PDA

View Full Version : A new idea to promote a better 40k experience



ReveredChaplainDrake
21-02-2009, 09:03
I'm starting to get a little tired of "such-and-such sucks", "such-and-such is cheese", and "is such-and-such powerful" threads, so I thought I'd float a different playstyle concept past the Warseer community to see what kind of reception it gets.

How my system works is it requires each player to come to each game with two armies and a pair of army lists (one for each army) at the same points bracket. You may optionally decide to bring the models necessary to play a number of different points brackets. One player will be the Challenger and will offer a challenge to another player, and the player that accepts the challenge picks one of the Challenger's two different armies. The Challenger then takes the other army and uses that one. From there, they play the game as normal. The tricky part is that both players have to know each other's armies inside and out, but if you play against the same individuals over and over again, they should've learned a little about your army as well. Competitive settings get tougher as it requires you to be familiar with all sorts of armies that you may not use normally but could run into anyway, which make these tournaments actual tests of experience and multi-racial knowledge and not "mah cheez > ur cheez".

The balance is completely reworked as both sides of each game will have their lists written by one player, thus encouraging the Challenger to make both lists as close to equally balanced as possible. For example, I bring 2000 pts of Tyranids and 2000 pts of Chaos Space Marines, both of which have lists that are pre-written by myself, but I put a serious and deliberate power bias on the CSM list. I then use my two lists to challenge my opponent. My opponent sees that the CSM list is more powerful, and thus uses the 2000 pts of CSM, while I will then use the Tyranids and, most likely, get thoroughly stomped.

The principles I expect this to achieve:
1) Balanced lists. Because it's based off the "one cuts the cake, the other gets the first slice" principle, the writer of the lists is encouraged to make the most balanced lists possible, staying away from the extreme, WAAC nonsense with both lists. Thus, if one list is clearly rock and another is clearly scissors, the challenger will then pick rock and grind the opponent to dust.

2) Themed lists. As one player is writing both lists, the internal balance of each codex basically goes out the window, so long as the armies are balanced against one another. A challenger can make their lists of any power level they want, and this should allow for a challenger to offer two themed lists, so long as they are relatively just as powerful as one another.

3) Improved hobby experience. This sort of goes along with theme and balance, and is designed to liberate players from their need to spend exorbitant amounts of time and money working on races and models they hate but that just so happen to have indispensable rules from a gaming perspective. If you can't afford to buy enough Bloodcrushers to spam them, that's fine. As you don't need to load your list with the most powerful models in the book, you can build and paint whatever models you like to paint from that army list. You then adjust the power levels of the other army accordingly to whatever the power level of your favorite things to build and/or paint are.

Modifications:
-Casual: Since most players want to use their own models, what you do is both players pre-write a list from their own codex, and then once they have the lists from their armies, they go to the collection of their opponent and make another army list as balanced as they can based on the list they brought. Once both players have two lists, you take turns being the challenger. This is the ideal system for two hobbyists who know one another and play against each other frequently, as well as for those hobbyists who boast Apocalypse-sized collections.

-Tournament: A player brings two armies, but three sets of lists for each. Each pair of lists is the pair that will be offered by the challenger. The Challengers for each round are randomly selected, but the players who win their first games get to pick whether they want to be challengers or the challenged during their next game (before finding out who they're lined up against, of course). This goes on for three rounds, and each round uses one pair of lists. This is the most competitive setting, and is designed as a test of how much a player knows about all the other armies in the game.

-Challenge: This is for when one long-time player is trying to introduce a player without their own models (or sufficient models) to the hobby. The veteran will always be the challenger, thus the opponent will always have their choice of army. This balances out the fact that the veteran ought to know their two armies inside-out by the fact that they won't know which one they'll be playing with until the inexperienced opponent selects which army they want.

Thoughts? Feedback? Suggestions?

Aegius
21-02-2009, 12:10
I really like the idea behind this, but someone is going to get royally screwed over. In my gaming group, I'm the only one with an army even close to fully painted. All my opponents have armies which are either unpainted, incomplete or proxied. On top of this, I'm the only one that is making any terrain in my group. If we were to attempt this type of play, guess who will be the one lumbered to make the lists and provide the models..........thats right, me. I can see where you are going with the casual side, but again, I'd have to make lists from someone else's collection. As for the tournament side, I'd agree with what you said, as long as everyone in the tournament had to have all the models and army lists. A d6 roll off would determine who would be the challenger.

I like the thought you've put into this, but in my gaming group I would be paying a lot of money for models so that everyone can play. On top of this, I'd be spending all my time painting models that aren't neccissarily models that I'd be using and I'd also be making all the scenery. All my friends would be spending their money on buying nice cars and doing up their houses. In the meantime I'd be living in a rented house with no money to buy food or petrol.

susu.exp
21-02-2009, 13:47
Seems similar to an idea I had for tournaments (and sufferes from the same problem: Not all players would allow others to use their minis):

Everybody brings one army and list. The army is exchanged with the first opponent in the tournament (i.e. youŽll be facing your army for the first game). After this game a break is planned so that players can exchange some ideas on how their armies work.
After that a player gets full points for the games he plays (still using their first round opponents army) and half points for the way the army does (this prevents making it an advantage to underpower the list as much as possible).

v_ol_tron
21-02-2009, 15:21
Very cool idea. This model of gameplay solves a lot of the problems I currently have with the hobby.

Aegius: I agree that the vets would be the ones that have to do the real work to get this to happen, but I personally wouldn't have a problem doing so to encourage cooler games. We're vets, we like the hobby, this hobby usually means a lot of work, but what vet wouldn't want to work a little harder to make it a better game.

This would work well for a store with a league setup. You put your lists up on the wall or wherever and leave a phone#/email. Or set up a night where only vets show up with this kind of setup. This could make for games you wouldn't otherwise see that could be a lot of fun. Imagine showing up with 2 tactically inferior, albeit equal lists with a fluffy/really funny back story; sounds like a lot of fun to me. (grot rebels vs. conscript guard) (nidzilla vs. kanzilla)... The possibilities for dumb are endless.

Obviously this isn't for people who can't handle others touching their models. I can understand not wanting the snot nosed 9yr old sprinting up and down the room with your falcon making star wars sound effects, but amongst other vet players this really shouldn't be a problem.

Awesome idea ReveredChaplainDrake, even if this only works well as a veteran gamers night, that's good enough for me. I'm gonna give this one a shot. :D

samiens
16-03-2009, 02:13
It seems like this is an odd way of dealing with a childish problem. Making lists and knowing howto use them is part of the game- this seems to lessen that. If the reasoning is the cheese culture then the answers lie in tactics, common sense, a sense of the challenge and being an adult- not abitrarilytaking army choice down a peg or two.

Draconian77
16-03-2009, 02:22
It seems like this is an odd way of dealing with a childish problem. Making lists and knowing howto use them is part of the game- this seems to lessen that. If the reasoning is the cheese culture then the answers lie in tactics, common sense, a sense of the challenge and being an adult- not abitrarilytaking army choice down a peg or two.

Now to be fair most cheesy armies tend to be "point and click".

It doesn't take a genius to know how to use Obliterator spam or Nob-Biker lists(or anything in between, it's just not a complex game...)

Assuming that the game is a lot more complicated than I feel it is;
I still don't understand how it could lesson the experience.
Surely the fact that you need to be good with many different types of units and lists will make you a better player and enhance yout gaming experience?

Having said all that, it's still a horrible idea Drake.

Let someone else(well, someone I don't know) touch my models?
Never~going~to~happen.

More to the point I wouldn't feel comfortable using someone elses models either.

Armies should be a personal thing.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
16-03-2009, 02:25
Ooo, I have a better idea:

Stop playing jerks.

Khornate Fireball (Ork)
16-03-2009, 04:21
I forsee the player who made both lists being at a not insignificant advantage, as he or she will know the intricacies of each list, and how the matchup works. It's like if someone hands me a Magic deck I've never played. Even if I get to look through it, I won't know the specifics of playing that deck. I can do well by just being a good Magic player, but I can't, for example, pick up a combo deck I've never used and expect to win much at all.

RichBlake
16-03-2009, 06:08
Sadly this system discriminates "non-cheese" armies (i.e ones lacking cheesey OMG WIN lists).

For example, I've spent the last 8 months settling on a IG list I really like at 1500 points, for the record it is:

Command Squad w/ Standard
3 Heavy Bolters
3 Missile Launchers
3 Lascannons
3 Mortars
1 Command Section w/ 2 Plasma Guns & Medic
2 10 Man Squads
2 10 Man Squads / Plasma Guns
20 Conscripts
Hellhound
Basilisk
Leman Russ
Leman Russ Demolisher

Now, despite the fact there are a whopping 4 plasma guns (gasp) nothing is really repeated and thats quite a balanced list. Under your system I'd not only have to use my finely tuned, balanced and fair list which I've spent time perfecting but I'd have to write ANOTHER list or use another army. Quite frankly if you told me to sit down and write a list other then that one I'd be stumped. Other then cheating (e.g changing 1 plasma gun for a meltagun then going "it's different") I would not be able to write a list I'd feel comfortable with.

It's a nice idea, however it does penalise people who spend ages perfecting balanced lists.

AngryAngel
16-03-2009, 06:47
Ok, the problem here is simply this. Despite how old someone may or may not be, most people tend to behave childish about things. Especially games with any amount of competetive bent to them.

We could all choose to whine a bit less about the broken things around us, as is mostly the case things aren't that bad. I've rarely found a unit, set up to be unavoidable or unsurmountable. Do I find things to be very tough sometimes, sure. Do I hate them ? Yeap, do I complain ? Nope.

You simply need to realize what your in for and try your best against these hated set ups, units or rules. If they are truely broken and being exploited for that reason, this is where being a child comes into play. If your playing a friendly game, and need to cheese out, there is something wrong with you. For you should make an effort to know whom your playing against, and what both are expecting for a fun game.

If both players aren't on the same page, you should find someone more fitting to your wants and play them. If both players wish to cheese out, alls good. It's when one sides refrains for whatever reason and the other does not, that we have issues.

As well, and not to be forgotten endless bemoaning of said cheesy units does nothing but annoy people as well. If its truely broken, then just say your peace, and your reasons and move on. No need to dwell on the negative, we all play the game to have fun.

I actually quite like to dismantle broken units with a more well rounded list, makes me feel good inside. Trick is as well, to be sure the unit or rules in question really are broken and cheese and not just hard for your particular playstyle, which is sometimes the case.

The problems, as is often the case, lie in the people not in the rules. We can pick to not cheese out. However, unless someone stops most people they won't monitor themselves. It's why we need so many laws as a people. We can't be expected to do the right thing, as most people only do so because they fear punishment in one form or another.

The rules and variety in choices of army lists are perfectly fine, if people wish to be adult about it and play a friendly game with one another, keeping in mind what each other find enjoyable.

Very easy, but oh so hard to accomplish all this yes. For those of us who can, like my own gaming group, the rewards are infinite.

ReveredChaplainDrake
16-03-2009, 11:53
I'm going to put up basically a big summary of what I'm seeing.

One of the problems all the opponents of this idea are aiming at is the delusion that real tactics can actually beat cheese. What game are you guys playing, exactly? So you're basically saying that one player has every right to take the most abusive and broken stuff possible, even if the models are terrible, expensive, and/or just plain ugly, and that you could actually beat it with "tactics"? If tactics were such a wonderful part of this game, why is it that the only times I've ever seen Orks lose were all in GW batreps? (It's also the only time I've ever seen them fully painted, for that matter.) Codex creep is real, and "tactics" is a sad joke. Yet why does everybody immediately post that they don't care about cheese, like gleefully facing an uphill battle that you have no chance at winning makes you special or something? Unless you're in the hobby purely for the modeling and painting, then yes, the cheese ought to bother you, especially if you're in this hobby for gaming and at least one other aspect (painting, modeling, converting, fluff...). So what if it's childlike whining to not accept cheese as an immutable facet of the game? At least I'm trying.

Something else I saw was Khornate Fireball's observation that the one who writes both lists is at the inherent advantage. While I would agree with what you put forth, there's also a level of tactical list building versus friendly list building. The way I wrote the original swapping rules is for circumstances that I usually find myself in: playing someone I don't know, and who I'll never play against again. I always write rules under the assumption of blind games because, if you do know your opponent, you can agree to whatever you want because you're actually more likely to reach an agreement. If a player walks in from the other side of the country and is looking for a pick-up-and-play, you're not going to be able to reach an agreement as easily as you would with close friends among your FLGS. Therefore, there need to be stricter rules in place to settle things when you're not going to agree to everything immediately. (I have very little faith in the kindness of the average gamer.)

Another thing that occasionally crops up is the "never-touch-my-models" comment. Not only does this reveal a lot of insecurity revolving around toy soldiers, but if you don't want someone touching your models, fine. Just let them write your list, you write theirs, or both. The whole idea behind this is that both lists are written up such that both players agree that they each have about the same chance of winning, barring average luck and minimal tactical screw-ups. How you choose to go about that goal in practice is entirely up to you and your opponent. The potential-list-swap is simply the most systematic method I have come up with so far. When I say "Thoughts? Feedback? Suggestions?", I really do want to hear if one of you has a better idea on how to meet the goal of mutually-balanced armies, particularly when dealing with opponents whom you don't know.

As for RichBlake, I have no idea what any of that stuff in your list means, nor the context. I'm like one of the only Warseer guys who doesn't play some iteration of IG (well, unless you count Inquisitorial Storm Troopers...) so all I see are the fact that you crammed in 12 Heavy Weapon platforms, 3 fairly potent tanks, and Plasma Guns peppered around. Doesn't look all that weak to me. With a list like you describe, I can see why it works for you. You say a (sarcastic) "whopping 4 Plasma Guns" like it's not a lot, but I beg to differ. I use 4 Plasma Guns in 2000 pts of Chaos Marines all the time, not counting Obliterators, and I'd call that about normal. I can relate to sticking to one list. I don't think that list tailoring is in good form, no matter how cheesed the opponent's list is. However, if you're that attached to your IG, I wouldn't recommend you do anything like this. Just as a clarification though, the lists don't have to be "different" lists. You can mirror match one army against another. In fact, unless the list is all-Bolter loyalist Marines or Necrons, these are often the most tactical matches of all. It's just that most players don't have the models to pull off something like that.

RichBlake
16-03-2009, 12:52
At least I'm trying.

Kudos to you for it! If you came up with a system that I felt only persecuted "cheesy" list writing then I'd totally support it for use against strangers (if you're using cheesy lists against mates your mates soon get bored of playing you). However I just aired my concerns about the system you devised, additionally I think creating a foolproof system would be near impossible, there are so many ingenious fools out there!


When I say "Thoughts? Feedback? Suggestions?", I really do want to hear if one of you has a better idea on how to meet the goal of mutually-balanced armies, particularly when dealing with opponents whom you don't know.

There isn't really any perfect solution tbh. In a local store or gameclub you can ban certain loadouts. This doesn't work in tournaments as well as people have usually paid to specifically to take part and saying "Play to win, but not using this list". However in a "friendly" enviroment a good Club/Store owner will be able to intervene and stop people from constantly using load outs.

After my friend invented/stole the "Cron Cube" a list consisting entirely of 2 Necron Lords with Res Orbs, 2/3 Monoliths and as many warriors as you can buy, there was a spate of glove slap type challenges to beat the list. We all tried and failed miserably, to this day the list is pretty much banned. You can still use it if your opponent agrees, but generally it cannot be used.

In tournament settings I'd have independent judges (who aren't bias and/or ********) marking down armies that consist of certain lists, possibly from a pre-determined list of "bad" lists of varying degrees of cheese (e.g -5 points for Nob Bikers, -3 for Imperial Guard plasma/meltagun spam).



As for RichBlake, I have no idea what any of that stuff in your list means, nor the context. I'm like one of the only Warseer guys who doesn't play some iteration of IG (well, unless you count Inquisitorial Storm Troopers...)
:eek:

You DONT play Imperial Guard?!? :p



so all I see are the fact that you crammed in 12 Heavy Weapon platforms, 3 fairly potent tanks, and Plasma Guns peppered around. Doesn't look all that weak to me. With a list like you describe, I can see why it works for you. You say a (sarcastic) "whopping 4 Plasma Guns" like it's not a lot, but I beg to differ. I use 4 Plasma Guns in 2000 pts of Chaos Marines all the time, not counting Obliterators, and I'd call that about normal.


To be fair I'm thinking of taking out the Mortars, because frankly they suck a bit is fired out of LoS and if fired in LoS it sort of defeats the object of taking them.

I wont say the list looks weak, because it doesn't, but that's only because that list has evolved from several different lists I've been trying over the last 6/7 months or so. Also in regards to multiple heavy weapons or plasma guns, I am BS3 and when (not if :p) then overheat they kill my guys very easily (5+ save :( ) as they say "a plasma gun with Marines is worth 2 with Guardsmen". Also I was very very reluctant to even include plasma guns in my army, to the extent I shouted at several players on the Guard Tactica for a while. I'm low on plasma guns in a "competitive" Guard 1500 point list.



I can relate to sticking to one list. I don't think that list tailoring is in good form, no matter how cheesed the opponent's list is. However, if you're that attached to your IG, I wouldn't recommend you do anything like this. Just as a clarification though, the lists don't have to be "different" lists. You can mirror match one army against another. In fact, unless the list is all-Bolter loyalist Marines or Necrons, these are often the most tactical matches of all. It's just that most players don't have the models to pull off something like that.

I don't think you're accusing me of tailoring my list, because I agree that tailoring is bad, I use that list against everyone, which is why it's taken long to evolve. I've played people and gone "OK, what really hurt me in that game, and how can I combat it?" combined with "OK, what was totally useless?".

Problem is I collect IG and Daemonhunters. To be honest Daemonhunters suck (apart from against Daemons with tailored anti-daemon lists) and Guard (at the moment) aren't that much better off (excluding certain builds). I'd be hard pressed to write a list I found as competitive as my Guard one to be honest.

I like the idea you're going with, that you force players not to put all their eggs in one basket as otherwise they'll lose as their opponent's force their weak hand every time. However it does, I feel, have unintentional penalties to players not playing "power gamer" armies.

For example if I collect Orks and Chaos and I have a Nob Bikers list and a double Lash list which would you choose to player against? Either are bad.

Compare that to me with my finely tuned, yet balanced, Imperial Guard list and my 1500 point Daemonhunters list which, while fun (it has daemonhosts) sucks. Any idiot would choose the Daemonhunters list, constantly forcing my "bad army" to play.

Draconian77
16-03-2009, 12:54
You don't force players to use armies or units that they don't like.

Ever.

You just find some honest to goodness gamers and play a game with the same goals in mind(Fluff driven, competitive edge, tournament competitive, etc)

Rather than getting players to balance their own armies you should focus on codicies and try to make sure that nothing is too powerful/weak within the context of it's own book and the current ruleset.

samiens
16-03-2009, 13:41
You see, ReveredChaplainDrake I actually quite like your posts as they make me think but to say that 40k has no tactics is a nonsense. Even point and click armies are using a tactic- albeit maybe not the hardest one to implement. Now personally, with my Tau no less, I've recently beaten a fully painted Ork army (and in 40k doubles we did beat Orks twice as well) due to tactics- despite having, on paper, a less powerful army.

All armies work on the synergy of tactics and units- even the uber-ones. Now personally i have a bit of a distatste for uber units- partly because I would hate to have my victories classed as just because of my mega unit and partly because they just never grab me. The idea that its impossible to beat these lists with tactics is one ofthe most proliferated myths spread by the kind of players who call things abusive, broken and cheesy. (Note I call them uber-units: perhaps that shows my perspective?)

A real solution would be to perhaps have a veto when you see someones list- although the whole thing is frankly unsporting to me- if people use the options in the list, take the time to build (and hopefully paint) their models then they deserve a pickup game as much as someone with a fluffy army.

The real truth is that you can endlessly debate how to make 40k 'fair' but not even chess is a fair game. What we need is an attitude renewal. In general, if you lose there will be an enemy unit that does you over- whether its 10 guardsmen or 10 biker nobz. You can curse it and call it broken or you can just play the game, be happy with your wins and learn when you lose.

Wargaming has this odd kind of snobbishnessabout lists that is frankly prejudiced. Say I'm a tournamnet player with an uber list (I won't have that kind of list but hey) shouldn't I be allowed to play someone to test it. Of course I'll play tournament players if I get the opportunity but if not I'd still like to try it out. Say I play a football game (PES never FIFA lol) and the person i play chooses man utd- do I not play them because they've got some of the best players or do I man up and give it a shot, even if my beloved team was West Brom (its not)? This kind of idea says everything about wargamers. Nirvana should be building a list to take on everyone- well uberunits are part of the game so build to deal with them!

All this would really do is build a new cheese where people build really odd lists and learn to use them excluding everyone else. If you must pull this kind of nonsense I prefer the idea someone once had where there are a number of preset lists for a tournament and you must make one of them.

As for insecurities with model soldiers- I for example have a nut allergy and if someone gets something like peanut on my models I could have a serious medical incident. Furthermore- you take the time to build and paint your models, shouldn't you be allowed to enjoy them- I'd hate to have to kill my Fire warriors- I think I'd start losing deliberately!

Finally, as a general thing- I've learnt so many tactics from tournaments I've attended- not uber lists, actual tactics. i've learned to play spatially and it makes a huge difference. Nob Biikers don't look so good ojn the other side of the table getting railgunned and lash princes (actually scratch that one- I've never allowed a lash prince to survive passed turn 2 except for the first time I faced it- they're rather fragile)

AngryAngel
16-03-2009, 16:22
That is the nature of things right there. You can kill or defeat anything, with the right tactics. Some things might be harder then others and things aren't always fair. Life isn't fair, if you "Choose" to play a cheese player. If you choose to play someone who doesn't have your same goals of fun in mind. You need to be ready for all that can befall you.

Just bring enough of what ya need to do the job, and barring that, use what ya did bring to its most effective.

The biggest key to victory is not playing against cheese lists if such isn't what you want to face. If you can't in your local gaming area, then there is a problem and its not the warhammer rules, army lists, its in the people playing the game.

Mouldsta
16-03-2009, 16:31
It's an interesting concept, and one I'd happily play with close friends (half my models are rather delicate, painted to better than gaming standard and I tend to not varnish stuff).

The problem lies (as I see it);
- Lots of people don't actually own 2 armies, and similarly lots of people only own "one list" - I have an ork army that's 1500pts and consists of 180 boyz. I can't draw up a different ork army, since the only models I own are the 180 boyz. If I owned 5K of orks then I could draw up radically different lists, but I don't.


On another note, I wouldn't want to touch some people's army with a barge pole. If I've spent months painting my army, I don't want to play half my games with a choice between their unpainted list or their proxie list, I'd rather not play either.

Bunnahabhain
16-03-2009, 17:10
It sounds like a good variation for a group of gamers who know each other, and have built up more than minimal sized armies.

I like the way it gives you a chance to write interesting army lists, either with one player bringing both armies and both lists, or with one player writing the lists, but doing so with knowledge of what their opponent has in their collection.


I don't see it working very well for pick up games outside of a group that knows each other.

schottenjaeger
16-03-2009, 22:55
I've been playing since 2e, and I've seen this idea many times before, it always crashes and burns. It's because of a basic disconnect.

One of the big problems with your approach is that it's far too "game-focused" and rejects the idea of a gamer-hobbyist. This isn't a computer game, where models are generic bits spat out at order; some of my conversions have been in my armies for over a decade, and many are quite fragile. I, too, am exquisitely uncomfortable touching other people's models, for the same reason most artists don't like touching their own or other's works. They are a personal expression, not just a tool to win games with. Yes, they're "toy soldiers", but I don't let people fiddle with my exquisitely-tuned laptop either, and I frankly spent less time AND money on it than - well - three of my armies.

Linked with this is the fact that I >like< playing >my< armies. I made them because I enjoy different styles of game (troop and bike-heavy Marines, MI Sisters, balanced 'nids, &c), with different troops and looks to them. How many people do you know that want to play an Ad. Arb and Zealot-themed WH army without Sisters? Me, and...?

Secondly: the cheesemonsters WILL break your system. Pure and simple. You simply can't make a system that someone is incapable of exploiting, particularly one that still incorporates individual army selection.

Here's a tangential question... how many people in your group have even !one! 80%+ painted army, with all the models WISYWIG? I have 4. Do you allow proxies (you shouldn't)? Penalizing unpainted units (as most of my gaming groups have done) and proxies tends to weed out cheeseball players >very< fast.

Further, although it doesn't really matter, I pull off a respectable record against "cheesy" armies; I've never had fun with the "point and click" style lists, they all play the same every game. More importantly, I usually have fun, even when losing - although the fastest way to ruin an evening is to spend 40 minutes engaged in rules arguments out of 3 hours' gaming, and I find the "cheesers" are the ones who most often go for that hallowed goal.

But it all comes back to the root problem;

You see an army as a tool that wins games, and the winning is the goal.

I, and many other gamers, see the game as a way to enjoy myself, show off my art, and enjoyably waste an afternoon.
Did I win? Yay. Did I have fun? If not, something's wrong.
Did I lose? Well, did I learn something from it? Did I have fun?...

RichBlake
17-03-2009, 12:58
I'll have to take issue with the game of Chess not being fair.

You're playing with the exact same pieces on a totally symmetrical board and each piece has a finite number of ways to move.

You really can't get much more fair then that, chess relies totally on tactics and strategy, you cannot rely on "A good army build" or "this special rule". Your opponent can do everything you can, all his pieces can take other pieces as well as you can and you both follow identical rule sets.

Sort of off topic but just remember the reason 40K can seem "unfair" sometimes is because the only way to ensure it would be fair is to give each player identical armies, or a totally symmetrical board, which would be boring as hell. Fair to me means that even though Army 1 has advantages X,Y and Z, Army 2 has advantages A,B and C which, while different, are equally powerful and useful.

To me that is about as fair as you can get without just making everyone use the same army and the same list. The issue this poster was trying to tackle is preventing "unfair" lists. This partly arises from the fact that some older armies lack their own strong advantages to counter act their opponents, but also some lists have all the advantages their army (and the rules in general) can provide, with no apparent downside (e.g Nob Bikers, Necron Cube).

Ideally this wouldn't be an issue as GW would have not let stuff like this work, however they have and it does.

Hellgore
17-03-2009, 13:33
Well, nice idea but not really connected to reality imho.

Why?

- Not every 40k-player owns two armies.
- Not every player wants to play every army, which means for example: I don't like CSM, so why should I play them?
- Why should I bring my armies to let somebody else play them? (means: it's also a hobby, not only a game)

What I would suggest is the following (it's what I do already and encourage people at our club to do, too):

- Develop three or four different lists of the army you want to play, and these lists have to have some truely recognizable differences in their theme (mech, non-mech, cc, shooty, and so on). Your opponent(s) do(es) the same.

- Then you and your actual opponent look through the lists and pick one covertly (so only you know what you've picked). When both have chosen, turn over the lists and start playing. Repeat that with every other opponent. Oh - and have fun of course ;)

I think that would make for a more satisfying game for all players, as you have still your own army to play and one of the ideas you have developped. This could of course lead to some mismatches, but as we're all grown up we could then agree on a reselection by the one party that would get hampered to much.

fluffstalker
17-03-2009, 13:58
I actually appreciate this idea, but its not a blanket solution.

That is to say, its effective based on a narrow set of conditions, which hellgore posted above.

A: Many players who are more casual perhaps only have one or two armies
B: Some people may be iffy about letting people poke their models about

Disclaimer: Personally Im not one of these people, its not the end of the world if someone touches one of my little men, taking offense to this would be a signal to get out more often.

C: Some people want to come to a store and play a game with their army for personal reasons - "I want to try out this mdoel or style" etc, and then if everybody is playing the challenge system they may not get to play with their army.
D: Some armies are just boring to play to some people- not because they are WAAC lists, but because of personal preferences.

That being said, with a group of veteran gamers who have nicely painted armies and are cool with each other, I really dont see a problem.

This system would work for me, as I am very nonpicky when it comes to playing. I love guard, dont accuse me of heresy :P, but if someone plopped an orc or nid horde in front of me, Id be delighted to try it out and see how it works. It adds to the tactical experience and encourages as you said people to be on their toes rather then taking min maxed lists.

samiens
17-03-2009, 14:17
Um, if you research chess results then you'll find white wins slightly more- ergo thereb is a reasonable chance that white is evry marginally better than black (we're talking tiny amounts here) so in the hands of equally skilled players chess is not fair. No game ever is!

That's the nature of competition- in any sport or game one side will try and take an advantage over the other- its not just tactical- its also strategic down to a personnel/equipment level. However, the list is unrealistically celebrated as the main element in 40k (at least on these forums)- tools don't get the job done- they must be used to do that.

If you want it to be as fair as it can be just have one army- with just one list allowed. Oh, but then whether you go first or second might make it unfair!

isaac
17-03-2009, 15:23
As others have mentioned, it would be hard to get just right and would take a lot effort and cooperation to try. But, when it works, that would be great. Maybe this might work better in a LGS where you have a mix of pre set up armies, choose two and play. Would be a nice way to try a balanced list of that army and get the feel for it.

Bathfinder
17-03-2009, 15:52
I think the idea has merits, if it is used under the right conditions.

I don't think the OP intended it to be a blanket solution, or that someone was to be FORCED to play it this way.
I would like to, as a previous poster did, to compare it with Magic. There we have the standard torunament format, the quite common sealed deak (would be kind of boring in 40k UI think :D ) but on top of that there are all kinds ow wierd formats, that places restrictions of some sort on the play or deckbuilding.
I really like those types of games, but many think it is just silly and only want to spend time with their fine-tuned super-expensive decks.

And does this compare well with this discussion? Well I say so. I would think it would be great fun to do this once in a while. It would lead to new interesting tactics in list building.
It is like all of those other "formats" we have, kill team, 40k in 40 mins, apocalypse and lets not forget all torunaments that uses army composition, but that is another discussion. ;)

There is also the idea that cirkled around that you get wo write your opponents army list. (requires a large collection to choose from of course, but would also be fun)

RichBlake
17-03-2009, 16:58
Um, if you research chess results then you'll find white wins slightly more- ergo thereb is a reasonable chance that white is evry marginally better than black (we're talking tiny amounts here) so in the hands of equally skilled players chess is not fair. No game ever is!


I'd argue that since the colour players use is normally chosen at random and the difference is so small it can easily be dismissed as a factor in the game to experienced players :p

But yes I get your point, no game is entirely perfect.

samiens
17-03-2009, 19:16
Oh absolutely, I was just saying taht there will always be issues of unfairness and while pushing for improvements is sensible we must also learn to accept challenges as just that- not try and kill an area of the game for those who believe there are no tactics in 40k

Wolflord Havoc
21-03-2009, 11:52
Seems similar to an idea I had for tournaments (and sufferes from the same problem: Not all players would allow others to use their minis):

Everybody brings one army and list. The army is exchanged with the first opponent in the tournament (i.e. youŽll be facing your army for the first game). After this game a break is planned so that players can exchange some ideas on how their armies work.
After that a player gets full points for the games he plays (still using their first round opponents army) and half points for the way the army does (this prevents making it an advantage to underpower the list as much as possible).

I tried this in a tournament I was running a few years back.

I nearly got lynched - though it did satisfy a curiosity of mine - namely which players were good and which player simply had the best tournament armies.

back to the OP's original point.

Nice idea - I might suggest it to my gaming group (we all have at least 2 completely painted armies at or nearing apoc size).

Wut?
10-07-2009, 00:41
Fear not readers - i have come up with a truly fair game of 40k. both set up and deploy ect. but before you begin, flip a coin. whoever wins the coin flip, wins the game. now you don't even have to play the game anymore, just pretend that you've played

there, this should guarantee a 50/50 win loss, no matter the army and it dosn't make it any less enjoya- oh wait. nevermind.

we need more positivism. just ask people not to cheese. if they won't, kill dont play them or if they boast a million to one victory ratio, ask them to try to take on more people at once.

Grand Master Raziel
10-07-2009, 05:58
RCD, I don't mean to further get you down, but I've got a couple issues with your idea as well. The first is that I've collected the armies that I like, and I want to use them. Your system would oblige me to play armies that I don't like in order to play.

Second, I see no reason why I should be penalized for being smarter at list building than the other guy, or perhaps more accurately I don't see why I should give the other guy the benefit of my list-building expertise. I spent years learning the things I know about 40K for my own benefit. I'll gladly offer other folks suggestions, but when it comes to building lists, let the other guy make his own.

Third, one gets better at using a particular list the longer one plays it. If you took a guy using a list full of units teh intarwebs considers mediocre but he's been playing that army once a week every week for a year, and another guy who gets given a killer tourney list with all the cheese but has never played the army before, and I'd put my money on the guy who's got a year's worth of experience with his list. Let's say I was playing under your system and came to gaming days with a 2000pt SM army and a 2000pt Radical DH army (which I do anyway, I'll admit). If the other player isn't familiar with Space Marines (there are some out there, believe it or not), or more likely isn't familiar with the nuances of the bike-heavy DA-successor list that I play, I'll probably kick them all over the block with my Radical DH army, despite the fact that, hypothetically, the SM army is the stronger list. Since I know both lists and my opponent doesn't, I know what's important to take out in the SM list and what I can afford to ignore, and I know what's best in my DH list for accomplishing that.

Anyhow, if you're looking for a way to balance the games of your gaming group, why not simply institute a system where losing a game to another player entitles you to put an extra 100pts of stuff in your army the next time you play that guy? If you win against him, you then take out 100pts the next time you face him. Eventually, that should make everyone's games balance out against each other.

hlaine larkin
10-07-2009, 07:07
essentially just use the 'dont be an **** rule- use more troops choices trhan you need'

Nexus Trimean
10-07-2009, 07:18
another idea for tournaments, bring the two lists/armies, then both players secretly choose the list that there opponet plays.

big squig
11-07-2009, 00:06
play with a freaking proper amount of terrain and play non-annihilation missions and you will see a lot of the 'bad' parts of 40k go away.

Bluto
11-07-2009, 15:07
One more voice totally against this idea here - I know how to play two armies - IG and Marines. And I'm not even going to brag about how good I am with those, because I am not.

So, let's keep it at the casual level - my choices are: play an army that I don't know, and have my buddy across the table use my army, or have him write my list, while I write his.

First scenario is not something I am going to do well at - I have no idea how to play, say Tyranids. Even with his fine list I'm probably in trouble. And my friend is a terrible klutz. It's not a matter of not wanting him touching my miniatures, but in the course of any game, it is almost guaranteed that he will bust off an arm or two, and drop at least one guy in spectacular fashion. I'm not perfect either - but if I happen to damage one of my own guys, I don't feel as guilty as if I damaged someone else's hard work. At tourney level - it simply is not feasible.

As for army list writing, there is too much variance in people's collections for this to be fair. Let's just say I'm playing my Space Marines against my friends Sisters of Battle - There are few truly BAD choices in a SM army, and those that might qualify, I don't own. So, he makes a decent list, maybe not the one I would play, but still very usable. He gets a list with Sisters Repentia and a Penitent Engine. Oooh. Poor guy. He has learned the hard way not to use those himself, but If I get to write this list.. hmm.

Now, WHY would I do that? What a jerk - why not just write a balanced list for him, knowing that he will do the same for me? Well, if that was the school of thought we were at, we could just write out own lists, couldn't we? And yes, with my friends, this is what we do - play with different lists each time, tinker around and have some fun. I might even field Ogryns occasionally, and being good friends, they will pretend that those scare them, so shoot them up first.

I know you believe in this idea, Drake, but it's just not going to work for the majority of people. If it works for your group, fantastic. But it's not the idea to revolutionize 40k.

CHOOBER SNIPES
31-08-2009, 05:42
OPINION:
I think that this would be a great idea, for those who want it. I would NOT make it a rule, and i don't believe that was his intention in the first place. I think that it is a situational rule that would be applied only when wanted. What i see is that when many are evaluating/judging the rule, they put it in every mismatched place it could be in; someone makes lists with a "hidden" winner, strangers are handling your models, you don't get your own choice of army/play style (and don't forget you control the armies half the time) etc etc. However, if you used this with someone you trust with your models and plan to have a different kind of game, and with a different army, it could work out great. Everyone seems to see it as a rule that would be written in stone and always followed, but that is simply not the case (IMO; i don't want to try and be Drake's voice without actually knowing what he's thinking). Ultimately, I mean that those who WANT to use it will be prepared, and can have a great time with it. An option for those who want it, and irrelevant to those who don't(on account of they just play the way they were)

SOME touneys could use it, and if you don't want to use it, don't go to those tournaments, go to other ones. It is just an option, not something to be forced on anyone. If you believe you will have a fun game with it, then try it. If it goes against your grain in every way, don't.

Plus it would be great to try out different armies and learn to work with what you get / learn to adapt. In general, to broaden your horizons.

Egaeus
31-08-2009, 06:19
Thoughts? Feedback? Suggestions?

I think it's a very interesting idea.

I haven't actually played in quite a while and there was a point when I started putting together two small lists for my Marines and Tyranids in order to be "training armies" to see if I might be able to get some friends interested in the game (sadly I never actually got around to making the lists or seeing if the friends were interested and I still haven't played in quite a while). One of the important aspects was to try and get two "characterful" but potentially "balanced" armies (very tricky to do at 500 points, which was what I was looking at at the time) so it wouldn't be like the Starter Set games usually seem to be (Wow! Marines Pwn! :rolleyes:).

One other interesting idea I saw once was the "Bad Army" tournament. The idea was to try and make the worst list you possibly could. The trick was your opponent played that army and you played theirs. The intent was to actually win the game at that point (thus if your bad army was actually not so bad then you would lose the game because your opponent got the better army).

I think one of main issues is that there are different types of people who play the game. Yes, to a certain point army building is very "personal" but there are people who play the game as a game and just look at the models as the playing pieces you have to have. To them it's not about having a "cool" or "fluffy" army it is purely about them having a powerful army. Unfortunately this can often be a fine line because some units are cool and powerful so there's no clear-cut "this person is just playing to win and this person is just using units he thinks are cool".

Personally, I would love it if the game were a little more "living"...the problem I've always had are the points values are fixed by the game designers and are not a representation of units' effectiveness within the game. Thus they aren't always accurate. Things get underpriced, things get overpriced. But we are expected to dogmatically stick to the points values printed in the books. Now I fully understand that if players were allowed to tweak values completely on their own things would get completely out of hand very quickly, but I wish there was some way to be able to tweak the points values so that players could get an army that works for them in a balanced fashion. I know that this can be an entire topic in itself, and I don't mean to derail the thread as the original topic is quite interesting in itself...I just wanted to throw out what I feel is one of the fundamental imbalancing issues in the game.

lanrak
31-08-2009, 10:35
Hi all.
AFIK, there are 2 basic types of game that enjoy popularity amonst gamers.

The one that is driven by narrative and senarios, and has more RPG type elements , and PV are not a priority.
This leaves it up to the players to develop thier gaming experience in a spirit of co-operation .
(Like Stargrunt II, etc.)

The one that is developed for balanced competative play, and as such has a
well defined and documented method of assigning PV and army composition.
(Armies of Arcana, etc.)
This is the game type most suited for competitive play.

You can add senarios to the game balanced for competative play quite easily,( and know how imballanced anything is!)

However , I think the main problem is 40k was developed for narative based play, and to help to facilitate 'pick up and play games' they added PV and army compositions as an afterthought.

Unfortunatley , due to limited resources the dev team do not get time to fully play test anything before release.This is evident in the current ballance issues in 40k and WH.

So the best way to promote a great 40k game experiance is to play it pureley as a senario based game.Using a 'bid system' .IMO.

One player decides how much of his army to use to achive his mission. then the second player does the same.
The player that decides his force first gets chioce of first go.

This way both player KNOW it not a balanced game and it played for the narrative experiance of playing.

(The 40k universe is too cool to be reduced to W/L/D IMO.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

isaac
31-08-2009, 10:38
Which is exactly why I don't keep a W/L/D record. I win some, I lose some, probably somewhere about 50:50, but I am always having fun.

hlaine larkin
31-08-2009, 13:02
I'd argue that since the colour players use is normally chosen at random and the difference is so small it can easily be dismissed as a factor in the game to experienced players :p

But yes I get your point, no game is entirely perfect.


doesnt white always go first? showing there is a marginal advantage in going first in chess