or maybe you draw it from the tip of the weapon. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve a long list of special cases.

 Throt wrote:
You have created the problem because you weren't specifically told how to deal with it.

No, GW created the problem by not telling us how to deal with it. The thing you keep failing to understand is that games with clear rules don't have this problem. You never have to figure out for yourself how to deal with a special case, you just look at the rules and see what the answer is.

I do believe it is minor, so minor it was not a problem because no one even flinched when it came down to shooting with wraithguard or any other model.

The fact that most people automatically house-ruled away an incredibly stupid decision by GW doesn't mean that the problem never existed. Please stop justifying GW's inability to write clear rules with "but we can fix the rules for GW!".

It appears you believe that GW must write a rule for all special cases that may arise. Which is fine but it is an unreasonable expectation imo.

It's not unreasonable, you just don't understand how other games work. Well-written games (MTG, for example) have rules that cover every possible situation. The only unreasonable thing here is your continued insistence that doing so is impossible or impractical, despite clear evidence of other game companies doing it.

I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?

This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.

VanHallan wrote:
Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?

No, but it doesn't take 10,000 pages. The 7th edition LOS rules (draw LOS from any part of the body) are no longer than the 6th edition LOS rules, but remove the problem entirely. Usually the problem isn't GW skipping a bunch of special-case rulings that would require endless pages to include, it's GW not bothering to be careful with how they write things and then failing to playtest enough to notice that something isn't working right.

VanHallan wrote:
I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?

This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.

But you know GW could just make a rule that models of X type have 180 or 360 vision and that you check LoS from any part of the base , and such problems wouldn't exist. The problem is not the lack of eyes on some models , but GW being unable to write rules and even worse do not give option to check how a rule should work.

The worse rules right now are those about making the list IMO. Some lists can self ally , others can't . Some supplement codex say they can ally with their parent codex , but the rule book says they can . And if the BRB <Codex , then why is the rule in the BRB to begin with as all supplemnts say they can ally with their parent codex. And what happens if we have two detachments from the same army , but two different books and they exclude each other ?

Add to it the new FAQ that lack some of the old clarifications and the rule set is as broken as ever. >

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

If you played those games, you'd know better. Infinity and Warmachine have a much larger variety of armies because there are no blatently OP or useless units so each unit gets played more. The army sizes are smaller but the actual number of unique units are about the same. Just a quick glance shows about 60+ individual units for the Nomad faction in Infinity and 70+ for Khador in Warmachine.
Eldar have about 52 unique units.

And given that both Infinity and Warmachine's units are all viable and not "don't take that if you intend to win" then the variety and fluff of Infinity and Warmachine armies are greater and not punished.

GW are supposed to be professionals, but they let "Penitent Engines" into the codex. A unit that I've tried numerous ways to make useful but they are so painfully useless and over costed that you'd have to be a masochist to take them. They're literally my favorite models in GW's entire range yet I never take them anymore because GW doesn't care enough to look into and realize that the unit is useless.
(I sold them on Friday to buy Infinity. That's an example of bad rules losing them business.)
And I can't seem to get the quote crap to work properly.

VanHallan wrote:
I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?

This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.

Common sense is not a substitute for poor rules. All it would take is TFG arguing that by the rules a model without eyes can't draw LOS and technically he's right. A jerk, but right. That's why rules need to be clear and concise.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case

List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."

In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.

5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.

WayneTheGame wrote:

VanHallan wrote:
I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?

This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.

Common sense is not a substitute for poor rules.

I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.

No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case

List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."

In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.

5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.

Dash did well with orks aswell.

 loki old fart wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case

List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."

In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.

5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.

Dash did well with orks aswell.

That's right! Kan wall was amazing too.


Basically - it wasn't that every unit in every army was amazing. It was that every army had a viable build. Now that's not really the case at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, because it is subjective.

No, it really isn't. If the models cost $X for 10 in the recent past and now cost $(X+Y) for 5 then the box has decreased in value. If you consider that "subjective" then your definition of "subjective" does not match the one found in the dictionary.

val·ue
noun

noun: value; plural noun: values

1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"

2. the material or monetary worth of something.

3.•the worth of something compared to the price paid or asked for it.

2.


a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"


synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior More
"society's values are passed on to us as children"

verb

verb: value; 3rd person present: values; past tense: valued; past participle: valued; gerund or present participle: valuing

1. estimate the monetary worth of (something).
"his estate was valued at $45,000"

synonyms: evaluate, assess, estimate, appraise, price, put/set a price on More
"his estate was valued at $345,000"
2. consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.
"she had come to value her privacy and independence"
synonyms: think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, rate highly, esteem, set (great) store by, put stock in, appreciate, respect; More

sub·jec·tive

adjective

adjective: subjective

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

•dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

2. Grammar
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

Then we have this....this answers the struggle that people have with the Guardian box.... The subjective theory of value.

The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

On that point, I would agree with Peregrine.

You're talking about an item being worth whatever a person is willing to pay, which might work on an individual basis, but, I keep hearing that sales are down and revenue is level.

That means to me that fewer people are buying fewer kits, but the prices make it so the total revenue is about the same.

So if fewer people are wiling to spend the money on the box, the value actually has gone down on a big picture level. Just because some people still purchase doesn't make up for the fact that others do not.

If Ford wanted to charge a million dollars for a Fusion next year, and ONE person paid that price, most people would agree the value was not there, but you'd be saying it was based off of one individual justifying the price.