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.

pm713 wrote:
Why don't you see a difference between the absolute best thing possible and good?

I guess why should players settle for good? Most games have a "best" thing. But good games make that best thing not face-rolling good.

Martel732 wrote:
I guess why should players settle for good? Most games have a "best" thing. But good games make that best thing not face-rolling good.

Did you see the "Start Collecting Showdown" thread in the Tactics forum Martel? The balance mechanism is reduced box contents -- not points, not FOC selection. So far it's been surprisingly even.

40k players are making a choice every time they select the format, and it's not always equal. Armies don't play the same at 500, 1000, 1850pts. I think you have to acknowledge that, even at the same time you acknowledge GW's balance efforts leave a lot to be desired.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I guess why should players settle for good? Most games have a "best" thing. But good games make that best thing not face-rolling good.

Did you see the "Start Collecting Showdown" thread in the Tactics forum Martel? The balance mechanism is reduced box contents -- not points, not FOC selection. So far it's been surprisingly even.

40k players are making a choice every time they select the format, and it's not always equal. Armies don't play the same at 500, 1000, 1850pts. I think you have to acknowledge that, even at the same time you acknowledge GW's balance efforts leave a lot to be desired.

Of course I acknowledge that. Taking away choices, especially overpowered ones, does usually make balance much closer. But there is no point value at which BA can do anything to Eldar.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why don't you see a difference between the absolute best thing possible and good?

I guess why should players settle for good? Most games have a "best" thing. But good games make that best thing not face-rolling good.

You have something resembling a soul?

In practice, that's not usually the way gamers roll. At least in my experience. In DnD, broken combos are sought after and celebrated. Same goes with card games. 40K rules writers just don't care.

pm713 wrote:
Why don't you see a difference between the absolute best thing possible and good?

I'm the kind of person that uses Tyberos. For fun. If I can't acknowledge he's bad, though, it's my own fault and I deserve to lose more than win.

Martel732 wrote:
In practice, that's not usually the way gamers roll. At least in my experience. In DnD, broken combos are sought after and celebrated. Same goes with card games. 40K rules writers just don't care.

In my experience that the minority by a long shot. Find new people?

I don't blame them. If I was one of them I wouldn't either.

Alot of base gameplay needs reworking before we can have effective assault oriented armies like Blood Angels in 7th Ed. GW has made it so darn hard to get into assault. Especially since my gaming group has been Eldar and Tau
.. so ya :(