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.

 goblinzz wrote:
"NOOOOO I MUST HAVE 4th edition!" Fair enough, if that's how you feel, then take away all those things, but in the right place, those can be fun. Case in point, and Ork stompa is A LOW, and expensive points wise, not overpowered and easy to kill. What about Marneus? Ghazzy? Dante? All of these are LOW.

It does not feel right to throw out the various cool characters and the odd big bad mini-titan / big tank.

Truthfully, the best way to have fun, that nobody wants to say is: play in a way that you and your opponent can have fun.

No disagreement with the intent.

So if you are going to a tournament, expect utter insane, bizarre nonsense.

I personally expect the most insane min-maxed lists imaginable and bending rules into a pretzel in this kind of venue.

If you are playing at your FLGS, take a silly list with fortifications, or a baneblade, and take a backup list which is a bit more toned down. If you have the chance to talk to your opponent in advance, see if he wants to "forge the narrative" and play something with a combination of things.

This is where it becomes hard: someone who likes their fluff may just LOVE their fortifications and Baneblade and stomping Imperial Knights everywhere.
A more "competitive" player will be looking for the most utility for the least points which may lead to the same thing.
A list that is a "bit more toned down", the details of this is what I am fishing for.
More toned down is a larger proportion of troops?
Less allies?
Less Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures?

There is literally no way to balance the game,

But we are all tempted to make a passing attempt at it until GW cares to try.

and throwing out the new toys that people have (FW, Wraithknights, superheavies, formations) is nothing more than saying you want to play with your collection, and that people should build their collection like you.

It really comes down to getting both player's collection to match sufficiently to be a "good scrap" and not cave face.

I play in many tournaments every year, and literally every tournament I get my face broken by some crazy rock/paper/scissor build.

That is the nature of the high randomization game we play today, more choice than dice rolling appears to be appreciated.

Most of the games are awesome fun.

When it is a good match-up I agree it is great fun, some of my best gaming memories involved 40k.

As a community we need to just accept that the game has grown beyond the collections we built for fourth and fifth,

Apocalypse was introduced a while back, so the present day 40k is not too terribly different from that.
Our collections would have grown to fit big games (or the incentive was there).

treat our opponents with respect,

Hey, anyone willing to share their free time with me to get a game in usually gets it, those who show up for lording over others however...

and enjoy the game for what it is.

What the game IS now is Apocalypse with even less rules and less balance.
40k started off as a skirmish game but now the game is dipping into the "Epic 40k" realm.
Just a few tournament rules or favored house rules to mellow it out a bit is the intent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: not that I disagree that many things about this game suck, but if it's bugging you that much, go and pick up a copy of Beyond The Gates of Antares and try something different, I know that's what I'm going to do.

I think I am into the realm of having over $10,000 worth of GW 40k so being able to arrange fun games of 40k is mandatory for me.
I do have other games of interest, it is just such a shame the present rule-set is so unwieldy for what GW and us the players are trying to do.

At the end of the day we are squabbling over our war dollies.

It is actually more than that.
It is where we choose to spend our free time.
Away from school, work, chores, family obligations, renovations and other hobbies like video games or sports.
It needs to be pretty compelling stuff for us to fight our way to getting a game in.
The fun MUST be there or we drift away from it to something more shiny.

Now that they resuscitated specialist games I may actually get sucked into Epic... "again"... I will just play it all with my 40k figures.

"There is literally no way to balance the game"

Is flat out wrong. There is Literally no way to perfectly balance the game, but it can be balanced a lot better than it is. Just use a little effort, and most importantly use the same system for each faction. Randomly assigning numbers to stuff because it "feels right" is the only way the game can literally not be balanced.

Yes the first numbers will be arbitrary, but once that base number is determined, then everything else can be figured from that point. You can create algorithms, use simple additive bonuses, multiplicative modifiers, anything, but the GW way of "it felt right" will never balance a thing.

I've said it before, and I think it still rings true: this game is more fun (in my opinion) when you take it out of the context of tournaments, and that feeling we all have of wanting/needing to win. Yeah, wraith knights are stupid, but one of the most fun games I've played was legion marines vs. eldar+dark eldar, and by turn 4 we both had 1/4 of our starting armies, and I still had to contend against the WK. Honestly, when was the last time most of us played a game with unbalanced points and/or a different objective then the missions in the books? what about 2k points of HQ vs. 2k points of a regular army? I agree, certain rules need to be reworked, but once you take it out of the context of needing to win, donkey-cave TFG players, min-maxers, and certain tournaments, I feel like a lot of these issues are mitigated quite a bit. I may be wrong, but that's just what I've noticed with my more recent games.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"There is literally no way to balance the game"

Is flat out wrong. There is Literally no way to perfectly balance the game, but it can be balanced a lot better than it is. Just use a little effort, and most importantly use the same system for each faction. Randomly assigning numbers to stuff because it "feels right" is the only way the game can literally not be balanced.

Yes the first numbers will be arbitrary, but once that base number is determined, then everything else can be figured from that point. You can create algorithms, use simple additive bonuses, multiplicative modifiers, anything, but the GW way of "it felt right" will never balance a thing.

There are soooooo many different broken, unpredicted combinations of things that if you balance one way, then suddenly something else becomes 'meta', and everyone starts bitching about the thing that was previously underpowered being overpowered. Nerf D? Suddenly I can't deal with Knights anymore. Nerf Knights? Suddenly I can't deal with deathstars. Nerf Invisibility? Suddenly Eldar are too fragile. Nerf Formations, well you Ork players, you don't get to use the few builds that help you remain competitive.

The game is a shambles, and always has been. It's a fun shambles, if not taken too seriously, but still a shambles. If you want balanced go play Horus Heresy, which holds zero interest for me, as it's basically Spy Vs. Spy, but people love it because it is inherently balanced being bland marines on bland marines.

In a game which consists of so many rock/paper/scissors combinations, trying to achieve balance by tweaking individual things is pissing into the wind.

You want to know the single biggest thing that would balance the game? Abolish IGOUGO. The abolition of that, and the introduction of the bolt action unit activation mechanics is the single biggest draw for me in Beyond the Gates of Antares.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not that I'm saying there aren't huge sections of the rules that irritate me and are poorly written, but i have neither the time nor inclination to house rule everything.

I travel A LOT, and play regularly, so I CAN'T use house rules as they will change everywhere I play, so as far as possible I play out of the book, and occasionally get screwed by a bad matchup or opponent.

Yes, I have declined to play somebody because thye had three riptides.

What I do now, is if there's any aspect of the rules that is controversial, then I go over them with my opponent and see how he wants to handle that during the game. As an example, I always go over how I play Vengeance Weapons Batteries as there are differing interpretations on those rules, and I want to make sure we are comfortable with how they will play.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

A list that is a "bit more toned down", the details of this is what I am fishing for.
More toned down is a larger proportion of troops?
Less allies?
Less Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures?

A good yard stick is: do you and your opponents have fun playing with/against that list. For example, my friend has a horrific tournament Necron list. Outside of tournaments it is ONLY brought out if the opponent requests it, or is specifically practicing for a tough tournament. It's got no super heavies, no fortifications, but is a decurion style list. It's awful to play against casually, so he leaves it on the shelf and doesn't make people feel terrible by surprising them with it.

 goblinzz wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"There is literally no way to balance the game"

Is flat out wrong. There is Literally no way to perfectly balance the game, but it can be balanced a lot better than it is. Just use a little effort, and most importantly use the same system for each faction. Randomly assigning numbers to stuff because it "feels right" is the only way the game can literally not be balanced.

Yes the first numbers will be arbitrary, but once that base number is determined, then everything else can be figured from that point. You can create algorithms, use simple additive bonuses, multiplicative modifiers, anything, but the GW way of "it felt right" will never balance a thing.

There are soooooo many different broken, unpredicted combinations of things that if you balance one way, then suddenly something else becomes 'meta', and everyone starts bitching about the thing that was previously underpowered being overpowered. Nerf D? Suddenly I can't deal with Knights anymore. Nerf Knights? Suddenly I can't deal with deathstars. Nerf Invisibility? Suddenly Eldar are too fragile. Nerf Formations, well you Ork players, you don't get to use the few builds that help you remain competitive.

The game is a shambles, and always has been. It's a fun shambles, if not taken too seriously, but still a shambles. If you want balanced go play Horus Heresy, which holds zero interest for me, as it's basically Spy Vs. Spy, but people love it because it is inherently balanced being bland marines on bland marines.

In a game which consists of so many rock/paper/scissors combinations, trying to achieve balance by tweaking individual things is pissing into the wind.

You want to know the single biggest thing that would balance the game? Abolish IGOUGO. The abolition of that, and the introduction of the bolt action unit activation mechanics is the single biggest draw for me in Beyond the Gates of Antares.

I will agree that IGOUGO is a poor choice.

The actual rules are not so bad on balance of power between melee/range. The very poor unit costs are really what drives he discrepancies between them. Play a few games with assault marines that don't have jump packs, and standard bolter marines. Keep them at equal numbers, bet the casualty rates come out pretty close overall. Now add a power fist to the assault marines, and a lascannon to the bolter marines. Again keeping them at the same numbers, bet the casualty rates skew in favor of the lascannon. The power fist should be cheaper than the lascannon, but it costs more currently.

Many special rules also need to have their wording cleaned up to more clearly convey what it is they are supposed to do.

Creating a system to balance units based on their capabilities, while not perfect, will net a better game. Special rules bloat also need toned down, as it stands, I think that every unit in the game has a special rule so nothing uses the basic rules anymore.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Creating a system to balance units based on their capabilities, while not perfect, will net a better game. Special rules bloat also need toned down, as it stands, I think that every unit in the game has a special rule so nothing uses the basic rules anymore.

YES! I'm struggling to understand the need. However, the list of core changes I'd like to see is enormous...

Look, I realize that I probably am coming across as a bit of an ass. Play the game you want, if you feel you need to alter parts of it to have fun, then do it! It's YOUR GAME! You payed the money, and should feel free to play it as you want, there are no GW police hiding behind your curtains waiting to jump out on you. (At least I don't THINK there are, but I play unmodified rules, so maybe they are just leaving me alone...) Just don't be under the illusion that your tweaks are the answer, that in such a bloated sprawling game that your 'fix' won't affect the game in a way that you didn't expect.

(as an example, I was horrified to see someone above suggest that overwatch should be 5+, because we NEED to punish people more for playing orks...)

But remember that if you play outside of a small circle of people, then your house rules will complicate your life...

And on that note, I will bow out, because I realise that I am arguing against the core of the question being asked in the first place, which is a legitimate question.

'Night all...

 goblinzz wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Creating a system to balance units based on their capabilities, while not perfect, will net a better game. Special rules bloat also need toned down, as it stands, I think that every unit in the game has a special rule so nothing uses the basic rules anymore.

YES! I'm struggling to understand the need. However, the list of core changes I'd like to see is enormous...

Look, I realize that I probably am coming across as a bit of an ass. Play the game you want, if you feel you need to alter parts of it to have fun, then do it! It's YOUR GAME! You payed the money, and should feel free to play it as you want, there are no GW police hiding behind your curtains waiting to jump out on you. (At least I don't THINK there are, but I play unmodified rules, so maybe they are just leaving me alone...) Just don't be under the illusion that your tweaks are the answer, that in such a bloated sprawling game that your 'fix' won't affect the game in a way that you didn't expect.

(as an example, I was horrified to see someone above suggest that overwatch should be 5+, because we NEED to punish people more for playing orks...)

But remember that if you play outside of a small circle of people, then your house rules will complicate your life...

And on that note, I will bow out, because I realise that I am arguing against the core of the question being asked in the first place, which is a legitimate question.

'Night all...

Sorry, I didn't want to make you feel like an ass. Because you are not. I also play the rules as printed. Just wanted to point out my view that the rules themselves are fine, it is the points costs associated with things that mess it up, which I guess goes against the idea of this thread as well.

 Brennonjw wrote:
I've said it before, and I think it still rings true: this game is more fun (in my opinion) when you take it out of the context of tournaments, and that feeling we all have of wanting/needing to win. Yeah, wraith knights are stupid, but one of the most fun games I've played was legion marines vs. eldar+dark eldar, and by turn 4 we both had 1/4 of our starting armies, and I still had to contend against the WK. Honestly, when was the last time most of us played a game with unbalanced points and/or a different objective then the missions in the books? what about 2k points of HQ vs. 2k points of a regular army? I agree, certain rules need to be reworked, but once you take it out of the context of needing to win, donkey-cave TFG players, min-maxers, and certain tournaments, I feel like a lot of these issues are mitigated quite a bit. I may be wrong, but that's just what I've noticed with my more recent games.

I agree wholeheartedly. The game isn't too bad unless people start gaming the system. It's this way with all competitive games. Starcraft 2 can even be fair until you start spamming the one master unit to win. It has a counter and the opponent can build it, but that's a real time game. You can't build a counter to your opponent in 40k, you already selected your list. There's only a handful of factions that can truly build an All Comers list because they have units that can take on literally anything, Wraithknight and Wraithguard among them.

Personally, if you're bringing a Lord of War to a 1000 pt game, you're doing it wrong. It's okay for the competitive cutthroat tourney scene but when that context is removed as you said the game becomes more fair. A single Wraith Knight isn't so bad when the enemy is fielding 3000 points of troops, elites, fasts, and heavies in a balanced list, just as a single Imperial Knight isn't so awful either. But bringing a 5 Imperial Knight formation to a 2000 pt game? That's something that belongs in Apocalypse style matches with higher point values, and since 7th edition is apparently Apocalypse 40k they allow it for regular matches. A lot of the shenanigans that occur with Death Stars and other stuff just stem from people exploiting the crap out of the FOC or formations or only taking what units are mathematically superior rather than what would actually make sense to bring. Troop Tax is a term from that line of thinking, that troops are expendable nonsense you should take as little of as possible and only spam the big and heavy stuff that runs rampant across the field.

The game really isn't made for competitiveness anyway, hence all the unbalanced gak. Take fluffy lists and it's almost anyone's game.

 goblinzz wrote:

There are soooooo many different broken, unpredicted combinations of things that if you balance one way, then suddenly something else becomes 'meta', and everyone starts bitching about the thing that was previously underpowered being overpowered. Nerf D? Suddenly I can't deal with Knights anymore. Nerf Knights? Suddenly I can't deal with deathstars. Nerf Invisibility? Suddenly Eldar are too fragile. Nerf Formations, well you Ork players, you don't get to use the few builds that help you remain competitive.

That's the reason why you have to write the rules from scratch
just adding a new rule or change/remove an existing one will always affect more stuff than expected and triggers a "cataclysm" (that's also the problem with the new rules added by GW in the new books)

 goblinzz wrote:

But remember that if you play outside of a small circle of people, then your house rules will complicate your life...

That's why I prefer to play 40k on tournaments only because everyone has to accept the house rules and everyone knows what army lists he has to expect (I still play from time to time against a "PUG" but that one game is most of the time enough to get myself away from 40k again).

 Arkaine wrote:

The game really isn't made for competitiveness anyway, hence all the unbalanced gak. Take fluffy lists and it's almost anyone's game.

Good idea, fluffy Snakebite Orks against a fluffy Ravenwing or O'Shava list is pure fun (at least for the not ork player).
The problem is that "fluffy = not strong" was never the case in 40k. There was always only "don't play against broken fractions no matter if the guy plays them fluffy or not" if you want to have fun.