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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
One where one faction isn't running around with 60-70% winrate and others 30-40% would be good start

There will always be people who complain about perceived imbalances because they personally find it unbalanced, but there's more factors in winning and losing that most people are willing to admit, its easier to just blame the rules.

Lol how lame attempt at white knighting.

Wut? How is that white knighting? Do you even know what that term means?

Bringing up the fact that the same people keep winning tournaments is NOT an argument for the idea that the game has low skill expression.

Bringing up the fact that those top players constantly ebay their entire army and buy a new one, and that many top players play essentially the exact same broken army is.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its the point they need to be able to pilot different armies, showing it is more skillful than "rolling lucky"

We also are talking about 40k not something that literally has cheaters in it b.c "this drug isn't said to be illegal" Just look at "Insulin Gut" and your 'll see....

I'm pretty sure competitive professional sports are far more regulated than competitive 40k. Lance armystrong was a cheater...however - nearly everyone he was competing against was also cheating as well.

So are you implying that these players are all cheaters? I really don't understand how you can say that the same players win so therefore the game has bad balance. I'm not saying it is balanced, i'm asking how does the same players winning equate to poor balance?

I was just implying that in professional sports they do things like...drug test. What safety measures does ITC take? They don't even check your dice.

LOL this is one of the stupidest convo's i've seen you do now.

Yes they test, again go look at Insulin Gut, b.c 99% the time they test for gak no one is using or don't care about. And the fact that you are "implying" all these players are cheating is just sad "they don't check your dice".

So you are saying the top players are cheaters and that is Proof the game has terrible balance.
News flash! we all know the game is imbalanced, the messed up part is, theres 1000's of pieces of proof and you go to "Cheaters and top players are why".

I was going to ignore you, but this is to golden to pass up.


EDIT: B.c you added more after. You do know that Sean Nayden won with Yncarne and hordes of wyches when everyone said it was bad right? So yes it is with "off armies" sometimes.

It obvious you are a fan boy and totally unwilling to accept reality. You are the one that brought up cheating.

Look at your above post. In essence you dismissed my argument because cheating exists in other sports. Yeah...you can't even go there. Cheating exists in all things competitive. It is human nature. Which is why competitive sports regulate their games...have preassigned penalties for cheating that occurs in games and they test for steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Also you are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't even state that cheating is the reason that the top players place consisently. I stated that the same players consistently placing at the top of events is a sign that the game is poorly balanced. This game has very low skill expression.

Actually i was talking to someone else that brought it up and then you commented on that. So no i did not bring up cheating. You can't even get that straight lol.

I asked you about cheated and made a claim b.c you HEAVILY implied it, even stating you implied it, you did not say "no thats not what i meant" even going as far to say "I don't know what you mean" you did not say what you mean and you continue to imply cheating and not skill via "they don't test dice" All you've been doing is implying things and get mad when I call you out on it.

PS. I'm not a fan boy. I play maybe 1 40k game a month and stopped doing events. I've been playing AoS almost non stop, its such a better game, even tho they have imbalances too (some armies are 60% winrates like in 40k) its still WAY more fun. Heck i play BoC the "worst" army in AoS and i still have more fun than 40k.

EDIT: So if the game is low skill, then why isn't more No name players winning large events?

the_scotsman wrote:
Bringing up the fact that the same people keep winning tournaments is NOT an argument for the idea that the game has low skill expression.

Bringing up the fact that those top players constantly ebay their entire army and buy a new one, and that many top players play essentially the exact same broken army is.

I an assuming that when we talk about top players...this is automatically assumed.

I'm afraid I just can't agree. Whenever I watch top players I find them to be very precise - and yes, better than the average player who makes bags of mistakes (or just doesn't see the superior move).

This is why the same people do regularly win - because there is plenty of skill in 40k, even if its doing things you may not like.

If this isn't enough for you I'm not sure what to expect. I feel hoping for something ground breaking - that completely changes how you view 40k - is an illusion. I don't think that happens in any game. At the top end, you just do what everyone else is doing but a bit faster and a bit more accurately.

To get a game where *anyone* with *any army* has a 50/50 chance against *anyone* with *any army* would require the game to be reduced down to the flip of a coin. Which I wouldn't find fun - and certainly wouldn't find interesting.

I guess if you want a beer and pretzels game that you play with some friends every few months, and the fundamental point is to have an enjoyable few hours, rather than do something so vulgar as *try to win*, then I guess such a system might be great. But I feel the miniatures are too expensive, and building/painting them too time consuming, for that to be all the game is.

Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I just can't agree. Whenever I watch top players I find them to be very precise - and yes, better than the average player who makes bags of mistakes (or just doesn't see the superior move).

This is why the same people do regularly win - because there is plenty of skill in 40k, even if its doing things you may not like.

If this isn't enough for you I'm not sure what to expect. I feel hoping for something ground breaking - that completely changes how you view 40k - is an illusion. I don't think that happens in any game. At the top end, you just do what everyone else is doing but a bit faster and a bit more accurately.

To get a game where *anyone* with *any army* has a 50/50 chance against *anyone* with *any army* would require the game to be reduced down to the flip of a coin. Which I wouldn't find fun - and certainly wouldn't find interesting.

I guess if you want a beer and pretzels game that you play with some friends every few months, and the fundamental point is to have an enjoyable few hours, rather than do something so vulgar as *try to win*, then I guess such a system might be great. But I feel the miniatures are too expensive, and building/painting them too time consuming, for that to be all the game is.

Pretty much this.

A Book even if every unit was perfectly balance still would have "bad lists" b.c the game is more about synergy and working out a plan than just good balanced units.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I just can't agree. Whenever I watch top players I find them to be very precise - and yes, better than the average player who makes bags of mistakes (or just doesn't see the superior move).

This is why the same people do regularly win - because there is plenty of skill in 40k, even if its doing things you may not like.

If this isn't enough for you I'm not sure what to expect. I feel hoping for something ground breaking - that completely changes how you view 40k - is an illusion. I don't think that happens in any game. At the top end, you just do what everyone else is doing but a bit faster and a bit more accurately.

To get a game where *anyone* with *any army* has a 50/50 chance against *anyone* with *any army* would require the game to be reduced down to the flip of a coin. Which I wouldn't find fun - and certainly wouldn't find interesting.

I guess if you want a beer and pretzels game that you play with some friends every few months, and the fundamental point is to have an enjoyable few hours, rather than do something so vulgar as *try to win*, then I guess such a system might be great. But I feel the miniatures are too expensive, and building/painting them too time consuming, for that to be all the game is.

Pretty much this.

A Book even if every unit was perfectly balance still would have "bad lists" b.c the game is more about synergy and working out a plan than just good balanced units.

Which would be fine. The problem is not and has never been the fact that it's possible to build bad lists. The problem is that there are units that GW sells that are impossible to put into a good list, and Codexes with which it is not possible to make a good list.

Oh yeah for sure. Just look at the Webway gate. How did that even make it into print? I am 100% sure some intern did it that doesn't understand the game, was told to learn the game in 2 weeks and make it, lol. B.c any player from any army would say its a terrible unit. But most players don't take Fortifications anyways, lets hope that changes in 9th with CP modifications.

First off, at Xeno-the same players winning shows that yes, skill matters.

Second off, to me, the ideal balance point is this:

No unit should never be taken. But also, No unit should always be taken.
For instance, Nurgle Daemons. Spoilpox Scriveners are a good unit, in a list with a lot of Plaguebearers. They provide great synergy with that troops choice. But if I went monster mash (GUO) and little boys (Nurglings), suddenly the Sloppity Bilepiper is the superior choice.

Pretty much, in an ideally balance game, you should see every unit represented at the top tables-not in the same lists, but across various different ones. Same with subfactions and whatnot. If the answer is always "Take [UNIT X]," that unit is too good, and therefore not balanced. If the answer is never "Take [UNIT Y]," that unit isn't good enough, and therefore not balanced.

Most experience people have is anecdotal. A large chunk copies the opinions of people they follow online.

Perfect balance would be very dull, but yes - the game can be improved.

 Ishagu wrote:
Most experience people have is anecdotal. A large chunk copies the opinions of people they follow online.

Perfect balance would be very dull, but yes - the game can be improved.

Perfect balance wouldn't be dull, if accomplished well.

It's also impossible.

But better balance? Yes. That's 100% possible, and should be done.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its the point they need to be able to pilot different armies, showing it is more skillful than "rolling lucky"

We also are talking about 40k not something that literally has cheaters in it b.c "this drug isn't said to be illegal" Just look at "Insulin Gut" and your 'll see....

I'm pretty sure competitive professional sports are far more regulated than competitive 40k. Lance armystrong was a cheater...however - nearly everyone he was competing against was also cheating as well.

So are you implying that these players are all cheaters? I really don't understand how you can say that the same players win so therefore the game has bad balance. I'm not saying it is balanced, i'm asking how does the same players winning equate to poor balance?

I was just implying that in professional sports they do things like...drug test. What safety measures does ITC take? They don't even check your dice.

LOL this is one of the stupidest convo's i've seen you do now.

Yes they test, again go look at Insulin Gut, b.c 99% the time they test for gak no one is using or don't care about. And the fact that you are "implying" all these players are cheating is just sad "they don't check your dice".

So you are saying the top players are cheaters and that is Proof the game has terrible balance.
News flash! we all know the game is imbalanced, the messed up part is, theres 1000's of pieces of proof and you go to "Cheaters and top players are why".

I was going to ignore you, but this is to golden to pass up.


EDIT: B.c you added more after. You do know that Sean Nayden won with Yncarne and hordes of wyches when everyone said it was bad right? So yes it is with "off armies" sometimes.

It obvious you are a fan boy and totally unwilling to accept reality. You are the one that brought up cheating.

Look at your above post. In essence you dismissed my argument because cheating exists in other sports. Yeah...you can't even go there. Cheating exists in all things competitive. It is human nature. Which is why competitive sports regulate their games...have preassigned penalties for cheating that occurs in games and they test for steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Also you are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't even state that cheating is the reason that the top players place consisently. I stated that the same players consisttently placing at the top of events is a sign that the game is poorly balanced. This game has very low skill expression.

Actually i was talking to someone else that brought it up and then you commented on that. So no i did not bring up cheating. You can't even get that straight lol.

I asked you about cheated and made a claim b.c you HEAVILY implied it, even stating you implied it, you did not say "no thats not what i meant" even going as far to say "I don't know what you mean" you did not say what you mean and you continue to imply cheating and not skill via "they don't test dice" All you've been doing is implying things and get mad when I call you out on it.

PS. I'm not a fan boy. I play maybe 1 40k game a month and stopped doing events. I've been playing AoS almost non stop, its such a better game, even tho they have imbalances too (some armies are 60% winrates like in 40k) its still WAY more fun. Heck i play BoC the "worst" army in AoS and i still have more fun than 40k.

EDIT: So if the game is low skill, then why isn't more No name players winning large events?

I don't disagree that sigmar is a better game. I agree it is more fun too. It just feels like I am playing a game with and reacting to my opponent more. 40k does not feel like that. 40k as is about army construction and destruction or in ITC it its Construction and moving to poker chips at the end of your turn. Nether game requires a lot of skill out of list building though. It's not a dig at the players or the game. It's just not designed that way. Plus Sigmars balance is pretty dang bad too. Following the same 40k formula - most the time the newest army rules are the most OP.

I would invite you to look back at our previous posts. It seemed to me you were saying that "competitive weight lifting" is not an apt comparison because there is cheating in that sport. I am just saying get real - there is cheating in every sport. Including 40k. Likely more - because its hard to get caught and the consequences are low with the reward being high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Most experience people have is anecdotal. A large chunk copies the opinions of people they follow online.

Perfect balance would be very dull, but yes - the game can be improved.

Ehh perfect balance of outcome would be dull. Perfect external and internal balance would be amazing. Could actually play with all our units without autolosing our games.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Most experience people have is anecdotal. A large chunk copies the opinions of people they follow online.

Perfect balance would be very dull, but yes - the game can be improved.

Ehh perfect balance of outcome would be dull. Perfect external and internal balance would be amazing. Could actually play with all our units without autolosing our games.

You play Marines. You don't have to worry about auto-losing unless you're intentionally taking the worst possible units, like nothing but Servitors and Drop Pods.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its the point they need to be able to pilot different armies, showing it is more skillful than "rolling lucky"

We also are talking about 40k not something that literally has cheaters in it b.c "this drug isn't said to be illegal" Just look at "Insulin Gut" and your 'll see....

I'm pretty sure competitive professional sports are far more regulated than competitive 40k. Lance armystrong was a cheater...however - nearly everyone he was competing against was also cheating as well.

So are you implying that these players are all cheaters? I really don't understand how you can say that the same players win so therefore the game has bad balance. I'm not saying it is balanced, i'm asking how does the same players winning equate to poor balance?

I was just implying that in professional sports they do things like...drug test. What safety measures does ITC take? They don't even check your dice.

LOL this is one of the stupidest convo's i've seen you do now.

Yes they test, again go look at Insulin Gut, b.c 99% the time they test for gak no one is using or don't care about. And the fact that you are "implying" all these players are cheating is just sad "they don't check your dice".

So you are saying the top players are cheaters and that is Proof the game has terrible balance.
News flash! we all know the game is imbalanced, the messed up part is, theres 1000's of pieces of proof and you go to "Cheaters and top players are why".

I was going to ignore you, but this is to golden to pass up.


EDIT: B.c you added more after. You do know that Sean Nayden won with Yncarne and hordes of wyches when everyone said it was bad right? So yes it is with "off armies" sometimes.

It obvious you are a fan boy and totally unwilling to accept reality. You are the one that brought up cheating.

Look at your above post. In essence you dismissed my argument because cheating exists in other sports. Yeah...you can't even go there. Cheating exists in all things competitive. It is human nature. Which is why competitive sports regulate their games...have preassigned penalties for cheating that occurs in games and they test for steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Also you are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't even state that cheating is the reason that the top players place consisently. I stated that the same players consisttently placing at the top of events is a sign that the game is poorly balanced. This game has very low skill expression.

Actually i was talking to someone else that brought it up and then you commented on that. So no i did not bring up cheating. You can't even get that straight lol.

I asked you about cheated and made a claim b.c you HEAVILY implied it, even stating you implied it, you did not say "no thats not what i meant" even going as far to say "I don't know what you mean" you did not say what you mean and you continue to imply cheating and not skill via "they don't test dice" All you've been doing is implying things and get mad when I call you out on it.

PS. I'm not a fan boy. I play maybe 1 40k game a month and stopped doing events. I've been playing AoS almost non stop, its such a better game, even tho they have imbalances too (some armies are 60% winrates like in 40k) its still WAY more fun. Heck i play BoC the "worst" army in AoS and i still have more fun than 40k.

EDIT: So if the game is low skill, then why isn't more No name players winning large events?

I don't disagree that sigmar is a better game. I agree it is more fun too. It just feels like I am playing a game with and reacting to my opponent more. 40k does not feel like that. 40k as is about army construction and destruction or in ITC it its Construction and moving to poker chips at the end of your turn. Nether game requires a lot of skill out of list building though. It's not a dig at the players or the game. It's just not designed that way. Plus Sigmars balance is pretty dang bad too. Following the same 40k formula - most the time the newest army rules are the most OP.

I would invite you to look back at our previous posts. It seemed to me you were saying that "competitive weight lifting" is not an apt comparison because there is cheating in that sport. I am just saying get real - there is cheating in every sport. Including 40k. Likely more - because its hard to get caught and the consequences are low with the reward being high.

You say that, but yet I haven't lost (nor the Top BoC player) let against DoT or OBR (2 of the 3 new top armies) I haven't had a chance to go against Seraphon yet. AoS is more Rock, Paper Scissor than 40k is. Where a bad army can beat a good one, but it wont beat another bad army b.c how missions/matchups. And some of the top lists are also over $1k which even top players don't wan to pay, bill, and paint, even tho its only 8-10 units, it could still be over 200 models to work with (Example, Chariots are not 1 model but 5 models, there are 50pt chariots that you could take 18 of them, they are battalion, and very good, but that less than 1/2 your army and that alone cost $900).

As for 40k. Apoc was way more fun than both. I didn't play enough to find imbalances i'm sure there are, but damage at the end alone made it better.

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
One where one faction isn't running around with 60-70% winrate and others 30-40% would be good start

There will always be people who complain about perceived imbalances because they personally find it unbalanced, but there's more factors in winning and losing that most people are willing to admit, its easier to just blame the rules.

Lol how lame attempt at white knighting.

Wut? How is that white knighting? Do you even know what that term means?

I would also call it white knighting when someone's response to certain factions having abnormally high or low winrates is basically 'the game is fine, you just suck and blame the rules'. It doesn't address the point at all, it's just deflecting criticism of the game by implying the critic is only complaining because they're bad at the game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
First off, at Xeno-the same players winning shows that yes, skill matters.

Second off, to me, the ideal balance point is this:

No unit should never be taken. But also, No unit should always be taken.
For instance, Nurgle Daemons. Spoilpox Scriveners are a good unit, in a list with a lot of Plaguebearers. They provide great synergy with that troops choice. But if I went monster mash (GUO) and little boys (Nurglings), suddenly the Sloppity Bilepiper is the superior choice.

Pretty much, in an ideally balance game, you should see every unit represented at the top tables-not in the same lists, but across various different ones. Same with subfactions and whatnot. If the answer is always "Take [UNIT X]," that unit is too good, and therefore not balanced. If the answer is never "Take [UNIT Y]," that unit isn't good enough, and therefore not balanced.

It matters to a slight extent. I think the going consensus is that 40k is about 5% to 10% player skill and 80% list construction - the rest is luck. A more agreeable place for the game to be would be 1/3 luck 1/3 skill 1/3 construction.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
First off, at Xeno-the same players winning shows that yes, skill matters.

Second off, to me, the ideal balance point is this:

No unit should never be taken. But also, No unit should always be taken.
For instance, Nurgle Daemons. Spoilpox Scriveners are a good unit, in a list with a lot of Plaguebearers. They provide great synergy with that troops choice. But if I went monster mash (GUO) and little boys (Nurglings), suddenly the Sloppity Bilepiper is the superior choice.

Pretty much, in an ideally balance game, you should see every unit represented at the top tables-not in the same lists, but across various different ones. Same with subfactions and whatnot. If the answer is always "Take [UNIT X]," that unit is too good, and therefore not balanced. If the answer is never "Take [UNIT Y]," that unit isn't good enough, and therefore not balanced.

It matters to a slight extent. I think the going consensus is that 40k is about 5% to 10% player skill and 80% list construction - the rest is luck. A more agreeable place for the game to be would be 1/3 luck 1/3 skill 1/3 construction.

I disagree heavily.

Luck should be an element, but a manageable one.
Skill should be the primary factor.
List Construction is a subset of skill, but it should be a MINOR one.

If I, a decent but not amazing player, faced a grand tournament winning player, but we switched lists before the game started, that player should still WRECK ME. It doesn't matter that I have a tournament list and he has a decent but not amazing list-the differences in lists should not be that great.

To put another way, a competently made list versus a tournament list, both piloted by a player of equal skill, shouldn't have more than a 40/60 split in favor of the tourney list. And even that's a little much, to me.

I'd think I say:

Irrespective of almost any meta, each codex has enough depth where it can be competitive, and ideally through at least a couple different strategies.

That might mean, say, under a "we blow up vehicle meta", maybe Knights still could win 40% of the time.

But I think that's what should be achievable in a balanced game. I also think it's incredibly difficult, given how many factions there are, and obviously because Imperium armies have literally dozens of sources to draw on, where others (Orks, Tau) might only have 5 sources (main codex + stuff like PA, Vigilus)

Nope, because there is no single 40K "community".

 Elbows wrote:
Nope, because there is no single 40K "community".

A fair answer.

I mean, some people don't give two patoots about balance, since they don't play-they just paint and build. They might own the Dex, but only for the pics and lore.
Whereas you got others who like the game and don't care overmuch about painting or modeling.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Most experience people have is anecdotal. A large chunk copies the opinions of people they follow online.

Perfect balance would be very dull, but yes - the game can be improved.

Ehh perfect balance of outcome would be dull. Perfect external and internal balance would be amazing. Could actually play with all our units without autolosing our games.

You play Marines. You don't have to worry about auto-losing unless you're intentionally taking the worst possible units, like nothing but Servitors and Drop Pods.

I could auto lose by playing with basically all vehicles that aren't dreads or venerable dreads. Or any of our flyers minus the storm hawk. All forms of tactical marines. Still some of the most utter gak in the game. The predator is definitely in contention for worst tank in the whole game.

No unit should never be taken. But also, No unit should always be taken.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Most experience people have is anecdotal. A large chunk copies the opinions of people they follow online.

Perfect balance would be very dull, but yes - the game can be improved.

Ehh perfect balance of outcome would be dull. Perfect external and internal balance would be amazing. Could actually play with all our units without autolosing our games.

You play Marines. You don't have to worry about auto-losing unless you're intentionally taking the worst possible units, like nothing but Servitors and Drop Pods.

I could auto lose by playing with basically all vehicles that aren't dreads or venerable dreads. Or any of our flyers minus the storm hawk. All forms of tactical marines. Still some of the most utter gak in the game. The predator is definitely in contention for worst tank in the whole game.

I'll admit, nothing but Rhinos would probably lose you the game too.

But Marines are powerful enough that you really do have to TRY to lose in list-building. It's fully possible to be a crap general and get bodied by a weaker list. But compared to something like GSC? Dark Eldar? Daemons? Yeah, you're spoiled for not just choice, but GOOD choice.

Martel732 wrote:No unit should never be taken. But also, No unit should always be taken.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks Martel.

"because there is plenty of skill in 40k, even if its doing things you may not like."

Yeah, I hate the way Box's lists play, even though they work.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its the point they need to be able to pilot different armies, showing it is more skillful than "rolling lucky"

We also are talking about 40k not something that literally has cheaters in it b.c "this drug isn't said to be illegal" Just look at "Insulin Gut" and your 'll see....

I'm pretty sure competitive professional sports are far more regulated than competitive 40k. Lance armystrong was a cheater...however - nearly everyone he was competing against was also cheating as well.

So are you implying that these players are all cheaters? I really don't understand how you can say that the same players win so therefore the game has bad balance. I'm not saying it is balanced, i'm asking how does the same players winning equate to poor balance?

I was just implying that in professional sports they do things like...drug test. What safety measures does ITC take? They don't even check your dice.

LOL this is one of the stupidest convo's i've seen you do now.

Yes they test, again go look at Insulin Gut, b.c 99% the time they test for gak no one is using or don't care about. And the fact that you are "implying" all these players are cheating is just sad "they don't check your dice".

So you are saying the top players are cheaters and that is Proof the game has terrible balance.
News flash! we all know the game is imbalanced, the messed up part is, theres 1000's of pieces of proof and you go to "Cheaters and top players are why".

I was going to ignore you, but this is to golden to pass up.


EDIT: B.c you added more after. You do know that Sean Nayden won with Yncarne and hordes of wyches when everyone said it was bad right? So yes it is with "off armies" sometimes.

It obvious you are a fan boy and totally unwilling to accept reality. You are the one that brought up cheating.

Look at your above post. In essence you dismissed my argument because cheating exists in other sports. Yeah...you can't even go there. Cheating exists in all things competitive. It is human nature. Which is why competitive sports regulate their games...have preassigned penalties for cheating that occurs in games and they test for steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Also you are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't even state that cheating is the reason that the top players place consisently. I stated that the same players consisttently placing at the top of events is a sign that the game is poorly balanced. This game has very low skill expression.

Actually i was talking to someone else that brought it up and then you commented on that. So no i did not bring up cheating. You can't even get that straight lol.

I asked you about cheated and made a claim b.c you HEAVILY implied it, even stating you implied it, you did not say "no thats not what i meant" even going as far to say "I don't know what you mean" you did not say what you mean and you continue to imply cheating and not skill via "they don't test dice" All you've been doing is implying things and get mad when I call you out on it.

PS. I'm not a fan boy. I play maybe 1 40k game a month and stopped doing events. I've been playing AoS almost non stop, its such a better game, even tho they have imbalances too (some armies are 60% winrates like in 40k) its still WAY more fun. Heck i play BoC the "worst" army in AoS and i still have more fun than 40k.

EDIT: So if the game is low skill, then why isn't more No name players winning large events?

I don't disagree that sigmar is a better game. I agree it is more fun too. It just feels like I am playing a game with and reacting to my opponent more. 40k does not feel like that. 40k as is about army construction and destruction or in ITC it its Construction and moving to poker chips at the end of your turn. Nether game requires a lot of skill out of list building though. It's not a dig at the players or the game. It's just not designed that way. Plus Sigmars balance is pretty dang bad too. Following the same 40k formula - most the time the newest army rules are the most OP.

I would invite you to look back at our previous posts. It seemed to me you were saying that "competitive weight lifting" is not an apt comparison because there is cheating in that sport. I am just saying get real - there is cheating in every sport. Including 40k. Likely more - because its hard to get caught and the consequences are low with the reward being high.

You say that, but yet I haven't lost (nor the Top BoC player) let against DoT or OBR (2 of the 3 new top armies) I haven't had a chance to go against Seraphon yet. AoS is more Rock, Paper Scissor than 40k is. Where a bad army can beat a good one, but it wont beat another bad army b.c how missions/matchups. And some of the top lists are also over $1k which even top players don't wan to pay, bill, and paint, even tho its only 8-10 units, it could still be over 200 models to work with (Example, Chariots are not 1 model but 5 models, there are 50pt chariots that you could take 18 of them, they are battalion, and very good, but that less than 1/2 your army and that alone cost $900).

As for 40k. Apoc was way more fun than both. I didn't play enough to find imbalances i'm sure there are, but damage at the end alone made it better.

Oh there was massive imbalance present in apoc, I did a large amount of math with it because it was fun to automate the statlines of units, and there were some...truly wacky outliers (An all-grot or all-kroot and kroot accessories army would be hilariously effective in apoc) but it would be vastly easier to tweak the way that apoc costed super-cheap 1W units or units with really high wound counts and really low costs than it would be to balance the mess that is 8th 40k.

Apoc still exists, btw. it's not like it's gone. It's just a complete ruleset, there's not a constant flow of new books to buy.

Apoc Balanace was atrocious. I agree it had a way better turn structure though. I kinda wish 9th edd went that way with it.

We was just playing 200-300PL games for fun b.c we all got tired of 8th. No taught at all just plug and play. When you play like that you ca not see the imbalances at all. We all have large collections and units like Wraithknights, Cobra's, etc.. that never see play, so it was nice to play with them.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

PS. I'm not a fan boy. I play maybe 1 40k game a month and stopped doing events. I've been playing AoS almost non stop, its such a better game, even tho they have imbalances too (some armies are 60% winrates like in 40k) its still WAY more fun. Heck i play BoC the "worst" army in AoS and i still have more fun than 40k.

You should not take advice from people who tell you BoC is the worst army in AoS.

For me the real issue was the cards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

PS. I'm not a fan boy. I play maybe 1 40k game a month and stopped doing events. I've been playing AoS almost non stop, its such a better game, even tho they have imbalances too (some armies are 60% winrates like in 40k) its still WAY more fun. Heck i play BoC the "worst" army in AoS and i still have more fun than 40k.

You should not take advice from people who tell you BoC is the worst army in AoS.

Is that the army with giant mammoth riders? Cause those are pretty dang good. At one point they were super OP. A lot has changes since then though.

 catbarf wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
One where one faction isn't running around with 60-70% winrate and others 30-40% would be good start

There will always be people who complain about perceived imbalances because they personally find it unbalanced, but there's more factors in winning and losing that most people are willing to admit, its easier to just blame the rules.

Lol how lame attempt at white knighting.

Wut? How is that white knighting? Do you even know what that term means?

I would also call it white knighting when someone's response to certain factions having abnormally high or low winrates is basically 'the game is fine, you just suck and blame the rules'. It doesn't address the point at all, it's just deflecting criticism of the game by implying the critic is only complaining because they're bad at the game.

Thats not what I said.