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.

The Archon is basically a worse Canoness who inexplicably costs 25pts *more*.

Which is why the Archon ends up becoming a Ravager babysitter. An epic job for an epic unit. /s

Someone mentioned why not make all these extra weapon options more differentiated and there is a little problem with that. You could make them very different in power but that would include other issues. Such as making some weapons too powerful and expensive that you'd most likely never take them on a regular unit due to expense or that unit would be so ridiculously powerful that everyone complains, and on a HQ unit it would basically create a stronger sense of HeroHammer where that one super unit is punching everything with their beefed up lascannon that does a flat 6 on reroll wounds and downgrades saves on all units wounded(extreme examples, but extra rules for weapons usually end up with some force multiplier effects. Remember Laserlock on Scatter laser?).

Maybe I am just burned out, but I am so tired of having all these options that just mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I mean, the god damn Ossefactor. Cool looking piece of wargear, but I don't see many people running to the shop to make Wracks with them when they don't use many Hexrifles or Liquifiers even. It is for this reason I kinda like Peregrine's idea of a more static model entry that in turn that(for the wracks) would indicate one model in the unit has a static weapon profile of X and you could give that unit whatever cool weapon you wanted. Rule of cool that would give you absolute freedom to put some cool mods on your miniature. Cool miniature and it is useful? Sign me up now!

 Eldarsif wrote:

Which is why the Archon ends up becoming a Ravager babysitter. An epic job for an epic unit. /s

 Eldarsif wrote:

Someone mentioned why not make all these extra weapon options more differentiated and there is a little problem with that. You could make them very different in power but that would include other issues. Such as making some weapons too powerful and expensive that you'd most likely never take them on a regular unit due to expense or that unit would be so ridiculously powerful that everyone complains, and on a HQ unit it would basically create a stronger sense of HeroHammer where that one super unit is punching everything with their beefed up lascannon that does a flat 6 on reroll wounds and downgrades saves on all units wounded(extreme examples, but extra rules for weapons usually end up with some force multiplier effects. Remember Laserlock on Scatter laser?).

If you're referring to me, I didn't actually suggest making them very different in terms of power. What I suggested was making them different in terms of function or target.

To go back to the Haemonculus example, 4 of his weapons are just variations on '4+ Poison weapon with weak AP and low damage'. How many of those do we really need?

I mean, if we're going to have 5 different poison weapons, could we not at least make them a bit more interesting? Tyranids manage all manner of different poison effects, yet the best we can do is 'wound infantry on 4s and vehicles on 6s'.

And even if we're stuck with that godawful effect, could we not do a little more to differentiate them? Maybe give Scissorhands AP-4 Maybe give the Electrocorrosive Whip the Haywire ability against vehicles. Maybe make the Agoniser less godawful somehow.

Then you've got stuff like Mindphase Gauntlets. Instead of having them be entirely worthless, how about making them do something interesting? They could get S9 but wound against the target's Ld. They could roll 3d6 and if the total exceeds the target's Ld, they take d3 Mortal Wounds. They could force the target to make a Ld test - if it fails then it cannot fight at all this turn. They could start at S3 AP- D1 but then gain Strength, AP and damage based on how low the target's Ld is.

Basically, give the different weapons actual purpose - Scissorhands for AP, Electrocorrosive Whip for vehicles, Mindphase Gauntlet for Ld-shenanigans etc.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Maybe I am just burned out, but I am so tired of having all these options that just mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I mean, the god damn Ossefactor. Cool looking piece of wargear, but I don't see many people running to the shop to make Wracks with them when they don't use many Hexrifles or Liquifiers even. It is for this reason I kinda like Peregrine's idea of a more static model entry that in turn that(for the wracks) would indicate one model in the unit has a static weapon profile of X and you could give that unit whatever cool weapon you wanted. Rule of cool that would give you absolute freedom to put some cool mods on your miniature. Cool miniature and it is useful? Sign me up now!

I can definitely see the appeal in some regards. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if it would make things pretty dull.

You say that it would let you model squads however you want, but when there's only one weapon option, what's even the point?

 vipoid wrote:
You say that it would let you model squads however you want, but when there's only one weapon option, what's even the point?

Making your stuff look cool (you know, the reason you're playing this game at all) without having to worry about picking something that has poor rules.

Fluff. Fluff >> the rest.
If you want to create the chapter that uses spears as weapons, the emoperor's Spears? Whatever they are called, you can do It now, but what rules do they actually have in battle?
Chainswords? Power Swords? Axes? Mauls? Fists?
If you have fewer categories you have more freedom modelling whatever. It will always be useful as a model instead of being useless as the rule change because now the sword Is more efficient than the axe and you modeled those 2 things differently and have to rebuild half your army if you haven't magnetized.

That's why the bloat stays. More Sales.

Edit: Sorry for typos, my autocorrect is in italian XD

 Eldarsif wrote:

The Archon is basically a worse Canoness who inexplicably costs 25pts *more*.

Which is why the Archon ends up becoming a Ravager babysitter. An epic job for an epic unit. /s

Someone mentioned why not make all these extra weapon options more differentiated and there is a little problem with that. You could make them very different in power but that would include other issues. Such as making some weapons too powerful and expensive that you'd most likely never take them on a regular unit due to expense or that unit would be so ridiculously powerful that everyone complains, and on a HQ unit it would basically create a stronger sense of HeroHammer where that one super unit is punching everything with their beefed up lascannon that does a flat 6 on reroll wounds and downgrades saves on all units wounded(extreme examples, but extra rules for weapons usually end up with some force multiplier effects. Remember Laserlock on Scatter laser?).

Maybe I am just burned out, but I am so tired of having all these options that just mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I mean, the god damn Ossefactor. Cool looking piece of wargear, but I don't see many people running to the shop to make Wracks with them when they don't use many Hexrifles or Liquifiers even. It is for this reason I kinda like Peregrine's idea of a more static model entry that in turn that(for the wracks) would indicate one model in the unit has a static weapon profile of X and you could give that unit whatever cool weapon you wanted. Rule of cool that would give you absolute freedom to put some cool mods on your miniature. Cool miniature and it is useful? Sign me up now!

Yep, Archons are not the beast they used to be... i miss odd Archons so much. And the Baron... and WWP's, oh man i miss 5th DE........

Dark Eldar - the army that drew the ire of No Model No Rules before it was cool.

Also, somehow, the army with some of the most flagrant affronts to that policy, but in such a bland manner as to question how something can be both flagrant and mundane at the same time.

Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?

Some of us manage just fine. I understand that you can't find fun in unbalanced games, which is absolutely fair and understandable, but just because you can't doesn't mean anyone else does.

PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.

But do all casual players want a "fair chance of winning", or are they okay with a margin of imbalance for the sake of aesthetic, for the sake of personal enjoyment?

I don't know if you play 30k Peregrine, but Legion Breachers aren't considered great. They lack the offensive output of even Tactical Marines, pay far more for it, and their reward is rerolled saves against templates and blasts (most of which ignore Marine armour anyways), and a 6+ at range, 5++ in melee. They ain't competitive by any stretch, unless you happen to be one of the few Legions that have things that benefit Breachers (Thousand Sons Corvidae(?) with +1 invuln, Imperial Fists Stone Gauntlet). I play neither of those legions - I play Ultramarines, whose only benefit to Breachers is optional power swords.

I still have Breachers as the mainstay of my list. Why? Because I absolutely love how they look, and I'm willing to be slightly underpowered if I can take the units I want, and have them FEEL like the unit I want. It's why I wouldn't do what Slayerfan advocates with cool-looking-but-trash units and proxy them. I want my Breachers to feel like Breachers, even if that feel is underwhelming in gameplay.

Sure, everyone wants everything to be viable, but that's why points exist - to balance the game out. Getting rid of stuff makes it viable in the only sense that it's not outclassed - it's just simply not there at all!

 Peregrine wrote:

Making your stuff look cool (you know, the reason you're playing this game at all) without having to worry about picking something that has poor rules.

But it also means that every model of that type will play exactly the same.

Do you really think that cool conversions and such will help when the rules make it feel like every HQ has just emerged from a factory assembly line?

I think that there is a valid point under Peregrine's extremism; every weapon should actually have a role. But I really don't think things like multimeltas or missile launchers are redundant. They actually have different role than lascannons and heavy bolters. That some of these weapons are kinda bad, is not because they lack a clear role. Power weapon thing is much better example, they used to be one profile and could be again. As the variance between these weapons is so small, it is really difficult to make them distinct from each other without just making one of them the best.

Dark Eldar melee weapons have similar issues, but at least there I think adding some weird special rules as suggested could do the trick and strengthen the flavour of the faction. Such approach is best reserved to weapons which are only carried by characters or are otherwise rare, so you don't need to fiddle with some variant mechanics with basic units.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?

Some of us manage just fine. I understand that you can't find fun in unbalanced games, which is absolutely fair and understandable, but just because you can't doesn't mean anyone else does.

PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.

But do all casual players want a "fair chance of winning", or are they okay with a margin of imbalance for the sake of aesthetic, for the sake of personal enjoyment?

I don't know if you play 30k Peregrine, but Legion Breachers aren't considered great. They lack the offensive output of even Tactical Marines, pay far more for it, and their reward is rerolled saves against templates and blasts (most of which ignore Marine armour anyways), and a 6+ at range, 5++ in melee. They ain't competitive by any stretch, unless you happen to be one of the few Legions that have things that benefit Breachers (Thousand Sons Corvidae(?) with +1 invuln, Imperial Fists Stone Gauntlet). I play neither of those legions - I play Ultramarines, whose only benefit to Breachers is optional power swords.

I still have Breachers as the mainstay of my list. Why? Because I absolutely love how they look, and I'm willing to be slightly underpowered if I can take the units I want, and have them FEEL like the unit I want. It's why I wouldn't do what Slayerfan advocates with cool-looking-but-trash units and proxy them. I want my Breachers to feel like Breachers, even if that feel is underwhelming in gameplay.

Sure, everyone wants everything to be viable, but that's why points exist - to balance the game out. Getting rid of stuff makes it viable in the only sense that it's not outclassed - it's just simply not there at all!

So why should the goal be non-balance?

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
It would separate the traditional 40k players from this toxic desire for the ever elsusepive balance.

Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?

PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.

The rules being better your way is only your opinion again. I think the best rules 40k had were 2nd edition and they were nowhere near balanced. Your attitude alone is the demonstration of the toxicity of this search for balance that tries to stifle the fun in the game. What you suggest is bland and boring.

And “balanace” is a myth. I have never even heard a proper definition of what you and people like you mean when you say you want a balanced game. U talk about all units being viable, in my group all units are because non of us are out they trying win above all else so all units get used and are fun and viable.

What I suggest is as I say boring and dull and your inability to accept that other people may disagree with or that you might even be wrong isnthe toxicity I talk about. I’m glad he haven’t surrendered to the minority that you represent. I cannot understand why I play play 40k or have any interest in it. U hate the rules so much and don’t care about the background or story and design armies purely to win, to win a game you can’t stand playing because it’s such a mess. Either get a grip or move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, because making better rules is so incredibly toxic, how can anyone possibly have fun without the game being an unbalanced mess?

Some of us manage just fine. I understand that you can't find fun in unbalanced games, which is absolutely fair and understandable, but just because you can't doesn't mean anyone else does.

PS: balance benefits "casual" players more than competitive players. Casual players want everything to be viable so they don't have to worry about being limited in their list building choices if they want to have a fair chance of winning. Competitive players care much less if something is overpowered, they just take the overpowered thing and win with it.

But do all casual players want a "fair chance of winning", or are they okay with a margin of imbalance for the sake of aesthetic, for the sake of personal enjoyment?

I don't know if you play 30k Peregrine, but Legion Breachers aren't considered great. They lack the offensive output of even Tactical Marines, pay far more for it, and their reward is rerolled saves against templates and blasts (most of which ignore Marine armour anyways), and a 6+ at range, 5++ in melee. They ain't competitive by any stretch, unless you happen to be one of the few Legions that have things that benefit Breachers (Thousand Sons Corvidae(?) with +1 invuln, Imperial Fists Stone Gauntlet). I play neither of those legions - I play Ultramarines, whose only benefit to Breachers is optional power swords.

I still have Breachers as the mainstay of my list. Why? Because I absolutely love how they look, and I'm willing to be slightly underpowered if I can take the units I want, and have them FEEL like the unit I want. It's why I wouldn't do what Slayerfan advocates with cool-looking-but-trash units and proxy them. I want my Breachers to feel like Breachers, even if that feel is underwhelming in gameplay.

Sure, everyone wants everything to be viable, but that's why points exist - to balance the game out. Getting rid of stuff makes it viable in the only sense that it's not outclassed - it's just simply not there at all!

So why should the goal be non-balance?

It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?

Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.

It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.

Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.

To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.

The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.

 Peregrine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
You say that it would let you model squads however you want, but when there's only one weapon option, what's even the point?

Making your stuff look cool (you know, the reason you're playing this game at all) without having to worry about picking something that has poor rules.

Yup, we've got to distill this game all the way down to the pre-school level.

I still don't see why you think modelling/weapon option bloat necessarily unbalances the game as a whole.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?

Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.

It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.

Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.

To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.

The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.

I’m happy to accept people play differently and always have been but the desire of peregrine et al to change the whole game that way is what grinds my gears. I really think all sides of the community would be happy with a 40k tournament edition in the style of epic 40000 and a classic style for the rest of us. I’ve suggested this many times and it would be very simple to do. U could still keep the three ways to play in the classic game but tournaments would use the slimmed down speedier version of the rules. Everybody ones. Rolling out an epic 40000 style game would be a disaster for 40k if it was the only way. I remember that game coming out and I had some great games of it and it worked for the scale of it but the lack of depth and detail killed it in the end. It just wasn’t emersive. It was a game of maths more than narrative.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?

Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.

It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.

Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.

To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.

The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.

Of course story should be the driver, but the end goal NEEDS to be balance, as otherwise the supposed immersive experience doesn't matter. If Marine units all the sudden cost 20 points AT MINIMUM and still had the same stats, can we make that excuse of it fits the story of them being smaller in number? Sure, but it wouldn't actually be immersive because they would die too quickly and not inflict enough damage for the cost, compared to the fluff.

While that point cost is mildly hyperbolic (though it was the original cost of Intercessors), it proves that point. I'm also for not removing a lot of options, but it's hard to deny there's a good amount of bloat for weapons. I mean, with the new wounding chart, Power Mauls basically might as well not exist. Compared to the previous edition, with the all-or-nothing AP system and wounding chart, Power Swords/Lances were ignored.

The end goal needs to be enjoyment. Better balance would be better than worse balance, but if the end goal *is* balance, play flip-a-coin. There's a balanced game.

Even Chess isn't balanced.

Bharring wrote:
The end goal needs to be enjoyment. Better balance would be better than worse balance, but if the end goal *is* balance, play flip-a-coin. There's a balanced game.

Even Chess isn't balanced.

It's exactly this lax attitude that leads to "why bother trying".

It's a poor attitude to have and one that wouldn't work in any other workplace. GW shouldn't be an exception to that.

When you read "Better balance would be better than worse balance" as "Better balance isn't worth trying for", we have a failure to communicate.

Please reread my post, in hopes that we don't just joust at straw knights.

The idea that a nontrivial body can do a nontrivial amount of work without mistakes or shortcomings has been shown over and over for ages to be hogwash.

you can abstract away a lot of the detail, for the sake of simplicity, GW tried that with the 3rd (IIRC) iteration of the 6mm scale game, which essentially killed it.

turns out a lot of players like there being a trivial and seldom used difference between a Bolt Gun Mk1 and a Bolt Gun Mk1a.

take the details away and you may have a technically better game, but you also have a game thats a lot harder to engage with.

I the idea of deleting options or older units to me just makes the game less appealing. I love when people bring older minis, rare or limited edition models or some odd FW stuff to a game cause that's cool to play against something that I've never seen before or rarely seen on the table top. Deleting options that are not optimal doesn't make the game more appealing because it just prunes options and makes peoples army more samey.

40k is not nor has it ever been a game that is balanced for competitive play between strangers. It's a game that is meant to be played between a group of like minded individuals who have the same expectations about what kind of game you all want to play.

Bharring wrote:
When you read "Better balance would be better than worse balance" as "Better balance isn't worth trying for", we have a failure to communicate.

Please reread my post, in hopes that we don't just joust at straw knights.

The idea that a nontrivial body can do a nontrivial amount of work without mistakes or shortcomings has been shown over and over for ages to be hogwash.

You clearly missed the mark of which sentences I'm referring to. That would, of course, be referring to just flipping a coin and saying even Chess isn't balanced.

But it also means that every model of that type will play exactly the same.

Do you really think that cool conversions and such will help when the rules make it feel like every HQ has just emerged from a factory assembly line?

Actually, having the HQ be more standardized would probably be more fluffy then creating some abominations that have a weird equipment setup(although granted, GW hasn't had a good track record currently with it). As an answer to your question: Yes, cool conversions rule even if the rules are the exact same thing as another standard model. My old Hammer and Shield Belial will still see table use because I just want my own magnificent bastard leading my termies even though he is just a basic terminator now. There is just something sublime about fielding your own creation and just feeling it is special in you heart even though it doesn't have any special rule.

People say "well, with better rules there is a reason for those options" I have this to say: How many times have we seen the pendulum swing from weapon to weapon? How many editions have we gone through where a few weapon options are so subpar that you never pick them in favour of something that actually does something on the table, only to replace that next edition as the pendulum swings back?
Most people are not picking the other weapon options as most of them are too similar and/or too gakky to actually use. The options are an illusion and have never been anything else. I don't want to pick a subpar item that means my kitbash will only see 1-2 games at best before I stop desiring Losing At All Cost.

Also, I can't create new rules(unless I am in a super casual group), but I can decide to make my models cool(rule of cool) which I do enjoy. Currently have a few Grotesques I put together that are kitbashes and I feel like I have a lot of freedom with them due to the fact that Grotesques are very explicit about their combat ability. In short, they give me more freedom of modelling which I can then actually enjoy playing than any of the multi-option Space Marines that I have who have to be shuffled around every edition because Weapon option X is now subpar to option Y and picking X means you auto-lose.

Now, here is the good thing about options and why we need gazillion of them: They sell kits and keep GW in business. You ran your Dire Avengers with a spear and a forcefield and now that is useless compared to the Twin-Catapult? Better buy more kits. Scatter Lasers not the default loadout on Serpents anymore? Better buy 4 more Serpents to re-kit them with Shuriken Cannons. I know I am being a bit facetious as I have most of my serpents magnetized(not the Dire Avengers though) as I have been down this line through 7 editions now. So fair enough, here is a reason to keep all those options: More money for GW.

Perhaps I am spoiled. I have gone through many editions of multi-options that have meant countless purchases to replace old stuff until the point magnetizing your models became second nature(and my home is drowning in plastic), and I play Age of Sigmar that is more streamlined than 40.000 will ever be. I have seen a lot of variations and at this point I just want a good smooth game that runs like a kitten and allows me to be properly creative.

Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.

That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.

This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".

I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.

So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Eldarsif,
I'd love it if they added a 50ppm upgrade for Archons that gave them a Jetbike. At 50ppm, it's almost certainly overpriced, so won't impact balance. But it'd add options. So most wouldn't use it, but it would be fun.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
If the end goal were truly balance, and not anything else, than what balance-based reason is there to play something other than flip-a-coin? It's easily demonstrable that there is no more-balanced game. As such, how could you reason that there'd be a better option? Other equally-ideal (balanced) options, sure, but nothing is better balanced.

That is why I'm saying balance does *not* need to be the end goal. The end goal can include balance, but must be only part of the goal.

This is why I say the end goal should be enjoyment. A mechanical end goal usually lends to trivial yet useless solutions like "play flip-a-coin!".

I did miss that you were referring to only the second half of the second sentence and ignoring the first half. Your reference to balance I inferred as referring to the "balance" half. Some parts of posts - such as the 'go play flip-a-coin' - have no value divorced from the argument being formed. I hope noone seriously believed I was actually suggesting we play 'flip-a-coin'.

So, to tie it all together, I'm saying they *should* be trying to balance. But the goal should be enjoyment. With balance sought to improve enjoyment and not for balance's sake itself.

Another note: 40k will never be a truly "Competitive" game for as long as it relies on randomness as a key factor of determining who wins. If people want to play a game that is both fair and balanced, they should start learning chess. (Which does give a slight edge to White, but that's why competitive play revolves around multiple games where each player gets to go first.) I don't play 40k because it's a balanced game, I play it because it is fun and the randomness creates interesting risk-reward decisions that you don't get from more "Fair" games.

Sure, a huge part of 40k is coming up with ways to mitigate risk by adding in sources of rerolls or redundancy, but once your army hits the table most games are going to come down to how you respond to luck. If I'm losing badly, but I have four Lascannons in a Devestator squad, I'm going to split those lascannons onto two different targets and hope for hot dice because that's my only chance of making a comeback. If I'm winning, I'll fire the same four lascannons into one target so I'm less likely to lose my edge.

I've won games because a character or unit passed a ridiculous number of saves and was able to hold a position that he realistically shouldn't have. I've lost games because a critical roll completely flubbed. In one recent Planetstrike game, I whiffed with five Lascannons firing with the Chooser of the Slain strategem with hit and wound rerolls on 1. Then, Njal Stormcaller passed three 5+ invulns against meltaguns and survived to the end of the game, letting me grab a key objective and win. It was stupid and hilarious and completely unpredictable and a lot of fun, and it only happened because I had an "unoptimal" choice in my list. (By all accounts, Njal Stormcaller in Power Armor is overcosted compared to Njal in Terminator Armor, but I took him anyways, got him stuck in close combat, and then ended up with him exposed and tanking fire that otherwise would have gone into my tanks.)

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I the idea of deleting options or older units to me just makes the game less appealing. I love when people bring older minis, rare or limited edition models or some odd FW stuff to a game cause that's cool to play against something that I've never seen before or rarely seen on the table top. Deleting options that are not optimal doesn't make the game more appealing because it just prunes options and makes peoples army more samey.

But what does any of that have to do with the rules? Why does an OOP or limited-edition model have to have its own special snowflake rules? Why can't it just be a cool model, like how my FW LRBTs have the exact same rules as the standard plastic kit?

What rules should an Archon on a Bike get? Duke? Vect?

What about Corsair Maelovelents, or their heavy weapons squads? Corsair ranger squads that took close-range weapons?

When there's a clear counts-as, it's not as problematic. But many cut rules don't have anything close to base them on.

 Peregrine wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I the idea of deleting options or older units to me just makes the game less appealing. I love when people bring older minis, rare or limited edition models or some odd FW stuff to a game cause that's cool to play against something that I've never seen before or rarely seen on the table top. Deleting options that are not optimal doesn't make the game more appealing because it just prunes options and makes peoples army more samey.

But what does any of that have to do with the rules? Why does an OOP or limited-edition model have to have its own special snowflake rules? Why can't it just be a cool model, like how my FW LRBTs have the exact same rules as the standard plastic kit?

Do those tanks have unique guns or options? If they do or did in the past they should continue to have rules between editions. I am vehemently opposed to removing profiles and options from the game because I don't want to force people to have to use unique models as count as for generic options. It robs one of the main appeals of 40k to me, having far more models, options and choices than pretty much any other table top system.

leopard wrote:
turns out a lot of players like there being a trivial and seldom used difference between a Bolt Gun Mk1 and a Bolt Gun Mk1a.

It's worth thinking about just who those players are though. I've heard the plausible theory that GW (and companies making games with GW's mindset) are targeting the developing brains of teenagers. They don't have great strategic ability or long-term planning, but they have an immense capacity to memorize facts. The more rules the better, as it gives the reward of feeling like they've mastered something without requiring skills they aren't good at. So what would this hypothetical game look like, if this was GW's goal?

1) Lots of special rules. Every possible modeling option has a rule attached, lots of options to choose between minor stat line variations, etc. Bonus points if this is backed up by lots of fluff detail on these things, to give the reward of connecting the rules trivia to the fluff trivia. It doesn't matter if these are good rules, quantity is more important than quality. The players should never be running out of rules to learn and memorize or they might get bored.

2) Shallow on-table rules with an emphasis on list construction. Remember, strategic skill and thinking ahead several turns are not strong points for these players. Randomness is also good, as it gives even weak players an opportunity to feel like they're succeeding. Keep on-table choices straightforward (such as identifying the opponent's strongest unit and attacking it), provide clear guidance about what the player should be doing (maelstrom objectives explicitly telling you each turn's goals), and reward the player for identifying their best options out of the long list of special rules and figuring out how to optimize them.

Sure sounds like a good description of 40k, doesn't it? I find it amusing that people, many of them apparently adults, are so invested in defending and embracing a game design approach aimed at children.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why should the goal be non-balance?

Goals are relative and individual. Plus, I think you misrepresent my point, as you often seem to.

It's not that I'm opposed to balance in general. I'm opposed to balance at the cost of my personal fun (fun which doesn't rely on imbalances or miscosting, I might add). Which is why my personal goals might not align with yours.

Andykp wrote:It shouldn’t be the goal but balance shouldn’t be the driver of the game design. The story should be the driver of the design then the models. A game that tells the story and captures the atmosphere of the setting. That’s the goal.

To be fair, balance should be the driver of game design if that's what you value in a game. For players like Peregrine and Slayer, who do value that, then I fully think that balance should be the driver of their game design, as bland as that might be to someone else. Alternatively, the story being the driver of game design, which I vastly prefer, is still just based on our values of the game, and is seen as childish by others.

The only two ways 40k can remedy this are to balance the game in such a way that it doesn't take away from the flavour and story already in it (which homogenising all weapons into categories of anti-tank/anti-infantry would fail to do), or just to accept that 40k means many different things to many different people, and it's up to the player to choose and embrace the aspects of the hobby they prefer.

Of course story should be the driver, but the end goal NEEDS to be balance, as otherwise the supposed immersive experience doesn't matter. If Marine units all the sudden cost 20 points AT MINIMUM and still had the same stats, can we make that excuse of it fits the story of them being smaller in number? Sure, but it wouldn't actually be immersive because they would die too quickly and not inflict enough damage for the cost, compared to the fluff.

The fluff is already completely out of sync with the game. The most you can do is ignore the ludonarrative dissonance, and instead just try and simply imagine the battlefield playing out.

For me, I don't like to think about how in the format of the game, X is mathematically better then Y. I like to think how Commander A gets their troops to drop weapon B, and do C, because that's what they'd do in the narrative. It's why I'll charge my heroes in even if I could mob the enemy with chaff and beat them down slowly, because that's how I play.
Another perfect example of this: I recently played Death Guard vs my Ultramarines. Death Guard list gets destroyed, with just Typhus surviving. He's surrounded by most of my remaining army, plasma guns, hammernators, meltas, and more bolters than you can shake a stick at. I choose to charge Marneus Calgar in one-on-one. Sure, I actually end up losing Calgar in a mutual kill situation (Typhus kills Calgar, Calgar takes Typhus' last wound with the attack-one-last-time stratagem), but it was far more fun than slaughtering Typhus with no risk to my own forces.

TL;DR, balance doesn't need to be the end goal for everyone.

While that point cost is mildly hyperbolic (though it was the original cost of Intercessors), it proves that point. I'm also for not removing a lot of options, but it's hard to deny there's a good amount of bloat for weapons. I mean, with the new wounding chart, Power Mauls basically might as well not exist. Compared to the previous edition, with the all-or-nothing AP system and wounding chart, Power Swords/Lances were ignored.

So why not change the new wounding chart?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The end goal needs to be enjoyment. Better balance would be better than worse balance, but if the end goal *is* balance, play flip-a-coin. There's a balanced game.

Even Chess isn't balanced.

It's exactly this lax attitude that leads to "why bother trying".

It's a poor attitude to have and one that wouldn't work in any other workplace. GW shouldn't be an exception to that.

Poor in what opinion? Yours? Great, mine begs to differ. Please, stop acting like your opinion is an authority of what is and is not, what should and should not. That's not for you to make judgement on beyond yourself.

Peregrine wrote:

leopard wrote:
turns out a lot of players like there being a trivial and seldom used difference between a Bolt Gun Mk1 and a Bolt Gun Mk1a.

It's worth thinking about just who those players are though. I've heard the plausible theory that GW (and companies making games with GW's mindset) are targeting the developing brains of teenagers. They don't have great strategic ability or long-term planning, but they have an immense capacity to memorize facts. The more rules the better, as it gives the reward of feeling like they've mastered something without requiring skills they aren't good at. So what would this hypothetical game look like, if this was GW's goal?

1) Lots of special rules. Every possible modeling option has a rule attached, lots of options to choose between minor stat line variations, etc. Bonus points if this is backed up by lots of fluff detail on these things, to give the reward of connecting the rules trivia to the fluff trivia. It doesn't matter if these are good rules, quantity is more important than quality. The players should never be running out of rules to learn and memorize or they might get bored.

2) Shallow on-table rules with an emphasis on list construction. Remember, strategic skill and thinking ahead several turns are not strong points for these players. Randomness is also good, as it gives even weak players an opportunity to feel like they're succeeding. Keep on-table choices straightforward (such as identifying the opponent's strongest unit and attacking it), provide clear guidance about what the player should be doing (maelstrom objectives explicitly telling you each turn's goals), and reward the player for identifying their best options out of the long list of special rules and figuring out how to optimize them.

Sure sounds like a good description of 40k, doesn't it? I find it amusing that people, many of them apparently adults, are so invested in defending and embracing a game design approach aimed at children.

Who cares who it's aimed at, if you enjoy it?

Surely you must enjoy something about 40k, Peregrine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. Something about what it IS, not what it could be in your ideal world, which would put you in the "playing a children's game" camp, like all of us who play.
Or maybe not, and you hate everything about 40k. If so, and this is indeed a game "for children", why don't you let it be that? Ifyou dislike it so much, why do you play 40k?