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.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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.

And it wasn't even answered.

 JNAProductions wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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.

And it wasn't even answered.

My philosophy degree has earned me zero cash, gakky web credits is all it's good for. I have to justify it somehow.

I feel like this article is clickbaiting

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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.

I mean technically White will win 52-56% of the time.

Let me try another angle-if you have two players of equal skill sitting down to play a game of chess, and simply pick whichever color is their favorite, who's more likely to win? And by how much?

Then, if you have two players of equal skill sitting down to play a game of 40k, and simply pick whichever faction is their favorite, who's more likely to win? And by how much?

 Desubot wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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.

I mean technically White will win 52-56% of the time.

Yeah, white has an advantage. Which is why, to my knowledge, competitive chess games randomly decide who gets to be white.

 Desubot wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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.

I mean technically White will win 52-56% of the time.

They need to completely overhaul the rules.

Bishops? Way too weak!!! And rooks are OP and need a serious nerf in the next edition.

 Desubot wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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.

I mean technically White will win 52-56% of the time.

But can white compete in a meta dominated by Iron Hands?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Let me try another angle-if you have two players of equal skill sitting down to play a game of chess, and simply pick whichever color is their favorite, who's more likely to win? And by how much?

Then, if you have two players of equal skill sitting down to play a game of 40k, and simply pick whichever faction is their favorite, who's more likely to win? And by how much?
.

While I understand that and agree with it; I also think it takes a narrow view of what balance is.i didn't choose a random faction I like; my choice for what I play is always deliberate and it will almost exclusively be so at the top tables of any big gt or major. While I think outside of game mechanics it is a economical shame some faction are trash at times I also think from a comp gaming perspective it's better .

 JNAProductions wrote:
Let me try another angle-if you have two players of equal skill sitting down to play a game of chess, and simply pick whichever color is their favorite, who's more likely to win? And by how much?

Then, if you have two players of equal skill sitting down to play a game of 40k, and simply pick whichever faction is their favorite, who's more likely to win? And by how much?

Sorry, I totally agree with your overall point and what you're trying to get at, but this isn't the best way of phrasing it. If the players really are of a hypothetical equal skill, white will indeed win most games, with the rate going up depending on how skilled those players are (like the more advanced a computer chess program is, the more likely white is to win if it plays itself). Whereas in the 40k example, it will vary wildly by which faction is the respective favourite, and how optimized the units they choose within that faction are.

Again, I get you, I 100% agree with you, I just think this particular example muddies the issue more than simplifies it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catulle wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 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.

I mean technically White will win 52-56% of the time.

But can white compete in a meta dominated by Iron Hands?

It depends. Do we mean 40k or Kill Team? A strongly melee-focused White Scars team can be quite competitive against Iron Hands in Kill Team…

It depends. Do we mean 40k or Kill Team? A strongly melee-focused White Scars team can be quite competitive against Iron Hands in Kill Team…

If where taking a tangent into the current meta, Imo ws marine soup is better then IH in 40k; the data for IH is a little skwed due to how easy IH is to build a listfor and play compared to ws soup. Combine this with IH being a math hammer bully (where as was soup not as much) mid table players are just generally going to go get beat up by IH.

(Also due to the fact ws soup power is largely in the form of on board choices and stratagem use vs IH just blatent powerfull built in rules that just happen)

Ozomoto wrote:
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.

This really sounds like trying to avoid committing to a demonstrably bad take.

40K is ludicrously imbalanced. Far more so than chess. You can demonstrate it mathematically: certain factions consistently overperform compared to others. Certain units overperform compared to others. There's not just different choices for the sake of variety or strategy, there are objectively good and bad choices too.

I remember back in the early days of Warmachine having a lot of fun at the local club, just playing with equally-pointed armies. It was far from perfect, but we didn't have to discuss whether we were running 'casual' or 'competitive' lists or any of the other heuristic self-segregation that goes into trying to wrangle a fun game out of 40K's imbalance.

 catbarf wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
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.
of this.
I prefere what is balanced in 40k over what is balanced in chess however.

This really sounds like trying to avoid committing to a demonstrably bad take.

40K is ludicrously imbalanced. Far more so than chess. You can demonstrate it mathematically: certain factions consistently overperform compared to others. Certain units overperform compared to others. There's not just different choices for the sake of variety or strategy, there are objectively good and bad choices too.

I remember back in the early days of Warmachine having a lot of fun at the local club, just playing with equally-pointed armies. It was far from perfect, but we didn't have to discuss whether we were running 'casual' or 'competitive' lists or any of the other heuristic self-segregation that goes into trying to wrangle a fun game out of 40K's imbalance.

Again, narrow view of balance imo. You can't qoute inter/intra faction and inter/intra unit balance as the primary source of imbalance of 40k and expect me to care when I've already stated multiple times I frankly don't care about that small sliver of balance type multiple times in the thread.
Chess mathamatically fails also one of the most blatent examples being the 52-56% winrate.

Its not avoiding a bad take. Its being consistent with what im arguing for;
e
-Millions of "balance" types available
-Generally for any micro(or macro) aspect to be balanced in some way requires the imbalance of another, there is no 'error free balance' which into-->
-Balance is fundamentally a opportunity cost, it is balanced in X way because of y

Therefore it does not make sense to say something (as a whole) is any more or less then anything else.You can talk about micro elements (such as intra-inter unit and faction balance as everyone absolutely loves to) or turn order balance etc, being more or less then another system. As a whole though it really doesn't make sense.

Hence the comment about preference, I like how x and y game are balanced in y way. My argument is that the types of balance chess exceeds at comes at a cost to high(considering I find what its balanced well at bland anyway) for balance archetypes It throws to the dust to do so.

Saying chess is generically more balanced then 40k is, an absurdity. Likewise is the reverse. All counter arguments to this from this thread have taken the form of X and Y aspect of 40k is imbalanced see example; which again exist in the realm of dealing with pieces but not the whole and say nothing about any of this.

People have the presupposition that 'balance' is a linear scale. Which only holds true for any specific subset of 'balance'. Which is why at any time anyone can say take X-Z subsets of balance and treat them as unimportant as one has the right to do.

Value is subjective, 'balance' is a value. Saying 40k does/does not merit as a competitive game is like saying i'm person Y and you as person X think this picture is ugly; when in fact there is a very real possibility of that person thinking the picture is in fact not ugly.

Interestingly enough it does not matter whether that person thinks the picture is ugly or not; what matters is the possibility of either event.

This is such because saying something that, as matter of fact, Chess is more balanced then 40k, equates to saying this picture is ugly.

Well yes, but also no. Hence my answer.

Bdrone wrote:
...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.

Never going to happen, look at the Start Collecting box prices over the last 2 years. All the best deals are from the limited release box sets (see: Renegade) and even those are getting hammered recently (see: SoB release).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I like you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Not sure if your being sarcastic or even what your really arguing here, but if they are testing their products competitively - they had 30 years to get this right (you had one job!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Bishops? Way too weak!!! And rooks are OP and need a serious nerf in the next edition.

First it was "D&D is a competitive game" and now it's Chess?

Imagine showing up to play a game in the park one day and your opponent pieces happen to be twice as powerful as yours just because it's a different color. Or how about an army with no pawns? See: Adeptus Custodies

That's game balance in 40k.

Not sure if your being sarcastic or even what your really arguing here, but if they are testing their products competitively - they had 30 years to get this right (you had one job!

Yes sarcastic. One of the main things I have been advocating is how many competitive failures in games is due to the developers hubris in thinking they understand future meta's as well as achieving this 'balance' without data sets to fall back too. This is to address the OP title; yes its good in a competitive sense they don't test this way as the system they currently use for it is better imo.

This has led into a rabbit hole of people being very confused as to why very loosely speaking I said 40k is a better balanced game for competitive play then chess.

Ozomoto wrote:
This is to address the OP title; yes its good in a competitive sense they don't test this way as the system they currently use for it is better imo.

The first GT, the very first one after the Iron Hands release half, HALF of a GRAND TOURNAMENT was a single faction, and damn near the same lists.

So NO, whatever "system" they are using isn't working.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
This is to address the OP title; yes its good in a competitive sense they don't test this way as the system they currently use for it is better imo.

carefully
The first GT, the very first one after the Iron Hands release half, HALF of a GRAND TOURNAMENT was a single faction, and damn near the same lists.

So NO, whatever "system" they are using isn't working.

The pieces used in chess are identical for each faction. Mono lists, mono faction is the balance dream to some.

Not mine and probably not yours perhaps.

IMO both to little and to much diversity are problematic for competitive games; my opinion is however a small niche and has as much merit as the next persons. Some of which would see IH vs IH as an epitome for balanced play. (people who like mono gun shooter formats is an example off the top of my head)

I fail to see your point honestly, would you please elaborate; you seem to have quoted an example which goes against your argument. The original IH rules where nerfed fairly swiftly in the crusade of game 'balance'; this frankly seems like a terrible example to showcase 40k having bad balance as all it does is spearhead an example of a game company attempting to work with a player base. Rome wasn't built in a day and drastic 180 emergency changes are arguably very voltile. Most people would agree reeling things in methodically until the storm has achieved calmness is better. In addition it doesn't even draw comparison to anything which was "balanced for competitive environments" for whatever that was worth.

Ozomoto wrote:
The pieces used in chess are identical for each faction. Mono lists, mono faction is the balance dream to some.

Space Marines: A single faction that uses the same unit pool but drastically changes the power of said units based solely on the color of the model. That's the most insane thing i can think of, honestly i'm sitting here SMH tapping this out.

Ozomoto wrote:
Some of which would see IH vs IH as an epitome for balanced play. (people who like mono gun shooter formats is an example off the top of my head)

If you had gone to a tournament in the last 3 months you probably had a good shot of seeing this randomly.

GW's rules are horrid, and their lore is increasingly bad. But they make some very nice models. The problem with poor rules is that it creates toxic phenomena like netlists which crawl into casual games, affecting people who have nothing to do with the tournament scene.

Ozomoto wrote:
The original IH rules where nerfed fairly swiftly in the crusade of game 'balance';

Your mistaken, Iron Hands wernt touched until the first massive GT failure, GW never makes balance changes unless it's breaking the game. It took GW over a year to nerf IKs.
Also if they had tested their products properly they wouldn't run into this embarrassing where they have to rush out some band-aid PDF.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Bdrone wrote:

....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...

Never going to happen, look at the Start Collecting box prices over the last 2 years. All the best deals are from the limited release box sets (see: Renegade) and even those are getting hammered recently (see: SoB release).

there's a reason i said fat chance of that, after all. prices have only gone up, and i just know the sisters release will cost extra for all the bling everyone else loves i don't care for. as for the rules... well, ill keep waiting my turn for each army i like to see how that shakes out. as someone who only likes marines at all because of Rogal Dorn, and still wont even do imperial fists... i'll be waiting a good while.

More value per dollar, one way or another, would be nice.

Space Marines: A single faction that uses the same unit pool but drastically changes the power of said units based solely on the color of the model. That's the most insane thing i can think of, honestly i'm sitting here SMH tapping this out.

Interestingly one of the biggest complaints about primaris was how each chapter of primaris lacked identity and felt samey among each other. Outside of power level concerns the supplements are fantastic at showcasing different play styles and archetypes can operate using the same pool. Between mathhammer attrition IH vehicles, RG deployment shenanigans , White scar speed and utilty, Salamander dps combo womboes, blood angels delivery and ferocity all of them honestly do really sweet and unique stuff.
To argue that from a design standpoint they are anything but fantastic is kind of insane imo.

Now the implementation and powerlevel? sure ya that's out of whack.

Ironically nu-marines are everything that the player base requested. 1) primaris identity thing, 2)marines actually being good, 3) Being disliking soup (doctrines). etc. What people say they want isnt what they actually want, which leads into my rants about balace...on average any given person really has no idea what they are talking about or what they actually want.

Also i'm aware and have been to tournaments?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
The original IH rules where nerfed fairly swiftly in the crusade of game 'balance';

Your mistaken, Iron Hands wernt touched until the first massive GT failure, GW never makes balance changes unless it's breaking the game. It took GW over a year to nerf IKs.
Also if they had tested their products properly they wouldn't run into this embarrassing where they have to rush out some band-aid PDF.

The Knight nerf was a mistake and not backed up by data. It was done to calm down the majoirty of the player base who desired it. See above about giving players what they think they want. It took so long because frankly the answer to knights was git gud but people refused too. The knight nerf shows how players get in the way of competitive integrity. Not how how long it takes them to get things done.

You should have used ynnari, would have been a much better example and I would have actually had to delve into a real reply.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
GW's rules are horrid, and their lore is increasingly bad. But they make some very nice models. The problem with poor rules is that it creates toxic phenomena like netlists which crawl into casual games, affecting people who have nothing to do with the tournament scene.

I must be the only person here who plays Beer Hammer AND Warhammer. Nothing is better than getting up and geeking out with my fellow nerds, but it would be nice if the competitive scene wasn't such a show.

GW clearly does not check, test anything. Its painfully obvious to anyone participating in the hobby. It took everyone all of 5 minutes from reading the previews for the marine books to see the testing wasn't a thing.. The never ending stream of errata's and FAQs shows of quality control/proof reading isint a thing.

Its a premium turd sandwich ya eating if you into GW.
Demand refunds, write complaints, and if enough people do it something might change. Otherwise it is what it is..

That being said I do not think GW cares about balance or rules. Its primary objective is hobby and miniatures sales.
The rules/books are a very lucrative minimal effort icing on top.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
GW's rules are horrid, and their lore is increasingly bad. But they make some very nice models. The problem with poor rules is that it creates toxic phenomena like netlists which crawl into casual games, affecting people who have nothing to do with the tournament scene.

I can definitely agree with you that it's really gross, cheesy and pathetic when people want to use netlists in casual, friendly, or otherwise low-stakes games, but… is it really all that bad for competitive play? I mean, it introduces some accessibility for players who aren't as good at list construction, right? While posing a bit of increased challenge for the serious players? And it's not like a netlist is suddenly going to make someone who sucks at the game win a tournament. Or even place. Just cos you have the "right" models doesn't mean you know how to use them. Like I could spam kabalites-on-venoms, blasters, and reavers in my Drukhari like winning lists tend to do, but it wouldn't magically make up for me being crap at deploying properly!

(not that I would, of course. Wyches, wracks, khymerae, voidravens and scourges are waaaaay too cool for me to ever pass up using )

Edit:

Actually, re-reading your post, it seems like you're saying that netlists crawling into casual play is the toxic phenomenon, not that netlists are a toxic phenomenon that crawls into casual play. Which I 100% agree with. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Ozomoto wrote:
The Knight nerf was a mistake and not backed up by data. It was done to calm down the majoirty of the player base who desired it. See other posts about giving players what they think they want. It took so long because frankly the answer to knights was git gud but people refused too.

You got a verbal "what the " out of me reading this, it's super entertaining but .. wut?

The IK nerf was not a mistake. If you had played agasint or as IK in any competitive form over the last year you'd know that's not true.
The Castellan was the top selling unit for 9 months in a row, and 9/10 imperium armies had a knight of some kind in almost every GT, i can start posting win/losses + lists if you really need it
Just to reiterate, you're wrong, it's backed up by data and you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
The Knight nerf was a mistake and not backed up by data. It was done to calm down the majoirty of the player base who desired it. See other posts about giving players what they think they want. It took so long because frankly the answer to knights was git gud but people refused too.

You got a verbal "what the " out of me reading this, it's super entertaining but .. wut?

The IK nerf was not a mistake. If you had played agasint or as IK in any competitive form over the last year you'd know that's not true.
The Castellan was the top selling unit for 9 months in a row, and 9/10 imperium armies had a knight of some kind in almost every GT, i can start posting win/losses + lists if you really need it
Just to reiterate, you're wrong, it's backed up by data and you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Hell, Castellan is STILL pretty comically OP when paired with a necromechanic dominus that has the autocaduceus of Arkahn Land.

That said, knights ARE really cool, and I would bet at least a solid 25% of the people buying any given knight kit just wanted a really cool big centrepiece model for their Imperial armies, with no particular thought to competition.

Did they distinguish the sales figures between Castellan and Warden?

Like I've been thinking about maybe getting a Paladin for my Sororitas just because I want a big striking centrepiece, and I'm going to be painting them up as Ebon Chalice which means Junith is out and Celestine doesn't really make a lot of sense. It won't be NEARLY as strong a points investment as the Crusader I wanna get for my AdMech will be, but it would be a really cool modelling thing: put a ton of candles and torches and spare cherubim on that badboy, paint it white and gold, give it the "helmet" faceplate…

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
The Knight nerf was a mistake and not backed up by data. It was done to calm down the majoirty of the player base who desired it. See other posts about giving players what they think they want. It took so long because frankly the answer to knights was git gud but people refused too.

You got a verbal "what the " out of me reading this, it's super entertaining but .. wut?

The IK nerf was not a mistake. If you had played agasint or as IK in any competitive form over the last year you'd know that's not true.
The Castellan was the top selling unit for 9 months in a row, and 9/10 imperium armies had a knight of some kind knight in almost every GT, i can start posting win/losses + lists if you really need it
Just to reiterate, you're wrong, it's backed up by data and you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Your argument is: your wrong? and it saw play? .......

You mistake prevalence as oppression. Was the Castellan good? yes. Was it very beatable? yes.Was it meta defining? yes. Could you play the mission vs it reasonably? yes. yes Did it even top 8 adepticon(the last big tournament before its nerf)? no. Why did it not top 8 adepticon, beasue it was beatable and good players built for it. It honestly was a net positive for the meta at the time as ynnari (which was oppressive) struggled to beat it consistently.

I both played with and vs it (without using one myself) and frankly never had a problem vs playing very good players utilizing it. It was quite easy to build a list that did not care about its fire power and now they where stuck with a 604 (593) model that could never make its point back. Like I said, if you where in the camp of "this thing is to good" you likely need someone to tell you honestly to get good. It shows lack of adaptability. Its a strategy game, not being able to adapt means you should lose frankly and inst justification for a nerf. GW knew this and that is why it didn't get nerfed in chapter approved 2018.

Lets take a look at something that was oppressive, Pre nerf iron hands

Was it good? yes. Was it beatable? not by attrition and no matter what archetpye you played it had acvantage in the mission (assuming itc). Was it meta defining? yes. COuld you play the mission reasonably agaisnt it? no.

The difference is counterplay my dude. On the table and in list building phase.

Ozomoto wrote:
Your argument is: your wrong? and it saw play? .......

Okay so you said "The Knight nerf was a mistake and not backed up by data."
and then i replied, with data to back it up

You can keep arguing this point but it's not going to change numbers, i backed up my opinion with data, you backed yours with more hyperbole.

Ozomoto wrote:
Did it even top 8 adepticon(the last big tournament before its nerf)? no. Why did it not top 8 adepticon, beasue it was beatable and good players built for it.

Tyler Devries, 8th place full Imperial Knights
Braden Kohl, 6th place ~700 points worth of knights

Even in the example you gave your still wrong.

Now we have people here defending the Castellan? What the hell? Saying there isn't any data is living in a fantasy land. Like, did you follow any of the tournament data at all?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Like, did you follow any of the tournament data at all?

No one that did could make the statements hes making.