Brothererekose wrote:
However, common sense prevailed and tourneys allowed them.

No, common sense didn't prevail, because knights got their special snowflake exemption from the "no superheavies" rule while other superheavies (most of which are weaker than knights) were banned. You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea, but the premise here was that we're talking about events that ban/limit non-knight superheavies. And there is no credible argument for allowing knights but banning all the other stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
However, common sense prevailed and tourneys allowed them.

No, common sense didn't prevail, because knights got their special snowflake exemption from the "no superheavies" rule while other superheavies (most of which are weaker than knights) were banned. You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea, but the premise here was that we're talking about events that ban/limit non-knight superheavies. And there is no credible argument for allowing knights but banning all the other stuff.

Always with an opinion, and never with facts.

C'mon, P, got any evidence? GT ruling? Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

I don't care to argue opinions. They are like orifices. Everybody has several and what comes out of them isn't always pleasant.

I care to see facts and data and draw conclusions from those. Aristotle sat and thought, and was wrong about a great deal and once his opinions were taken for gospel, accurate astronomy was set back centuries.

Tell ya what, I'll be helpful, by *giving* you one piece of evidence for your opinion that ImpKs ought to have been banned; army with a ImpKnight winning something big. A guy named Sisk won last year's BAO with one. An ImpK, a Drop Pod or two and grav bikes. It wasn't Ad-lance, though.

Got any evidence to add to that?

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
However, common sense prevailed and tourneys allowed them.

No, common sense didn't prevail, because knights got their special snowflake exemption from the "no superheavies" rule while other superheavies (most of which are weaker than knights) were banned. You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea, but the premise here was that we're talking about events that ban/limit non-knight superheavies. And there is no credible argument for allowing knights but banning all the other stuff.

Always with an opinion, and never with facts.

C'mon, P, got any evidence? GT ruling? Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

I don't care to argue opinions. They are like orifices. Everybody has several and what comes out of them isn't always pleasant.

I care to see facts and data and draw conclusions from those. Aristotle sat and thought, and was wrong about a great deal and once his opinions were taken for gospel, accurate astronomy was set back centuries.

Tell ya what, I'll be helpful, by *giving* you one piece of evidence for your opinion that ImpKs ought to have been banned; army with a ImpKnight winning something big. A guy named Sisk won last year's BAO with one. An ImpK, a Drop Pod or two and grav bikes. It wasn't Ad-lance, though.

Got any evidence to add to that?

How about the 65%+ Torrent of Fire win rate for IK Primary armies? Makes then significantly more winning than any other primary army.

And they did get their special snowflake exception, the only unrestricted SHVs in many tournaments, even those that banned SH and GC LoWs.

 Zagman wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

Got any evidence to add to that?

How about the 65%+ Torrent of Fire win rate for IK Primary armies? Makes then significantly more winning than any other primary army.

From MVBrandt, huh? I *just* read that, while you were replying.

Even had it ready to copy/paste:

MVBrandt wrote:
I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

Well ninja'd, sir. Well done.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

Got any evidence to add to that?

How about the 65%+ Torrent of Fire win rate for IK Primary armies? Makes then significantly more winning than any other primary army.

From MVBrandt, huh? I *just* read that, while you were replying.

Even had it ready to copy/paste:

MVBrandt wrote:
I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

Well ninja'd, sir. Well done.

He does reference it, but it's been there on ToF for quite a while. IK armies simply win far more than everything other army we've seen. Maybe they aren't more dominant on the top tables, but everything on the way up they certainly are. I remember how vocal and disgusted opponents of Adlance and Pacific Rim were at NOVA.

Lone Knights aren't an issue, but they are SHVs, just like that game I refused to play called Apocalypse...

 Brothererekose wrote:
Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

Malcador vs. battlecannon knight.

Knight has double the main gun firepower (two shots vs. one, same stats otherwise), the Malcador gets up to three BS 3 ACs/LCs/HBs.

Knight has AV 13/12/12 with 6 HP, Malcador has 13/12/11 with 6 HP.

Knight has an invulnerable save on one facing, Malcador has no save.

Knight has a D-weapon and stomps in melee, Malcador can't fight in melee at all.

If you upgrade the Malcador to have LCs (pretty much mandatory) you're paying 305 points vs. 370 points for the knight. The Malcador is completely outclassed in every way and would never be taken over a knight in a competitive list. But under common tournament rules you are allowed to take an army of nothing but knights, while the Malcador is banned entirely. Please tell me how that makes any sense at all.

Got any evidence to add to that?

No, because you're demanding evidence for a straw man. My position is not that knights need to be banned/restricted, it's that they should be allowed/banned/restricted just like other superheavies. They should not get a special snowflake exemption to the "no superheavies" rule.

 Zagman wrote:
He does reference it, but it's been there on ToF for quite a while. IK armies simply win far more than everything other army we've seen. Maybe they aren't more dominant on the top tables, but everything on the way up they certainly are. I remember how vocal and disgusted opponents of Adlance and Pacific Rim were at NOVA.

Lone Knights aren't an issue, but they are SHVs, just like that game I refused to play called Apocalypse...

Here, I will voice my opinion: Playing against it does suck. I haven't beaten it yet, and have played against it ... a few times, against different players. And tooling a buncha Crisis Suits with all Fusion, and XV88s with Railguns, sounds un-fun, just to beat that guy/army.

Thanks for the ToF reference though. I'd forgotten it. RealLife takes up brain power that I'd rather devote to 40k.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

Malcador vs. battlecannon knight.

Knight has double the main gun firepower (two shots vs. one, same stats otherwise), the Malcador gets up to three BS 3 ACs/LCs/HBs.

Knight has AV 13/12/12 with 6 HP, Malcador has 13/12/11 with 6 HP.

Knight has an invulnerable save on one facing, Malcador has no save.

Knight has a D-weapon and stomps in melee, Malcador can't fight in melee at all.

If you upgrade the Malcador to have LCs (pretty much mandatory) you're paying 305 points vs. 370 points for the knight. The Malcador is completely outclassed in every way and would never be taken over a knight in a competitive list. But under common tournament rules you are allowed to take an army of nothing but knights, while the Malcador is banned entirely. Please tell me how that makes any sense at all.

Assuming all that is correct, you're right. Makes no sense.

So, why do TOs ban Mal?

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because you're demanding evidence for a straw man.

You grab at that Strawman a lot. Alas, you misunderstood, I make no demands here. I 'ask' politely.

 Peregrine wrote:

My position is not that knights need to be banned/restricted, it's that they should be allowed/banned/restricted just like other superheavies. They should not get a special snowflake exemption to the "no superheavies" rule.

As stated previously, I don't care about your opinion. I care about what is actually happening in 40k. And the best evidence comes from tournament data ... not well expressed, or poorly expressed opinions.


Now that Zagman (and MVBrandt) have pointed out the 65% win rate of Ad-Lance (via ToF) I am modifying my opinion (which is prolly worthless to everyone else anyway).

 Brothererekose wrote:
So, why do TOs ban Mal?

Because a lot of players don't want superheavies in "normal" games, regardless of their power level. And that's a legitimate preference to have. The issue is not whether or not LoW are allowed in "normal" games, it's the trend of banning all superheavies but then having a special snowflake exception for the knight.

Alas, you misunderstood, I make no demands here. I 'ask' politely.

Whether you demand or ask politely, you're still asking politely for evidence of something I never claimed. I never argued that knights are too powerful and need to be banned, I said that they need to be banned/restricted if there's a general ban/limit on superheavies. It's about consistency and applying the "no superheavies" rule to all players without making a special snowflake exception to the rule for some people, not about their power level.

MVBrandt wrote:
The "iKnights is a Codex!" argument is ultra shaky.

It's not like people would be totally OK with banning Craftworlds if GW had randomly decided to change their naming structure to Army Book: Craftworlds instead of Codex: Craftworlds.

Further, if they didn't put the word "codex" on iKnights, it's not as if people who now want to use it would be like YOU'RE RIGHT IT'S NOT A CODEX ANYMORE BAN IT!

Weakest, least impactful argument made about whether or not to use iKnights.

It might seem weird to the many of us who have been playing for a decade or more, but with 7th being out for a year now and 6th for 2 years before that, some of the new players are approaching army construction completely differently to old-timers.

As an example: our club held a mini tournament event a few weeks ago, and one of the veteran organisers was pushing to have a 'Highlander' style event. One Troops, one HQ, One FA, one Heavy, one elites, before you start filling out your other slots. But one of the new players had to say "But I don't own any troops for my army." He'd been playing with purely formations (Dark Eldar iirc?) and literally couldn't play in the event with those restrictions.

It's not inconceivable that some players have their army primarily composed of Imperial Knights. They are allowed to do that: the Knights book has its own force org chart, it doesn't say anywhere that it is 'opponents permission' or anything else. You're probably right that it's not good for the game: but in rules terms, and in the eyes of some players, the codex really is no different to the Space Marines codex. How were they supposed to know?

Perhaps there might have been an argument that they should have known that it was previously impossible to play at most points levels with Knight armies due to having only 370-375pt models with no upgrades but now with a variety of upgrades, relics and different point levels Knights can get pretty close to the points limit anywhere from 750 to 2000pts.

Now we're seeing another extension of that with Eldar. You have players who have only known 7th edition eldar; they bought the codex and the wraighknights with every reason to believe they would be allowed to play with those models. Its not uncommon to see armies with 2 wraithknights already. Yet you're talking about preventing them from using models that they bought with no ill intention. Can you imagine if the same thing gets done to Tau and suddenly competitive Tau players need to replace 3 GMC Riptides?


I think that TO's need to stop trying to draw arbitrary lines in the sand about what needs to be banned. GW seems to be actively subverting every line that TO's try to make. There is nothing inherently unbalanced about being a GMC or a SH (see the Malcador). The thing that is wrong with the Wraithknight is its points cost - if it were 400pts then it would be much more palatable. So why not target them individually, rather than their whole class?
The fixes need to be targeted to the problem units, rather than entire classes of models or rules.

Trasvi wrote:

As an example: our club held a mini tournament event a few weeks ago, and one of the veteran organisers was pushing to have a 'Highlander' style event. One Troops, one HQ, One FA, one Heavy, one elites, before you start filling out your other slots. But one of the new players had to say "But I don't own any troops for my army." He'd been playing with purely formations (Dark Eldar iirc?) and literally couldn't play in the event with those restrictions.

It's not inconceivable that some players have their army primarily composed of Imperial Knights. They are allowed to do that: the Knights book has its own force org chart, it doesn't say anywhere that it is 'opponents permission' or anything else. You're probably right that it's not good for the game: but in rules terms, and in the eyes of some players, the codex really is no different to the Space Marines codex. How were they supposed to know?

Perhaps there might have been an argument that they should have known that it was previously impossible to play at most points levels with Knight armies due to having only 370-375pt models with no upgrades but now with a variety of upgrades, relics and different point levels Knights can get pretty close to the points limit anywhere from 750 to 2000pts.

Now we're seeing another extension of that with Eldar. You have players who have only known 7th edition eldar; they bought the codex and the wraighknights with every reason to believe they would be allowed to play with those models. Its not uncommon to see armies with 2 wraithknights already. Yet you're talking about preventing them from using models that they bought with no ill intention. Can you imagine if the same thing gets done to Tau and suddenly competitive Tau players need to replace 3 GMC Riptides?

Here's the thing. Your Highlander Tournament example falls apart rather quickly with your reference to double Wraithknights at the end. Outside of fielding a double CAD the only way to get it on a single detachment is through the Craftworld Detachment.

A detachment which has a mandatory 2 HQs, 3 Troops, 1 Fast Attack prior to spammed Wraithknights coming about. I also get the impression you're perhaps focused more heavily on the Wraithknight here than anything else.

Let's set this straight.

The problem isn't the fact that Eldar got spammed Destroyer weapons, cheap fire platform jetbikes, cheap gargantuan creatures, incredible bonuses on their formations (such as +1 BS) or point cuts across the board.

The problem is that they got all of the above. It's a compound problem with the Eldar. Units that didn't need to become cheaper or stronger became cheaper and stronger. Then they got formation options that made them even stronger. Their weapons were upgraded even more and on top of that the other buffs in the army (scatbikes, cheap GCs, D-weapons) will serve to artificially shift the meta to an environment where the old, non-buffed version of a unit would be considered strong. So a buffed version is somewhat insane.

With regards to Imperial Knights? Surely that's best suited for another thread altogether? Knights are their own problem really and should probably be kept seperate from Eldar.

The fact the new iKnight book lists them as Lords of War will help a lot as it means the exist in a specific slot, rather than being a free floating oddity as they were before. And to be frank, most things I see have a general blanket ban on Lords of War - though it is moving slowly toward Gargantuan or Superheavy Lords of War due to the amount of characters shifting across to that slot.

Also - with regards to nothing being inherently imbalanced with GCs and Superheavies? In a sense yes, in a sense no. Some armies deal with those unit types exceedingly well. Others, which are traditionally weaker to armour or MCs suffer even more without being able to bring out their own big guns.

And yes, points costs. That's the real devil. To be frank, they need shifting across the board. Not just for one or two units.

If a Wraithknight needs to be 400 points then Tyranid Hierodules need to be 350ish points in comparison (as WS4, I5 on a D wielding superheavy is huge - the allows characters in different armies to be splatted with ease) and Malcadors honestly should be sat at the lower end of the new scale being glorified Leman Russes with more HP.

And to be honest, people may have started in 6th and spammed Wraithknights. But to be fair, given GW's history...and what happened to Blood Angels? Being forced to either buy some extra models and field the Craftworld detachment or to use only 1 WK is a small price to being told you now have a Troops tax as half your Troops choices have spontaneously become elites.

Trasvi wrote:


It might seem weird to the many of us who have been playing for a decade or more, but with 7th being out for a year now and 6th for 2 years before that, some of the new players are approaching army construction completely differently to old-timers.

As an example: our club held a mini tournament event a few weeks ago, and one of the veteran organisers was pushing to have a 'Highlander' style event. One Troops, one HQ, One FA, one Heavy, one elites, before you start filling out your other slots. But one of the new players had to say "But I don't own any troops for my army." He'd been playing with purely formations (Dark Eldar iirc?) and literally couldn't play in the event with those restrictions.

It's not inconceivable that some players have their army primarily composed of Imperial Knights. They are allowed to do that: the Knights book has its own force org chart, it doesn't say anywhere that it is 'opponents permission' or anything else. You're probably right that it's not good for the game: but in rules terms, and in the eyes of some players, the codex really is no different to the Space Marines codex. How were they supposed to know?

Perhaps there might have been an argument that they should have known that it was previously impossible to play at most points levels with Knight armies due to having only 370-375pt models with no upgrades but now with a variety of upgrades, relics and different point levels Knights can get pretty close to the points limit anywhere from 750 to 2000pts.

Now we're seeing another extension of that with Eldar. You have players who have only known 7th edition eldar; they bought the codex and the wraighknights with every reason to believe they would be allowed to play with those models. Its not uncommon to see armies with 2 wraithknights already. Yet you're talking about preventing them from using models that they bought with no ill intention. Can you imagine if the same thing gets done to Tau and suddenly competitive Tau players need to replace 3 GMC Riptides?


I think that TO's need to stop trying to draw arbitrary lines in the sand about what needs to be banned. GW seems to be actively subverting every line that TO's try to make. There is nothing inherently unbalanced about being a GMC or a SH (see the Malcador). The thing that is wrong with the Wraithknight is its points cost - if it were 400pts then it would be much more palatable. So why not target them individually, rather than their whole class?
The fixes need to be targeted to the problem units, rather than entire classes of models or rules.

From a TO perspecitve I tend to see people prefer wide scale bans to targeted ones, because targeted comes across as picking and choosing. Why ban this one strong model (wraithknights) and not ban say Centurions (just picking something)? Furthermore, the answer to what do they do is simply they don't attend if they cannot field a legal army (this would be the case if say they did not own enough points, or hadn't painted their models.) This is more of an issue in a small local group than at a larger GT. I agree that it seems GW is actively subverting every line, why wouldn't they it makes them more money. That does not mean it is healthy for tournaments, or the game in general (I rarely play anymore and the 7th ed game structure, addition of superheavies etc is a large reason.) To some extent disallowing superheavies making someones army invalid is no different than someone purchasing an army and then having GW release a hard counter to said army or at least large portions of it. You end up needing to buy new units if you want to participate in a meaningful way.

 Brothererekose wrote:
*Did* anybody win a GT with Ad-Lance? An RTT?

Renegade open (November, 2014) was won by: AdLance + Imperial Guard (2 fearless conscript blobs, etc.) + Void Shield Generator.

That's the only one I know of.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

One could also argue that anything over 1500pts. Is no longer 40k.

Second edition was firmly a 1500pt. Standard. Now with the 2000-2500 games everyone wants to play you have more room to spam cheese units and include silly Alliance combos.

Flyers are not 40k either.

40k should be 1500pts max with no flyers, no allies, no super heavies, no formations and no fortifications.

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

One could also argue that anything over 1500pts. Is no longer 40k.

Second edition was firmly a 1500pt. Standard. Now with the 2000-2500 games everyone wants to play you have more room to spam cheese units and include silly Alliance combos.

Flyers are not 40k either.

40k should be 1500pts max with no flyers, no allies, no super heavies, no formations and no fortifications.

I agree, in fact I would loe it if all the crazy crap was indexed to high point brackets, everyone's happy. The people that like 2000-3000pts can keep all the crazy, those that prefer more of a 5th ed 1500pts level vibe are happy too. I would argue that's what I like a lot about 30k, far less politics just to get a game in, I don't have express my lack of interest in playing with or against lords of war, I can just agree to play at a points level where they're not an option.



People can make all the points they want in this thread about not being able to play with their toys at one event or the other, but lets not kid ourselves, just making players have the same amount of points is modifying the game.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

One could also argue that anything over 1500pts. Is no longer 40k.

Second edition was firmly a 1500pt. Standard. Now with the 2000-2500 games everyone wants to play you have more room to spam cheese units and include silly Alliance combos.

Flyers are not 40k either.

40k should be 1500pts max with no flyers, no allies, no super heavies, no formations and no fortifications.

I agree, in fact I would loe it if all the crazy crap was indexed to high point brackets, everyone's happy. The people that like 2000-3000pts can keep all the crazy, those that prefer more of a 5th ed 1500pts level vibe are happy too. I would argue that's what I like a lot about 30k, far less politics just to get a game in, I don't have express my lack of interest in playing with or against lords of war, I can just agree to play at a points level where they're not an option.



People can make all the points they want in this thread about not being able to play with their toys at one event or the other, but lets not kid ourselves, just making players have the same amount of points is modifying the game.

Agreed.

Large point games do just as much to damage game balance and kill fun as LOW themselves do.

At 1500pts you have to make tough choices about what you bring. You can't spam as much, you have to try to build a more balanced force that covers all bases.


Instead of trying to make a bunch of convoluted and potentially biased house/event rules about what can and can't be fielded simy cap the games at a more reasonable and challenging point value. This one switch will solve many of the issues discussed here and elsewhere in one fell swoop...

Not to mention that smaller games will play much quicker allowing people to perhaps :gasp: play more than three turns, maybe even finishing games in other ways besides his timing out.

Anytime someone asks me what points I want to play I say 1500. 99.9% of the time they gasp and stutter in disbelief that I would want to play such a "small" game. Yet when we play the game size they want they are then Miffed at some aspect of what I have brought. Don't force me to have to spend 1000 additional points and not expect to see some high point models...

You are 100% wrong a superheavy in a low point game is even worse.
Take a look at the battlereports section below and you will find plenty of examples of why it doesn't work. Here I'll start you off with one.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646400.page

Final table was an undefeated ad lance vs an undefeated thunderhawk. And completed tabling by those lists, games weren't even close when you add in superheavies at low points. Balance is no where near better.

gungo wrote:
You are 100% wrong a superheavy in a low point game is even worse.
Take a look at the battlereports section below and you will find plenty of examples of why it doesn't work. Here I'll start you off with one.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646400.page

Final table was an undefeated ad lance vs an undefeated thunderhawk. And completed tabling by those lists, games weren't even close when you add in superheavies at low points.

Maybe you missed the part where I said no super heavies, flyers, formations, allies or fortifications should be allowed period because they "aren't 40k". This was in response to another poster claiming LOW "aren't 40k" and are better suited for formats like apocalypse. The same arguement can be made about all of these. They are all new additions to the game that have greatly impacted the complexity of the game and led to balance issues and claims of "lost fun".

In addition to removing those gameplay can also be greatly improved by choosing a more challenging/limiting point value such as 1500pts. Other things ruin the game besides these problamatic unit types (spamming, etc). And less points to work with limits spamming and makes you have to chose between all the toys you would like to bring.

In addition games would play faster which is always a plus.

 CT GAMER wrote:

gungo wrote:
You are 100% wrong a superheavy in a low point game is even worse.
Take a look at the battlereports section below and you will find plenty of examples of why it doesn't work. Here I'll start you off with one.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646400.page

Final table was an undefeated ad lance vs an undefeated thunderhawk. And completed tabling by those lists, games weren't even close when you add in superheavies at low points.

Maybe you missed the part where I said no super heavies, flyers, formations, allies or fortifications should be allowed period because they "aren't 40k".

In addition to removing those gameplay can also be greatly improved by choosing a more challenging/limiting point value such as 1500pts. Other things ruin the game besides these problamatic unit types (spamming, etc). And less points to work with limits spamming and makes you have to chose between all the toys you would like to bring.

In addition games would play faster which is always a plus.

My bad thought you meant instead of banniing/restricting superheavies thought you tried to say 1500 or games made them more balanced.
And I was like no way!!!

The game actually gets MORE balanced as you reach into the stratosphere of points. A lot of people don't know this, because they think apocalypse is actually what internet hyperbole says it is: random str D flying all over the place and entire tables being cleared in a turn. People get scared off by that and never even try it.

The reasons apocalypse is more balanced are:

1. People just don't own the models needed to keep the same percentage of their list "tournament quality." IE if you scaled up an eldar 1850 list that was 30 scatbikes, a WK, a Jetseer, some d scythe WG, and a wwp dark eldar ally with 5 warriors to...let's say 6000 points, they would need almost 100 scatbikes, 3 wk's, 3 jetseers, 15 WG, 3 dark eldar hq's, 15 warriors. That's quite a number of models to keep tournament consistency in his list!

2. Balance issues start becoming too small to notice. A significant amount of people seem to agree that the new 7e wraithknight is about 100 points undercosted. If you assume that that is true, then every time you take a WK, you're effectively taking 100 free points. In a 500 point game, that's a massive amount. You would effectively have 20% more points than your opponent, assuming he took things that actually are in line with point costs. In large point games, these single unit imbalances get smaller and smaller the higher the points go. No one cares that a WK is 100 points undercosted when your point totals are reaching into the 5 digit range.

3. More and more dice start drawing out the law of averages. Strategy becomes more important than ever, moving your units to where you get cover, or in other ways get to roll more dice against the opponent than he gets to roll against you wins the day. You would have to have unprecedented terrible luck to cause a winning strategy to turn into a losing one in a big apocalypse game.

4. You CAN actually fit multiple redundant answers to everything in your list, making a TAC list. Many tourney lists at 1850 or less are "gambit" lists instead of trying to be a TAC list (for good reasons.) Eg: they gamble on spamming units with a particular edge, such as flyers or all high armor, hoping not to run into an opponent that has a ton of good anti air or anti armor.

Also as a side note, most titans aren't worth their points unless they can stay alive and stay shooting for at least 3-4 rounds. There are two easy ways to deal with them: focus them down early, or ignore them save for a token force to tie them up in combat.

Anyway, the silliness we have at the 1850 range isn't apocalypse being stuffed into 40k, it's unbalanced and gambit lists being stuffed into a low point limit.

Just a little attempt to inform and educate!

Also not forgetting you can bring units and entire formations back via stratigery points.

Ahh apoc such fun....for the first hour. then it gets daunting

 Desubot wrote:
Also not forgetting you can bring units and entire formations back via stratigery points.

Ahh apoc such fun....for the first hour. then it gets daunting

Yeah that is the one downside. I wish there was a way to fit apoc games into tourney time limits. Maybe someday they'll finally have a true video game version of the game where you can cut out a lot of the model-moving and dice filtering time.

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes. The game is by nature unbalanced and sort of silly. You can try to turn a fish into a dog as you want but it will always be a fish. When you try to use something in a way it wasn't intended to be used you have to expect/accept a flawed result...

 CT GAMER wrote:

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes. The game is by nature unbalanced and sort of silly. You can try to turn a fish into a dog as you want but it will always be a fish. When you try to use something in a way it wasn't intended to be used you have to expect/accept a flawed result...

*Sarcasm*
First of all, non-tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes too-but that is besides the point-seriously. Second of all, the game being unbalanced and sort of silly is just, like, your opinion-which in my opinion is sort of silly. Third, you can turn a fish into a dog very easily with the cunning use of a bun and some fixins. Finally, last I checked, fish and dogs never come with directions on what their intended uses are and as far as what we can tell about Warhammer's intended use-it is to have fun-which is exactly what some people like to do in tournaments. Indeed, the very core concept of Warhammer is competing with your opponent to do things like claim objectives and stuff.
*/Sarcasm*

So ultimately (1) Warhammer CAN be balanced and played in a balanced environment whereby (2) a healthy competition between players can be had so that (3) the winner of said competition can be determined in a meaningful way. Coming on here and saying "warhammer isn't balanced and it was never meant to be played competitively" is just your opinion that can't be supported by anything objective.

Now this thread is about how Eldar will affect tournaments, not why people think Warhammer isn't balanced or why tournaments are not how 40k was meant to be played.

Overall, as per the ITC survey results, Eldar's most immediate effect on tournaments is to determine how D weapons should be incorporated into regular competitive 40k. This shows us that the community and TOs can come together and make changes/alterations where there appears to be a need in order to foster (1) good will and (2) balance.

 mortetvie wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes. The game is by nature unbalanced and sort of silly. You can try to turn a fish into a dog as you want but it will always be a fish. When you try to use something in a way it wasn't intended to be used you have to expect/accept a flawed result...

*Sarcasm*
First of all, non-tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes too-but that is besides the point-seriously. Second of all, the game being unbalanced and sort of silly is just, like, your opinion-which in my opinion is sort of silly. Third, you can turn a fish into a dog very easily with the cunning use of a bun and some fixins. Finally, last I checked, fish and dogs never come with directions on what their intended uses are and as far as what we can tell about Warhammer's intended use-it is to have fun-which is exactly what some people like to do in tournaments. Indeed, the very core concept of Warhammer is competing with your opponent to do things like claim objectives and stuff.
*/Sarcasm*

So ultimately (1) Warhammer CAN be balanced and played in a balanced environment whereby (2) a healthy competition between players can be had so that (3) the winner of said competition can be determined in a meaningful way. Coming on here and saying "warhammer isn't balanced and it was never meant to be played competitively" is just your opinion that can't be supported by anything objective.

Now this thread is about how Eldar will affect tournaments, not why people think Warhammer isn't balanced or why tournaments are not how 40k was meant to be played.

Overall, as per the ITC survey results, Eldar's most immediate effect on tournaments is to determine how D weapons should be incorporated into regular competitive 40k. This shows us that the community and TOs can come together and make changes/alterations where there appears to be a need in order to foster (1) good will and (2) balance.

If 40k is balanced why the need for event specific rules/limitations?

People that run events may impose additional rules/restrictions that doesn't mean they balanced anything, only that they addressed whatever squeaky wheel had people not and bothered at that particular time.

The fact that hundreds if not thousands of posts are listed here and elsewhere complaining about codex design, Rules and game balance seem to suggest that 40k may have actual issue that make it a bad vehicle for fair competition. That isn't something I am the first to suggest...

First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Anyone arguing 40k is a well balanced game, particularly without any restrictions or changes, is not being realistic. (does anyone think a Malcador or Macharius is really worth as much as a Knight or Wraithknight? Does anyone think Vespids are worth more than Striking Scorpions or Swooping Hawks or half again as much as a basic Space Marine?)

As I've mentioned before, GW will be the first to tell you this because they aren't trying to write a balanced and competitive ruleset. They've said as much going back to their 6E 2012 studio open day event. This isn't a secret. This isn't subjective. It's not an opinion. The creators have flat out stated that 40k is not a balanced and competitive game, nor is that their aim. It's a framework for playing imaginary movie moments with plastic army men, not a tactical combat simulation.

If you want 40k to be a balanced and competitive ruleset, you'll have to make changes and introduce restrictions, and again, GW have said as much.

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced.

Of course it is. If everything was balanced then nobody would be unhappy enough about the things that are banned/restricted to demand bans/restrictions. Demands for bans/restrictions are almost always the result of a perceived balance issue, and when that perception is common enough for a particular ban/restriction to be the default in tournaments it's a pretty strong sign that the problem is legitimate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CT GAMER wrote:
Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Exactly. Apocalypse is stupidly broken if you play it competitively. The only reason it functions is that very few people take it seriously enough to invest the time and money required to exploit its balance issues. If you make big games with high-point-cost models the default in competitive tournaments then the illusion of "balance" will be shattered.

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.
Edit: Because that would be hilarious.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced.

Of course it is. If everything was balanced then nobody would be unhappy enough about the things that are banned/restricted to demand bans/restrictions. Demands for bans/restrictions are almost always the result of a perceived balance issue, and when that perception is common enough for a particular ban/restriction to be the default in tournaments it's a pretty strong sign that the problem is legitimate.

It is actually a logical fallacy to assume that simply because specific rules/limitations and formats exist that they exist because 40k is unbalanced or that they are necessarily evidence that 40k is unbalanced-and that was simply my point. For example, why does anyone make any specified format if not because they want to play 40k that way? That doesn't necessarily mean that 40k isn't balanced.

Now as far as if 40k is balanced in any incarnation, we must first have some meaningful and objective metric to determine what is or isn't balanced. Does anyone have such a thing? I doubt it, so making blanket statements as to how balanced or unbalanced 40k is doesn't really do much or mean anything. Overall, 40k as it stands in 7th is a "play as you want" edition and what one group of people thinks is balanced is bound to differ from any other group and who is to say any one person's way of playing 40k is wrong?

 mortetvie wrote:
That doesn't necessarily mean that 40k isn't balanced.

It doesn't necessarily mean it, but it's certainly very strong evidence. As I said, the most common reason for wanting to change the rules and create a particular format is a perception that there are balance problems, and the new format is an attempt to fix them. So the existence of tournament bans/restrictions/rule changes is indisputable evidence that many people believe that 40k has balance problems. So which is more likely: 40k does in fact have balance problems*, or that everyone is wrong?

*An almost inevitable result of GW's explicit position that balance is irrelevant.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element to it where if two people want to play a game, they need to agree upon what kind of game they want to play-do they want to have big killy titans or just keep it to some grot on grot action? That is what TOs attempt to do on a corporate level so that everyone can know what they can expect to face in terms of power level.

Allowing titans when someone is likely to bring just a few squads of Infantry is probably not going to amount to a meaningful game for either person so it makes sense to limit what you can take in the game to be roughly on the same power level. Just because there are such variances in power level between models or even armies does not necessarily mean the game is unbalanced.

 mortetvie wrote:
For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced.

It doesn't just appear to be unbalanced, it is unbalanced. If two equal-point armies, made with a reasonable amount of skill in list design, can't have a balanced game then it's indisputable proof that the game isn't balanced. In a balanced game an army with a titan and an army with lots of infantry would be at the same power level, and there would be no need to exclude the titan to allow the infantry player to have fun.

Just because there are such variances in power level between models or even armies does not necessarily mean the game is unbalanced.

This is the exact definition of "unbalanced".

Balance. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

 mortetvie wrote:
Just because there are such variances in power level between models or even armies does not necessarily mean the game is unbalanced.

That is the very definition by which most people would conjure when they use the term "unbalanced"...

If there is a difference in power level between armies, there is an imbalance. Inherently and objectively.

Now, units are a different thing, different units serve different roles and whatnot, but if you're trying to make the case that armies of two different power levels are not unbalanced, nobody is going to buy that.

Even attempting to make the claim that 40k is balanced, a game where one army can comprise of 5 models and the other of 300, is by definition insane. Balanced can certainly be achieved, at least in as much as the collective yet subjective reasoning of two like minded individuals with the end goal of making two armies/collection both parties "feel" are "as fair as it's going to get" and are content having a game with. But it's the old story, people in this hobby often blame the player rather than the game.

I'm not gonna claim anything about a 'balanced 40k'. I think the points system (RB's example of 2 or 3 ork boyz being equal to 1 tactical marine) has been GW's attempt at balance from the onset, but after several iterations ... generations? Editions ... of the game, it's quite beyond balanced.

I'd stop arguing with mortetvie. Attorneys are trained to argue rules sets (the Law) and as that is his RL career choice, it's a pretty solid brick wall your bashing against, Crablezworth & Vaktathi.

mortetvie <3

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I think this is worth discussing though:

 Crablezworth wrote:
But it's the old story, people in this hobby often blame the player rather than the game.

Crablezworth, I am going to claim that it is the *player* that needs blaming for imbalance, un-funness, etc. I'm not going to write up an eloquent opinion, I'm going to simply refer to data. ToF's records reflect a lot of the same names at the top of GTs & RTTs.

It'd be interesting to see the percentage of different armies these top folks play. I think it is in my previous post that I cited PajamaPants won the Broadside Bash with orks. The guy is often at top tables. Placed #2 at BAO 2013. I know Reece plays many different armires, Eldar, orks, IG. Then again, Liz Foster sitcks with her Little Mermaid themed daemons.

Tiny bit more evidence (hopefully presenting a larger picture, using Sherlock Holmes's fallacied inductive reasoning ) :

I have played the same guy in the kiddie pool at the local RTT a couple times. His TWC versus the tau I ran, ought to have beaten me both times. Nope, he made bad target priority choices, didn't make a play for the main mission goals until too late. Constantly blamed his bad dice for loosing games, he says, for years. Naw, he's just bad at strategy and tactics.

And this has been my overall experience: Guys who lose consistently do so, regardless of the armies they play. Those who are/were top finishers, continue to do so, regardless of what army they play.

It's an old story, because it has been consistently true.

I agree that players are imbalanced in 40k and not so much the armies.

It is impossible to balance a game with so many variables but you can at least make a reasonable effort to not make things ridiculous like strength D on every other model...

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element

And HERE is the exact problem. The only thing that two people should have to agree to is point level. The "social contract" exists in no other game. Don't you see an issue here? I have to negotiate WHAT models I can use because GW can't write a proper ruleset?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element

And HERE is the exact problem. The only thing that two people should have to agree to is point level. The "social contract" exists in no other game. Don't you see an issue here? I have to negotiate WHAT models I can use because GW can't write a proper ruleset?

Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Back when I played the grots equivalent would have been a northern paladin the the Titan would have been a black lotus.

Social contract engaged.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element

And HERE is the exact problem. The only thing that two people should have to agree to is point level. The "social contract" exists in no other game. Don't you see an issue here? I have to negotiate WHAT models I can use because GW can't write a proper ruleset?

Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Back when I played the grots equivalent would have been a northern paladin the the Titan would have been a black lotus.

Social contract engaged.

We need GW to format the damn game. Hell, all they need to do is take a page from FW and index unit types and army construction to the point level the game is being played at. It's disgraceful that one could play a knight titan in a 500pt game.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Except that's not a social contract, it's an explicit tournament rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Except that's not a social contract, it's an explicit tournament rule.

A tourney rule like say limiting LOW to 1 per army or removing certain FW units that ignore cover?

When I play pickup games with friends we always agree on what tourney rules format we will use. ITC, NOVA, Adepticon, it's usually based off of what tourney someone is going to next.

When I play a pickup game with a stranger, one or both of us might have these tourney restrictions in mind when we bring our army to the game. Discussing this ahead of time can lead to a more equitable, balanced experience.

DarthDiggler wrote:
A tourney rule like say limiting LOW to 1 per army or removing certain FW units that ignore cover?

The context of the "social contract" involved negotiating the use of particular units, not merely following a tournament format.

To be fair, the difference between these MTG formats is far more vast than any 40k tournaments rules. They're far more akin to "Apocalypse vs Combat Patrol vs 1500pt Single CAD/no Formations/no-LoW vs something-else, etc".

Playing EDH is vastly different than playing Type 2 or Vintage for instance, trying to build a deck that's legal (or where even a majority of cards can be used) for all 3 is impossible, while ~95% of armies that attend an ITC event are good at Nova and Adepticon or can be made so with limited changes.

Such formats also are very well known by the overwhelmingly vast majority of the playerbase, even if they don't play all of them, while most 40k players couldn't tell you the difference between ITC rules and Adepticon rules.

You can also go anywhere and find a game using any of the MTG formats, while the various 40k formats are very regional, often only applying to a single event. Use outside of these events largely is simply a social contract.

The biggest difference, IIRC, is that Magic's various playtypes are all, to some degree, supported or at least defined by WotC, and have existed for years or in some cases over a decade (maybe two?), while 40k's various different tournament formats are all really very new, very limited in application, are all player created with zero recognition or support from GW.

TL;DR MTG's formats are longstanding, highly varied, widely recognized and officially defined/supported by the parent company and are explicitly different modes of play, while the various 40k tournament restrictions are none of these things.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/05/skitarii-tournament-report-from-storm.html?m=1

Eldar did bad. Codex is fine. Sky is not falling. Eldar are not pruning all the villages or raping all the hedges.

 Cheebs wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/05/skitarii-tournament-report-from-storm.html?m=1

Eldar did bad. Codex is fine. Sky is not falling. Eldar are not pruning all the villages or raping all the hedges.

Wow, I'm amazed there's not already a thread on this.

 Cheebs wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/05/skitarii-tournament-report-from-storm.html?m=1

Eldar did bad. Codex is fine. Sky is not falling. Eldar are not pruning all the villages or raping all the hedges.

So, one Eldar list was a small supplement to an Adamantine Lance. The other being a relatively small Wraith-heavy army with almost nothing in the way of "volume" of fire units, some questionable usage of Invisibility, facing an enemy composed almost entirely of large and relatively weeny infantry units (poor targets for D weapons) and able to deploy with an overwhelming alpha strike made possible by allied drop pods (with lots of Plasma, Grav, and Haywire guns to boot across the army) and can sport BS7/6/5 for the first three turns of the game with high RoF basic guns that cause double-wounds on 6's.

I wouldn't say it's a stellar example of what the new Eldar are capable of.

Much like the LVO didn't tell us much about the new Necrons (who took 4 of the top 10 spots at the Storm of Silence), I don't think this event is telling us much about the new Eldar either.

 Brothererekose wrote:


Crablezworth, I am going to claim that it is the *player* that needs blaming for imbalance, un-funness, etc. I'm not going to write up an eloquent opinion, I'm going to simply refer to data. ToF's records reflect a lot of the same names at the top of GTs & RTTs.

It'd be interesting to see the percentage of different armies these top folks play. I think it is in my previous post that I cited PajamaPants won the Broadside Bash with orks. The guy is often at top tables. Placed #2 at BAO 2013. I know Reece plays many different armires, Eldar, orks, IG. Then again, Liz Foster sitcks with her Little Mermaid themed daemons.

Tiny bit more evidence (hopefully presenting a larger picture, using Sherlock Holmes's fallacied inductive reasoning ) :

I have played the same guy in the kiddie pool at the local RTT a couple times. His TWC versus the tau I ran, ought to have beaten me both times. Nope, he made bad target priority choices, didn't make a play for the main mission goals until too late. Constantly blamed his bad dice for loosing games, he says, for years. Naw, he's just bad at strategy and tactics.

And this has been my overall experience: Guys who lose consistently do so, regardless of the armies they play. Those who are/were top finishers, continue to do so, regardless of what army they play.

It's an old story, because it has been consistently true.

I think this boils down to the heart of the matter. From all I've read on this subject across various threads, while you can argue all day about the power difference with Eldar, the reality is that the people who consistently win do so not simply because of the army they've selected. They win because they are good at the game, and while list composition will always be a factor in any game system that allows for this variance, a strong player will rise to the top, even when using perceived sub-par codexes or weak combinations.

Is 40K balanced? Probably not as few games really are; however, player skill is still the determining factor in victory. This is part of game design as while yes, 1500 points of grots cannot kill a Reaver titan, it is entirely possible that 1500 points of grots will win on scenario. It is also true that this same matchup will absolutely go the other way if the mission is kill points. You cannot compare point values and point value effeciency in a vacuum as player skill dictates how this effeciency is utilized in an actual game setting. 10 scatbikes may pump out 40 strength 6 shots for 270 points, but if the controlling player leverages this poorly, then the end result is the same: a poor outcome.

Should any game company strive for balance? Absolutely. Is this game unbalanced? Probably. Is this codex too-good? That is unclear as there is not enough real-world data for or against the position to make an accurate assessment.

Also there were 3 Eldar lists at the Game Empire ITC event this past weekend and let them use the rule book rules for D weapons. And guess what, they didn't do very good. The best list which had all the bells and whistles (d flamers with the WWP, 3 crimson hunters, heavy weapon biker units) went 2-1.

Hell they top two armies were Chaos deamons and Orks.

The new Eldar have some brutal lists but no more then a Wolf star or any other hard hitting lists.

 Brothererekose wrote:
I'm not gonna claim anything about a 'balanced 40k'. I think the points system (RB's example of 2 or 3 ork boyz being equal to 1 tactical marine) has been GW's attempt at balance from the onset, but after several iterations ... generations? Editions ... of the game, it's quite beyond balanced.

I'd stop arguing with mortetvie. Attorneys are trained to argue rules sets (the Law) and as that is his RL career choice, it's a pretty solid brick wall your bashing against, Crablezworth & Vaktathi.

mortetvie <3

To be fair, I am not one to dismiss good or valid arguments and I am not opposed to having my mind changed.

Now in terms of arguing about balance, I made 2 major points that I don't think were ever really addressed:

(1) What is the metric one uses or relies upon to say something is balanced or imbalanced? Without a meaningful metric, it is meaningless to say that something is balanced or imbalanced as those assertions are then merely opinions. Since no one has come up with anything on this point, claiming the game is or is not balanced cannot be proven/supported.

(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself. For example, if I choose to build an army list that doesn't have an answer to X but I have options that can deal with X, I can't rightly blame imbalance on the game itself when I lose to X. To put it another way, imbalance between what people choose to take in their armies=/=the game itself is imbalanced.

Going deeper on point (2), take Starcraft as an example. I use Starcraft because that is a game where balance is important and every army has an answer to pretty much anything else another army can have. Give both players 500 Minerals/Gas and let them build whatever they want (this of this as 40k out of the rulebook). if one player builds a Battle Cruiser and another builds an Ultralisk, the Battle Cruiser will win 100% of the time-does that mean starcraft is unbalanced? No, that just means that one player chose poorly in terms of what to build. Likewise, in 40k, both players agree on a set points limit and can "build" whatever for their army. If one person chooses to get a Titan and another chooses to get a bazillion Grots, does that mean the game is unbalanced? Simply put, no. Just because there can be uneven or imbalanced match-ups between units does not mean the game is unbalanced.

The fact is, players choose what to put in their lists and how to play those lists and therefore the issues are more likely with the players than the armies/game itself. Just because someone can and does bring a Titan and you do not does not make the game imbalanced-to say it does is faulty reasoning (blaming player choice and the consequences of those choices on the game itself). This is because you know, going into any game of 40k played out of the box-without any modifications-that you might face a titan and if you do not prepare for that eventuality, the problem is with the list you brought, not with the rules that allowed the titan. If you don't WANT to play against a titan, that is another issue altogether, which is what tournament formats and a pre-game discussion on what a game will look like is all about.

What tournament formats do is to limit/prevent imbalanced match-ups by laying a foundation of how armies are built and what can be in them so that everyone knows what they can expect to face in any given event. So if you play in an event that allows Titans or unbound, you need to know what to expect and build accordingly. If you get into such an event and go up against a Titan with your army of 100 grots, the game isn't the problem, the list you brought is.

I hope that makes sense...

 MikeFox wrote:
Also there were 3 Eldar lists at the Game Empire ITC event this past weekend and let them use the rule book rules for D weapons. And guess what, they didn't do very good. The best list which had all the bells and whistles (d flamers with the WWP, 3 crimson hunters, heavy weapon biker units) went 2-1.

Hell they top two armies were Chaos deamons and Orks.

The new Eldar have some brutal lists but no more then a Wolf star or any other hard hitting lists.

Makes me wonder if the Wave serpents where what was truly holding eldar up and putting things like ork down.


I hope we see more interesting lists come out.

something has gone right if orks have won

 mortetvie wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
I'm not gonna claim anything about a 'balanced 40k'. I think the points system (RB's example of 2 or 3 ork boyz being equal to 1 tactical marine) has been GW's attempt at balance from the onset, but after several iterations ... generations? Editions ... of the game, it's quite beyond balanced.

I'd stop arguing with mortetvie. Attorneys are trained to argue rules sets (the Law) and as that is his RL career choice, it's a pretty solid brick wall your bashing against, Crablezworth & Vaktathi.

mortetvie <3

To be fair, I am not one to dismiss good or valid arguments and I am not opposed to having my mind changed.

Now in terms of arguing about balance, I made 2 major points that I don't think were ever really addressed:

(1) What is the metric one uses or relies upon to say something is balanced or imbalanced? Without a meaningful metric, it is meaningless to say that something is balanced or imbalanced as those assertions are then merely opinions. Since no one has come up with anything on this point, claiming the game is or is not balanced cannot be proven/supported.

(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself. For example, if I choose to build an army list that doesn't have an answer to X but I have options that can deal with X, I can't rightly blame imbalance on the game itself when I lose to X. To put it another way, imbalance between what people choose to take in their armies=/=the game itself is imbalanced.

Going deeper on point (2), take Starcraft as an example. I use Starcraft because that is a game where balance is important and every army has an answer to pretty much anything else another army can have. Give both players 500 Minerals/Gas and let them build whatever they want (this of this as 40k out of the rulebook). if one player builds a Battle Cruiser and another builds an Ultralisk, the Battle Cruiser will win 100% of the time-does that mean starcraft is unbalanced? No, that just means that one player chose poorly in terms of what to build. Likewise, in 40k, both players agree on a set points limit and can "build" whatever for their army. If one person chooses to get a Titan and another chooses to get a bazillion Grots, does that mean the game is unbalanced? Simply put, no. Just because there can be uneven or imbalanced match-ups between units does not mean the game is unbalanced.

The fact is, players choose what to put in their lists and how to play those lists and therefore the issues are more likely with the players than the armies/game itself. Just because someone can and does bring a Titan and you do not does not make the game imbalanced-to say it does is faulty reasoning (blaming player choice and the consequences of those choices on the game itself). This is because you know, going into any game of 40k played out of the box-without any modifications-that you might face a titan and if you do not prepare for that eventuality, the problem is with the list you brought, not with the rules that allowed the titan. If you don't WANT to play against a titan, that is another issue altogether, which is what tournament formats and a pre-game discussion on what a game will look like is all about.

What tournament formats do is to limit/prevent imbalanced match-ups by laying a foundation of how armies are built and what can be in them so that everyone knows what they can expect to face in any given event. So if you play in an event that allows Titans or unbound, you need to know what to expect and build accordingly. If you get into such an event and go up against a Titan with your army of 100 grots, the game isn't the problem, the list you brought is.

I hope that makes sense...

1. Lets look at the most applicable definition for "Balance". "a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions." In 40k, we purchase units for points, these points are supposed to be of equal value. Therefore, when we purchase a unit for points, it is supposed to provide us certain capabilities that are appropriate for that point cost. Now, what is purchased is not going to be identical, but given the different aspects of the game and how they interact, we should be receiving an adequate and appropriately similar value. A simple example is Durability, Firepower, Melee Ability, and Movement, Special Rules, etc.

Effectively, a certain value in points should purchase a roughly equivalent effect on the game. How that is exactly expresses will differ, but points are the metric we assess balance. Now, list design, army composition, and loadouts are part of points cost, they also provide synergy, which means we should have the option to purchase units which can also yield roughly equivalent synergy.

The game is unbalanced when one faction can purchase for their set value in points, either a greater ability to affect the game, or have access to much greater synergy than another army, or even unit selection within the same army.

Intracodex example, Wraithlord vs Wraithknight. The Wraithknihgt simply put yields a much greater ability to affect the game for its points cost than the Wraithlord. Or purchasing a Multimelta for a Space Marine vs buying one for an Biker with Relentless. Often, these weapons are the same cost but provide an inherently different ability to affect the game either through cost or synergy.

Aspect Host vs non Aspect Host units. +1 Ballistic Skill for effectively no additional cost with this formation. When compared to Formation from other Codices it yields a much greater impact on the game. Also, Decurion, etc.

Intercodex example, Space Marine vs Windrider EJB. 14pts vs 17pts. They have similar durability. SMs have some minor specials rules but overall 3 pts buys EJBs gamechanging mobility, added durability through Jink, Rending Shooting, and a much greater access to cheap and very effective heavy weapons, etc. Quite simply put the EJBs bring a much greater ability to affect the game for the very similar costs in points meaning Eldar gain more impact on the game for the same cost.

Another Example 6th Ed Wraithknight vs 7th Edition Wraithknight. It gained over 50% greater durability, massively increased firepower, greater CC ability, all for only 23%increase in cost. On a unit that was already on the very high end of game impact/point.

Another example is the Allies Matrix.

You asked for your metric, lets definite it as "The Point Cost System as a method for purchasing a roughly equal, even if different, ability to affect the game and the relative and readily available synergy available for those Points."

The difficult part is assessing a units ability to truly affect the game for its cost, but we have some very easy examples, especially between 6th Ed Eldar and 7th Ed Eldar, or between SM factions that pay a different cost in points for identical upgrades or even units.


2. We can establish imbalance between units and codices given out metric above. Given widespread imbalance withing codices, whether in individual unit's ability to affect the game per their cost in points, or the unfair access to synergy available to them we can establish that most armies are not "Balanced" with each other. And if we were to look at each Codex in relation tot he others we would have a very strong grouping, especially among the first half dozen or so 7th edition codices, and we would also have some major outliers. The most rational balance point would be around this central and prominent grouping of which we would have two major outliers, Necrons and Eldar. Necrons primarily due to Decurian which is an almost no cost +~33% increase in durability, and Eldar which received almost accross the board buffs with no corresponding or inadequate increases in cost as well as access to formation that grant more significant benefits for little or no effective cost.

Your Starcraft example is faulty, both units can have an equal ability to affect the game just through different mechanisms. What matters is their total ability to affect the game, not that either are imbalanced in a fight against solely each other.

In 40k it is quite possible to purchase well balance dedicated CC and dedicated shooting units that are equally worth their points and bring an equivalent, albeit differing, ability to affect the game. Imbalance occurs when armies do not purchase equivalent for cost ways to affect the game or do not have access to relatively equal options for synergy.

We can cite a plethora of examples of this disparity which makes it quite clear that massive imbalances exist between the codices and game as a whole.

 Desubot wrote:

 MikeFox wrote:
Also there were 3 Eldar lists at the Game Empire ITC event this past weekend and let them use the rule book rules for D weapons. And guess what, they didn't do very good. The best list which had all the bells and whistles (d flamers with the WWP, 3 crimson hunters, heavy weapon biker units) went 2-1.

Hell they top two armies were Chaos deamons and Orks.

The new Eldar have some brutal lists but no more then a Wolf star or any other hard hitting lists.

Makes me wonder if the Wave serpents where what was truly holding eldar up and putting things like ork down.


I hope we see more interesting lists come out.

something has gone right if orks have won

Orks missed winning by 1 point. Ork list included a gargantuan squiggoth bully boyz and a pain boy I believe. Mike Fox can give you the run down if you're interested

Boom baby. Big Fat Fatty aka Mr. Stompy only took one wound the whole day.

Great Whaagh Detachment
Big Mek, Klaw, Super KFF
Warboss in Mega Armor, Big Boss Pole
5 MANz
10 Grot
10 Grot
Big Track, Boarding planks
Big Track, Boarding planks
Gargantuan Squiggoth

Ally Detachment
Pain Boy
10 grot

BULLY BOYZ
5 MANZ, trukk
5 MANZ
5 MANZ

 MikeFox wrote:
Boom baby. Big Fat Fatty aka Mr. Stompy only took one wound the whole day.

Great Whaagh Detachment
Big Mek, Klaw, Super KFF
Warboss in Mega Armor, Big Boss Pole
5 MANz
10 Grot
10 Grot
Big Track, Boarding planks
Big Track, Boarding planks
Gargantuan Squiggoth

Ally Detachment
Pain Boy
10 grot

BULLY BOYZ
5 MANZ, trukk
5 MANZ
5 MANZ

Sweet moogly

Do you have a play by play or battle report? how did it fair. (though its a bit OT so Pm or thread link wouldnt be a bad idea )

Zagman, the problem with your analysis is summed up in asking you why your chosen means of determining balance is correct, authoritative or appropriate? Also, you fail to show why the Starcraft example is faulty because while different units have a different effect on the game, the point of the game is to kill a person's army/base and if the Battle Cruiser can destroy the Ultralisk with impunity, and do so relatively easily, it gives the appearance of imbalance much like comparing certain other units in 40k with each other gives a similar appearance of imbalance. Therefore, how a unit impacts the game is irrelevant if it doesn't have an opportunity to impact the game at all. The starcraft analogy is there to illustrate how it is actually faulty to make comparisons in a vacuum as virtually anyone and everyone is doing so to support the proposition that 40k is imbalanced.

Indeed, there is one thing in saying the game is imbalanced (i.e., the rules and mechanics of the game and the game as a whole); and quite another in saying units or match-ups are imbalanced (e.g., comparing Scatter Jetbikes with Devastators). One does not necessarily mean the other and just because the latter exists, does not mean the game is imbalanced since as per 40k rules, everyone technically has access to the same exact things-they just choose not to take those things or they choose to accept limitations imposed upon them via social contract or tournament restrictions.

After reading most of this thread the question I have for everyone would be : Is variety and the ability to customize an army more important than balance? If it is you should probably accept all the rules GW puts out or your cherry picking. If balance is the thing you crave and TO's can do what they want, why don't they make make a single army list for all to play. SM vs SM for example , same army, same points, no excuses.

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?

It is in the part of the rules where SOB can either take allies or do unbound and get any thing they want to deal with those things. See, the perceived imbalance comes from the mentality of "well, I want to play with only X models and those limited set of models should be able to take on anything else of equal points." However, that is not necessarily the appropriate measure of balance and is faulty reasoning. The blanket statement of "x points of any one thing should be able to take on and deal with x points of any other thing" is also based on faulty reasoning.

Overall, it is one thing to say "X army against Y army does not match-up well in any way shape or form" and even if that is true, it is quite another to say that the game itself is imbalanced. One does not necessarily mean the other.

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?

It is in the part of the rules where SOB can either take allies or do unbound and get any thing they want to deal with those things. See, the perceived imbalance comes from the mentality of "well, I want to play with only X models and those limited set of models should be able to take on anything else of equal points." However, that is not necessarily the appropriate measure of balance and is faulty reasoning. The blanket statement of "x points of any one thing should be able to take on and deal with x points of any other thing" is also based on faulty reasoning.

Overall, it is one thing to say "X army against Y army does not match-up well in any way shape or form" and even if that is true, it is quite another to say that the game itself is imbalanced. One does not necessarily mean the other.

So, Morty, not every army has answers to everything (Like you said) unless you ally. And unbound wouldn't help in the case I presented.
If I wanted to play mono SOB (which I did) then I'd just be out of luck. "Sorry bro, buy another expensive dex to cover the holes GW didn't think to fill."

 mortetvie wrote:
Zagman, the problem with your analysis is summed up in asking you why your chosen means of determining balance is correct, authoritative or appropriate? Also, you fail to show why the Starcraft example is faulty because while different units have a different effect on the game, the point of the game is to kill a person's army/base and if the Battle Cruiser can destroy the Ultralisk with impunity, and do so relatively easily, it gives the appearance of imbalance much like comparing certain other units in 40k with each other gives a similar appearance of imbalance. Therefore, how a unit impacts the game is irrelevant if it doesn't have an opportunity to impact the game at all. The starcraft analogy is there to illustrate how it is actually faulty to make comparisons in a vacuum as virtually anyone and everyone is doing so to support the proposition that 40k is imbalanced.

Indeed, there is one thing in saying the game is imbalanced (i.e., the rules and mechanics of the game and the game as a whole); and quite another in saying units or match-ups are imbalanced (e.g., comparing Scatter Jetbikes with Devastators). One does not necessarily mean the other and just because the latter exists, does not mean the game is imbalanced since as per 40k rules, everyone technically has access to the same exact things-they just choose not to take those things or they choose to accept limitations imposed upon them via social contract or tournament restrictions.

It is not my means of determining balance, it is the definition of balance extrapolated to include the points cost and capabilities of the units. We pay a price, and receive a unit capable affecting the game to varying degrees. My chosen means is not authoritative on my own account, but it is correct and appropriate as it is the system that is supplied to us to measure balance.

We pay a cost for a unit and upgrades. We pay opportunity cost and "Taxes" for Formations and synergy.
We receive a certain ability to affect the game for that cost.
We compare the ability of those units to affect the game with one another taking into the account the complexity of the game and its different phases.
Balance, by its definition, means we should have a similar, even if different in scope, ability to affect the game. The more similar units are, the easier this comparison is.

In regards to your Starcraft reference, you are the one who is creating a strawman argument about comparing them in a vaccuum. Yes, in a vacuum they are a terrible comparison. I said, that through different mechanisms, it is quite possible and likely they are balanced as they have a similar ability to affect the game in relation to their cost. Please do not put words in my mouth to suit your own ends.

Again, another strawman. We are not comparing units in a vacuum, indeed we are comparing units in regards to the varying different kinds of situations they can be in. What matters is a units "actual" and "real" ability to affect a game and in the varying situations it can be found. Comparing Devastators to Scatter Bikes seems like a silly comparision, until we compare Devastators with Heavy Bolters to Scatter Bikes, and then we could ass the pricing and balance of those relative units. Identical toughness, identical range, mobility or lack there of, leadership, special rules, and damage versus different target profiles. We could quite easily compare those two things, not in a vacuum, but in regards to their ability to affect the game. As they are similar in many characteristics it is a vialbe method of determing balance in relation to point cost. We could clearly show that Scatter Bikes can pay 27pts for 4S6 Shots at 36" while Devs pay 24pts for 3 S5 Shots at the Same range. Dev also must pay for another ablative would, do not have relentless, have a limited ability to field those weapons, max 4 HBs in a unit whereas Scatterbikes can put one on each. We could clearly show that there is an imbalance between the codices between the two units and a cost disparity. One is much more mobile, capable of moving and firing at full effect, capable of generating its own cover save, fielding more firepower per point, able to field much more total firepower, and one can have Objective Secured as well. The strength of the Scatterbikes significantly outweigh the few advantages the Devs have. That is how balance works, we clearly see that the SM player fielding Devs is paying too much for their ability to affect the game compared to the Eldar player. Now, when more units are examined, in game context of all of the phases of game and likely situations, we see that there is a large balance disparity, with EJBs being far superior. Eldar Points, for many units, are worth more than Space Marine Points.


Saying that everyone has access to every choice is moving the goal posts and avoiding the issue of balance. Sure, everyone can play Eldar, but that does not make Eldar nor 40k Balanced.

Yes, we can create a social contract, but that contract references point costs which are the metric for which intercodice balance is to be maintained. Similar pointed units should have similar abilities to affect the games, now how we netermine a true impact on a game is more difficult, it should be appropriate for the cost of the unit. We can clearly demonstrate many times over how imbalanced many things are, and how some armies are recieving a larger ability to affect the game than the cost in points they pay. That is by definition imbalanced.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?

It is in the part of the rules where SOB can either take allies or do unbound and get any thing they want to deal with those things. See, the perceived imbalance comes from the mentality of "well, I want to play with only X models and those limited set of models should be able to take on anything else of equal points." However, that is not necessarily the appropriate measure of balance and is faulty reasoning. The blanket statement of "x points of any one thing should be able to take on and deal with x points of any other thing" is also based on faulty reasoning.

Overall, it is one thing to say "X army against Y army does not match-up well in any way shape or form" and even if that is true, it is quite another to say that the game itself is imbalanced. One does not necessarily mean the other.

So, Morty, not every army has answers to everything (Like you said) unless you ally. And unbound wouldn't help in the case I presented.
If I wanted to play mono SOB (which I did) then I'd just be out of luck. "Sorry bro, buy another expensive dex to cover the holes GW didn't think to fill."

The problem there, as you admit it, is that you want to play mono SOB. Therefore, if you impose those limitations upon yourself, then of course you will have an unbalanced result. That doesn't necessarily mean that the game is unbalanced.

And Zagman, I have not created any strawmen nor have I moved the goal posts. Simply put, Warhammer out of the box lets you take anything and everything and so the perceived imbalance is in what people choose to put in their armies compared to what they may face on the tabletop. Therefore, if you have an imbalanced match-up, that is because of the respective players' choices in making army lists and not the game's fault.

Now if you want to talk about why making an army entirely from the SOB codex is not as strong as making an army entirely from the Eldar codex, that is another issue altogether.

So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yep. The game is balanced because everyone can play Eldar.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yes and no. The thing I am harping on is WHAT exactly we are calling imbalance and what exactly we are saying is imbalanced. Call it semantics but as Brother pointed out, I am an attorney and words matter.

I maintain that the game is balanced as a whole because anyone CAN take anything. The imbalance comes when people CHOOSE to take one thing over another thing. Those are two completely different things that we are discussing.

I never denied and I am willing to concede that Eldar have an advantage over many armies, especially an army like SOB-when things like allies and the options to take whatever you want are off the table. When people have either self-imposed or TO imposed limitations on how an army can be built, then the balance and relative strength between different armies and units is something that should be discussed as people are then actually limited in what they actually can take in an army.

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yes and no. The thing I am harping on is WHAT exactly we are calling imbalance and what exactly we are saying is imbalanced. Call it semantics but as Brother pointed out, I am an attorney and words matter.

I maintain that the game is balanced as a whole because anyone CAN take anything. The imbalance comes when people CHOOSE to take one thing over another thing. Those are two completely different things that we are discussing.

I never denied and I am willing to concede that Eldar have an advantage over many armies, especially an army like SOB-when things like allies and the options to take whatever you want are off the table. When people have either self-imposed or TO imposed limitations on how an army can be built, then the balance and relative strength between different armies and units is something that should be discussed as people are then actually limited in what they actually can take in an army.

Very well, Morty, I'd say I define imbalance as "codecies having distinct advantages or disadvantages over other codicies." (Such as DA against Eldar)
Of course you can just buy Eldar and have a balanced game against Eldar. But few people want that and ruins their enjoyment of the game. Thus, codex imbalance leads to people not enjoying the game, as was my case.
But many people get into this game due to the fluff and have attachment to one faction or the other. You're basically saying that they can't play their faction that they love because the game is imbalanced. That's the problem we're dealing with.

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yes and no. The thing I am harping on is WHAT exactly we are calling imbalance and what exactly we are saying is imbalanced. Call it semantics but as Brother pointed out, I am an attorney and words matter.

I maintain that the game is balanced as a whole because anyone CAN take anything. The imbalance comes when people CHOOSE to take one thing over another thing. Those are two completely different things that we are discussing.

I never denied and I am willing to concede that Eldar have an advantage over many armies, especially an army like SOB-when things like allies and the options to take whatever you want are off the table. When people have either self-imposed or TO imposed limitations on how an army can be built, then the balance and relative strength between different armies and units is something that should be discussed as people are then actually limited in what they actually can take in an army.

You are dancing through arguments by altering definitions to suite your needs. It's evident in all of your arguments, 40k or not.

You have settled on arguing balance by choice, when almost everyone else is arguing imbalance in choice.

We all understand we can each have the ability to choose the best options, ie Scatterbikes, Wratihknights, etc, but, where the disagreement comes in is that those choices are relatively limited and centered in a few codices. Eldar are getting more raw capability and often potential synergy out of their units per point when compared to almost every other army in every single slot, you view this as acceptable and balanced as everyone has the choice to choose those units whereas everyone else views the lack of viable options or simply inferior options from other codices are imbalanced.

We are giving a metric, points cost, to evaluate units. Currently there exists a gross imbalance in choice rendering the vast majority of selections in many codices inferior to those present in other codices.

Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice. That is the root of the disagreement. The largest complaint is that codices, especially Eldar and Decurian Necrons, are able to purchase significantly more for their points than many other codices, an especially prevalent trend in 7th edition. A half dozen or so internally and externally balanced codices followed by one with a majorly over effective Detachment, and one that was the strongest and received nearly across the board buffs, many of which are completely unwarranted. That disparity in what a point buys you depending on whether you are holding a Dark Angels or Eldar codex is the grievance, simply saying everyone has the choice to choose the best options from the best codex is a copout. There shouldn't exist such a massive difference in the potency of options.

Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice.

Guys, where's he supposed to move the goal post to with you guys leaving all your reasoned arguments just lying all over the place?



40k is teeh balanced cuz ne 1 can haz eldar - bols commentator voice

Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

 Zagman wrote:
Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice.

Not being snide here, but that sounds like "Composition", like Highlander, or the old 3e formula ... (guessing from fuzzy memory):

HQ 15%
Troops 40%
FA, E, HS ~ 17%

... That doesn't look right. Anyway.

Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.
This guy has been amazingly wrong and all he does is argue about pointless issues.
Fact is everyone knows elder are overpowered.
Each day there is more and more battle reps being put out showing how busted elder are.
Tournaments organizers are already nerfing the codex.
And yet he continues arguing pointless obsfucated issues that have nothing to do with the fat eldar as an army is overpowered and broken. If he is a lawyer the only thing he has been good at is sidetracking you with nonsense. The only care about balance in 40k has nothing to do with his blathering. What matters is can most army codexs have a fair game and reasonable chance to win vs eldar when two equal players play against each other. The answer unequivocally and shown by many many battle reps is no.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

Another dick post from OverWatchCNC. Douche.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.

Cue Ren Hoek, "I told them! But they wouldn't believe me!"

gungo wrote:
Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.
This guy has been amazingly wrong and all he does is argue about pointless issues.
Fact is everyone knows elder are overpowered.
Each day there is more and more battle reps being put out showing how busted elder are.
Tournaments organizers are already nerfing the codex.
And yet he continues arguing pointless obsfucated issues that have nothing to do with the fat eldar as an army is overpowered and broken. If he is a lawyer the only thing he has been good at is sidetracking you with nonsense. The only care about balance in 40k has nothing to do with his blathering. What matters is can most army codexs have a fair game and reasonable chance to win vs eldar when two equal players play against each other. The answer unequivocally and shown by many many battle reps is no.

Exalted and advice taken.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

Another dick post from OverWatchCNC. Douche.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.

Cue Ren Hoek, "I told them! But they wouldn't believe me!"

It's ok, this thread reached screaming into the void status about 9 pages ago.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

Chess is balance through no choice.

No one is arguing for perfect balance, or homogeneous choices, but much could be done... Too bad GW puts almost no effort into logically costing units and upgrades.

Brothererekose wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice.

Not being snide here, but that sounds like "Composition", like Highlander, or the old 3e formula ... (guessing from fuzzy memory):

HQ 15%
Troops 40%
FA, E, HS ~ 17%

... That doesn't look right. Anyway.

If you read Composition out of anything I said, you failed at reading comprehension.

I wasn't suggesting solutions, merely illuminating and explaining the problem especially how Adam was describing balance compared to most.

Having yet to play the new eldar I will comment to feel free to take my advice with more then a grain of salt.

When I first saw the codex I was blow away. Thought the sky was falling and was wondering why the hell I was going to do. But I listen to some friends who had played vs the dex. Inculding list like DE allies with Webway deep strikes. And they were walking away with victories.

Is the codex Strong? oh yes. All the d is scary. And the bikes can put out quite the volume of shots. However it seems these options lack durability. Most of the game right now is a bit overly focused on low Ap over volume of shots so everyone is scared because the eldar Excel at this and with there jink saves can survive onslaughts of attacks by them.

And with the Bikes squads that can fire 40 STR 6 shots a turn it seems they have volume of fire too.

However Eldar never really get the anything better then a 3+ save and are pretty rubbish in melee. This means they are extremely vulnerable to Massed fire and lots of the Big blasts.

So it seems to me they are going to be a pain to play around but have there legitimate weaknesses.

 Zagman wrote:
If you read Composition out of anything I said, you failed at reading comprehension.

As a teacher, I *will* snidely say, " Stick it, buddy! " You in *my* kitchen sucka, and I know reading comprehension when I see it.

 Zagman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting solutions, merely illuminating and explaining the problem especially how Adam was describing balance compared to most.

(no more sarcasm or snarkiness)
Of course, maybe I was reading with Rose-colored glasses, more specifically, solution-colored glasses, and hoping to see resolution, acceptance and peace, I read what was not there.

And you state you were not headed so. I apologize.

Now, though, I ask why not? Why not propose solutions?

Or is just being on the gripe-about-it-around-the-pickle-barrel-committee the best way to go ? Certainly seems the popular choice.

Me? I wanna play.

Nerf the Destroyers? Fine. Limit the skeezee Ballistic Skill 5 formations? Fine. One Heavy gun per JB unit? Fine.

And, though Overwatch stated the void was being screamed at, I'd like to see this thread come back to something more productive, like solutions for play?

ITC already has done so. Maybe, we get outta this thread, something for all folks (not intending to sound hokey), but for our global community, too.

Zag, I'm gonna PM you. I think we met at a LVO or BAO ....

People act as if 3+ armor and/or 3+ cover is bad.
I don't know what game you've been playing.
You do realize we are talking about the basic cheap ob sec troop choices?

People act as if banshees stil suck and things like wraith lord,wraith blades, wraithknight, avatars are bad in Melee or things like harlequins and dark eldar aren't easily battlebrothered in if you remotely care about assault. Assault is basically unneeded anyway and I fully expect most eldar players just not to care about putting any of these good assault units I their lists anyway.
Ap3 cover ignoring shooting isn't really a common weapon in 40k especially in any type of abundance but even if there is an army with a decent amount of ap3 cover ignoring shooting eldar psychic powers, warp spiders and harlequins still have a ridiculous amount of invis or shadowseer combos or shooting shenanigans that make those protected units practically impossible to hit. And nearly every eldar army list will have a decent amount of psychic powers. There is no easy answer to the current eldar codex and people posting like its no big deal obviously haven't played them. While defensively eldar didn't change a whole lot they did get a few considerable bumps in defensive power.

The only ap3 ignore cover shooting I have comes on the side of a land raider redeemer or the top of a predator that can't sneak up on you anymore, and has a mighty long range of almost 9 inches!
Be afraid jetbikes!

Not saying 3+ is bad at all. Its quite durable. MEQ is nice. However its 1/2 as effective as TEQ and thus allot more vulnerable to mass fire. A squad of 10 bikes w/ scats is 270 points. Drop pod a 10 man bare bones Tac squad on them and on average that will be enough for the to take a leadership check and you can field 2 units of them for every 1 unit of Bikes.

Any thats not counting fun special weapons you can equip squads with. (I use marines as example as they are the most played)

niv-mizzet wrote:
The only ap3 ignore cover shooting I have comes on the side of a land raider redeemer or the top of a predator that can't sneak up on you anymore, and has a mighty long range of almost 9 inches!
Be afraid jetbikes!

There's the FW whirlwind relic that is S4 AP3 I believe and ignores cover with the legacy of glory(I forget the name)

It seems this thread has more than outstayed its welcome for now.

I'm sure time and the calm, thoughtful player base will come up with something.