Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's certainly how your post came across.

 Melissia wrote:
*looks at Orks and Guard*
What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, in my opinion. I'm simply pointing out Traditio's double standard where spamming things Traditio doesn't like (flyrants, riptides, etc) is WAAC TFG CHEESE but spamming the things Traditio wants to spam (missile launchers and tactical squads) is fine.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm not claiming that there's a causal relationship...but it is nonetheless worth noting:

Has anyone noticed that the percentages, so far, between "I should be winning more games if this stupid game were balanced" and "I'd win about the same number of games (sure you would, buddy, keep on believing that)" is basically the same as the percentage between people who are and are not basically satisfied with the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:In the situation you are describing lists become irrelevant, in this situation what you bring is meaningless, I personally would start using bottlecaps instead of minis. Players who are better than you would still win players who are worse than you would still lose and close matches would be determined entirely by dice. The tournament meta becomes spamming the cheapest unit in $ and bragging about how cost effective your army is.

IoW:

"I like pay-to-win. I have an expensive army and feel like I should have an advantage because I purchased the DLC."

What? I'm saying that if the game was truly balanced people at the highest level of skill would find their games against each other are largely determined by dice. Therefore the competition would have to move from finding the most efficient list to finding the most cost efficient army to build. 'Dude I took top 32 at nova!" "Oh cool, what'd you run?" '185 bucks!' 'Aww man that's so broke dude!'

ERJAK wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'm not claiming that there's a causal relationship...but it is nonetheless worth noting:

Has anyone noticed that the percentages, so far, between "I should be winning more games if this stupid game were balanced" and "I'd win about the same number of games (sure you would, buddy, keep on believing that)" is basically the same as the percentage between people who are and are not basically satisfied with the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:In the situation you are describing lists become irrelevant, in this situation what you bring is meaningless, I personally would start using bottlecaps instead of minis. Players who are better than you would still win players who are worse than you would still lose and close matches would be determined entirely by dice. The tournament meta becomes spamming the cheapest unit in $ and bragging about how cost effective your army is.

IoW:

"I like pay-to-win. I have an expensive army and feel like I should have an advantage because I purchased the DLC."

What? I'm saying that if the game was truly balanced people at the highest level of skill would find their games against each other are largely determined by dice. Therefore the competition would have to move from finding the most efficient list to finding the most cost efficient army to build. 'Dude I took top 32 at nova!" "Oh cool, what'd you run?" '185 bucks!' 'Aww man that's so broke dude!'

Once again, not really. Composition would still play a part, even in a well balanced game. The main thing being that models would not be homogenous, but rather all models within a given codex would have a function of value both internally and externally. Moreover, a better developed game would encourage skillful maneuvering and tactics. At the highest skill levels, players would be more able to focus on the armies that would interest them, rather than those that are the most blatantly effective.

You can't make every unit equally useful in all situations, but you can give each unit situations it can shine.

 Fafnir wrote:
Once again, not really. Composition would still play a part, even in a well balanced game. The main thing being that models would not be homogenous, but rather all models within a given codex would have a function of value both internally and externally. Moreover, a better developed game would encourage skillful maneuvering and tactics. At the highest skill levels, players would be more able to focus on the armies that would interest them, rather than those that are the most blatantly effective.

You can't make every unit equally useful in all situations, but you can give each unit situations it can shine.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Traditio: Take note - I'm pretty sure this combined with what I said earlier pretty much answers your original post question in the broadest sense.

Aaaand this thread has devolved into yet another dumpster fire where rational minds try to tell Traditio about his double standards and rampant illogic and he fails to listen or care...

On topic, none of my own lists spam the OP stuff. As I said earlier, my Tau collection only has one of each of the big nasties (Riptide, Stormsurge, Ghostkeel) and no FW stuff (although I'm seriously considering a Y'vahra), and my lists tend to use a little bit of everything. With Tau, the only thing I sort of spam is Marker Drones, but most Tau lists rely heavily on their Markerlights. Same basic idea holds true for my other armies (no spam).

It should be noted, though, that most if not all of the lists I take to a tournament, with any of my armies, would still roflstomp a CAD list that spams just tacticals with flamers and missile launchers, and that's without me spamming any of the crazy stuff.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Aaaand this thread has devolved into yet another dumpster fire where rational minds try to tell Traditio about his double standards and rampant illogic and he fails to listen or care...
On topic, none of my own lists spam the OP stuff.

What if he's trying to tell us that there shouldn't be an option of spamming OP stuff? Just stuff?

Its not like there is any OP stuff, its just that for some reason 99% of all options available in the game are crap. They should be removed from the game to stop confusing newbies.

 Traditio wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Flyrant spam shouldn't be a good strategy. Grav spam shouldn't be a good strategy.

Flamer and missile launcher spam shouldn't be a good strategy.

Why shouldn't it?

I mean, say what you want, but flamer and missile launcher spam wouldn't actually BE flamer and missile launcher spam. It would actually be:

Flamers, missile launchers and whatever standard arm you are using (whether lasguns, bolters, etc.). So we're talking at least three different weapons with three different tactical uses.

That's way more internally balanced than simply spamming the same thing over and over again.

No, you don't have three weapons with three different tactical uses. Flamers, missile launchers and bolters are all effective against the same target types. You. Have nothing that's effective against vehicles, flyers, mc"s, boosted cover saves or elite infantry.

At least bolters plus grav is effective against a range of target types.

Missile Launchers actually do have a different tactical use. They're good at light vehicle hunting, and okay at Monstrous Creature hunting.

Now, they crumple before 2+ armour saves, anything with decent cover, heavy vehicles... But he's got two tactical uses down.

You don't need to know that missile launchers have 3 types of missiles and flamers ignore cover when you can just spam grav.

Grav-gun and missile launcher even cost the same points, but one is anti-everything and the other is bad because it tries to be anti-everything. Perfect game balance.

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
You don't need to know that missile launchers have 3 types of missiles and flamers ignore cover when you can just spam grav.

Grav-gun and missile launcher even cost the same points, but one is anti-everything and the other is bad because it tries to be anti-everything. Perfect game balance.

Grav-Gun has an 18" range if you don't move, 9" if you do. Missile Launcher is 48". Missile Launcher is better against things like Tyranid Warriors, since it can double them out.

Now, the Grav-Cannon is basically superior in every situation within 24", because lacking doubling out doesn't matter so much when you have 5 shots, but a Grav-Gun is not objectively superior to a Missile Launcher.

Well if everything is balanced, I'd guess it'd be a coin flip, considering if someone is a better player than me, they win, and if I'm better than someone else they win.

Effectively, if everything was balanced, then its either which rock paper scissors unit counters your opponents, or which person is better.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Missile Launchers actually do have a different tactical use. They're good at light vehicle hunting, and okay at Monstrous Creature hunting.

No, they really aren't.

The only marine special/heavy weapon worse against light vehicles is the plasma cannon (which has a side use in threatening elite infantry) and the only thing worse against weak MCs is the heavy bolter (which is superior against AV10).

Except for the flamer, of course, which is only useful against the same things bolters are useful against.

Flamer plus missile launcher is the least versatile possible combination of weapon options.

Which is not to say that there is no use for either weapon but it is absolutely the least desirable combination to spam exclusively (which is trad's army).

Being able to kill 2x AV10-11 vehicles or 1xAV12-13 vehicles in a turn with 14 missile launchers (6x tac and 2x dev) is not an anti-vehicle strategy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
You don't need to know that missile launchers have 3 types of missiles and flamers ignore cover when you can just spam grav.

3 types of missile? Why would you possibly pay for AA capability on a weapon that is terrible at killing vehicles and MCs?

And, yes, Flamers ignore cover but they only kill the same things that bolters kill making weight of fire far more useful against normal covers saves. They're useless against the units that are running around with cover saves that are very high, rerollable or both.

Those marginal use cases are utterly inferior to the genuine range of capability brought by almost all of the other options.

I think my lists would get a higher win rate. Not because "I play a balanced list and everyone else plays cheese" but because I abuse the same spamming tactic that people complain about to build big, stompy auto-lose lists for newbies to get an intro to 40k by killing Monstrous Creatures - I like this situation, means I can play well and still struggle.
Depending on how balance is achieved I'd have to have far less points on the field or play a tactically rubbish game.
Dropping back the points to give the newbie the edge means less stompie and the intro loses it's impact and the hell with stuffing every play to let the Newbie win, that's insulting as well as not fun for anyone.
I'd quit as the chew toy and take up a normal win/loss ratio.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Aaaand this thread has devolved into yet another dumpster fire where rational minds try to tell Traditio about his double standards and rampant illogic and he fails to listen or care...

And yet people (usually the same people) walk back into it every single time. It's like that daemon world with the time loop where warriors are endlessly reincarnated for an eternity of battle that can never be won or lost.

 Elemental wrote:

And yet people (usually the same people) walk back into it every single time. It's like that daemon world with the time loop where warriors are endlessly reincarnated for an eternity of battle that can never be won or lost.

...and than they realised. The Troll Lord is the planet itself!

I'd probably win less because none of my armies are comprised only of 10 man unupgraded Space Marine tactical squads - which would obviously be the only unit left in our new perfectly balanced game utopia.

For they are truly perfection, tainted by the existence of anything else. and Grav.

Initially I was like, "Hum, what does this guy mean?" Then I saw it was Traditio and stopped bothering.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Initially I was like, "Hum, what does this guy mean?" Then I saw it was Traditio and stopped bothering.

sorry that ur mate Kell died bruh, hope ur feeling alright creedy boi

 STG wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Initially I was like, "Hum, what does this guy mean?" Then I saw it was Traditio and stopped bothering.

sorry that ur mate Kell died bruh, hope ur feeling alright creedy boi

You don't deserve to mention his name. No one does. *quiet sobbing* Why GW why?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 STG wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Initially I was like, "Hum, what does this guy mean?" Then I saw it was Traditio and stopped bothering.

sorry that ur mate Kell died bruh, hope ur feeling alright creedy boi

You don't deserve to mention his name. No one does. *quiet sobbing* Why GW why?

Well at least you can walk the green green pastures of cadia and think about him. ... i hear catachan is nice?

 Traditio wrote:
What would happen if, suddenly, simply spamming the "best" things in your codex no longer gauranteed you an advantage, and actually HURT you in game because it means that your army is running with a severe internal imbalance?

It doesn't guarantee you an advantage 100% of the time, though. What I think you mean is - "what if all unit options were viable selections for a competitive army?", in which case I'd do what Erjak said - buy a few boxes of cheap-ass Genestealers and call it a day.

Wouldn't change my list at all
My Tau don't really spam anything and I normally generally run a relatively balanced list. I only start abusing my armies special abilities against space marine players because I can honestly say I hate playing against space marines.
Same for my CSM I don't really spam stuff.

I see this has been going for a while but I'll just chime in.

If it was balanced, woundent every persons list fair the same

Wait ainyte tradito are you trying to imply space marines who are supposed to be a jack of all trades army should beat say daemons in cc or tau in shooting or eldar or chaos in psychic?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I see this has been going for a while but I'll just chime in.

If it was balanced, woundent every persons list fair the same

Have an Exalt, good sir

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I see this has been going for a while but I'll just chime in.

If it was balanced, woundent every persons list fair the same

No, that's not how balance works.

The unholy dice rolls would still be cast from my hand so they'd still suck in a unique, horrid way. But it's nice to dream.

If each codex was balanced, within the framework of a given edition, then armies could still spam things, and win.

The tactics of a TAC list [which I love!] are to do your best to engage your rocks against their scissors, while avoiding their paper. Do the same with your Scissor units and Paper units. Solid.

But when the TAC list runs into an all Rock list... your rocks break even, your scissors get trashed and your Paper saves the day. It's still relatively balanced. So unit composition plays a role, but a well rounded list should break even against most other lists. True imbalance occurs when two "extreme" lists run into each other. Rock runs into Paper, or Scissors runs into Rock. So long as one player is using a mostly balanced list, the imbalance tends to be less severe.

The thing about a competitive meta, is that building a perfectly rounded list is nearly impossible for most codices. Taking a whack at a long-dead horse... IG have terrible mobility. So if I rock up against some paper [mobile armies] I'm basically doomed because I don't have the tools in my box to deal with the opponent. Guard have lots of Sledge Hammers, but you can only use them if you have room to swing, time to line up, and a stationary target. Otherwise... not good.

Right now, the core rules are not balanced to allow a variety of strategies to be viable. You can't win with a "mostly defensive" army. You need to be aggressive in movement, and that doesn't play to every army's strength.

Anyhow, if the game / codices were all balanced, within a 10% margin of error, you'd expect your army to win 60% to 40% of the time, assuming your opponents are of a similar level of skill. I'm on a pretty solid losing streak, but my opponent started playing slower armies so I decided to try my Guard out again with a pair of Knights allied... and I've actually won my last two games. So when my meta shifted [briefly, I'm sure] towards a slower moving game, my Guardsmen are suddenly the heroes they were in 6th edition again... with a couple big stompy robots out front to screen their advance.