Battle at Blobs ParkHomeRegisterLog in
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
» Challenge accepted!!
Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:48 am by aroy

» club night/ just hanging
Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:05 pm by ginger

» Highlander 40k 1850 tournament at Flashback Comics
Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:36 pm by MaddMike6

» Highlander 40k format
Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:54 pm by MaddMike6

» going to outside the box this weekend
Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:21 am by scooter

» Warhammer Quest - Board Game
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:09 pm by scooter

» going to NOVA
Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:02 pm by scooter

» 2014 BFS GT Oct 10-12 40KGT/X-WING/Malifaux Nyack NY
Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:39 pm by pissclams

» fantasy game at Dropzone on saturday
Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:05 am by scooter


Share | 
 

 Balancing 40k

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
AuthorMessage
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Balancing 40k   Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:52 pm

ok all of us vett 40k player know that there are balancing issue in 40k so here the question how do we level the playing field so that tau has as fare a shot at winning as IG??????
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:52 pm

i have some ideas but i was wonder if any one else had some thoughts
Back to top Go down
joko12

avatar

Posts : 1084
Join date : 2009-09-25
Age : 30
Location : Glen Burnie Battle Bunker

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:37 pm

Limit the number of tanks and valks/vendhettas in an army. So Basically just limit the number of mech units in the guard armies. Take it back to the good old days when guard were all about mass units of men!!! haha
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:59 pm

joko12 wrote:
Limit the number of tanks and valks/vendhettas in an army. So Basically just limit the number of mech units in the guard armies. Take it back to the good old days when guard were all about mass units of men!!! haha

that is exacly what i was going to do to IG, i feel if you take away there ability to squadron, heavy and medium , they would no longer be game breaking
Back to top Go down
ginger

avatar

Posts : 187
Join date : 2009-09-19
Age : 23
Location : glen burnie bunker

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:03 am

i dont think it be far to single out an army...i would say make a tourny wear u can only have 3 vehicals that are none walkers or somthin
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:31 am

ginger wrote:
i dont think it be far to single out an army...i would say make a tourny wear u can only have 3 vehicals that are none walkers or somthin


what about dedicated transports? i might say no more than 6 vehicles with 12 or above?
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:34 am

i wanted to address nob biker, yes i know i own them, and chaos too, i was thinking about making it so nob bikers can't be taken as troops? or we could put a point limit on units, as in no on forced org slot may be more than 300 pionts
Back to top Go down
mikhaila



Posts : 482
Join date : 2009-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:44 am

What's the context of this project? For a tournament or league? Casual play somewhere, or just general discussion?
Back to top Go down
joko12

avatar

Posts : 1084
Join date : 2009-09-25
Age : 30
Location : Glen Burnie Battle Bunker

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:55 am

I think nob bikers is ok as long as they all can't be unique that is when it starts getting a little crazy

and yeah theidea where you can only have 3 mechs is a good idea

and same thing no more then 6 12 armor things is a great idea
Back to top Go down
artax

avatar

Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-03-30

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:05 am

Attempting to "balance" out 40k is a terrible idea entirely.

Just because one feels that a certain army should fare better against another, it should not warrant a gaming community attempting to limit what can, should, would be fielded within a Codex.

Instead of trying to hamstring armies, why not, I don't know, adapt against them?

This sounds vaguely like the sour grapes article posted on BoLS.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/04/wargaming-askew-will-original.html
Back to top Go down
Jonny

avatar

Posts : 155
Join date : 2009-08-16
Age : 24
Location : Glen Burnie

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:34 am

I don't know how well the balance in 40k is, but I know that in their other two game systems (Fantasy and WOTR), some armies can't just..... adapt. When playing some armies against others (Orcs and Goblins against Daemons, anything against Scooters Elves, etc.), theres no way, other than if the Orc player rolled nothing but 6s and the Daemon player rolled nothing but 1s, for one of those armies to win. Perhaps in 40k, and army can beat any other army with an all-comers list, but maybe not, I don't know.
Back to top Go down
scooter

avatar

Posts : 2088
Join date : 2009-08-12
Age : 35
Location : Glen burnie

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:58 am

Quote :
I don't know how well the balance in 40k is, but I know that in their other two game systems (Fantasy and WOTR), some armies can't just..... adapt. When playing some armies against others (Orcs and Goblins against Daemons, anything against Scooters Elves, etc.), theres no way, other than if the Orc player rolled nothing but 6s and the Daemon player rolled nothing but 1s, for one of those armies to win. Perhaps in 40k, and army can beat any other army with an all-comers list, but maybe not, I don't know.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and all that crap. I look at it like this WOTR is a broken game but it can be fixed with a couple of rules that make it batter. Fantasy isn't broken after playing daemons allot I've noticed something about them. Look at what everyone calls there treats. Horrors charge them they will die and you will win. Flamers same thing at WS 2 they really cant hurt you in combat. Most of our tournaments now don't allow special char. in my mind a good thing. Blood thrusters cannons bolt throwers can do the job.
I'm defiantly on the Daemons are to strong band wagon but GW isn't going to fix it so instead of complaining about them to each other. Let’s talk about how to bet them.

As for 40k I really wouldn't know how to go about fixing a system with only a few problems. IG all tank and valc lists, mass melta, nobb bikers, Jaws of the world wolf or whatever it's called. With so few broken things is it worth it? Now you have blood angles and everyone is saying there the new "GAY." Whatever you all decide on I think it's worth a shot but not at the cost of pissing people off. Just to let you all know out of 130 people at Adepticon 80 people easy were playing IG and all 80 were playing pretty much the same list. That alone tells me there is something wrong with 40k. O and the rest were space wolves.

Just a thought.

_________________
Nicholas A Walters AKA Scooter
Glen Burnie BAttle bunker Councle
Back to top Go down
Baneon

avatar

Posts : 415
Join date : 2009-09-16
Age : 40
Location : Pasadena, MD

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:30 am

How about just playing the game? Artificially adjusting anything can and often does lead to other problems and I don't think it's worth it.
Back to top Go down
Gamesmith

avatar

Posts : 88
Join date : 2009-11-23

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:38 am

artax wrote:
Attempting to "balance" out 40k is a terrible idea entirely.

Just because one feels that a certain army should fare better against another, it should not warrant a gaming community attempting to limit what can, should, would be fielded within a Codex.

Instead of trying to hamstring armies, why not, I don't know, adapt against them?

This sounds vaguely like the sour grapes article posted on BoLS.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/04/wargaming-askew-will-original.html

Artax is right. How can you balance an army? Restrictions on unit types, comp? That is crazy talk. People need to learn how to play. When Iron Warriors were raping everyone under the sun in 3rd edition, and Eldar warwalkers with starcannons did the same, no one talked about balancing armies then. You have to adapt and change your strategies.
Back to top Go down
joko12

avatar

Posts : 1084
Join date : 2009-09-25
Age : 30
Location : Glen Burnie Battle Bunker

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:45 am

I don't see why its a problem to play a comp tournament though so why not do that then, and include comp in the over all score that way there are no supper cheese armies!!!
Back to top Go down
Jonny

avatar

Posts : 155
Join date : 2009-08-16
Age : 24
Location : Glen Burnie

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:47 am

joko12 wrote:
I don't see why its a problem to play a comp tournament though so why not do that then, and include comp in the over all score that way there are no supper cheese armies!!!

It has been proven by people (like Scooter), that even with comp scores, it doesn't remove the super cheese. Instead it just gives people guidelines in which to break their army in.
Back to top Go down
Jonny

avatar

Posts : 155
Join date : 2009-08-16
Age : 24
Location : Glen Burnie

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:56 am

scooter wrote:
I'm defiantly on the Daemons are to strong band wagon but GW isn't going to fix it so instead of complaining about them to each other. Let’s talk about how to bet them.

That could be said for a "balanced" army, but there are quite a few armies that just can't compete.

Orcs, the one I always talk about since it’s the army I played, are one of those armies. They were designed when wounds weren't the only part of combat res that mattered, so they don't have the capability to do 20 wounds in a combat and roflstomp-ezmode win combats like units like the Black Guard can.

They have very average combat abilities. The basic Orc has 1 or 2 attacks at S 3 (4 in the first round of combat). A unit of that charging into horrors just won't be enough to kill it. It fact it won't even come close. Instead, it will just let them blast you with AOE spells.

In regards to the flamers, they have WS 2, S 5 (I think), and 2 attacks, which is more than capable to handle the weak units that Orcs can throw at them. You say just to charge them, buy being skirmishers that can move and fire, they can make use of terrain to avoid some of your units, and the fast units (Goblin Light Cavalry), don't have a chance against the Flamers. Also, WS 2 isn't that bad seeing how they will still hit on 4s against most units.

Lastly the Bloodthirster. Seeing how it can fly, it can make use to avoid the bolt throwers, and unlike the Flamers that can run away from all the units attacking it, the bolt throwers can chase down the Bloodthirster to get shots on it.
Back to top Go down
avatar8481



Posts : 733
Join date : 2009-08-13
Age : 36
Location : Games and Stuff

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:00 am

The only comp tournament that would be even marginally interesting is one in which the TO required people to play the same army. And not like, "I tried to change the game b/c I can't figure out how to beat IG," but like, "Here's your 1000 point marine list, bring it" and everybody plays literally the same list. Then the winner is pure generalship and dice.

Furthermore, in practice the game is balanced around the point system. That's why the point system works. Any unit can break the game, but if it's good it should cost more (or a lot more). Any complaint about "Guard is too good, Space Wolves were mean to me..." or whatever is just you saying, "the units are too cheap for what they do (relative to the whole ecology of the game system)".

The only 'balancing' mechanism that I'd even accept as somewhat legitimate is to manually re-point things, not eliminating rules or units from the game or enforcing some artificial force-org chart..

But more to the point: if somebody is so irritated by the way 40k plays/is balanced/corporate policy of GW or any complaint there are lots of other options. But given my experience watching lots of different people play lots of different games the issues are at their core ALWAYS about the player and their attitude and NEVER ultimately about the game system as such.
Back to top Go down
Martin

avatar

Posts : 558
Join date : 2009-08-12

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:04 am

Majority of people seem to be playing the same army right now. That's balance.

When did you start caring about minorities?
Back to top Go down
http://martianempire.blogspot.com/
Lincoln

avatar

Posts : 793
Join date : 2009-08-12
Location : Columbia, MD

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:12 am

40k players just love to whine. If you can't beat guard, go buy a Valkyrie. Someday someone will beat you and you will realize that even with Guard you'll still lose.

Play the army you want to play, win lose or draw it's gonna be fun. If you want a tournament army I'd suggest you make sure you are a good enough player to jump into the tournament scene (play a few proxy games) then go buy the army you need to play to win tournaments. If that's IG, good. If that's SW, good. If that's BA, good. If that's new Nids, good.


Wow I just listed 4 really good armies you could win a tournament with... sounds balanced enough to me.

(My guess is we'll be adding Necrons to the list when their book re-releases soon.)
Back to top Go down
avatar8481



Posts : 733
Join date : 2009-08-13
Age : 36
Location : Games and Stuff

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:12 am

actually rumors are the next books are dark eldar and grey knights.
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:37 am

Lincoln wrote:
40k players just love to whine. If you can't beat guard, go buy a Valkyrie. Someday someone will beat you and you will realize that even with Guard you'll still lose.

Play the army you want to play, win lose or draw it's gonna be fun. If you want a tournament army I'd suggest you make sure you are a good enough player to jump into the tournament scene (play a few proxy games) then go buy the army you need to play to win tournaments. If that's IG, good. If that's SW, good. If that's BA, good. If that's new Nids, good.


Wow I just listed 4 really good armies you could win a tournament with... sounds balanced enough to me.

(My guess is we'll be adding Necrons to the list when their book re-releases soon.)

lincon being a fantasy player your numb to unbalanced gaming
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:38 am

avatar8481 wrote:
The only comp tournament that would be even marginally interesting is one in which the TO required people to play the same army. And not like, "I tried to change the game b/c I can't figure out how to beat IG," but like, "Here's your 1000 point marine list, bring it" and everybody plays literally the same list. Then the winner is pure generalship and dice.

Furthermore, in practice the game is balanced around the point system. That's why the point system works. Any unit can break the game, but if it's good it should cost more (or a lot more). Any complaint about "Guard is too good, Space Wolves were mean to me..." or whatever is just you saying, "the units are too cheap for what they do (relative to the whole ecology of the game system)".

The only 'balancing' mechanism that I'd even accept as somewhat legitimate is to manually re-point things, not eliminating rules or units from the game or enforcing some artificial force-org chart..

But more to the point: if somebody is so irritated by the way 40k plays/is balanced/corporate policy of GW or any complaint there are lots of other options. But given my experience watching lots of different people play lots of different games the issues are at their core ALWAYS about the player and their attitude and NEVER ultimately about the game system as such.

i had considered doing point tiers
Back to top Go down
avatar8481



Posts : 733
Join date : 2009-08-13
Age : 36
Location : Games and Stuff

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:40 am

explain tiers, because what I meant was just as simple as saying "all tanks are 100 points more expensive".
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:44 am

this is just for an example but
ig 1500
orks 1600
space woleve 1650
tau 1850
ect.....
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:44 am

i think the best way to do it is rules tweeks but thats just me
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:49 am

and as for you people complaining, i am willing to bet you have guard armies
Back to top Go down
joko12

avatar

Posts : 1084
Join date : 2009-09-25
Age : 30
Location : Glen Burnie Battle Bunker

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:13 pm

Jonny wrote:
scooter wrote:
I'm defiantly on the Daemons are to strong band wagon but GW isn't going to fix it so instead of complaining about them to each other. Let’s talk about how to bet them.

That could be said for a "balanced" army, but there are quite a few armies that just can't compete.

Orcs, the one I always talk about since it’s the army I played, are one of those armies. They were designed when wounds weren't the only part of combat res that mattered, so they don't have the capability to do 20 wounds in a combat and roflstomp-ezmode win combats like units like the Black Guard can.

They have very average combat abilities. The basic Orc has 1 or 2 attacks at S 3 (4 in the first round of combat). A unit of that charging into horrors just won't be enough to kill it. It fact it won't even come close. Instead, it will just let them blast you with AOE spells.

In regards to the flamers, they have WS 2, S 5 (I think), and 2 attacks, which is more than capable to handle the weak units that Orcs can throw at them. You say just to charge them, buy being skirmishers that can move and fire, they can make use of terrain to avoid some of your units, and the fast units (Goblin Light Cavalry), don't have a chance against the Flamers. Also, WS 2 isn't that bad seeing how they will still hit on 4s against most units.

Lastly the Bloodthirster. Seeing how it can fly, it can make use to avoid the bolt throwers, and unlike the Flamers that can run away from all the units attacking it, the bolt throwers can chase down the Bloodthirster to get shots on it.

I have won two tournaments with my orcs and goblins since daemons have been out, and just recently I beat Lincoln and actually got a big M against him with my orcs and gobbo list. I actually think orcs and goblins have some really awesome broken and cheese things in their army you just have to use it right.

Like spells where your 6's count as 1's is amazing. And taking tons of bolt throwers and fanatics along with giants is a great army. Also if you take a block of 40 night gobbos and put the bsb where all night goblins are stubborn then you will hold people in combat all day long for your giants to flank them. Its just a thought don't stop playing orcs and gobblins they are a great army.

Back to 40k the tier thing is a good idea just have to figure out what armies belong in what tiers. But I still think if you just had a tournament where the max vehicals a person could take with armor 12 is 3 then it would be a much more balanced game.
Back to top Go down
avatar8481



Posts : 733
Join date : 2009-08-13
Age : 36
Location : Games and Stuff

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:15 pm

Yeah, but people can't even agree on how the armies would rank, so who's to say that you're right. Or rather, that your tiers don't reflect ONLY your own bias about what is or isn't powerful.

Ultimately I'm saying, Play the game as designed or play a different game, life's too short to dick around with the rules and 'balance' for a game just so you can wave your miniature toy dick around and feel good about yourself.
Back to top Go down
ginger

avatar

Posts : 187
Join date : 2009-09-19
Age : 23
Location : glen burnie bunker

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:47 pm

well people have played tournys where u cant take any special characters or u have to take one...its kinda the same idea
Back to top Go down
Lincoln

avatar

Posts : 793
Join date : 2009-08-12
Location : Columbia, MD

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:10 pm

Brent wrote:
Lincoln wrote:
40k players just love to whine. If you can't beat guard, go buy a Valkyrie. Someday someone will beat you and you will realize that even with Guard you'll still lose.

Play the army you want to play, win lose or draw it's gonna be fun. If you want a tournament army I'd suggest you make sure you are a good enough player to jump into the tournament scene (play a few proxy games) then go buy the army you need to play to win tournaments. If that's IG, good. If that's SW, good. If that's BA, good. If that's new Nids, good.


Wow I just listed 4 really good armies you could win a tournament with... sounds balanced enough to me.

(My guess is we'll be adding Necrons to the list when their book re-releases soon.)

lincon being a fantasy player your numb to unbalanced gaming

Spoken from a guy who has played 1 fantasy army and like 4 games in his lifetime. LOL that is funny. Ok, I am going to play in a 40k tournament and it will be funny when someone other than Guard wins, even funnier when it's a "fantasy" player.
Back to top Go down
scooter

avatar

Posts : 2088
Join date : 2009-08-12
Age : 35
Location : Glen burnie

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:16 pm

Quote :
It has been proven by people (like Scooter), that even with comp scores, it doesn't remove the super cheese. Instead it just gives people guidelines in which to break their army in.

Let’s not forget the point of playing in a tournament is to win period. It's not to have fun; fun is a side note of the tournament. So when a person gives me a comp style tournament I need to make the best list I can make in order to win. You can't fault anyone for that. Comp dose help in stopping people from bringing every "GAY" Thing in there army so in that aspect it's a good idea. The problem with comp is balancing the system. Making sure all armies have been looked at and balancing all of them.

Quote :
In regards to the flamers, they have WS 2, S 5 (I think), and 2 attacks, which is more than capable to handle the weak units that Orcs can throw at them. You say just to charge them, buy being skirmishers that can move and fire, they can make use of terrain to avoid some of your units, and the fast units (Goblin Light Cavalry), don't have a chance against the Flamers. Also, WS 2 isn't that bad seeing how they will still hit on 4s against most units.

10 spider riders done next question.

Quote :
Lastly the Bloodthirster. Seeing how it can fly, it can make use to avoid the bolt throwers, and unlike the Flamers that can run away from all the units attacking it, the bolt throwers can chase down the Bloodthirster to get shots on it.

Deployment of terrain and units can solve this. Is there anything else?

Quote :
They have very average combat abilities. The basic Orc has 1 or 2 attacks at S 3 (4 in the first round of combat). A unit of that charging into horrors just won't be enough to kill it. It fact it won't even come close. Instead, it will just let them blast you with AOE spells.

All you have to do is bring them down to 15 horrors and no more spelly spell next.

_________________
Nicholas A Walters AKA Scooter
Glen Burnie BAttle bunker Councle
Back to top Go down
Gramps



Posts : 212
Join date : 2010-01-25
Age : 33
Location : White Marsh, MD

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:17 pm

The only thing I consider broken in any army is having more then one melta in a 5 man squad of imp guard.

That being said, I think tau are perfectly capable of competing against other armies, even IG.

I challenge any IG player to bring their most cheese monkey list and I'll bring my Tau.
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:20 pm

avatar8481 wrote:
Yeah, but people can't even agree on how the armies would rank, so who's to say that you're right. Or rather, that your tiers don't reflect ONLY your own bias about what is or isn't powerful.

Ultimately I'm saying, Play the game as designed or play a different game, life's too short to dick around with the rules and 'balance' for a game just so you can wave your miniature toy dick around and feel good about yourself.


i am not willing to abandon 40k just yet
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:22 pm

Lincoln wrote:
Brent wrote:
Lincoln wrote:
40k players just love to whine. If you can't beat guard, go buy a Valkyrie. Someday someone will beat you and you will realize that even with Guard you'll still lose.

Play the army you want to play, win lose or draw it's gonna be fun. If you want a tournament army I'd suggest you make sure you are a good enough player to jump into the tournament scene (play a few proxy games) then go buy the army you need to play to win tournaments. If that's IG, good. If that's SW, good. If that's BA, good. If that's new Nids, good.


Wow I just listed 4 really good armies you could win a tournament with... sounds balanced enough to me.

(My guess is we'll be adding Necrons to the list when their book re-releases soon.)

lincon being a fantasy player your numb to unbalanced gaming

Spoken from a guy who has played 1 fantasy army and like 4 games in his lifetime. LOL that is funny. Ok, I am going to play in a 40k tournament and it will be funny when someone other than Guard wins, even funnier when it's a "fantasy" player.

some times demons don't win it doesn't mean they don't have a statistically unfair advantage
Back to top Go down
avatar8481



Posts : 733
Join date : 2009-08-13
Age : 36
Location : Games and Stuff

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:43 pm

Quote :
i am not willing to abandon 40k just yet

I'm not saying you abandon it, I'm suggesting you play it cognizant of its faults and flaws and love it in spite of itself. Like a 3-legged puppy. Not out of some misguided attempt to fix it according your own prejudices.

Quote :
some times demons don't win it doesn't mean they don't have a statistically unfair advantage

I thought you were an "every man for himself" nihilist. Some people have a statistically unfair advantage to beat you silly because they're just better players than you, or smarter, or better looking. But you play inside the system that's given to you. Trying to !@#$ about how unfair the system is at best churlish and at worst rage-inducing in the people trying to enjoy themselves (see your thread on painting if you have any doubts about how people react to little-baby whining.)
Back to top Go down
Gamesmith

avatar

Posts : 88
Join date : 2009-11-23

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:54 pm

Is this discussion for something that may be implemented in the Inner circle or is this just for the sake of discussion?

The problem that the so called whiners of 40k face is what Lincoln touched on. This edition of 40k changed the landscape of 40k. Armies that were written in 3rd through 4th edition suffer to compete with armies written for 5th edition. Orks are the exception to this. Those older army books , even with FAQs, struggle to compete with the so called cheese armies. Lincoln mentioned 4 codex books that came out recently.

If you look at the books as a collective within the scope of 5th edition, they all are balanced. The problem you have is when those 5th specific books are commingling with 3rd through 4th books. Then unbalancing happens. Hobby Breaker aka Vaden, won his game on reputation and fear of his list. Quitter could have applied tactics and strategy to win the game.

A lot of people had rocks to Vadens scissors that day. They just didn't play him. That army list is not the end all be all and can and has been beaten. Quitter used a 5th edition codex. His list was considered a strong list. The codex books that are older suffer greatly while the updated ones flourish. People must realize that. Trying to change rules and implement tiers is hogwash. Learn to play better. Learn to play with an army list that is NOT up to date, or play with one that is current that can compete with the newer books.

Even some older books can compete, Daemon hunters withstanding. It's like natural selection. Survival of the fittest. 40K has this with the new over taking the old. 40K needed some fixing. GW has started with 5th edition. They then started releasing books written for that edition. Each book that has come out has been stronger than the last incarnation except Orks, and that is a good sign that they realize that there is a problem. We have to be patient as GW works to update these other books and have them be competitive as SW, NIDS, IG, BA, SM.
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:54 pm

avatar8481 wrote:
Quote :
i am not willing to abandon 40k just yet

I'm not saying you abandon it, I'm suggesting you play it cognizant of its faults and flaws and love it in spite of itself. Like a 3-legged puppy. Not out of some misguided attempt to fix it according your own prejudices.

Quote :
some times demons don't win it doesn't mean they don't have a statistically unfair advantage

I thought you were an "every man for himself" nihilist. Some people have a statistically unfair advantage to beat you silly because they're just better players than you, or smarter, or better looking. But you play inside the system that's given to you. Trying to !@#$ about how unfair the system is at best churlish and at worst rage-inducing in the people trying to enjoy themselves (see your thread on painting if you have any doubts about how people react to little-baby whining.)

i stand by my words sir, and once again if people don't want to play in a comp torny they don't have to but some other more casual player have a desire to play in compt events
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:01 pm

Gamesmith wrote:
Is this discussion for something that may be implemented in the Inner circle or is this just for the sake of discussion?

The problem that the so called whiners of 40k face is what Lincoln touched on. This edition of 40k changed the landscape of 40k. Armies that were written in 3rd through 4th edition suffer to compete with armies written for 5th edition. Orks are the exception to this. Those older army books , even with FAQs, struggle to compete with the so called cheese armies. Lincoln mentioned 4 codex books that came out recently.

If you look at the books as a collective within the scope of 5th edition, they all are balanced. The problem you have is when those 5th specific books are commingling with 3rd through 4th books. Then unbalancing happens. Hobby Breaker aka Vaden, won his game on reputation and fear of his list. Quitter could have applied tactics and strategy to win the game.

A lot of people had rocks to Vadens scissors that day. They just didn't play him. That army list is not the end all be all and can and has been beaten. Quitter used a 5th edition codex. His list was considered a strong list. The codex books that are older suffer greatly while the updated ones flourish. People must realize that. Trying to change rules and implement tiers is hogwash. Learn to play better. Learn to play with an army list that is NOT up to date, or play with one that is current that can compete with the newer books.

Even some older books can compete, Daemon hunters withstanding. It's like natural selection. Survival of the fittest. 40K has this with the new over taking the old. 40K needed some fixing. GW has started with 5th edition. They then started releasing books written for that edition. Each book that has come out has been stronger than the last incarnation except Orks, and that is a good sign that they realize that there is a problem. We have to be patient as GW works to update these other books and have them be competitive as SW, NIDS, IG, BA, SM.

well if your honestly going to sit there and tell me IG doesn't have an unfair advantage over all the other books 3rd 4th or 5th, you should know your making your self sound like an ass, and furthermore the problem is that many build themed builds and unit option are so out shined by other options in the books the list get narrowed down to 2 or 3 variations maybe per book then torneys get vary repetitive, so if you wanna keep playing the same guard, chaos, ect.... lists feel free but since my job here is to create new and interesting events that create interest and challenge player to think in new and creative ways i will continue to explore ways of shaking up the torny scene however i can
Back to top Go down
Jonny

avatar

Posts : 155
Join date : 2009-08-16
Age : 24
Location : Glen Burnie

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:14 pm

Gamesmith wrote:
Even some older books can compete, Daemon hunters withstanding. It's like natural selection. Survival of the fittest. 40K has this with the new over taking the old. 40K needed some fixing. GW has started with 5th edition. They then started releasing books written for that edition. Each book that has come out has been stronger than the last incarnation except Orks, and that is a good sign that they realize that there is a problem. We have to be patient as GW works to update these other books and have them be competitive as SW, NIDS, IG, BA, SM.

Am I the only one that sees increasing the power of armies as a bad thing? If done simultaneously, it can yield positive results. Otherwise, the process will take years, and those books released last will have to suffer for all that time being underpowered. Instead of making armies stronger, GW should focus on making all the armies on-par with each other, and release new units/models.


Last edited by Jonny on Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Jonny

avatar

Posts : 155
Join date : 2009-08-16
Age : 24
Location : Glen Burnie

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:23 pm

scooter wrote:
Quote :
It has been proven by people (like Scooter), that even with comp scores, it doesn't remove the super cheese. Instead it just gives people guidelines in which to break their army in.

Let’s not forget the point of playing in a tournament is to win period. It's not to have fun; fun is a side note of the tournament. So when a person gives me a comp style tournament I need to make the best list I can make in order to win. You can't fault anyone for that. Comp dose help in stopping people from bringing every "GAY" Thing in there army so in that aspect it's a good idea. The problem with comp is balancing the system. Making sure all armies have been looked at and balancing all of them.

There is nothing wrong with playing to win, and in fact, bringing the most competitive list seems logical in a tournament environment. The only problem is that comp systems don't really offer a fix to the imbalance problems, at least none that I've seen.

Quote :
Quote :
In regards to the flamers, they have WS 2, S 5 (I think), and 2 attacks, which is more than capable to handle the weak units that Orcs can throw at them. You say just to charge them, buy being skirmishers that can move and fire, they can make use of terrain to avoid some of your units, and the fast units (Goblin Light Cavalry), don't have a chance against the Flamers. Also, WS 2 isn't that bad seeing how they will still hit on 4s against most units.

10 spider riders done next question.

You obviously have never seen what goblins do. If you charge those into the flamers (supposing you passed your fear test), you will be able to have a maximum of 8 models in combat. With those 8 models, you will have 8 WS 2 S 4 attacks, and 8 WS 3 S 3 attacks. To think that they will kill 6 models with 2 wounds and a 4+ save is ridiculous. Then, when the Flamers attack back, they will have 2 attacks each, that hit on 4s and kill on 2s.

Quote :
Quote :
Lastly the Bloodthirster. Seeing how it can fly, it can make use to avoid the bolt throwers, and unlike the Flamers that can run away from all the units attacking it, the bolt throwers can chase down the Bloodthirster to get shots on it.

Deployment of terrain and units can solve this. Is there anything else?

Not every table will be designed in favor of the Orc player. Unless they're playing on an open field, the Bloodthirster will have terrain to hide behind. Also, the Daemons have other things in their army to take out the bolt throwers.

Quote :
Quote :
They have very average combat abilities. The basic Orc has 1 or 2 attacks at S 3 (4 in the first round of combat). A unit of that charging into horrors just won't be enough to kill it. It fact it won't even come close. Instead, it will just let them blast you with AOE spells.

All you have to do is bring them down to 15 horrors and no more spelly spell next.

Too bad Orcs can't kill 21 models in one combat phase against T 3 models with a 4+ save.
Back to top Go down
Martin

avatar

Posts : 558
Join date : 2009-08-12

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:26 pm

I think they just need to do an faq for each book when the new edition comes out. errata all the language that doesn't apply anymore and perhaps some points tweaks but nothing new. Print the army list sections in White Dwarf like they used to and say happy new year.
Back to top Go down
http://martianempire.blogspot.com/
Baneon

avatar

Posts : 415
Join date : 2009-09-16
Age : 40
Location : Pasadena, MD

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:47 pm

Seriously stuff like this is just starting to really Piss the F! out of me. Between the whining and bitching about painting requirements and in both cases it's come from the same source. Explain that to me? Your honestly going to sit there and !@#$ about 40k balance and your freaking playing a Nob Biker list? Really? Step up and look in the freaking mirror, that face staring back at you is the gd problem. Learn to adjust or just don't play. Stop trying to artificially create a global issue so you can fix it. And seriously, stop referring back to Fantasy to help bolster your arguement. They are two completely different game systems. The only really non competitive army lists in 40k are Necrons and Tau and that's due to their age and has nothing to do with "OMGZ LETS ALL PANIC ABOUT THE NEW ARMY BOOKS". You could argue that Eldar and Eldar with ball gags aren't competitive but you can have semi-competive lists that either spam attacks or points denial. And yes I play Imperial Guard and you know what I think I've won maybe 3 games against tournament level opponents with them so far and I run 3 Valks/Vends 4-5 chimeras and Hydras and all the good stuff (mech IG), you know why? They have adjusted to deal with the list like you have to do with any type of competitive game out there. You don't see the kids playing MTG whining and trying to 'tier' the newest magic set, they Tech up and find counters and adjust their play style. Just because you've won a tournament doesn't mean you sit back your laurels and get to declare yourself the king of the mountain, there's always something there to knock your ass back down to the bottom to work up again.

So in effect if you aren't playing Tau or Necrons you really don't have any room to !@#$ and complain about tournaments.

/soap box
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

Baneon wrote:
Seriously stuff like this is just starting to really Piss the F! out of me. Between the whining and bitching about painting requirements and in both cases it's come from the same source. Explain that to me? Your honestly going to sit there and !@#$ about 40k balance and your freaking playing a Nob Biker list? Really? Step up and look in the freaking mirror, that face staring back at you is the gd problem. Learn to adjust or just don't play. Stop trying to artificially create a global issue so you can fix it. And seriously, stop referring back to Fantasy to help bolster your arguement. They are two completely different game systems. The only really non competitive army lists in 40k are Necrons and Tau and that's due to their age and has nothing to do with "OMGZ LETS ALL PANIC ABOUT THE NEW ARMY BOOKS". You could argue that Eldar and Eldar with ball gags aren't competitive but you can have semi-competive lists that either spam attacks or points denial. And yes I play Imperial Guard and you know what I think I've won maybe 3 games against tournament level opponents with them so far and I run 3 Valks/Vends 4-5 chimeras and Hydras and all the good stuff (mech IG), you know why? They have adjusted to deal with the list like you have to do with any type of competitive game out there. You don't see the kids playing MTG whining and trying to 'tier' the newest magic set, they Tech up and find counters and adjust their play style. Just because you've won a tournament doesn't mean you sit back your laurels and get to declare yourself the king of the mountain, there's always something there to knock your ass back down to the bottom to work up again.

So in effect if you aren't playing Tau or Necrons you really don't have any room to !@#$ and complain about tournaments.

/soap box

here these are for you, why are all the power gamer so set in there ways, you don't have to play in compt events so back off maybe some people want to run there dark eldar, but you people just cry and whine "i don't want to loose my unfair advantage i don't want to have to write a new list, i hate having fun" we at the inner circle will provide events that address the wants and requests of all the gamers in the area not just you, and some people want to play in events that don't have some d-bag running squadrons of vendettas, that was one of the biggest complaints about the pan cake breakfast, some one who will remain nameless was so aggravated by it that they dropped out of the event, ard boys is ard boys, other events can be about what ever we want to make them about, and if no one sighs up we won't do it again but it may be a huge success and people may love it so chill out and let people play the way they want to



there ultra absorbent since you seem to be having a high flow day


Last edited by Brent on Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:25 pm

i just wish people would not freak out when other people try to explore new ideas, but we as a group are dedicated to running events to adress the desires of all the area gammers, so if you think compt events are a bad idea we will have other events to meet your needs


Last edited by Brent on Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Lincoln

avatar

Posts : 793
Join date : 2009-08-12
Location : Columbia, MD

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:30 pm

Brent wrote:
Gamesmith wrote:
Is this discussion for something that may be implemented in the Inner circle or is this just for the sake of discussion?

The problem that the so called whiners of 40k face is what Lincoln touched on. This edition of 40k changed the landscape of 40k. Armies that were written in 3rd through 4th edition suffer to compete with armies written for 5th edition. Orks are the exception to this. Those older army books , even with FAQs, struggle to compete with the so called cheese armies. Lincoln mentioned 4 codex books that came out recently.

If you look at the books as a collective within the scope of 5th edition, they all are balanced. The problem you have is when those 5th specific books are commingling with 3rd through 4th books. Then unbalancing happens. Hobby Breaker aka Vaden, won his game on reputation and fear of his list. Quitter could have applied tactics and strategy to win the game.

A lot of people had rocks to Vadens scissors that day. They just didn't play him. That army list is not the end all be all and can and has been beaten. Quitter used a 5th edition codex. His list was considered a strong list. The codex books that are older suffer greatly while the updated ones flourish. People must realize that. Trying to change rules and implement tiers is hogwash. Learn to play better. Learn to play with an army list that is NOT up to date, or play with one that is current that can compete with the newer books.

Even some older books can compete, Daemon hunters withstanding. It's like natural selection. Survival of the fittest. 40K has this with the new over taking the old. 40K needed some fixing. GW has started with 5th edition. They then started releasing books written for that edition. Each book that has come out has been stronger than the last incarnation except Orks, and that is a good sign that they realize that there is a problem. We have to be patient as GW works to update these other books and have them be competitive as SW, NIDS, IG, BA, SM.

well if your honestly going to sit there and tell me IG doesn't have an unfair advantage over all the other books 3rd 4th or 5th, you should know your making your self sound like an ass, and furthermore the problem is that many build themed builds and unit option are so out shined by other options in the books the list get narrowed down to 2 or 3 variations maybe per book then torneys get vary repetitive, so if you wanna keep playing the same guard, chaos, ect.... lists feel free but since my job here is to create new and interesting events that create interest and challenge player to think in new and creative ways i will continue to explore ways of shaking up the torny scene however i can

nicely said Brent. I do applaud you for at least trying to do something... if at least only to get a conversation brewing lol!
Back to top Go down
avatar8481



Posts : 733
Join date : 2009-08-13
Age : 36
Location : Games and Stuff

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:48 pm

Quote :
I think they just need to do an faq for each book when the new edition comes out. errata all the language that doesn't apply anymore and perhaps some points tweaks but nothing new. Print the army list sections in White Dwarf like they used to and say happy new year.

This is so far the only constructive advice in this thread. And it's good advice, too bad it's for a company that has it's head so far up it's butt.
Back to top Go down
TimW

avatar

Posts : 186
Join date : 2009-08-15

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:54 pm

Us Tau are doing just fine against IG thank you very much. We don't need any extra points. I challenge any IG player to a standard mission (Annihiliation, Seize Ground or Capture and Control) I will rock you with my Tau.

Smile
Back to top Go down
http://tauofwar.blogspot.com
avatar8481



Posts : 733
Join date : 2009-08-13
Age : 36
Location : Games and Stuff

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:55 pm

Quote :
Us Tau are doing just fine against IG thank you very much. We don't need any extra points. I challenge any IG player to a standard mission (Annihiliation, Seize Ground or Capture and Control) I will rock you with my Tau.

This is true. It's because Tim is good at playing the game.

No difference between codeci is so great that you can't overcome it with being a good general.
Back to top Go down
Brent

avatar

Posts : 472
Join date : 2009-08-14
Age : 34
Location : hidden

PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:30 pm

TimW wrote:
Us Tau are doing just fine against IG thank you very much. We don't need any extra points. I challenge any IG player to a standard mission (Annihiliation, Seize Ground or Capture and Control) I will rock you with my Tau.

Smile

tim i'll play you with my nobs you won't win
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Balancing 40k   

Back to top Go down
 
Balancing 40k
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 8Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Inner Circle Gaming Club Forum :: Inner Circle General :: Inner Circle General Discussion-
Jump to: