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.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.

We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.

I got a game for you then:

"In the Balance

On a slight tangent, it`s worth mentioning at this stage that your games don`t have to be balanced - i.e. you don`t have to have to have the same number of points on both sides. This is quite unsual, but allows you yo tweak your games to enact a last stand by a hopelessly outnumbered defender, a suicadal charge of `Light Brigade` proportoins, or simply impose a handicap on a more experienced player."

Guess two where did I get the qoute from.

 notprop wrote:
Why does the competition have to be equal?

Of course there are other elements in each force and terrain, disposition and iniative to consider as well.

Would it not be a challenge for Bob to take on Jim's Jetbikes all things considered.

Of course if each took only those things to the exclusion of all others, they really wouldn't have a reason to complain.

Perfect balance isn't something you need but having each player have a nearly equal chance to win is important, why would you play a game where you're always at a disadvantage and likely to lose?

If Bob likes orks and Pete likes tau how long before Bob quits because he's always losing to the superior army, who's Pete gonna play when Bob moves to x-wing?

Poor balance kills games by driving away the players.

And what if Pete want's a challenge?

I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.

How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).

Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?

Who's arguing against balance but equal forces are not the Historical norm so why would they be in a wargame?

The point if the game is the challenge of pitting your wits against the circumstances presented to you.

I'd contend the point of the game was pitting your wits against your opponent's, but maybe I'm odd.

If the baseline is balance. How does that hinder people from playing unbalanced battles?

If the baseline is balance, it's incredibly easy to create a scenario where one side is unmatched.

Not so, the other way around.


I'm amazed this has to be said again and again and again....

 Zywus wrote:
If the baseline is balance. How does that hinder people from playing unbalanced battles?

If the baseline is balance, it's incredibly easy to create a scenario where one side is unmatched.

Not so, the other way around.


I'm amazed this has to be said again and again and again....

You and me both. Look back at some of the scenarios in WFB. Just looking at the 6th Ed. rulebook you have scenarios that have matched rules, historical refight suggestions including force compositions which would handicap most forces, and something as severe as The Seven Knights. Balance being a base line makes ALL those scenarios possible. IF you subtract balance, then Pitched Battle will never be a game that gives both armies an equal chance of winning.

No different for things like the missions from the 3rd BRB. The 5 standard FOC missions are based on balanced forces, the rest are around specific force comp. Having no balance makes the first five useless.

So yeah, I can definitely demonize GW for that. That, and the habit of rather than fixing the army books that create the imbalance, they redo the edition with ridiculous rules bloat that creates MORE imbalances.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.

We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.

For someone who says I play a strange way to then go and post this?

I applaud you and your group for making the game what you want it to be, but it's pretty safe to assume if you approached anyone outside your regular group and said 'lets play a game this way' the majority of people would at least look at you cock eyed.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

There are arguments that work, but trying to claim that GW prices are reasonable, or that GW rules don't have problems actually end up serving the opposite to the intended purpose.

Yeah, their prices are anything but reasonable. I've recently decided to come back to warhammer. I haven't had any models or played since the early 2000's, maybe 2003-2004. Anyway, they won't be getting any money out of me, their prices are just so ridiculous. I've been buying all my models second hand off Ebay at what I think are prices they should be sold for brand new. I torrented all the codex's and the rule books, I'm not about to pay 40-60 bucks a book. They're out of their minds, and I can't believe how much their paints are now a days either. The cheapest I've found them is 4 dollars for a 12ml bottle.

germ wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

There are arguments that work, but trying to claim that GW prices are reasonable, or that GW rules don't have problems actually end up serving the opposite to the intended purpose.

Yeah, their prices are anything but reasonable. I've recently decided to come back to warhammer. I haven't had any models or played since the early 2000's, maybe 2003-2004. Anyway, they won't be getting any money out of me, their prices are just so ridiculous. I've been buying all my models second hand off Ebay at what I think are prices they should be sold for brand new. I torrented all the codex's and the rule books, I'm not about to pay 40-60 bucks a book. They're out of their minds, and I can't believe how much their paints are now a days either. The cheapest I've found them is 4 dollars for a 12ml bottle.

This is the only thing I have a grudge with GW. It's really the only place where I have to be mindful on what I spend, it's one of those "Do I really need this or can I look elsewhere for a cheaper price or an alternative?" moments. Even though... I do love the smell of a brand new GW codex or rulebook...

 -Loki- wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Do you count points or objectives during/after the game to determine which side won and can the players affect the result by their choices and dice rolls?

Then it's a competitive game. Regardless of whether it's lighthearted competition or not.

Nope. We also don't use points, just turn up with what feels right for the scenario. Can always bring on some extra reserves if the game is getting to be one sided for whatever reason. Often don't both working out who "won" just what we consider might have happened in the next few turns when time runs out and use that to inform the next scenario or concept.

We've all shifted over to Antares anyhow, as the background is better and less prescriptive, but the game is what you make it. Not what you are told it is.

For someone who says I play a strange way to then go and post this?

I applaud you and your group for making the game what you want it to be, but it's pretty safe to assume if you approached anyone outside your regular group and said 'lets play a game this way' the majority of people would at least look at you cock eyed.

We're always getting new people join. Its like a whole new world of gaming and fun is opened up to them.

So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

 Zywus wrote:
So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

I quite like playing Inquisitor.

I think we should change the subject, Fenrir's group has their way of playing and that's fine, but 40k is obviously a competitive game. It can be played non-competitively but it is more definitely meant to be a competitive game. If it's not then the rulebook is deceptively written to suggest it's meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

I quite like playing Inquisitor.

I quite like potato.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think we should change the subject, Fenrir's group has their way of playing and that's fine, but 40k is obviously a competitive game. It can be played non-competitively but it is more definitely meant to be a competitive game. If it's not then the rulebook is deceptively written to suggest it's meant to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

I quite like playing Inquisitor.

I quite like potato.

Spuds are great - you can do anything you want with them and don't have to eat or prepare them the same way every time. Lots of variety from a single object.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

I quite like playing Inquisitor.

Ah, i see. You're just trolling.
I kinda suspected it, but thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

 Zywus wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

I quite like playing Inquisitor.

Ah, i see. You're just trolling.
I kinda suspected it, but thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

Oh dear, so you don't agree nor like a different view so its "trolling" is it? Fair enough, no bother to me.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

I quite like playing Inquisitor.

Ah, i see. You're just trolling.
I kinda suspected it, but thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

Oh dear, so you don't agree nor like a different view so its "trolling" is it? Fair enough, no bother to me.

I quite like playing Heroes of might and magic III. In some ways its predecessor 'Heroes of might and magic II' has more charm, but the improvement in interface and the increased number of creatures available means I have to give the nod to the third game in the series.

 Zywus wrote:
And what if Pete want's a challenge?

I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.

How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).

Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?

If you want a challenge give the other guy more points, equal pointed battles should give both sides an equal chance to win.

hobojebus wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
And what if Pete want's a challenge?

I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.

How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).

Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?

If you want a challenge give the other guy more points, equal pointed battles should give both sides an equal chance to win.

Precisely the issue with 40k. Two armies of the same points level rarely have equal chances to win.

 Zywus wrote:
And what if Pete want's a challenge?

I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.

How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).

Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?

And if the armies were balanced, and Pete wanted a challenge, Bob and Pete could agree to a game where Bob has more points than Pete, giving Pete a handicap - and they would have a good idea of just how mismatched the armies are.

When the armies, and the choices within the armies, aren't balanced - even at a point where they should be - then the game suffers.

And if Bob doesn't know that the Orks are just plain inferior to the Tau, how much fun is he going to have when Pete stomps him into green, minty jelly, over and over again?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
And what if Pete want's a challenge?

I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.

How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).

Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?

And if the armies were balanced, and Pete wanted a challenge, Bob and Pete could agree to a game where Bob has more points than Pete, giving Pete a handicap - and they would have a good idea of just how mismatched the armies are.

When the armies, and the choices within the armies, aren't balanced - even at a point where they should be - then the game suffers.

And if Bob doesn't know that the Orks are just plain inferior to the Tau, how much fun is he going to have when Pete stomps him into green, minty jelly, over and over again?

The Auld Grump

Same thing with Brets and Tomb Kings, the astetic of thoses ranges are quite good ( even when TK had spures that where old as 10 years, when they first realesed them ), but both armies where weak and old. No wonder why people didnt purchase them.

At the Round Table of Bretonnia and Warseer we have discussed it that Brets have been left behind due lack of support, not because people didnt wanted to buy those models.

This is one of GWs main problem: they only push they current releases and maybe time to time they tinker with their older stuff.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
So again, are you seriously saying AoS is a competitive game, and 40K is not?

I quite like playing Inquisitor.

Ah, i see. You're just trolling.
I kinda suspected it, but thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

Oh dear, so you don't agree nor like a different view so its "trolling" is it? Fair enough, no bother to me.

No, it's trolling when you're quite clearly just stirring the pot to see what sort of reaction you get. If you're not interested in actual discussion, feel free to move on.

herjan1987 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
And what if Pete want's a challenge?

I'm sure, for those who like a challenge, that want to fight at a disadvantage, and knows this going in, it's great to be able to chose a disadvantaged army.

How about all those who don't want that though, and all those who choose an army assuming everyone is roughly equally matched? (in bloodbowl it's clearly stated that some teams are recommended for experienced players who want a challenge only. Nowhere is this stated in 40K interestingly enough).

Wouldn't it be a better solution to have all armies reasonably balanced, so that a force of X points has a reasonable chance against another force of X points? Someone who want's a challenge can then knowingly subtract a few hundred points. Is that not preferable to two players each choosing a force of the same amount of points and then it appears one has chosen a army that's vastly superior despite both choosing the same amount of points?

And if the armies were balanced, and Pete wanted a challenge, Bob and Pete could agree to a game where Bob has more points than Pete, giving Pete a handicap - and they would have a good idea of just how mismatched the armies are.

When the armies, and the choices within the armies, aren't balanced - even at a point where they should be - then the game suffers.

And if Bob doesn't know that the Orks are just plain inferior to the Tau, how much fun is he going to have when Pete stomps him into green, minty jelly, over and over again?

The Auld Grump

Same thing with Brets and Tomb Kings, the aesthetic of thoses ranges are quite good ( even when TK had spures that where old as 10 years, when they first realesed them ), but both armies where weak and old. No wonder why people didnt purchase them.

At the Round Table of Bretonnia and Warseer we have discussed it that Brets have been left behind due lack of support, not because people didnt wanted to buy those models.

This is one of GWs main problem: they only push they current releases and maybe time to time they tinker with their older stuff.

One of the ironies with Kings of War - the Empire of Dust/Not-Tomb Kings army is great! Well rounded, flexible, and fast!

Not unbeatable, by any means, but very, very good.

The Brotherhood/Not-Brettonians are also really good. (One of my players had a Brettonian army that was built around the long ago Lizardman/Brettonian starter box - his army was quite literally fuzzy with dust! They are being played for the first time in over a decade, and now he is glad that he didn't sell them off.

The Auld Grump

Me I'm thinking of resurrecting my vampire counts army for 9th age (c wat I did thar) £50 let's me get an elite army from mantic which will let me get to 2k combined with my old stuff.

hobojebus wrote:
Me I'm thinking of resurrecting my vampire counts army for 9th age (c wat I did thar) £50 let's me get an elite army from mantic which will let me get to 2k combined with my old stuff.

Aye, and the mantic stuff looks just as good (okay, maybe one or two bits are not quite as good) as the GW stuff.

 master of ordinance wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Me I'm thinking of resurrecting my vampire counts army for 9th age (c wat I did thar) £50 let's me get an elite army from mantic which will let me get to 2k combined with my old stuff.

Aye, and the mantic stuff looks just as good (okay, maybe one or two bits are not quite as good) as the GW stuff.

I'd like to say I agree.... but I don't. There aren't many models in the KoW range I'd choose over GW's options for any reason other than price.

I assume master of ordinance was referring to the undead range rather than Mantic's range overall.

Many people make some very good well presented points.

I enjoy the hobby, modelling and painting.
I convert and change models to my liking using third party materials and enjoy doing so.
I don't play the game they produce very often but I do play games with the models produced by third parties such as heralds of ruin and thier version of kill team.
I do play apocalypse as at that points count it doesn't really matter about balance, it's a story.

 Zywus wrote:
I assume master of ordinance was referring to the undead range rather than Mantic's range overall.

Depends which undead range I think. Tomb Kings had old crappy models anyway so I prefer Mantic, though the Mantic characters and special stuff I don't think stand up to close examination like the newer GW stuff. Vampire Counts overall I still prefer GW. Skeletons I think GW make some really nice models though they cost a fortune. Zombies, I don't really like either to be honest, I don't know what look Mantic were shooting for but to me they look like they're break dancing, GW Zombies I prefer the aesthetic but the proportions are bit whacky.