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.

PenitentJake wrote:
My hope had always been that Chaos (being, you know.... Chaotic) would have greater soup capacity than any other army of the game, and that GW would lean into it and actually make this versatility a design feature.

This, only Daemons rather than Clowns:


And then do the same thing for Death Guard/1kSons/etc., but they can only take Daemons with the <Nurgle>/<Tzeentch>/etc. keywords.

ccs wrote:

Oh it's pretty easy outside your tourney scene. At the extreme you just decline to play the guy with the {insert thing/army/rule(s) your currently howling about}. But before it reaches that point is where the conversations occur about what types of games/missions/scenarios/any house rules/handicaps etc you want to use. Maybe you can work something out. Maybe you can't & it defaults to "No Thanks".
Guy with the {crap} get's "No Thanks" often enough odds are he'll get the message.

Or maybe he doesn't have enough money to re-buy his entire army because he bought the "wrong" units that his local playgroup doesn't like, even if they're his favorite.

My experience is that declining will happen more often than not, and if you ask someone what models they're bringing before a game, they're going to think you're going to try to counterpick them or something. I've never heard of this as you describe it happening, and given how people like you basically don't use specifics when you talk about it it implies to me that it basically doesn't happen. When we're talking pickup games, I just play against the people with the overpowered armies less, I don't ask them to change their stuff up.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:


Well it IS.
GW game or otherwise, outside the tourney scene it's always been this way. And it always will be.

Nah. The community has never been more aware of how imbalanced things are than now. It's a different time than 2005.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I hate the mentality of "if you're going to play in this league, you better expect to lose and lose hard for awhile."

That stupid gatekeeping kills communities and hobbies by shutting out new people. Have some courtesy and humility. Those two traits will get you so much further with newer players and sustaining your passion than that extra W at your local gaming store.

I always tell my opponents if I'm not going full force for some reason. Maybe I'm trying a new faction for a while, or an experimental list design, or I know they're still learning. That way they know - and you can sort the people who want to grow from the people who just want the win and are going to whine until they get it. The important thing is to have a growth mentality, no matter how good you start or how fast you learn.

 CKO wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, because I can respect someone's bodily choices to harm themselves as long as they don't harm me.

Not really sure why GW's 2 player game being trash for one or the other player has anything to do with that.

I understand you but the enjoyment of the game responsibility falls directly upon the players playing the game not GW.

So... you're saying that it's the players' fault for not enjoying a GW product?

Gods, imagine if the real world worked that way:
"Steam, I want a refund for this PVP video game, I didn't enjoy it."
"Sorry bud, maybe your opponents should've thought of your enjoyment more. No refunds."

 CKO wrote:
If a player wants their friend who isn't a tournament player to enjoy the game do not bring a tournament list. The player knows that their friend just got into the game and his options are few.

Is it GW's fault when a player takes 3 Crisis suit units against a new player? I feel the Tau player made the decision to take the enjoyment out of the game.

It's the player's "fault" for bringing 3 crisis suit units, but it's GW's fault that bringing 3 Crisis Suit units is so bad.

"Buy and play what you think is cool" isn't a sin. If a player thinks 3 crisis suit units is cool and buys and plays them, he isn't sinning.

If his opponent doesn't enjoy the game, then GW is at fault for making the experience of playing against 3 units of crisis suits unenjoyable.

 CKO wrote:
At tournaments you know players want to win and will bring whatever gives them the best chance to win. Do not go to a tournament with high expectations if you know you cannot beat the top armies, and it is not your fault that you have a bad match-up against the new shiny stuff.

Buuuuuuuuut the point of a tournament is to compete, to test player skill. What army you bring has nothing to do with player skill - unless you are ready to claim that choosing an army is player skill. If you are willing to go that far, then I'd say that you've pretty much put a bullet in "buy and paint what you think is cool".

Is it worth it? CKO is very obviously trolling but I don't think the mods care.

Yep player / army selection is in fact seen as gittin gud. Army list building is one of the primary skills.

 auticus wrote:
Yep player / army selection is in fact seen as gittin gud. Army list building is one of the primary skills.

That clashes with what's commonly told around here - i.e. that players should "build / buy / paint what is cool."

OFC I know that currently army building is a player skill, but don't say that too loud.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
My hope had always been that Chaos (being, you know.... Chaotic) would have greater soup capacity than any other army of the game, and that GW would lean into it and actually make this versatility a design feature.

This, only Daemons rather than Clowns:


And then do the same thing for Death Guard/1kSons/etc., but they can only take Daemons with the <Nurgle>/<Tzeentch>/etc. keywords.

So demons would be includable in any faction? i'd be down for that, total chaos victory :p

Hecaton wrote:
Is it worth it? CKO is very obviously trolling but I don't think the mods care.

Pot, meet kettle.

And Vlad, I'm pretty sure HBMC was meaning specifically for CSM (and spin-offs), rather than as a universal rule.

 Dysartes wrote:


And Vlad, I'm pretty sure HBMC was meaning specifically for CSM (and spin-offs), rather than as a universal rule.

I know, i was making a joke on the fact that RAW, travelling players lets you add a patrol of clowns to any army, not just aeldari ones

Does it now? That's an interesting oversight.

Reminds me of 3rd/3.5 Guard when you could technically join Commissars to enemy units and execute their squad leaders.

ERJAK wrote:
So, another rant about how stupid GW balance is:

The following is from Goonhammer and represents the only currently successful Sisters build. It's outpaced every other previous option by miles in the current meta:

4th – Justin Moore – Adepta Sororitas: The struggling Sisters put up a 4-1 performance, with Justin running Vahl + 30 Valorous Heart Sacresants, two squads of storm bolter Dominions, and some melta Rets plus Celestine.

Notice something about this setup? EVERY SINGLE UNIT except Celestine received at least 1 significant nerf in the CA2022 and the balance patch. Retributors received FOUR.

Yet, here we are. The only reasonably competitive build sisters have, very nearly maxes out on the most nerfed units. Because they have to. Nothing else in the book works anymore because the entire army was built around combining Convictions and using Morvenn and Sacresancts as a central pivot.

Increasing the price of Sacresancts just meant that you're forced to max out on sacresancts in order to get enough staying power to make the objective game possible. Increasing the points on Dominions doesn't make you not take dominions, it just means you've got less options outside of that. Increasing the price on Morvenn just makes the army smaller.

So you end up with changes that create a mono-build faction where half the units in the book might as well not exist.

Paragon Warsuits went down THIRTY points and they actually see even LESS play than they did previously. Meanwhile Sacresancts went UP 10 points per 5 and people immediately maxed out 3 units of them. A FIFTY point swing in Paragon's favor vs 1 unit of 10 Sacresancts saw them go from a rare tech choice to absolutely zero representation.

All of the point changes were clearly intended to help smooth out the internal balance of the book (assuming there WAS a logical intention, this is the only one that makes any sense) and all they ended up doing was making EXTERNAL balance worse to the point where the army no longer had room for more flexible options.

So that guy beat...

Tau, CW, CW & Harlies, and BT. He lost to CW 68 to 79.

If those nerfs weren't present what do you think the list would look like? Because I'm betting it'd be relatively the same with more stuff.

This sort of tells me the nerfs were appropriate and that other changes need to be made to bring the rest of the codex in line.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:


And Vlad, I'm pretty sure HBMC was meaning specifically for CSM (and spin-offs), rather than as a universal rule.

I know, i was making a joke on the fact that RAW, travelling players lets you add a patrol of clowns to any army, not just aeldari ones

I'm probably missing something here - just checked the mini-rulebook, and it references the need for an Army Faction keyword to make an army Battle-Forged, with the latter being a state required for Travelling Players.

I don't have the new Eldar book to hand, but I'd be surprised if the Clown keywords allowed for that to happen.

So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

Anyone else notice we've passed this same tree at least three times already? I think we may be going in circles...

 CKO wrote:
So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

Why shouldn't those two armies be able to compete with one another, if the points are equal?

 CKO wrote:
So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

Yes. The points are equal - if it's not balanced its GW's fault.

Especially since Crisis Suits are an iconic and versatile unit.

It's NOT some ridiculous skew to take lots of suits. Knights are worse skew inherently, and they're their own faction.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CKO wrote:
So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

Why shouldn't those two armies be able to compete with one another, if the points are equal?

In magic, if we both bring decks, right? Mine is worth $500 yours is worth $20, who wins? Is it the company's fault that both decks followed all the rule guidelines but one is clearly better than the other.

 CKO wrote:
So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

the start collecting box came with 3 crisis suits, most tau player (no matter how casual they are) have multiple squads of crisis.

Points have never been for balance in gw games, they are for structure to min max within. They are the boundaries for the box to build in and nothing more.

 CKO wrote:
Is it the company's fault that both decks followed all the rule guidelines but one is clearly better than the other.

Yes.

You're not really making a good case for yourself by comparing 40K to a game that is transparently pay-to-win, or at least pay-to-compete. But Magic doesn't pretend that every card is equally good and valid, either, or that as long as you and your opponent have the same size deck it'll be a fair game.

 CKO wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CKO wrote:
So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

Why shouldn't those two armies be able to compete with one another, if the points are equal?

In magic, if we both bring decks, right? Mine is worth $500 yours is worth $20, who wins? Is it the company's fault that both decks followed all the rule guidelines but one is clearly better than the other.

Is money the official balancing mechanism for Magic, the way points are the balancing mechanism for 40k? (Hint: the answer is the opposite of yes).

Magic lacks a balancing mechanism like 40k does, and explicitly is unbalanced in "no holds barred" (i.e. no format) settings.

If you think 40k should ALSO be explicitly unbalanced in a similar manner, just say so. It's fine for a game to be unbalanced. It just means it needs to not LIE about it.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CKO wrote:
So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

Why shouldn't those two armies be able to compete with one another, if the points are equal?

Hecaton wrote:

 CKO wrote:
So you want to use 3 crisis suit units against the guy that bought a patrol box, a dreadnaught, and incursors and the outcome is GW's fault. Gotcha!

Yes. The points are equal - if it's not balanced its GW's fault.

In theory - sure. Equal points, equal game.

In practice, with asymmetrically designed units and missions, beyond a hypothetical game of 2 factions with 2 units each, or dramatically limiting the scale/scope of the game, this quickly becomes unachievable. Youre asking for a single, universal unit of 'value' to account for every variation. There's a word for that - 'impossible'. How much is an anti tank gun worth against an army of tanks on planet bowling ball versus an army of grots on a jungle board with no los. Unless the game/unit has self-mutating points values that can account for the units taken alongside, the units against, the mission, the terrain, as well as unmeasurable things like player skill, player attention/alertness etc, the notion that universal.points values can do what you insist they should do is based on very shaky ground.

Even in those games with drastically reduced scale/scope (eg infinity - about 15 doods per side and everything is a slight variation on 'guy in flak armour or carapace armour with an autogun or a heavy stubber' and old school 'rending') or which had other balance structures inbuilt (eg warmachine with multiple lists, multiple win conditions, the pendulum massively skewed to damage infliction than survival), balance is more limited than most folks actuslly care to admit to.

A further issue is based on the business perspective which is based on adding new waves to the game. New stuff sells, and represents the largest chunk of revenue. You want your game to live, it needs to grow. In order to grow, balance will suffer, sooner rather than later. (I'm also not going into the cynical business area of a 'new' edition to 'fix' stuff - in my experience companies rather have 'changes' implemented than 'improvements'. Gw are terrible for this, other companies like corvis beli, warlord and pp are not much better, nor do they have the sheer size of player base which will quickly expose and magnify any issues to the nth degree).

Any 'solution' or 'balance structure' that will help mitigate these balance issues probably won't be based around the traditional notion of 'universal' points value. You need to look at other alternative approaches aa well, like privateer press' warcaster game. And even then, at best you'll have 'good enough' and if you push too hard all these systems break. Ttgs are limited systems and can only hold so much weight. People need to remember that.

Don't conflate wanting better balance with wanting perfect balance.

There are plenty of other games with points systems (or currency systems, or a system where you pay "x amount of one thing" per unit) that are both more balanced and therefore more expansive than 40k, in terms of what you can buy.

In those games you can TRULY buy and play what you like, without any remorse because it is too bad or too good.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't conflate wanting better balance with wanting perfect balance.

I don't. Never mentioned 'perfect'.

I'm all for 'better' balance but in my experience when people start to dig deep and actually describe what 'better' balance looks like, there is often so little daylight between the two that they might as well be the same thing. Couple this with the fact that the 'better' that is offered (by whoever) is often bitterly received and often regarded as falling short of what is demanded. Its why I always state ttgs are limited systems, you can only expect so much from them.

And like I said when it comes to actually 'paying the price' in your game of choice, when people see what 'better' will cost them, they very quickly stop wanting it and resort back to complaining from their armchairs.

I mean, one example of something that could be done is cut the roster down. Less things in the game, less things to balance, right? Say, let's get rid of armoured vehicles entirely. That'll reduce the scale and reduce the scope. And I doubt treadheads like yourself will be all too pleased either. :p I mean I've seen a lot of balance structures brought forward and I've seen nearly every one generate its own salt mine of hate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


There are plenty of other games with points systems (or currency systems, or a system where you pay "x amount of one thing" per unit) that are both more balanced and therefore more expansive than 40k, in terms of what you can buy.

In those games you can TRULY buy and play what you like, without any remorse because it is too bad or too good.

No.

I've played a lot of those games too (bolt action, warmachine/hordes, infinity more than others and that... is half true at best*, and thats giving the benefit of the doubt. What actually happens is these games are played by vastly smaller communities and issues are often given a free pass because they're 'not gw'.

All games have crutches, traps and go to units and if any of them were played by a community the size of 40k, instead of who actuslly plays them, and you'd see very little difference in the volume of complaints regarding balance.

'You can truly buy and play what you like'? Nice slogan, but it falls short in the real world. 'These units are negative play experiences and maybe consider not taking them' is just as true for epic haley or gaspy in wmh (well, mk2 at least) as it is 40ks custodes or whatever is currently broken in 40k. I mean hell, wmhs khador back in mk2 was defined by their absolute inability to run Jack heavy and to make their heavy infantry men o war units workable. What was it people wanted for all of mk2 that they didn't get?

*historicals maybe are better than most but even there there are issues or people will complain about how 'everything is a human with a spear or a bow and I'm not interested'. Yes I've seen that doozy here more than once.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't conflate wanting better balance with wanting perfect balance.

I don't. Never mentioned 'perfect'.

I'm all for 'better' balance but in my experience when people start to dig deep and actually describe what 'better' balance looks like, there is often so little daylight between the two that they might as well be the same thing. Couple this with the fact that the 'better' that is offered (by whoever) is often bitterly received and often regarded as falling short of what is demanded. Its why I always state ttgs are limited systems, you can only expect so much from them.

And like I said when it comes to actually 'paying the price' in your game of choice, when people see what 'better' will cost them, they very quickly stop wanting it and resort back to complaining from their armchairs.

I mean, one example of something that could be done is cut the roster down. Less things in the game, less things to balance, right? Say, let's get rid of armoured vehicles entirely. That'll reduce the scale and reduce the scope. And I doubt treadheads like yourself will be all too pleased either. :p I mean I've seen a lot of balance structures brought forward and I've seen nearly every one generate its own salt mine of hate.

I wouldn't mind at all if tanks went to Apoc only and 40k turned into KT. I don't hate malifaux for not having tanks

I do, however, think some less drastic steps could be taken that could improve balance.

Let me ask you straight: are there things that could be done, or could have been done, to improve the state of balance in 40k? Or do you truly believe that, given the scale of the game, modern 40k is absolutely the best balanced that any human could ever make it?

If you can answer that question, I think we will go a long way to solving our disagreement.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


There are plenty of other games with points systems (or currency systems, or a system where you pay "x amount of one thing" per unit) that are both more balanced and therefore more expansive than 40k, in terms of what you can buy.

In those games you can TRULY buy and play what you like, without any remorse because it is too bad or too good.

No.

I've played a lot of those games too (bolt action, warmachine/hordes, infinity more than others and that... is half true at best, and thats giving the benefit of the doubt. What actually happens is these games are played by vastly smaller communities and issues are often given a free pass because they're 'not gw'.

All games have crutches, traps and go to units and if any of them were played by a community the size of 40k, instead of who actuslly plays them, and you'd see very little difference in the volume of complaints regarding balance.

'You can truly buy and play what you like'? Nice slogan, but it falls short in the real world. 'These units are negative play experiences and maybe consider not taking them' is just as true for epic haley or gaspy in wmh (well, mk2 at least) as it is 40ks custodes or whatever is currently broken in 40k.

40k 4th edition was better balanced than the current mess. And it's the same game, just earlier.

One example, I can come up with a few more but they're less relevant to the experience of the players here (Chain of Command is the first one on my list).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yep player / army selection is in fact seen as gittin gud. Army list building is one of the primary skills.

That clashes with what's commonly told around here - i.e. that players should "build / buy / paint what is cool."

OFC I know that currently army building is a player skill, but don't say that too loud.

Nobody is saying to buy what you think is cool if you're trying to play in tournaments. It's usually "unless you want to play in tournaments and care about being super competitive, buy what you think is cool and it will be meta eventually"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[
I wouldn't mind at all if tanks went to Apoc only and 40k turned into KT. I don't hate malifaux for not having tanks

Malifaux was designed with that drastically smaller scale/scope in the first place, like I said. Its quite a diffirent thing to take something thats been in the game for thirty years and cut it. Some people don't mind it, dome people won't play it. Goes back to what I said.

And by apoc, I assume you mean that 'not proper 40k game' that no one really plays any more? How often is it brought up that one of the biggest draws of 40k is its one game with everything, one community - the notion that 'i can raje my list to any flgs in the country anf get a game'. Formats is quite divisive, we all know the community will settle on 'proper 40k, now without tanks' as per my hyperbolic example and your tanks that you love in any flgs setting aint in it, and are paperweights. Sure 40k might be easier to balance now, is the price worth it?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I do, however, think some less drastic steps could be taken that could improve balance.

Let me ask you straight: are there things that could be done, or could have been done, to improve the state of balance in 40k? Or do you truly believe that, given the scale of the game, modern 40k is absolutely the best balanced that any human could ever make it?

If you can answer that question, I think we will go a long way to solving our disagreement.

We don't disagree much. I just don't think pointing to other games as 'better' helps- they're limited systems after all. I've never seen a 'better' game that was also not torn apart by its own players and I've never seen a 'better' game accepted as 'good enough' either. And respectfully if 40k was as 'good' as these games you'd not see much difference regarding the negative Internet traffic. And it still won't solve the original point of points values always coming out right.

I absolutely agree some drastic steps could be taken regardimg 40k. I personally favour drastically reducing the scale/size to a couple of squads, a hero or two and nothing bigger than a dreadnought (see my wmh heritage?) Rein in the massive damage and alphastriking. Burn strategems/relics to the ground and burn the ashes again. And try and reduce dice rolling by 50 to 75%. Id also like a 'command resource' like infinities 'orders' that also factors in morale. That said my thinking regarding 40k goes back to the 'look' of the game back in 2nd to 4th rather than its current look. Game design has moved on since and gamers today in my experience want different stuff to old grognards like us.

That said will it be enough to count as 'good enough'? Sure it might be 'better' but that won't stop the community ripping it to shreds snd making out its the worst thing ever and that 9th in actual fact was better.

Unfortunately a lot of the decisions I would implement would peeve a lot of people right off. And 40k for thr most part is like a space hulk - its a ten thousand year old mess of accumulated debris. The truth is there is only do much that can be done and only do much thst csn realistically be expected. I'd honestly settle less for balance and more for 'cleaner' rules with less in-game 'clutter' and a lot less dice rolling.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


40k 4th edition was better balanced than the current mess. And it's the same game, just earlier.

One example, I can come up with a few more but they're less relevant to the experience of the players here (Chain of Command is the first one on my list).

And th3 cold hard truth is 4th ed 40k was quite awful.

4th ed had iron warriors. And nike lords. Respectfully while 4th is still my favourite edition lets not pretend. I remember the internet lighting up with issues regarding 4th back then. That's not exactly helping your point.

And Chain of command is the next game I'm looking to play/learn. I've actually heard some very good and very interesting things about it. I think its the kind of game my guys would love to play.

My Blood Angels have been shelved and I only play boardgames and MESBG now. Wish 40k were more like their lotr game.

I main Rivendell and unless buying just pointless numbers of banners or basic captains on foot it isn't really possible to even build a really bad list. But I can still tailor the army quite heavily depending on point levels, meta and fun. Against a newer player I wouldn't lean much on magic, all ranged knights or use the 3 mounted elven lords in the same list. Not because they are much stronger than a more all rounded list but they are much more tricky to play against and require that the opponent knows some tactics to counter it or they could get crushed.

We don't really build much caring about how strong a list is against anyone but what matters is if we think our opponent capable of handling it and making it a good game. Not this BS of having to take weak units or weak armies just to not crush the opponent.

Toofast 804379 11342635 wrote:

Nobody is saying to buy what you think is cool if you're trying to play in tournaments. It's usually "unless you want to play in tournaments and care about being super competitive, buy what you think is cool and it will be meta eventually"

The problem is the "eventually" in human time. Unless GW puts everything on top of its head in 10th ed, I don't see how the units I like I.e, terminators, paladins, terminator characters could ever be better then then heroes in NDK, NDKs and power armoured troops. They would have to the termintors the DA treatment and even then I am not sure, if it would beat out being faster and with actually good range guns.