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.

The community can't handle balance because most people are biased and frankly they don't collect data on a larger scale.

And if you listen to the community, whatever becomes popular or at the top of the meta will get nerfed.

If i was GW, I would:

1. Hire people to playtest the game.
2. Have all tournament lists be entered digitally and collect the results digitally as well.

These two things would allow them to easily report on major battle influencers, and actually test out what people are bringing into tournaments.

As a casual gamer I don't really care a whole lot if some stuff is imbalanced, but I can see how that would drive competitive people crazy. If you can't do #1, #2 should be easy and you could have your game design team review it. Also they should keep in mind most balance changes should be minor, and not sweeping like the community would call for. (For instance, "invisibility should cost 200 points!" versus "invisibility should just subtract 2 from hit rolls against the unit, with 6s always hitting")

Finally, digitize all the codexes properly.

morgoth wrote:

But it does reflect on the exact problem with invisibility:it's value depends on the target.

If Apoc players were donkey-caves, we'd all be rocking one invisibility caster per titan, because being immune to blasts in a game where every single D-shot is a blast or almost... sort of helps.



Basically, spells like invisibility can *never* be balanced, because all it takes is a bigger and better target to make them more powerful.

Actually...

FW Titans as of Taghmata can never be affected by psychic powers except witchfires - as written this includes blessings. If there was a way to both scale and disqualify invisibility, for example +1 warp charge per unit affected, LOW, Superheavy,GMC cannot be affected it could at least be *salvagable*.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

I do understand that it's nice to be able to plan in advance to what you'll have. And, I will concede that some psychic powers are lolbad. But that doesn't mean that the random system is inherently flawed. Psychic powers should be strong - because they're a) risky and b) potentially countered by anyone even those without psykers in their army - but not game breaking.

But when psyker heavy races can reduce or even nulify both the risk and the capacity to counter in their army, whilst at no point reducing the investment on a massively disproportionate subject that receives a positive effect (ye olde deathe starre), they nudge against game breaking.

That and there are mono codexes that simply have nothing to deal with Psykers.

Yeah deathstars are a huge problem right now in the ITC and one of the most OP armies and naturally the best list is superfriends space marine list.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That is not how you balance a game. knee jerk reactions would be the worst thing GW could do.

It's closer to being balanced than what GW vomits forth. I've seen WKs a LOT. They are totally worth 400+ pts.

You need a better argument than this to merit a 50+% increase in points.

1.) easy access to str D in addition to other weapons, including Str D Ranged (2x 36" at that). It's offensive ability is unmatched outside of forgeworld. It can pop an imperial knight in a round of shooting.
2.) Insane CC stats, for instance initiative 5 allows it to destroy knights, terminators, wraiths, just about anything that ins't a bloodthirster or a special character before they can attack back.
3.) armor save + FNP + a toughness value makes it much more tough than vehicle equivalents (eg imperial knights).
4.) in army synergy, it's a buff magnet, benefitting from invis, forewarning, etc. This is where I add the bit about defensive buffs being multiplicative, a wraith knight is already stupid tough, add invis and it's invincible.

How I'd fix it, drop it to intiave 4 and make it so that it can't benefit from psychic powers or formations abilities. Boom fixed.

Marmatag wrote:The community can't handle balance because most people are biased and frankly they don't collect data on a larger scale.

And if you listen to the community, whatever becomes popular or at the top of the meta will get nerfed.

If i was GW, I would:

1. Hire people to playtest the game.
2. Have all tournament lists be entered digitally and collect the results digitally as well.

These two things would allow them to easily report on major battle influencers, and actually test out what people are bringing into tournaments.

As a casual gamer I don't really care a whole lot if some stuff is imbalanced, but I can see how that would drive competitive people crazy. If you can't do #1, #2 should be easy and you could have your game design team review it. Also they should keep in mind most balance changes should be minor, and not sweeping like the community would call for. (For instance, "invisibility should cost 200 points!" versus "invisibility should just subtract 2 from hit rolls against the unit, with 6s always hitting")

Finally, digitize all the codexes properly.

I am not saying you are wrong here. The question is, how is this system you suggested going to make a publicly traded company money year after year? I mean once the rules are "fixed" how do you get people to buy new minis and or start a new army if not relying on "codex creep". I guess I am so use to GW stance on this way of business I can't see or think of another way of doing it now.

Davor wrote:

Marmatag wrote:The community can't handle balance because most people are biased and frankly they don't collect data on a larger scale.

And if you listen to the community, whatever becomes popular or at the top of the meta will get nerfed.

If i was GW, I would:

1. Hire people to playtest the game.
2. Have all tournament lists be entered digitally and collect the results digitally as well.

These two things would allow them to easily report on major battle influencers, and actually test out what people are bringing into tournaments.

As a casual gamer I don't really care a whole lot if some stuff is imbalanced, but I can see how that would drive competitive people crazy. If you can't do #1, #2 should be easy and you could have your game design team review it. Also they should keep in mind most balance changes should be minor, and not sweeping like the community would call for. (For instance, "invisibility should cost 200 points!" versus "invisibility should just subtract 2 from hit rolls against the unit, with 6s always hitting")

Finally, digitize all the codexes properly.

I am not saying you are wrong here. The question is, how is this system you suggested going to make a publicly traded company money year after year? I mean once the rules are "fixed" how do you get people to buy new minis and or start a new army if not relying on "codex creep". I guess I am so use to GW stance on this way of business I can't see or think of another way of doing it now.

Well I'm assuming that an increase in tournament play and competitive interest would lead to more sales.

Of course, it's entirely possible that their math doesn't support this, and it's just a case of the squeaky wheels getting all the grease.

And, making all of the codex information available to everyone would definitely increase sales. People would be more likely to try out more stuff if they could read about it in advance.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That is not how you balance a game. knee jerk reactions would be the worst thing GW could do.

It's closer to being balanced than what GW vomits forth. I've seen WKs a LOT. They are totally worth 400+ pts.

You need a better argument than this to merit a 50+% increase in points.

1.) easy access to str D in addition to other weapons, including Str D Ranged (2x 36" at that). It's offensive ability is unmatched outside of forgeworld. It can pop an imperial knight in a round of shooting.
2.) Insane CC stats, for instance initiative 5 allows it to destroy knights, terminators, wraiths, just about anything that ins't a bloodthirster or a special character before they can attack back.
3.) armor save + FNP + a toughness value makes it much more tough than vehicle equivalents (eg imperial knights).
4.) in army synergy, it's a buff magnet, benefitting from invis, forewarning, etc. This is where I add the bit about defensive buffs being multiplicative, a wraith knight is already stupid tough, add invis and it's invincible.

How I'd fix it, drop it to intiave 4 and make it so that it can't benefit from psychic powers or formations abilities. Boom fixed.

It would still be too cheap. It's worth 400 pts even with those changes.

I think they have certainly stepped up in the attitude towards the customers and players.

On the balance side I think the game is in one of its worst states ever. In general I think the game is all over the place. On a competitive level you get stuff like units in combat that barely ever wound eachother because of the psychic powers and alot of saving throws.
I think if you have friends that agree to play the game casually, it can certainly be ok.

BBAP, you are such a nice fellow.

 BBAP wrote:

For a given value of "bad". It's not a faithful representation of the capabilities of real-world rifles and mortars - but the "game world" has malign entities that crawl through holes in reality and a galaxy-spanning steampunk empire that runs on prayers. I can forgive a few inconsistencies, provided they don't unduly shaft the game. This one doesn't. it is a non-issue.

The fluff of the setting is irrelevant for the validity of your point. Still the game simulates battle in terms we can understand. In a full sci-fi setting, we would probably not see melee, unless a Dune-like explanation with forcefields is set up. The IG remember closely classic human armies from close centuries in the past, and the weapons are expected to work and evoke similar effects. Russes are tanks with armor and turrets, basilisk fire indirect fire. A sniper rifle should snipe better than a mortar. The way targets are selected is does not reflect this.

You'd rather they just did away with the first profile and made them all Assault X weapons, so everyone can use them to full effect? They could make them all Heavy X, but that wouldn't fix the issue of Relentless platforms using Salvo weapons to full effect and would instead cark the ability of non-Relentless models to get any value out of them. Would that be good game design?

Salvo is just put on the wrong weapons. Or to better say, Salvo is a fig leaf for the wrong weapons.
An hot-shot volley gun would be better just Assault 3. Perhaps a good weapon for salvo would be something like a heavy bolter.
And I do not complain the use of a relentless platform per se. On gravs, salvo is used as a limitation, but such limitation never comes in effect because of relentless. Is the intention of using salvo on a strong weapon to limit it, and THEN make the limitation null.. THIS makes the designers a bunch of hacks.
THEIR INCOHERENCE AND LACK OF VISION.
Good design would just be assault X for weapons used by infantry, and heavy with lower rate of fire for gravs on bikes. I cannot see a situation beyond Heavy Bolters in which salvo would work better than something else.
And this disregarding how utterly idiotic Gravs are, conceptually, in the first place.

I don't disagree that it was unneeded and unnecessary, but that doesn't mean it's detrimental. I don't think it is.

Is this an answer I am supposed to take seriously? It was put effort to fix something not in need to be fixed, while other aspects of the game and whole armies lagged or where under-developed, see orks. This is enough to make it bad. One should observe the context in which changes has been made, too.

If you play with indecisive, claw-fingered mutants I suppose it does. Maybe I'm just lucky.

You must be pleasant to play with. Insulting other players is not an argument, Nice Fellow.
Not everybody has the luxury of unlimited time and expert players to play with: set up a game should be fast and not a chore. Furthermore, see below.

A tolerable amount.

"Tolerable" is very subjective. What we can register objectively is a removal of player agency and added pointless game time: even small amounts add up for a final effect.

I'm not saying it couldn't be better - I'm saying it's not as bad as whiners like you make it out to be.

This is the second time you use insults instead of actual arguments. I do wonder why. Could it be perhaps you have no actual comebacks? Is something else? Please tell me I am on the edge of my seat.

I know that. I said as much in my reply. I'm not interested in "outside the core" here.

But this makes your argument deeply dishonest, because many armies have rerolls (on saves, hit, wound, scatter, reserves, run, charges) random tables, fnp, reanimations, and so on, and all these things end up being used in the actual game being played. If you ignore what is in the codex, you are analysing the situation without using the whole dataset. This means that you will draw, as you are doing now, the wrong conclusions - intentionally or not.
I frankly cannot tell which one of these two options is more hilarious.

It is. Read for comprehension.

No is not. Being insulting and dismissing does not make your arguments stronger, Nice Fellow.

I am frankly wondering if discussing with you is worthy the effort, BBAP. You are dismissing toward me, insulted my fellow players and you brought no arguments beyond "I like it this way" and "is not such a big deal, you whiner" or "is sci-fi, LOL".

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

In a full sci-fi setting, we would probably not see melee, unless a Dune-like explanation with forcefields is set up.

Or instead of forcefields, really hard armor that withstands hits from the most common weapons. . . where have I seen that?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

In a full sci-fi setting, we would probably not see melee, unless a Dune-like explanation with forcefields is set up.

Or instead of forcefields, really hard armor that withstands hits from the most common weapons. . . where have I seen that?

But then how does an angry guy with a sword manage to get through that really hard armor? Superior armor technology would simply drive the use of bigger guns. For example, infantry squads might be armed with additional anti-tank missiles for dealing with space marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

In a full sci-fi setting, we would probably not see melee, unless a Dune-like explanation with forcefields is set up.

Or instead of forcefields, really hard armor that withstands hits from the most common weapons. . . where have I seen that?

Even in the modern world, soldiers are trained in close combat techniques because, for now at least, those in command realise the lie behind the assertion "things will go well". The most modern example I've read is from 2004, the charmingly named battle of Danny Boy where British soldiers were obliged to engaged Iraqi ambushers in close combat due to communications system failure. If the capacity for failure even exists in a military system, it will either occur by accident or purposeful hostile action.

If, in the wonderful world of scifi, a gun sight can in some way be blinded or its operator stabbed in the back with at least as much reliability as they can be shot from orbit, both assets will be developed for when "Things Don't Go Well".

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

In a full sci-fi setting, we would probably not see melee, unless a Dune-like explanation with forcefields is set up.

Or instead of forcefields, really hard armor that withstands hits from the most common weapons. . . where have I seen that?

In 40k force fields (probably indeed inspired partly by Dune) do not forbid completely melee, they just partially protect.
So no false equivalencies, please

My point was about what we expect from the weapons and tactics, melee and ranged, in the 40k game, and those weapons behave, or are supposed to behave, like weapons and tactics of recent human history. The players can have with those weapons a better familiarity than with some obscure, extreme-range warfare of an hypothetical, different setting and system. So saying "lol is sci-fi" is a non-argument, because the warfare shown in 40k is more "ancient" than expected from a game set in the year 40.000. Weapons in 40k are often made to recall existing ones, and are expected to operate as such.
Axes are applied to face, in melee, they are not artillery pieces. So, I expect Sniper rifles to Snipe better then mortars.

 malamis wrote:
Even in the modern world, soldiers are trained in close combat techniques because, for now at least, those in command realise the lie behind the assertion "things will go well". The most modern example I've read is from 2004, the charmingly named battle of Danny Boy where British soldiers were obliged to engaged Iraqi ambushers in close combat due to communications system failure. If the capacity for failure even exists in a military system, it will either occur by accident or purposeful hostile action.

If, in the wonderful world of scifi, a gun sight can in some way be blinded or its operator stabbed in the back with at least as much reliability as they can be shot from orbit, both assets will be developed for when "Things Don't Go Well".

The difference is that you're talking about a last-resort option in the real world, while in 40k there are whole units of nothing but angry guys with chainsaws running across an open field to get into melee. Melee combat should exist in 40k, but it should be a very minor element relative to shooting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

In a full sci-fi setting, we would probably not see melee, unless a Dune-like explanation with forcefields is set up.

Or instead of forcefields, really hard armor that withstands hits from the most common weapons. . . where have I seen that?

But then how does an angry guy with a sword manage to get through that really hard armor? Superior armor technology would simply drive the use of bigger guns. For example, infantry squads might be armed with additional anti-tank missiles for dealing with space marines.

Angry guy has rare weapon that penetrates armor. Or angry guy slips knife between plates, etc.

The argument about driving the use of bigger guns doesn't work in 40K because the heavy armored troops are rare in-universe. There's no reason for every guardsman to be armed with a plasma gun because IG are rarely coming across an enemy with heavy armor. The most common enemies for IG, for millenia, were Orks or other humans.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

In a full sci-fi setting, we would probably not see melee, unless a Dune-like explanation with forcefields is set up.

Or instead of forcefields, really hard armor that withstands hits from the most common weapons. . . where have I seen that?

In 40k force fields (probably indeed inspired partly by Dune) do not forbid completely melee, they just partially protect.
So no false equivalencies, please

My point was about what we expect from the weapons and tactics, melee and ranged, in the 40k game, and those weapons behave, or are supposed to behave, like weapons and tactics of recent human history. The players can have with those weapons a better familiarity than with some obscure, extreme-range warfare of an hypothetical, different setting and system. So saying "lol is sci-fi" is a non-argument, because the warfare shown in 40k is more "ancient" than expected from a game set in the year 40.000. Weapons in 40k are often made to recall existing ones, and are expected to operate as such.
Axes are applied to face, in melee, they are not artillery pieces. So, I expect Sniper rifles to Snipe better then mortars.

The only point I can concede is that Sniper rifles ought to be better at sniping than mortars.

The "Heavy Armor" (power armor) of 40K is not a false equivalency to "forcefields" in Dune. Both types of defense (in universe) are ample protection against common ranged weapons, therefore common weapons have trouble stopping troops from getting to close quarters and turning a firefight into a rout. Because Power Armor "works" against many weapons with modern day equivalencies, the dynamic of battle is different than modern day. A squad of marines doesn't get gunned down by a 50cal, and they're in a hurry to get where you are, so instead of waiting around for an air strike, they just assault your position and kill you. That's the paradigm of 40K, and it's well defined.

Marmatag wrote:
And, making all of the codex information available to everyone would definitely increase sales. People would be more likely to try out more stuff if they could read about it in advance.

Oh so much this. I know in the early 2000s I tried to buy every codex and buy what applied to me. This is why I loved Age of Sigmar so much. Buy all the Alliance books and use what ever you wanted. I really hope they do this for 40K as well. By that I don't mean throw out the lore and start over again but just giving the dataslates for free like how the warscrolls are free and the Alliance books are reasonably costed.

 Fafnir wrote:

5th edition saw probably the best balance in the game's history

Yeah like grey knights or spess furries nullifying other armies. And parking lots everywhere.

 koooaei wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

5th edition saw probably the best balance in the game's history

Yeah like grey knights or spess furries nullifying other armies. And parking lots everywhere.

Which edition would you consider the best?

I've only played in 5, 6 and 7.
I'd definitely consider 6-th the worst. Than it's a tie between 5 and 7. 7 could have been the best of the bunch if not for excessive amount of special rules on top of special rules and stupidly powerful mages. Maelstorm is a huge plus though. If you combine it with some of the eternal war missions and point-cost based killpoints, you end up with a very robust pt reward system. Even if you simply take maelstorm out of the book, it's MUCH better than old eternal war.

 koooaei wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

5th edition saw probably the best balance in the game's history

Yeah like grey knights or spess furries nullifying other armies. And parking lots everywhere.

*best*, not perfect

5E had it's problems, and I'm always surprised to find myself pining for the days of 5E, KP's were and still are stupid victory mechanics, wound allocation shennanigans were ridiculous (though they can be just as bad now), everything having 4+ cover all the time, poor vehicle secondary weapons rules, underpriced rhinos, 5pt psybolt upgrades on BS5 TL Autocannon GK dreads, Gunline space wolf armies, and more.

But I'd probably take it, as a whole, over any other single edition in terms of balance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 malamis wrote:
Even in the modern world, soldiers are trained in close combat techniques because, for now at least, those in command realise the lie behind the assertion "things will go well". The most modern example I've read is from 2004, the charmingly named battle of Danny Boy where British soldiers were obliged to engaged Iraqi ambushers in close combat due to communications system failure. If the capacity for failure even exists in a military system, it will either occur by accident or purposeful hostile action.

If, in the wonderful world of scifi, a gun sight can in some way be blinded or its operator stabbed in the back with at least as much reliability as they can be shot from orbit, both assets will be developed for when "Things Don't Go Well".

The difference is that you're talking about a last-resort option in the real world, while in 40k there are whole units of nothing but angry guys with chainsaws running across an open field to get into melee. Melee combat should exist in 40k, but it should be a very minor element relative to shooting.

Correct; and even fluff wise a Codex Astartes compliant chapter only has at normal state 20% of it's devotees as dedicated close combat specialists ( 8th company and 5 battle companies ASM + command squads & veterans). However, 40k isn't exactly representative of pitched symmetric battles in the first place because if it was everyone would be playing Imperial Guard infantry and/or tank companies with either the Aquila, the chaos star or the 4 armed emprah embossed thereon, with 10 man allied detachments of actually differnt units.

The scale that 40k is played, which is, outside of apocalypse, small scale skirmish engagements, ambushes, infiltration actions or teleport assaults (as defined by the standard missions in the rulebook) is quite possibly the *only* place close combat specialists make sense in Sci Fi. Even in apocalypse the weight of fire on the table means even the most tooled up CC units have a 1 turn life expectancy, unless you take 2-300 of them. Which is exactly as it should be.

5th was the last time I had fun with 40k it had issues like multi wound shenanigans and vehicles being too strong but those were easy to fix for competent devs, instead we got 6th and 7th which are both terrible boring messes that take too long to play.

 Insectum7 wrote:


The "Heavy Armor" (power armor) of 40K is not a false equivalency to "forcefields" in Dune. Both types of defense (in universe) are ample protection against common ranged weapons, therefore common weapons have trouble stopping troops from getting to close quarters and turning a firefight into a rout. Because Power Armor "works" against many weapons with modern day equivalencies, the dynamic of battle is different than modern day. A squad of marines doesn't get gunned down by a 50cal, and they're in a hurry to get where you are, so instead of waiting around for an air strike, they just assault your position and kill you. That's the paradigm of 40K, and it's well defined.

I would argue that not every being in that universe wears power armour, and melee is not used only against power armour.

 Peregrine wrote:

 malamis wrote:
Even in the modern world, soldiers are trained in close combat techniques because, for now at least, those in command realise the lie behind the assertion "things will go well". The most modern example I've read is from 2004, the charmingly named battle of Danny Boy where British soldiers were obliged to engaged Iraqi ambushers in close combat due to communications system failure. If the capacity for failure even exists in a military system, it will either occur by accident or purposeful hostile action.

If, in the wonderful world of scifi, a gun sight can in some way be blinded or its operator stabbed in the back with at least as much reliability as they can be shot from orbit, both assets will be developed for when "Things Don't Go Well".

The difference is that you're talking about a last-resort option in the real world, while in 40k there are whole units of nothing but angry guys with chainsaws running across an open field to get into melee. Melee combat should exist in 40k, but it should be a very minor element relative to shooting.

Isn't it already minor? Most models in 40k have guns, not swords. Its not as if the IG are all packing broadswords. The squad leaders do have swords, but that to me is more a symbolic thing than something that's going to see every day use.
Aren't officers today given a ceremonial saber (not to be used on the field, obviously), and didn't WWI officers have swords as a symbol of rank, which they took with them when going over the top?

Likewise, I don't see tactical marines with chainswords, and I rarely hear anyone claiming that they belong in melee. They have a knife, iirc, but today's forces have that too.
The ones who do have swords usually have a very specific roles with specific equipment and rules to help them get into CC. They are specialists, as they should be.

The whole idea that everyone wants to rush each other and whack each other over the head with rifles is a gross misconception. Admittedly, the tendency that artists have to keep drawing opposing armies standing 2 feet from each other to make it "epic looking" doesn't help.

 Peregrine wrote:

 malamis wrote:
Even in the modern world, soldiers are trained in close combat techniques because, for now at least, those in command realise the lie behind the assertion "things will go well". The most modern example I've read is from 2004, the charmingly named battle of Danny Boy where British soldiers were obliged to engaged Iraqi ambushers in close combat due to communications system failure. If the capacity for failure even exists in a military system, it will either occur by accident or purposeful hostile action.

If, in the wonderful world of scifi, a gun sight can in some way be blinded or its operator stabbed in the back with at least as much reliability as they can be shot from orbit, both assets will be developed for when "Things Don't Go Well".

The difference is that you're talking about a last-resort option in the real world, while in 40k there are whole units of nothing but angry guys with chainsaws running across an open field to get into melee. Melee combat should exist in 40k, but it should be a very minor element relative to shooting.

What you're not understanding is that angry guys with chainsaws running into melee are a really cool visual. There is no other argument for it, which is okay because no other argument is required.

I mean, I get the urge to earn geek points by pointing out how ehhhctually, it wouldn't work like that realistically. But you just don't want to go there, because that's the slippery slope that leads to AI-piloted spherical spacecraft shooting invisible lasers at each other from millions of miles away in a fraction of a second. It's not that people don't notice the unrealistic bits and need to be freed from the shackles of ignorance, they're aware of them and don't care.

The point he's making is that actually balancing something that's realistically totally unintuitive as an army strategy with something more practical is going to be very difficult to do properly.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


The "Heavy Armor" (power armor) of 40K is not a false equivalency to "forcefields" in Dune. Both types of defense (in universe) are ample protection against common ranged weapons, therefore common weapons have trouble stopping troops from getting to close quarters and turning a firefight into a rout. Because Power Armor "works" against many weapons with modern day equivalencies, the dynamic of battle is different than modern day. A squad of marines doesn't get gunned down by a 50cal, and they're in a hurry to get where you are, so instead of waiting around for an air strike, they just assault your position and kill you. That's the paradigm of 40K, and it's well defined.

I would argue that not every being in that universe wears power armour, and melee is not used only against power armour.

That's . . . . true. Melee is often used by models who don't have enough/any firepower, because that's the only way they can fight. . . so, duh?

Melee is just a tactic, used when appropriate for the context. 40K provides a number of contexts in which melee is appropriate, so melee is a thing. Being "sci-fi" doesn't really have anything to do with it, the setting is what the setting is. No doubt space-faring forces bombard planets all the time, but sometimes they have to go get a mcguffin, hold a piece of dirt or besiege a city/installation, so they put boots on the ground in close quarters with enemy combatants. In those circumstances, oftentimes the ranged output of a force isn't expedient enough to win the day, so they just run up and clobber the enemy.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


The "Heavy Armor" (power armor) of 40K is not a false equivalency to "forcefields" in Dune. Both types of defense (in universe) are ample protection against common ranged weapons, therefore common weapons have trouble stopping troops from getting to close quarters and turning a firefight into a rout. Because Power Armor "works" against many weapons with modern day equivalencies, the dynamic of battle is different than modern day. A squad of marines doesn't get gunned down by a 50cal, and they're in a hurry to get where you are, so instead of waiting around for an air strike, they just assault your position and kill you. That's the paradigm of 40K, and it's well defined.

I would argue that not every being in that universe wears power armour, and melee is not used only against power armour.

That's . . . . true. Melee is often used by models who don't have enough/any firepower, because that's the only way they can fight. . . so, duh?

Melee is just a tactic, used when appropriate for the context. 40K provides a number of contexts in which melee is appropriate, so melee is a thing. Being "sci-fi" doesn't really have anything to do with it, the setting is what the setting is. No doubt space-faring forces bombard planets all the time, but sometimes they have to go get a mcguffin, hold a piece of dirt or besiege a city/installation, so they put boots on the ground in close quarters with enemy combatants. In those circumstances, oftentimes the ranged output of a force isn't expedient enough to win the day, so they just run up and clobber the enemy.

That's beyond my point.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

That's beyond my point.

Then I confess, your point is beyond me.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:


Because ironicly, GW Studio sucks at their own game, for them its unthinkable why someone would want 3 times the same exact unit in an army instead of other things, thats why you end up with 2/3x Grav centurions or Drakes or other bullcrap.

The design team is composed by bumbling buffoons, but I fail to understand this sentence. They constantly write rules for formations pushing us to buy 2-4 copies of the same unit to make it barely functional.

i'll admit this statement is obsolete, since it pre-dates the formations era.

it was at one of the GD or something that one of the Dev team who was asked questions by a guy about balance, simply replied" well when we test stuff we usually take a bit of everything to test how it goes, we have a hard time seeing why people want to have multiple of the same units, when you can have more different units"

This statement was done when Eldar Wave serpent madness was a thing so yeah...

But i find that it is an insight in how casual their testing of the units and lists are, i bet they just take one formation in a given list to test that particular formation, then they switch to another one, or maybe two formations, but they never do in a competitive way.

i mean it takes minutes to the competitive people out there to see where the cheese is when something new comes out, and that it can create absolute abominable things to play against, so why does it escapes the Devs eyes when their the ones writhing it?