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.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm curious what your thoughts about the one kit lacking equipment has to do with play testing to be honest?

Not a damn thing.

Slayer just isn't going to quit until hes been vindicated/validated.

Slayer has two good songs, every single other song on every album sounds exactly the same - even to other fans of the genre. Even Pantera fans think they sound generic so what do you expect?

/giggle

the_scotsman wrote:


The new edition of DnD, whatever magic formula it has hit on, is some black magic wizardry. I have had so many friends of mine ask me "Scotsman, you play with miniatures and paint them and stuff, do you know how to play DnD, me and my girlfriend want to try it out!"

I dunno, it reads like the entry-level RPG DnD has been for several editions now to me, but they've done something right in a big way to make the appeal as mainstream as it is now.

I think the recent mainstream appeal isn't coming so much from anything about the new game edition as it is from simple cultural stuff like its appearance in Stranger Things and the success of let's-play podcasts like Critical Role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm curious what your thoughts about the one kit lacking equipment has to do with play testing to be honest?

Not a damn thing.

Slayer just isn't going to quit until hes been vindicated/validated.

Slayer has two good songs, every single other song on every album sounds exactly the same - even to other fans of the genre. Even Pantera fans think they sound generic so what do you expect?

/giggle

You take that back! Slayers is an anime classic!

Yes we know, thing is you either make your peace with it and roll with the niggles or play other games (yep GW saturation can make this tricky and local conditions may vary), shouting at clouds makes no difference

Racerguy180 wrote:
the major thing is, if the models looked like diarrhea, even if they had a "competitive" ruleset, would not be as successful as they are now.

It's not just the models (in fact i think the vast majority of imperium models look like crap), they have decades of great storytelling. Personally i quit in 3rd and didn't return until 8th when i bought a few audio books on a whim.

...What holds this game together is the lore combined with models, at least for some.

Because frankly, the rules and models are both leaving me wanting. if i wanted better models for display theres many many options , depending on aesthetic, and ones that don't shatter my costline.

Maybe getting more out of the models you ordered, via lowered prices or at least more functional rules would be nice, seeing as how to get anything else going depending where you live can be an effort or a stroke of luck. but fat chance of that.

It would be nice if boxes actually also had a few more weapon options. I went through an entire plan the other day because who woulda guessed base cultists have the look i want, but off to the convert-a-tron to make cultists work with any weapon options because the only chaos ones sold are snap-fit. oh well.

Ya because companies that "DO" test for the competitive scene never need balance changes, emergency bans, reworks etc

Not once in the history of mankind ever

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer, I think you need to go to bed.

No I think you should argue why the Chaos Terminator kit is reasonable as is. Either that, or you can argue for the main topic that play testing that isn't doing it's intended job is okay too. I look forward to the hilarity.

I'm curious what your thoughts about the one kit lacking equipment has to do with play testing to be honest?

Someone else brought that into this thread. It was clearly referring to me and I replied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It does not come with that many Power Fists so that doesn't really matter now, does it? For sake of argument though, yes that would at least make more sense.

The default loadout could be sword for the champion and four fists like it is for loyalists. But it doesn't really matter. They even changed it from Power axes to Chainaxes between the codex versions. It is arbitrary, it doesn't matter, it is just one combination among many, all of which cannot simply be included in this box without adding an extra sprue. You would be satisfied with a purely symbolic errata that would have zero functional impact. Your argument is not based on any discernible logic and you're literally raging about nothing.

It doesn't NEED an extra sprue. Look at how much they fit onto the Grey Knights sprues and that proves you incorrect like immediately.

Time to simmer down please people, we can have this discussion whilst remaining polite.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Slayer, I think you need to go to bed.

No I think you should argue why the Chaos Terminator kit is reasonable as is. Either that, or you can argue for the main topic that play testing that isn't doing it's intended job is okay too. I look forward to the hilarity.

1. The chaos terminator kit has literally nothing to do with the argument. You're using it to derail the argument because your position is weak.

2. The main argument was that 40k is is not and was never intended to be a high level competitive game and trying to force it into that role is a mistake but at a casual level the game is okay.

1. Someone else brought that into the thread not me.
2. Any game with a winner and loser is competitive by definition. You choosing to be CAAC for sake of virtue signaling is not my problem. That's also still not a defense for gak balancing whatsoever, or was it okay for Battle Demi Company to happen? Scatterbikes? Lash Princes? Castellans? No it's just laziness you're defending and nothing more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm curious what your thoughts about the one kit lacking equipment has to do with play testing to be honest?

Not a damn thing.

Slayer just isn't going to quit until hes been vindicated/validated.

Slayer has two good songs, every single other song on every album sounds exactly the same - even to other fans of the genre. Even Pantera fans think they sound generic so what do you expect?

/giggle

You clearly only interacted with those KVLT kiddies that know nothing of music history whatsoever, who somehow think that deciding Kreator is better somehow makes them cooler and more underground, when in reality it doesn't as they don't actually have musical knowledge.

Ozomoto wrote:
Ya because companies that "DO" test for the competitive scene never need balance changes, emergency bans, reworks etc

Not once in the history of mankind ever

its a fair point but GW still remain the High Lords of errata'ing the errata you just paid for

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It doesn't NEED an extra sprue. Look at how much they fit onto the Grey Knights sprues and that proves you incorrect like immediately.

You are talking about the Grey Knight Terminators that have three sprues instead of two like the Chaos Terminators? Those Grey Knights?

Someone was proven to be incorrect all right. Can you now perhaps drop this?

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Ya because companies that "DO" test for the competitive scene never need balance changes, emergency bans, reworks etc

Not once in the history of mankind ever

its a fair point but GW still remain the High Lords of errata'ing the errata you just paid for

I don't quite see your point.

My point was that the hubris game designers have that they think they understand future metas that don't exsist yet and such things of that nature is a far worse design sin then anything GW does. Anecdotally I'll I've ever seen done from trying to balance the game at a competitive level (MTG, hearthstone etc) is collosal f ups. I've seen game companies constantly bring in ex pro level players for testing with minimal success. Let the players theory craft and the stats talk once the dust is settled.

Gw current stance is try and make things interesting, send it into the maelstrom that is the players hands and then take a relook at it once it's seen play. Much, much better then 'testing the product in a competitive environment' imo. Things are constantly to pushed or any interaction (that's a slip up) usually has more dire consequences. On top of that any 'ideal' competitive game is going to be a niche when only one individual preference is looked at, having the balance be 'competetive' pushes the game.in a direction where it's balanced for those designers niche rather then a general position

Value is subjective and as such so is valuing a game as 'competetive'. My issue list for 40k is much smaller then chess,.every card game over played, sports, shooters, autbattlers, list goes on. I think it's naive frankly to say 40k doesn't have competitive merit; where is this magical Christmas land game that's so amazing to play competitively for a long period of time.

Ozomoto wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Ya because companies that "DO" test for the competitive scene never need balance changes, emergency bans, reworks etc

Not once in the history of mankind ever

its a fair point but GW still remain the High Lords of errata'ing the errata you just paid for

I don't quite see your point.

My point was that the hubris game designers have that they think they understand future metas that don't exsist yet and such things of that nature is a far worse design sin then anything GW does. Anecdotally I'll I've ever seen done from trying to balance the game at a competitive level (MTG, hearthstone etc) is collosal f ups. I've seen game companies constantly bring in ex pro level players for testing with minimal success. Let the players theory craft and the stats talk once the dust is settled.

Gw current stance is try and make things interesting, send it into the maelstrom that is the players hands and then take a relook at it once it's seen play. Much, much better then 'testing the product in a competitive environment' imo.

Value is subjective and as such so is valuing a game as 'competetive'. My issue list for 40k is much smaller then chess,.every card game over played, sports, shooters, autbattlers, list goes on. I think it's naive frankly to say 40k doesn't have competitive merit; where is this magical Christmas land game that's so amazing to play competitively for a long period of time.

Really? You have less issues with CHESS than with 40k?

What's your list of gripes with them?

Really? You have less issues with CHESS than with 40k?

What's your list of gripes with them?

-Game data isn't obscured enough so I don't classify it as a strategy game (a long rant and argument for another time perhaps)
-this makes the game largely reduce to be knowledge base, based and makes the gameplay feel very derivative to me. I want my competive level game to have have more theory then study, the other way around is bland.
-eternally 'imbalanced' (I hate using the word balance Ugg) from a turn and faction standpoint . One player will always be barred from a faction (two players can't be white) unlike something like 40k and the turn order will always give out an edge.
- meta moves slowly so meta dependent innovation (why I play strategy games in the first place) is very difficult. Choosing between 'attacking a meta' or embracing it is a large appeal for competitiveness for me.

More but these are the immediate ones that come to mind.

You’re good with 40k’s balance, but not the balance of chess?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re good with 40k’s balance, but not the balance of chess?

Well nothing is perfect but moreso with 40k then chess yes. 40k isn't the end all be all but I've played thousands of different video, tabletop games etc and I quite like 40k for comp play and I find it relatively very good

'perfect balance' is the worst balancing sin possible. There are millions of ways in which something is balanced or imbalanced and almost every one of them to be a 1 requires another to be 0 to put it in binary terms. Balance isn't a yes or no, it's an opportunity cost.

Chess pays far to much for the type of balance it excels at and the cost paid on balance on many things I, for me as an individual care about. It works great for many(although iirc it less popular relative to population then ever)

Ozomoto wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re good with 40k’s balance, but not the balance of chess?

Well nothing is perfect but moreso with 40k then chess yes. 40k isn't the end all be all but I've played thousands of different video, tabletop games etc and I quite like 40k for comp play and I find it relatively very good

'perfect balance' is the worst balancing sin possible. There are millions of ways in which something is balanced or imbalanced and almost every one of them to be a 1 requires another to be 0 to put it in binary terms. Balance isn't a yes or no, it's an opportunity cost.

Okay... I never said it was.

But in chess, two players of equal skill have a slight advantage to white.
In 40k, two players of equal skill have a massive discrepancy in a GK versus SM match-up.

I'm not saying you have to like chess more than 40k (it's fine to prefer 40k, for a whole variety of reasons) but to have BALANCE as a sticking point for chess but not 40k... That needs some SERIOUS explaining.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re good with 40k’s balance, but not the balance of chess?

Well nothing is perfect but moreso with 40k then chess yes. 40k isn't the end all be all but I've played thousands of different video, tabletop games etc and I quite like 40k for comp play and I find it relatively very good

'perfect balance' is the worst balancing sin possible. There are millions of ways in which something is balanced or imbalanced and almost every one of them to be a 1 requires another to be 0 to put it in binary terms. Balance isn't a yes or no, it's an opportunity cost.

Okay... I never said it was.

But in chess, two players of equal skill have a slight advantage to white.
In 40k, two players of equal skill have a massive discrepancy in a GK versus SM match-up.

I'm not saying you have to like chess more than 40k (it's fine to prefer 40k, for a whole variety of reasons) but to have BALANCE as a sticking point for chess but not 40k... That needs some SERIOUS explaining.

I couldn't care less about inter-faction(or intra I get them mixed up) balance frankly. Each faction offers tools which each player chooses to use or not.

I know inter faction is the most qouted type of balance and lots of people care about it. I don't though, and like I said earlier value is.subjective.

Ozomoto wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re good with 40k’s balance, but not the balance of chess?

Well nothing is perfect but moreso with 40k then chess yes. 40k isn't the end all be all but I've played thousands of different video, tabletop games etc and I quite like 40k for comp play and I find it relatively very good

'perfect balance' is the worst balancing sin possible. There are millions of ways in which something is balanced or imbalanced and almost every one of them to be a 1 requires another to be 0 to put it in binary terms. Balance isn't a yes or no, it's an opportunity cost.

Okay... I never said it was.

But in chess, two players of equal skill have a slight advantage to white.
In 40k, two players of equal skill have a massive discrepancy in a GK versus SM match-up.

I'm not saying you have to like chess more than 40k (it's fine to prefer 40k, for a whole variety of reasons) but to have BALANCE as a sticking point for chess but not 40k... That needs some SERIOUS explaining.

I couldn't care less about inter-faction balance frankly. Each faction offers tools which each player chooses to use or not.

What tools does GK have to beat a SM list? Assuming a minimum level of competency, so not a list comprised of nothing but Servitors on the SM end.

And you literally said:

Ozomoto wrote:
-eternally 'imbalanced' (I hate using the word balance Ugg) from a turn and faction standpoint . One player will always be barred from a faction (two players can't be white) unlike something like 40k and the turn order will always give out an edge.

As in, balance is an issue for you. IN CHESS. Not 40k.

40k is a lot more balanced when everyone brings painted, WYSIWYG armies.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
40k is a lot more balanced when everyone brings painted, WYSIWYG armies.

That's not true at all. That favors older or richer players with bigger collections, or those who happen to like what's good.

A grey plastic GK army versus a grey plastic SM army is exactly the same in terms of balance as a fully painted, WYSIWYG GK army versus a fully painted, WYSIWYG SM army, is exactly the same in balance as a grey plastic GK versus a fully painted SM.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re good with 40k’s balance, but not the balance of chess?

I dunno about him but

-Game data isn't obscured enough: i could say the same about 40k. you know the missions you know what the enemy has the only real thing you dont know is your dice roll which most players will just do everything in their power to improve one way or another (spam, aura stacks, pyschic spells) and that is all predictable.

-I want my competive level game to have have more theory then study, the other way around is bland. : also kinda 40k as at the competative level its all studying of what all the other factions do, math hammer, most efficient load outs and the meta.

-eternally 'imbalanced' (I hate using the word balance Ugg) from a turn and faction standpoint : eh some one will always have to go first. yeah i can see this one being an issue and is also why i really hate seize the initiative. you deploy on a 1/6th chance to get seized and when you do well all you can do is shrug and hope for the best.

- meta moves slowly so meta dependent innovation (why I play strategy games in the first place) is very difficult: 40k competitive meta is weird. it changes whenever a new book comes out but it really doesn't as 1) the missions really never change and are always predictable itc, brb or otherwise, and 2) every player will always try and maximize at least 1 of 3 variables (cheese (i.e 2+ rerollables, stacking as many saves as possible, wound moving with los, CP Spam) killyness (spamming certain weapons, or smite at the best cost of points) or overall consistency in general. even though the edition changes its pretty much all the same thing. imho (this is also not really limited to 40k. all competitive formats always functions as a way of maximizing consistency)

What tools does GK have to beat a SM list? Assuming a minimum level of competency, so not a list comprised of nothing but Servitors on the SM end.

Probably none, I was just saying how I see it. I

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
40k is a lot more balanced when everyone brings painted, WYSIWYG armies.

That's not true at all. That favors older or richer players with bigger collections, or those who happen to like what's good.

A grey plastic GK army versus a grey plastic SM army is exactly the same in terms of balance as a fully painted, WYSIWYG GK army versus a fully painted, WYSIWYG SM army, is exactly the same in balance as a grey plastic GK versus a fully painted SM.

Sigh, I thought it was obvious I was referencing the other hot topic of the day in a light hearted way.

Ozomoto wrote:

What tools does GK have to beat a SM list? Assuming a minimum level of competency, so not a list comprised of nothing but Servitors on the SM end.

Probably none, I was just saying how I see it. I

So how on earth do you see chess as a bigger balance issue than 40k?

Fajita Fan wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
40k is a lot more balanced when everyone brings painted, WYSIWYG armies.

That's not true at all. That favors older or richer players with bigger collections, or those who happen to like what's good.

A grey plastic GK army versus a grey plastic SM army is exactly the same in terms of balance as a fully painted, WYSIWYG GK army versus a fully painted, WYSIWYG SM army, is exactly the same in balance as a grey plastic GK versus a fully painted SM.

Sigh, I thought it was obvious I was referencing the other hot topic of the day in a light hearted way.

Fair enough, that's me being a derp.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
40k is a lot more balanced when everyone brings painted, WYSIWYG armies.

That's not true at all. That favors older or richer players with bigger collections, or those who happen to like what's good.

A grey plastic GK army versus a grey plastic SM army is exactly the same in terms of balance as a fully painted, WYSIWYG GK army versus a fully painted, WYSIWYG SM army, is exactly the same in balance as a grey plastic GK versus a fully painted SM.

Sigh, I thought it was obvious I was referencing the other hot topic of the day in a light hearted way.

Senses of humour are not balanced. The meta CLEARLY privileges puns over topical references.

 Desubot wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re good with 40k’s balance, but not the balance of chess?

I dunno about him but

-Game data isn't obscured enough: i could say the same about 40k. you know the missions you know what the enemy has the only real thing you dont know is your dice roll which most players will just do everything in their power to improve one way or another (spam, aura stacks, pyschic spells) and that is all predictable.

-I want my competive level game to have have more theory then study, the other way around is bland. : also kinda 40k as at the competative level its all studying of what all the other factions do, math hammer, most efficient load outs and the meta.

-eternally 'imbalanced' (I hate using the word balance Ugg) from a turn and faction standpoint : eh some one will always have to go first. yeah i can see this one being an issue and is also why i really hate seize the initiative. you deploy on a 1/6th chance to get seized and when you do well all you can do is shrug and hope for the best.

- meta moves slowly so meta dependent innovation (why I play strategy games in the first place) is very difficult: 40k competitive meta is weird. it changes whenever a new book comes out but it really doesn't as 1) the missions really never change and are always predictable itc, brb or otherwise, and 2) every player will always try and maximize at least 1 of 3 variables (cheese (i.e 2+ rerollables, stacking as many saves as possible, wound moving with los, CP Spam) killyness (spamming certain weapons, or smite at the best cost of points) or overall consistency in general. even though the edition changes its pretty much all the same thing. imho (this is also not really limited to 40k. all competitive formats always functions as a way of maximizing consistency)

1) that isn't what I meant by game data being obscured, I mispoke. I meant game descions being the correct/incorrect.

2) possibly true but that study is more interesting for me for w e reason

3) in ITC for example many armies want to go first but also many want to go second. I generally prefere going 2nd in ITC. The fact that neither is objectively better is already sufficient for the turn order aspect to be better (more 'balanced')then chess.

4) I disagree

Ozomoto, let me ask you a simple question.

Which game do you consider more balanced: Chess, or 40k?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:

What tools does GK have to beat a SM list? Assuming a minimum level of competency, so not a list comprised of nothing but Servitors on the SM end.

Probably none, I was just saying how I see it. I

So how on earth do you see chess as a bigger balance issue than 40k?

Because inter-faction balance is one of millions of ways in which a game in 'balanced' and one I don't particularly care for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ozomoto, let me ask you a simple question.

Which game do you consider more balanced: Chess, or 40k?

I think that question is a little bit of an absurdity. Every element of balance requires another imbalanced.

There can't truely be a answer that involves anything but taste.

In this way the question becomes what do you prefer which isn't at all what was asked.

I prefere what is balanced in 40k over what is balanced in chess however.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Ozomoto, let me ask you a simple question.

Which game do you consider more balanced: Chess, or 40k?

Can we all take a brief step back to admire a webforum thread so bonkers that it has actually necessitated someone asking this question in earnest.