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.

It's really strange that when my friend plays a knight we have a great time and the knight does cool and powerful stuff.

"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.

A few things I've learned about 'competitiveness' over the years.

-Competitive play is not 'friendly play'. You are playing to win.
-If you don't want to deal with people who are powergamers, don't play competitively.
-Being competitive doesn't make you a bad person by default, it's just a different style.
-Most competitive players are more than happy to show you a few tricks.
-Not knowing what kind of gamer you're playing tends to make both parties unhappy.

 Chamberlain wrote:

"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.

So you feel that there should be no decisions in list building then, from a tactical perspective?

I'm not sure i understand your point. Please clarify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

-Competitive play is not 'friendly play'. You are playing to win.

I must challenge this statement.

Whenever people say this, I picture someone who can't handle losing.

Playing to win doesn't make you competitive. I play to win outside of tournaments but i'll let people take things back, or explain "gotcha" stuff before it happens. Playing to win? Sure. Exploiting every advantage? No.

 Marmatag wrote:
I must challenge this statement.

Whenever people say this, I picture someone who can't handle losing.

Playing to win doesn't make you competitive. I play to win outside of tournaments but i'll let people take things back, or explain "gotcha" stuff before it happens. Playing to win? Sure. Exploiting every advantage? No.

I think we may be seeing this differently.

Playing to Win and being Competitive, IMHO, are the same thing. But 'Playing to Win' doesn't make you a cheater or a scumbag. A good guy who's Playing to Win or being Competitive (however you want to see it) is not pulling his punches and he's maximizing his chances to win. He's not necessarily a jerk, but he's not putting down a 'fun casual list'. He's making his army as effective as possible.

Exploiting advantages isn't a bad thing, either. It's part of the game, and as long as he makes it clear (or you already know) what kind of game it'll be, that's perfectly fine.

I see it like basketball, in a way. You've got guys that are really good on the court, aggressive even. That's how they play, that's their fun. It would be unwise, knowing this, to go up and try to play with them if you have several ailments and injuries and aren't really good at basketball. And you'd look like a fool if you complained about it. Of course, those guys on the court should be like, "Are you sure you're ready for this?"

My competitive mentor is pretty adamant about that. He'll sit and go through someone's list with them and explain, "If we play I'm going to win easily, but this is exactly why..."

 Marmatag wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:

"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.

So you feel that there should be no decisions in list building then, from a tactical perspective?

No. I'm saying that every approach has pros and cons.

I happen to think the cons of competitive play are bad enough that I called them "bad decision making" but that's not fair. It was an overstatement. Obviously if someone enjoys what they see as the features of competitive play they are well served by playing that way.

A good comparison is magic the gathering. There are truly powerful competitive decks that people use to play for money to the point that some people live off being a pro magic player. The ability to identify the good cards and choose to make an effective deck is part of the challenge of the game. However no one thinks it's okay to take a top tier legacy deck to the 60 card casual night. The 60 card casual players though have probably a few hundred times the cards to choose from when making their deck. Only a tiny fraction are "legacy playable" whereas the vast majority can be included in a 60 card casual deck.

I've just noticed that for those of us who don't do competitive gaming, we have a lot more material to work with. More scenarios, a variety in points sizes (including unequal ones) more units to actually field because it's okay if they're not the most powerful. That sort of thing. Just like how the more casual you are in magic, the greater the size of your card pool is. When the average competitive level of a deck goes down, a greater number of the cards becomes a worthwhile selection.

So I totally accept the competitive approach for those who enjoy it. A given unit might not currently be tournament "viable." If you're a tournament player you simply accept that and get on with the fun of finding the units that are viable or even amazing and making your army. If you're in a non-competitive environment then the way to make these units actually work is to lower the competitive level of the average list. Just like how you don't need to use the best possible card for every given slot in a magic deck if you're just playing with friends around the kitchen table.

What I find truly strange are those who want the skill test of list building but seem to think that the designers have failed unless every unit is costed such that everything is always viable. And then when casual players actually figure out that if you lower the competitive level of the list more data sheets become viable, they can't accept that. For them it *has* to be a problem with the game design.

People with this issue could just accept the reality of competitive play and accept that finding points efficiency in the codex is part of the deal. Or they could just accept that the issue of non-viable units goes away when you open up the card pool by lower the level of competitive deck building. But no, the fact that an approach make the issue into a non-issue isn't good enough. Instead of win-at-all-costs or casual-at-all-costs it's blame-the-designer-at-all-costs.

Part of the issue also is that GW is *really* bad at offering non-pickup/tournament style gaming.

The game basically is built around a conventional pitched encounter battle. This really isn't what like half the factions or unit in the game would engage in fluffwise (those Dark Eldar slave raiders arent going to fight a Guard tank company from the front in broad daylight, that Manticore probably has a minimum range measured in tens of thousands of meters, and what in earth are strategic bombers doing in small arms range?), and, more to the point, is basically all the game offers.

Want to play a cultist guerilla uprising? Convoy raid in mountain passes? Sabotage a Deathstrike missile launch area? A decapitating strike on an enemy command post? The game offers means for none of this stuff, at least not in the way other games do.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Part of the issue also is that GW is *really* bad at offering non-pickup/tournament style gaming.

The game basically is built around a conventional pitched encounter battle.

I think this might be us bringing our baggage into the situation. I had a friend join in on our 40k night and he got into the game, got some miniatures and paints and plays. He's just going off the rulebook and he sees non conventional pitched encounter battle as the norm. Why?

He just worked through the rulebook, playing the scenarios with different friends as he went. If you start in the Open Play section (it is the simplest sort of introductory way to play) and play through the scenarios you'll get non standard games almost immediately.

Want to play a cultist guerilla uprising? Convoy raid in mountain passes? Sabotage a Deathstrike missile launch area? A decapitating strike on an enemy command post? The game offers means for none of this stuff, at least not in the way other games do.

Have you looked outside of the matched play section in the rulebook? Some of the scenarios in the Open and Narrative play are perfect for that.

 Chamberlain wrote:
It's really strange that when my friend plays a knight we have a great time and the knight does cool and powerful stuff.

Ok?

"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.

Alternatively, you have different goals for the game, and what is "worse" for you is "better" for other people. Some people enjoy a game where it's a match of skill vs. skill, not just pushing random models on the table and making gun noises as you talk about how cool and powerful they are.

Yep. I overstated things. I've expanded on it in my reply to Marmatag.

 Chamberlain wrote:
And then when casual players actually figure out that if you lower the competitive level of the list more data sheets become viable, they can't accept that. For them it *has* to be a problem with the game design.

It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.

Or they could just accept that the issue of non-viable units goes away when you open up the card pool by lower the level of competitive deck building.

Except it really doesn't go away. You still have units that are too weak to be viable, and now you have units/combinations that are too strong to be viable. In a competitive environment it's 100% fine to bring a horde IG list and overwhelm people with massed flashlights. In a "casual" environment like you're proposing that IG infantry horde is no longer viable because people will whine and cry about it and demand that you bring a weaker list, despite it being a very fluffy concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Have you looked outside of the matched play section in the rulebook? Some of the scenarios in the Open and Narrative play are perfect for that.

They really aren't. Those scenarios are very bland generic missions suitable for matched play style games between two random armies. Nowhere will you find something like a historical mission where the game sets the forces as IG vs. Eldar, and the Eldar have to stop the Deathstrike missile from firing to win the game. You might, if you're lucky, get one mission per book like that, as an example of the fact that it's possible to do it. But if you're playing missions like that it's because you created them yourself, not because GW supported your desires and provided you with the option.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.

This is a great example of blame-the-game-designer-at-all costs. I think you've created an impossible standard for GW to meet. Also, if list crafting and datasheet evaluation is part of the fun for competitive players then inequality in power for the points cost creates an opportunity for the competitive player to do their thing. Just as cards of different power level for the same mana cost does so with magic.

It's not incompetence when it's damn successful and does exactly what these sorts of players want.

Except it really doesn't go away. You still have units that are too weak to be viable, and now you have units/combinations that are too strong to be viable. In a competitive environment it's 100% fine to bring a horde IG list and overwhelm people with massed flashlights. In a "casual" environment like you're proposing that IG infantry horde is no longer viable because people will whine and cry about it and demand that you bring a weaker list, despite it being a very fluffy concept.

No kitchen table magic group is out of line when they say that the tier 1 legacy deck is inappropriate for their casual gaming night.

It's okay to figure out together with your gaming friends what you want out of the game and have an expectation of appropriateness. Like if someone wants tournament practice and I show up with something other than a powerful list, or set up a Hold At All Costs type scenario, that would be inappropriate. That person would be better served playing someone other than me.

Also, just because a relaxed approach makes a horde IG list inappropriate doesn't mean it makes the infantry squad datasheet invalid in the same way a competitive approach does to many units. Just because it's super, super powerful to take a bunch of ynarri/craftworld minimum sized reaper squads with line of sight ignoring exarch weapons doesn't mean it's invalid to take reapers in a relaxed game at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Those scenarios are very bland generic missions suitable for matched play style games between two random armies. Nowhere will you find something like a historical mission where the game sets the forces as IG vs. Eldar, and the Eldar have to stop the Deathstrike missile from firing to win the game. You might, if you're lucky, get one mission per book like that, as an example of the fact that it's possible to do it. But if you're playing missions like that it's because you created them yourself, not because GW supported your desires and provided you with the option.

I'm sure the next time we use one of the very evocative stratagems from the narrative scenarios we'll have a good laugh at how you think they are "very bland generic missions."

As for your deathstrike idea, I think Hold at All Costs would be a great fit. if you have the spot at the centre of the table (hint, put your deathstrike missile launcher model there) at the end of the game, the missile launches. If not, it's been stopped.

The usual argument seems to be that "tournament practice" or "bring your best" is the default assumption, which turns into a strawman of sorts where it's automatically the person who "show up with something other than a powerful list, or set up a Hold At All Costs type scenario" is at fault for wanting something other than "100% optimal or GTFO"

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.

This is a great example of blame-the-game-designer-at-all costs. I think you've created an impossible standard for GW to meet. Also, if list crafting and datasheet evaluation is part of the fun for competitive players then inequality in power for the points cost creates an opportunity for the competitive player to do their thing. Just as cards of different power level for the same mana cost does so with magic.

It's not incompetence when it's damn successful and does exactly what these sorts of players want.

Except it really doesn't go away. You still have units that are too weak to be viable, and now you have units/combinations that are too strong to be viable. In a competitive environment it's 100% fine to bring a horde IG list and overwhelm people with massed flashlights. In a "casual" environment like you're proposing that IG infantry horde is no longer viable because people will whine and cry about it and demand that you bring a weaker list, despite it being a very fluffy concept.

No kitchen table magic group is out of line when they say that the tier 1 legacy deck is inappropriate for their casual gaming night.

It's okay to figure out together with your gaming friends what you want out of the game and have an expectation of appropriateness. Like if someone wants tournament practice and I show up with something other than a powerful list, or set up a Hold At All Costs type scenario, that would be inappropriate. That person would be better served playing someone other than me.

Also, just because a relaxed approach makes a horde IG list inappropriate doesn't mean it makes the infantry squad datasheet invalid in the same way a competitive approach does to many units. Just because it's super, super powerful to take a bunch of ynarri/craftworld minimum sized reaper squads with line of sight ignoring exarch weapons doesn't mean it's invalid to take reapers in a relaxed game at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Those scenarios are very bland generic missions suitable for matched play style games between two random armies. Nowhere will you find something like a historical mission where the game sets the forces as IG vs. Eldar, and the Eldar have to stop the Deathstrike missile from firing to win the game. You might, if you're lucky, get one mission per book like that, as an example of the fact that it's possible to do it. But if you're playing missions like that it's because you created them yourself, not because GW supported your desires and provided you with the option.

I'm sure the next time we use one of the very evocative stratagems from the narrative scenarios we'll have a good laugh at how you think they are "very bland generic missions."

As for your deathstrike idea, I think Hold at All Costs would be a great fit. if you have the spot at the centre of the table (hint, put your deathstrike missile launcher model there) at the end of the game, the missile launches. If not, it's been stopped.

I'm sorry but Perigrine did NOT create an impossible standard. It isn't much to ask for consistent internal and external balance. Of COURSE some units are going to always end up better, but you're completely denying the power gap for certain AND armies in the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sorry but Perigrine did NOT create an impossible standard. It isn't much to ask for consistent internal and external balance. Of COURSE some units are going to always end up better, but you're completely denying the power gap for certain AND armies in the game.

I'm not denying any gap at all. I'm just saying that if you build armies and set up games that don't intentionally concentrate on the extremes of points efficiency you're less likely to have "not viable" units.

And it is actually an impossible standard. If variance in the points efficiency exists in a codex so that matched play event regulars can have list building be as skill intensive as possible, then that's not really compatible with consistent internal and external balance. If there's variance to maximize list building skill then that's not internally consistent.

And that's not even dealing with the issue of the impossibility of actually balancing a game like 40k and all its variety. And then add in that for every possible meta (which is ever shifted by the introduction of new releases) different units, weapon load outs, detachments, stratagems, etc., will be more and less powerful in a given game. I don't even think the idea of points costs being anything other than a loose guideline makes sense. Consistent internal and external balance doesn't even make sense in an environment of constantly shifting effectiveness.

If someone actually wants to maximize the enjoyment of a game, then accepting that data sheets will not be equal and getting on with the challenge of list building is a far better choice than waiting for GW to do something they don't really have any reason to do-- provide you with that "consistent internal and external balance." Their current approach is working for them just fine and people are enjoying list building at the competitive level. They learned it would be successful based on how list building worked in AoS.

If playing a subset of available units makes you sad, then I've presented another solution. Play more relaxed. Go for more variety and play more unequal points scenarios. Actually work through all the game content in the main rulebook and then chapter approved 2017 and definitely try the open war cards (they're great). Approach list building like you're making the characters in a story rather than trying to win a future game by picking the best stuff.

Either approach will work better than holding out for GW to fix something that's working for them and many of their growing customer base.

 Chamberlain wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm sorry but Perigrine did NOT create an impossible standard. It isn't much to ask for consistent internal and external balance. Of COURSE some units are going to always end up better, but you're completely denying the power gap for certain AND armies in the game.

I'm not denying any gap at all. I'm just saying that if you build armies and set up games that don't intentionally concentrate on the extremes of points efficiency you're less likely to have "not viable" units.

And it is actually an impossible standard. If variance in the points efficiency exists in a codex so that matched play event regulars can have list building be as skill intensive as possible, then that's not really compatible with consistent internal and external balance. If there's variance to maximize list building skill then that's not internally consistent.

And that's not even dealing with the issue of the impossibility of actually balancing a game like 40k and all its variety. And then add in that for every possible meta (which is ever shifted by the introduction of new releases) different units, weapon load outs, detachments, stratagems, etc., will be more and less powerful in a given game. I don't even think the idea of points costs being anything other than a loose guideline makes sense. Consistent internal and external balance doesn't even make sense in an environment of constantly shifting effectiveness.

If someone actually wants to maximize the enjoyment of a game, then accepting that data sheets will not be equal and getting on with the challenge of list building is a far better choice than waiting for GW to do something they don't really have any reason to do-- provide you with that "consistent internal and external balance." Their current approach is working for them just fine and people are enjoying list building at the competitive level. They learned it would be successful based on how list building worked in AoS.

If playing a subset of available units makes you sad, then I've presented another solution. Play more relaxed. Go for more variety and play more unequal points scenarios. Actually work through all the game content in the main rulebook and then chapter approved 2017 and definitely try the open war cards (they're great). Approach list building like you're making the characters in a story rather than trying to win a future game by picking the best stuff.

Either approach will work better than holding out for GW to fix something that's working for them and many of their growing customer base.

1. IOW, you purposely make bad decisions when list building. Why should anyone purposely have to make a bad army? That's not how it's supposed to work, and you're not letting GW take any responsibility for something that's their fault.

2. It actually isn't an impossible standard. All you need to do is start with half the armies and then work your way around. Everyone knows that you can't get it perfect. What the issue IS, though you ignore it, is how far that level goes. The goal should be to minimize that NOT through list building, but through unit entry building.

3. I've done Open War cards as most people have. We ALL use Chapter Approved. This doesn't fix anything and I have no clue why you suggest it would fix anything as if it were that magical.

 Chamberlain wrote:
And it is actually an impossible standard. If variance in the points efficiency exists in a codex so that matched play event regulars can have list building be as skill intensive as possible, then that's not really compatible with consistent internal and external balance. If there's variance to maximize list building skill then that's not internally consistent.

Sigh. No. I don't really feel like giving a long explanation of how badly wrong you are, but this shows a very limited understanding of what balance is and how it works. Improving balance does not remove the skill of list construction, it merely shifts it from identifying the right tools for the strategy you're trying to execute instead of simply identifying where the author made a 500 point unit cost 100 points. In fact, the game as it is now is the opposite of skill-intensive, because identifying the overpowered things to use is so easy.

And that's not even dealing with the issue of the impossibility of actually balancing a game like 40k and all its variety. And then add in that for every possible meta (which is ever shifted by the introduction of new releases) different units, weapon load outs, detachments, stratagems, etc., will be more and less powerful in a given game. I don't even think the idea of points costs being anything other than a loose guideline makes sense. Consistent internal and external balance doesn't even make sense in an environment of constantly shifting effectiveness.

Again, you're wrong here. But even setting aside the difficult goal of perfect balance it's certainly possible to come much closer than what GW has done. The game is in the state it is in because GW is incompetent, not because the task is impossible.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

It's a problem with the game design because the only reason that it is necessary to lower the power level of lists to open up all those other options being viable is that GW is incompetent at game design. A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary. It's like claiming that the restaurant that always serves your food on dirty dishes has no problems, because as long as you bring your own dishes from home everything is ok and you can eat your food. Stop making excuses for incompetence and failure.

This is a great example of blame-the-game-designer-at-all costs. I think you've created an impossible standard for GW to meet. Also, if list crafting and datasheet evaluation is part of the fun for competitive players then inequality in power for the points cost creates an opportunity for the competitive player to do their thing. Just as cards of different power level for the same mana cost does so with magic.

It's not incompetence when it's damn successful and does exactly what these sorts of players want.

Yep it's impossible standard. Balanced game is impossible period. Not a chance. Flat out zero chance. You have better chance of flapping your arms and flying to mars by that. Good luck for Peregrin to try that!

Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.

Just because it's impossible in the long run to keep a game balanced does not mean you do not put in the effort to balance it. Or do you walk around with soiled clothes, or don't put gas in your car?

The key is that, in this digital era, why are they relying on old tools to balance the game? It's to sell books full of errata.

It's fine for them to release new stuff that may break the balance, it's not okay that they drag their feet or make people pay for the updates that brings things back into balance, nor is it to release things with pretty glaring balance issues when they're a billion dollar company that can afford a round of QA testing.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.

Well okay sure. All GW needs to do is sell fixed battle boards(or alternatively have map which is detailed enough you can get EXACTLY to the spot premade and bought terrain) in fixed army lists and fixed scenarios. The second scenario or forces are altered(even as much as bolter or bp&ccw for this guy) balance is broken.

Of course good luck selling that to players.

Funny that, they do have terrain and table layout guidelines.

Oh and scenarios/missions, etc.

Still not seeing why lack of balance is so excusable.

You can't lay all the blame on the company behind it, but you can lay the lion's share of it at the feet of the billion dollar company that can't do a bit of QA.

The reason why people in this hobby are more willing to let it slide is that miniature games are played less often and with a narrower set of people than say online multiplayer games, which can and do often achieve balance for significant amounts of time.

One of the reasons why people use the argument of blaming the players for imbalances is because people willing to use those in a pickup game are considered odd, but who left those issues in the first place?

I work in the tabletop and video game industry and we balance massively more complex games, and keep balancing them.

tneva82 wrote:
Yep it's impossible standard. Balanced game is impossible period. Not a chance. Flat out zero chance. You have better chance of flapping your arms and flying to mars by that. Good luck for Peregrin to try that!

And yet other companies do it. Stop excusing incompetence by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.

Well okay sure. All GW needs to do is sell fixed battle boards(or alternatively have map which is detailed enough you can get EXACTLY to the spot premade and bought terrain) in fixed army lists and fixed scenarios. The second scenario or forces are altered(even as much as bolter or bp&ccw for this guy) balance is broken.

Of course good luck selling that to players.

Only if you assume a straw man of 100% mathematically perfect balance, rather than what people actually want. The difference between literal 100% perfect balance and a game that is "unbalanced" by swapping a model's bolter for a pistol and chainsword is imperceptible to the players, so it doesn't matter. GW could vastly improve the game by improving balance to a level that is much closer to the ideal, and the only reason to waste time on arguing about perfect balance is to excuse GW's failure to do so.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Funny that, they do have terrain and table layout guidelines.

They do not have exact layout within 1mm telling exactly what terrain piece in what shape. Even slight difference in shape would throw balance off again.

So who now is presenting an unrealistic standard of imbalance here?

Because I design games with tolerances that can easily handle well over 1mm variances.

In fact, it's those variances in table layouts is what makes playing miniature games interesting.

It certainly doesn't excuse me in putting out rules and units that are terribly designed just because I couldn't possibly account for terrain being placed on the board.

So yeah, I get it, you like 40k. It's fun, but that doesn't excuse balance issues where present. If you can work around those issues great, but don't go blaming others for using things that eventually are revealed as imbalanced.

Otherwise, if there weren't problems, or that they never should bother with balance, why are they selling a book that is basically all balance updates? Why aren't you playing 1st or 2nd edition still?

 Peregrine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yep it's impossible standard. Balanced game is impossible period. Not a chance. Flat out zero chance. You have better chance of flapping your arms and flying to mars by that. Good luck for Peregrin to try that!

And yet other companies do it. Stop excusing incompetence by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Wrong, balance is possible, even if it's not possible forever.

Well okay sure. All GW needs to do is sell fixed battle boards(or alternatively have map which is detailed enough you can get EXACTLY to the spot premade and bought terrain) in fixed army lists and fixed scenarios. The second scenario or forces are altered(even as much as bolter or bp&ccw for this guy) balance is broken.

Of course good luck selling that to players.

Only if you assume a straw man of 100% mathematically perfect balance, rather than what people actually want. The difference between literal 100% perfect balance and a game that is "unbalanced" by swapping a model's bolter for a pistol and chainsword is imperceptible to the players, so it doesn't matter. GW could vastly improve the game by improving balance to a level that is much closer to the ideal, and the only reason to waste time on arguing about perfect balance is to excuse GW's failure to do so.

I think tneva was being sarcastic here but who knows...

Well, I certainly missed a lot.

Suffice to say as far as my position that I choose fluff above winning and above casualness. My standard for my own lists is that I make them as fluffy as possible within my own view of the fluff.

I don't hold anyone else to that standard (I do sometimes rib people for doing unfluffy things like 7th Edition Space Wolves summoning Bloodthirsters when everyone had Daemonology). Generally, I am fine playing "casual" players who care more about list strength than fluff, and I am also fine about playing competitive players who care more about list strength than fluff from the other direction. The way I become bent out of shape is when people tell me I'm playing wrong (e.g. Peregrine, who seems to believe that if you're not being competitive you're wrong or deserving of ridicule).

This thread is like two ships passing in the night.

I'm on the competitive "side", but seriously some of you guys need to reel it back on what you deem valuable units. If something is 95-95% as efficient as the best unit it's still a good pick. Even if it's 75% to 85% it can still be a reliable unit.

And the non-competitive side needs to stop treating discussion of units as a slight against their sensibilities.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. IOW, you purposely make bad decisions when list building. Why should anyone purposely have to make a bad army? That's not how it's supposed to work, and you're not letting GW take any responsibility for something that's their fault.

Where does it say that the proper way to build an army is to make it as strong as possible? Or that building an army of any given level of power and tuning is what's mandated by the game?

I want a game where people have choice. Just like in magic where some people can choose to make a tier 1 legacy or modern deck and take it to events with 100s of people while others can have fun playing with a pile of commons and uncommons around the kitchen table.

Neither is the objectively right or wrong way to play a game, but each is a way to play the game.

2. It actually isn't an impossible standard. All you need to do is start with half the armies and then work your way around. Everyone knows that you can't get it perfect. What the issue IS, though you ignore it, is how far that level goes. The goal should be to minimize that NOT through list building, but through unit entry building.

In that same Long War podcast where they talked about knights pretty much not existing in the game of 40k, they were talking about them because they saw the potential for them to suddenly be good enough. How can a unit swing so completely from "effectively does not exist" to be an option tournament minded players are excited about with no change to the points cost or any other balancing mechanism? A new release might be shifting the larger meta. It's simply not possible to provide balance for a situation where the value of something goes from non existence to a counter for what's new without any change to the balance mechanisms like its points values.

I also think that 8th is way, way more balanced than 7th. That they've already hit the point of good enough and that GW is certainly not ignoring it. They have a plan for FAQ and meta review at set times during the year. They're actively soliciting feedback. The largest 40k event in the history of the game had one of their playtesters in the top 8.

The current state is what GW wants. It's not ignoring the problem at all. It's a feature for 40k just like it is for Magic. Competitive metas contain a subset of the available choices. True for 40k, true for X-Wing, true for Magic.

3. I've done Open War cards as most people have. We ALL use Chapter Approved. This doesn't fix anything and I have no clue why you suggest it would fix anything as if it were that magical.

The only thing it might fix is your current dissatisfaction. Seriously, play some Hold at All Cost and Death or Glory with unequal points for a while. It can be transformative when you realize your expectations are causing the problem, rather than the thing you are blaming. Maybe question the idea that the proper or right way to select an army is to make it as strong as possible?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
The reason why people in this hobby are more willing to let it slide is that miniature games are played less often and with a narrower set of people than say online multiplayer games, which can and do often achieve balance for significant amounts of time.

I think they have access to data that GW simply does not. Had the LVO been played through computers and every point of data that would be useful to someone doing balancing work, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of data an online multiplayer game generates in a day.

I work in the tabletop and video game industry and we balance massively more complex games, and keep balancing them.

Think about Magic the Gathering. It has an online game and a new version (Arena) is in beta. It has loads of players. They just hit a new daily record of logged in players.

And yet, they don't take the data and do their best to make perfect balance. They do the opposite. Their development team intentionally overcosts and undercosts cards to craft an experience. And like 40k, it has to be multiple experiences. Draft, casual kitchen table magic, competitive constructed, multiplayer, multiplayer commander and on and on. And yet they persist in making unbalanced cards.

Unbalance accomplishes something for them. FFG accomplished the same thing with X-Wing and now GW has as well with AoS and 40k. Just because you or I may not like the results doesn't mean it's not working exactly as intended. And now GW is doing it again with Shadespire. All cards not being balanced in that game is going to lead to the same deck and list building fun that the other games i mentioned have.

And those of us who are not into competitive anything can solve our problem the same way kitchen table magic players do. Stop trying to make the strongest list possible and be open to the wider amount of game content beyond equal points matched play games. Jace the Mindsculptor just got unbanned in magic's modern format! I better get some copies for my kitchen table deck! Oh no wait, that's a terrible idea. *I* would be ruining everyone else's fun if I did that.

I don't know if it was in this thread. But I read some people complaining that why shoould I be toning down my list shouldn't the onus be on my opponent to build a better one.

That kind of logic, bedsides being the more polite version of git good. Makes the wrong assumption that toning down / scaling up on the competitive scale are equally difficult. It's not Scaling down is easier.

 Peregrine wrote:
it merely shifts it from identifying the right tools for the strategy you're trying to execute instead of simply identifying where the author made a 500 point unit cost 100 points. In fact, the game as it is now is the opposite of skill-intensive, because identifying the overpowered things to use is so easy.

GW just needs to put out the most egregious fires. When it becomes too easy, GW will step in at the time they promised they would (see their post on FAQ scheduling) and tweak things. The common thread of top eldar lists at the LVO is known to them. One of the people in the top 8 is one of their playtesters.

And listening to competitive based podcasts (people who actually go to all the big events and do well) I don't think it's the opposite of skill intensive at all right now. The talk these people engage in is pretty deep and serious when it comes to list building.

Again, you're wrong here. But even setting aside the difficult goal of perfect balance it's certainly possible to come much closer than what GW has done.

Even if that were true, I don't think they have the design goals you think they should. So when they do what they want to do, it doesn't look like what a competent person with goals they don't have would do, so you describe it as incompetence. I think 40k is accomplishing exactly what GW wants it to accomplish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Earth127 wrote:
I don't know if it was in this thread. But I read some people complaining that why shoould I be toning down my list shouldn't the onus be on my opponent to build a better one.

What about if there was no individual onus in that situation? That you talked about the kind of game you wanted and figured out what was appropriate rather than assuming the default is to make a strong a list as possible.

In that (theoretical) situation, there's a problem. There'd be no need to talk about "onus" if things were fine.

A perfectly valid solution is to agree that what you want is competitiveness. That your expectation really is that everyone should build the best possible list. Then go to town and do it. But when you have a mismatch of expectations, you get problems.

That kinf of logic, bedsides being the more polite version of git good. Makes the wrong assumption that toning down / scaling up on the competitive scale are equally difficult. It's not Scaling down is easier.

I think scaling down is way easier. As is playing the larger area of scenario and game content available beyond equal points matched play. I think stepping back from equal points matched play where each person builds the strongest list possible is a great way to solve issues people have that they attribute to balance errors by GW but are actually about not getting on the same page with your opponent.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:

"Good list-building decisions" sound more like bad decision making to me. Intentionally make the game worse in the name of a greater chance of winning.

So you feel that there should be no decisions in list building then, from a tactical perspective?

No. I'm saying that every approach has pros and cons.

I happen to think the cons of competitive play are bad enough that I called them "bad decision making" but that's not fair. It was an overstatement. Obviously if someone enjoys what they see as the features of competitive play they are well served by playing that way.

A good comparison is magic the gathering. There are truly powerful competitive decks that people use to play for money to the point that some people live off being a pro magic player. The ability to identify the good cards and choose to make an effective deck is part of the challenge of the game. However no one thinks it's okay to take a top tier legacy deck to the 60 card casual night. The 60 card casual players though have probably a few hundred times the cards to choose from when making their deck. Only a tiny fraction are "legacy playable" whereas the vast majority can be included in a 60 card casual deck.

I've just noticed that for those of us who don't do competitive gaming, we have a lot more material to work with. More scenarios, a variety in points sizes (including unequal ones) more units to actually field because it's okay if they're not the most powerful. That sort of thing. Just like how the more casual you are in magic, the greater the size of your card pool is. When the average competitive level of a deck goes down, a greater number of the cards becomes a worthwhile selection.

So I totally accept the competitive approach for those who enjoy it. A given unit might not currently be tournament "viable." If you're a tournament player you simply accept that and get on with the fun of finding the units that are viable or even amazing and making your army. If you're in a non-competitive environment then the way to make these units actually work is to lower the competitive level of the average list. Just like how you don't need to use the best possible card for every given slot in a magic deck if you're just playing with friends around the kitchen table.

As a long time magic player who has both placed well in tournaments and regularly plays 60 cards casual, 100% agree. I had a round which intentionally increase minimum card limit to 120 just so you would have more diverse decks - a ton of card suddenly appeared regularly which would usually just barely not have made the cut.

What I find truly strange are those who want the skill test of list building but seem to think that the designers have failed unless every unit is costed such that everything is always viable. And then when casual players actually figure out that if you lower the competitive level of the list more data sheets become viable, they can't accept that. For them it *has* to be a problem with the game design.

Too much black-and-white here. If you are a magic player, you must know about the card "One with Nothing". No matter how much you lower the bar of your casual meta game, this card will never become viable - not even in a cube draft, where the cube is filled with the most terrible cards you could find.
The reason why GW is at fault here is because even if you lower the bar, very few units enter the ring. Some are just so bad that they cannot compete with most of the game.
An example where balance is done well and works just like describe, is Death Guard anti-tank. In tournaments, you see little besides blightlord terminators and PBC, but when playing new players, narrative scenarios or otherwise casual games, suddenly predators, helbrutes, defilers and blight haulers are fine options as well. No one is freaking out because you brought hel brutes because of PBC.
The balancing everyone is upset about is stuff like the ork index. Tournament game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Narrative game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Playing a new player with dark imperium minis? Green tide.
If you bring a dread mob army you will lose the game by getting wiped out unless your opponent has really, really bad dice.

This is especially true for any army that used to rely on elite choices or transports. Neither is working well right now, no matter how casual you make your game. A unit of chaos terminator that is just equipped with what's in their box and in no way optimized will still evaporate a unit of Grey Knights each turn.

People with this issue could just accept the reality of competitive play and accept that finding points efficiency in the codex is part of the deal. Or they could just accept that the issue of non-viable units goes away when you open up the card pool by lower the level of competitive deck building. But no, the fact that an approach make the issue into a non-issue isn't good enough. Instead of win-at-all-costs or casual-at-all-costs it's blame-the-designer-at-all-costs.

Well, in GWs case the designers are to blame. I play WH40k with the very same people I play kitchen table magic with. People that buy what they think looks awesome in their army, with little regard to how they perform on the battlefield.
One of them got two riptides for his birthday when they were released in 6th, he had been playing Tau since 3rd. Each time he brought them he ended up apologizing for utterly destroying his opponent, up to the point where he had to shelve his two beautifully painted models because they were so powerful no other player could stop them.
Another story goes back to 4th edition, where a player in our group started his eldar hovertank army, which has always consisted of the same three fire prisms plus six wave sperpents filled with guardians, wraith guard, fire dragons, a seer council, dire avengers and Eldrad. With 7th edition codex, he suddenly started wiping out whatever he faced, up to the point where no one wanted to play him anymore.
This does not happen when playing Magic the Gathering (or any other game, for that matter), none of their armies were even close to comparable to legacy top tier decks. Even things like Umezawa's Jitte, Skullclamp, Arcbound Ravager, Jayce the Mind Sculptor or other powerful cards that are banned in multiple tournament formats have never caused as much trouble to our group as GW's attempts at balancing. We had a player regularly playing the world champion's miracle deck and he still got clobbered every other game.