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.

So this was spawned by a discussion about statistics in another thread but I wanted to make a larger thread about it.

Is listbuilding and army choice a part of the game?

For example, if you have two players who are equally skilled on the tabletop but one of them is better at building lists, then the player who is better at building lists will win the game, surely? Listbuilding is a player skill that affects the game, and so having a better list means you're a better player (provided we accept the competitive hypothesis that winning = better player, that's important to note!).

It does mean that if lists were swapped then the other player would win - after all, their skill is equal, so all that's determining outcome is the list.

Now if we zoom out one more step, army choice affects the list options one has: e.g. I want to play mono- Ordo Hereticus Inquisition. This means that I will not likely win a tournament, even if I am 100% the best listbuilder ever and 100% the best player ever, simply because the faction lacks options.

I recognize that there are many many many many factors that go into army choice (aesthetics, narrative (in my case), money, emotional investement, etc etc.) that are divorced from the purely competitive element, but if we're abstracting enough...

... wouldn't a player's choice of army be part of "player skill at Warhammer" all other things being equal?

(This is part of the reason I believe I am not a good warhamer player (well, that and I'm also not good at listbuilding or playing!): My army choices, even when I decide to start a new project, are almost always sub-par.)

By the rulebook's definition; it's part of Matched Play and thus a relevant part of the skills involved in the competition mind set.

I certainly know a number of players who bought factions to win, and sell them, more than once on the spot, when they lose effectiveness at the standard competition point grade.

It's part of the hobby, and in a big way keeps the second hand market well stocked

List building absolutely. Army choice? It shouldn't be, but it is also a huge factor.

Obviously, yes.

Edit. Listbuilding yes.

Army selection, somewhat.

List building? Yes. You should know the strong points of your army and the weak ones, and by this I don't mean "Spam the OP units and avoit the useless ones", but "Tau are a shooting army, you should try to make that your strategy at the same time that you try to play around your weakness like fragility and meele with Alien Auxiliaries"
Should the player with the better list win if both players have the same skill set? It doesn't has too. Is not a black or white situation. Having a better list, with a better strategy in mind, vs a opponent with a similar skill could give you a 10-15% advantage in the probability of winning, making the 50-50 a 60-40 for example.

Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

 Galas wrote:
Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

This is what I am getting at:

Presumably, the game is not ever going to be 100% balanced, right? If you disagree with this assumption, then stop reading, because my argument hinges on it.

But if the game is never going to be 100% balanced, then there will always be a "Best army" or "optimal build" in a given meta, and so the best players in the game will arrive at this army and play it, and it will feel even MORE OP than its actual rules (which may only be a slight offset better) actually make it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

This is what I am getting at:

Presumably, the game is not ever going to be 100% balanced, right? If you disagree with this assumption, then stop reading, because my argument hinges on it.

But if the game is never going to be 100% balanced, then there will always be a "Best army" or "optimal build" in a given meta, and so the best players in the game will arrive at this army and play it, and it will feel even MORE OP than its actual rules (which may only be a slight offset better) actually make it.

Thats right. Theres a reason TIER's exist in EVERY competitive game. Heck, even in real life games like F1 or Golf not everyone competes in the same conditions. Do you believe F1's cars of the Ferrari team are the same as others? No, they are normally better.

Theres a reason why Fox was used in 78% of the Smash Bros Meele Tournaments.
But we should try to reach the point where a player, by pure skill, can win with a less powerfull faction. But in tournaments people will always want the smaller advantage possible, because when you are playing agaisn't the "pros", a 2% can be the difference between being first or second.

Thats why I don't play to win. With how expensive, time consuming, etc... are Warhammer armies to make, I have 0 interest in changing them. Playing other games like MOBA's I just have to change the hero if it sucks. It cost me like 10.000 gold or the random ingame currency they are using, and 0 time.

Emphasis on listbuilding over playbooks is a sign the actual game itself has limited options. Listbuilding should matter to some extent, but it shouldn't be the most emphasized option.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Army Choice? No. One should be able to compete with any army of the game.

This is what I am getting at:

Presumably, the game is not ever going to be 100% balanced, right? If you disagree with this assumption, then stop reading, because my argument hinges on it.

But if the game is never going to be 100% balanced, then there will always be a "Best army" or "optimal build" in a given meta, and so the best players in the game will arrive at this army and play it, and it will feel even MORE OP than its actual rules (which may only be a slight offset better) actually make it.

Thats right. Theres a reason TIER's exist in EVERY competitive game. Heck, even in real life games like F1 or Golf not everyone competes in the same conditions. Do you believe F1's cars of the Ferrari team are the same as others? No, they are normally better.

Theres a reason why Fox was used in 78% of the Smash Bros Meele Tournaments.
But we should try to reach the point where a player, by pure skill, can win with a less powerfull faction. But in tournaments people will always want the smaller advantage possible, because when you are playing agaisn't the "pros", a 2% can be the difference between being first or second.

Thats why I don't play to win. With how expensive, time consuming, etc... are Warhammer armies to make, I have 0 interest in changing them. Playing other games like MOBA's I just have to change the hero if it sucks. It cost me like 10.000 gold or the random ingame currency they are using, and 0 time.

This is my conclusion, essentially, as well - questioning the wisdom of players who are play to win but don't seek every advantage.

One could make the argument that if you're not willing to hop armies to the most powerful, then you're not a very competitive player, because you're throwing away an advantage (not that it's easy, mind you! Buying and painting a whole new army in a month is way more than I would ever consider!)

Doesn't this also put the kabosh to tournament results determining how good a faction is? Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?

As it stands now, yes it is an intrinsic part of the game.

Ideally, no, it would be a far smaller part of the game.

However, even games with better balance (many historical wargames) can be skewed and destroyed if players willfully screw themselves over with list composition. Playing a game set in WW2 for instance, you could arbitrarily take nothing but infantry units and machine gun teams - fail to equip them with any anti-tank weapons and you could then run into an armored company and struggle to win a game.

I do wish there was a more historical-wargame-esque full narrative version of 40K (I play it that way anyway, but I'd be fine with a separate product).

Yes, but IMHO it shouldn't be. Not to the extreme it is in 40k (or even AOS) where huge swathes of the codex are not worth taking because something else is objectively better.

I preferred how Warmahordes did list building; it was still a part of the game, and there were still a handful of things that just didn't work (however their CID open beta testing was meant to help that), but for MOST things you could find ways to synergize and make them work at least decently, instead of being "Why would you ever take this?". In 40k though, if you want to be "good" then not only is listbuilding probably the most important skill in the game, but also it makes it so there are only few actual choices to be made in the listbilding process.

"Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?"

Of course this happens all the time.



Of course list building is part of the overall playing of the game; because what you build and what you opponent builds defines what is going to be happening during the game itself. IT defines what you can and can't do on the table and what strategies are viable.

In an ideal game each faction should achieve a general level of similar potential performance with well written lists. There shouldn't be any lists that potentially "break" the game and give an unfair level of power over other choices.

And yes statistically you can work out what army and what list from that army is the most statistically likely to offer the most gain and thus the most likely win for the player. However even game statistics are open to interpretation and variation in how they are conducted so there isn't just one single answer (excluding clearly broken choices that introduce vastly superior levels of power).




As for the "who's a real competitive person" angle you have to remember that the hobby isn't just about winning. There's collecting, building, painting, converting, playing, posing, basing etc.. There's a lot of other parts to the hobby than just pure winning. That's why many people don't just jump and change armies; indeed the number who do that is comparatively few in the real world. Of course people do it; people also move on from their hobby or drop second/3rd/4th armies when they run out of time so there's always a healthy secondhand market going on.

People would argue only player skill matters if there was an army with Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard, BS/WS2+, had a 2+ save, and could move a foot each turn while still being just 4 points.

The only justifying this line of thought is when a more off list gets within the Top 10, and, like always, I ask for consistency and that it'll probably not happen again. After all, look what happened to that list that people used as their "proof" that Tactical Marines were good. You didn't see anything like that top again did you?

Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

And in list-building as others have said you can be screwed if you go full rocks. I remember a Heroes of the Storm game where we played literally with 5 invisible assasin's and the other team has the ONLY hero on the game that can reveal invisible heroes every 15s in a gigant area, on a map with neutral units that you can capture that reveal invisible heroes too. We were hard countered because we were playing a "spam" hero composition. We did get totally destroyed.

 Overread wrote:
"Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?"

Of course this happens all the time.



Of course list building is part of the overall playing of the game; because what you build and what you opponent builds defines what is going to be happening during the game itself. IT defines what you can and can't do on the table and what strategies are viable.

In an ideal game each faction should achieve a general level of similar potential performance with well written lists. There shouldn't be any lists that potentially "break" the game and give an unfair level of power over other choices.

And yes statistically you can work out what army and what list from that army is the most statistically likely to offer the most gain and thus the most likely win for the player. However even game statistics are open to interpretation and variation in how they are conducted so there isn't just one single answer (excluding clearly broken choices that introduce vastly superior levels of power).




As for the "who's a real competitive person" angle you have to remember that the hobby isn't just about winning. There's collecting, building, painting, converting, playing, posing, basing etc.. There's a lot of other parts to the hobby than just pure winning. That's why many people don't just jump and change armies; indeed the number who do that is comparatively few in the real world. Of course people do it; people also move on from their hobby or drop second/3rd/4th armies when they run out of time so there's always a healthy secondhand market going on.

I understand all of what you're saying - so what is an "unfair" level of balance? Is the disparity between mono-Imperial Guard and mono-Inquisition fair? I believe so, as the Inquisition player (and a Guard player, full disclosure) because the Inquisition, in the narrative, is suppose to soup from other forces and the Imperial Guard is not.

And yes, I agree about the "who is a competitive person" comment. I'm not a competitive person, and I admit that. But I think it is funny that so many "not competitive" people care so much about competition - e.g. some users on this forum, who apparently lose constantly and are upset by this, but refuse to take the necessary improvements in player skill to do it, including playing a different army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People would argue only player skill matters if there was an army with Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard, BS/WS2+, had a 2+ save, and could move a foot each turn while still being just 4 points.

The only justifying this line of thought is when a more off list gets within the Top 10, and, like always, I ask for consistency and that it'll probably not happen again. After all, look what happened to that list that people used as their "proof" that Tactical Marines were good. You didn't see anything like that top again did you?

Wouldn't part of "player skill" be identifying that this army of amazing doomcultists was the best army, and switching over to play it?

Galas wrote:Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

Here's a follow up question, as I agree with what you said:

Is it better to sacrifice options and narrative consistency for balance? Or is dramatic imbalance due to narrative forces (e.g. the imbalance between mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard) an acceptable alternative to perfect balance?

The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Wayniac wrote:
I preferred how Warmahordes did list building; it was still a part of the game, and there were still a handful of things that just didn't work (however their CID open beta testing was meant to help that), but for MOST things you could find ways to synergize and make them work at least decently, instead of being "Why would you ever take this?". In 40k though, if you want to be "good" then not only is listbuilding probably the most important skill in the game, but also it makes it so there are only few actual choices to be made in the listbilding process.

Warmachine explicitly spells out many of its synergies for you, where the fact some of the stated synergies explictly don't work led to the term Skornergy.

The main advantage WMH has (whether or not it still has this in Mk 3 is debatable) over 40k is the emphasis on positional play, or options. A Warnoun can Slam or Headbutt just by being big, or can Trample if Heavy. Open Fists allow for Arm Locks or Throws, which can be used to nullify your opponent's weapons/shields, or to chuck troublesome solos towards your own army to finish the job.

The fact you can attack your own models also allows for additional shenanigans, be it slamming your models backfield to auto-KD hi-defense models in front, arm-locking your own jacks to prevent them from being Pushed off a control-point, or throwing your own "Explode on Death" solos as makeshift grenades.

The introduction of Colossals, and the subsequent increase in "no-sell" casters has arguably done a fair bit to weaken this type of play, in favor of gunline attrition.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Emphasis on listbuilding over playbooks is a sign the actual game itself has limited options. Listbuilding should matter to some extent, but it shouldn't be the most emphasized option.

List building should really mean just making sure your list has the right tools to deal with an opponent. It shouldn't mean excluding 85% of your choices because they aren't optimal.

Or excluding 100% if we are talking BA-specific units, lol.

Martel732 wrote:
The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Right, so hence my question:

Should 40k be "Balanced" in the sense that mono-whatever is "fair" compared to mono-other whatever?

Or should 40k stay a narrative game?

I am trying to get to the crux of the "argument" between competitive and narrative players, because I have heard people say there's no tension there but I think there is - and the evidence is some people being alright with the imbalance between, say, mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard, and other people (e.g. you) not being alright with it.

40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Overread wrote:
"Since a faction could literally be 2% better, but because all the best (listbuilding, army choosing, and tabletop play) players play it, it achieves something like a 60% win rate?"

Of course this happens all the time.



Of course list building is part of the overall playing of the game; because what you build and what you opponent builds defines what is going to be happening during the game itself. IT defines what you can and can't do on the table and what strategies are viable.

In an ideal game each faction should achieve a general level of similar potential performance with well written lists. There shouldn't be any lists that potentially "break" the game and give an unfair level of power over other choices.

And yes statistically you can work out what army and what list from that army is the most statistically likely to offer the most gain and thus the most likely win for the player. However even game statistics are open to interpretation and variation in how they are conducted so there isn't just one single answer (excluding clearly broken choices that introduce vastly superior levels of power).




As for the "who's a real competitive person" angle you have to remember that the hobby isn't just about winning. There's collecting, building, painting, converting, playing, posing, basing etc.. There's a lot of other parts to the hobby than just pure winning. That's why many people don't just jump and change armies; indeed the number who do that is comparatively few in the real world. Of course people do it; people also move on from their hobby or drop second/3rd/4th armies when they run out of time so there's always a healthy secondhand market going on.

I understand all of what you're saying - so what is an "unfair" level of balance? Is the disparity between mono-Imperial Guard and mono-Inquisition fair? I believe so, as the Inquisition player (and a Guard player, full disclosure) because the Inquisition, in the narrative, is suppose to soup from other forces and the Imperial Guard is not.

And yes, I agree about the "who is a competitive person" comment. I'm not a competitive person, and I admit that. But I think it is funny that so many "not competitive" people care so much about competition - e.g. some users on this forum, who apparently lose constantly and are upset by this, but refuse to take the necessary improvements in player skill to do it, including playing a different army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:People would argue only player skill matters if there was an army with Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard, BS/WS2+, had a 2+ save, and could move a foot each turn while still being just 4 points.

The only justifying this line of thought is when a more off list gets within the Top 10, and, like always, I ask for consistency and that it'll probably not happen again. After all, look what happened to that list that people used as their "proof" that Tactical Marines were good. You didn't see anything like that top again did you?

Wouldn't part of "player skill" be identifying that this army of amazing doomcultists was the best army, and switching over to play it?

Galas wrote:Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

Here's a follow up question, as I agree with what you said:

Is it better to sacrifice options and narrative consistency for balance? Or is dramatic imbalance due to narrative forces (e.g. the imbalance between mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard) an acceptable alternative to perfect balance?

Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Galas wrote:Warhammer Tournament's suck for reliable data. They have too much variabilities: Who players attended, what lists did they brought, how many LOS blocking terrain where on the tables, who fight who, what special house rules where in place, what missions did they use, etc, etc...

MOBA's and other Videogames have hundreds and hundreds of games played in a daily basis, with all their information 100% measured by computers, with a nearly total reliability, and even they, they screw with balance many times.

Of course GW can do better because we have seen games do better than Warhammer. They appear to at least try on 8th. But as this is actually their first try to make a balanced game it will takes them time. And it will come with a cost. Many options will be lost. Theres no balanced wargame with as many options and variability as Warhammer40k has.

Infinity? Everibody has basically the same weapons and options, they just use them in slighly different manners.
X-Wing? They have a total control about where you play and everything is mathematically and absolutely precise so math is much more reliable.

Here's a follow up question, as I agree with what you said:

Is it better to sacrifice options and narrative consistency for balance? Or is dramatic imbalance due to narrative forces (e.g. the imbalance between mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard) an acceptable alternative to perfect balance?

I believe a balance can be made respecting options. You can have rules like Grey Knights having bonus agaisn't daemons, things like the "For Cadia" Stratagem, or Chaos Space Marines having bonus agaisn't Loyalists Marines or the Imperium. Just make all of those bonuses "Narrative play only".
I love the Fantasy Giant and Steam Tank. Balance wise they sucked, and they where a pain in the ass to balance because how random the Giant was. But wow, whas it flavourfull and fun. And I can accept a level of imbalance for a good amount of options and making factions different. Theres a reason why I play Warhammer and not Infinity or Warmachine. But that level of imbalance should be as minimun as possible respecting the feel and fluff of the factions as much as possible. (This for Matched play, in Narrative play they can go bonkers and give factions unbalanced but ultra fun and narrative rules, bonuses and even units)

Martel732 wrote:40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

I disagree with this point, actually, mostly because narrative is "what you make of it." Some people saying 5 Space Marines smashing an entire army is narrative and fluffy, others say that 5 Space Marines should be defeated by one Imperial Guard colonel, and both happen in the books. So I think there's space in the narrative for the events that happen in the tabletop to fit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

 Galas wrote:

I believe a balance can be made respecting options. You can have rules like Grey Knights having bonus agaisn't daemons, things like the "For Cadia" Stratagem, or Chaos Space Marines having bonus agaisn't Loyalists Marines or the Imperium. Just make all of those bonuses "Narrative play only".
I love the Fantasy Giant and Steam Tank. Balance wise they sucked, and they where a pain in the ass to balance because how random the Giant was. But wow, whas it flavourfull and fun. And I can accept a level of imbalance for a good amount of options and making factions different. Theres a reason why I play Warhammer and not Infinity or Warmachine. But that level of imbalance should be as minimun as possible respecting the feel and fluff of the factions as much as possible. (This for Matched play, in Narrative play they can go bonkers and give factions unbalanced but ultra fun and narrative rules, bonuses and even units)

Are you talking about two different games now, though?

It sounds like your "narrative" game is drastically different from your "matched play" game - different enough that it deserves its own rulebook and perhaps version of the codex.

Yeah. I believe the "three ways to play" should have much more effort than "Ey guys here you have some random campaing rules!".

They could make Narrative and Matched their own kind of game with their own feeling. But being this the GW we know, Narrative could be better as the "dumper" where they put all those faction-specific bonuses that are totally inbalanced and by existing make some factions impossible to balance (Like GK)

And about the Mono-Inquisition vs Mono-IG: As they are now, they can't be balanced because Inquisition has no options. The ideal scenario would be to expand Inquisition with more options to make them viable as their own army: Servitors, Inquisitorial Acolytes, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, special Inquisitorial Vehicles, Xenos Retinues, Kroot mercenaries, Inquisitors in Terminator and Power Armour, etc, etc...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Right, so hence my question:

Should 40k be "Balanced" in the sense that mono-whatever is "fair" compared to mono-other whatever?

Or should 40k stay a narrative game?

I am trying to get to the crux of the "argument" between competitive and narrative players, because I have heard people say there's no tension there but I think there is - and the evidence is some people being alright with the imbalance between, say, mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard, and other people (e.g. you) not being alright with it.

It depends on what one defines as balance. I personally prefer a "flexible" engine where you can do unorthodox things with the rules. I was actually reading an old Fanatic Magazine article the other day about adding more action-types for Necromunda, be it flamers being allowed to start fires, being able to prime grenades with a delayed fuse (so they explode at the end of your *next* turn), taunting enemy gangers, dragging objects (whether a crate or another Ganger) while moving backwards, attempting a "jury-rigged reload" (putting a lighter under your lasgun), or "emptying your weapon" (aka full dakkadakkadakka, but automatically fail your ammo check).

(The article is here, for those interested: http://www.specialist-arms.com/fanatic/81sa.pdf )

You know, allowing more nuance beyond "I move and shoot." Even if those specific options wouldn't apply at 40k-scale, the same principal applies.

Martel732 wrote:
40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

You need to forge the narative harder man. When your marines get wiped in a single round of shooting come in like this....BUT THE BULLETS ALL BOUNCED OFF THE MIGHTY POWER ARMOR and the sargent burned the entire heretical cultist horde with a single pass - then in a single bound with his jump pack he stood face to face with the aspiring champion on korne. That's how you forge the narrative dude. Ignore the games rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:40K hasn't been a narrative game in a long time, if ever. The narrative can't be reproduced on the table top, unlike say a Napoleonics game or a well-made WW II game.

I disagree with this point, actually, mostly because narrative is "what you make of it." Some people saying 5 Space Marines smashing an entire army is narrative and fluffy, others say that 5 Space Marines should be defeated by one Imperial Guard colonel, and both happen in the books. So I think there's space in the narrative for the events that happen in the tabletop to fit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

 Galas wrote:

I believe a balance can be made respecting options. You can have rules like Grey Knights having bonus agaisn't daemons, things like the "For Cadia" Stratagem, or Chaos Space Marines having bonus agaisn't Loyalists Marines or the Imperium. Just make all of those bonuses "Narrative play only".
I love the Fantasy Giant and Steam Tank. Balance wise they sucked, and they where a pain in the ass to balance because how random the Giant was. But wow, whas it flavourfull and fun. And I can accept a level of imbalance for a good amount of options and making factions different. Theres a reason why I play Warhammer and not Infinity or Warmachine. But that level of imbalance should be as minimun as possible respecting the feel and fluff of the factions as much as possible. (This for Matched play, in Narrative play they can go bonkers and give factions unbalanced but ultra fun and narrative rules, bonuses and even units)

Are you talking about two different games now, though?

It sounds like your "narrative" game is drastically different from your "matched play" game - different enough that it deserves its own rulebook and perhaps version of the codex.

Not everyone has time to switch, then build, then paint.

Plus you got people who won't switch out of principle. That's how you end up with the few people that get lucky on occasion. Did you know in 6th/7th, there was a topping list at one point that used 3 9-man squads of Rubric Marines and Ahriman? Nobody used it as proof that Rubric Marines were good, and like I predicted it fell to the side as just one of those odd things that happen on occasion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

Is the Samurai Master that spend his last years on the forest less competitive that the young and brave Samurai that doesn't even know what the pointy side of a katana is but is willing to have a fight with anyone?

A true competitive gamer knows that not every competition is worth it.

Right, not everyone has time to switch, build and paint.

They have other priorities, and that's okay - because winning at 40k has exactly as much priority as you give it. It's a hobby!

But, my question is: why do people (like me!) who make it less of a priority get upset when people who make it a much higher priority beat the tar out of them?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The narrative means nothing to me, though. Therefore, I find that to be an unacceptable reason for IG and Inquisition to not be balanced.

Right, so hence my question:

Should 40k be "Balanced" in the sense that mono-whatever is "fair" compared to mono-other whatever?

Or should 40k stay a narrative game?

I am trying to get to the crux of the "argument" between competitive and narrative players, because I have heard people say there's no tension there but I think there is - and the evidence is some people being alright with the imbalance between, say, mono-Inquisition and mono-Imperial Guard, and other people (e.g. you) not being alright with it.

It depends on what one defines as balance. I personally prefer a "flexible" engine where you can do unorthodox things with the rules. I was actually reading an old Fanatic Magazine article the other day about adding more action-types for Necromunda, be it flamers being allowed to start fires, being able to prime grenades with a delayed fuse (so they explode at the end of your *next* turn), taunting enemy gangers, dragging objects (whether a crate or another Ganger) while moving backwards, attempting a "jury-rigged reload" (putting a lighter under your lasgun), or "emptying your weapon" (aka full dakkadakkadakka, but automatically fail your ammo check).

(The article is here, for those interested: http://www.specialist-arms.com/fanatic/81sa.pdf )

You know, allowing more nuance beyond "I move and shoot." Even if those specific options wouldn't apply at 40k-scale, the same principal applies.

I tend to agree with you - but such flexibility requires a DM, surely? Wouldn't a rigid, DM-less wargame have trouble covering every conceivable scenario?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh, no, because that's not a skill to switch. It's a monetary issue.

It is for some people, that's true and unfortunate. But presumably there is a class of people who could, conceivably afford it, but don't care enough for whatever reason. Surely those people are less competitive than the army-hoppers that jump armies every time a new one is on top?

Is the Samurai Master that spend his last years on the forest less competitive that the young and brave Samurai that doesn't even know what the pointy side of a katana is but is willing to have a fight with anyone?

A true competitive gamer knows that not every competition is worth it.

Yes, I see your point, and it's a good one.

We can move the discussion away from that, then, to "why do people get upset when they get beaten by a stronger army, if they aren't competitive enough to play the stronger army themselves?"