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.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
if ANYONE thinks they have ANY part of the new edition solved yet, they aren't half as good as they think they are.

It isn't even a 9th without all the related 9th codices designed for this edition from the start, more like a 8.5th for a while

I believe auticus. I've seen enough discussions over the 20+ years I've been involved in the hobby (started in 1996 and 40k started in 1997) to tell that most people may claim they want balance, but they really don't. At least not in the sense people think of when they hear "balance".

Maybe they did once, but not in the last 10 years or so. And even if they did, GW is the absolute worst at any sort of balance, even remedial cases that anyone with any design skill could look at and say yeah this is too weak/good, and yet they've made more money the past few years than ever before. I think that pretty much shows a well-written, balanced game is not what the masses want or GW wouldn't be as popular since there are way better games as far as actual balance goes by much smaller companies. Yet those games find it difficult or even impossible to make traction because people fall back on the old standard of Warhammer despite it being one of the worst designed games ever even in what was considered its balanced days.

Given that the main counterpoint to any non-GW game is "The rules might be good but those models suck, GW's models are better" and the main focus on any GW release you usually see is "these models are gorgeous" and if you look at any sort of wargaming page you'll always find the language used by GW players to focus on the models and painting/assembling (e.g. "This model was a real joy to paint" or "very enjoyable model to assemble") it's pretty clear that the models are the major thing people like and are content with a game that's sorta balanced as long as it's not ridiculously balanced. What I mean by that is there's imbalance but it's not something blatant at first glance (imagine like Space Marines with 4 wounds each T5/S5 baseline or some nonsense) so it's easy to overlook unless you're actively digging through to find the OP combos. Despite the memes, Warhammer is balanced just enough that it's easy to overlook the really bad parts, especially if you only play with friends or small groups where it's likely you aren't trying to find every nuance in the game to exploit anyway.

Not to say it's everyone, but there's more than enough evidence if you look to see that balance isn't the most important thing for GW players, even the ones who should care about balanced (tournament players) because as auticus points out the tournament players claim they want balance but really want to be able to break balance by finding the combos that give them huge advantages.

That poll doesn't support ANYTHING you are saying auticus.

Ah yes the "yeah but". There it is. The thing I said would be coming. Go find the first poll about balance, post it, and the yeah but will be following just as sure as the dusk follows the dawn. "Auticus why don't you PROVE it... why don't you want to engage in my trap discussion where I want you to go spend a bunch of your time showing us polls so I can say yeah but?"

Debate over

Per usual you have addressed none of the points, just launch into ripping what you think is the core ... that I'm "ripping on competitive players". To which I assume you are a competitive player so you are responding out of emotional indignation more than anything.

Here's a good one. Address how competitive players do seek imbalance actively. They seek to make a 2000 point army list into a 5000 point army list. Thats one of my key tenants after all. You quoted it. So address it. Address how that is wrong and why its wrong.

Debate over lol.

Fwiw, I remember azyr comp being a thing, and also remember it being too balanced being seen as negative. I don't have numbers, but it registered as one of the largest criticisms of the system.

Just going to say that I was hanging around all the AoS internet communities back when Azyr Comp was a thing and certainy recall Auticus getting a lot of flack for the reasons he says.

Thank you from people who were there and remember. But of course thats followed up with:

He was getting plenty of flak for many of the reasons shown in this thread mostly.

More non discussion. You can't really have discussion here, you have a series of people wanting to shut down discussion and not offering anything up themselves. Notice that everytime something is given that is asked, it is "yeah but". Hell in this case its others remembering the exact same thing I'm talking about, and it not being acknowledged. Just doubling down on the hill to die down. "yeah but" or "lets pretend those people didn't see what he says he saw as well, we'll just find a different attack vector". Because its not about debate, or discussion, even with people backing up the claim... its about being right and winning an argument for a lot of you. There are people who remember exactly what I'm talking about, so you all that demanded that like that was important for you to have me PROVE that azyr had those complaints, you can address those people now too who remember exactly what I'm saying was complained about. Because it was. It was the #1 complaint about that comp system. It was an eye-opening experience for me as a game designer, because up until late 2015 I was under the impression that most people needed a lot of balance, despite 40k and whfb being bad at balance and having a strong commercial success rate anyway. It wasn't until seeing in black and white complaints against too much balance that I had to reevaluate my stance in regards to tabletop gaming (it was a thing in video games already but I for whatever reason made the mistake of keeping the two separate)

It's not exactly Auticus' point, but it's strongly related.

I don't think there is any failure in 40k. I think it is a master series in marketing and is used as a cornerstone for other companies to see what they can get away with and what its customers are really after.

It certainly isn't balance. And thats hugely profitable. That was my entire point. When I pick up contract work to work gaming engines, one of the lists of requirements is ALWAYS about balancing the system and being careful its not too balanced and that there are ways for the player to engage with the game and break it because thats fun for people. That ladies and gentlemen is game design for commerical profit 101. That has been a field I have been in for almost thirty years now. You have GW playtester TELLING YOU IN GIANT CAPS NEON LETTERS THAT THEY DONT USE POINTS FOR BALANCE. And you still want to argue and rage and die on your little hills that so many people really want balance. (im sure some of you do just not enough to stop shelling out hundreds of dollars to GW every year for imbalance)

I think a lot of you talk out both sides of your mouth. You may claim to want balance, but you will shell out for new stuff from GW every chance you get. A lot of you will acknowledge there is little balance and thats ok.

So I don't understand the rage storm over pointing that out. What about that threatens you so much that you get that emotional over it?

I notice a lot of you dance over those questions and just immediately dive in to the personal attacks, but no one ever really addresses any of those core things.

That balance doesn't matter largely to most of you. You can say thats crap all you want but your spending money regularly on 40k and playing it all the time belies that. If balance largely mattered, you wouldn't be playing one of the world's worst balanced game. There has to be other reasons you really care about more (I would imagine the models, the narrative, and the massive massive community safely making the investment a non waste, and hell I can't argue against you or hold any contempt for that reason)

That for a solid group of people, about a quarter of you ... too much balance repels you. For whatever reason. Doesn't have to be because you are a WAAC competitive LOLZ player. Hell for the love of god there was an entire thread on this recenlty in the Facebook Group for the new old world project for warhammer where there were a handful of people telling people to go play chess if they wanted balance and leave that out of their games.

That every competitive player seeks to imbalance the game as hard as they can - no response. Its like we know oxygen is in the air level common but bring it up and rage storm.

Those things are everywhere, but the gas is turned on high here and even with OTHERS saying they see it a lot, its just dogpile time and double down on your hill to die on lol. Turn that gas on boys. Gaslight the **** out of it.

I don't understand the rage. I don't understand why it has to be pretended it doesn't exist. If you truly feel it is because I'm "ripping on" the competitive players, then no. It has nothing to do with competitive players.

My whole gall is that a game like 40k exists in the series of gross imbalances that it posts in bright neon letters and how so many people crawl to it on their hands and knees and shovel over their money to it while arguing so fiercely that they want balance too. Thats where my comment stemmed from.

Followed up by a bunch of people wanting me to prove that Azyr didn't really have that complaint despite others also remembering that complaint. You don't want a discussion or a debate. You just want to be right lol.

Removed - Rule #1 for once please..

Right. Good talking to you. Your personal attacks and non discussion points were great for furthering the thread.

Keep on keeping on. If you can discuss and show me how I'm wrong that people really want balance and at the same time play the game anyway with bad balance, I'd love for you to do it to swing me to your view point.

Personal bashing as you enjoy doing , thats really not going to do anything. However you'd make a great talking head in one of the many political debates going on which is exactly what those people do all day long.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Removed - Rule #1 for once please..

He's only a hypocrite if you're too caught up in trying to prove him wrong to view how intelligent and knowledgeable he is and what he's actually saying.

I'm actually curious as to the hypocritical statement I made. Do as I say not as I do? Where? The other definition of the word Im aware of is a person that professes a series of beliefs but doesn't follow them. So not sure where that came in either. I suspect young dude is taking what I'm saying as a personal attack which is common when someone disagrees with you, that disagreement is a form of personal attack.

WHen someone wants to counter the points I've made, I would love to continue the chat. I doubt that will happen, which will be something I'd love to know why, and instead it will devolve into more ad hominem personal attacks instead of addressing the points besides "yeah but no you're just wrong".

If someone can show me objectively that people really really want balance in their game and where that matters a lot, I'd love to believe that because thats certainly the stance I'd rather have than what I currently do.

 auticus wrote:
Thats one of my key tenants after all.

How much rent does it pay?

Minor point, but this one always bugs me - tenants pay rent, tenets are your principles or beliefs...

Even if you regard his points as hypocritical, he still has the point, the perception of a viable balanced faction from the comp is basically if it has a top tier list, ignoring any other possibility that the rest of the faction is gak.

It's pretty damning that you see about 70% of units not in comp lists, change around as soon as new rules for a faction drop which changes to the next 70% unviable.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

He’s objectively wrong. It’s not an opinion, the words he said are factually inaccurate.

He posted a bunch of statistics and cited a bunch of polls. We asked for these. He posted one. That poll does not support what he is saying. His response “Sigh see I knew you guys would dismiss it”. Yeah, you know that because you also knew that that poll in no way shape or form is a source for anything he said, it’s entirely different to the topic.

You do seem rather invested in this. It also looks a bit like you're fighting windmills. Auticus is neither going to drop a tonne of proof your way, nor is he likely to concede your claim as to his being disingenuous.
Nonetheless, his wall of text raises some interesting points. Don't you think addressing these directly would lead to more insights for everybody instead of the endlessly skipping record of 'it's not true, he's making it up'?

I started off by asking for something to support his statements out of curiosity, with no strong stance either way. Of course, that got me accused of a bunch of things, and the overly defensive reaction made it abundantly clear there's no real substance the statistics he's whipping out on a whim. It's interesting that you say I'm the one "rather invested" when he's the one making walls upon walls of text, and a cursory glance at his profile says he's started this same debate in no less than three different threads. And thats on the first 2 pages of his post history alone, god knows how deep that rabbit hole goes.

 auticus wrote:


Here's a good one. Address how competitive players do seek imbalance actively. They seek to make a 2000 point army list into a 5000 point army list. Thats one of my key tenants after all. You quoted it. So address it. Address how that is wrong and why its wrong.

Debate over lol.

Nobody ever denied this. We take the most OP units to make the most OP army. That does not mean "most competitive players want the game to be imbalanced", lul wut. This is your problem. You take ANYTHING even remotely related, and just say "this! This supports my stance!" when it in no way does.



I'm not asking for a tonne of proof. I'm asking for literally anything. Literally any proof that supports his stance.

Martel732 wrote:
"Thought experiment: if GW made a T1, W1 slotless character with no save, weapons, attacks or abilities, how much should it cost? Its obviously worse than a Mek or a Shaper... but in the scheme of things its approximately as difficult to kill, and does approximately the same job."

It depends. Is it a space marine?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Even if you regard his points as hypocritical, he still has the point, the perception of a viable balanced faction from the comp is basically if it has a top tier list, ignoring any other possibility that the rest of the faction is gak.

It's pretty damning that you see about 70% of units not in comp lists, change around as soon as new rules for a faction drop which changes to the next 70% unviable.

But this is a mutual point. This isn't something anybody is disagreeing with. The argument goes around this fact, this fact is not a supporting point to the claim in dispute, in fact it's barely even relevant to it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Points via FAQ and missions via CA would be better. Split the two and stop charging for points because they're always out of date when they're on a print schedule.

Stop charging period for rules, especially not 40$ for shoddy GW quality printed in china. Full off allready obvious faults and flaws.

GW has a fething site, and if GW insists on not making coherent rules, respectively spread it artificially out so that those dexes later on are fethed regardless because the new edition will come sooner is just bad practice in order to spread earnings.

Nah. 40k doesn't have a business model that would allow it to recoup.money for the dev time for.rules without making the models even more expensive. I'm fine paying for rules, but points should be part of the FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Points via FAQ and missions via CA would be better. Split the two and stop charging for points because they're always out of date when they're on a print schedule.

Fewer people would be buying the books, if that was the case. Having points updates in CA makes the book a good seller.

GT mission packs in CA would sell the books every year. As would new matched and crusade missions. Slap.some other stuff in there for Crusade and it'd have more reason to sell than just points.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Even if you regard his points as hypocritical, he still has the point, the perception of a viable balanced faction from the comp is basically if it has a top tier list, ignoring any other possibility that the rest of the faction is gak.

It's pretty damning that you see about 70% of units not in comp lists, change around as soon as new rules for a faction drop which changes to the next 70% unviable.

But this is a mutual point. This isn't something anybody is disagreeing with. The argument goes around this fact, this fact is not a supporting point to the claim in dispute, in fact it's barely even relevant to it.

No, but you can see something else, it allows GW to monetise the game, and it sells like hotcakes DESPITE this imbalance.
And no it IS rather relevant, see in an actual wargame that is balanced, listbuilding skills only ensure that you don't lose a match, in 40k listbuilding is quite a few leagues above that and people seem to have not an issue with that for many reasons.

And it comes down to his other point, the 2000pts that play like 5000 others, finding such systems and structures to break the game, is a skill, yes, but alot more skill is required if you can't do that, and instead are forced to win on the field.
See Gw ensures with that that there is a system that is breakable, therefore fun for people searching such structures for their own gain, allowing them to dominate. Meanwhile GW releases the next batch of rules and the next thing get's searched.

And whilest i dobut that the result is as dramatic as 2000 into 5000 as Auticus put it, it is too substantial to be ignored.

It's also when you talk about balance, somone brings up the comp lists from the comp setting, which as allready clear ignore 70% of all entries.
Sure, the top is balanced, against each other, but that has not stopped most dexes beeing full of quasi dead entries. Heck you can see that really well with the more expansive factions like Eldar and SM / CSM, there are units and kits that just don't sell, not because they wouldn't look aweseome even, but because the units these kits are representing are so bad that they just get ignored sometimes so bad that even in casual fluff setting they get ignored completely, for whole editions.
Think possessed f.e. Or warp talons.

But nobody is arguing any of that... nobody has ever disagreed with anything there... if you’re just adding to it fair enough, but it’s not really changing what’s being said here. Can we refocus?

His point literally was imbalance sells, because imbalance is prefered by certain people, therefore gw imbalances .

No, but you can see something else, it allows GW to monetise the game, and it sells like hotcakes DESPITE this imbalance.
And no it IS rather relevant, see in an actual wargame that is balanced, listbuilding skills only ensure that you don't lose a match, in 40k listbuilding is quite a few leagues above that and people seem to have not an issue with that for many reasons.

Hence the first part, he assumes that imbalance is prefered by alot of custommers, therefore allowing for easier monetisation i argued his point except i went from gw's perspective.

Which you Seem to agree with, but gw can only do that if there are custommers.

So is his point still as unlikely as you claim?


Because if you say now no, then you'd to disagree with my points just aswell.

yes he said that


But


THAT

WAS

NOT

WHAT

ANYONE

DISAGREED

WITH




Yes, some people will sink money into meta chasing. Most would rather they didn’t have to to be as competitive as possible, but I’m sure there’s a subset there who enjoy pay-to-winning, essentially. And it’s definitely profitable business strategy for GW, whether we want it or not. But that’s not being disagreed with. The statement that most competitive players don’t want balance because it would somehow make list building less important, is what I’m skeptical about, and would at least like to see some proof. No, that poll didn’t even remotely prove it.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Here's a good one. Address how competitive players do seek imbalance actively. They seek to make a 2000 point army list into a 5000 point army list. Thats one of my key tenants after all. You quoted it. So address it. Address how that is wrong and why its wrong.

Debate over lol.

Nobody ever denied this. We take the most OP units to make the most OP army. That does not mean "most competitive players want the game to be imbalanced", lul wut. This is your problem. You take ANYTHING even remotely related, and just say "this! This supports my stance!" when it in no way does.

(Emphasis mine)

But in a really well balanced game, you wouldn't be able to squeeze an inordinately greater value of points into any given list than the points limit actually allows. In other words, there would not be any OP units (disregarding circumstantial issues, which would ideally be taken care of by being so random as to be beyond either players' control). Therefore, doesn't 'We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.' mean that you need a certain measure of imbalance in the first place? Which is what auticus is saying many players want, assuming I get what he's driving at.

So then why is the comp ciruit limited mission wise, as a wargame.

Why does the comp scene treat a faction as balanced if it has 1 -2 comp viable builds that play rock paper scissors with other comp faction builds.

Why is Skew, of any kind and form, including spam of broken units favoured with table mission setup. voluntarily might one add.

See btw this here is a comment on an azyr discussion auticus aluded too:

https://www.ordofanaticus.com/topic/27489-switching-over-to-azyr-composition/

Except you can't just ignore it. If the size is 30 the size is 30. The 3 treeman are 25 alone therefore it can't be done. Limits like that don't offer any flexibility or design customization. I wouldn't be surprised if all the games played were either the exact same lists for small games or maxed out so people can actually bring what they want.



I'm sure it's good for balanced competitive cookie cutter games but not at all for bring your collection casual games

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/archive/index.php/t-57174.html

Another great discussion, showing that some people vehemently don't want balance, this time from a CAAC view and some that just wanted to have x unit massively better or worse.
Also archive..





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snugiraffe wrote:



But in a really well balanced game, you wouldn't be able to squeeze an inordinately greater value of points into any given list than the points limit actually allows. In other words, there would not be any OP units (disregarding circumstantial issues, which would ideally be taken care of by being so random as to be beyond either players' control). Therefore, doesn't 'We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.' mean that you need a certain measure of imbalance in the first place? Which is what auticus is saying many players want, assuming I get what he's driving at.

Ding dong.


A well balanced game would see even asymetrically balanced armies, depend more upon a diverse set of missions and tables and therefore listbuilding ahead of time instead of spam that we see.

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Here's a good one. Address how competitive players do seek imbalance actively. They seek to make a 2000 point army list into a 5000 point army list. Thats one of my key tenants after all. You quoted it. So address it. Address how that is wrong and why its wrong.

Debate over lol.

Nobody ever denied this. We take the most OP units to make the most OP army. That does not mean "most competitive players want the game to be imbalanced", lul wut. This is your problem. You take ANYTHING even remotely related, and just say "this! This supports my stance!" when it in no way does.

(Emphasis mine)

But in a really well balanced game, you wouldn't be able to squeeze an inordinately greater value of points into any given list than the points limit actually allows. In other words, there would not be any OP units (disregarding circumstantial issues, which would ideally be taken care of by being so random as to be beyond either players' control). Therefore, doesn't 'We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.' mean that you need a certain measure of imbalance in the first place? Which is what auticus is saying many players want, assuming I get what he's driving at.

Hmm, my reading on that is that competitive players will do what they must to stay competitive, not that they like doing it.

And yet Tournament missions often played at carb and copy preknown tables which allow for perfect listbuilding planning and therefore ultimatly putting the onus back on listbuilding is not of their own volition?

Snugiraffe wrote:
But in a really well balanced game, you wouldn't be able to squeeze an inordinately greater value of points into any given list than the points limit actually allows. In other words, there would not be any OP units (disregarding circumstantial issues, which would ideally be taken care of by being so random as to be beyond either players' control). Therefore, doesn't 'We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.' mean that you need a certain measure of imbalance in the first place? Which is what auticus is saying many players want, assuming I get what he's driving at.

You're taking a player describing what they have to do to compete in the current game state, and interpreting that as saying they prefer this state and actively would like it to continue.

Making the best of the current status quo isn't an endorsement of the status quo. Where's the evidence showing that a majority of competitive players really prefer this system over one that seeks true balance, with no trash or OP units?

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Here's a good one. Address how competitive players do seek imbalance actively. They seek to make a 2000 point army list into a 5000 point army list. Thats one of my key tenants after all. You quoted it. So address it. Address how that is wrong and why its wrong.

Debate over lol.

Nobody ever denied this. We take the most OP units to make the most OP army. That does not mean "most competitive players want the game to be imbalanced", lul wut. This is your problem. You take ANYTHING even remotely related, and just say "this! This supports my stance!" when it in no way does.

(Emphasis mine)

But in a really well balanced game, you wouldn't be able to squeeze an inordinately greater value of points into any given list than the points limit actually allows. In other words, there would not be any OP units (disregarding circumstantial issues, which would ideally be taken care of by being so random as to be beyond either players' control). Therefore, doesn't 'We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.' mean that you need a certain measure of imbalance in the first place? Which is what auticus is saying many players want, assuming I get what he's driving at.

Why do you need it? Why does it need to be this way?

We exploit imbalances because they exist. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t. This is only a fraction of list building. A lot of lower and even mid level players think list building is all about cramming as much OP stuff you can in a list, or just copying someone else’s “strong list because they took all the strong units”. But an evenly matched opponent will be doing the same. List building is looking at all your viable tools, designing a gameplan, and building something with a selection of these units to play to the missions and the meta. Multiple ways to do this often even with GWs gakky balance. With perfect balance it would be even better.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Here's a good one. Address how competitive players do seek imbalance actively. They seek to make a 2000 point army list into a 5000 point army list. Thats one of my key tenants after all. You quoted it. So address it. Address how that is wrong and why its wrong.

Debate over lol.

Nobody ever denied this. We take the most OP units to make the most OP army. That does not mean "most competitive players want the game to be imbalanced", lul wut. This is your problem. You take ANYTHING even remotely related, and just say "this! This supports my stance!" when it in no way does.

(Emphasis mine)

But in a really well balanced game, you wouldn't be able to squeeze an inordinately greater value of points into any given list than the points limit actually allows. In other words, there would not be any OP units (disregarding circumstantial issues, which would ideally be taken care of by being so random as to be beyond either players' control). Therefore, doesn't 'We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.' mean that you need a certain measure of imbalance in the first place? Which is what auticus is saying many players want, assuming I get what he's driving at.

Why do you need it? Why does it need to be this way?

We exploit imbalances because they exist. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t. This is only a fraction of list building. A lot of lower and even mid level players think list building is all about cramming as much OP stuff you can in a list, or just copying someone else’s “strong list because they took all the strong units”. But an evenly matched opponent will be doing the same. List building is looking at all your viable tools, designing a gameplan, and building something with a selection of these units to play to the missions and the meta. Multiple ways to do this often even with GWs gakky balance. With perfect balance it would be even better.

And yet Tournament missions often played at carb and copy preknown tables which allow for perfect listbuilding planning and therefore ultimatly putting the onus back on listbuilding is not of their own volition?

 catbarf wrote:

Snugiraffe wrote:
But in a really well balanced game, you wouldn't be able to squeeze an inordinately greater value of points into any given list than the points limit actually allows. In other words, there would not be any OP units (disregarding circumstantial issues, which would ideally be taken care of by being so random as to be beyond either players' control). Therefore, doesn't 'We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.' mean that you need a certain measure of imbalance in the first place? Which is what auticus is saying many players want, assuming I get what he's driving at.

You're taking a player describing what they have to do to compete in the current game state, and interpreting that as saying they prefer this state and actively would like it to continue.

Making the best of the current status quo isn't an endorsement of the status quo. Where's the evidence showing that a majority of competitive players really prefer this system over one that seeks true balance, with no trash or OP units?

Exactly this. Can everyone please read this post too, so we can refocus? Nobody is saying GW isn’t profitable, or that competitive players don’t take the better units available in an imbalanced system, or like any of the other gak you’ve quoted from auticus’s extra wordy ramblings for the past page or two - we’re asking where is all this proof, to the guy who spoke on our behalf and said that “we don’t really want a balanced game and here’s the stats behind that claim”. If you can’t verify any of those stats, it’s time to admit you just pulled them from your mind and you have no real evidence to base that claim upon.

Also, just the idea that list building goes out the window because units are balanced, is so revealingly low-level that I think it really explains why auticus isn’t able to see past it.

And yet Tournament missions often played at carb and copy preknown tables which allow for perfect listbuilding planning and therefore ultimatly putting the onus back on listbuilding is not of their own volition?

to reiterate since you avoid answereing it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
And yet Tournament missions often played at carb and copy preknown tables which allow for perfect listbuilding planning and therefore ultimatly putting the onus back on listbuilding is not of their own volition?

to reiterate since you avoid answereing it.

I didn’t avoid answering anything, you posted while I was typing quite clearly.

That being said I’m not sure how to answer it because I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say. Can you rephrase this?

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And yet Tournament missions often played at carb and copy preknown tables which allow for perfect listbuilding planning and therefore ultimatly putting the onus back on listbuilding is not of their own volition?

to reiterate since you avoid answereing it.

I didn’t avoid answering anything, you posted while I was typing quite clearly.

That being said I’m not sure how to answer it because I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say. Can you rephrase this?

Ok,

Why are carb and copy tables and preknown conditions, handed out like candy, making certain factions pick or just discard options, /respectivley HAVE TO, due to these circumstances clearly favouring certain factions and army setups?
And is this not happening out of their own volition, respectively the organizers own volition?

That is selfwished and made imbalance, is it not?
It also exemplifies certain broken units and structures, does it not?

 Nitro Zeus wrote:


We take the most OP units to make the most OP army.

OK, my bad. I assumed that you were doing this because you liked rolling that way.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Why does it need to be this way?

A question I found myself asking in almost every game I played in the latter half of 8th ed, once my gaming pals had figured out the OP combos in their armies and facerolled me all the time because I was 'looking at all my viable tools, designing a gameplan, and building something with a selection of these units to play to the missions and the meta' and, alas, failing miserably in the face of alpha strike model removal. I used to get a roughly 50% win rate by playing to the mission instead of trying to table my opponent (I play CSM, go figure) but I couldn't get that to work anymore in the face of raw killing power in 8th ed. Plus not getting so many games in because kids. [/rambling tangent]