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.

As I stare at a couple army lists for various games I notice that you can either take a very fun fluffy army that will look nice on the tabletop, probably get a ribbon in the local tournament for "best theme" or some such thing.

Or...

You can break out some army list you dug out of the recesses of the interwebs with a search that typically began with: list that will crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Congrats, you won, your the best general of all time, you're haunted by the Ghosts of Rommel and Alexander the Great who visit you in your bedchambers to discuss what tactics you wouldve use in their wars. But now your former opponents visibly flinch when you say: "You want to play a friendly game?"

I know there's a happy medium, but I always get the confused dog look when I start discussing my lists for any game, and people are shocked that I don't want to tear the spinal column out of my opponents like the Predator mated with the Angry Marines. Semper Iratus indeed.

Is there a balance in the force? Or am I missing the gotta win at all costs mentality that I notice in some forums (with really harsh red lettering) across the internet.

Or maybe I' ve finally gotten in touch with my inner Keanu and mellowed in my 40s to make me realize they are just games, bro.

Thoughts?

There CAN be a balance, but both players have to want the same sort of game..... the more communication before the first roll of the dice the better too....

In a well-made game, what's fluffy and what's good shouldn't be antonyms. The most powerful list might not be perfectly fluffy, but taking a lore-accurate list should be an excellent way to have a competent army.

Most people will not have all the models for the super optomised online list.

So you can use it as a basis and flesh it out with what you do have, which should tone it down.

Also you have the list but not the nuance of how to run it, or what opponents the list faced (meta, tournament). So back in 2nd and 3rd end Warmachine days I would work to a net list over a couple months, filling parts with new models if I didn't have them.
It was at least 10 games before things would start flowing smoothly, but sometimes they never worked as my meta was completely different.

I consider rules systems absolutely secondary to miniatures. Systems come and go, but armies are forever. So I always build based on the miniatures I like, and then find rules that let me use them. If rules denigrate miniatures I like, I don't play those rules.

I also don't really play games with a "meta", I prefer games that are done, finished, not changing, because then if there's something that doesn't work, it's trivial to change it between you and your opponent.

You miss out on "pick up games" but the advantages vastly outweigh that imo.

It….depends.

In my heyday, I took genuine delight in taking “sub-optimal*” units and armies, and finding out how to make them work best. And I had reasonable success.

Crowning glory was a dual War Hydra Dark Elf army back when they weren’t much good on the page. Tried it, found a list that work, and ran rings around my opponent with a highly mobile army which hit like a ton of bricks when used well, but went entirely without offensive or defensive magic.

I had some, but lesser, success with Saim Hann Wind Rider host using the 3rd Ed Craftworld Codex. Bit trickier to use, but the name of the game there was strategic damage to my opponent, whilst using my speed to keep as out of danger as I could, and win by slim VP scoring, ideally compared to my opponent scoring nowt.

But generally whilst I’ll embrace units not considered very good, they’re still backed up by better units, and ideally unified by a theme.

Other times, my model preference leans toward a well ‘ard force. But not because it’s well ‘ard. Consider my 12, will eventually be 13, Dreadnoughts for Heresy. I love Dreadnoughts, especially the “oh hey, it’s that sweet design from 2nd Ed Epic!” Contemptor design. And I set about this force before anyone had pointed out that rules wise, they’re bent.



*I loathe this phrase. Utterly loathe it. It’s always smacked of someone determined to render the game down to pure mathematics, and probably spouted by some speccy, spotty nerk with a speech impediment, shortly before they start ranting they can’t get a girlfriend because wimmins am evul, and not, definitely not their lack of personality, social skills and personal hygiene. The sort to whom anything short of a 2+ chance of success might as well be a million-to-one shot. Which as any Wizard will tell you, crop up nine time out of ten. The sort that, when you’ve defeated their army as a combination of skill, guile, understand your unusual units and not a little luck, will simply proclaim you to have “diced them”.

Personal experience? I don’t know what you mean!

Building an effective fighting force that wins battles IS Fluffy when you are playing as a general of an army of one of the leading major powers in the Galaxy in a battle for survival.



There I've said it, building effective killing forces that win battles IS Fluffy in a wargame.

The problem with "fluffy" as a foundation is everyone has their own interpretations of it. It can be based on films, artwork, lore, stories, stuff you like visually, these models because I can afford them and they are all I've got etc... There are so many different approaches and interpretations that two random people can't easily come together to have a fluffy game without having a good chunk of pre-game discussion to really hammer out what each expects of the other in the game.
OR lots of prior experience and gaming so that you both have an understanding of the other. Both in terms of model selection, but also game skill and approach.

This is why people often find that they have more fun with friends being fluffy than with "those new people" or "that new club I just joined" because they don't realise that a huge part of the fun they had before was based upon familiarity on both sides.


This is why AoS's original launch idea of "take whatever the heck you want for fun" didn't actually work because "fun" isn't something you can just say and have everyone comprehend what you mean. FUN to one person was rank and file infantry with spears; FUN to the other was a flight of dragons zooming over the battlefield breathing down fire.




So yeah fluffy is tricky and if you want to talk about it, esp online, you have to come to the discussion ready to set some ground rules. To establish your intentions and approach from the outset.

The thing is underneath all the fluff the game is still a mechanical thing. It's a machine with rules that runs a certain way and putting certain things in combination with those rules will result in a certain outcome Yes there's dice to muddy the waters a bit; but its still basically a machine. If you've no comprehension of how it works then the fluffy lists you build could be not just sub-optimal but outright bad. Plus if you've less experience and comprehension of the game; not only will you pick weaker choices but you'll use them the wrong way on the battlefield and won't grasp why they won't work. You'll slam that huge dragon model right into their heavy cavalry without realising that the dragon is a dragon, but its really more of a fast hitting skirmisher not a heavy brawler; which is just what those heavy knights are. And thus your dragon crumples.

So I think to have fun fluffy games and lists is 100% great; you just have to come to the game actually understanding the game and with proper expectations. Plus the more fluffy you get and the more fluffy you want the game the more you might have to talk toy our opponent; chat with them; set expectations and so forth.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

Or maybe I' ve finally gotten in touch with my inner Keanu and mellowed in my 40s to make me realize they are just games, bro.

Thoughts?

Probably this.

Having played Warmachine pretty seriously for years, I will say that my biggest regret with that game was not playing more Butcher3. I'd much rather spend the time playing stuff with fun mechanics than winning, but I think that's largely because I've gotten a good chunk of wins already.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Is there a balance in the force? Or am I missing the gotta win at all costs mentality that I notice in some forums (with really harsh red lettering) across the internet.

There is absolutely a balance, but you won't find it online. Balance requires a reference point and that's very much a personal thing. You need to decide for yourself how important winning is and how important playing with your favorite toys are and balance that against how competitive your environment is. If you're regularly winning, you can absolutely take cool stuff you want to put on the table because you want to and still probably win. If you're frustrated and feel like you're struggling, you might want to lean more into what's optimal.

Personally, I think there's generally a baseline of tools I want in my army to be "competitive" but generally speaking if I like an army I'm generally pretty happy with most of the units in it, so taking the good stuff isn't really a problem. I just can rule of 2 things. I don't need to spam 3 of whatever is best and still win. That leftover third or so of my points is absolutely a place to fit in favorites that might not be the absolute best, but I absolutely want to play.

Just remember, the worst thing about being in a hobby is having to deal with other people.

Then, everything makes sense after that.

 Easy E wrote:
Just remember, the worst thing about being in a hobby is having to deal with other people.

Then, everything makes sense after that.

I thought the worst part was paying for things.

Part of my distaste for meta gaming is I often wonder, again based on personal experience, how often a Bad Workman is blaming their tools.

And it’s something I’m seeing in the Pokemon TCG app (bear with me on this one!)

At the moment, there are certain combos which are horrible to face. But you still need to know what you’re doing, and why that combo works to, y’know, make it work.

The game was initially horribly frustrating, as unlike Warhammer, you’re at the mercy of the pack draw as to what your options are in building your deck. And when you battle against someone with The Perfect Meta Deck, sometimes skill just doesn’t bloody matter, you’re gonna get your head kicked in, unless you too have your deck stuffed with the right toys.

But now I’ve a better handle on it, and some handy (if not meta, because I still don’t have the cards) my win/loss ratio is much improved. And even when I get kerbstomped, it’s at least feeling less inevitable.

Warhammer Games do have similar issues though. Whilst army selection is limited by what you’ve bought, and not the luck of the draw, it’s mildly lessened. But only mildly - because if you can’t afford certain units, victory can and will still go to They With The Deepest Pockets.

But once you’re on the board? You can still do a lot with relatively little - once you’ve got the experience. And the dice can always surprise.

Experience of course isn’t an instant thing. Nor is it a journey that ever ends. Some of my greatest victories came from fielding an army I really understood the mechanics and potential of, that my opponent has never seen, let alone fought. Advantage Me, but I still need to keep my eye on what my opponent is up to.

And it’s those victories where I’ve found real sore losers, as some fancied themselves as potential tournament winners.

As ever don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying therefore everyone that likes their tournament play and organises their army to compete is therefore a bad loser. At all. Because that’s not even remotely true. And I absolutely have met utter, utter tossers who prefer “casual” gaming.

Rather it’s those who Netlist, and have never really considered what to do if I can interrupt their Ultimate Combo O’Doom (be that taking out a link in the chain, just not being where they expected/needed me to be, a timely dispel, or good old fashioned running away to leave his unit out of position and lined up for a combo chariot charge to the flanks), because sometimes? All they know is “field this list, pull off Ultimate Combo of Doom, Victory”.

Net listing is something I really dislike. I actually avoid popular games that are discussed a lot online because of that.

I like the process of slowly discovering a game with your friends, and if someone goes online and copies a list and then comes in and trounces everyone, it forces us all into that paradigm. The discovery is over, the game is "solved" but not by us, by the collective brains of the internet.

Kinda ruins the whole point of playing a game for me. I play out of print games or games from small publishers with almost no online discussion partially because my tastes are pretty specific nowadays and also because I avoid all that nonsense.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Part of my distaste for meta gaming is I often wonder, again based on personal experience, how often a Bad Workman is blaming their tools.

And it’s something I’m seeing in the Pokemon TCG app (bear with me on this one!)

FWIW, the Pokemon TCG is a game with an incredible amount of card draw and tutoring that creates decks that are extremely consistent. It means that handing a player a powerful deck doesn't really do them a lot of good, as without knowing what cards to search for, they can't really create the setup they've been handed. Knowing your deck is incredibly important to the game. The dark side of this is it definitely creates an arms race, where being able to go from no board position to getting one of your generally 3 required KOs from nothing is kind of where the game pushes you. Red Deck wins via an enormous amount of Black in a way. Not sure how much of that translates to the new App version, haven't played that, but that's been my experience with the tabletop version.

To your point though, it's absolutely an issue of people wanting to be assured wins that mostly comes from a lack of confidence. Most of my competitive background actually comes from Street Fighter and its brood, where, a lot of what separates the top tiers is execution tricks that maybe a hundredth of a percent of players can do in a real match. Most players barely have a passing understanding of their own tools, let alone the hundreds of matches required to understand how those tools interact with other characters. Very, very few people are being held back by their character choice compared to the sheer depth of things about their character they have yet to learn.

The big secret I've come to understand, particularly as I've gotten a little more into fighting games again as of late, is a huge amount of internet complaining is from people that don't really play. They may think about a thousand games, but have actually only played something less than 50 in their life. To them, finding things to complain about is their primary form of interacting with the game and how the game entertains them. Most of the noise out there doesn't apply to the vast majority of the playerbase and most players are far better off just getting in more games than worrying too much about whether their list is meta.

That said, its not like balance is perfect. You need a baseline toolset to succeed and efficiency matters. Seeing what's good can certainly help when struggling, but you generally only need a 60% framework to start from to get to where you have everything you really need.

For Warhams, there also does seem to have been a cultural shift.

As a Gentleman of a certain vintage, I and my contemporaries grew up with White Dwarf as our standard bearer. And I’m lucky enough to have copies of some of the battle reports I was weaned on.

There, the emphasis was not on winning, but telling a story. This is reflected in the prose used - which in some instances would even influence the background.

Two examples which spring immediately to mind would be Tycho being taken out by a Weird Boy, and Mad Dok Grotsnik being taken out by an exploding Orky Dreadnought.

See, rather than “I shot Unit A and opponent’s Unit X, rolled *numbers* and caused three casualties”, the reporting had more of a dramatic flair.

And that influences a young mind. It painted the game as narrative driven, even when a given game isn’t part of a campaign.

Not to say “therefore anyone not doing that am wrong and bad in the face”. Just that…growing up I was exposed to a pretty myopic view of the game. And so even now, those who spend a lot of time perfecting their list to maximise efficiency seem a little odd to me.

Add to that in the early days of the internet (when I was even more immature than I am now. Imagine that!) many decent conversations were “spoiled” by theoryhammer and folk saying everything should be designed for high end tournament play, and my personal distaste for the tournament scene only increased.

I’m a lot more chill these days, and not that anyone needs my permission, you do you so long as you enjoy it.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Just remember, the worst thing about being in a hobby is having to deal with other people.

Then, everything makes sense after that.

I thought the worst part was paying for things.

Paying for things can be avoided, but other people are (generally) needed in this hobby.

The rise of Solo-gaming shows that I am not the only one who finds other people a sore point in the hobby.

 JNAProductions wrote:
In a well-made game, what's fluffy and what's good shouldn't be antonyms. The most powerful list might not be perfectly fluffy, but taking a lore-accurate list should be an excellent way to have a competent army.

Ideally, yes. But there are a myriad of parts in a complex wargame like Warhammer 40'000. It's way harder to balance than chess. Even the best balanced Warhammer-esque community spinoffs have their warts and "core tax" for units most people would like to do without, but need to be there as a mainstay of the army for background reasons.

On balance?

My biggest issue isn’t when a Codex has a particularly powerful build. Oh no. My issue is when that particularly powerful build is the only viable build from that Codex. As in, it’s head and shoulders above other possible combinations.

Eldar were once notorious for this issue. Every Codex had a particularly nasty build option. But that was it, the rest was guff.

This heavily impacted the meta. After all, if you could more or less guarantee an Eldar list would be appearing at the event, why shouldn’t you also field the cheese. And so a vicious cycle is created.

But, get the internal balance sorted, and you should see fewer such extremes, making it harder if not impossible to meta game, because no one list is prevalent. And I reckon everyone would have more fun as a result, not to mention end up with sharper skills, because you need to get good against more stuff.

 Easy E wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Just remember, the worst thing about being in a hobby is having to deal with other people.

Then, everything makes sense after that.

I thought the worst part was paying for things.

Paying for things can be avoided, but other people are (generally) needed in this hobby.

The rise of Solo-gaming shows that I am not the only one who finds other people a sore point in the hobby.

I think it’s less other people who are the problem than other gamers. I mostly play with people who are board gamers or rpg gamers or nongamers, because they play without all the toxic baggage. The times I’ve played against “real” gamers have all been somewhere between uncomfortable and miserable.

To pick up on MDG’s mention of gamers who insist everything should be oriented to high-end tournament gaming, just look at how gamers approach any thread on Dakka asking about narrative play or if there are aspects to gaming more important for enjoyment than BaLaNcE. Read those replies and then imagine trying to have a chill, casual game with TT gamers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On balance?

My biggest issue isn’t when a Codex has a particularly powerful build. Oh no. My issue is when that particularly powerful build is the only viable build from that Codex. As in, it’s head and shoulders above other possible combinations.

Eldar were once notorious for this issue. Every Codex had a particularly nasty build option. But that was it, the rest was guff.

This heavily impacted the meta. After all, if you could more or less guarantee an Eldar list would be appearing at the event, why shouldn’t you also field the cheese. And so a vicious cycle is created.

But, get the internal balance sorted, and you should see fewer such extremes, making it harder if not impossible to meta game, because no one list is prevalent. And I reckon everyone would have more fun as a result, not to mention end up with sharper skills, because you need to get good against more stuff.

Every time someone plays Imperial Knights, they put Canis Rex into the list, there is no reason not to use him, and I really don't like that.

Internal balance is all well and good until it means that your entire Codex is bad against the other factions you actually play against. It means you have a lot of options to lose with, but don't really have a viable strategy in the real game.

In theory I agree internal balance should make external balance easier, but it doesn't for a few reasons. One, is people still want faction identity. It's hard to make good Ork shooting viable when Ork shooting's identity is being unreliable.

More importantly though is just that balance is really an economy more than a scale. Anti-tank is only as good as tanks are. Tanks are only as good as anti-tank is. Worse yet, some of these things are only as powerful as people perceive their targets are or even how popular things might be with the handful of top tier players in your area.

One of the big hurdles in game design that makes the first release always a mess is the difference between average and meta average. If say, intercessors are the average opponent, then the first way to gain an advantage is to take things like S5, AP-2, or D2 weapons on things that lean more towards T5. If D2 weapons are common, 1 wound models make them less efficient. In any case, the meta average becomes things that are good against the baseline average rather than the game as it was designed. As players adapt to the meta average, the meta average changes and what's strong into it changes in turn.

Oh those who complain about deliberate deficiencies (Ork shooting, Tau HTH) as if they’re design oversight can get square in the bin.

And I do agree a well balanced codex doesn’t mean the game is well balanced, if there are other Codexes out there right on the wonk.

But, I still feel a balanced game begins at the Codex level. Don’t force extreme lists by clearly Excellent and Guff choices with little in between. Sure, some lists are going to have an edge, but do what you can to reduce that edge.

From there, provided each Codex is internally balanced, the rest should become easier, as nobody is having to react to a particular meta.

And sure, I see no problem with a given army typically struggling against another, provided each Codex has its own nemesis in turn. Part of the fun should be learning how to overcome trickier odds.

What should never be aimed for are things like 7th Ed Imperial Knights, where a huge swathe of the opposing army could do diddly against them. Same with Wraithlord and Wraith Knight heavy lists, where I might as well have left my small arms at home, and come to battle in my pants.

But as was touched on above? 40K just has far too many moving parts for perfect balance to exist. There’ll always be odd counters crop up, and the dice can always do you in. What is needed is a strong attempt maximise balance, so that player skill and cunning play a deciding role, not their army list.

Right. The issue with focusing on internal balance is when the external balance is inevitably off, the whole Codex is off and you basically have to rework the whole thing or abandon the internal balance to let the army compete (or heaven forbid, the whole thing is too strong).

Ultimately, perfect balance isn't really possible, so you've got to have a standard to aim for. One competitive army per codex is a good bare minimum, because it means people don't have to abandon the entire faction to compete. 2-3 viable detachments worth is a good long term goal if they're prorperly diverse. Personally I think more than that starts hitting unreasonable expectations.

If Ork shooting was meant to be deficient, maybe then Orks shouldn't have several different units whose entire purpose is shooting like Lootas, Tankbustas or all their aircraft.

Not the point at all.

Orks have their nearly universal piss poor BS2. But, it’s somewhat mitigated by a typically higher rate of fire. So, when you roll above average they can really lay the pain down at range. But, most units can punch their weight in HTH, thanks to a solid WS and A2 (my knowledge is likely out of date here).

Tau can do HTH, but of course just aren’t terribly good at it. This is more pronounced that Orky shonky shooting, but equally, they’re very reliable at range as an army, as every hit counts, and part of the art of wielding Tau is using your Markerlights to victimise your high priority targets.

Now, consider some of the demands I’ve seen over the years.

“Ork BS is too low, it should be BS3”. Quite missing that a seemingly minor change would be married to their higher rate of fire, making that impact pretty significant.

“Battlesuits should have a HTH option, liking a hard hitting Lightning Claw”. Again, that would have a significant impact on the army’s potency, as a staple unit goes from being a pretty much dedicated precision strike fire support unit, to a Jack of all Trades with pretty much no downside.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On balance?

My biggest issue isn’t when a Codex has a particularly powerful build. Oh no. My issue is when that particularly powerful build is the only viable build from that Codex. As in, it’s head and shoulders above other possible combinations.

This really can be the worst of both worlds if you're locked into a non-viable version of the army. Sometimes there's just no crossover between your models and the current power-list, or it completely contradicts your army's theme. I remember the 4e Chaos codex with dual Lash of Submission being hell for World Eaters and such.

Again I’ve sympathy with long time Eldar players on that, as their good list changed, often significantly, between Codexes.

And it might sound lazy and tropey? But a big chunk of that was how long Guardians sucked for, thanks to the inexplicable 12” ranged Shuriken Catapult. Not to mention Aspect Warriors, like a lot of formerly elite infantry, falling way behind the curve thanks to increased unit sizes, and the change to the AP system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now then. Just had a thought following a Skaven promoting post in another thread?

An example of rules which directly contradict the established background, and so to my mind are just cheeeeeese?

Skaven Ratling Guns, when they first appeared.

A gun which I don’t think rolled to hit (I don’t have that army book, please feel free to correct). And could fire up to 6D6 shots - but any double would cause a comical malfunction.

Now. The malfunction? Skaven to the core. If it doesn’t just threaten the life of the bearer but also a chunk of its army, it’s not proper Skaven.

Except….the Ratling Gun, you rolled those 6D6 one at a time. And could stop at any time.

That is not Skaven. At all. Skaven have always been high risk, high reward. I’m not even sure they have a word for Caution and Moderation.

Add in to the “I’ll actively choose not to blow myself up, because I can numbers” that it hit like bricks, and couldn’t be easily targeted provided it stuck close to its assigned unit? And it broke Skaven. Completely.

All it would’ve taken was a pre-declared number of dice to be declared, from one to six. That is Skaven. Accept the risk, roll the dice, hope The Great Horned Rat doesn’t think you’re a loser.

But this whole…should I pour so more on, let me do the maths. Well my first roll was five, my second roll four…I think I’m good was just really really lame, and not at all in keeping with the background.