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.

 Mulletdude wrote:
So which of the PL31+ units are considered to be problems?

I think if I was ranking how likely I would be to ban these units, in order from most likely to ban to least likely to ban, it would go something like this:

1) Warhound Scout Titan
2) Hierophant
3) Revenant Titan
4) Stormbird Gunship
5) Thunderhawk Gunship
6) Castellum Stronghold (logistically difficult to place)
7) Tomb Citadel (logistically difficult to place)
8) Imperial Fortress Walls (logistically difficult to place)
9) Mastodon
10) Tau'nar Supremacy Armour
11) Vampire Raider
12) Vampire Hunter
13) Knight Porphyrion
14) Scorpion
15) Big Bird (aet'pouepoau'keres)
16) An'ggrath the Unbound
17) Falchion
18) Fellblade
19) Kustom Stompa
20) Stompa
21) Khorne Lord of Skulls
22) Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne
23) Harridan
24) Skathach Wraithknight
25) Hellhammer

 Peregrine wrote:

 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.

That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.

Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.

Breng77 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.

That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.

Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.

We should probably also ban things like Sisters of Battle. No matter how much you want to believe GW Direct = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, and are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few, if any, Sister of Battle units. Etc. Etc.

Snark aside, anyone with an internet connection and cash can buy a prepaid Visa/Mastercard, tie it to a PayPal account and buy Forgeworld models online. In that sense, regardless of whether or not people choose to buy them, just about everyone has the same access. Your argument is invalid.

 Kriswall wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.

That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.

Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.

We should probably also ban things like Sisters of Battle. No matter how much you want to believe GW Direct = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, and are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few, if any, Sister of Battle units. Etc. Etc.

Snark aside, anyone with an internet connection and cash can buy a prepaid Visa/Mastercard, tie it to a PayPal account and buy Forgeworld models online. In that sense, regardless of whether or not people choose to buy them, just about everyone has the same access. Your argument is invalid.

Which is still more limited access than walking into a store with cash and buying the models, looking at the codex. In the past the rules have been scattered all over several books (this was a problem with GW in late 7th as well). So sorry but you are kidding yourself if you feel most people have the exact same access to FW models as they do to GW models and rules. I can also order GW models from sites like amazon, and have them at my house 2 days later, what is the shipping window for FW models? Sorry the access to such models simply isn't the same as it is to the standard line (barring maybe sisters, until they get a new model line) also those sister rules are in my Imperial 2 index, so I can look at them easily.

Can say 14 or 15 year olds, easily get pre-paid cards, link them to pay-pal accounts, and order things from FW? Many can easily take their allowance down to the GW store, or that amazon gift card from their birthday and by GW models.

Snark aside if I have to jump through hoops to buy forgeworld models that indicates that I don't have the same access to those models as I do to the vast majority of standard GW models. Believing otherwise is ignoring a lot of factors. Certainly to the point where comparing banning them in any way to banning everything but tactical marines.

Futher if you are an LGS and cannot sell FW models, banning them in no way ammounts to the same thing as banning the standard models that you can sell.

The IA FAQ's are proof enough that FW doesn't play test.

Their new FAQ's consist of 2-6 questions, preceded by 3 PAGES of corrections.

They don't even proof read their material let alone play test.

IMO... It's time; time to make the hard decision and take a firm stand... Remove FW from matched play. Leave it for Narrative and Open only.

 oni wrote:
The IA FAQ's are proof enough that FW doesn't play test.

Their new FAQ's consist of 2-6 questions, preceded by 3 PAGES of corrections.

They don't even proof read their material let alone play test.

IMO... It's time; time to make the hard decision and take a firm stand... Remove FW from matched play. Leave it for Narrative and Open only.

So a FW Leman Russ alternate model is just as unbalanced as a Warhound Titan? Makes sense...

Tournaments have a vested interest in getting as many people to participate as possible. This means allowing as many models as possible with some exceptions for those models that were never intended to be used in 2000 point Matched Play. PL 31 is a good cutoff point, as it catches most all of the big offenders in terms of models unsuitable for balanced matched play.

As a side note, if you think that FAQ is embarrassing you clearly didn't remember GW's old FAQs.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.

That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.

Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.

We should probably also ban things like Sisters of Battle. No matter how much you want to believe GW Direct = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, and are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few, if any, Sister of Battle units. Etc. Etc.

Snark aside, anyone with an internet connection and cash can buy a prepaid Visa/Mastercard, tie it to a PayPal account and buy Forgeworld models online. In that sense, regardless of whether or not people choose to buy them, just about everyone has the same access. Your argument is invalid.

Which is still more limited access than walking into a store with cash and buying the models, looking at the codex. In the past the rules have been scattered all over several books (this was a problem with GW in late 7th as well). So sorry but you are kidding yourself if you feel most people have the exact same access to FW models as they do to GW models and rules. I can also order GW models from sites like amazon, and have them at my house 2 days later, what is the shipping window for FW models? Sorry the access to such models simply isn't the same as it is to the standard line (barring maybe sisters, until they get a new model line) also those sister rules are in my Imperial 2 index, so I can look at them easily.

Can say 14 or 15 year olds, easily get pre-paid cards, link them to pay-pal accounts, and order things from FW? Many can easily take their allowance down to the GW store, or that amazon gift card from their birthday and by GW models.

Snark aside if I have to jump through hoops to buy forgeworld models that indicates that I don't have the same access to those models as I do to the vast majority of standard GW models. Believing otherwise is ignoring a lot of factors. Certainly to the point where comparing banning them in any way to banning everything but tactical marines.

Futher if you are an LGS and cannot sell FW models, banning them in no way ammounts to the same thing as banning the standard models that you can sell.

I don't think you got my joke. Everyone has equal ACCESS to models. Games Workshop is more than happy to sell Forgeworld models to whomever has the funds. Just call them up or place an order on their website. Then sit back and wait. Literally anyone CAN do that. Even a little kid can save his/her pennies and eventually ask a parent/guardian to place the order for them. Will most little kids do this? Of course not. Is it reasonable to expect most little kids to do this? Of course not. But they CAN. It's sort of like the current US healthcare debate. There is a huge gap between making sure someone has ACCESS to healthcare and making sure they're realistically able to get healthcare. Having money makes a huge difference. Adults with good jobs tend to have more money than little kids, so it's far more common and reasonable to see adults with FW models than it is to see little kids, despite both having the exact same ACCESS to models. Access to something doesn't mean a whole lot if you lack the resources to realistically buy that something.

Once a player hits adulthood in his or her respective country, I'd expect that the barrier to entry caused by having to order something off a website is negligible. It's probably negligible for most pre-adult teens also. Negligible for anyone with disposable income, really. People who lack disposable income will obviously be less competitive in a game where more money => more army options => better chance of winning. I have yet to see anyone win a tournament using only the contents of a Dark Vengeance set. At a certain point, you acknowledge that the game has pay to win elements and that anyone not willing or able to pay isn't going to win as often.

Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.

To be fair i'm all for forgeworld being included in tournaments up to a Limit (33+ PL). However FW models are NOT easily accessible in any way shape or form. I would say a good majority of FW models are recasters people play with. Every catalog from these multiple sources are completely packed with forgeworld models.

Even with that and fw and ebay and companies that make blatant knockoffs of gw products. I for the life of me can not find an appropriate model for the astra militarum sabre defense platform with searchlight. I can always try to kitbash with crappy kitbash skills a searchlight but its not even like there is close models to represent the large searchlight. Its a complete joke that you are claiming FW is easily accessible. And I'm trying to jump through every hoop I can find to even locate this valid 8th edition model.

Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.

My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.

 Kriswall wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.

My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.

a scout titan at 1500pts is COMPLETELY a balance issue.

Sorry you are still wrong in your analogy to healthcare. The access isn't about if they can afford it, it is about ease of access. It is not that "people absolutely cannot get FW models." It is that it is much easier to get the regular GW models for just about everyone, than it is to get FW models. Your argument is akin to "you live in a small town and have access to a doctor, but you could drive 1000 miles to New York city and have access to a better doctor so you have equal access to both doctors." obviously you don't. So sure every person has equal access to FW models, they don't have access equal to those models that they do to GW models.

Also if you admit "pay to win" exists at all, adding an elite class of expensive "pay to win" options seems like a terrible idea. By that argument alone FW should be banned because it exacerbates an already existing problem. Think of your argument "At some point you need to admit pay to win exists." ok granted. It does not follow though that we should encourage it, in fact it follows that "if pay to win exists then, for the best competition we should limit its impact on the game."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.

My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.

Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.

My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.

a scout titan at 1500pts is COMPLETELY a balance issue.

I'd say wait for results to actually show it's a problem before jumping on it. Blizzard made this same mistake when Wings of Liberty first came out. They didn't wait for the meta to evolve (over the objections of major analysts like Day9) and just started patching 'problems' which ended up making worse problems or crippling 'fun' strategies that weren't actually unbalanced and drove players out of matchmaking.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.

They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.

They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.

You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.

gungo wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.

My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.

a scout titan at 1500pts is COMPLETELY a balance issue.

And they're consistently winning actual tournaments? Attendance is actually suffering due to people auto-winning using Scout Titans?

Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 (or 144) str16 wounds with chances at d3 mortals wounds per wound of 6 or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Edit macro wpns double wounds vs titans and buildings

gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.

They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.

You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.

For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.

Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.

I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.

gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 144 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

I don't actually care that much about this. I lost the argument in your mind and probably a few others. That's not surprising. This whole argument seems to be driven by your need to win an easy fight. I get why Reese wants to arbitrarily ban units that aren't actually causing problems in actual games of 40k. He wants more people to show up. Easier games draw in more players. I don't get why everyone else wants the bans. It sounds like you're literally saying "I need you to ban XYZ unit because it looks scary and I'm worried I might have to play a hard game of toy soldiers and that's not fair. I only want to play against units I know I can beat." It comes off as super whiny. Maybe it's because I'm a casual player. Tournament players can come off as total cry babies in a way that casual players never do.

Audustum wrote:

gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.

I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.

gungo wrote:

Audustum wrote:

gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.

I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.

Just call a duck a duck, man. Your fun is more important than other people's fun. You don't like having to play against Titans. Titan owners don't like being told that they can't use the stuff they bought, built and painted. Just be honest and say that you care more about avoiding an edge case that will probably never actually come up in a real world scenario than making sure everyone can have fun. I'll point out that you're not saying "let's have a super heavies only event so that super heavy owners can have fun too". You're saying "super heavy owners are don't count when planning events and shouldn't be allowed to participate". It's all good. You're allowed to be selfish. This is a judgment free zone.

 Kriswall wrote:

gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 144 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

I don't actually care that much about this. I lost the argument in your mind and probably a few others. That's not surprising. This whole argument seems to be driven by your need to win an easy fight. I get why Reese wants to arbitrarily ban units that aren't actually causing problems in actual games of 40k. He wants more people to show up. Easier games draw in more players. I don't get why everyone else wants the bans. It sounds like you're literally saying "I need you to ban XYZ unit because it looks scary and I'm worried I might have to play a hard game of toy soldiers and that's not fair. I only want to play against units I know I can beat." It comes off as super whiny. Maybe it's because I'm a casual player. Tournament players can come off as total cry babies in a way that casual players never do.

The problem is you think tournaments are a causal matchup they are not. You can feel free to put whatever combo of units and as many detachments on a table with your friends. If you want to play open play with random models with your friends no one cares. If you want to play matched tournament games with 3 detachment limits with all armies under the same set of restrictions including limiting or banning units that are not balanced correctly so that these competitive events are as close to balanced and fun as possible that's a different type of play many many people enjoy and attend. The fact is nearly every grand tournament and several majors all include different play styles including narrative and friendly and apoc games where any model is allowed. The question really is why does matched tournament play with restrictions annoy you so much?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

gungo wrote:

Audustum wrote:

gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.

I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.

Just call a duck a duck, man. Your fun is more important than other people's fun. You don't like having to play against Titans. Titan owners don't like being told that they can't use the stuff they bought, built and painted. Just be honest and say that you care more about avoiding an edge case that will probably never actually come up in a real world scenario than making sure everyone can have fun. I'll point out that you're not saying "let's have a super heavies only event so that super heavy owners can have fun too". You're saying "super heavy owners are don't count when planning events and shouldn't be allowed to participate". It's all good. You're allowed to be selfish. This is a judgment free zone.

i play orks and guard I own a stompa and baneblade(1 variant). Two units on the banned list that I play in friendly games.....try again Sherlock Holmes!!! Also every Grand tournament and several majors have apoc and friendly games. No one is saying you can't ever play those models. Let's not make this personal because you are getting bitter. Sounds like only one person is being self entitled here and it ain't me.

Lmao. I'm not bitter. Not even a little bit. I don't own any Titans and don't tend to go to tournaments. I can't handle the pervasive win at all costs while simultaneously being a cry baby attitude. For me, 40k is a casual game. Sounds like you can also enjoy it as a casual game.

It's interesting that you say that you use 'banned list' units in friendly games. I'm reading that as you considering a tournament setting to be an unfriendly setting. I kinda feel sorry for you. Then again, you've been arguing to prioritize your fun over other people's fun all thread. That's certainly unfriendly in my book, so it makes sense that you'd consider tournament games to be inherently unfriendly. I guess I'm just a little more optimistic and think that most people want everyone to have fun (which is why people generally don't actually bring Scout Titans to events and why you don't, practically speaking, need to ban them).

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.

They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.

You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.

For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.

I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.

Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.

This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.

I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.

We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.

They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.

You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.

For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.

I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.

Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.

This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.

I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.

We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.

It's also kind of hypocritical to argue that tournaments are not test beds for balance AND that we know super heavies are imbalanced due to prior tournament results. Pick one. Can't argue both.

 Kriswall wrote:
Lmao. I'm not bitter. Not even a little bit. I don't own any Titans and don't tend to go to tournaments. I can't handle the pervasive win at all costs while simultaneously being a cry baby attitude. For me, 40k is a casual game. Sounds like you can also enjoy it as a casual game.

It's interesting that you say that you use 'banned list' units in friendly games. I'm reading that as you considering a tournament setting to be an unfriendly setting. I kinda feel sorry for you. Then again, you've been arguing to prioritize your fun over other people's fun all thread. That's certainly unfriendly in my book, so it makes sense that you'd consider tournament games to be inherently unfriendly. I guess I'm just a little more optimistic and think that most people want everyone to have fun (which is why people generally don't actually bring Scout Titans to events and why you don't, practically speaking, need to ban them).

I'm not the one on a forum arguing about a venue I don't attend and games I don't play just to argue. I don't play orks or guards the last 20yrs to win at all costs. However someone throwing down a scout titan isn't playing matched games they are doing it just to play with thier giant model. Apoc and titans has NEVER been about balanced games. The titans have always cleared out entire armies by themselves. If you ever played with a true apoc titan unit it's generally long games and the titan winning. Your first turn is just packing up entire trays of models that haven't done anything turn 1 because they are blown off the board. They are literally what should be used for power level narrative games because there is no good way to balance them for the game. I can and have played those types of games if I want however it doesn't take away from my enjoyment playing a different type of game that includes balanced competitive matches. This has nothing to do with my fun vs anyone's else fun. This is you being argumentative just to be argumentative troll online because you've already made it clear you have no claim to this discussion. Apoc events exist which completely destroys your complaints however you don't own any apoc units so you are just here to be a troll.

 Kriswall wrote:

gungo wrote:

Audustum wrote:

gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.

I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.

Just call a duck a duck, man. Your fun is more important than other people's fun. You don't like having to play against Titans. Titan owners don't like being told that they can't use the stuff they bought, built and painted. Just be honest and say that you care more about avoiding an edge case that will probably never actually come up in a real world scenario than making sure everyone can have fun. I'll point out that you're not saying "let's have a super heavies only event so that super heavy owners can have fun too". You're saying "super heavy owners are don't count when planning events and shouldn't be allowed to participate". It's all good. You're allowed to be selfish. This is a judgment free zone.

Actually some events are saying, lets have super heavies allowed event...so yeah. Your argument about people wanting easy wins is also wrong. I can easily beat many of the titans, the problem is those game still aren't fun. Titans are not fun to use in general outside of large apoc style games because they become a binary game, where if I can beat you and table you in a turn because you have all your eggs in the titan basket neither of us have any fun (unless you have a twisted sense of fun where getting tabled turn 2 is fun). I want close hotly contested games, which is why I don't want titans.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.

They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.

You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.

For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.

I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.

Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.

This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.

I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.

We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.

They aren't calling balance, you are. They are open and honest about why they are making the change. It is not a cop out to say that tournaments are not here to test the game for the purpose of some future ideal balance. They aren't, that is not why most people (any people?) are attending. FW also to my knowledge wasn't included in the playtest, so whether some TOs were testers is largely irrelevant. It is also irrelevant because I'm pretty sure the feedback of "hey GW, you know what really sucks in this game, super heavies in standard matched play, maybe you should make them 3000+ point games only for lords of war" wasn't going to take, because GW wants to sell those kits, which sold worse when they were APOC only.

 Kriswall wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.

But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.

They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.

You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.

For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.

I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.

Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.

This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.

I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.

We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.

It's also kind of hypocritical to argue that tournaments are not test beds for balance AND that we know super heavies are imbalanced due to prior tournament results. Pick one. Can't argue both.

Who said that at all? I said that they tend to lead to lopsided games in either direction win or lose, not that they win tournaments. No hypocrisy, titans don't make for fun matched play games.