After looking over the CSM, DA, and Daemon books I can't help but notice a distinct change in power level that was so very clear in the 5th edition rulebooks. Don't get me wrong they're playable but they don't have the firepower of GK, SW, Necrons or IG. I also noticed the 6th books seems so....meh. Just uninspiring. Not one grabbed me and says this is a cool idea.Anyone else get this feeling?
And GKs are hardly overpowered anymore. slightly above the power of 6th edition books, but not exceedingly so. Seriously, GK hate went out of style months ago.
And GKs are hardly overpowered anymore. slightly above the power of 6th edition books, but not exceedingly so. Seriously, GK hate went out of style months ago.
...Except that you can still easily auto-win against us poor Daemons.
The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.
A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.
JWhex wrote: The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.
A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about...
Daemons laugh at MEQ - Slaanesh can even make GK's think twice.
I for one greet this new balance welcome as it was something which was really needed. Choice of army shouldn't be based on autowin lists but actual taste. Maybe then the tournament lists will be more diverse and Internet lists will go out of style.
like how 6th is going. Necrons are slowly looking less and less powerful, and almost every army can compete now. Really, everyone but Tau, (non FW) and Sisters of Battle and Templars is at least semi competetive, even if only as an ally.
AL-PiXeL01 wrote: I for one greet this new balance welcome as it was something which was really needed. Choice of army shouldn't be based on autowin lists but actual taste. Maybe then the tournament lists will be more diverse and Internet lists will go out of style.
Ditto with this sentiment. I prefer variety over auto win.
And GKs are hardly overpowered anymore. slightly above the power of 6th edition books, but not exceedingly so. Seriously, GK hate went out of style months ago.
...Except that you can still easily auto-win against us poor Daemons.
Ah, I have seen this before. 5 years ago. Back then it was the Space Marines, crying, complaining and having tantrums that the codexes were becoming boring, stale and no flavor.
So is it happening again? I don't think so. While the codexes are not "over powered" at least it seems, boring, stale and no flavor seem to have gone away.
I just think people are still use to "OMG, over powered codexes" People just need to get use to "balanced codexes that can be played different ways now and no more one trick ponies."
I'm ecstatic that there are more than 1or 2 viable builds per codex and there aren't autowin builds. It's just that playing certain things don't scream interesting, including rules/fluff/models.
JWhex wrote: The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.
A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about...
Daemons laugh at MEQ - Slaanesh can even make GK's think twice.
Not to mention some of the Nurgle psychic powers will devastate MEQ at close range. Also, Greater Unclean One is just.....a freakin animal. Only DE can put him down easy.
I like it how they are going for the balance thing. The new CSM codex got me finally into chaos after years of considering it. It is more and more possible to pick your units with the "I like this one" mentality than "I need this one to even have a chance" way.
His post was clearly referencing Daemons, at least thats how I read it.
relavent post.
JWhex wrote: The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.
A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.
Grey Templar wrote:His post was clearly referencing Daemons, at least thats how I read it.
relavent post.
JWhex wrote: The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.
A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.
Yeah I was just pointing our that the sky really isn't falling as badly for him as he thinks. He has more AA than Nids, and lets face it, they aren't exactly weak.
Grey Templar wrote:His post was clearly referencing Daemons, at least thats how I read it.
relavent post.
JWhex wrote: The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.
A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.
Yeah I was just pointing our that the sky really isn't falling as badly for him as he thinks. He has more AA than Nids, and lets face it, they aren't exactly weak.
I think what we're seeing is a lack of Matt Ward. Discount the IG vendetta for a moment, and then throw out Ward's codices, what have you got recently?
Demons? Not too shabby.
CSM? Not exactly hideously overpowered
Dark Angels? A rather nice codex.
Dark Eldar? Likewise.
Guard and SW? Throw out a few aberrations, and on the whole, they're pretty solid.
Yeah, I know it's easy to hate on Ward, but it's pretty easy to see that one author has a very different idea about what the game should look like than the rest of the authors.
Without this one person with his different way of seeing things, the rest of everything is pretty balanced. The only reason that it hasn't been obvious as of late is precisely because so many of the codices from a few years ago were written by that one other person.
Ailaros wrote: I think what we're seeing is a lack of Matt Ward. Discount the IG vendetta for a moment, and then throw out Ward's codices, what have you got recently?
Demons? Not too shabby.
CSM? Not exactly hideously overpowered
Dark Angels? A rather nice codex.
Dark Eldar? Likewise.
Guard and SW? Throw out a few aberrations, and on the whole, they're pretty solid.
Yeah, I know it's easy to hate on Ward, but it's pretty easy to see that one author has a very different idea about what the game should look like than the rest of the authors.
Without this one person with his different way of seeing things, the rest of everything is pretty balanced. The only reason that it hasn't been obvious as of late is precisely because so many of the codices from a few years ago were written by that one other person.
Yes you can look at that way, but I think you also need to take into consideration the aweful internal balance of some the 5th Ed codex's. SW who takes anything other than Grey Hunters for troops? Because they are that much better than the other troops, same goes for Long Fangs. Look at Tyranids, they codex (ATM) could literally be stripped down to half a dozen units.
Like you said it's easy to hate on Matt Ward, but his codex' are pretty internally well balanced, and are fairly well balanced with each other. At least his codex' were consistent in their power levels. (Looking at you Cruddance).
That's true. I will certainly say that the internal balance of codices is slowly improving over time. I don't think that Matt Ward is anything special in this regard, though.
It's probably a function of the fact that the game and its armies are just more mature now. If you're not having to completely redo the codices (only a few, like sisters, really need this), then you can just kind of tweak things. Tweaking tends not to create as serious of balance issues as inventing from whole cloth.
Ailaros wrote: That's true. I will certainly say that the internal balance of codices is slowly improving over time. I don't think that Matt Ward is anything special in this regard, though.
It's probably a function of the fact that the game and its armies are just more mature now. If you're not having to completely redo the codices (only a few, like sisters, really need this), then you can just kind of tweak things. Tweaking tends not to create as serious of balance issues as inventing from whole cloth.
Yeah sisters need a big re-do, purely too have more options, what they have now is strong, but it just lacks options. Black Templar need a big re-do, but that doesn't really count because, how big of a re-do can you really get as Space Marines?
I'm not saying that internal balance is all Matt Ward, and I by know means know all of the 5th ed codex' well enough to say for sure, but, as far as I see it, his are have the best internal balance. Maybe it helps that 3/4 of his 5th Ed codex's were power armoured?
Also I completly agree that it is probably more to do with the maturity of the game.
The 5th Edition books had more sizzle to them, but they were also far more open to abuse than the hardback codices that have been released to this point. Considering that this is a hobby that tends to attract more than its share of TFGs, it's probably a change for the best.
As a Guard player, I don't mind if they deflate some of the power units from our book. I just hope that they maintain the variety of the current Guard Codex, and put a bit more oomph into a couple of the non-competitive options found in the book.
6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold) the broken 5th ed books of Necrons, IG, SW, and (too a slightly lesser extent now) GK will still be ruling the tournie circuits...
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: 6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold) the broken 5th ed books of Necrons, IG, SW, and (too a slightly lesser extent now) GK will still be ruling the tournie circuits...
Yes they will, but since GW doesn't support Tournaments, that won't bother them. Nor me for that matter
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)
That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)
That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.
I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)
That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.
I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.
I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)
That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.
I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.
I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).
Yeah the 'Every codex' part I've actually heard, the Necron bit I added from my own deductions. I think looking at the digital codex realeses gives us a good indication. If GW wanted they could easily release all the current codex' on the digital platform and they would make money. But instead what have they realesed? Codex:Space Marines, poster boys to launch the new product, pretty standard. The Codex:Necrons, the last 5th ed codex, which was really a 5.5/ early 6th ed. Then they left all the other 5th codex's alone and only release the digital versions of the newer codex's.
So you do have to ask your self why release the digital Necrons and nothing else? I mean even Grey Knights was written with 6th in mind, a lot of the rules in there are long hand of new rules from the 6th ed book.
Also I don't think Necrons won't be at the top of the table for all of 6th, as Skyfire becomes more readily available.
SkaerKrow wrote:As a Guard player, I don't mind if they deflate some of the power units from our book. I just hope that they maintain the variety of the current Guard Codex, and put a bit more oomph into a couple of the non-competitive options found in the book.
Dude I'll be happy if I can play a mech list backed up by lots a quality sniper (ratling and special weapon squads) fire. And be able to do alright.
Amaya wrote:I would not be surprised at all if a year from now people were crowning 6th edition as the golden age of 40k.
6th is growing on me a little but it's still not 3rd...sorry I am stubborn as
Ailaros wrote:
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)
That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.
As long as they hold off on popping 7th on our heads by 2016. At least wait 5-preferably 10 years before 7th. I hope.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:6th is obviously striving for balance, but that is at LEAST a year away. Until the majority of armies receive a 6th ed update (likely considering we already have 3 Codices out in less than a year since release, possibly as high as 5 if the rumors hold)
That's an interesting observation, actually. Perhaps we're to the point where most codices are already polished enough that really, they're just going to need little tweaks. Given that little tweaks are a lot easier than more or less starting over from scratch, perhaps we're on the edge of a new paradigm. One where GW comes out with codices faster. Plus, I'm sure GW would be very, very happy if they could get everybody to buy a new, hardcover copy of their codex.
I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.
I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).
Yeah the 'Every codex' part I've actually heard, the Necron bit I added from my own deductions. I think looking at the digital codex realeses gives us a good indication. If GW wanted they could easily release all the current codex' on the digital platform and they would make money. But instead what have they realesed? Codex:Space Marines, poster boys to launch the new product, pretty standard. The Codex:Necrons, the last 5th ed codex, which was really a 5.5/ early 6th ed. Then they left all the other 5th codex's alone and only release the digital versions of the newer codex's.
So you do have to ask your self why release the digital Necrons and nothing else? I mean even Grey Knights was written with 6th in mind, a lot of the rules in there are long hand of new rules from the 6th ed book.
Also I don't think Necrons won't be at the top of the table for all of 6th, as Skyfire becomes more readily available.
'IF' GW is smart they should follow Paizo's model on digital downloads. 50 dollar hardback. (really though even hard back these books aren't big enough to be more then 25 but that's a complaint for another thread) 12.99-9.99 digital copy.
Also further nerfing of GKs and Necrons is alright by me. ^-^
the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.
pwntallica wrote: the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.
Yeah flavour of the month gaming doesn't really work anymore
pwntallica wrote: the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.
Yeah flavour of the month gaming doesn't really work anymore
its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.
Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.
Vineheart01 wrote: its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.
Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.
I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.
Oh my God, seriously? After seeing people crying for two years about how unbalanced the game and/or the codexes are, someone is now whining that the new codexes are balanced?
Vineheart01 wrote: its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part. Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.
Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.
I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.
Its how most of my games go, i either do a bit of a "Come at me bro" or get wasted as i charge into range of his camped out 24inch heavy hitters as i usually cant avoid them and get on that side of the board at the same time. That game in particular was just the first ive had where i knew i could win just by sitting still. If his marines came around that corner, i'd hit him with 10-25 BIG attacks that usually hit (varying lootas that were left, quad gun with a BS5 tau on it, 12 fire warriors, and 3 broadsides) so he couldnt come out. Usually im on the other end of this issue, i HAVE to go in or i lose but i just cant because the gunlines are too damn good.
Thats why i have been trying to force the meganob+snikrot combo in my lists. It gives me that instant other side of the board option giving me a window to get the rest of my guys in.
EDIT: Its also why i have so many issues with IG as they are the gods of "Come at me bro" tactics. I have gimick heroes to get to the other side instantly, the most reliable being the meganob + snikrot and even thats not THAT great, the rest of my army NEEDS to get there alive somehow as he will outgun my lootas and lootas cant even touch his tanks (which is stupid as hell that theyre AV14 on the front)
I started playing tau almost two years ago. I had read several codexes and decided i liked them until i started playing and trying to match my buddies point for point. rumors are next month my new codex may come out. I think that Balance is a relative term to any game. But what i want to see is the armies work in the game as they do in lore. i dont mind space marines are good at everything if a couple armies can beat them in shooting and a couple armies can beat them in close combat. BALANCE as it were is more about lets not focus on one faction but actually make armies play like their lore with distinct STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. I like the idea of i know as long as i keep him suppressed at a distances im gold but he makes it to melee im screwed. You put in one or two units that can handle melee NOT that EXCEL in melee just that can handle it. Play some RTS games and then you can see how these things should work.
pwntallica wrote: I like the current internal balance of the DA and CSM codexes. Haven't looked at the new CD codex yet, but I like where things are going.
Think of Daemons like they're the "Horde version of Eldar" with more of a close assault theme going on.
On their own, Dameonic units in general aren't too flashy and each is highly specialised and geared towards a single style of play.
But add in the Heralds, (think Farseer levels of synergies & buffs), and suddenly you're going to pulling your hair out trying to deal with multiple very scary threats, all backed up by things like a Greater, Soul Grinder/Prince and likely a Skullcannon/Burning Chariot once it's FAQ'd to actually work!
You can build some absolutely terrifying beatsticks with the Daemons codex now - Slaanesh especially is dirty when it comes to character hunting while Tzeentch MC's will likely become all but challenge-proof outside of throwing the likes of Abby/Draigo and their ilk at them.
Amaya wrote: Even if 6th proves to be similar to WHFB 7th where Daemons were top dog, it is an improvement if there is relative balance between most codices.
7th ed Fantasy was like 5th ed 40k - power creep ramped-up x1000!
HE's introduced army-wide ASF. Then VC's one-up'ed them with the new spam-casting, Daemons killed the entire edition, then DE's/WoC/Lizzies & Skaven were powered up to the nines just so they could try and compete with an outright broken army...
I think you're thinking of 8th edition! It re-balanced most of the problems, and you could compete against all but 1 Daemon list that was still an auto-win button. (Slaanesh Ld-bomb)
And GKs are hardly overpowered anymore. slightly above the power of 6th edition books, but not exceedingly so. Seriously, GK hate went out of style months ago.
...Except that you can still easily auto-win against us poor Daemons.
Given how many Daemon lists seem to be sweeping tournaments, I think "easily" is a bit embellished.
I like the flavour of the chaos codex, looking at the chaos boon table, you get some imaginative descriptions as to what is happening to the champion.
Add to that the fact that I can now happily say "I want this, this and this, because they sound/look/feel fething awesome", rather than saying "well, this is the cheesiest unit I can find, so I must use it".
jifel wrote: like how 6th is going. Necrons are slowly looking less and less powerful, and almost every army can compete now. Really, everyone but Tau, (non FW) and Sisters of Battle and Templars is at least semi competetive, even if only as an ally.
:p Sisters are more than compeititive. W/L/D 24/4/2 since Sixth came out (I know, I need to play more games)
Amaya wrote:I would not be surprised at all if a year from now people were crowning 6th edition as the golden age of 40k.
Seems legit to me, as long as they continue their codex-every-other-month roll.
Ailaros wrote:That's true. I will certainly say that the internal balance of codices is slowly improving over time. I don't think that Matt Ward is anything special in this regard, though.
It's probably a function of the fact that the game and its armies are just more mature now. If you're not having to completely redo the codices (only a few, like sisters, really need this), then you can just kind of tweak things. Tweaking tends not to create as serious of balance issues as inventing from whole cloth.
Even Sisters don't need a full redo. We just need more options and a point dropping from all our models and added back on to Celestine (Celestine at 115 points is broken. Celestine at 150 points would be more reasonable. Battle Sisters at the same price as Dark Angels space marines are too expensive considering how much faster we die and the lack of ATSKNF).
I actually heard somewhere that they were trying to turn around a 6th ed codex for every army. Maybe with the exception of Necrons, since theirs is a 6th ed codex really.
I really hope thats not true. Necrons at least need some sort of points update or a ".5" codex considering how under-costed some of their stuff is (Night Scythes most of all).
A Night Scythe is an AV10 flier with a what basically amounts to a pair of twin-linked autocannons and it comes in at 165 points minimum (because a 5-man Warrior squad may as well not exist). Not exactly the height of undercosted.
Vineheart01 wrote:its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.
Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.
I was going to be really sarcastic, but it wasn't necessary. If you can't find a way to make an assault on a cityfight board you really aren't trying hard enough. Sounds to me like you just hate the idea of tactical combat instead of running across the board screaming (which I guess makes sense since you're an ork).
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Given how many Daemon lists seem to be sweeping tournaments, I think "easily" is a bit embellished.
Most of those tournaments predate the codex update though.
Selym wrote:I like the flavour of the chaos codex, looking at the chaos boon table, you get some imaginative descriptions as to what is happening to the champion.
Add to that the fact that I can now happily say "I want this, this and this, because they sound/look/feel fething awesome", rather than saying "well, this is the cheesiest unit I can find, so I must use it".
The main problem with the Chaos Boon table is that the Daemon Prince option basically just nukes your awesome character into a generic faceripper. If not for that, it would be awesome.
As for the last part... you can only do that if you don't play Daemons. If you play Daemons it's more a case of "I want this, this and this because they sound/look/feel awesome... but I rolled a two so I get that instead. Bleh."
Selym wrote:I like the flavour of the chaos codex, looking at the chaos boon table, you get some imaginative descriptions as to what is happening to the champion.
Add to that the fact that I can now happily say "I want this, this and this, because they sound/look/feel fething awesome", rather than saying "well, this is the cheesiest unit I can find, so I must use it".
The main problem with the Chaos Boon table is that the Daemon Prince option basically just nukes your awesome character into a generic faceripper. If not for that, it would be awesome.
As for the last part... you can only do that if you don't play Daemons. If you play Daemons it's more a case of "I want this, this and this because they sound/look/feel awesome... but I rolled a two so I get that instead. Bleh."
I agree with your point about daemons being awkward as feth like that, but if you use the boons, spawndom and DP'ing is actually quite uncommon. The risk is reduced to almost nil if you bring a Dark Apostle, because you can re-roll the boons regardless of the result
Vineheart01 wrote: its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.
Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.
I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.
Its how most of my games go, i either do a bit of a "Come at me bro" or get wasted as i charge into range of his camped out 24inch heavy hitters as i usually cant avoid them and get on that side of the board at the same time. That game in particular was just the first ive had where i knew i could win just by sitting still. If his marines came around that corner, i'd hit him with 10-25 BIG attacks that usually hit (varying lootas that were left, quad gun with a BS5 tau on it, 12 fire warriors, and 3 broadsides) so he couldnt come out. Usually im on the other end of this issue, i HAVE to go in or i lose but i just cant because the gunlines are too damn good.
Thats why i have been trying to force the meganob+snikrot combo in my lists. It gives me that instant other side of the board option giving me a window to get the rest of my guys in.
EDIT: Its also why i have so many issues with IG as they are the gods of "Come at me bro" tactics. I have gimick heroes to get to the other side instantly, the most reliable being the meganob + snikrot and even thats not THAT great, the rest of my army NEEDS to get there alive somehow as he will outgun my lootas and lootas cant even touch his tanks (which is stupid as hell that theyre AV14 on the front)
You complain about the game being nothing more than a peek-a-boo shooting match, but then you field an Ork/Tau alliance with maxed broadsides and lootas...
Vineheart01 wrote: its "balanced" because everyone is trying to play the shooting game now, since the charging game is kinda dead for the most part.
Its kind of annoying to me. My last game was Orks with Tau allies vs Necrons with CSM allies - we spent the entire game basically going peek-a-boo around the cityscape terrain we ended up with. Both of us had nasty weapons waiting for sight, i ended up winning because i scored FB and just sat there keeping him out of my deployment and off my 2 objectives. I even had a bikernob force but because i got FB and knew i could win by just sitting there out of sight of his noise marines, 4 bikers w/ painboy and bikerboss just sat for 3 turns lol.
Thats boring to me, but i couldnt do anything about it. If i surged up to make things interesting, i might have given away Warlord and he might get linebreaker since i lacked that missile guarding my flank. I want to charge up the table, but in majority of situations its a very, very bad idea to go out there lol.
I still find great success in charging. It sounds like the game you played was a specific exception more than a rule.
Its how most of my games go, i either do a bit of a "Come at me bro" or get wasted as i charge into range of his camped out 24inch heavy hitters as i usually cant avoid them and get on that side of the board at the same time. That game in particular was just the first ive had where i knew i could win just by sitting still. If his marines came around that corner, i'd hit him with 10-25 BIG attacks that usually hit (varying lootas that were left, quad gun with a BS5 tau on it, 12 fire warriors, and 3 broadsides) so he couldnt come out. Usually im on the other end of this issue, i HAVE to go in or i lose but i just cant because the gunlines are too damn good.
Thats why i have been trying to force the meganob+snikrot combo in my lists. It gives me that instant other side of the board option giving me a window to get the rest of my guys in.
EDIT: Its also why i have so many issues with IG as they are the gods of "Come at me bro" tactics. I have gimick heroes to get to the other side instantly, the most reliable being the meganob + snikrot and even thats not THAT great, the rest of my army NEEDS to get there alive somehow as he will outgun my lootas and lootas cant even touch his tanks (which is stupid as hell that theyre AV14 on the front)
You complain about the game being nothing more than a peek-a-boo shooting match, but then you field an Ork/Tau alliance with maxed broadsides and lootas...
Sounds like you should all try greenskin foot spam (Give nobz power klaws, and every 10th boy a rokkit launcha in case of armour).
How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.
Everyone was complaining about power creep a few months ago. Then everyone whines about their favorite book not getting a dose of Cheez-X.
Do you people not understand how these kinds of conflicting feedback just leave game designers confused and without any idea of what their consumer base wants?
The only thing these Codexes need is greater INTERNAL balance. And over time things will be gradually be ironed out as we get back to the FOTM Codexes of the last edition.
Although to be fair I think the lack of internal Codex balance is systemic and has nothing to do with overall balance most of the time and is due to Codex writer incompetence/hurried development schedules, etc.
TedNugent wrote: How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.
By becoming like chess. When the game is limited to preset tactics and the only room for innovation (and fun) is at the lowest level of skill and the highest level of skill. Starcraft 1 is an example of this too.
Amaya wrote: Chess and ASFAIK Starcraft don't have random damage output and saves. That alone will give room for tactical innovation within games.
No indeed it doesn't. However, using randomness for such a reason is poor game design too. Having it included as part of a larger game, with imbalances and counters makes for a great game.
Perfect balance, relying on dice rolls is not engaging. Innovation would be dependent on poor or good rolls, and in the end, math hammer would become even more important than it is now.
Tanks > Basic Units > Specialised Units > Tanks > Flyers > Troops > AA-Spec Tanks
etc.
It's more complicated than that, but it's there. The proof being that the 6th ed codices thus far have multiple viable builds, each with their own weaknesses and strengths.
For example, Chaos goes like this:
Tzeentch: Best specialised shooty
Khorne: Best specialised melee
Slaanesh: Best speedy + quick squishy melee
Nurgle: Most resilient + competent mid/short range shooty.
Different strengths, and they have different weaknesses (Although Khorne is going to be a tough sell in competition).
TedNugent wrote: How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.
By becoming like chess. When the game is limited to preset tactics and the only room for innovation (and fun) is at the lowest level of skill and the highest level of skill. Starcraft 1 is an example of this too.
Good game design is about perfect imbalance.
And we all know that chess if the most boring game ever made. There is nearly no depth to it whatever!
Where's the Bloodthirsters and the Draigowing? No game can be interesting without vast power level disparities and inherently weaker Codexes that everyone gets to beat up on.
Actually, good game design is about creating a variety of units that are valuable in some nuanced way, so that all units are implicitly viable but suited to a range of different tactical applications. For instance, if close combat jump infantry are good, and shooting units are good, and given equal conditions they can both be played to similar levels of effectiveness, would you find that boring? I would think it would be empowering. You don't HAVE to play a pure shooty army. You can play a jump infantry army, a Xenos army of your choice and flavor, Space Marines of your favorite color, flyers, Deep Strikers, Psykers - how much more fun and interesting would it be if we could BREAK the use of Vendetta or Baleflamer spam? Wouldn't you rather see different armies and have a wider range of effective units that you can play with?
TedNugent wrote: How does something get "too balanced?" I'm really sick of this.
By becoming like chess. When the game is limited to preset tactics and the only room for innovation (and fun) is at the lowest level of skill and the highest level of skill. Starcraft 1 is an example of this too.
Good game design is about perfect imbalance.
And we all know that chess if the most boring game ever made. There is nearly no depth to it whatever!
Where's the Bloodthirsters and the Draigowing? No game can be interesting without vast power level disparities and inherently weaker Codexes that everyone gets to beat up on.
Actually, good game design is about creating a variety of units that are valuable in some nuanced way, so that all units are implicitly viable but suited to a range of different tactical applications. For instance, if close combat jump infantry are good, and shooting units are good, and given equal conditions they can both be played to similar levels of effectiveness, would you find that boring? I would think it would be empowering. You don't HAVE to play a pure shooty army. You can play a jump infantry army, a Xenos army of your choice and flavor, Space Marines of your favorite color, flyers, Deep Strikers, Psykers - how much more fun and interesting would it be if we could BREAK the use of Vendetta or Baleflamer spam? Wouldn't you rather see different armies and have a wider range of effective units that you can play with?
That sounds like more fun rather than less.
Yes. I rarely see footslogging orks, and have never seen guard without tank-spam, or flyers. And there are waaaaaaay too many MEQ's. I'd like to kill a horde for once #Dreaming...
Amaya wrote: Chess and ASFAIK Starcraft don't have random damage output and saves. That alone will give room for tactical innovation within games.
Completely hilarious reading about how Starcraft needs to be more like 40k in order to be more competitive.
Wikipedia wrote:StarCraft was released internationally on March 31, 1998 and became the best-selling PC game for that year, selling over 1.5 million copies worldwide.[77] In the next decade, StarCraft sold over 9.5 million copies across the globe, with 4.5 million of these being sold in South Korea.[78] Since the initial release of StarCraft, Blizzard Entertainment reported that its Battle.net online multiplayer service grew by 800 percent.[79] StarCraft remains one of the most popular online games in the world.[80][81]
Generally, StarCraft was received positively by critics, with many contemporary reviewers noting that while the game may not have deviated significantly from the status quo of most real-time strategy games, it was one of the best to have applied the formula.[8][48] In addition, StarCraft's pioneering use of three distinct, unique and balanced races over two equal sides was praised by critics,[7] with GameSpot commenting that this helped the game to "avoid the problem that has plagued every other game in the genre".[8]
One of the best selling, best reviewed, most competitive, and most played computer RTS games of all time needs to learn from how GW has handled their competitive community.
Yup, pretty much lol the game is no fun if you dont RP a bit (least for me, im always talking orky when i play)
As for the comment bout me bringing tau allies/lootas and complaining bout peek-a-boo games, i did that because im basically FORCED to since it works. An ork army without lootas is pretty much doomed to failure for the sole reason you cant thin their front lines down or pop light vehicles before your mass of boys reach the short-range heavy hitting weapons and lose half their numbers or so.
Pretty much the only reason i never run a green tide is because i lack THAT many boyz lol. I have enough to fill the gaps in a 1500pt game after 2 groups of lootas and whatever missile im using (MANz on wheels or bikernobz) which is about it (bout 95shootas and 45sluggas. I have more unbuilt but i havent gotten to them yet, busy scratchbuildin kannons atm). Im pretty fast at moving the ~60-80 boyz i take on average so i imagine i'd be fine bringing ~120, i spend my turns going "Do i want to do this or that" with my missiles/lootas than i do moving models. As i get better i wont need as much time to think on those situations though. Im still fairly new.
I haven't seen much of the inside of the 6th ed codices, but there is that idea that with the 6th ed books newbies will be able to choose a codex that not only looks good and plays well rather than has only has one boring flavour that wipes out the competition. I got in the hobby for the models and the fun, so I like the fact that books are allowing different flavours of lists.
For example: someone coming into the hobby likes the look of Kroot( ). Now he spends the outrageous price amounts that GW demands for an army these days, looks at the tons of Kroot he has bought and realises, the Kroot are pretty useless . OR the Alternate dimension: the same new hobbyist comes into the hobby. He likes the look of Kroot, but finds out how gak they are . Now this hobbyist does want to win now and again, so he goes to say Necrons, cause he hears they win alot etc. Now he spends a lot of money to get an army. Yeah he may win a bit, but he hates the fact that every box is the same - the same faces, the same weapon choices etc.; instead of an army like this (an army that has indiviual models), he has an army of pure this: . He has a winning army but an army that he doesn't like the look of and units that are bland and the same as the next guy's army.
To avoid this I think it is good that army books are balanced so that there isn't that one army to rule them all (LoTR reference hehehehe), but you can simultaneously get an army and units that you like the look of (and aren't useless) and an army that has the capability of winning. I for one hope that the balanced books of 6th ed will lead us into this generation of hobbying that will allow us to have that; the one guy who has an actually useful squad of Kroot, who don't die in droves for the low low price of $45 gor more for 10.
Basically, balanced codexes mean impulse buys (which is most of GW's income) that still allow playable and enjoyable lists.
@rednecroncryptek I must give you a high-five. That is so right. I actually lived that situation: started playing orks because of the converting oppotunities chose a blood axe klan because I -like- the idea of ork kommandos. Soon, I learnt that they are overpriced for what they can achieve (which isn't much, 10-15 slugga boys don't go far without a trukk nowadays).
@vineheart01: Soo, I'm not the only one talking orky as I play! Hahaha! I have a little fun with that, giving nonsensical orders while playing, like "Dat's IT! Ya boyz load da BIG shell now!" "But boss, da big shell don't fit!" "Hush, do as da boss sez."
As it happens, I rolled a 'Don't press dat' on the boomwagon that particular turn, hehehe. It's fun playing a goofy army.
The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"
On the one hand I understand wanted to play a broken codex. Winning is fun and knowing you are probably going to win most of your games is good. Having a powerful codex is also fun because it allows you to pick weaker, wackier options that would be unplayable alone but because you have those broken units you can risk taking them and still come out okay, this is one of the reasons necrons can take so many different builds because it has so many overtly powerful unites that you can play around and you don't have to min/max so hard. An army like Tau can't afford to be wacky and take tons of vespids and kroot.
On the other hand balance is really what the game needs. On the opposite side of the table is going to be a player who wants to win too. Balance means you both have an equal chance at winning and strategy and luck are more of a factor. People like to play fair games and 6th edition codices are strong but fair. Balance means people will play more. I have seen people turn down games verses necrons and IG because they just don't want to deal with knowing they are probably going to lose going into it. But as a Tau player people never turn me down games and often I have multiple people asking if they can play against me because they know my army is strong but I am not going to table them.
rednecroncryptek wrote: I haven't seen much of the inside of the 6th ed codices, but there is that idea that with the 6th ed books newbies will be able to choose a codex that not only looks good and plays well rather than has only has one boring flavour that wipes out the competition. I got in the hobby for the models and the fun, so I like the fact that books are allowing different flavours of lists.
For example: someone coming into the hobby likes the look of Kroot( ). Now he spends the outrageous price amounts that GW demands for an army these days, looks at the tons of Kroot he has bought and realises, the Kroot are pretty useless . OR the Alternate dimension: the same new hobbyist comes into the hobby. He likes the look of Kroot, but finds out how gak they are . Now this hobbyist does want to win now and again, so he goes to say Necrons, cause he hears they win alot etc. Now he spends a lot of money to get an army. Yeah he may win a bit, but he hates the fact that every box is the same - the same faces, the same weapon choices etc.; instead of an army like this (an army that has indiviual models), he has an army of pure this: . He has a winning army but an army that he doesn't like the look of and units that are bland and the same as the next guy's army.
To avoid this I think it is good that army books are balanced so that there isn't that one army to rule them all (LoTR reference hehehehe), but you can simultaneously get an army and units that you like the look of (and aren't useless) and an army that has the capability of winning. I for one hope that the balanced books of 6th ed will lead us into this generation of hobbying that will allow us to have that; the one guy who has an actually useful squad of Kroot, who don't die in droves for the low low price of $45 gor more for 10.
Basically, balanced codexes mean impulse buys (which is most of GW's income) that still allow playable and enjoyable lists.
Vineheart01 wrote: The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"
That's part of the reason Orks are so awesome. There's just so much fun involved.
Vineheart01 wrote: The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"
That's part of the reason Orks are so awesome. There's just so much fun involved.
But I thought all the randomness of the last couple of codexes were what some people said was ruining 40k?
I like playing against Orks because you almost never know what's about to haplen with them.
Yea, but right now the only real randomness is the SAG, Looted Wagons, and Flash Gitz. Nobody uses flash gits even as a joke cuz theyre so bad, Looted Wagons are good just situational, and SAG is downright awesome lol. Except where the first time you use it you roll snakeeyes my boyz be like "Wot da zog wuz dat blue flashy ting 'appenin behind us?"
The randomness makes them fun yes but there is a degree of "ok thats just too random." Ive had games where not a damn thing in my army did anything because they need so many high dice to do anything.
OK, Lootas are random too i guess. Always funny when i roll a 5/6 on how many shots when my 10man lootas are aiming at something my opponent really doesnt want to die yet and i throw 30shots into its face lol.
Vineheart01 wrote: The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"
That's part of the reason Orks are so awesome. There's just so much fun involved.
But I thought all the randomness of the last couple of codexes were what some people said was ruining 40k?
I like playing against Orks because you almost never know what's about to haplen with them.
I love orks for that reason one of my friends traditionally bringas a big mek with shokk attacjk gun, for lolz, with one game seeing the mek on the first turn teleport himself into a mob of 20 CSM, and in another fire at a PM squad killing all of them (7). Fun times...
Ork randomness is fun and wacky and doesn't screw them over too much. In some ways, Orks are the last remnant of the old "glue guns to elves" crazy-fun aspect of 40k it first started out with.
Daemon randomness is just overwhelming. It's gotten to the point where you can't even build an army list, you just throw dice and the paper and see what you've got. That is a step too far. How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?
IAMSANDLIONS - As for the Necron codex, it's not that it has a few broken units that can carry you through the game. It's that it has very few bad units. You don't need to rely on one or two broken units. None of the Necron options are truly broken by the codex - the most egregious example of "broken Necrons" is the flying bakery, which we can blame solely on 6th edition. Nobody played bakery in 5th because Necron aircraft were too fragile to bother with. But most of the Necron options are good, or at least viable - the only outright useless things in the book are Flayed Ones and Illuminor Szeras, and Szeras at least gets a by because his artwork is freaking awesome.
And we all know that chess if the most boring game ever made. There is nearly no depth to it whatever!
You missed the point so much that it's hard to even respond. I never claimed chess was boring or without depth. I said that it is limited to pre-set strategies, leaving the only room for innovation to new players and grand masters. Following textbooks of strategies doesn't make for a fun or engaging game. It's why a lot of people love chess initially, but then find it to be rather tedious.
Actually, good game design is about creating a variety of units that are valuable in some nuanced way, so that all units are implicitly viable but suited to a range of different tactical applications.
You've pretty much described perfect imbalance without realising it.
TedNugent wrote:
Completely hilarious reading about how Starcraft needs to be more like 40k in order to be more competitive.
Dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. I never once said that 40k was even close to perfect imbalance. Outright lying makes you look foolish.
Starcraft progressed the same way as chess. It became pre-set strategies against different opponents. Which lead to multiple patches and finally, the superior Starcraft 2. Which is so incredibly close to perfect imbalance that it's amazing.
Only in 40k would we whine for ages that everything was OP, but as soon as there is more balance introduced we complain that it is boring or underpowered.
Furyou Miko wrote: How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?
Furyou Miko wrote: How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?
You can, though, can't you?
He just deceives you into believing that he hasn't got the same gifts every game. That's why he's called "the deceiver"
Furyou Miko wrote: How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?
You can, though, can't you?
Only if you always take the 'primaris' gift. You buy, for example, a "Greater Gift" then roll at the start of the game to find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can swap it for the default one for your god.
Eldercaveman wrote: Black Templar need a big re-do, but that doesn't really count because, how big of a re-do can you really get as Space Marines?
We have a few things that need to be addressed:
We still pay for grenades
50 pt. rhinos/70 point heavy bolter razorbacks
Things that need to be addressed IMO:
Sword brethren (the regular kind) are rather expensive if you buy terminator honors for the second attack
Righteous zeal needs to be redone or at least back to the way it was in 5th. That, or IIRC in the armageddon book we only ran forward if we failed, I would like that
The EC kind of sucks at fighting challenges
Furyou Miko wrote: How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?
You can, though, can't you?
Only if you always take the 'primaris' gift. You buy, for example, a "Greater Gift" then roll at the start of the game to find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can swap it for the default one for your god.
Personally I don't see this as a bad thing... Tzeentch Daemons for example are especially known for having a million or so various disguises, thus I look at my Tzheralds always having different combos of gifts as them simply appearing under a different name each game.
So sure, in one game my Herald Tzeen'Dhaazyr might have an Etherblade + Corrosive Breath + Spell Breaker, and then next game he'll instead have Burning Blood + Corrosive Breath + Warp Strider. The narrative is still there as he's simply assumed another one of his many forms by which various mortal worlds know/fear him!
Plus, when you get those games where you're blessed with an absolutely savage set of gifts, you can add a new moniker to your characters to comemorate it!
At least we ALWAYS keep the option of taking either a kick@$$ Etherblade/Greater Etherblade/Hellforged Artifact or a God-specific magic weapon. (And unlike in Fantasy, we can have multiple copies of those same items to boot!)
Castiel wrote: Only in 40k would we whine for ages that everything was OP, but as soon as there is more balance introduced we complain that it is boring or underpowered.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've seen anyone from any game complain about a game being balanced.
Furyou Miko wrote: How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?
You can, though, can't you?
Only if you always take the 'primaris' gift. You buy, for example, a "Greater Gift" then roll at the start of the game to find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can swap it for the default one for your god.
I haven't gotten a chance to look at the Daemon book yet. I don't see anything wrong with the DA book inspiration wise. The problems with the CSM book aren't necessarily power related, or are indirectly so, it's just that it in itself is supremely uninspired and a lot of the "flavor" stuff they added in is either confused as to its role, detracts from the ability of the army unnecessarily, or duplicates something that another unit already does.
His first 8th edition book isn't leaving much room for optimisium... I've never seen such a confused and internally fethed-up-to-the-nines army in my 15 years in the hobby as the new 8th edition Daemons.
At least on the positive side, Daemons aren't breaking the game for everyone else this time round.
I sincerely hope he doesn't get the Ork project - we know how his greenskin book turned out last time.
This thread title is so wrong. You can't have too balanced game (and say that as sth negative about the game) and perfect balance, though unachievable should be what you aim for.
What you can have is a game balanced in a wrong way, like for example every army has the same units and stats just soldiers look different. Not a good idea particularly for 40k. Or balanced through taming units and abilities out of fear of breaking something, that might be the uninspiring part you mentioned. Or balanced through excessive randomness which is cheap.
Proper balance as far as 40k goes should be imo variety extravaganza with crazy units and ability madness all balanced by adequate point cost.
Plumbumbarum wrote: This thread title is so wrong. You can't have too balanced game (and say that as sth negative about the game) and perfect balance, though unachievable should be what you aim for.
pwntallica wrote: the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.
Yeah flavour of the month gaming doesn't really work anymore
And I for one am happy it is
Lucky you I was accused of Power gaming with the 4th Edition codex in 5th Edition. People were telling me that Terminator armor was overpowered.
pwntallica wrote: the other thing I liked is no one at my FLGS accused me of power gaming for playing DA. I had numerous friends playing armies that when buying a new codex were accused of being TFG or a power gamer because they were playing the newest codex even though they were playing them long before the new codex.
Yeah flavour of the month gaming doesn't really work anymore
And I for one am happy it is
Lucky you I was accused of Power gaming with the 4th Edition codex in 5th Edition. People were telling me that Terminator armor was overpowered.
Oh well now they just fear the reaper.
Hm, I can relate
Everytime I've faced orks in 6th I get told my Land Raider is OP. We play at 1500-2000 points.
I think the 3 new armies, are on par, with the most powerfull book's of 5th edition. They are not more powerful than them, or weaker than them. And that's how it should be, I don't mind this level of power, being the standard that eventually get's passed to all the armies.
Plumbumbarum wrote: This thread title is so wrong. You can't have too balanced game (and say that as sth negative about the game) and perfect balance, though unachievable should be what you aim for.
Totally agreed.
The term "too balanced" is a true oxymoron
Also, a true balanced gameplay is more enjoyable.
I disagree. On both points.
Perfect balance makes the hobby aspect of the game, i.e. what army you pick, etc.. meaningless. If I can just throw darts at the army list on the wall and whatever I hit is equally valid, the entire point of "building" your army becomes moot.
The entire point of pouring over a codex and trying to find the "best" combination (which implies there are worse-than-the-best combinations in there) pivots on the idea that they are NOT all balanced.
Moreover, 40K (like virtually all collectable/hobby games) works to create (an evolving) metagame, precisely by keeping things moving.
(nearly) balanced games - such as chess - are stagnant. They don't evolve. They don't move. They relegate "top-level-play" to a few highly talented, full-time pros.
Imbalanced games with a "healthy" meta-game evolve and, crucially, mitigate the importance of player skills (as in, a less-skilled player with a better list can (potentially) beat a more-skilled player with a worse list, even from the same Codex) to make the game itself accessible and constantly evolving, keeping the "entry barrier" for serious play at a manageable level (again, unlike Chess).
Not specifically 40K, but the same subject
I for one enjoy 40K much more than Chess, precisely because I don't have the time, patience, will and, quite likely, skill to dig full-time into a balanced game like chess.
I also enjoyed 5th Edition books that "changed things up", such as Grey Knights or Necrons, a lot more than the 3 stale 6th Edition books. The latter didn't really add anything new to the game (except Heldrakes perhaps) that made you re-think your game, tinker on your list and try to adapt.
The problem with what you describe is that you then end up with the good players taking the good lists and you go straight back to being 'perfectly balanced' against each other because there's no way to police why people are taking any given unit... and you end up in the situation of "paying for advantage", where the rich prosper and the less rich languish (because lets face it, the only poor 40k player is one who used to be rich).
Furyou Miko wrote: The problem with what you describe is that you then end up with the good players taking the good lists and you go straight back to being 'perfectly balanced' against each other because there's no way to police why people are taking any given unit... and you end up in the situation of "paying for advantage", where the rich prosper and the less rich languish (because lets face it, the only poor 40k player is one who used to be rich).
Not really. As long as things are unbalanced, there's always the possibility of finding "a better solution", so you'll be motivated to keep tinkering. You have no idea of knowing if you actually found "the best" list in a "non-perfectly-balanced" environment.
It's also the reason why Codexes shouldn't be externally balanced (perfectly). If they were, you could immediately benchmark the "best list" of a new Codex by assessing that it is perfectly balanced against the "best list" of a very old Codex, where that has been established.
As long as things are off and vague, you have a hobby of tinkering, trying and improving.
Not to mention that an element of "rock-paper-scissors" helps to keep things lively. And even in the event of a big screw-up - as arguably happened with Chaos 3.5. or the neigh unbeatable 4th Edition Eldar Falcon (both several times worse than anything seen in 5th or 6th), you'll only have to suffer until GW can release a counter-balance.
I must be imagining all those identical Heldrake lists then.
Lots of armies have a slot where there is only one good choice. It's usually the FA slot. You can't have 12 distinct armies with multiple choices per slot and have them all be unique and equally useful.
Also, free anecdote:
I had a game the other day with my Adepticon teammates. We wanted to run two of our lists against a hypothetical flyer spam list. The opponents came up with a helldrake and two vendettas.
Of the anti-air we had, we had 1 stormraven, a psyfledread, a las/plas razorback, and a handful of psycannons.
We managed to knock the helldrake and a vendetta out of the sky. Probably not incredibly likely, but the point of my anecdote is that those types of lists aren't immediate auto-win lists. Luck (and a little skill, but mostly luck) is still the greatest modifier to the game, no matter how much we want to pat ourselves on the backs for those "clever" wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furyou Miko wrote: The problem with what you describe is that you then end up with the good players taking the good lists and you go straight back to being 'perfectly balanced' against each other because there's no way to police why people are taking any given unit... and you end up in the situation of "paying for advantage", where the rich prosper and the less rich languish (because lets face it, the only poor 40k player is one who used to be rich).
Which is why one of the best GK lists you could run in 5th and early 6th edition consisted of about 25 models you coudl buy for roughly $250.
Furyou Miko wrote: The problem with what you describe is that you then end up with the good players taking the good lists and you go straight back to being 'perfectly balanced' against each other because there's no way to police why people are taking any given unit... and you end up in the situation of "paying for advantage", where the rich prosper and the less rich languish (because lets face it, the only poor 40k player is one who used to be rich).
Except thats not really the case.
If it were, the most powerful armies would also be the most expensive.
Plumbumbarum wrote: This thread title is so wrong. You can't have too balanced game (and say that as sth negative about the game) and perfect balance, though unachievable should be what you aim for.
Totally agreed.
The term "too balanced" is a true oxymoron
Also, a true balanced gameplay is more enjoyable.
I disagree. On both points.
Perfect balance makes the hobby aspect of the game, i.e. what army you pick, etc.. meaningless. If I can just throw darts at the army list on the wall and whatever I hit is equally valid, the entire point of "building" your army becomes moot.
The entire point of pouring over a codex and trying to find the "best" combination (which implies there are worse-than-the-best combinations in there) pivots on the idea that they are NOT all balanced.
Moreover, 40K (like virtually all collectable/hobby games) works to create (an evolving) metagame, precisely by keeping things moving.
(nearly) balanced games - such as chess - are stagnant. They don't evolve. They don't move. They relegate "top-level-play" to a few highly talented, full-time pros.
Imbalanced games with a "healthy" meta-game evolve and, crucially, mitigate the importance of player skills (as in, a less-skilled player with a better list can (potentially) beat a more-skilled player with a worse list, even from the same Codex) to make the game itself accessible and constantly evolving, keeping the "entry barrier" for serious play at a manageable level (again, unlike Chess).
Not specifically 40K, but the same subject
I for one enjoy 40K much more than Chess, precisely because I don't have the time, patience, will and, quite likely, skill to dig full-time into a balanced game like chess.
I also enjoyed 5th Edition books that "changed things up", such as Grey Knights or Necrons, a lot more than the 3 stale 6th Edition books. The latter didn't really add anything new to the game (except Heldrakes perhaps) that made you re-think your game, tinker on your list and try to adapt.
Hello, I'm an old french 40K player that stop playing every year to come back three years after. I'm in my period when I can't control myself from the desire to buy so I just read dakka instead, just wanted to react to that post because I think the video is really wrong. Tell me if I should present myself somewhere before posting.
Contrary to the video, league of legend is actually a game that is designed toward the research of perfect balance. It is actually known for that in comparaison to other MOBAs (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) like Hon or Dota 2. They are seeking this balance through constant nerf of everything that is supposed to be imbalanced or OP, every champions being made viable to play for their attributed position, while other games tend to let imbalances and compensate by introduicing other type of imbalances. Here is a picture used by people to make the comparaison between games design (Riot refer to League of legend, Blizzard Starcraft and Valve Dota 2) :
On the contrary, Starcraft is actually designed around the idea of perfect imbalance : there are some units that are designed to roflstomp others, in a way that people often make the comparaison between starcraft and rock paper scissor : for exemple, "Vultures" deal a lot on damage on small units, and almost no damage at all against other type of units. Why is it possible for starcraft to be a game designed toward "perfect imbalance" ? You can't have a restricted point of view regarding this question (unlike what the video supposed). The simple idea of perfect imbalances makes optimal strategies possibles : this unit can come, if I play in the most optimal way, at X minute, while it is supposed to kill everything except this counter unit, that will only be able to arrive in the game at X+1 minute, which gives me enough time to get an advantage or just flat out win the game. In this regard, the game is all about execution : you have to click a lot, and learn how to click the most efficient way, which is not the exact definition of fun for a lot of people. It's not strategy but planification in this regard. But the strategies still varies because there are a variety of unit that can be made, and a variety of maps : optimal play does not only change with unit imbalances, but also with maps differences, such as distance between main and expansion, distance between you and your opponent, etc. It also works mainly because armies are to be built, which leave a lot of time for player to gather informations and react according to it before any actual fight : collecting information is a huge part of the game, and although execution is important, good players should be able to see, with "scouts", what type of unit their opponent intend to build, and change their plans (which is the idea of strategy) to win the game.
Why perfect imbalance cannot work in W40k : There is no information gathering in warhammer, since units and armies are set in stone before the start of the game and open for everyone to see. You can only react to what your opponent is supposed to play by guessing before making your army list (which is dumb) or play accordingly to the meta. The only reason why perfect imbalance "could" work in W40k is because maps are always differents, hence optimal plays always changing. What is the meta ? The video is completly wrong about what is the meta. The meta has little to do with the game - it is what it said it is : the meta game is beyond the game. The meta game is an expression that refer to the human part of the game (or more exactly the social part of each game), in relation to our inability to find out the most efficient way to play by ourselves, and the tendancies we have to copy each other and to diffuse our own received ideas toward the game and the quality of units to others through discussions. In Starcraft or in LoL, the meta is a huge part of the game (with people always copying what pros do) because there is a pro scene with "professionnal players" playing against each others and diffusing their strategies through streams and videos. So it has to do with the medium through which strategies are diffused in the gaming scene and not with how the game is designed. It has come to a point where some people are banned because they don't play what "the meta" teach them to play : in lol, you have to pick a AP mid, a support and adc bot, a jungler and a top. Try picking a hero that is labelled as "support" to go top, and you will suffer the wrath of your team.
It's true that imbalanced games are interesting in the beginning because you have to find the most efficient way to play and everything change at a rapid pace. But after a while it all rigidify itself around a specific number of optimal way to play.
On the other side, I don't think anyone actually think "perfect balance" means that there is no differences at all (or no imbalances), but that the game is designed so that everything is made viable. If you build W40k in a way that every units are viable, then it all comes down to how you play, considering that every units can't be played the same way against every type of army : you can't play a (balanced) tyranid army the same way against a balanced necron army and a balanced ork army, even if you have the possibility, because it is balanced, not to play two tervigon with termagaunts - because yeah that's what is good. The game would be about picking the army you want and learning how to play it in different situations, and not picking the army you need to win.
I'm somewhat old now (in comparaison with other League or SC players), but I used to play a lot. This post sounds so geek I'm ashamed of myself.
I dont think that TOO balanced really exists! Maybe if they got rid of armies other than vanilla sm? lol I like the idea of every codex having multiple VIABLE options. I want to be able to build an all comers list and stand a reasonable chance agains ALL opponents. I dont want to have to hope that my broken unit is better than your broken units...
Though i wont lie. Im kinda wishlisting while i await the new Tau codex
Furyou Miko wrote: The problem with what you describe is that you then end up with the good players taking the good lists and you go straight back to being 'perfectly balanced' against each other because there's no way to police why people are taking any given unit... and you end up in the situation of "paying for advantage", where the rich prosper and the less rich languish (because lets face it, the only poor 40k player is one who used to be rich).
Hasn't 40k always been "Paying for advantage?" I can't imagine most players being able to shill out the $1200 it would take to make a maxed out IG Vendetta list...
The "Pay for advantage" argument doesn't work with 40k. Its already an expensive hobby that can easily run you a $1000ish to get a complete army.
the $ price of a model rarely correlates with its table top effectivness.
Compare all the different Flyers.
Dark Talon/Nephilim: $75
Helldrake: $74
Stormraven: $82.50
Stormtalon: $45.50
Valkyrie: $66
Vendetta: $66+a few bits(you don't have to buy the $24 Forge World kit)
Razorwing Jetfighter: $45.50
The Vendetta is unquestionably the best Flyer in the game. But its not the most expensive. its not even the second most expensive. Its cheaper moneywise than 4 of the other flyers.
The most expensive Flyer, the Stormraven, is good, but its not brokenly so. Its expensive point cost in game means you rarely see more than one at a time.
The Stormtalon is better than the Dark Talon and Nephilim, but its cheaper.
The Razorwing is a pretty good flyer, but its pretty cheap.
Grey Templar wrote: The "Pay for advantage" argument doesn't work with 40k. Its already an expensive hobby that can easily run you a $1000ish to get a complete army.
the $ price of a model rarely correlates with its table top effectivness.
Compare all the different Flyers.
Dark Talon/Nephilim: $75
Helldrake: $74
Stormraven: $82.50
Stormtalon: $45.50
Valkyrie: $66
Vendetta: $66+a few bits(you don't have to buy the $24 Forge World kit)
Razorwing Jetfighter: $45.50
The Vendetta is unquestionably the best Flyer in the game. But its not the most expensive. its not even the second most expensive. Its cheaper moneywise than 4 of the other flyers.
The most expensive Flyer, the Stormraven, is good, but its not brokenly so. Its expensive point cost in game means you rarely see more than one at a time.
The Stormtalon is better than the Dark Talon and Nephilim, but its cheaper.
The Razorwing is a pretty good flyer, but its pretty cheap.
So no, you really don't pay for effectiveness.
Dude, your argument is heavily flawed based on the simply fact that you can only take 3 Stormravens/Talons/Razorwings per primary detachment, one per FA/HS slot but you can take up to three vendettas in the same slots, for a total of NINE. maybe even more if you go double FoC. Paying for nine vendettas will be at least $600, possibly as much as $900. Just for Vendettas, no other part of the army. But nine Vendattas will utterly destroy any other flyers your opponent brings, even if he maxes out his FA/HS slot and brings 3 of them. So please tell me, how is someone who buys 9 Vendettas not paying for advantage?
Thats just one reason why the Vendetta is one of the best flyers in the game.
And no, that doesn't invalidate my argument at all.
9 Vendettas is almost 1200 points. With the rest of the army you probably looking at a 2k game, which means double FoC.
And you don't need flyers to counter flyers. That 9 vendetta list will lose hard to a high body count army. Just kill the very few points of fragile IG on the table and The vendettas will be reduced to shooting lascannons at grunts.
Play for the scenerio. Thats the weakness of Flyer spam lists. Which itself makes flyer spam ineffective all things considered.
What gives flyer lists an advantage is the opponent panicking and flapping around a fish out of water. If he calmly keeps playing the game he still has a good chance of winning as all those flyers can't hold objectives.
but that the game is designed so that everything is made viable.
Exactly. And everything is only equally viable, if all imaginable armies picked by random number generators just picking units, characters and equipment nilly-willy would all have (in the long run) a perfect 50% chance of winning any game against any other possible combination..
If the above is not true. you will always have the problem that combination X is more powerful than combination Y in any given codex.
In short, if the above is not true, you have by definition "imbalance" at least within each Codex, and thus the potential for "mis-matched" games in mirror-matches of the same Codex (i.e. a better list vs. a not-so-good-list).
Once you accept imbalanced within a single Codex, you can approach the "external balance" in largely two ways.
1. You make sure that the most powerful list in every Codex is perfectly balanced against all other "most-powerful lists" from all other Codexes out there. It would fix the "maximum" so to say. Game Designers would start from the most powerful list they want and make sure all other options are equal or inferior. The problem is, that it would make the work of "figuring a codex out" a very quick affair, especially in this day and age of the internet. A new Codex is released, everyone would be looking for that one (or perhaps two or three) lists that are "balanced" against older "most-powerful lists". It probably wouldn't take long.
2. You don't set a top limit, but rather allow power-levels of different Codexes to fluctuate a bit, working rather from something like a balance of a "median-army" or "typical army", acknowledging that extreme builds might of course create extreme results that are "imbalanced" in a fair few ways. It has the advantage that no Codex is quickly "figured out", perhaps not even by the Game Designers who write them. It has the downside that there are always stronger and weaker Codexes (which, as pointed out, isn't a bad thing actually for a collectible hobby-game):
Dude, your argument is heavily flawed based on the simply fact that you can only take 3 Stormravens/Talons/Razorwings per primary detachment, one per FA/HS slot but you can take up to three vendettas in the same slots, for a total of NINE. maybe even more if you go double FoC. Paying for nine vendettas will be at least $600, possibly as much as $900. Just for Vendettas, no other part of the army. But nine Vendattas will utterly destroy any other flyers your opponent brings, even if he maxes out his FA/HS slot and brings 3 of them. So please tell me, how is someone who buys 9 Vendettas not paying for advantage?
I can safely say that, in the 5 years I've played this game, I've never seen a situation where, post game, I've thought to myself as a guard player, "Man, I totally wish I had 1170 worth of Vendettas on the table. I would have won that game for sure."
In regards to the 6th edition codecies, I'm beginning to see a running theme.
These armies seem pretty balanced against eachother, and for the most part you can just pick a theme, run it, and stand a pretty good chance of winning. This seems to be a good way to bring balance to the force... *ahem* game.
They also seem to each have a random element. These are the game-changers and unbalancers that force players to reassess their tactical situation.
In a way,this makes the game even more balanced. Random chance can screw you over, or give you and advantage. The first, you must compensate for, the second you must sieze. Failure to do those will make the game harder to win.
I don't see these codecies as being "too balanced", because they so far all have different strengths and weaknesses. They have a way of dealing with each kind of unit, to varying extents. And randomness affects them all.
daedalus wrote: Lots of armies have a slot where there is only one good choice. It's usually the FA slot. You can't have 12 distinct armies with multiple choices per slot and have them all be unique and equally useful.
Also, free anecdote:
I had a game the other day with my Adepticon teammates. We wanted to run two of our lists against a hypothetical flyer spam list. The opponents came up with a helldrake and two vendettas.
Of the anti-air we had, we had 1 stormraven, a psyfledread, a las/plas razorback, and a handful of psycannons.
We managed to knock the helldrake and a vendetta out of the sky. Probably not incredibly likely, but the point of my anecdote is that those types of lists aren't immediate auto-win lists. Luck (and a little skill, but mostly luck) is still the greatest modifier to the game, no matter how much we want to pat ourselves on the backs for those "clever" wins.
It's not an auto-win, not even close. What drives me bananas is that every tourney CSM list is pretty much identical, because the book has such godawful internal balance. Compare to Necrons with a handful of bad units (Flayed Ones, C'tan, Praetorians), GK (some assassins, Land Raiders, Bro Caps) and so on.
I'm not even asking that every unit be useful. I'd just like to see more than one good CSM list in a tournament.
Selym wrote: So far, they seem "balanced enough" to me.
This about sums it up. GW games will never be balanced, not the way people want. But they seem to be going for 'balanced enough' with 6th edition 40k and 8th edition Fantasy. They're not designing the games for a tournament setting though, just so, when you're sitting with a bunch of friends with a few drinks, someone bringing their Tau won't be taking more shots of bourbon than the Space Marine player.
Zweischneid wrote: Perfect balance makes the hobby aspect of the game, i.e. what army you pick, etc.. meaningless. If I can just throw darts at the army list on the wall and whatever I hit is equally valid, the entire point of "building" your army becomes moot.
I think there is a definition problem here of 'balanced'. You are implying that every unit should be balanced to the other units. Other people think that 'balanced' is each codex to the other. You can still pour over a codex to find the "best" combination -- just don't be surprised if the "best" combination is not any better than the previous codex.
Even if the codex's are ever "balanced" games will not be 100% equal. This is because there is some intentional rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock put into the game.
Zweischneid wrote: (nearly) balanced games - such as chess - are stagnant. They don't evolve. They don't move. They relegate "top-level-play" to a few highly talented, full-time pros.
If you attend national events, you will see that there are a few highly talented players who are constantly winning tourneys. If 40k were big enough to have a pro circuit, these guys would be professionals. Just because the game is not perfectly 'balanced' does not mean that skilled players always rise to the top.
Zweischneid wrote: I also enjoyed 5th Edition books that "changed things up", such as Grey Knights or Necrons, a lot more than the 3 stale 6th Edition books. The latter didn't really add anything new to the game (except Heldrakes perhaps) that made you re-think your game, tinker on your list and try to adapt.
I think we might have some definition problems. GK did not 'change things up'. Instead it made the game 'play GK or your likely to lose'.
I think your selling the new books short man. There are some good builds out of them. It takes months for people to start exploiting all of the builds out of books. Were only starting to see some of the nasty DA builds come out. We have not even scratched the surface of what the CD codex can bring.
Wait until you run across your first "Crusader - Bolter banner" army. That will make you rethink your plan of infantry based-armies! What about the CD player who brings 7 FMCs at 1850? I think as time passes we will see even more combos arise.
It's not an auto-win, not even close. What drives me bananas is that every tourney CSM list is pretty much identical, because the book has such godawful internal balance. Compare to Necrons with a handful of bad units (Flayed Ones, C'tan, Praetorians), GK (some assassins, Land Raiders, Bro Caps) and so on.
I'm not even asking that every unit be useful. I'd just like to see more than one good CSM list in a tournament.
I find that GKLRCs are actually really awesome in 6th edition. They get cheap psybolt ammo, and it seems few armies are actually built to deal with AV14 anymore. It's a pretty slick suckerpunch.
I can appreciate that you feel like CSM only has one obviously solid tournament list. I think they're a bit better than that, but the only time I've seen them in a tournament setting with the new codex with allied with old codex Daemon cheese.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: All I want is that all army units in a book are able to be chosen as balanced. I want perfect balance within the book at the very least.
Mutiliators? Oh they are pretty good, just priced well, though they aren't good against certain things
Possessed? Interesting choice, but can do very well.
Rather then them being total crap that's pretty much a newb-trap.
Have you ever tried putting invisibility on a unit of three nurgle mutilators? I took on two hive tyrants with that one unit in the same game, although I did get lucky enough to ground both of them.
On topic, I am with the crowd who has high hopes for 6th, and not just because of the high prices ;-) it seems to me that a delightful level of balance is now being fed into the game that provides a level playing field for both tourney and casual play. It truly is exciting to see from my perspective
l0k1 wrote: After looking over the CSM, DA, and Daemon books I can't help but notice a distinct change in power level that was so very clear in the 5th edition rulebooks. Don't get me wrong they're playable but they don't have the firepower of GK, SW, Necrons or IG. I also noticed the 6th books seems so....meh. Just uninspiring. Not one grabbed me and says this is a cool idea.Anyone else get this feeling?
I haven't seen the daemons book yet, since all my time is spent on Warmachine lately, but the Dark Angels codex was far more interesting than Chaos (which is a colossal failure IMO, and the main reason why I'm not playing 40K at the moment. Anyone saying it is well-balanced internally is a fool.). I think it stands up well enough to those four, or is maybe half a tier below.
Still, if you are concerned about the power of the other books you've mentioned, at the rate GW is going, they will be updated soon enough. IG have already popped up on the list of books that are being worked on, along with Eldar, Orks and Black Templar (Tau being the next book).
I haven't seen the daemons book yet, since all my time is spent on Warmachine lately, but the Dark Angels codex was far more interesting than Chaos (which is a colossal failure IMO, and the main reason why I'm not playing 40K at the moment. Anyone saying it is well-balanced internally is a fool.). I think it stands up well enough to those four, or is maybe half a tier below.
Define interesting?
The Dark Angel book is one of the most boring books ever.
New DA flyers? Pointless.
DA Relics? Pointless.
Fluff? As dry as it gets.
Spelling? One of the poorest showings yet (rapis fire.. ? seriously?)
Characters? Ezekiel is now a close-combat-dude (while sucking at it?)
It's "interesting", alright, but not in a good way.
Zweischneid wrote: (nearly) balanced games - such as chess - are stagnant. They don't evolve. They don't move. They relegate "top-level-play" to a few highly talented, full-time pros.
If you attend national events, you will see that there are a few highly talented players who are constantly winning tourneys. If 40k were big enough to have a pro circuit, these guys would be professionals. Just because the game is not perfectly 'balanced' does not mean that skilled players always rise to the top.
Name a single person who won two tournaments with at least 50 people attending back-to-back.
It doesn't exist.
Go to Rankings HQ and you'll find all kind of oddities. The guy who won Adepticon places only 50 or so in a much smaller tourney a few weeks later, etc..
The only reason the same names keep cropping up is because the tourney-scene is so small. There is no "skill advantage" as you would see with people like Tiger Woods or Roger Federer (against a far, far larger pool of "pros")
40K doesn't do that precisely because "skill" doesn't matter (enough) in determining the outcome of games, precisely because it has an evolving meta that constantly "invalidates" acquired skills and knowledge.
I haven't seen the daemons book yet, since all my time is spent on Warmachine lately, but the Dark Angels codex was far more interesting than Chaos (which is a colossal failure IMO, and the main reason why I'm not playing 40K at the moment. Anyone saying it is well-balanced internally is a fool.). I think it stands up well enough to those four, or is maybe half a tier below.
Define interesting?
The Dark Angel book is one of the most boring books ever.
New DA flyers? Pointless.
DA Relics? Pointless.
Fluff? As dry as it gets.
Spelling? One of the poorest showings yet (rapis fire.. ? seriously?)
Characters? Ezekiel is now a close-combat-dude (while sucking at it?)
It's "interesting", alright, but not in a good way.
I don't particularly disagree, but that just speaks to the bland turd that is the Chaos codex.
JWhex wrote: The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.
A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.
Before making blanket statements like these I suggest you actually read the Deamons codex, because more shooting was added, there is AAA and there are flyers in the book...they do just fine and even a single deity slaaneshi force is viable for a change now. Slaanesh was always the poor stepchild list, but can now bring the pain incredibly fast and hit very hard with rending attacks. Used to be you used tzeentch for psychic power and shooting, khorne for assault and nurgle for staying power and just kind of ignored slaanesh...now slaanesh is a standout on its own.
Zweischneid wrote: The only reason the same names keep cropping up is because the tourney-scene is so small. There is no "skill advantage" as you would see with people like Tiger Woods or Roger Federer (against a far, far larger pool of "pros")
You are partially correct. Luck does play a factor but skilled players continually get into the upper brackets. Take a look at the top 10 from major events, and you will see the same names again and again.
Of course, things might be different in jolly o'l England. Here you tend to see the same players rise to the top. That's based on skill and not luck.
Evileyes wrote: I think the 3 new armies, are on par, with the most powerfull book's of 5th edition. They are not more powerful than them, or weaker than them. And that's how it should be, I don't mind this level of power, being the standard that eventually get's passed to all the armies.
exactly,
all the complaining about the later codexes, IG necrons GK ect is just because they were designed with 6th in mind,
when all codexes are in 6th gear, esp eldar, tau and orks, I will have lots of fun playing more variety of armies,
its a great era, i remember 14 years ago it was always space marines,
now there is a good mix, and will only get better with the new codexes
Plumbumbarum wrote: This thread title is so wrong. You can't have too balanced game (and say that as sth negative about the game) and perfect balance, though unachievable should be what you aim for.
Totally agreed.
The term "too balanced" is a true oxymoron
Also, a true balanced gameplay is more enjoyable.
I disagree. On both points.
Perfect balance makes the hobby aspect of the game, i.e. what army you pick, etc.. meaningless. If I can just throw darts at the army list on the wall and whatever I hit is equally valid, the entire point of "building" your army becomes moot.
The entire point of pouring over a codex and trying to find the "best" combination (which implies there are worse-than-the-best combinations in there) pivots on the idea that they are NOT all balanced.
Moreover, 40K (like virtually all collectable/hobby games) works to create (an evolving) metagame, precisely by keeping things moving.
(nearly) balanced games - such as chess - are stagnant. They don't evolve. They don't move. They relegate "top-level-play" to a few highly talented, full-time pros.
Imbalanced games with a "healthy" meta-game evolve and, crucially, mitigate the importance of player skills (as in, a less-skilled player with a better list can (potentially) beat a more-skilled player with a worse list, even from the same Codex) to make the game itself accessible and constantly evolving, keeping the "entry barrier" for serious play at a manageable level (again, unlike Chess).
Not specifically 40K, but the same subject
I for one enjoy 40K much more than Chess, precisely because I don't have the time, patience, will and, quite likely, skill to dig full-time into a balanced game like chess.
I also enjoyed 5th Edition books that "changed things up", such as Grey Knights or Necrons, a lot more than the 3 stale 6th Edition books. The latter didn't really add anything new to the game (except Heldrakes perhaps) that made you re-think your game, tinker on your list and try to adapt.
Not really, there's still terrain, movement of an entire army at once and dice, 40k even "perfectly balanced" would be far from chess, especialy that in chess you don't make a list of chess figures before you play so 4 queens vs 24 pawns (unless you play Allesio version heh). Not to mention it could use some more reliance on skill, not to the point of chess ofc but let's say something in the middle between chess and its current state.
Units balanced in point cost doesn't mean you couldn't make a better composed list, it just means no mighty OP ones which after you spam them give you a stupid advantage. You mistake the idea of balanced 40k with a wargame of identical armies fighting each other.
40k does not need lazy codex job to keep the game varied and interesting. The current trend in codieces, though could use more adequatly costed craziness, is a very good one (bar the random crap but let's hope that stops after cd). The game needs to be fair and your advantage should come from really coming up with a plan and a list to fit it instead of throwing obviously OP units and easy to find OP combos at your opponent unless he finds a counter which forces you to change your list. That whole idea of perfect imbalance produces shallow and stupid games, 40k shouldn't be one of them.
Oh my God, seriously? After seeing people crying for two years about how unbalanced the game and/or the codexes are, someone is now whining that the new codexes are balanced?
). Now he spends the outrageous price amounts that 
maxed out 
