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.
Karol wrote: Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.
I think a more apt anology would be if a car manufacturer created a line of mini smart cars for driving 30-40 mph to and from work (priced as a luxury car, of course), but everyone was buying it and trying to use them to win the Indy 500 (and the manufacturer just shrugged and went “okay”). That’s the sort of mentality I seem to pick up from tournament players.
GW’s game works -but only if you squint very hard and don’t purposely try and game it - and in the latter case, that’s not a guarantee against breaking something anyways.
Would we benefit if GW purposely built their ruleset for competitive play? Sure we would, but that’s Too much effort for GW for overall little gain. They make their money on the minis, the rules are just a side gig to promote buying more than one copy of a model. They only put in enough effort to sell the next kit they put out - and that’s all the effort they see the need to do. They only fix something if it’s dragging down model sales.
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 caught cheaters doesn't mean there haven't been more. Loaded dice where a common issue in the past for example.
And a boxer who doesn't compete is still a boxer. They're just not professional boxers.
In the scrutinized environment of tourney play, TG are so rare your scraping for examples. My point stands, You have a much better play experience in a tourney setting than a Casual setting.
It depends who you play against in both tourney setting and casual setting.
In casual setting, if you have a tight group of players who play together often you won't see much TFG.
In random pick up/tournament setting you're statistically more likely run into TFG.
TFG isn't just "cheater". He's also "jerk", "the smelly guy", "the unfun guy", "the guy nobody likes", "the guy who eats all your food/drinks your beer and never brings any", "the guy who never lets go of an argument".
He's also "the guy who rules lawyers everything" and/or "the guy who doesn't know the rules". Depending on the speaker.
Don't forget "the guy who always shows up with grey army that ruins the pictures" and "the guy who likes to touch other people's models with pizza grease/doritos powder all over their hand"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 20:25:31
Karol wrote: Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.
I think a more apt anology would be if a car manufacturer created a line of mini smart cars for driving 30-40 mph to and from work (priced as a luxury car, of course), but everyone was buying it and trying to use them to win the Indy 500 (and the manufacturer just shrugged and went “okay”). That’s the sort of mentality I seem to pick up from tournament players.
GW’s game works -but only if you squint very hard and don’t purposely try and game it - and in the latter case, that’s not a guarantee against breaking something anyways.
Would we benefit if GW purposely built their ruleset for competitive play? Sure we would, but that’s Too much effort for GW for overall little gain. They make their money on the minis, the rules are just a side gig to promote buying more than one copy of a model. They only put in enough effort to sell the next kit they put out - and that’s all the effort they see the need to do. They only fix something if it’s dragging down model sales.
Perhaps a more apt analogy:
The guys who sell a video game.
Should they wait until 100% of bugs have been fixed and the game is balanced?
It's a trick question, because you never know that 100% of bugs have been fixed. Even if they were, you wouldn't know it. It's just your ROI on bughunting keeps falling (to 0 if you have no bugs and don't know it).
Kaiyanwang wrote: Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.
That would be a discussion of "fairness" and/or "balance", not that of rules intent.
You can't generalize the game as a whole as seen on tournament scene because they play by a specific house rule sets that skews the advantages to a certain build.
Another reason why GW needs to make a dedicated tourney ruleset and separate it from the rest of the game.
You do most people have more than exactly 2k of a given army right? I mean most of us have been collecting armies for a while and have picked up new stuff as the game has ebbed and flowed and can bring less broken stuff to the table.
And you can tone down the Da Jump list by not taking Da Jump.
not here, not when an army costs 800$ or more. also absolutly no where in the rules or the rule book, does it say that to play a 2000pts game you require more then 2000pts or even multiple armies. This isn't MtG side decks are not a thing.
And no if you build an army to use jump, you can't just play without it. If my opponent has an eldar flyer list, he cant play a non flyer list, because without flyers, he has ~1000pts.
Nothing will stop you from using (wait for it) not equal points.....oh my gawd, the horror, the shame.
WAR AINT FAIR!
Togusa wrote:
Spoiler:
ClockworkZion wrote: I saw this a few days ago, but felt it was worth opeining a can of worms on what GW's "intent" for the rules are.
So for those who don't bother watching: basically the intent is to let you be creative and use the points and rules provided as to tell stories with your minatures. They mentioned the vehicle creation rules and mentioned if you want to use the points values instead, just add up the points like you normally would.
That said there is a large social contract undercurrent with asking others to look at the rules you put together on a model to ensure they're fair to play against.
Basically the intent of the rules team is for people to tell cool stories with their minis instead of focusing on just crushing each other into paste.
Though I'm curious on what the reaction to this will be since it eliminates a lot of claims regarding the studio.
I do wish the greater community would take this as their own philosophy. It would be nice is casuals like myself had an easier time of finding games that didn't feel like a waste of an afternoon when the game ends 10 to 1 on turn 2.
This is the worst part about about the current bleed over between "fuhk you" lists/players and pretty much everyone else.
We play narrative @ my flgs all the time. it's not uncommon to have 1750vs2250 games, or 100pl vs 150pl, or let's try this out.
I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules. even tho it does say in the rules that if your opponent is cool with it, go right ahead.
We (local flgs) found the voxcast to be great, it was nice hearing the way that they approach 40k and hope the new stuff continues to please(well maybe not everyone).
If you want to play competition 40k, no problem, if you want to complain how uncompetitive the ruleset is...why on earth are you playing/supporting it then? I'm sure there are plenty of games that have the rules/balance/whatever you are searching so desperately for.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.
That would be a discussion of "fairness" and/or "balance", not that of rules intent.
You can't generalize the game as a whole as seen on tournament scene because they play by a specific house rule sets that skews the advantages to a certain build.
Another reason why GW needs to make a dedicated tourney ruleset and separate it from the rest of the game.
Agreed. They need to release "advanced" ruleset for competitive gaming.
Racerguy180 wrote: I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules.
Because we don't want to have to play amateur game designer to figure out if the change is a good one and how to implement it. Sucks for people with weaker armies, but the easiest thing to do is just play by RAW and those people can buy stronger lists.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.
That would be a discussion of "fairness" and/or "balance", not that of rules intent.
You can't generalize the game as a whole as seen on tournament scene because they play by a specific house rule sets that skews the advantages to a certain build.
Another reason why GW needs to make a dedicated tourney ruleset and separate it from the rest of the game.
Agreed. They need to release "advanced" ruleset for competitive gaming.
Ehhh, didn't they do that in their main rulebook anyways? They have Matched Play and Open. do I have to buy another book on top of the expensive one I already bought to get tourney rules? No thanks.
Stormonu wrote: I think a more apt anology would be if a car manufacturer created a line of mini smart cars for driving 30-40 mph to and from work (priced as a luxury car, of course), but everyone was buying it and trying to use them to win the Indy 500 (and the manufacturer just shrugged and went “okay”). That’s the sort of mentality I seem to pick up from tournament players.
That's not an apt analogy at all. The mini smart car is reasonably designed to do its job of in-town commuting and its low speed is the result of design choices to optimize it for that role. It's a bad race car, but if you're looking for an efficient in-town commuter car then it might be a good choice. In the case of 40k the flaws aren't because the game is optimized for casual/narrative play, the various issues that hurt competitive play are also bad for everyone else. GW's BEER AND MORE BEER FORGE A NARRATIVE ABOUT HOW DRUNK YOU ARE attitude is nothing but excuses for failure. In the car analogy it would be like if the smart car's wheels randomly fell off every few miles because the engineer failed to design them correctly. Yes, it's a bad race car because its wheels won't last long enough to finish a race, but it's also a terrible car for driving to and from work.
Would we benefit if GW purposely built their ruleset for competitive play? Sure we would, but that’s Too much effort for GW for overall little gain. They make their money on the minis, the rules are just a side gig to promote buying more than one copy of a model. They only put in enough effort to sell the next kit they put out - and that’s all the effort they see the need to do. They only fix something if it’s dragging down model sales.
This sure sounds like a list of reasons why every rule author at GW should be fired and replaced with more competent people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 20:58:42
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.
That would be a discussion of "fairness" and/or "balance", not that of rules intent.
You can't generalize the game as a whole as seen on tournament scene because they play by a specific house rule sets that skews the advantages to a certain build.
Another reason why GW needs to make a dedicated tourney ruleset and separate it from the rest of the game.
Agreed. They need to release "advanced" ruleset for competitive gaming.
Ehhh, didn't they do that in their main rulebook anyways? They have Matched Play and Open. do I have to buy another book on top of the expensive one I already bought to get tourney rules? No thanks.
It could come out as a free PDF updates maybe with select approved units for balanced competitive play.
DOTA2's inclusion in Captains Mode come to mind - where only finely balanced units can be included.
I don't understand why there's so much anger between the "casuals" and "competitive players". You both want the same thing: to play with the minis you worked hard on and like. And, from my perspective, balancing is pretty important for this. I ain't saying every model should be exactly the same, but they should, at least, all be viable. WITHOUT your opponent having to change their list or cater to you. You should be able to play a Kan Wall or whatever is the "worst" list for your army, and have a reasonable chance of victory (1 in 3 or so seems relatively reasonable), even if your opponent is playing the current hot list out there. I feel like that's pretty fair, and not unreasonable.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.
That would be a discussion of "fairness" and/or "balance", not that of rules intent.
You can't generalize the game as a whole as seen on tournament scene because they play by a specific house rule sets that skews the advantages to a certain build.
Another reason why GW needs to make a dedicated tourney ruleset and separate it from the rest of the game.
Agreed. They need to release "advanced" ruleset for competitive gaming.
The thing is, that’s what matched play is supposed to be. That’s what The rulebook says it is. That’s what all those tournament guidelines are for, and why they say they FAQ the game all the time. It’s disingenuous to do all that, to talk about balancing the game and consulting tournament players and then say “oh we don’t actually mean for you to play tournaments”. It’s having their cake and eating it too, and the same lazy excuse they’ve always made when their lack of investment in a real rules team comes up short.
The analogy is a company selling AR-15s and saying “oh it’s just a hunting rifle” while also selling you suppressors, reflex sights and extended mags.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
By that definition, Chess is imbalanced - White is OP. But it's still a well-liked non-trivial game. A full 50% of armies are OP and a full 50% of armies are bad.
But that's not "Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance" you were quoting. In chess, White acts first. That's about it. Is not that Black's pawn cannot do anything to White bishops, or that Black Knights out-maneuver hopelessly White Knights. Sorry but your comparison does not hold water. It's the same old "if perfect balance cannot exist, balance should not be pursued" fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I don't understand why there's so much anger between the "casuals" and "competitive players". You both want the same thing: to play with the minis you worked hard on and like. And, from my perspective, balancing is pretty important for this. I ain't saying every model should be exactly the same, but they should, at least, all be viable. WITHOUT your opponent having to change their list or cater to you. You should be able to play a Kan Wall or whatever is the "worst" list for your army, and have a reasonable chance of victory (1 in 3 or so seems relatively reasonable), even if your opponent is playing the current hot list out there. I feel like that's pretty fair, and not unreasonable.
Viability should be enough. Most people don't care about super-tight rulesets. Then progressive refinements perhaps. Problem being, not only models but entire factions, subfactions, concepts, are neglected even for years before this happens, if happens. Heck, enough to keep people interested in the game. Not leave frustrated.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/09 21:22:51
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
By that definition, Chess is imbalanced - White is OP. But it's still a well-liked non-trivial game. A full 50% of armies are OP and a full 50% of armies are bad.
But that's not "Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance" you were quoting.
In chess, White acts first. That's about it. Is not that Black's pawn cannot do anything to White bishops, or that Black Knights out-maneuver hopelessly White Knights.
Sorry but your comparison does not hold water. It's the same old "if perfect balance cannot exist, balance should not be pursued" fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I don't understand why there's so much anger between the "casuals" and "competitive players". You both want the same thing: to play with the minis you worked hard on and like. And, from my perspective, balancing is pretty important for this. I ain't saying every model should be exactly the same, but they should, at least, all be viable. WITHOUT your opponent having to change their list or cater to you. You should be able to play a Kan Wall or whatever is the "worst" list for your army, and have a reasonable chance of victory (1 in 3 or so seems relatively reasonable), even if your opponent is playing the current hot list out there. I feel like that's pretty fair, and not unreasonable.
Viability should be enough. Most people don't care about super-tight rulesets. Then progressive refinements perhaps. Pproblem being, entire factions, subfactions, concepts, and not only models are neglected even years before this happens, if happens.
Heck, enough to keep people interested in the game. Not leave frustrated.
Ayy, also chess normaly changes colour to let the former black player have now advantage in the second round.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
nou wrote: I assume that similar claim is made for AOS which by all dakka discussions is a much smaller game than 40k.
I make no such assumption. In fact, I have no idea how AoS is as I can't imagine why anyone finds the game appealing.
See a glaring hole in that landscape, perfectly fillable by collectors and beer and pretzels casuals and narrative players?
Not really. Let's make some reasonable assumptions, going with your 50/50 approximation:
* 50% of GW's revenue is from non-40k sources (AoS, license deals, etc), with "40k sales" including models, paint, and rules.
* 50% of 40k sales are to one-time customers who (for whatever reason) make an initial purchase or two but drop it soon after, which is probably a wildly optimistic estimate of GW's retention rate.
* 75% of 40k sales are to competitive players, a pretty good approximation of "competitive players dominate the hobby".
That's £40.5 million per year in 40k sales to competitive players. If the ITC list covers 100% of competitive players that's an average annual expense of ~£5,000. If the ITC list covers 10% of competitive players that's down to £500 per year, about equivalent to buying a new army every year or two. So no, there isn't really this massive hole you insist must exist. You can account for the majority of 40k revenue with competitive players alone, leaving very little need to assign sales to non-competitive players.
What I find funny is that during 5th to 7th you yourself, by your own statements in prior discussions, were a member of this suposedly non existing group of players, rarely playing an occasional narrative game and making an occasional purchase if ever.
By your own words, you did not exist/were irrelevant...
And that's 100% correct! People who stay engaged with a game at that point are rare, and someone who isn't involved with the local community and only buys OOP stuff from third-party sellers might as well not exist from the point of view of GW. It is absolutely correct to say that I didn't exist except as a potential customer that could be drawn back into relevance if GW improved the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 21:26:17
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
some of the best 'narrative' games I've ever played used the Star Fleet Battles system, a system that only an engineer in love with spreadsheets could love, a very tight, balanced and heavily cross referenced rule system
and yet it allowed for detailed commando raids on outpost pirate bases to rescue key individuals, it allowed narrative campaigns etc.
a tight set of rules doesn't prohibit beer & pretzels games, doesn't prohibit narrative games.
but a slack set of rules does tend to prohibit competitive games
SFB basic set when I bought it cost me about the same as 40k 1st edition
I've still got it and occasionally still play it, write something well and it tends to work better
By that definition, Chess is imbalanced - White is OP. But it's still a well-liked non-trivial game. A full 50% of armies are OP and a full 50% of armies are bad.
But that's not "Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance" you were quoting.
In chess, White acts first. That's about it. Is not that Black's pawn cannot do anything to White bishops, or that Black Knights out-maneuver hopelessly White Knights.
Sorry but your comparison does not hold water. It's the same old "if perfect balance cannot exist, balance should not be pursued" fallacy.
A black *pawn* might be no weaker than a while *pawn*, but the black *army* is weaker than the white *army*. White is clearly superior to black in Chess. Not by a lot, but it is. Purely because it goes first.
The "If perfect balance cannot exist, balance should not be pursued" is a fallacy. Balance should be pursued. Complaints that 40k is not balanced *enough* is a legitimate concern. But the post I'm replying to is falling for a closely related fallacy - "Balance less than perfect is not balance".
ClockworkZion wrote: 2 caught cheaters doesn't mean there haven't been more. Loaded dice where a common issue in the past for example.
And a boxer who doesn't compete is still a boxer. They're just not professional boxers.
In the scrutinized environment of tourney play, TG are so rare your scraping for examples. My point stands, You have a much better play experience in a tourney setting than a Casual setting.
It depends who you play against in both tourney setting and casual setting.
In casual setting, if you have a tight group of players who play together often you won't see much TFG.
In random pick up/tournament setting you're statistically more likely run into TFG.
TFG isn't just "cheater". He's also "jerk", "the smelly guy", "the unfun guy", "the guy nobody likes", "the guy who eats all your food/drinks your beer and never brings any", "the guy who never lets go of an argument".
He's also "the guy who rules lawyers everything" and/or "the guy who doesn't know the rules". Depending on the speaker.
Basically he's any and every player that is unenjoyable to play against for any number of reasons.
By that definition, Chess is imbalanced - White is OP. But it's still a well-liked non-trivial game. A full 50% of armies are OP and a full 50% of armies are bad.
But that's not "Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance" you were quoting.
In chess, White acts first. That's about it. Is not that Black's pawn cannot do anything to White bishops, or that Black Knights out-maneuver hopelessly White Knights.
Sorry but your comparison does not hold water. It's the same old "if perfect balance cannot exist, balance should not be pursued" fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I don't understand why there's so much anger between the "casuals" and "competitive players". You both want the same thing: to play with the minis you worked hard on and like. And, from my perspective, balancing is pretty important for this. I ain't saying every model should be exactly the same, but they should, at least, all be viable. WITHOUT your opponent having to change their list or cater to you. You should be able to play a Kan Wall or whatever is the "worst" list for your army, and have a reasonable chance of victory (1 in 3 or so seems relatively reasonable), even if your opponent is playing the current hot list out there. I feel like that's pretty fair, and not unreasonable.
Viability should be enough. Most people don't care about super-tight rulesets. Then progressive refinements perhaps. Pproblem being, entire factions, subfactions, concepts, and not only models are neglected even years before this happens, if happens.
Heck, enough to keep people interested in the game. Not leave frustrated.
Ayy, also chess normaly changes colour to let the former black player have now advantage in the second round.
Some people have expressed interest in doing that in 40k. I'd rather an unbalanced game than have to trade armies though. Win lose or draw, I'm playing *my* guys. I'd rather go play something else than field your army.
I think that's a good point about there being ways to balance the game that *aren't* worth the cost (at least to some players).
Racerguy180 wrote: I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules.
Because we don't want to have to play amateur game designer to figure out if the change is a good one and how to implement it. Sucks for people with weaker armies, but the easiest thing to do is just play by RAW and those people can buy stronger lists.
Based on the stuff I've seen the internet (and even Dakka) claim would fix the game I have to say the studio is doing a better job than 99% of the armchair games designers online.
Racerguy180 wrote: I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules.
Because we don't want to have to play amateur game designer to figure out if the change is a good one and how to implement it. Sucks for people with weaker armies, but the easiest thing to do is just play by RAW and those people can buy stronger lists.
Based on the stuff I've seen the internet (and even Dakka) claim would fix the game I have to say the studio is doing a better job than 99% of the armchair games designers online.
There is a catch - the armchair game designers online do it for free, the GW studio is supposedly made up of professionals.
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
By that definition, Chess is imbalanced - White is OP. But it's still a well-liked non-trivial game. A full 50% of armies are OP and a full 50% of armies are bad.
But that's not "Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance" you were quoting.
In chess, White acts first. That's about it. Is not that Black's pawn cannot do anything to White bishops, or that Black Knights out-maneuver hopelessly White Knights.
Sorry but your comparison does not hold water. It's the same old "if perfect balance cannot exist, balance should not be pursued" fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I don't understand why there's so much anger between the "casuals" and "competitive players". You both want the same thing: to play with the minis you worked hard on and like. And, from my perspective, balancing is pretty important for this. I ain't saying every model should be exactly the same, but they should, at least, all be viable. WITHOUT your opponent having to change their list or cater to you. You should be able to play a Kan Wall or whatever is the "worst" list for your army, and have a reasonable chance of victory (1 in 3 or so seems relatively reasonable), even if your opponent is playing the current hot list out there. I feel like that's pretty fair, and not unreasonable.
Viability should be enough. Most people don't care about super-tight rulesets. Then progressive refinements perhaps. Pproblem being, entire factions, subfactions, concepts, and not only models are neglected even years before this happens, if happens.
Heck, enough to keep people interested in the game. Not leave frustrated.
Ayy, also chess normaly changes colour to let the former black player have now advantage in the second round.
Some people have expressed interest in doing that in 40k. I'd rather an unbalanced game than have to trade armies though. Win lose or draw, I'm playing *my* guys. I'd rather go play something else than field your army.
I think that's a good point about there being ways to balance the game that *aren't* worth the cost (at least to some players).
And thus the point got missed by 1000000 miles.
The point was that multiple matches are played with switching start (first turn) advantage.
Not to switch armies.
Because if GW could actually decently balance points 2000pts of any army would perform equally if handled by equally competent players.
Which would make switching obsolet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 21:46:51
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Racerguy180 wrote: I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules.
Because we don't want to have to play amateur game designer to figure out if the change is a good one and how to implement it. Sucks for people with weaker armies, but the easiest thing to do is just play by RAW and those people can buy stronger lists.
Based on the stuff I've seen the internet (and even Dakka) claim would fix the game I have to say the studio is doing a better job than 99% of the armchair games designers online.
There is a catch - the armchair game designers online do it for free, the GW studio is supposedly made up of professionals.
Free gak is still gak. . . you couldn't pay me to take it
Kaiyanwang wrote: There is a catch - the armchair game designers online do it for free, the GW studio is supposedly made up of professionals.
Exactly. GW's authors are supposedly professionals and supposedly have editors and assorted other management to ensure the quality of their final published work. You'd expect them to have immensely higher average quality than an open forum where anyone can spam their random impulses as fast as they can come up with them. The fact that we're even considering comparing the two is an implicit concession that GW is doing a horrible job of publishing a quality product.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 21:48:28
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Racerguy180 wrote: I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules.
Because we don't want to have to play amateur game designer to figure out if the change is a good one and how to implement it. Sucks for people with weaker armies, but the easiest thing to do is just play by RAW and those people can buy stronger lists.
Based on the stuff I've seen the internet (and even Dakka) claim would fix the game I have to say the studio is doing a better job than 99% of the armchair games designers online.
There is a catch - the armchair game designers online do it for free, the GW studio is supposedly made up of professionals.
Free gak is still gak. . . you couldn't pay me to take it
Because if GW could actually decently balance points 2000pts of any army would perform equally if handled by equally competent players.
I'd argue this is not only not achievable, but also not an ideal target.
Read the whole Post or let it be.
The point was to propperly competitively eliminate first turn Bias you would need to play multiple rounds with start switching.
With the baseline assumption that the balance isn't to far off.
Which should still be a aim.
Maybee not endgoal but aim in design and rules development.
Kaiyanwang wrote: There is a catch - the armchair game designers online do it for free, the GW studio is supposedly made up of professionals.
Exactly. GW's authors are supposedly professionals and supposedly have editors and assorted other management to ensure the quality of their final published work. You'd expect them to have immensely higher average quality than an open forum where anyone can spam their random impulses as fast as they can come up with them. The fact that we're even considering comparing the two is an implicit concession that GW is doing a horrible job of publishing a quality product.
Editors are not confirmed.
They Are mystical and work on a system of a jumanji board to determine which books get Controlled
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/09 21:53:23
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
By that definition, Chess is imbalanced - White is OP. But it's still a well-liked non-trivial game. A full 50% of armies are OP and a full 50% of armies are bad.
But that's not "Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance" you were quoting.
In chess, White acts first. That's about it. Is not that Black's pawn cannot do anything to White bishops, or that Black Knights out-maneuver hopelessly White Knights.
Sorry but your comparison does not hold water. It's the same old "if perfect balance cannot exist, balance should not be pursued" fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flandarz wrote: I don't understand why there's so much anger between the "casuals" and "competitive players". You both want the same thing: to play with the minis you worked hard on and like. And, from my perspective, balancing is pretty important for this. I ain't saying every model should be exactly the same, but they should, at least, all be viable. WITHOUT your opponent having to change their list or cater to you. You should be able to play a Kan Wall or whatever is the "worst" list for your army, and have a reasonable chance of victory (1 in 3 or so seems relatively reasonable), even if your opponent is playing the current hot list out there. I feel like that's pretty fair, and not unreasonable.
Viability should be enough. Most people don't care about super-tight rulesets. Then progressive refinements perhaps. Pproblem being, entire factions, subfactions, concepts, and not only models are neglected even years before this happens, if happens.
Heck, enough to keep people interested in the game. Not leave frustrated.
Ayy, also chess normaly changes colour to let the former black player have now advantage in the second round.
Some people have expressed interest in doing that in 40k. I'd rather an unbalanced game than have to trade armies though. Win lose or draw, I'm playing *my* guys. I'd rather go play something else than field your army.
I think that's a good point about there being ways to balance the game that *aren't* worth the cost (at least to some players).
And thus the point got missed by 1000000 miles.
The point was that multiple matches are played with switching start (first turn) advantage.
Not to switch armies.
Because if GW could actually decently balance points 2000pts of any army would perform equally if handled by equally competent players.
Which would make switching obsolet.
In Chess, they switch armies. The only difference between armies is White goes first.
In 40k, if you're playing the same person with the same list several times in immediate succession, then yeah, swapping who goes first makes sense *for that specific variance*. Now, there are other difference between the two armies as well.
I think you missed my point:
Chess is considered a balanced game. Even with a 5-round event having one player be white 2 times and the other player be white 3 times, the second player has a (tiny) advantage. It's an example that no game is actually balanced.
Carrying that further, you could switch off advantage every game by swapping armies. It's something you theoretically could do which would actually make the game a lot more balanced. It's an example of a theoretical change that would improve balance, but wouldn't be worth the change.
Free gak is still gak. . . you couldn't pay me to take it
I think Peregrine got more what I meant. You cannot compare the writing of randoms online to professional designers. If you do, we already have a problem. And we have a problem because the rule writing of these supposed professional designer is far from being tight, clear, consistent, balanced, and fair in dedication for all the factions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 21:58:00
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
Free gak is still gak. . . you couldn't pay me to take it
I think Peregrine got more what I meant. You cannot compare the writing of randoms online to professional designers. If you do, we already have a problem.
And we have a problem because the rule writing of these supposed professional designer is far from being tight, clear, consistent, balanced, and fair in dedication for all the factions.
no we just get codex with 6 supplements now.
Whilest others got an update that is more a joke and others again got no joke or update at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 22:00:34
Insectum7 wrote: Free gak is still gak. . . you couldn't pay me to take it
I think Peregrine got more what I meant. You cannot compare the writing of randoms online to professional designers. If you do, we already have a problem.
And we have a problem because the rule writing of these supposed professional designer is far from being tight, clear, consistent, balanced, and fair in dedication for all the factions.
Sure, but the problem seems to me is that "tight", "balanced", and "fair in dedications to all the factions" are either vague terms or possibly not in line with what the company is trying to accomplish.
For example, "fair to all the factions" from the company's point of view may be, "fair to all the models currently on store shelves". "Balance" to them may not mean, "Balanced for tournament play at 2000 points on a table with 4.5 sq. ft of LOS blocking terrain, etc."
From my perspective, "clear and consistent" is the part which is the most concerning to me. Everything else works reasonably close to what I think they are aiming for.
Because if GW could actually decently balance points 2000pts of any army would perform equally if handled by equally competent players.
I'd argue this is not only not achievable, but also not an ideal target.
Read the whole Post or let it be.
The point was to propperly competitively eliminate first turn Bias you would need to play multiple rounds with start switching.
With the baseline assumption that the balance isn't to far off.
Which should still be a aim.
Maybee not endgoal but aim in design and rules development.
Ehh, still seems relevant if we're going to talk at all about balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 22:07:01
Racerguy180 wrote: I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules.
Because we don't want to have to play amateur game designer to figure out if the change is a good one and how to implement it. Sucks for people with weaker armies, but the easiest thing to do is just play by RAW and those people can buy stronger lists.
Based on the stuff I've seen the internet (and even Dakka) claim would fix the game I have to say the studio is doing a better job than 99% of the armchair games designers online.
There is a catch - the armchair game designers online do it for free, the GW studio is supposedly made up of professionals.
Even professionals make mistakes. College textbooks cost several hundred dollars and have errors all the time.
100% perfect out of the gate is impossible. Even with guys like Reece trying to break the game for testing stuff slips through. Thousands of eyes > dozens or even hundreds of eyes.
ClockworkZion wrote: Even professionals make mistakes. College textbooks cost several hundred dollars and have errors all the time.
100% perfect out of the gate is impossible. Even with guys like Reece trying to break the game for testing stuff slips through. Thousands of eyes > dozens or even hundreds of eyes.
Nobody is complaining about occasional typos that get fixed by FAQ once they are discovered. We're talking about major mistakes and poor design choices caused by systematic failures in GW's process.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
no we just get codex with 6 supplements now.