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.
Narrative army builds can lean into taking subpar choices on the table to stick to a specific feel or apsect of lore, while competetive armies lean into finding the most powerful combos.
Then again, why are there subpar choices? Why not make those option better? One thing that bugged me on the video was when Gallagher was talking about taking stuff that was not so great but fitted thematically to the army. You are the rules writer, FFS! Making the things that are thematically appropriate for a given faction to also be worthwhile competitively for that faction is your fething job! If subfaction rules have to exist then that is what they should be doing.
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
Oh, I had loads of fun discovering my minis are garbage. They were pretty cheap, and it didn't take tens of hours assembling and painting them or anything, so they're easy to replace.
ClockworkZion wrote: They are different approaches to game design that have wildly different variants under their umbrella.
Sure, and in all reasonable approaches to game design IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic. The only approach that leads to IGOUGO is "this is how our company did it in 1980 and that's how it always has to be".
That said, which version of alternating activation are we using here for the discussion? Is it one or two actions per unit per activation? Is it one activation per phase? Is it one activation per turn? Even AA has a lot of different varients and to argue against it we need to know what flavor of AA we're talking about first.
Any of them would be an improvement over IGOUGO. Once you acknowledge that IGOUGO is a terrible mechanic you can start considering the best option to replace it, but that's far past where we are now in this discussion.
I disagree. If we gave units 1 action a turn each it'd be turns of people shuffling around of just shooting their entrenched gunlines at each other.
Not every varient of AA suits 40k.
I'd be most in favor in it working in a phase by phase basis, but even then we could just end up with melee armies suffering further as they chase armies like Tau around the table who just move in reaction to the melee units moving closer.
I think the phases are part of the problem with balance, depth and player engagement in 40k. Simply allowing each unit to take an action, like move and shoot, move and cast a psychic power, charge, etc. is so much more fluid and dynamic.
Switching to AA without other changes would solve nothing. But if you add in things like a morale system that allows players to pin or otherwise negatively affect their opponent's units in ways other than killing them, it'll work. Perhaps allow some elite units to take multiple actions a turn, etc.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/15 00:17:17
At this point I know enough to kind of pick out the stinker units. If I have bad units its because I'm not afraid of a unit being bad or picked them out a long time back. I love them surprise mechanics though. It would suck if all my models felt viable, how would I ever make an army list then ? I'd panic.
Crimson wrote: And yeah, whilst I would prefer if there was a bit more ways I could react during my opponent's turn, I do not find the basic concept of there being portions of the game when I have less to do to be a problem. As noted, it gives the game a pleasant rhythm and gives me time to plot my next move.
Yeah, I'll watch my opponent and formulate a strategy while waiting. It's on you if you dont want to interact with them, but dont be disingenuous in saying that you have nothing to do so you can just walk away while they do stuff.
Crimson wrote: And yeah, whilst I would prefer if there was a bit more ways I could react during my opponent's turn, I do not find the basic concept of there being portions of the game when I have less to do to be a problem. As noted, it gives the game a pleasant rhythm and gives me time to plot my next move.
Yeah, I'll watch my opponent and formulate a strategy while waiting. It's on you if you dont want to interact with them, but dont be disingenuous in saying that you have nothing to do so you can just walk away while they do stuff.
I'll do that, too, but I don't particularly enjoy not getting to participate for the next 20 minutes. I want to able to react to my opponent's moves, and disrupt their plan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/15 00:44:37
Just do what you'd do if you were in an actual battle, take a nap. The times in between when a soldier can rest and must be awake for long periods is often lopsided so it's narrative driven you get all the sleep you can to be energized for combat.
ccs wrote: So I have question concerning IGOUGO for the people railing against it.
If the IGOUGO format is (at least) as bad a system as you claim, why are you still playing these games?
I mean, when I find games who's essential core mechanic(s) ruin my enjoyment I just stop playing them....
I don't. I just pop in now and again to see what's going on with 40k, and make a nice visit to the MEDGe and non-40k subforums, or look through painting and modeling.
I never said I had issue with IGOUGO. To say the system is perfect, that wouldn't be true but the system may even be viable once more if some things were in place.
Cover being more meaningful, certain mechanics that could make it not so lopsided, a dial back in raw damage that leads to offensive leading armies so that system hurts just a bit less all the time.
Though you do tend to have a large amount of time between turns. Though you can always fill it with something, ponder your plans, watch some videos on the phone, do an uplifting spirit dance with killer jazz hands.
The narrative is yours, you can even name each individual nurgling you fielded ! The power is yours.
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
It's more that I missed it in the walls of text we had bricking up my phone screen, and while your hyperbole is on par with the writing of Starship Troopers, I'd have to argue that there are some other things at play.
The first thing is that meta always plays a role. If you want to play tanks in a meta that is geared up to fight super heavies then you're going to have a bad time. Likewise, if you play counter-meta (like running tanks in a setting that is geared for hordes) then it can cause the meta to shift to address the issue.
Basically how good or bad things are can be relative, even in a perfectly balanced enviroment. During 7th our local meta was very anti-flyer and an RT was won by a player who brought an all infantry Marine army which became nigh unkillable due to no one bringing blasts at the time to deal with that many bodies. Was the army normally that powerful? Not really. But in that environment it became a powerful list.
The second issue that can make something subpar is points cost. For example I found an interesting combo involving Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamers, a Cantopek Cryptek with a Solar Staff, and a Scarab Swarm screen. 6d3 shots that can cause mortal wounds paired with a staff that fires 6 shots that prevent Infantry from Overwatch, suicidal smite catching Scarabs and a way to buff the RP ability for the Wraiths while everything can auto-run 6". Sounds good and flexible, with some decent firepower to help thin supporting units off of charge targets but when you see the whole thing costs 636 points that it becomes a subpar combo. Good individual parts, but bad cost.
Missions can play a factor too. Objectives scored every turn make movement more important than something loke Meatgrinder which requires on plater to not die by game end which promotes combat ability and durability.
This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced? How does that impact how we design the game? What does it break by giving that factor priority?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/15 01:17:45
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
It's more that I missed it in the walls of text we had bricking up my phone screen, and while your hyperbole is on par with the writing of Starship Troopers, I'd have to argue that there are some other things at play.
The first thing is that meta always plays a role. If you want to play tanks in a meta that is geared up to fight super heavies then you're going to have a bad time. Likewise, if you play counter-meta (like running tanks in a setting that is geared for hordes) then it can cause the meta to shift to address the issue.
Basically how good or bad things are can be relative, even in a perfectly balanced enviroment. During 7th our local meta was very anti-flyer and an RT was won by a player who brought an all infantry Marine army which became nigh unkillable due to no one bringing blasts at the time to deal with that many bodies. Was the army normally that powerful? Not really. But in that environment it became a powerful list.
The second issue that can make something subpar is points cost. For example I found an interesting combo involving Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamers, a Cantopek Cryptek with a Solar Staff, and a Scarab Swarm screen. 6d3 shots that can cause mortal wounds paired with a staff that fires 6 shots that prevent Infantry from Overwatch, suicidal smite catching Scarabs and a way to buff the RP ability for the Wraiths while everything can auto-run 6". Sounds good and flexible, with some decent firepower to help thin supporting units off of charge targets but when you see the whole thing costs 636 points that it becomes a subpar combo. Good individual parts, but bad cost.
Missions can play a factor too. Objectives scored every turn make movement more important than something loke Meatgrinder which requires on plater to not die by game end which promotes combat ability and durability.
This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced? How does that impact how we design the game? What does it break by giving that factor priority?
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
You missed a few points in there. I mean if I take a mobile lidt that lacks ability to tank hits and play a mission that requires me to do so the game can be balanced down to the point but I'm still going to get my teeth kicked in.
Heck, even with your definition we unpack new issues: how do we ensure only people of equal skill play each other? How can we truly be sure that some of the complaonts abouy balance don't come from that mismatch of skill level and how do we eliminate it to ensure the balance is actually achieved?
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
The reason it's elusive is that 40K is such an open system. For balance to be a practical aim, the game needs to be focused to a specific type of play. The more diversity you add in, whether in unit types, weapon types, customisability, mission types and so on, the harder it becomes to achieve any sort of balance across the board.
GW want 40K to include all of the bells and whistles, to give players a lot of freedom in how they create their armies. And that's good, because it gives players a huge range of stuff to choose from. But it makes achieving any sort of across-the-board balance a pipe-dream.
I used to find that frustrating. These days, I view it as GW providing a sandbox, and leaving it to the players to create whatever sort of playing field within it that suits them. Obviously, that doesn't work if you want a fine-tuned, balanced system, but for a lot of players it's more than sufficient, and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
The reason it's elusive is that 40K is such an open system. For balance to be a practical aim, the game needs to be focused to a specific type of play. The more diversity you add in, whether in unit types, weapon types, customisability, mission types and so on, the harder it becomes to achieve any sort of balance across the board.
GW want 40K to include all of the bells and whistles, to give players a lot of freedom in how they create their armies. And that's good, because it gives players a huge range of stuff to choose from. But it makes achieving any sort of across-the-board balance a pipe-dream.
I used to find that frustrating. These days, I view it as GW providing a sandbox, and leaving it to the players to create whatever sort of playing field within it that suits them. Obviously, that doesn't work if you want a fine-tuned, balanced system, but for a lot of players it's more than sufficient, and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Which is why Dark Eldar HQs are so customizable, with options for mobility, damage, support, and everything else! /sarcasm
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
ClockworkZion wrote: This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced?
Three part test:
1) There are no auto-take or never-take options. All options have a viable role if you make including it in your list the top priority, but no options are so obviously good that you will always take them unless you have a self-imposed fluff/newbie teaching game/etc limit.
2) All major list archetypes have a roughly 50/50 win rate against a generic metagame composed of all major list archetypes in equal proportion. IOW, if you pick an archetype for your faction (mech IG, primaris space marines, etc) and do a reasonable job of designing a list you can expect to play 1000 games against someone of equal skill and win roughly 500 of them. Maybe you win 60% of the time against one archetype but it's balanced out by only winning 40% of the time against something else. Maybe it's not exactly a 50% win rate against the generic metagame, but it's not off by much.
3) No individual matchups between archetypes are worse than about 66/33. Some games will be easier or harder than others, but it's always close enough that it's worth putting models on the table and playing out the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/15 01:39:04
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.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
I won't deny those are valid questions but they should be caviated with "...for this meta", "...this points level", "these missions".
We need to drill down past the surface to see why you should take X or Y in a given case.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
I have no idea how you got that from what I said above, but for what it's worth, yes, absolutely there should be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits. The model kits represent the rules on the table, so anything that they have access to in the rules should, as much as possible, be represented on the models.
That's nothing to do with GW's current legal stance on it... I had that opinion long before the Chapterhouse case, because as much as I personally enjoy converting and scratch-building, there have been an awful lot of players out there over the years frustrated at not being able to buy what they wanted to use in their codexes.
So on that level, I'm in favour of their current 'No model, no rules' stance. My only issue with it is the fact that they've used it as a reason to reduce options in the rules instead of expanding options in the model range.
insaniak wrote: I have no idea how you got that from what I said above, but for what it's worth, yes, absolutely there should be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits. The model kits represent the rules on the table, so anything that they have access to in the rules should, as much as possible, be represented on the models.
That's nothing to do with GW's current legal stance on it... I had that opinion long before the Chapterhouse case, because as much as I personally enjoy converting and scratch-building, there have been an awful lot of players out there over the years frustrated at not being able to buy what they wanted to use in their codexes.
So on that level, I'm in favour of their current 'No model, no rules' stance. My only issue with it is the fact that they've used it as a reason to reduce options in the rules instead of expanding options in the model range.
The issue is not "no model, no rules", it's the opposite half of that: "no rules, no model". 40k only needs rules bloat to deal with all of the cool models if you insist that every single element or choice on a model must be represented in the rules. What happened to the good old days of converting your model to have an axe or sword based on what looks cool, not because the rules for them are different? Why is the aesthetic value of the model not sufficient?
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.
The issue is not "no model, no rules", it's the opposite half of that: "no rules, no model". 40k only needs rules bloat to deal with all of the cool models if you insist that every single element or choice on a model must be represented in the rules. What happened to the good old days of converting your model to have an axe or sword based on what looks cool, not because the rules for them are different? Why is the aesthetic value of the model not sufficient?
It can be sometimes. But what one feels should have bespoke rules is super subjective. I for one would be fine with combining power mauls, axes and swords into a generic power weapon, but then again I would give chainswords bespoke rules to make them distinct from lesser generic close combat weapons.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
I won't deny those are valid questions but they should be caviated with "...for this meta", "...this points level", "these missions".
We need to drill down past the surface to see why you should take X or Y in a given case.
Yes and no. The game needs to be designed for any arbitrary meta, not for a specific meta; the designers in their central position shouldn't look at their game and say "This unit has grotesque hard-counters that render it irrelevant, but it's okay because those weapons won't be prevalent in some metas". If the global power relationships across the game as a whole are skewed the fact that someone's local meta is skewed the other way doesn't excuse flaws in the basic structure of the game.
As to missions the relevance of a given unit cannot change dramatically from mission to mission unless you're prepared to take the Infinity route and explicitly call out list-building as happening after missions are determined. I need to be able to build a list, take it to a game store, and say "I've got my army, what mission are we doing?", I shouldn't have to say "Oh, no, I can't interact with that mission, pick something else." (Narrow the Search from CA2018 is really bad about that; taking away Invulnerable saves and scoring by model count disproportionately screw some Codexes as a whole. If I bring Custodes I can't play that mission because I then lose because I brought an army that can't play it.)
And as to points level I find that doesn't really have much impact on what's powerful/what's not; as soon as you implement the 30k single-model cap (no single model can be more than 25% of your points total) the problem of "how do I deal with Guilliman at 750pts?" stops being an issue.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
I have no idea how you got that from what I said above, but for what it's worth, yes, absolutely there should be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits. The model kits represent the rules on the table, so anything that they have access to in the rules should, as much as possible, be represented on the models.
That's nothing to do with GW's current legal stance on it... I had that opinion long before the Chapterhouse case, because as much as I personally enjoy converting and scratch-building, there have been an awful lot of players out there over the years frustrated at not being able to buy what they wanted to use in their codexes.
So on that level, I'm in favour of their current 'No model, no rules' stance. My only issue with it is the fact that they've used it as a reason to reduce options in the rules instead of expanding options in the model range.
Yes and no. It's possible to take the 1:1 correspondence between model bits and rules too far; not every little decorative fiddly bit needs to mean something in the rules. I also find that requiring different sub-variants of what is fundamentally the same unit (ex. do Tartaros, Cataphractii, and Indomitus-pattern Terminator squads really need different datasheets just because they give you different bits in the different boxes?) limits the design space and adds redundant and unnecessary bloat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/15 02:01:54
ClockworkZion wrote: This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced?
Three part test:
1) There are no auto-take or never-take options. All options have a viable role if you make including it in your list the top priority, but no options are so obviously good that you will always take them unless you have a self-imposed fluff/newbie teaching game/etc limit.
2) All major list archetypes have a roughly 50/50 win rate against a generic metagame composed of all major list archetypes in equal proportion. IOW, if you pick an archetype for your faction (mech IG, primaris space marines, etc) and do a reasonable job of designing a list you can expect to play 1000 games against someone of equal skill and win roughly 500 of them. Maybe you win 60% of the time against one archetype but it's balanced out by only winning 40% of the time against something else. Maybe it's not exactly a 50% win rate against the generic metagame, but it's not off by much.
3) No individual matchups between archetypes are worse than about 66/33. Some games will be easier or harder than others, but it's always close enough that it's worth putting models on the table and playing out the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Ah yes, another person who has bought into the myth created by the GW legal department that there must be a 1:1 connection between rules and model kits.
As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
A pure 50/50 coinflip is not likely to happen. If faction can be around roughly 45% then we're probably closer to where we need to be. And even then how do we break factions down into these archetypes? How do we deal with lists that blend them? Now we're adding even more levers to the way we track balance. And how do we track armies that can't participate in certain archetypes? I mean Death Guard isn't going tonexactly play the speedy objective game like Harlequinns do, but Harlequinns aren't going to play a mission that requires tanking wounds like Death Guard. How do we balance those problems?
Peregrine wrote: What happened to the good old days of converting your model to have an axe or sword based on what looks cool, not because the rules for them are different?
Those weren't the good old days, that was just before breakfast. In the good old days, swords and axes had different rules.
Yes and no. It's possible to take the 1:1 correspondence between model bits and rules too far; not every little decorative fiddly bit needs to mean something in the rules. I also find that requiring different sub-variants of what is fundamentally the same unit (ex. do Tartaros, Cataphractii, and Indomitus-pattern Terminator squads really need different datasheets just because they give you different bits in the different boxes?) limits the design space and adds redundant and unnecessary bloat.
Yeah, no disagreement there. Division needs to be sensible. I'm not a fan, for example, of the 147 different types of bolter available to Primaris marines... Different folks, and all, though.
Yes and no. The game needs to be designed for any arbitrary meta, not for a specific meta; the designers in their central position shouldn't look at their game and say "This unit has grotesque hard-counters that render it irrelevant, but it's okay because those weapons won't be prevalent in some metas". If the global power relationships across the game as a whole are skewed the fact that someone's local meta is skewed the other way doesn't excuse flaws in the basic structure of the game.
While I don't think GW says it in those words, I feel like a lot about the game comes from this approach. I mean you can't balance the middle based on extremes and vice versa but at the same time I feel like we only look at thise extremes as those extremes are what often fun around tournament circuits.
As to missions the relevance of a given unit cannot change dramatically from mission to mission unless you're prepared to take the Infinity route and explicitly call out list-building as happening after missions are determined. I need to be able to build a list, take it to a game store, and say "I've got my army, what mission are we doing?", I shouldn't have to say "Oh, no, I can't interact with that mission, pick something else." (Narrow the Search from CA2018 is really bad about that; taking away Invulnerable saves and scoring by model count disproportionately screw some Codexes as a whole. If I bring Custodes I can't play that mission because I then lose because I brought an army that can't play it.)
You say it shouldn't but that's exactly what tournament packs do. A game type that involves capturing objectives every turn is going to promote different builds than on that involves scoring at game end, and both of those can lean differently on unit selection when it comes to games where scoring comes from killing models/units.
The fact that missions can influence what is "good" so drastically is a large part of why I say balance isn't as cut and dry as people insist it is. In a vacuum we can have everything roughly on par with each other, but stray out of that points level, or into missions and that balance can fall apart very fast.
Custodes would have less issues if they had gotten Sisters of Silence as part of their army, but I'm not going to beat that dead horse here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/15 02:16:45
ClockworkZion wrote: As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.
A pure 50/50 coinflip is not likely to happen. If faction can be around roughly 45% then we're probably closer to where we need to be.
Sure, that's why I said "roughly 50/50" not "exactly 50/50". 55/45 qualifies, and is far better than the current game.
And how do we track armies that can't participate in certain archetypes? I mean Death Guard isn't going tonexactly play the speedy objective game like Harlequinns do, but Harlequinns aren't going to play a mission that requires tanking wounds like Death Guard. How do we balance those problems?
Archetypes are per faction, by definition a faction can participate in all of its archetypes. The point with them is not that every faction has an instance of some universal set of archetypes, it's that most factions have multiple ways to build an army and you can't just look at whether a codex is represented at the top of the standings. So IG might have mech IG and horde gunline as their primary archetypes that are evaluated in balance concerns. Harlequins would be based on speed for all of their archetypes. Etc. And if someone wants to run a Harlequin gunline or melee IG, well, something that unconventional can't really be accounted for in balancing the game.
Again, you balance against the meta. Your army will have different win rates against specific opponents or in specific missions, but if you play 1000 games with a random mission against a random opposing army you should expect to win about 500 of them.
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.
I find it pretty telling no one commented on this. Here, I'll handle this, they let units be sub par, knowing they are subpar because what kind of fun would it be if you felt all your units were good ? You miss out on all the joy of wasting lots of money on units that get smashed in even relaxed casual match ups. The fact that they knew some units are stinkers, yet seemingly never actually make them better is pretty lame of them. Like Ogryns, they've been meh for a long long time. Now, Bullgryns do everything Ogryns would do just better and Ogryns still meh, probably for a long time yet. I call it the GW surprise mechanic, Surprise! You modeled that expensive kit wrong, maybe one day we'll make them good, or just play narrative. Would you like to know more ?
It's more that I missed it in the walls of text we had bricking up my phone screen, and while your hyperbole is on par with the writing of Starship Troopers, I'd have to argue that there are some other things at play.
The first thing is that meta always plays a role. If you want to play tanks in a meta that is geared up to fight super heavies then you're going to have a bad time. Likewise, if you play counter-meta (like running tanks in a setting that is geared for hordes) then it can cause the meta to shift to address the issue.
Basically how good or bad things are can be relative, even in a perfectly balanced enviroment. During 7th our local meta was very anti-flyer and an RT was won by a player who brought an all infantry Marine army which became nigh unkillable due to no one bringing blasts at the time to deal with that many bodies. Was the army normally that powerful? Not really. But in that environment it became a powerful list.
The second issue that can make something subpar is points cost. For example I found an interesting combo involving Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamers, a Cantopek Cryptek with a Solar Staff, and a Scarab Swarm screen. 6d3 shots that can cause mortal wounds paired with a staff that fires 6 shots that prevent Infantry from Overwatch, suicidal smite catching Scarabs and a way to buff the RP ability for the Wraiths while everything can auto-run 6". Sounds good and flexible, with some decent firepower to help thin supporting units off of charge targets but when you see the whole thing costs 636 points that it becomes a subpar combo. Good individual parts, but bad cost.
Missions can play a factor too. Objectives scored every turn make movement more important than something loke Meatgrinder which requires on plater to not die by game end which promotes combat ability and durability.
This is why "balance" is such an elusive thing: what do we call balanced? How does that impact how we design the game? What does it break by giving that factor priority?
Seriously ? All this to basically give the designer a woobie excuse. There is no reasonable reason why Ogryns are so bad, so many editions, over so many years. They somehow managed to make Bullgryns good and still, Ogryns aren't a good choice. It isn't an elusive enigma dreamed only in the minds of the genius and seen only in parting in the dreams of the mad. They've gone through the majority of the lifespan of this game and still, bad. Somehow they had the genius vision to know how to make Bullgryns good, either they don't want Ogryns to be good, don't really care or like leaving a trap choice in a dual model build kit. You pick which you think is likely. None of the answers makes them look good and all of them explain why people are tired of hearing their empty excuses.
At least service promises citizenship, faith GW will do good by units you love is like tossing your dreams into the void. You can call my statements hyperbole all you want there is 0 reasons for why they can't balance some of these things much better than they are. If the job is too hard, they should quit and let better designers take over or they should be honest that they just make some units suck and for what reasons they do this, for real, have some real talk. They can make dual kits that aren't awful, the new Ad mech tank, both halves of that seem pretty nice, the kit is a tad over expensive for my tastes but game wise it seems to do the job, great.
I use Ogryns as my example but there are many many other units that have been meh or bad for awhile. They just stand out as I love them, and have quietly waited for them to be worth it for a long time and nothing. So much in the game could be better and this is just one symptom to show they do the very least, and just keep the ball rolling and saying how you should be happy with low effort and well if it sucks, just take it for narrative it'll make you feel better. They might as well say if you're down, look at a clown, we all know how well that worked out for Georgie.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/15 02:51:44
ClockworkZion wrote: As I outlined, there are factors that can push things into autotakes or never takes. It's easy to make up criteria but even then that criteria can go a bit sideways. It can vary from tournament circuit to tournament circuit in competetive due to the mission types, and from store to store based on the store metas.
That's why you balance based on win rate against the meta over a long series of games using the standard mission set. If some random third-party event creates different missions that unbalance the game then that's their fault for creating and using unbalanced material instead of playing the standard game.
A pure 50/50 coinflip is not likely to happen. If faction can be around roughly 45% then we're probably closer to where we need to be.
Sure, that's why I said "roughly 50/50" not "exactly 50/50". 55/45 qualifies, and is far better than the current game.
And how do we track armies that can't participate in certain archetypes? I mean Death Guard isn't going tonexactly play the speedy objective game like Harlequinns do, but Harlequinns aren't going to play a mission that requires tanking wounds like Death Guard. How do we balance those problems?
Archetypes are per faction, by definition a faction can participate in all of its archetypes. The point with them is not that every faction has an instance of some universal set of archetypes, it's that most factions have multiple ways to build an army and you can't just look at whether a codex is represented at the top of the standings. So IG might have mech IG and horde gunline as their primary archetypes that are evaluated in balance concerns. Harlequins would be based on speed for all of their archetypes. Etc. And if someone wants to run a Harlequin gunline or melee IG, well, something that unconventional can't really be accounted for in balancing the game.
Again, you balance against the meta. Your army will have different win rates against specific opponents or in specific missions, but if you play 1000 games with a random mission against a random opposing army you should expect to win about 500 of them.
So over which meta? The GW studio meta? ITC? Nova? ETC? Australia? Warhammer world? Playtesters?
And don't say all of them because they all lean different directions. And by ypur own definition about tournament missions it means we should discount tournament metas since they all run propiatary mission packs.
And how do you define faction? Death Guard can be broken into Nurgle, Death Guard, Heretic Astartes or Chaos for example. I mean it's easy to say do it like X but if you don't define X you aren't really offering real solutions.
Seriously ? All this to basically give the designer a woobie excuse. There is no reasonable reason why Ogryns are so bad, so many editions, over so many years. They somehow managed to make Bullgryns good and still, Ogryns aren't a good choice. It isn't an elusive enigma dreamed only in the minds of the genius and seen only in parting in the dreams of the mad. They've gone through the majority of the lifespan of this game and still, bad. Somehow they had the genius vision to know how to make Bullgryns good, either they don't want Ogryns to be good, don't really care or like leaving a trap choice in a dual model build kit. You pick which you think is likely. None of the answers makes them look good and all of them explain why people are tired of hearing their empty excuses.
At least service promises citizenship, faith GW will do good by units you love is like tossing your dreams into the void. You can call my statements hyperbole all you want there is 0 reasons for why they can't balance some of these things much better than they are. If the job is too hard, they should quit and let better designers take over or they should be honest that they just make some units suck and for what reasons they do this, for real, have some real talk. They can make dual kits that aren't awful, the new Ad mech tank, both halves of that seem pretty nice, the kit is a tad over expensive for my tastes but game wise it seems to do the job, great.
I use Ogryns as my example but there are many many other units that have been meh or bad for awhile. They just stand out as I love them, and have quietly waited for them to be worth it for a long time and nothing. So much in the game could be better and this is just one symptom to show they do the very least, and just keep the ball rolling and saying how you should be happy with low effort and well if it sucks, just take it for narrative it'll make you feel better. They might as well say if you're down, look at a clown, we all know how well that worked out for Georgie.
I'm in the middle of work, but yes seriously. It's not to excuse GW but rather to try and expose the moving parts that are pften ignored when we toss around words like balance without addressing how they should approach balance.
Edit: Exceptions can be made for "Agents of the Imperium" type stuff, but they should EXPLICITLY be supplemental.
That's a good definition, and one I can agree with. Again, these are the sorts of things we need to dial in to properly address how the game should be balanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/15 03:07:21
It really isn't elusive, though. Balance= players of roughly equal skill have a roughly equal chance of winning. No unit is op or useless. That's really all it is.
The reason it's elusive is that 40K is such an open system. For balance to be a practical aim, the game needs to be focused to a specific type of play. The more diversity you add in, whether in unit types, weapon types, customisability, mission types and so on, the harder it becomes to achieve any sort of balance across the board.
GW want 40K to include all of the bells and whistles, to give players a lot of freedom in how they create their armies. And that's good, because it gives players a huge range of stuff to choose from. But it makes achieving any sort of across-the-board balance a pipe-dream.
I used to find that frustrating. These days, I view it as GW providing a sandbox, and leaving it to the players to create whatever sort of playing field within it that suits them. Obviously, that doesn't work if you want a fine-tuned, balanced system, but for a lot of players it's more than sufficient, and a worthwhile tradeoff for having all of those cool models.
Yes, GW prefers a system with no defined scale, for people to push their overpriced action figures around and make pew pew noises. Let's face it, GW survives thanks to 21st century materialism. People love the models, and will continue to buy them so long as GW say nice things and make funny youtube videos- it's easier to rationalize that way. It isn't the game, and it probably never really was. I know I was drawn to the game in no small part due to the prospect of playing with cool toys. It's just too bad the rules (and prices) aren't anywhere near the same league as the lore and minis, and that people are willing to tolerate that to get their fix of new plastic. When I want a sandbox, I play Minecraft or an RPG. GW's prices are far too high, as is the investment to get minis from NOS to battle-ready, for so little in return.
1. Is there a reason to use (unit X)/(army X)? -Why would I play Grey Knights? Why would I take a Blackstar? What's the point of tactical Terminators? Why would I take any Mark other than Slaanesh on my Havocs? If your answer is "there is no mechanical reason to do this thing, do it if you like the flavour" that is a failure of balance. There should be a relevant/valid reason to use every model in any context, whether it's narrative or competitive. More broadly I shouldn't be dooming myself to losing every game I ever play by picking the wrong army book before I start the game.
2. Why does (unit X) exist when (unit Y) does the same thing only better? -Why would I take a Rhino when I could take an Impulsor? To transport normal Marines rather than Primaris? Why would I do that? Aren't the Primaris just better? If two units are going to be "different" they should be meaningfully different, both should have a role, niche, or circumstance under which they're the better option. I shouldn't be presented with a choice between a good option and a bad option that do the same job.
You said it much better than I.
@Clockwor Zion, in a well-balanced game, scenarios and objectives don't render some units better than others- they still have purpose. An exception to this would be Malifaux: if I remember correctly, the players choose their faction and the objectives are decided before you build your crew- my only real complaint. The game does have a neat system of asymmetrical mission objectives, though, that would make 40k much more interesting.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/15 04:12:09
Yes, GW prefers a system with no defined scale, for people to push their overpriced action figures around and make pew pew noises. Let's face it, GW survives thanks to 21st century materialism. People love the models, and will continue to buy them so long as GW say nice things and make funny youtube videos- it's easier to rationalize that way. It isn't the game, and it probably never really was. I know I was drawn to the game in no small part due to the prospect of playing with cool toys. It's just too bad the rules (and prices) aren't anywhere near the same league as the lore and minis, and that people are willing to tolerate that to get their fix of new plastic. When I want a sandbox, I play Minecraft or an RPG. GW's prices are far too high, as is the investment to get minis from NOS to battle-ready, for so little in return.
Honestly, I don't think it's as black and white as that. I got into the game in 2nd edition when, frankly, a lot of the miniatures weren't very good. I stuck around because the game was a hell of a lot of fun to play, despite its gaping holes. 3rd edition, once we all got over the shock of all the things that had been ripped out, was still fun. 4th edition was a chore (IMO, apparently a lot of people liked it) and I stopped playing for a while, and then 5th edition came along and the game, while still a long way from perfect, was fun to play again. And then it got less fun... but again, that's just IMO. A awful lot of people seem to be very happy with 8th, and it's not just because the models are pretty.
The thing is, from my experience the vast majority of players simply don't care whether or not the rules are water-tight. They might bemoan those units that never seem to perform as well, (and as often as not, keep using them anyway) but otherwise those wonky parts of the rules just get papered over as necessary and people get on with the game. It's only on forums, or in the post-game conversation where the rules really get dissected and it all seems like a bigger deal.
Having better-written rules is good... but having a game that is fun to play is ultimately more important than having flawless rules. For me, that's where 6th edition and onwards have failed. The rules have arguably improved from previous editions... but it's no longer fun to play.
