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.

 Blacksails wrote:
On the flip side, no one should be made the villain for wanting to win, within reason.

Having fun and winning or losing are not mutually exclusive affairs.

Of course not. Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head saying, you must play this person, either. At the end of the day, games which put a great emphasis on list building all have this issue. Also, it is important to note that just because someone has a cheesy riptide list or serpent list doesn't mean they are a good player. Mostly, they just have their one army, so they aren't particularly hard to beat. Sometimes, I will swap out with someone and take on a riptide player just to beat them and annoy them... In the hopes that they will seek prey elsewhere next time!

Talys wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
On the flip side, no one should be made the villain for wanting to win, within reason.

Having fun and winning or losing are not mutually exclusive affairs.

Of course not. Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head saying, you must play this person, either. At the end of the day, games which put a great emphasis on list building all have this issue. Also, it is important to note that just because someone has a cheesy riptide list or serpent list doesn't mean they are a good player. Mostly, they just have their one army, so they aren't particularly hard to beat. Sometimes, I will swap out with someone and take on a riptide player just to beat them and annoy them... In the hopes that they will seek prey elsewhere next time!

Except all the one's that don't?

I don't play Warmahordes, but the consistency of people who do that say that while list building is a factor, how you play can account for a lists shortcomings can't be dismissed.

I DO play X Wing, and in an extreme example, one could win with any list, because in game decision making can render the best list irrelevant if the skill differential is high enough. Better lists make winning easier, but they aren't the sole determinant of who wins.

Infinity players literally say "it's not your list, it's you" Meaning that if you're losing, it is because you're not playing your list the right way, not that there is some inherent power difference between unit choices.

So, of all the most popular list-based tabletop games, only GW ones suffer from the problem of "best list wins"

 Azreal13 wrote:

Talys wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
On the flip side, no one should be made the villain for wanting to win, within reason.

Having fun and winning or losing are not mutually exclusive affairs.

Of course not. Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head saying, you must play this person, either. At the end of the day, games which put a great emphasis on list building all have this issue. Also, it is important to note that just because someone has a cheesy riptide list or serpent list doesn't mean they are a good player. Mostly, they just have their one army, so they aren't particularly hard to beat. Sometimes, I will swap out with someone and take on a riptide player just to beat them and annoy them... In the hopes that they will seek prey elsewhere next time!

Except all the one's that don't?

I don't play Warmahordes, but the consistency of people who do that say that while list building is a factor, how you play can account for a lists shortcomings can't be dismissed.

I DO play X Wing, and in an extreme example, one could win with any list, because in game decision making can render the best list irrelevant if the skill differential is high enough. Better lists make winning easier, but they aren't the sole determinant of who wins.

Infinity players literally say "it's not your list, it's you" Meaning that if you're losing, it is because you're not playing your list the right way, not that there is some inherent power difference between unit choices.

So, of all the most popular list-based tabletop games, only GW ones suffer from the problem of "best list wins"

You misunderstand. I mean, games in which list building is emphasized, and where an optimized army is meant to have an insurmountable advantage over a poorly designed army (or deck of cards). Much like real life, an army of all infantry would lose badly against an army that included air support, artillery, and armor. Even with hugely superior numbers, an infantry only army would be slaughtered.

 Peregrine wrote:
The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.

Perry, stop arguing with people who agree with you. You're like a Goblin Fanatic - you attack everyone regardless of whether they're helping your or attacking you.

Talys wrote:
You misunderstand. I mean, games in which list building is emphasized, and where an optimized army is meant to have an insurmountable advantage over a poorly designed army (or deck of cards).

So, games that aren't 40K, you mean?

Because we're constantly being told that list building isn't supposed to be important in 40K. It's supposed to be about just putting models on the table and having 'fun'.

Much like real life,...

We're discussing a game. Not real life.

... an army of all infantry would lose badly against an army that included air support, artillery, and armor. Even with hugely superior numbers, an infantry only army would be slaughtered.

Unless they had superior enough numbers to cancel out the advantages of the enemy's superior equipment.

Which is what points costs are supposed to be for.

So going back to the OP and article:
The real translation (other than we "suck" at rules as another pointed out) is that by allowing a HUGE amount of options it is easy to field an army out of "theme" of the GW fluff.
So this just takes us back to tabletop "RPG" and this game system was never intended as competitive rather, thematic? (cinematic?).
It is meant more for the drama and the spectacle of it all according to the game designers.

Anyway, I and many others have given our pound of flesh on this topic.
I have nothing really new to add.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.

Perry, stop arguing with people who agree with you. You're like a Goblin Fanatic - you attack everyone regardless of whether they're helping your or attacking you.

He can't help it, he's like a rabid dog!

But, well, featherier.

SQUAW!! *flap,flap,flap*

 insaniak wrote:

So, games that aren't 40K, you mean?
Because we're constantly being told that list building isn't supposed to be important in 40K. It's supposed to be about just putting models on the table and having 'fun'.

Whoever told you that? 40k is about building armies and using strategy to achieve victory. Of course, people want to have fun. Otherwise, why not spend time with the family or earn money, or read a book?

 insaniak wrote:

We're discussing a game. Not real life.

But it is a game that tries to mirror squad/unit warfare, based on... yeah, real life.

 insaniak wrote:
Unless they had superior enough numbers to cancel out the advantages of the enemy's superior equipment.
Which is what points costs are supposed to be for.

This is so wrong on so many levels, man. Pikemen, archers, cavalry and siege are all valuable. Yet, combine them, and the whole is greater than its parts. In a more modern example, Stealth bombers, drones, and cruise missles should be worth many more "points" than an infantryman (they sure cost a lot more dollars). And yet, ISIS cannot be pushed back with air power alone. Add tank brigade with a bit of infantry, and ISIS would be crushed. The generals on the ground would gladly trade a few of those tomahawks and drones for a few pieces on the ground.

In real life, these are called force multipliers. Given that A and B are equally valuable, having both A and B make your force many times more powerful than having double A or double B.

In another analogy, soldiers having rations is good. Soldiers having weaponry is also good. So when assigning constrained resources, a commander must provision the proper proportion of weapons and rations to that division in order to be victorious, because running out of either results in a loss condition. If it's a long siege, the proper provisioning would be different than for a great battle.

If 40k has a failing in its effort to put a futuristic spin on real life battles, it's that there are not sufficient rewards for force multipliers, to encourage a balanced army. An example would be to have a relatively cheap unit that could destroy superheavies, or one to cheaply take out fast moving vehicles, but are themselves vulnerable to other units. You'd take said squad as a coutner, but you can't win only with that squad. If you know your opponent is going to take only fast moving vehicles, taking a slightly disproportionate number of anti-fast-vehicle troops should hand you an easy victory. In the game, this is not so.

Talys wrote:
Whoever told you that?

GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines­™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Whoever told you that?

GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines­™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.

I understand that GW want more focus on the collection/lore and recreation of battles but where have they ever said or since when has it been decided that thinking about strategy automatically means you are a TFG, I think I must have missed that memo.

Even casual play or 'fluff battles/scenarios' still require at least basic strategy in both creating lists and playing the game, but according to you that now means I'm TFG? Thanks for letting me know, I always thought'd I'd played for fun/fluff. Silly old me.

Have you not been reading this thread? The thread where people have been claiming that building an army that is comprised of units that are a more effective use of points than other units makes you a horrible person?

 insaniak wrote:
Have you not been reading this thread? The thread where people have been claiming that building an army that is comprised of units that are a more effective use of points than other units makes you a horrible person?

As usual it boils down to 'Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.'

If you do or don't what?

I think in this situation, the bulk of the blame clearly is with the rules designers. If they don't want people doing certain things, they need to be taking steps to address that within their rules, because if people can, they will.

If they don't want people taking armies of all knights or all flying monstrous creatures, then their army lists shouldn't allow such things. Simple as. They need fix their army lists to be played the way they really intend for them to be played.

That said, the vigorous acceptance by a large section of the playerbase of the completely unrestricted nature of this edition probably has simply incentivized GW to further push the "take anything you want" model.

I don't see how the argument the article presents condemns list optimization other than, you know, saying it's bad. Powerful lists and fluffy lists aren't mutually exclusive. Drop pod assault, Triptide, Wave Serpent Spam and Bike Lists all have basis in the lore.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Whoever told you that?

GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines­™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.

Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".

Talys wrote:
Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".

That's because "how it works" is not something you're supposed to think about at all. You collect your small, jewel like objects of magic and wonder, and then you roll some dice and see what narrative the dice forge.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't see how the argument the article presents condemns list optimization other than, you know, saying it's bad. Powerful lists and fluffy lists aren't mutually exclusive. Drop pod assault, Triptide, Wave Serpent Spam and Bike Lists all have basis in the lore.

The OP's article actually read:

By working the army lists to produce an outlandish army that is chosen simply to maximise the chances of victory, you are depriving yourself of [being the better general]. You are not showing yourself to be the best general, only sneaky at selecting armies.

The most frequently encountered method of "working" army lists is to include large numbers of elite regiments, or exclude regiments that may not be useful against certain opponents. Although in small measures this is acceptable, but when taken to extremes the resultant game suffers.

Why not just take the writer at his word? The resultant game suffers if players work army lists in order to simply maximize the chance of victory, because it proves only that the general is a good at the army selection (or sneaky, as the writer put it) rather than a good strategist.

Or, just paraphrase it: Warhammer 40k is a game that ALLOWS a person who is willing to be a sneaky army list builder create a suboptimal game situation.

If that really bothers you, another game where sneaky army list builds aren't possible is probably a better choice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".

That's because "how it works" is not something you're supposed to think about at all. You collect your small, jewel like objects of magic and wonder, and then you roll some dice and see what narrative the dice forge.

Well, the dice aren't going to forge many narratives, by themselves

I'm just saying that I've never read anywhere the claim that all armies are implicitly balanced.

Who decides what the extremes are? The rules clearly don't. Bad units are fun and optimal lists unfun and the product of unsporting players. Why are the players to blame and not the rules?

I could forgive the 'blame the player' mentality that gets fostered to cover for the atrocious rules, but not at the prices the game is sold for.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't see how the argument the article presents condemns list optimization other than, you know, saying it's bad. Powerful lists and fluffy lists aren't mutually exclusive. Drop pod assault, Triptide, Wave Serpent Spam and Bike Lists all have basis in the lore.

It's just a cheap way to disregard problems and say "you're playing it wrong!" even though playing it "right" is a state of mind more than an actual physical reality.

The arguments for having imprecise rules with poor balance are so very wishy washy.

"They aren't trying to make well written and balanced rules!" - That's hardly an argument, they are making a rulebook and selling it for a high price, "they aren't trying" is not a valid excuse. If you had a kid in primary school who only ever walked during a running race you'd scold them for it, telling them to either sit on the bench or actually put some effort in to it, I'm not sure why we need to treat GW as less than a primary school kid, especially when we pay them good money to be incompetent.

"But the game isn't supposed to be competitive, it's supposed to be casual beer and pretzels" - Oh please, non-competitive gaming is the biggest reason to have a balanced rules system because it means people can rock up with whatever they want and not get kerb stomped before rolling to see who deploys first. If anything it matters less to ultra-competitive people who will just find and build the best list regardless.

"It's only designed for soft themed lists and not hard winning lists" - This is one of the worst arguments because so many themed lists ARE hard winning lists, trying to separate people who are ONLY playing them because they want to win from those people like the theme is a pointless exercise in futility.

"It's people who only want to win that are the problem, just show up and play for the sake of playing and it's fine" - This is another one of the worst arguments, it's a game that has a winner and a loser, scolding people because they want to win is silliness. A game that clearly is designed to have a winner and loser yet can't accommodate people who want to win is flawed. You also ignore the huge group of people who don't actually care if they win or lose but they simply want a fair game where they can strive to win even if it's not the end of the world if they don't.

"Well real war is unbalanced" - Well this isn't real war, it's a war game, it's so incredibly abstracted in order to make it in to a game that it should be balanced. Even if you do want to simulate the unbalanced nature of war (which I don't think is a great idea in the first place but whatever lets assume you do) then doing it by unbalancing the rules and armies to their core is the stupidest way to go about it because you'll have that poor sucker who spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars and hours constructing an army only to be the dude that always loses. A chit system like Battlegroup seems to be a better way to go, as it shows the unbalanced nature of war without unbalancing the armies themselves. Or alternatively (and I think the best solution) just start with a game that is balanced and then if you want to play a realistically unbalanced scenario, you can do that simply by unbalancing the points and/or making objectives that are harder for one side to achieve than the other.

I'm struggling to think of any genuinely good argument for poorly written and unbalanced rules systems.

Talys wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Whoever told you that?

GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines­™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.

Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".

The claim was made, in a courtroom no less, by the current head of IP, that GW's customer's favourite part of the hobby was buying things from Games Workshop.

Talys wrote:
I'm just saying that I've never read anywhere the claim that all armies are implicitly balanced.

Like I said, that's because GW isn't making that claim. My actual argument is that GW doesn't care about balance. "Is this balanced" is not a question they care about when they're writing rules. You're supposed to collect the models you like, roll some dice, and forge a narrative about whatever happens. Who cares if a unit/army/whatever isn't balanced, if you're Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™ the right way the lack of balance isn't going to matter at all.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Who decides what the extremes are? The rules clearly don't. Bad units are fun and optimal lists unfun and the product of unsporting players. Why are the players to blame and not the rules?

I could forgive the 'blame the player' mentality that gets fostered to cover for the atrocious rules, but not at the prices the game is sold for.

A bad game is a bad game, whether it's free or expensive, in my opinion.

I think 40k using out of box rules is a TERRIBLE game if it's two strangers, and both mainly want to play at a pickup game to win the encounter. Because of all the aforementioned list abuse possibilities, the game simply is not fun, except maybe for one player to get an ego trip out of destroying some unsuspecting newb. By the same token, and for exactly the same reasons, I think MtG sucks for these types of encounters, because in order to win, mostly, you have to suck the fun out of the game.

However, if you have regulars where the people actually want to spend an afternoon or evening gaming, where winning is awesome, but actually *playing* is even better, there isn't a better game to give feel of epic battles that you can achieve with 40k -- especially when you get in the mood with great terrain and awesomely painted miniatures.

And I totally appreciate this is not what everyone is looking for. There are games (though on a different scale) which are systems better designed for two strangers to play a pickup game, compete to win, and still both have fun.

So basically 40k is a great game if you ignore all the parts that make it a "game" and focus on all the other stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:
Like I said, that's because GW isn't making that claim. My actual argument is that GW doesn't care about balance. "Is this balanced" is not a question they care about when they're writing rules. You're supposed to collect the models you like, roll some dice, and forge a narrative about whatever happens. Who cares if a unit/army/whatever isn't balanced, if you're Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™ the right way the lack of balance isn't going to matter at all.

Oh, okay. You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance. I don't think either is particularly true. In 7th edition, there are a very small number of spammy builds, and none of them are even tournament winners.

Now, if you say, 40k has units that are overpowered for their point cost, or have abilities that are just too good, I will wholeheartedly agree. I will also agree that GW isn't very good at balancing units, especially to avoid powergamer abuse.

I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So basically 40k is a great game if you ignore all the parts that make it a "game" and focus on all the other stuff.

Well, you don't have to ignore them, you just have to spend a lot of time and effort fixing the countless ways that they suck. You shouldn't have to do this, of course, but that's what you get when a company declares that they produce jewel-like objects of magic and wonder, not rules, and refuses to even consider the possibility that market research might be a useful thing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So basically 40k is a great game if you ignore all the parts that make it a "game" and focus on all the other stuff.

Not really -- I have a great pickup games with total strangers all the time. They just don't happen to play one of a four gimmicky lists that abuse game mechanics.

Because the games are generally longer, I get to know the players better, and more likely to form a friendship and permanent gaming partner.

Talys wrote:
You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance.

You're only half right. GW doesn't care about game balance, and doesn't think that the players should. However, the whole "don't care about game balance" thing is just plain stupid, and most players do in fact care about it.

I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.

While simultaneously creating several other balance problems for each balance problem they fix. Their occasional token attempts to listen to player demands are so lazy and incompetent that they're pretty much indistinguishable from not trying at all.

In 7th edition, there are a very small number of spammy builds, and none of them are even tournament winners.

Say what.

Or does by your definition spamy start at 6 units meaning all those wave serpent, nid, necron AV etc lists aren't spamy as they run only 4-5 of stuff.

Well, you don't have to ignore them, you just have to spend a lot of time and effort fixing the countless ways that they suck. You shouldn't have to do this, of course, but that's what you get when a company declares that they produce jewel-like objects of magic and wonder, not rules, and refuses to even consider the possibility that market research might be a useful thing.

So true. GW more or less makes us pay for rules which you then have to rewrite to make it playable. And you more or less have to do it on a game per game basis. It is an unbalanced system for tournaments, but playable if someone has a good faction. In a casual setting one would more or less have to write one owns w40k starting with the rule book and ending with what units can I or my opponent take, and how many depending on how many I or my opponent took of another unit. Which also means the game is playable in a casual setting if we both own multiple armies of huge size to play a 1500 games.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance.

You're only half right. GW doesn't care about game balance, and doesn't think that the players should. However, the whole "don't care about game balance" thing is just plain stupid, and most players do in fact care about it.

I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.

While simultaneously creating several other balance problems for each balance problem they fix. Their occasional token attempts to listen to player demands are so lazy and incompetent that they're pretty much indistinguishable from not trying at all.

Sure, I'll agree that they kind of suck at balancing the game and are pretty good at inventing new problems as the fixed old ones But I also love Blizzard products, like Diablo 3, which are also horribly balanced, so I guess it's just something I've learned to live with. In both cases, I believe the game architects do, actually, care.

What I meant with players not caring about game balance was: you implied (at least I thought you did) that people who do play GW games are willing to overlook game balance issues -- they will play 40k even though they are acutely aware of its issues and possibilities for abuse. I actually would be one of those people.