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.
2016/12/13 06:09:11
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
Pay to win is a term used exclusively for F2P video games. It refers to how some games will let players buy gear that is more powerful than anything a player who doesn't pay can get.
This cannot apply to WH40k, as you must buy every unit you use - there is no "free" option.
2016/12/13 06:10:35
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
No it isn't. It's more like saying: "That dude paid $50 for a special gun and armor that makes it extremely easy to kill other people and extremely difficult to be killed himself. If I don't pay the $50 myself, ON TOP OF THE COST OF THE ACTUAL GAME, I literally cannot beat him in a multiplayer game. That's not fair."
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/13 06:12:28
2016/12/13 06:10:41
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Pouncey wrote:No. I recognize an utter misuse of the "pay to win" label.
He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
That's the definition of pay to win.
"Literally" he didn't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 06:11:17
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
CrownAxe wrote: That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list
That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.
With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.
If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.
Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.
People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:
It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.
exactly. That's not a fair match up for the land raiders. They have 0% of winning 5/6 eternal war missions. How is that part of you idea of fair?
I'm going to take the lack of a response again as a yes.
2016/12/13 06:11:57
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Pouncey wrote:No. I recognize an utter misuse of the "pay to win" label.
He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
That's the definition of pay to win.
"Literally" he didn't.
He did. I quote:
"Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that. I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models."
In other words:
Old models should suck. New models should rock.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 06:13:47
2016/12/13 06:12:00
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Actually my statement was more along the lines of pay to stay valid.
I came to 40k from Magic the Gathering where old stuff is quickly replaced by new stuff due to a legality system that is essentially how the company stays in business.
GW claims to be a model producing company, not a game making company, what I'm saying is you're lucky your tac marines still have a playable data sheet.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
2016/12/13 06:13:34
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Dakka Wolf wrote:GW claims to be a model producing company, not a game making company, what I'm saying is you're lucky your tac marines still have a playable data sheet.
This statement speaks for itself. "GW's business model is pay to win, and I'm fine with it."
2016/12/13 06:14:01
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
Pay to win is a term used exclusively for F2P video games. It refers to how some games will let players buy gear that is more powerful than anything a player who doesn't pay can get.
This cannot apply to WH40k, as you must buy every unit you use - there is no "free" option.
That was my point-- I was agreeing with you.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2016/12/13 06:17:12
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
No it isn't. It's more like saying: "That dude paied $50 for a special gun and armor that makes it extremely easy to kill other people and extremely easy to kill other people. If I don't pay the $50 myself, ON TOP OF THE COST OF THE ACTUAL GAME, I literally cannot beat him in a multiplayer game. That's not fair."
Tabletop games like WH40k don't revolve around buying equipment.
The purchases are to expand your collection of models, to give you options to make your armies from.
It's also worth noting that while it appears that GW makes units more powerful to drive sales, what is actually happening there is that people buy the better units more often. More powerful units sell more, less powerful units sell less. GW strives for balance the best they can, so they make weaker units stronger, and stronger units weaker. This in turn shifts where players spend their money.
Basically it's just the result of trying to balance the game.
It's also worth noting that GW sets their prices based on how many of the kit they expect an average player to need, because they need to pay off the costs of developing the models and keeping them on shelves. HQs cost more because you usually only need 1-2 of them. Troops cost less because you need lots of them.
Centurions have an apparently absurd price tag, but it becomes less absurd when you see that their points cost is so high they're probably only expecting Space Marine players to buy one box set each.
The rules drive what models players focus on buying, and that happens regardless of how balanced the rules are.
2016/12/13 06:19:08
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
He essentially said, in answer to the thread poll, "No. I don't think that things should be balanced. If you're not 'up to date,' you should auto lose."
2016/12/13 06:20:08
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.
This basically explains the poll results.
40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.
If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.
That is actually not what I said at all. I said you did not have the money to update your army. I was nicer about it than I am being now.
2016/12/13 06:25:54
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
HANZERtank wrote: It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.
Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.
Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".
This is a massive misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It's a complete strawman. Because you are leaving out the essential clause of what I say: "Apart from player skill."
The fact that you would have a roughly 50% chance apart from player skill wouldn't make the game not be worth playing. It would mean that the outcome of the game wouldn't be decided in advance of us rolling dice and you'd actually have to make good IN-GAME decisions.
But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?
Never mind the fact that it would be near impossible to eliminate the player skill level when play-testing a rule set to ensure balance. You're also forgetting that even if player skill could be eliminated in the play-testing phase of making the rules balanced, there are so many units in so many codeces along with all the rules in the core rule books and supplements than getting true balance such that any two lists of equal points value have a 50/50 chance of winning against each other is practically and financially impossible.
You're arguing the merits of something that will never ever exist.
As for my answer to the original questions, see this post.
2016/12/13 06:26:49
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
He essentially said, in answer to the thread poll, "No. I don't think that things should be balanced. If you're not 'up to date,' you should auto lose."
In my experience, when someone in an argument tries to summarize their opponent's statements, they invariably skew it in their own favor.
2016/12/13 06:31:06
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
He essentially said, in answer to the thread poll, "No. I don't think that things should be balanced. If you're not 'up to date,' you should auto lose."
In my experience, when someone in an argument tries to summarize their opponent's statements, they invariably skew it in their own favor.
Part of the problem might extend from the fact you're arguing with a person with a loose grasp of what 'literally' means.
Why isn't 'boycott Tradito' a poll option? Can we get that fixed?
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
2016/12/13 06:32:29
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Pouncey wrote:No. I recognize an utter misuse of the "pay to win" label.
He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
That's the definition of pay to win.
"Literally" he didn't.
He did. I quote:
"Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models."
In other words:
Old models should suck. New models should rock.
If.you aren't capable of applying such a basic term as "literally" correctly, nor using the actual quote function (because, let's face it, anything you type as representative of what someone else has said has likely been altered beyond recognition) then why do you feel qualified to make the already tenuous argument you've laid out in this thread?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/12/13 06:36:17
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Bookwrack wrote: Part of the problem might extend from the fact you're arguing with a person with a loose grasp of what 'literally' means.
Why isn't 'boycott Tradito' a poll option? Can we get that fixed?
Languages evolve over time. You're just gonna have to get used to literally literally being is own antonym.
I am literally going to drown myself in tequila now.
I'll see y'all tomorrow!
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
2016/12/13 06:38:33
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
2016/12/13 06:40:33
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
Your poll could use an "Other (write in)" option. Things aren't always black and white.
2016/12/13 06:40:49
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
Because maybe he didn't mean "should" maybe he meant exactly what he said, not what you're twisting it to mean, as usual.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/12/13 06:42:19
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Traditio wrote: If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
I don't know, perhaps you should ask them for clarification instead of declaring that you know what they meant to say and changing the quote to match your opinion? One obvious answer is that discussion in forum threads often drifts from the strictest literal interpretation of the thread title, and so posts are often a reply to the ongoing discussion rather than the initial question/comment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 06:43:32
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/12/13 06:43:13
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
HANZERtank wrote: It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.
Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.
Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".
This is a massive misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It's a complete strawman. Because you are leaving out the essential clause of what I say: "Apart from player skill."
The fact that you would have a roughly 50% chance apart from player skill wouldn't make the game not be worth playing. It would mean that the outcome of the game wouldn't be decided in advance of us rolling dice and you'd actually have to make good IN-GAME decisions.
But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?
Never mind the fact that it would be near impossible to eliminate the player skill level when play-testing a rule set to ensure balance. You're also forgetting that even if player skill could be eliminated in the play-testing phase of making the rules balanced, there are so many units in so many codeces along with all the rules in the core rule books and supplements than getting true balance such that any two lists of equal points value have a 50/50 chance of winning against each other is practically and financially impossible.
You're arguing the merits of something that will never ever exist.
As for my answer to the original questions, see this post.
IM:
We've had basically these discussions before, and I'm willing to concede the general idea:
Yes, yes, I understand that exactly, or even roughly, 50/50 is probably unattainable.
Fine.
But I'm with black sails on this point:
We aren't even close to what is achievable. The fact that an unupgraded wraithknight is 295 points and a landraider is 250 points is a joke.
Here, I fully expect Peregrine to start telling me about how they are for different things, have different uses, and aren't really comparable...
...
...even though meanwhile he completely agrees that each of those things are, in fact, ridiculous.
Even if you compare the same release:
Iron Warriors legion tactics compared to Death Guard?
Ravenguard chapter tactics and Cptn. Shrike compared to white scars chapter tactics and khan?
It's like GW isn't even fething trying.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/13 12:29:39
2016/12/13 06:43:13
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Bookwrack wrote: Part of the problem might extend from the fact you're arguing with a person with a loose grasp of what 'literally' means.
Why isn't 'boycott Tradito' a poll option? Can we get that fixed?
Languages evolve over time. You're just gonna have to get used to literally literally being is own antonym.
I am literally going to drown myself in tequila now.
I'll see y'all tomorrow!
The word figuratively still exists, as does the original meaning of literally. You can simply choose to use them in a manner that does not offend you.
But that wouldn't amuse me.
And figuratively does not exist any longer. It was literally murdered, skinned, and now has its hide worn as camouflage by literally.
We're through the looking glass, people.
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
2016/12/13 06:48:13
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Traditio wrote: Here, I fully expect Peregrine to start telling me about how they are for different things, have different uses, and aren't really comparable...
It must be so much easier to "win" arguments when you can invent posts for your straw man opponents to say. How about, rather than deciding what I will say, you wait to hear my actual opinion? And that opinion is that Wraithknights and Land Raiders are clearly not balanced at the same level. There are in fact difficulties in comparing units with such vastly different roles in such vastly different armies, but those particular units are so clearly polar opposites on the power level scale that it's safe to say there's a problem.
So, your assumption that I will disagree with the idea that 40k balance needs to improve, despite saying that exact thing over and over again in the past, is both absurd and dishonest. I very strongly believe that 40k balance needs to improve. However, I disagree just as strongly about your theories of how balance should work and how it should be achieved in 40k. You make blatant game design errors that undermine anything you have to say on the subject.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/12/13 06:48:58
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.
Basically this is what annoys me.
"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."
"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."
"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."
"Tacticals suck."
"Ok. Should they?"
Basically this is what annoys me.
There are a thousand Chapters of a thousand Space Marines each. One million Marines strong.
Spread over one million planets in the Imperium.
Space Marines are so rare it's like having a military force composed exclusively of Planetary Governors.
Then they give half a dozen of the Chapters their own Codices and model ranges.
Then they take WH30k and make it a GW game with full support, developing tons of new models.
Virtually all the WH40k video games are about Space Marines.
Back in 2006 I start what becomes my favorite army. Sisters of Battle. A common sight on Imperial worlds, tasked with guarding pilgrimage routes, with guarding Ecclesiarchy personnel, with guarding Ecclesiarchy property, with guarding relics, shrines, taking out rogue Marine chapters on occasion, dealing with heresy, acting as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus, and even embarking on entire wars on their own. If you are an Imperial citizen, you are very familiar with Sisters of Battle. You have seen them all your life. Their medics are a sight of relief for Imperial Guard troops, because it means high-quality care is imminent.
If you are an Imperial citizen, you have almost certainly never seen a single Space Marine in your entire life, of any kind. Sisters of Battle outnumber Space Marines so much it's not funny.
And I collect my new army, the models are very spiffy despite their age. Five years go by, until I buy my second Exorcist and finally have nothing more to buy. My collection of Sisters of Battle is complete for now, and I'll just wait for plastic models to come out so I can start doing conversions and rebuild my army.
And I wait, and wait, and wait...
Oh look, Mechanicus get their own plastics.
Oh look, Imperial Knights are their own force.
More waiting. Years pass.
Oh look, GW's doing WH30k now, a Space Marine versus Space Marine game set 5,000 years before Sisters of Battle would exist in the lore.
More waiting.
Video game after video game comes out. Marines. Marines. Marines. Marines versus Marines. Marines. Marines. Some of these games look so similar I wonder if I'm seeing the same one twice. Still just Dawn of War: Soulstorm with Sisters of Battle, the most awful of the series, with buggy units and a godawful campaign.
More waiting.
Then it's a few months ago, and I've pretty much given up. But then I hear of a video from GW that's teasing plastic Sisters of Battle. I'm skeptical, but I watch it. It comes off like a joke.
Still, maybe GW just sucks at dealing with Sisters of Battle. Let's wait a few months, see what happens.
Three months pass, December comes, I've already forgotten about it. A friend tells me there are Sisters of Battle preorders on GW's site.
Could this be it? Could this be the moment I've waited for for five years?
Nope, just repackaged metal squads and a terrible Canoness model. And Celestine's been removed. And we don't have our own Codex anymore.
And that's when my spirit breaks completely.
just because your faction gets completely screwed over doesn't mean space marine players or people who love space marines have to pay for it.
Dakka Wolf wrote:GW claims to be a model producing company, not a game making company, what I'm saying is you're lucky your tac marines still have a playable data sheet.
This statement speaks for itself. "GW's business model is pay to win, and I'm fine with it."
Its not pay to win.
I also come fro magic, same thing. GW is a company, and crazy, economics exist. In a perfect world 40k would be nicely balanced, but this isn't a perfect world and GW needs to sell models, I don't blame them. I'm not fine with it, I put up with it because god dammit do I love my Dark Eldar and Space Wolves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 06:58:47
gummyofallbears wrote: just because your faction gets completely screwed over doesn't mean space marine players or people who love space marines have to pay for it.
This is gonna sound weird, but since I posted that, I found a lot of reasons to be happy about my army.
You're right though. Space Marines are a significant part of the Imperium's defence and lore, it makes sense they be playable. I just wish they'd stuck to a single Codex with a well-made traits system to let them customize their chapter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 07:05:04
