Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 17:53:09


Post by: Timmah


So, I would like to pose this question to the 40k tournament community.

If you are building competitively with all armies and taking the upper tier of the min/maxed lists from each 40k codex. Is there any armies that can't compete or are at a huge disadvantage in your opinion?

Not taking into account that some army books only have 1 good build. If you build to this, does everyone feel all armies can compete at this top notch level? Or at least decently compete?

Meaning while armies like Necrons and Daemons are a bit weaker, built well, they can potentially go toe to toe with with the upper tier armies like guard and space marines.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 18:12:00


Post by: Hulksmash


I don't believe in tiers or a best of list from each 40k codex. Especially the newest ones. So I'm gonna have to say that I think that all armies can compete in a tournament because tournaments are random draws and some armies just match up better against others. I mean even Necrons can be competitive vs. Orks and Tyrannids.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 18:26:26


Post by: Fearspect


Timmah, those two do not have great chances to compete (along with maybe CSM), but I really think everything else does quite well.

The only issue older books have is a limit on competitive builds (and a lack of ability to scale up to 'Ard Boyz levels).


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 18:32:46


Post by: asugradinwa


Way too subjective of a question Timmah. Not all codexes are created equal. However, when talking about tournament armies you have to ask yourself a couple things:

1: What points level are you playing at
2: What missions are being played (Tau in an all night fight mission going up against a CC oriented build will be cut to pieces)
3: How does the tournament handel wins? (In order to get full points do I need to get more killpoints then the other player? Or do I have to get double the killpoints, control more table quarters, and have more fast attack choices alive at the end of the game?)
4: How many games are played in a tournament vs how many players are in a tournament? (I've been on the top table at the end of game 3 in a 5 game tournament, but finished far down the list after getting beat down the final 2 games)

If you are talking straight up wins, then just about any codex has a chance (see Josh Dearth's Farsight Tau showing at Conquest NW).

The more versatile a force you need to score higher on the missions, the less competitive certain builds become.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 18:38:06


Post by: Timmah


I'm just talking a straight up game with a book mission. Nothing to do with the larger picture.

My personal feelings are:

Daemons and Necrons have a slightly tougher time competing, but outside of that every army is fine.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 18:45:14


Post by: asugradinwa


Depeds on the points level Timmah.

A tri monolith build will give most armies that arn't dread heavy a lot of fits if they get good reserve rolls.

Deamons need a bit of luck but can dish out the hurt. My friend Dan was on the top table at Conquest NW the first day running a fiend/scarbrand list.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 19:00:44


Post by: Timmah


Any balanced points level. So between 1850-2050.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 19:15:31


Post by: MVBrandt


Strong players can compete with at least one build from every dex (Daemonhunters realistically need to use IG allies, to be fair) in a tournament setting. The older dexes are limited to far fewer total builds.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 19:34:40


Post by: Dashofpepper


MVBrandt wrote:Strong players can compete with at least one build from every dex (Daemonhunters realistically need to use IG allies, to be fair) in a tournament setting. The older dexes are limited to far fewer total builds.


Not sure I agree with that; DE and Necrons come to mind....as do Sisters.

I play Orks; not an incredibly abusive list, but well balanced and synergistic. I don't see Sisters or necrons ever beating me.

And my DE....I'm a strong player but if I come up against a decent IG list, let alone a strong one....nothing I do is going to change what happens.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 19:38:23


Post by: Timmah


Apparently you have never played Raider or Immo spam Dash...


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 19:40:19


Post by: Saldiven


I think that if you're going to consider balance, you have to look at which army lists suffer the least when compared to other various competitive builds.

Most would accept that a solid IG competitive list would do well versus most other competitive builds from most other codices.

A Codex like Dark Eldar with its limited competitive builds will do well against a mechanized MEq list, but will probably have trouble versus a horde army like orks.

While I believe anyone can get lucky with draws and do well in a tournament, I also believe that there are some codices that produce competitive builds that match up well against a broader range of opponent's competitive builds than some other codices can.

Unfortunately, 40K isn't a true Rock-Scissors-Paper kind of format; some competitive builds are the rock to a far larger number of scissors than are some other codices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dashofpepper wrote:And my DE....I'm a strong player but if I come up against a decent IG list, let alone a strong one....nothing I do is going to change what happens.


I agree with this. I'm a DE player, too, and my current competitive list at 1850 points has 9 raiders and 3 ravagers. Against a highly mechanized IG list, I get beat up by sheer volume of fire.

I have 15 shots that glance his vehicles on a 4+ at 36 inches. The IG player has as much as three times that ability to down my vehicles.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 19:59:49


Post by: In_Theory


I believe there's still a fair amount of imbalance between competitive lists at certain points levels, while perfectly balanced at other levels.

The quote about "certain builds are rock to a larger amount of scissors than others" is fairly accurate.

Sometimes there's only a handful of ways to counter a specific build that counters pretty much anything else...

Mechanized IG is an example. It can be beat, but doing so requires a specific build... and then your next opponent will be playing a completely different army to which your specific 'anti-mech-IG' list is going to falter because it's too specialized.

I think this comes about mostly because some armies gain mechanics (such as tank squadrons, allowing more armor for the same slots) that other armies can't get- and thus are at a very specific penalty against that build taking advantage of it.

Squadroning is only one way it was done, as it allowed more models/functionality out of the same limiting FOC slots.
Other armies are still hindered by the FOC limitations and thus can't field as much to counter the numerous tanks...

Another way this is getting out of hand is the blatant deep strike spam. It was fine when infantry with jump packs could deep strike, teleporting stuff okay, then there are items/units that can redeploy during the game via deep strike... cool.
Now we have burrowing monsters... sounds reasonable as Tyranids don't have transports...
Then deep striking multi-hundred-tonne tanks... wait... WTF?


On top of that, there's a significant rise in the availability of "point and your dead" abilities, such as Jaws of the World Wolf and special characters-that-are-demigods like Mephiston...


Instead of trying to tune down the crazy-meter, each successive codex is trying to build of the powergaming of the last.

I also truly, in my heart and soul, believe that taking away the ability to use special characters in your army (or at least make them significantly more expensive or less powerful) would help solve a lot of issues...
Right now some of the most competitive builds require the inclusive of these characters-- which makes it glaringly obvious that there's a balance issue with them because they have become the 'no-brainer' choice... like Vulkan in C:SM.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 20:15:15


Post by: Timmah


Uh, what other competitive build uses/needs a special character?(besides Vulkan)


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 20:15:47


Post by: MVBrandt


STRAKEN, BABY, YEEEEAAAAH!



*blink*


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 20:21:42


Post by: Timmah


MVBrandt wrote:STRAKEN, BABY, YEEEEAAAAH!



*blink*


yea... *rolls eyes*


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 20:37:13


Post by: Blackmoor


MVBrandt wrote:Strong players can compete with at least one build from every dex (Daemonhunters realistically need to use IG allies, to be fair) in a tournament setting. The older dexes are limited to far fewer total builds.


I agree, although I think that Demonhunters do not need IG allies, but they help.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 20:41:32


Post by: carmachu


This isnt warmachine, no all armies are not equal in competative builds.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 20:48:20


Post by: Timmah


carmachu wrote:This isnt warmachine, no all armies are not equal in competative builds.


Thanks for you're compelling reasoning...


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 20:50:08


Post by: Hulksmash


Grimnar makes a heck of an addition to make a truly balanced competitive Space Wolves list.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/07 21:14:59


Post by: carmachu


Timmah wrote:
carmachu wrote:This isnt warmachine, no all armies are not equal in competative builds.


Thanks for you're compelling reasoning...


Think about it instead of snarking for a moment- in PP there are several competative builds, and further, the game is built around the idea of competitive play, and further each faction generally gets equal treatment.

None of that really happens in 40k. The pendulum swings way too much between books- There's no comparison between say the Dark Angels book, which is fairly weak when compared to say the brand new Blood Angels book, which looks alot nastier. There isnt alot of competative balance between codex in 40k. Its worse in fantasy.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 00:17:06


Post by: Danny Internets


Carmachu, Timmah isn't asking if all of the armies are exactly identical in terms of power. He's asking if they're roughly balanced enough to allow all army books to compete with one another.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 00:29:16


Post by: carmachu


Danny Internets wrote:Carmachu, Timmah isn't asking if all of the armies are exactly identical in terms of power. He's asking if they're roughly balanced enough to allow all army books to compete with one another.


the answer is still no. When one book has only one real competetive build, say Chaos, demons, sisters, necrons, and something like BA has 3-4(jsut throwing it out there for the moment) then no their not still roughly balanced to compete. Does anyone think DH can compete with a serious IG list? How about Necrons vs IG?

So books are just better, with better builds, then others that have very few or one.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 01:53:10


Post by: Dashofpepper


carmachu wrote:
Danny Internets wrote:Carmachu, Timmah isn't asking if all of the armies are exactly identical in terms of power. He's asking if they're roughly balanced enough to allow all army books to compete with one another.


the answer is still no. When one book has only one real competetive build, say Chaos, demons, sisters, necrons, and something like BA has 3-4(jsut throwing it out there for the moment) then no their not still roughly balanced to compete. Does anyone think DH can compete with a serious IG list? How about Necrons vs IG?

So books are just better, with better builds, then others that have very few or one.


And DE too.

There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 03:03:56


Post by: carmachu


Dashofpepper wrote:

And DE too.

There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.


Right. I'm sure there are others too, but the point is there isnt any balance considering the disparity between books, especially older ones.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 04:09:09


Post by: radical bob


didn't want to start an argument, so...


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 07:50:47


Post by: Black Blow Fly


If we assume the armies are designed and played by players of equal skill and experience then no I don't think that the various codices are equal, not even roughly equal. Judging by the recent results at Adepticon we saw that IG & SW dominated. The scale of power can shift from year to year. All it takes is one major codex release like the new Blood Angels to shift the metagame. I think most knowledgeable people will tell you that older armies such as Necrons & Tau are no longer very competitive. Sure there are the few diehards that might say otherwise but already only a quarter of the way through the new year the results from all of the major hobby events are rather telling. Would armies such as Necrons or Tau fare any better in a competitive tournament environment, just look at hte results from last year's Ard Boyz finals... Neither army was on any of the top tables.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 09:28:19


Post by: Blackmoor


Dashofpepper wrote:
There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.


I disagree. I think there are a couple of builds that can stand up to IG.

As far as some armies like Necrons not doing well, it is because no one plays them, but they did place 5th at the UK GT finals.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 09:55:30


Post by: Grey Knight Luke


ummm my outflanking bikes beat up on guard, it requires Kahn.

I have also seen drop pod dreadnought spam work against IG (12 pods and 6 AOBR boxes and a MOTF)

but our meta heavily favors SM over other builds.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 15:15:36


Post by: Saldiven


Blackmoor wrote:
Dashofpepper wrote:
There is not a DE list in existence, regardless of the number of dark lances that can stand up to a mechanized IG list.


I disagree. I think there are a couple of builds that can stand up to IG.

As far as some armies like Necrons not doing well, it is because no one plays them, but they did place 5th at the UK GT finals.


With the typical DE build at 1850 points, you'll have 15 lances and 9 disintegrators firing at 36" range. I have roughly a 1/3 chance to get an effect on a Chimaera with a Raider's DL. I have more chances to hit with a Dissie, but less chance to effect.

A decent IG list will have at least as many Chimaera as I have Raiders, and each Chim will have 6-9 shots at 36 inches, each of which are capable of knocking down my Raiders. A Chimaera has 30/24 chance to get an effect on a Raider, assuming no pintle mounted weapon.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 15:44:26


Post by: Hulksmash


Not if you put on nightshields. Or get cover. Or actually go on the offensive

I don't agree with Blackmoor much but I agree there is DE builds that stand up to mech


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 15:54:01


Post by: Timmah


So basically the arguments I have heard against it are:

The new army books have 4+ competitive builds and the old ones have 1 build. So they aren't balanced...

Number of competitive builds has nothing to do with whether armies build at the top levels are competitive.

And the other argument is one showing how certain armies do at hobby events. (at least he made not of it)

Tournament results at the moment don't really tell us much. SW and IG probably did the best at Adepticon because they are new and popular, so the most people ran them.


And yes, DH (yay allies), DA, DE, SoB can all make 1-2 competitive builds that can stand up to anything else that is made today.



Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 15:59:42


Post by: Mannahnin


I’ve found something I agree with Timmeh about!

IG and SW are certainly good codices, but I think their newness + being good combined to make them numerous at Adepticon. And the sheer number of them present certainly helped increase the number seen placing well. Lots of SW & IG armies did badly too.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 16:03:45


Post by: Hulksmash


It's to much the general and the match up. And they are not all balanced against each other even at the highest level.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 16:41:07


Post by: Danny Internets


A decent IG list will have at least as many Chimaera as I have Raiders, and each Chim will have 6-9 shots at 36 inches, each of which are capable of knocking down my Raiders. A Chimaera has 30/24 chance to get an effect on a Raider, assuming no pintle mounted weapon.


Since when do decent IG lists put heavy bolters on all of their Chimeras? The heavy flamer is the obviously superior choice for most builds.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 17:17:05


Post by: odinsgrandson


Timmah wrote:So basically the arguments I have heard against it are:

The new army books have 4+ competitive builds and the old ones have 1 build. So they aren't balanced...

Number of competitive builds has nothing to do with whether armies build at the top levels are competitive.

And the other argument is one showing how certain armies do at hobby events. (at least he made not of it)

Tournament results at the moment don't really tell us much. SW and IG probably did the best at Adepticon because they are new and popular, so the most people ran them.


And yes, DH (yay allies), DA, DE, SoB can all make 1-2 competitive builds that can stand up to anything else that is made today.




While I think you have some points (even if there is only one competitive build, they're still competitive). However, I'm not sure that the most competitive builds for some armies can't stand up against the MOST competitive builds of others. For example:

Daemon Hunters
Chaos Space Marines
Kroot Mercenaries
Dark Angels
Dark Eldar
Necrons

Really can't make a list that can stand up against the top tier lists for Space Wolves or Vanilla Marines. Sure, they can win games (with their one good build) but against an equal opponent, the better army list will usually win out the day.

Here's a test for you guys to do. Play one of the newer codexes against an older version of itself. You will find that the new codex usually can decimate the older one (exceptions include Chaos Space Marines). But if every 'dex is on equal footing, then the update shouldn't need the power creep.


This isn't really new. Over the different editions of the game, there have been a number of better and worse codexes.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/08 23:54:29


Post by: Skarboy


Hulksmash wrote:It's to much the general and the match up. And they are not all balanced against each other even at the highest level.


This is my feeling in a nutshell, except to include luck and to assume match up also implies mission objectives as part of it, not just the army being faced. I think where most of the "imbalance" or "tiers" questions come into play is when an army that is a one-dimensional rock-paper-scissors army runs into its kryptonite and gets curb-stomped. When strong, all-comer lists meet, this sort issue is less severe or perhaps negated altogether, and reverts back to being more about skill, luck, and mission objectives.

Further, I'd say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even design a wargame similar to 40K that is completely "balanced" from a design aspect, especially when trying to accommodate a divergent range of abilities, tactics, and playstyles. It's fairly difficult to create a game that accommodates both something as useless as gretchin and something as omnipowerful as a C'Tan and every possible gradation in-between when rolling freaking d6s for results. Even if both players had identical force lists, the game rules themselves might influence the outcome, such as the importance of having the first turn (or occasionally the last turn in objective missions). Without fixed lists, there are so many variables upon variables upon variables.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 00:19:40


Post by: carmachu


Timmah wrote:I'm just talking a straight up game with a book mission. Nothing to do with the larger picture.

My personal feelings are:

Daemons and Necrons have a slightly tougher time competing, but outside of that every army is fine.


DH are in the same boat.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 01:32:38


Post by: Black Blow Fly


Actually daemons are one of the most competitive armies, it's just that they are unpopular why people perceive them as weak.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 07:27:28


Post by: Warboss Gutrip


The blowfly speaks the truth. Daemons are potent, but require skill to use. I really only think that Necrons are underpowered


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 08:03:55


Post by: Kilkrazy


Tau?


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 08:48:51


Post by: Grey Knight Luke


Tau can be very very strong. They have some of the best anti mech in the game, depending on the loadout of the battlesuits they also can have very potent anti-infantry. Although some would argue that fire warriors aren't particularly useful, I have seen Tau do awesome.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 08:54:34


Post by: Kilkrazy


Have you ever seen Tau do crap?

"I have seen" type evidence is fairly circumstantial.

The question isn't whether Tau, or Necrons, etc. are a bad codex or incapable of a win -- it is whether they are as balanced with everything else as it is possible to be.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 14:00:33


Post by: Timmah


Kilkrazy wrote:Have you ever seen Tau do crap?

"I have seen" type evidence is fairly circumstantial.

The question isn't whether Tau, or Necrons, etc. are a bad codex or incapable of a win -- it is whether they are as balanced with everything else as it is possible to be.


What was your evidence behind "tau are crap"?



Tau are perfectly capable of winning right now.



Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 14:42:45


Post by: mikhaila


Timmah wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Have you ever seen Tau do crap?

"I have seen" type evidence is fairly circumstantial.

The question isn't whether Tau, or Necrons, etc. are a bad codex or incapable of a win -- it is whether they are as balanced with everything else as it is possible to be.


What was your evidence behind "tau are crap"?



Tau are perfectly capable of winning right now.



Where is your evidence behind "Tau are perfectly capable of winning right now" ?

And does 'perfectly capable of winning' equate to 'their army is balanced in power with all other armies', which I believe is the original question?

I don't think the armies are balance at all. The evidence can be seen from the talk in any forum, and in sales data. Look at what people are building for tournaments, and look at what is moving off the wall.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 15:35:57


Post by: Saldiven


Hulksmash wrote:Not if you put on nightshields. Or get cover. Or actually go on the offensive

I don't agree with Blackmoor much but I agree there is DE builds that stand up to mech


I discounted cover for the simple reason that if I can get it, so can he. That reduces my chances to affect the enemy every bit as much as it affects his chance to affect me.

Night shields aren't as much help as you might think. If I am at extreme range of the DL where I can shoot him but be effectively out of range of his shooting, I am still within range of a Chimaera moving forward 6" and still shooting three shots at me that glance on a 4+. I am still at a 1/3 chance to affect with a DL, while the Chimaera's main gun (with it's three shots) is at a 3/4 chance to affect my Raider. (Again, I'm ignoring cover, as it is just as easy for him to get as it is for me to get. It's silly to assume that I get it and he doesn't.)

"Going on the offensive" doesn't help that much either. If I have my DL squads on the Raider, then they don't get to shoot if I move forward. At best, I might counteract the loss of DL fire from Raider Squads by gaining Blaster fire if I'm in range. Being closer would also remove the majority of the benefit of having Night Shields. Also, moving closer brings me in range of such items as Melta Guns and Flamers that are ubiquitous in IG armies. Lastly, a decent IG army will position his forces, vehicles and disembark troops from his wrecked vehicles in such a fashion as to make it very difficult to get wyches into combat with them. And, since Mech IG squads are so small, it's highly unlikely than a squad of wyches will stay engaged with a squad of any IG infantry after the initial charge.

I'm not throwing this out there from a "theoryhammer" perspective. I've been playing DE almost exclusively since 2002-2003. In the current state of the game, an even half-decent Mech IG army gives me fits, moreso than any other army build I can think of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Danny Internets wrote:
A decent IG list will have at least as many Chimaera as I have Raiders, and each Chim will have 6-9 shots at 36 inches, each of which are capable of knocking down my Raiders. A Chimaera has 30/24 chance to get an effect on a Raider, assuming no pintle mounted weapon.


Since when do decent IG lists put heavy bolters on all of their Chimeras? The heavy flamer is the obviously superior choice for most builds.


Not really relevant, because even if they do use a Heavy Flamer and no pintle mounted weapon, the Chimaera still has a better chance of taking out a Raider than the other way around.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 16:00:45


Post by: Hulksmash


@Salviden

Two words: Wych Cult

Trust me on this you can make a competitive DE army. And it is designed to go on the offensive and still have nearly the shooting of a standard cabal list. You just have to play against mech guard differently then you would other armies. Not build it specifically for anti-mech IG but build it with them in mind and how you would adjust to that game. The problem a lot of people have with DE is that they are paper airplanes with weapons designed to kill AV12+ only 28% without cover. You have to change up your style against numerous vehicles.

The same "super" list isn't cutting it with mech IG. Time to change it


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 16:02:49


Post by: Timmah


So you have trouble vs one army? Congrats so do a lot of armies.

That doesn't mean the game isn't balanced. It just means certain armies have tougher matchups. (no, not rock/paper/scissors)

For example, my space marines wreck twin lash chaos lists. But my tau have trouble vs them.

1 is definitely an easier game. However they are both quite winnable.

Balance doesn't mean everything is exactly the same. It means if you field a solidly competitive take all comers list. You should have a viable chance of beating any list.

I have yet to see a situation where this isn't true.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 16:39:52


Post by: mikhaila


Second thoughts: Not worth arguing about, discussion will never end, despite what poll seems to indicate.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 16:44:47


Post by: Timmah


mikhaila wrote:Second thoughts: Not worth arguing about, discussion will never end, despite what poll seems to indicate.


You're right. Popular opinion of people online couldn't be wrong...

Glad your adding to the discussion instead of being condescending.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 16:50:02


Post by: odinsgrandson


Skarboy wrote:
Further, I'd say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even design a wargame similar to 40K that is completely "balanced" from a design aspect, especially when trying to accommodate a divergent range of abilities, tactics, and playstyles.


I certainly wouldn't go that far. Or at least, it would depend on what you call "balanced." There are a lot of things that the guys down at GW could do to fix some of their game balance issues.

But first- what is not a balance issue:

1- The fact that you can be unlucky enough to lose doesn't destroy game balance. One of the aspects of strategy to every tabletop wargame is mitigation of risk. You need to decide what kind of risk favors you, and try to steer the game in that direction. Sure, it isn't always going to come out in your favor, and you could lose to an opponent who is worse than you, but that's all fine in the long run.

Mind, sometimes there are rolls where you cannot do enough to mitigate the risks involved. A lot of times this happens when rolling to decide who moves first between shooty forces (someone is just going to blow away his opponent on the first turn, and lady luck is fickle). That is a balance issue, but one that GW is trying to mitigate.

2- Not every 2000 point army that you bring to the table should have an equal chance against every other 2000 point army. That's fine. A large part of 40k strategy involves making a strong force list, and making a force list is a competitive part of the game. Sure, there are builds that we all wished worked better, but that is fine.

However, choosing a faction should not be a competitive part of the game, and I think that is the issue that we're talking about. Most 40k forces have built in weaknesses, and not all of those are balanced against each other (although this often changes with the edition).

Overall, each force has his most competitive list. Yes, it is unfair that many do not have two of these for a player to choose between. Also, some top tier lists just aren't up to snuff with others. It isn't about playing against your own kryptonite, it is about how half of the game is your kryptonite, while other top tier forces actually don't have a kryptonite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Timmah wrote:
And the other argument is one showing how certain armies do at hobby events. (at least he made not of it)

Tournament results at the moment don't really tell us much. SW and IG probably did the best at Adepticon because they are new and popular, so the most people ran them.


This statement is, at least, not historically accurate (although it may or may not be accurate now).

During the 2nd edition, consensus was that the Eldar were overpowered. Eldar was either the first or second Codex to be released (I can't remember if Space Wolves were before them or not) but were very much superpowered when compared against every other army.

The Eldar also dominated the tournament circuit for the duration of the 2nd edition. I remember a White Dwarf battle report pitting the #1 games day winner against the #1 staff tournament winner. Both were playing Eldar, and this was four or five years after the release of the codex.

Currently, the common opinion is that there is a clear power creep whenever a codex is revised. If this is true, then it would only make sense that the top tier forces would be the newest ones.

I don't think that there is any absolute evidence that the newest lists are as unbalanced as all that, but tournament results support the theory that power is creeping upwards.



Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 18:03:31


Post by: Saldiven


Hulksmash wrote:@Salviden

Two words: Wych Cult

Trust me on this you can make a competitive DE army. And it is designed to go on the offensive and still have nearly the shooting of a standard cabal list. You just have to play against mech guard differently then you would other armies. Not build it specifically for anti-mech IG but build it with them in mind and how you would adjust to that game. The problem a lot of people have with DE is that they are paper airplanes with weapons designed to kill AV12+ only 28% without cover. You have to change up your style against numerous vehicles.

The same "super" list isn't cutting it with mech IG. Time to change it


Two words: played that.

I've played every build you can think of, including one with six Haemonculi, 3 Taloi, and 45 Grotesques. (That build is actually kinda funny in how well it does against some armies.)

Wych cult has even less ability to pop vehicles at range due to fewer DL and can only balance that out with CC units that don't have much use versus a Mech opponent and overpriced RJB. If you, yourself, have been beating competent Mech IG players, then good on ya.

However, based on my own personal experience and just plain analysis of the numbers, I would never bet on a DE player to beat a Mech IG player of equal skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skarboy wrote:Further, I'd say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even design a wargame similar to 40K that is completely "balanced" from a design aspect, especially when trying to accommodate a divergent range of abilities, tactics, and playstyles.


It's not impossible, but GW is unwilling to do what it would take to make it truly balanced. It would require a radical rethinking of how they do business.

The main change would have to be that the core rules and all codices would have to be developed and released concurrently. The development team would have to conduct extensive playtesting between all codices using the existing rules set to find loopholes and imbalances. Future updates would have to address all rules and codices simultaneously. Rules issues would need to be addressed in a timely and official manner.

Anyway, I don't see GW doing any of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Timmah wrote:Balance doesn't mean everything is exactly the same. It means if you field a solidly competitive take all comers list. You should have a viable chance of beating any list.


So, correct me if I'm mis-stating your point, you believe that for balance to exist that all "take all comers" lists merely have to have a "viable chance of beating any list?"

Does it matter that some take all comers lists have a much better chance at beating a wider variety of opponent's lists than do other take all comer's lists? Or is it your position that the common perception that some lists perform better against a wider variety of opponents than do some other lists is an inaccurate perception?


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 18:15:09


Post by: Hulksmash


I never said ranged popping. You have to play differently against guard Sal. Meaning Haywire grenades. You generally lose 2 DL's (13 instead of 15)but gain the ability for every unit on the table to hurt vehicles and that can if needed actually kill MEQs if their transport goes down. It also gives you 3 empty raiders you can use as extra lift for warriors or as cover for your occupied ones.

The problem probably is that you've been playing DE since 2002-2003. No matter how open minded you are that will get you stuck in a certain style that works rut and truly stop looking at certain options. It's not a knock on you. Everyone gets that way. Heck, i got that way with my 'nids so I'm taking a break and I'll come back to them in a few months with fresh eyes and a more open mind.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 19:51:14


Post by: Timmah


Saldiven wrote:

So, correct me if I'm mis-stating your point, you believe that for balance to exist that all "take all comers" lists merely have to have a "viable chance of beating any list?"

Does it matter that some take all comers lists have a much better chance at beating a wider variety of opponent's lists than do other take all comer's lists? Or is it your position that the common perception that some lists perform better against a wider variety of opponents than do some other lists is an inaccurate perception?


It depends on how much better they are. I personally would say the difference between IG and an older codex like Tau is minuscule enough.

I know its a vague answer, but some list will have a better chance at taking out every army and some will have a better chance of taking out certain armies.

1v1 there will always be differences. The question is, are those differences small enough that a slightly better player can get around them? I would say yes.

You really can never achieve perfect balance. Heck even in checkers (the simplest game out there) there isn't balance. Whoever goes first should technically always win. (or maybe goes 2nd, not sure what it is for checkers)


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 21:19:08


Post by: Black Blow Fly


Here is how I would break down the tiers:

Tier1/ IG, SW, BA, Daemons

Tier2/ SM, CSM, Orks

Tier3/ Nidz, BT, DE, SoB

Tier4/ all hte rest

I know some people will say old armies like Necrons & Tau are still top tier but really they are just diehards and you never see either winning best overall or best general at a GT level competition.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/09 21:41:11


Post by: Jackal


GBF - out of interest, why have nids in T3?
Again its a newer army with a fair few good builds, and atleast 2-3 competative builds.
In objective games i would throw them into T1 due to the sheer variety of units that can work in different situations.

However, i still think its the player that makes the game, not the list.

Also, flavour of the month still comes in heavy here with everyone wanting to play the new armies.
You would see alot more DE and GK lists in the higher tournies if more people played them.


Ardboyz after the ork release was a good example of a single army cornering the tables.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/10 00:37:31


Post by: Black Blow Fly


So here are my top two tiers versus Nidz which I ranked in the third tier:

Tier1/ IG, SW, BA, Daemons
Tier2/ SM, CSM, Orks, Eldar (mech)
Tier3/ Nidz, etc.

Let's quickly compare Nidz versus each army I selected from hte top two tiers:

Nidz vs. IG Mexh - I think most will agree that IG have the advantage:
• Lots of horde & MC killing power
• -1 to enemy reserve rolls
• Protection vs. heavy deep strike (Inq/Mys)
• Good anti psyker protection (Inq)

Nidz vs. SW - again I think most will agree that SW have the advantage:
MC Killyness (Long Fangs)
• Strong anti psyker (Rune Priest)

Nidz vs. CSM
In my opinion Nidz are very vulnerable to lash spam with no real defense. A smart opponent will keep his princes outside the range of SitW, clump gaunts/stealers then blast them with plasma. CSM can also generate enough high S low AP shots per turn to drop a 6 wound MC when it moves into range of the meltaguns.

Nidz vs. Daemons
Daemons have Eternal Warrior & INV saves across the board, Nid players would love to have access to these rules. You've got units like the Skulltaker who can take out entire blocks of MCs. Nurgle Princes properly equipped can also trounce Tyranid MCs. Again Daemons are another army that has the advantage.

So this leaves BA, orks & SM. BA while unproven obvious to me have a better codex. While orks & SM will not match up as well they both perform better against the other armies listed above.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/10 04:40:38


Post by: MorbidlyObeseMonkey


I recently posted an article on my blog which relates to this topic. http://gamers-gone-wild.blogspot.com/2010/04/importance-of-army-list.html

I honestly don't think which codex a player is using has as big of an effect on their results as most people think it does. I will use myself as an example. I bring Necrons to local tournaments and I do very well with them. My Necron list is optimized to the best capabilities of the Necron codex, and I face off against other optimized lists (SW, IG, BA). Now, I do not feel that I have a vast difference in skill level between me and my opponents. However, I'm still undecided on this topic because I think just using myself in Vancouver is too small of a sample size. I'm bringing an optimized Orks list to the summer GTs, so I'll get to see the contrast in results between them and my Necrons. It should be interesting.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/10 09:40:36


Post by: Black Blow Fly


My comments are based upon my experience over the course of attending many tournies around the US.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/11 03:28:47


Post by: I grappled the shoggoth


GBF (sometimes) knows what hes talking about. Too much raw tournament experience though for his opinion to be dismissed.

How do you think eldar stand in the meta right now?


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/11 04:35:57


Post by: Black Blow Fly


I would put mechdar in hte second tier.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/11 04:43:58


Post by: I grappled the shoggoth


OH crap, its already listed up there
doh


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/11 16:44:11


Post by: carmachu


Black Blow Fly wrote:Actually daemons are one of the most competitive armies, it's just that they are unpopular why people perceive them as weak.

G


Thats just a load of crap. Their not a top teir army by any means. People dont see them as weak because their unpopular. Thri unpopular because there's too much randomness in deployment. Having played it for a time it was fun, but too much left to chance to really make a solid plan when you want certain models and you roll a one and dont get your choosen set, delayed through reserve rolls, bad scatters.....

Thats more likely the reason for unpopularity.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/11 20:18:02


Post by: Black Blow Fly


My record in tournament play with daemons is one best overall, two second best overalls and one third best overall. One of the second place wins should have been first place but it was my first tournament with the list and I made a silly mistake in the last round. These are the only tournaments I have played them and I think those results are top tier. So you have not had much success but your experience does not apply to everyone. Bill Kim is also a daemon player and has done very well. Daemons have some huge advantages:

•Eternal Warrior across the list
•Invulnerable saves across the list
•Deep strike across the list

While you claim the army has an element of randomness due to the deep strike this can be greatly minimized and in my mind being able to deep strike your entire army is actually a huge advantage as your are totally exempt from the problems associated with deployment that other more conventional armies must deal with during the initial phase of the game. My waves are balanced so I am not adversely affected if my secondary wave comes in first.

I have been playing deep striking armies for over a decade so I think I know what I am doing. You have to be able to visual 3", 6" & 12" on the table to be a good deep striker. Because your entire army can deep strike daemons have a big advantage in objective based missions. You can also design a highly resilient army with a low number of killpoints. Daemons have all the right tools.

I think if more veterans played them you would see them at the top more often. Just because it is an uncommon army in no way shape or form means it is not a good army by any means. While there are some anti daemon options for some armies there is no bullet proof anti daemon army. On the other hand daemons almost guarantee an auto win versus certain armies if properly played and this is one of the reasons why i ranked them as top tier.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/11 21:32:05


Post by: carmachu


Black Blow Fly wrote:My record in tournament play with daemons is one best overall, two second best overalls and one third best overall. One of the second place wins should have been first place but it was my first tournament with the list and I made a silly mistake in the last round. These are the only tournaments I have played them and I think those results are top tier.


First, congradulations.

Second, so what. Your own andocal evidence doesnt make them top teir, its across the board results that count. My own sisters I'm pretty much undefeated, I know John has had great success with them in and out of tournments, but I dont think that sisters are top tier.

Strong? yes. Top teir? No. Neither are deamons.



So you have not had much success but your experience does not apply to everyone. Bill Kim is also a daemon player and has done very well.


Dont euqate experiences as non-success, I've done well with them. I dont think their a top teir list.


Daemons have some huge advantages:

•Eternal Warrior across the list
•Invulnerable saves across the list
•Deep strike across the list

While you claim the army has an element of randomness due to the deep strike this can be greatly minimized and in my mind being able to deep strike your entire army is actually a huge advantage as your are totally exempt from the problems associated with deployment that other more conventional armies must deal with during the initial phase of the game. My waves are balanced so I am not adversely affected if my secondary wave comes in first.




Those arent all advantages, when its across the board. For example- eternal warrior across the board doesnt really matter except in a very small handful of cases. No one cares that say, blood letters or mounted demonettes have eternal warrior. They only have one wound. It only helps in small handful of cases of DP and blood crushers and such(mostly the elite slots)

Invulnerable saves across the board is a double edged sward. Having played sisters and the ability to turn 3+(and a 2+) save Invulnerable, its great against the heavy weapons of lascannons and plasmaguns. But as I have learned over the years, none of that saves you against 9 heavy bolters(basically volume of fire).

Deep strike is again, a double edged sword. At times, when it works in your favor, it does indeed seem like a boon. But your coming down piecemeal(yes yes, even with half yoru army on the opening round) and if your opponent deals with you, with half an army with his full army, and the DS backfires- mishaps on deepstrike, bad reserve rolls, etc well then its not exactly an advantage.



I have been playing deep striking armies for over a decade so I think I know what I am doing. You have to be able to visual 3", 6" & 12" on the table to be a good deep striker. Because your entire army can deep strike daemons have a big advantage in objective based missions. You can also design a highly resilient army with a low number of killpoints. Daemons have all the right tools.


Deamons have tools. But at least two of them are double edged swords.



I think if more veterans played them you would see them at the top more often. Just because it is an uncommon army in no way shape or form means it is not a good army by any means. While there are some anti daemon options for some armies there is no bullet proof anti daemon army. On the other hand daemons almost guarantee an auto win versus certain armies if properly played and this is one of the reasons why i ranked them as top tier.

G


Did you ever think that it might be the other way around? Vets have spoken and arent playing it for 40k(fantasy being anotehr story), so that might be telling you something. I know several tournment players, including myself, that have picked up deamon armies. But they dont think its a top teir one. I could say the same thing about sisters of battle in the above statement you made, their advantages and if only more people played them.

But the reality is, they dont, for a variety of reasons. Their not top teir, either one.

I never said it wasnt a good army, deamon armies. But I do think


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 01:39:40


Post by: Ian Sturrock


Ye gods! How can invulnerable saves across the board be anything other than an advantage?!? Sure, it's vulnerable to massed shooting -- but what isn't?


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 03:24:13


Post by: Black Blow Fly


An invulnerable save is always better than no save.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 03:25:17


Post by: Danny Internets


Ian Sturrock wrote:Ye gods! How can invulnerable saves across the board be anything other than an advantage?!? Sure, it's vulnerable to massed shooting -- but what isn't?


The problem is that invulnerable save is figured into the units' costs. Because of how easy it is to get cover saves for infantry in 5th edition there are fewer plasma weapons out there. Combined, this increases the value of a good armor save, which is unlikely to be negated. It also decreases the value of a low invulnerable save because you can gain a better save by simply, say, hiding your unit's feet behind the crest of a hill.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 04:08:26


Post by: Black Blow Fly


Cover saves work for daemons just like every other Army. I have won more than my fair shAre of games with a huge squad of Bloodletters (T4) camped out on the winning objetive taking the SM save since my opponent didn't have hte gumption to assault my Blood Crushers shielding them. Basically what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 04:14:51


Post by: Danny Internets


I don't recall saying they operated differently for Daemons. What I did say was that they are relatively less valuable given how easy it is to claim cover saves, which serve essentially the same function. In fact, your anecdote is a perfect example of why that invulnerable save is meaningless in so many cases. If your Blood Crushers are shielding your Bloodletters then the latter already enjoys the benefit of a 4+ cover save making their 5+ invulnerable save both inferior and redundant.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 05:03:45


Post by: Black Blow Fly


Not really and I think you missed the point that my Bloodletters go to ground for the 3+. it's almost as good as the 3++ when absorbing enemy firepower except versus flamers and other shooting that ignores cover. You might be thinking there isn't much that ignore cover besides flamers but IG have at least two tanks that fire ordnance ignoring cover and SM have the thunderfire cannon... Maybe the Whirlwind also has a round that ignores cover, I'm not sure. The thing about templates versus Khornate daemons is you must get into charge range to shoot them which is a big no no. My Bloodletter squads are usually 15 apiece so they can stand up to a lot of shooting. Now versus those ordnance weapons that ignore cover the 5++ is still pretty darn good and much better than the alternative of simply picking up the models & putting them away. So basically a large squad of T4 models is quite resilient, especially when they have a cover save & GtG. These are the kind of things some people don't seem to take into consideration in general. If you think about T4 is one of the main reasons why mutant heavy L&tD armies were so strong back in hte day.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 14:32:21


Post by: carmachu


Ian Sturrock wrote:Ye gods! How can invulnerable saves across the board be anything other than an advantage?!? Sure, it's vulnerable to massed shooting -- but what isn't?


Having the ability to get one, its not always the best thing. Some days its great, other days its not as good. 5+ invulberable is rgeat vs those power weapons and plasmagns.....but really not that good against 6 orks or a couple of bolters. Its a mixed bag.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 17:35:14


Post by: Black Blow Fly


Thats just your opinion though and it has alreadyvbeen been denoted often daemons will have access to a better save.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 18:17:21


Post by: Grey Knight Luke


Ok so think of it this way. If you could give your squad of space marines all power weapons and invul saves, would you? I sure would. Bloodletters are awesome, especially if you can give them a better save via cover or whatever. The problem with daemons isn't their units (although they do lack anti tank) its their consistency. But used correctly daemons are enormously powerful and provide a player with a flexible gameplan. The whole deepstrike thing is good and bad, but other armies use it to their advantage (drop pod SM anyone?) and it doesn't seem to hurt them too much.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 18:42:56


Post by: Timmah


Grey Knight Luke wrote:Ok so think of it this way. If you could give your squad of space marines all power weapons and invul saves, would you? I sure would. Bloodletters are awesome, especially if you can give them a better save via cover or whatever. The problem with daemons isn't their units (although they do lack anti tank) its their consistency. But used correctly daemons are enormously powerful and provide a player with a flexible gameplan. The whole deepstrike thing is good and bad, but other armies use it to their advantage (drop pod SM anyone?) and it doesn't seem to hurt them too much.


You mean your squad of space marines without a transport, no ranged weapons and no 3+ armor save?

Its a good thing you have that 5++ in combat, for when you run into those assault units with only power weapons. (so daemons and TH/SS terminators)


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 18:49:54


Post by: Redbeard


Exactly. Daemons will never be a top tournament army, because while they can really steamroller anyone in any given game, in a set of three games, they're going to screw you over once.

You lose a lot of control with daemons. You lose the ability to reserve everything, like some armies can - you have to drop half your units on turn 1. (In turn, your opponent can go all-reserve against you, knowing you'll have to drop half). You can't pick where you arrive, only where you hope to.

They're also never going to be top-tier because if they get too good, it's trivial for any imperial army to meta-game them back down a tier - by fielding mystics, null zoners, and other specific anti-daemon tech. No other army can be metagamed as easily (or cheaply - adding 40 points to any imperial army for free shots on any unit that arrives close enough to hurt you, for example).

This isn't just speculation, I've played them since the codex came out, in all manner of different configurations, and this is just how it works out.



Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 20:02:04


Post by: carmachu


Black Blow Fly wrote:Thats just your opinion though and it has alreadyvbeen been denoted often daemons will have access to a better save.

G


And as you have noted, its nothing more than your opinion that deamons are top teir.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 21:53:51


Post by: ceorron


Black Blow Fly wrote:Here is how I would break down the tiers:

Tier1/ IG, SW, BA, Daemons

Tier2/ SM, CSM, Orks

Tier3/ Nidz, BT, DE, SoB

Tier4/ all hte rest

I know some people will say old armies like Necrons & Tau are still top tier but really they are just diehards and you never see either winning best overall or best general at a GT level competition.

G


If we are going by tiers then I'm thinking

Tier1/ IG, BA

Tier2/ SM, Orks, SW, Daemons, Eldar, Tau

Tier3/ CSM, Nidz, BT, DA

Tier4/ DE, WH, DH, Nec



Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 22:45:43


Post by: Grey Knight Luke


ummm why do you rank things that way? any reasoning would be great.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 23:00:16


Post by: ceorron


I'm rating based on what I have heard, how well the armies i've played have done and the number of competitive builds.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/12 23:52:33


Post by: Black Blow Fly


carmachu wrote:
Black Blow Fly wrote:Thats just your opinion though and it has alreadyvbeen been denoted often daemons will have access to a better save.

G


And as you have noted, its nothing more than your opinion that deamons are top teir.


my opinion is based upon my track record and other successful daemon players like Bill Kim plus they took home the 2nd hard boys title. Redbeard is like you, no big wins so you blame the army not hte general.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 00:16:12


Post by: Redbeard


Black Blow Fly wrote:
my opinion is based upon my track record and other successful daemon players like Bill Kim plus they took home the 2nd hard boys title. Redbeard is like you, no big wins so you blame the army not hte general.

G


You keep dragging up that 2nd 'ardboyz tournament, and while I'm not making any sort of accusation of wrongdoing at the event, I think we can all agree that the way they were played that day differs significantly from how they're supposed to be played, so we can just discount that event.

Furthermore, that event was two years ago, at least. Since then...

Many new codexes have been released, and adopted. Marines, Guard, Wolves - each weaken the daemons in some way. Marines have the omni-present nullzone power going for them. Guard can delay your reserve rolls. And wolves can JotWW away your expensive crushers and greater daemons fairly easily.

With each of these codexes, mech has become far more prevalent. Daemons struggle with mech. They lose something if they're spending time assaulting 35 point rhinos rather than 200 point Tac squads.

Of course, good players can win with anything, provided they get a little luck. And that's the big problem with daemons if you play a series of games. In one of the games, the luck will go against you. You'll get the wrong assault wave. Read battle reports from daemon players and one thing that you find is that, when they win, their daemonic assault rolls were on, or their reserves were super-hot. Read Bill's report from Bashcon last year, and count how many times he says that he got lucky. Game 1: Got the wrong wave, but all reserves but one on turn 2. Game 2: Got the primary, and all reserves by turn 2. Game 3: Got primary, and a healthy dose of 2nd turn reserves.

Go figure, when daemons are on, they'll give anyone game. But what you don't see are the games where you're pretty much SOL because the wrong wave came down, and then your other reserves don't show. No amount of great generalling lets that work, and you see that from the results of good players who also have some of their worst finishes at major events with this army too. That's part of the balance built into the army, and in any given game, that's fine. But it's that 1/3rd chance, compounded over the course of multiple games, that prevents Daemons from being top-tier.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 00:32:00


Post by: Grey Knight Luke


well at least you guys agree that

T1/ IG, BA
T2/ SM, Orks
T3/ Nidz, BT
T4/ Necrons

I find it interesting that even though there are two armies that have been ranked T1 by black blow fly and T2 by other people Daemons and SW. But we don't have the same talk going on about SW and why it is not a T1 army.

Secondly, is CSM really on the same tier as SM? How so? I would assume that we are putting power lists together so a Vulcan SM army against a CSM army and thats a really fair fight? Discuss...

DE, tier 3 or tier 4 respectively?

Oh and here is the actual talking point that I wanted everyone to get out of this. What constitutes a T1 army? What criteria apply to a T2 army? a T3 army? a T4 army? Once we figure out objective criteria in which to rate these armies. Everything else should fall into place. So on the armies that you agree are T1, T2, etc.. what characteristics do each have that make them that tier?


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 01:53:54


Post by: Black Blow Fly


Redbeard I find your view wrong on mulitple levels. I want to address what you have said in detail. Ihave read many of your daemon batreps and feel you never really got your head around the army. Every army actually has some randomness... We are rolling dice. about ard boys you sound like you are simply reiterating hearsay, the win should not be discredited. Witch hunts are still very much envogue today and it makes me sad panda to see you tossing more coals onto the flames. No daemons were deployed prior to the start of turn one and they all arrived via deep strike.

Stuff like null zone & mystics are no big deal if you know what you are doing. Psychic hoods are utterly useless. I don't see much of any advantage BA have and it is a myth that daemons struggle against mexh. Go to my blog, there are plenty of tactics there proven that explain how to beat mexh with daemons.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 02:43:44


Post by: Redbeard


You're right, every army has some associated randomness. But, there's a huge difference between having some randomness be how well a unit shoots, or if it can pull off a charge through difficult terrain, and having the choice of which models you want on the table go wrong 1/3rd of the time.

Okay, so lets just say, to avoid arguments, that there was nothing funny about 'ard boyz two years ago. That the bloodcrushers were on the right sized bases, and that they deployed to the exact letter of what the codex says. It was still two years ago. It was still before any of the codexes that are listed as 'better than daemons' had been released. As a data-point, it's extremely dated. How often in that event did he not get the daemonic assault waves that he wanted?

Saying Null Zone is no big deal is generally right - you will take extra casualties, but you can eventually play through it. Mystics force you to alter your entire drop strategy. If you bring, say, suicide flamers, mystics make a huge impact. Depending on what the mystics are giving free shots to, a lucky sighting roll could decimate any unit (Imagine the mystics designating the shots to a plasma executioner, for example, while your deep strikers are all neatly packed together.)

Again, I'm not saying that they're not a solid army that can win games, especially when played well. But to say that they're in the top tier, without acknowledging that an entire tournament can hinge on one die roll in the third game (when you're likely to be facing a skilled opponent) is just foolish. It's a big glaring weakness for a tournament army.



Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 03:08:28


Post by: I grappled the shoggoth


The only thing keeping demons back is the possibility for extreme randomness, no amount of skill will win you games when you get the wrong wave and almost nothing else shows up til turn 4 or 5.

The other problem is the extreme levels of derp in the imperial guard. Inquisitor with mystics and officer of the fleet can stop demons dead. As can null zone librarians.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 04:23:14


Post by: Black Blow Fly


I have balanced waves with icons in each. For me there is not really a preferred wave, just one will come in first twice as often as the other.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 11:37:01


Post by: ceorron


Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Oh and here is the actual talking point that I wanted everyone to get out of this. What constitutes a T1 army? What criteria apply to a T2 army? a T3 army? a T4 army? Once we figure out objective criteria in which to rate these armies. Everything else should fall into place. So on the armies that you agree are T1, T2, etc.. what characteristics do each have that make them that tier?


As I mentioned I'm going on what I see and heard about the number of successful builds. Thats not to say the other tiers don't have succeful builds because they do just the choices are limited, limiting your chances.

As for space wolves. Simple the codex has a heavy emphasis towards alot of HQ character (you can have 4 instead of 2) and some are required to make your army perform well. Some are just dead good but as so are almost a requirement. They also have something of a lack of heavy weaponry making long fangs or a tanks with plenty of fire power a requirement. This reduces the number of potentially successful builds in the dex. I know this can be said of other armies (generally the tier 2 armies and def tier 3) With some armies always relying on certain units the codex is broken more quickly than an army that could field anything and win, making them less competitive.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 12:41:28


Post by: Kilkrazy


Tau only really have one good build which is Mech.

Gunline is useless for a lot of circumstances.

Gundam Wing can be fun but like most armies based around a Deathstar unit, its performance is very variable depending on luck factors.

That said, having only one good build may be dull but it can be competitive if it is competitive.

Mech Tau is less competitive than some other armies is because the vehicles are more expensive for what you get.

So I would not place Tau in tier 1.

I think they are one of the weaker armies around these days, though I also think most armies are closer together than they were a few years ago.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 13:03:06


Post by: Mannahnin


Overall I have to go with Redbeard on the Daemons debate, though I think GBF has some valid points which many players less-experienced with Daemons do not consider. They can certainly be built and played in a way that makes them less vulnerable to randomness, particularly so as to minimize the effect of a failed 3+ roll on turn 1. That said, scatters and bad reserve rolls happen. Bill Kim is an excellent player, and we met in the final round of the ‘Ard Boyz final last year, and his unit of 8 Bloodcrushers scattered into different terrain and died turn 1. That’s a huge handicap, and was the single most important element in me getting a Massacre in that game. The metagame considerations of the cheap Inquisitor/Mystics combo and Null Zone (which is seen in a very large percentage of SM armies) crop up enough to be important too.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 14:49:51


Post by: CaptKaruthors


One of the biggest things people seem to be failing to address is that the older books not only suffer from a previous version of the game's rules, but also the points cost. When I put my BT down on the table vs. SM, SW, BA, I know I'm going to struggle because they are getting some of the same units in their army for cheaper...thus their army has more units, better abilities for less points. This creates a sort of handicap. The same can be said for other armies. This points void IMHO, is one of the biggest problems. It immediately puts those older armies at a disadvantage because they were balanced "points-wise" for a version of the game that no one is playing anymore. 5th edition armies are well balanced amongst themselves, but are definitely not vs. older codexes...thus those armies get placed in lower tiers.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 15:14:10


Post by: Mannahnin


This is what keeps me from bringing my Eldar back to play. Despite what people say about Mechdar being competitive, I don’t want to pay 120-150 for an AV12 transport.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 15:17:49


Post by: Black Blow Fly


I agree with what Captain K said regarding BT. While they are still potent & have some perks being an older codex (dual cannons for my 5 man termie squads for example) I think they can be buffed with a new codex.

As to daemons deep striking & mishaps the example of Cent losing a huge block of Crushers with Heralds attached is the worst case scenario. Yes it can happen... And while as a daemon player myself I shouldn't sweep that under the carpet I had a similar occurences in my first tournament - last round playing for 1st place - it was a really stupid mistake as I had an icon on the table and for whatever reason decided not to use it. :( Blood Crushers have a huge footprint so if there is no icon you have to be very careful where you place them for the initial drop. By doing so & using my icons I have never lost a squad of daemons to a mishap since.

On the Inq/Mys anti daemon unit... First you have to remember that the average spotting roll is only 14" and the unit will be placed in the center of the army. Often I will deep strike on either flank forcing my opponent to move forward through his center. This pretty much shuts down the Inq/Mys unit making them useless for all practical purposes. It's hard for a mechanized army to avoid being charged by the initial wave the following turn. Mechdar are a tough matchup for just about any daemon army since their skimmer tanks can move 24". I kit my Bloodthirster with deathstrike... That is basically 36" range with a plasma pistol. Might not sound all that great but you'd be surprised how often it has dropped light transports. It's not something you can count on but it's still there to handle certain contingencies.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 15:24:02


Post by: Redbeard


What! You mean Bill isn't the unbeatable player of legend who can shrug off such inconsequential things as the loss of a 400 point unit with ease?


To add a little more of substance to this post, I'd like to go back to what GK Luke said a few posts back - what is the definition of a tier?

I believe that player skill on the tabletop is more important than how powerful a codex is, or even, how min-maxxed their list is. JWolf's gladiator list, Blackmoor's Foot Eldar, DarthDiggler's 'ard boy marines - lists that constantly draw comments like "you won with that" or "you couldn't have played anyone competitive" - show that there's more to it than taking the best mathhammer units.

So, how important are these theoretical tiers? I think that they really only come into play when comparing games played between equally skilled opponents.

I also don't think that it is necessarily correct to label Tiers by codex alone. I think it is more appropriate to consider list archetypes than just what book they're taken from.

Take C:CSM as an example. Dual-Lash is still a top performer. But it's only one archtype from that codex. Most of the rest of that codex seems underwhelming in the face of subsequent releases. Does that mean that the whole codex is top-tier, because of one build? I don't think so. But does that mean you can't make a tier-one army out of C:CSM - clearly you still can.

Some codexes have multiple tough builds. Space Wolves, for example, can field an extremely shooty mech list, or the thunderwolf cav heavy-assault version. Does their ability to field more than one competitive build mean that they're a higher tier?

There's also the RPS effect to consider. I've seen Dark Eldar played very well in 5th ed, and they've got good matchups against several armies. But leafblower guard has their number.

Maybe that's a good baseline for deciding what tiers something is. First, assume equal player competence.

A top tier army is going to have no bad matchups, and at least one (or maybe more) easy wins from lower tier armies.

A 2nd tier army might have a bad matchup against a 1st tier army, but no outright bad matchups against other 2nd tier armies. And so on.

I still think that this is far more relevant when discussing army archtypes though, rather than codexes.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 17:29:22


Post by: carmachu


Black Blow Fly wrote:Redbeard I find your view wrong on mulitple levels. I want to address what you have said in detail. Ihave read many of your daemon batreps and feel you never really got your head around the army. Every army actually has some randomness... We are rolling dice.


Your talking out your rectum.

No not every army has the same level of randomness. Deamons, by their codex are more then any army. What redbeard talks about is a part of the army- if their on, their on. When their not on the reserve rolls....yeah ist bad. When you land dead on, its great. When you scatter all over the place, its bad.

No other army has that much randomness day in and day out.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 17:29:36


Post by: ceorron


Redbeard, I agree entirely with everything your saying. Yeah the tier system I and Black Blow Fly have suggested is flawed badly as a good build in a lower tier could beat a "better" army in a higher tier with easy especially if it is a build that is built for the purpose or has an army wide advantage.

Luck, competency and the like all play a part. We all know players that could have killer armies but just buy the models they want and thats that. Even in tornament play people like the armies they like and that is fine.

Old codexes do have a problem with the pricing of certain units for the latest addition of the rules. I could easy see BT, DE, DA and Necrons getting moved with a new codex release almost for certainly. We will just have to wait while GW get around to releasing the new books.

There was a time when Eldar did rule for a while I think for the moment it is IG that rule, but are still better balanced IMO than it was when eldar held the crown.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 17:34:47


Post by: Kilkrazy


>>Mech Tau is less competitive than some other armies is because the vehicles are more expensive for what you get.

A Devilfish has fewer shots with lower power and half the range of a stock Chimaera.

The Chimaera has firing points for the passengers to shoot out of, and smoke dischargers and a searchlight, and it's amphibious.

The Chimaera is only worth 1 KP while the Devilfish is 2KP because of its drones.

The only advantage the Fish has is that it is a skimmer. Should it cost 80p to the Chimaera's 55p?


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 18:55:32


Post by: Black Blow Fly


A good daemon player knows how to reduce randnomness:

• Split your units into your two waves such that they are equal in strength. Many daemon players want to front load their primary wave with all their heavy hitters. It requires some discipline not to fall into this trap. By equalizing your two waves it does not matter which one comes in first.

• Use multiple icons. Yes they are expensive but well worth the investment.

• Learn how to visualize 3", 6" & 12" on the table taking into account the foot print for your units. It's far better to drop on a safe area than risk scattering into an enemy unit/impassable terrain. Daemons are very resilient and if properly placed can soak up a lot of shooting then dish it back out the next turn. I think daemons are the most resilient army with invulnerable saves & Eternal Warrior across the board. It's also another plus that they are fearless across the board as you never have to worry about breaking after being shot.

These tips are all based upon many games; i.e., experience. That's hardly talking out the arse.

G


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 20:32:56


Post by: ceorron


Kilkrazy wrote:>>Mech Tau is less competitive than some other armies is because the vehicles are more expensive for what you get.

A Devilfish has fewer shots with lower power and half the range of a stock Chimaera.

The Chimaera has firing points for the passengers to shoot out of, and smoke dischargers and a searchlight, and it's amphibious.

The Chimaera is only worth 1 KP while the Devilfish is 2KP because of its drones.

The only advantage the Fish has is that it is a skimmer. Should it cost 80p to the Chimaera's 55p?


Having just looked through the tau codex once more. Yeah I can see your point. As Mech Tau is a little off kilter points-wise. There are other diffs that you have forgetting. Chimaera have front : 12 side : 10 back : 10. Devilfish gives better protection from the sides. Also you have drones as part of the deal. I think the points for the basic fish should be reduces say 65 pts.

Your points are valid though alot of the upgrades for the devilfish are underpointed. Targetting array should be 10 pts at 5 pts it is a no brainer, too cheep. Disruption pod I think should be 10 and decoy should be 10.

In many cases think you may only need one of these to give the tank the protection it needs. So over all you have a more effective tank that would cover the differences.


Competitive builds balance @ 2010/04/13 20:38:12


Post by: Kilkrazy


True, I got the points value of the side armour wrong. That is worth 8% increase to the base value.

Drones are part of the deal because they can't be recycled for spare points. If you replace them with SMS, you just pay the SMS cost and lose the points for the drones.

65p could be about right compared to the Chimaera.