So, for 45pts you're getting free 3+ invulnerable (TWC you need to spend another 30pts for that...). You're getting to attack first with 3 attacks (as opposed to 4) at Strength 6 (as opposed to STR 5) if we forget charge bonuses etc. They get LD 10 as opposed to 8...the only advantage the TWC get is 1 more point of toughness. Wraiths are jump infantry so basically move at the same speed as TWC...but get to ignore all difficult terrain and don't take dangerous terrain tests...

I just don't understand how you can get a model that is better than a TWC with Storm Shield - for 35 pts less??

Do GW even consider the cost of similiar units in older codexes when they point things up? Or is it that they take future codexes for older armies into account (e.g. TWC will be a hell of a lot cheaper in a few years time...)?

I'm not bitching here, I don't take TWC in 6th anyways, they're worthless as far as I'm concerned (if they were points cheaper maybe I'd consider, but 400+ points for a decent unit (have to take a WL on TW because otherwise LD 8 with such a small squad = running home). I just don't understand how you can get six wraiths all with 3+ invul attacking at str 6 with rending and whipcoils for 260pts...when a unit of 4 TWC that isn't as good with a Wolf Lord you're looking at more like 500pts?

Is it just a ploy to sell more models in the future? Are we looking at 35 point TWC in the next edition (that is what I would consider reasonable considering the special rules of the Wraiths)?

Welcome to GW game development, where there's no basis for anything and point values are assigned randomly.


On the other hand, the difference between T4 and T5 on multi-wound models may be one of the most valuable stat increases in the game, as it protects you from most instant-death weapons.

Really? Really? Really?

Okay, well, let's compare:
BS - the same, except TWC have grenades they could actually use with their BS
WS - the same
S - 1 lower
T - 1 higher
W - the same
I - 2 higher
A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)
LD - redundant for both
Unit type - Cav is better than jump but Wraiths ignore terrain - I'd call it a wash
One gets grenades so can charge through cover and still hit at I4, the other has whip coils so both hits at I1 if cover intervenes - Wraith win
Both rend
Fearless is worse than ATSKNF - TWC win

I mean, you are trading 1 Str and an inv to instead have more attacks, more options and higher initiative. Wraiths, for example, don't have the choice to get an S10 powerfist. I'm not going to say TWC aren't slightly overpriced but your comparison is a little silly. It's like me comparing Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamer to TWC base and then moaning that the TWC have so many advantages.

Eyjio wrote:

A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)

If you're taking a Storm Shield, no extra weapon bonus.

It has been well recorded that you can't compare points costs between different codexes. The points cost for a unit is more closely linked to how the unit is designed to sit within its own codex rather than GW having a master points cost for each individual characteristic shared over all codexes. Also the SW codex is "Old" and the Necron codex is "New" and designed for 6th edition, so differences should be expected.

Maybe you are right and it is extremely under costed, I haven't really looked into it much.

However, it is important to remember that when writing a codex they don't take wraiths and compare them to similar units in other codices..... rather they look at the codex as a whole and try to do some internal balancing.

Sure X is super inexpensive compared to Y, but in another codex Y might be much cheaper compared to X.

Necrons are a bit of an exception though as everything was given that little extra kick.

 Wilytank wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)

If you're taking a Storm Shield, no extra weapon bonus.

I wasn't comparing them with Storm Shield because it's extremely overcosted at 60% of another TWC.

Necrons are a bit of an exception though as everything was given that little extra kick.

With the exception of plasma/metla/lascannon equivalents, which are all awful for Necrons. Actually, as a general rule most of Necrons AP2 is almost worthless in 6e. They do make up for it with everything else normally but these new MCs (Wriathknight, Riptide) are a nightmare.

Flinty wrote:It has been well recorded that you can't compare points costs between different codexes....

gossipmeng wrote:However, it is important to remember that when writing a codex they don't take wraiths and compare them to similar units in other codices.....

While this is true, it's also a sign of poor design and implementation, and a constant reminder that GW may be the worst game company when it comes to actually developing games.

If you're relying on points to ensure a fair game between two disparate forces, how can you possibly justify not comparing point costs between them.

Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

Again, this is poor design. A critical analysis of what you've written (and, if true, how GW views their development process) yields the obvious flaw that if the rules allow me to build a unit a certain way, it should be valued at what it actually does, not what it might do if built differently.

For example.

If I take a ten-man tactical squad and give them one lascannon, and I take a ten-man devastator squad and give them the same lascannon, then in game terms, these units are functionally equivalent. (We'll ignore the signum for the time being). As such, the devastator squad should not cost more than the tac squad (and, perhaps, should even cost less, as the tac squad can do one thing that the dev squad cannot - it can hold objectives). If the devastator squad gets more use from having multiple of the same weapon, then this is the cost that should be increased, not the cost of the first. (And, yes, they can do this, Grey Hunters prove that it's possible to have different costs for a first and second weapon).

These assumptions about how units should be used are at the heart of why GW's game balance is so atrocious. Because in the real world, the players don't do what they're assumed to do, they figure out the least-expensive way to do something and then spam it.

A wargame designer has several tools available to make the factions distinct, and other tools to make the factions balanced. The method for making factions distinct should revolve around availability of things. IG cannot take T4 3+ models - they're not available to them. CSM cannot take Land Raider Redeemers, and SMs cannot take daemon princes. DE get a lot of access to poison, while Eldar, in general, get access to Lance weapons that other factions largely do not. Blood Angels have access to Jump Pack marines as Troops, while Codex Marines do not.

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

Eyjio wrote:
Really? Really? Really?

Okay, well, let's compare:
BS - the same, except TWC have grenades they could actually use with their BS
WS - the same
S - 1 lower
T - 1 higher
W - the same
I - 2 higher
A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)
LD - redundant for both
Unit type - Cav is better than jump but Wraiths ignore terrain - I'd call it a wash
One gets grenades so can charge through cover and still hit at I4, the other has whip coils so both hits at I1 if cover intervenes - Wraith win
Both rend
Fearless is worse than ATSKNF - TWC win

I mean, you are trading 1 Str and an inv to instead have more attacks, more options and higher initiative. Wraiths, for example, don't have the choice to get an S10 powerfist. I'm not going to say TWC aren't slightly overpriced but your comparison is a little silly. It's like me comparing Wraiths with Transdimensional Beamer to TWC base and then moaning that the TWC have so many advantages.

BS/WS as you say are the same.

You could call the STR/T thing equal as they''ve both 10 of each between them (if that makes sense).

Wounds are the same.

Canoptek Wraiths will near always be kitted out with whipcoils - they'll be attacking first majority of the time.

Att - 1 higher if I want a 30pt 3+ invul that the wraith gets for free.

LD - not redundant. You HAVE to take a 200+ points wolf lord to get LD 10 with the TWC. You try running a 3-4 man squad with 8 wounds with LD 8, see how quickly they run! (unless you take 120pts of stormshields...enough for 3 more wraiths...).

Unit Type - they move at the same speed, but wraiths ignore difficult terrain and dangerous (I may be forgetting something about the Cavalry rules here I've not used any in a while?).

I don't think grenades make up the points difference of +35...

Rend is meaningless, as you say they both have it so may as well remove from the analysis.

I agree ATSKNF is better - issue being Cavalry tend to run a fair distance before turning around!

More options doesn't really mean much when you have to PAY for them, after already paying 15+ more per model (in my opinion). I can see your point about the wraiths with beamers.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flinty wrote:
It has been well recorded that you can't compare points costs between different codexes. The points cost for a unit is more closely linked to how the unit is designed to sit within its own codex rather than GW having a master points cost for each individual characteristic shared over all codexes. Also the SW codex is "Old" and the Necron codex is "New" and designed for 6th edition, so differences should be expected.

See, that's what worries me. Internally balancing a codex is all well and good - but it needs external balance within the over-arching game structure and rules also.

I know the gap of what (3 years?) is going to make a difference - I still consider the SW codex to be a damn good one. Was unbelievably over-powered when it first came out IMO.

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

This honestly is hogwash, all you need to compare is GH vs all other tactical forces and you generally get the idea that the only different way they are supposed to work is if they have different codex authors with different thoughts in mind.

It isn't "We're gonna make this elite slot weaker because they should have more heavy, it's how they're run" it's "We fudged these numbers hard and didn't think about it much so this slot is horrible to take units in"

Eyjio wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

A - 2 higher (1 base, 1 for pistol+CC weapon)

If you're taking a Storm Shield, no extra weapon bonus.

I wasn't comparing them with Storm Shield because it's extremely overcosted at 60% of another TWC.

Necrons are a bit of an exception though as everything was given that little extra kick.

With the exception of plasma/metla/lascannon equivalents, which are all awful for Necrons. Actually, as a general rule most of Necrons AP2 is almost worthless in 6e. They do make up for it with everything else normally but these new MCs (Wriathknight, Riptide) are a nightmare.

This is a good point - I wasn't really considering the stormshield as over-costed as an item, rather just considering the unit costs. Considering you can get 5 stormshields for free in the current SM codex...it all justs get a bit silly (200pts for 5 assault termies...in my codex that would be 150pts just on the shields - admittedly the rest of their codex is pony compared to the SW's).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

Again, this is poor design. A critical analysis of what you've written (and, if true, how GW views their development process) yields the obvious flaw that if the rules allow me to build a unit a certain way, it should be valued at what it actually does, not what it might do if built differently.

For example.

If I take a ten-man tactical squad and give them one lascannon, and I take a ten-man devastator squad and give them the same lascannon, then in game terms, these units are functionally equivalent. (We'll ignore the signum for the time being). As such, the devastator squad should not cost more than the tac squad (and, perhaps, should even cost less, as the tac squad can do one thing that the dev squad cannot - it can hold objectives). If the devastator squad gets more use from having multiple of the same weapon, then this is the cost that should be increased, not the cost of the first. (And, yes, they can do this, Grey Hunters prove that it's possible to have different costs for a first and second weapon).

These assumptions about how units should be used are at the heart of why GW's game balance is so atrocious. Because in the real world, the players don't do what they're assumed to do, they figure out the least-expensive way to do something and then spam it.

A wargame designer has several tools available to make the factions distinct, and other tools to make the factions balanced. The method for making factions distinct should revolve around availability of things. IG cannot take T4 3+ models - they're not available to them. CSM cannot take Land Raider Redeemers, and SMs cannot take daemon princes. DE get a lot of access to poison, while Eldar, in general, get access to Lance weapons that other factions largely do not. Blood Angels have access to Jump Pack marines as Troops, while Codex Marines do not.

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

This sums it up for me (and far better than I could have done!).

The game just feels so out of whack at the moment it isn't even funny. I can take 2500pts of SW, and play my cousin and his 2500pts of Sisters - I'll smash him. Absolutely smash him, and I'd consider him to be a better player tactically speaking than myself. It isn't even a luck based thing - I've got just got so much more for my points than he has.

It make a mockery of the entire points based system.

I guess the danger is ending up with units across codexes that are basically the same with a different model, which would remove all flavour so I can see that complete balance is never achievable if you want to maintain interest - but it needs to be better than it is IMO.

I'm just going to quote the bitrs I disagree with as otherwise this post will be a bunch of "yes, I agree". As before, the proviso here is that I still consider TWC to be overcosted but am mostly playing devils advocate.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Canoptek Wraiths will near always be kitted out with whipcoils - they'll be attacking first majority of the time.

Only if your opponent is cheating or has amazing charge rolls. They only reduce enemies in base contact before the I10 step to I1. That means any pile ins, any unreachable model or any model that is for any reason not in base contact will not be affected. In general, most units will strike first against Wraiths with a substantial amount of blows.

LD - not redundant. You HAVE to take a 200+ points wolf lord to get LD 10 with the TWC. You try running a 3-4 man squad with 8 wounds with LD 8, see how quickly they run! (unless you take 120pts of stormshields...enough for 3 more wraiths...).

They auto regroup and can, if needed, get out of combat. Whilst they will run a fair distance, they also get to recharge so I don't see it as too much of an issue.

Unit Type - they move at the same speed, but wraiths ignore difficult terrain and dangerous (I may be forgetting something about the Cavalry rules here I've not used any in a while?).

Cav move 12", ignore difficult terrain, can reroll any dice when charging due to fleet and always get hammer of wrath. Wraiths, as Jump infantry that ignore terrain, can either move 12" or reroll charge (both dice)+hammer of wrath. I consider the 1/18 chance of taking a wound from dangerous terrain more than compensation to get both the long move, fleet and HOW.

I don't think grenades make up the points difference of +35...

Me neither, but they are useful.

More options doesn't really mean much when you have to PAY for them, after already paying 15+ more per model (in my opinion). I can see your point about the wraiths with beamers.

I actually agree with this, but I think the powerfist is still worth noting. It's one of increasingly few things in the game that gets S10 now (barring MCs smashing).

Hmm... given the unexpected reaction to my earlier post I guess I should note that I have no particular preference one way or the other, merely reporting what I understand of GW's game desgn practices and acting as a bit of a devil's advocate

 Redbeard wrote:

If I take a ten-man tactical squad and give them one lascannon, and I take a ten-man devastator squad and give them the same lascannon, then in game terms, these units are functionally equivalent. (We'll ignore the signum for the time being). As such, the devastator squad should not cost more than the tac squad (and, perhaps, should even cost less, as the tac squad can do one thing that the dev squad cannot - it can hold objectives). If the devastator squad gets more use from having multiple of the same weapon, then this is the cost that should be increased, not the cost of the first. (And, yes, they can do this, Grey Hunters prove that it's possible to have different costs for a first and second weapon).

To be functionally equivalent, you need to use them i exactly the same way, but as you've said the Troops choice will be used in a different way to the HS choice because there are different rules assigned to the two slots. HS choices are designed to sit back and blast away with heavy weapons, hence they are more likely to be using those weapons more consistently. As they can't score thre is no point in trying to move them. Also the unit has access to more heavy weapons than a tactical squad and hence is more likely to be sitting with lots of heavy weapons making the whole thing more effective. The Tactical squad is used to take objectives aqnd generally react to the enemy's moves, so its more likely that they will be moving making the heavy weapon inherently less useful.

These assumptions about how units should be used are at the heart of why GW's game balance is so atrocious. Because in the real world, the players don't do what they're assumed to do, they figure out the least-expensive way to do something and then spam it.

Remember that the different codexes try to keep some of the background flavour of the forces as well, rather than creating perfectly matched forces in isolation. This is another factor that will affect inter-codex balance.

A wargame designer has several tools available to make the factions distinct, and other tools to make the factions balanced. The method for making factions distinct should revolve around availability of things. IG cannot take T4 3+ models - they're not available to them. CSM cannot take Land Raider Redeemers, and SMs cannot take daemon princes. DE get a lot of access to poison, while Eldar, in general, get access to Lance weapons that other factions largely do not. Blood Angels have access to Jump Pack marines as Troops, while Codex Marines do not.

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

That as may be, the other thing to remember is that 40k has never been designed as a tournament game. This is a function that has been thrust upon it that GW has decided not to push itself particularly. 40k has evolved over a long time and has its own baggage.

Warfare is inherently unfair, so why strain yourself and the system too much to try and make everything perfectly "fair" when that is as untenable as any other position and probably much harder to maintain over the long term? GW has created a framework of rules to allow a wide range of different factions to be matched up. Given the number of combinations available there would always some pretty bad match-ups between different army types and this will be exacerbated by player skill and terrain being fought over, all of which change on a game by game basis.

Winning is not everything, indeed rule number 1 is to use the rules framework to have fun. If you keep smashing your opponent game after game, then the fun quotient will likely go down on both sides, so its probably time to change the rules a little bit. There are a huge range of simple mods you can make to the game including changing points values or mission objectives or for one player to start taking increasingly less optimal lists to see what happens.

the Wraith isn't Str10, nor is it AP2 on its melee attacks.

It still gets splatted by str8+, one failed save is a dead Wraith.

Wraiths are about the only decent melee unit Necrons have.

Eyjio wrote:
I'm just going to quote the bitrs I disagree with as otherwise this post will be a bunch of "yes, I agree". As before, the proviso here is that I still consider TWC to be overcosted but am mostly playing devils advocate.

 Tehjonny wrote:

Canoptek Wraiths will near always be kitted out with whipcoils - they'll be attacking first majority of the time.

Only if your opponent is cheating or has amazing charge rolls. They only reduce enemies in base contact before the I10 step to I1. That means any pile ins, any unreachable model or any model that is for any reason not in base contact will not be affected. In general, most units will strike first against Wraiths with a substantial amount of blows.

LD - not redundant. You HAVE to take a 200+ points wolf lord to get LD 10 with the TWC. You try running a 3-4 man squad with 8 wounds with LD 8, see how quickly they run! (unless you take 120pts of stormshields...enough for 3 more wraiths...).

They auto regroup and can, if needed, get out of combat. Whilst they will run a fair distance, they also get to recharge so I don't see it as too much of an issue.

Unit Type - they move at the same speed, but wraiths ignore difficult terrain and dangerous (I may be forgetting something about the Cavalry rules here I've not used any in a while?).

Cav move 12", ignore difficult terrain, can reroll any dice when charging due to fleet and always get hammer of wrath. Wraiths, as Jump infantry that ignore terrain, can either move 12" or reroll charge (both dice)+hammer of wrath. I consider the 1/18 chance of taking a wound from dangerous terrain more than compensation to get both the long move, fleet and HOW.

I don't think grenades make up the points difference of +35...

Me neither, but they are useful.

More options doesn't really mean much when you have to PAY for them, after already paying 15+ more per model (in my opinion). I can see your point about the wraiths with beamers.

I actually agree with this, but I think the powerfist is still worth noting. It's one of increasingly few things in the game that gets S10 now (barring MCs smashing).

Devil's Advocate is cool, a debate needs one!

The base contact thing - sure, you'll hit them first (with some of your models). That 3+ invul makes up for that though I think (TWC with Powerfist...they'll get an invuln against that!). I think a canny Necron general will also target units that number less than your wraith unit (that's what I do at any rate - admittedly these units are often tougher nuts).

They'll auto-regroup sure - and be in the middle of a killing field, most enemies won't allow you to charge them again. My experience with TWC is if they fail a leadership test, they're pretty much finished. A good opponent will take that opportunity to end the threat.

I forgot about fleet. Still, this has been completely nerfed in 6th, that re-roll isn't really that great. You can re-roll a 1 and still get a 1, it's a random luck based thing. Hardly the same as running and then charging (a set distance meaning you could actually judge your charges effectively from the movement phase onwards...but that's another discussion!).

Powerfists are great I agree - but now we're talking 50 for the TWC, 30 for the SS, and 20 for the PF - that's minor character level points for a dude with WS 4 and LD 8...far better off taking TWO PF's with Wolf guard, in Rhino's meaning they don't get shot to death in the 1st/2nd turn (God my codex is dull...:p).

I think we're in general agreement, in that they are over-costed - but I have over-egged the issue somewhat!

I think really, the idea behind things getting cheaper points wise is, 'They'll need to buy more models to have X level of points'. With prices increasing that's some canny business.

 Redbeard wrote:
Welcome to GW game development, where there's no basis for anything and point values are assigned randomly.

I assume you have never played D&D minis or anyother game like that, huh? Wizards acrually came outband said there was no actual grid for points values.

That being said... Theybare different because they are. Necrons are a shooting army. Find a spot available for some assault units, and they end up being cheaper. Space Wolves, however, do assaults quite well, as they all still carry close combat weapons. So an assault unit with multiple desirable features will be priced accordingly.

Stop trying to make every codex equal to each other. The units are not designed to be interchangeable or equitible between books. it's how that books are different.

Not every slot in every codex is balanced. Necron's get wraiths where space wolves don't. But space wolves get longfang's where necron's do not. Not every unit will be balanced, army balance comes from the whole book, not from some unit's, because some armies do different roles, better.

Space wolves in general, do everything well. Necron's generally, do everything well except close combat, which, is where the wraith comes in. The tradeoff for not having troops that are good in combat like the counter attacking, always 2 weaponing, initiative 4ing grey hunters, is having an assault unit, that is a little better than the space wolf equivalent. Trading jack of all trades, for more focused units.

 Grey Templar wrote:
the Wraith isn't Str10, nor is it AP2 on its melee attacks.

It still gets splatted by str8+, one failed save is a dead Wraith.

Wraiths are about the only decent melee unit Necrons have.

This, it really sums it all up. Thunder wolf cavalry hits much, much harder than a Wraith ever will do. And a Wraith will get ravaged by a thunderwolf or any similar unit.

T4 vs. T5 is really huge on multi-wound models though. Having better initiative also matters, even if the Wraiths have Whip Coils.

The reason the Thunderwolves wargear is more expensive is the same reason Wolf Guard Terminators pay more for TH/SS than other loyalists: Opportunity cost. The TH/SS Terminators, just like the Wraiths, are forced to buy all of their stuff; the Wolf Guard and Thunderwolves can choose what stuff to buy, tailoring themselves for a certain task. It's the same reason Strike Squad Marines are only 4 PPM more expensive than a Vanilla Tactical Squad; you HAVE to take all that stuff, which makes them sup-par for everything other than their specialized task.

Wraiths are too cheap

SS are very very good, but often too expensive on non characters.

Cavalry is much better than jump infantry. Always get HoW and Fleet.


TWC arent the best thing in the SW book. Swift/Sky/bloodclaws arent either. But balance that against WG, Grey Hunters, and Long Fangs and you add in the crazy good HQ choices and you end up with a unbalance, but powerful book.

 Trondheim wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
the Wraith isn't Str10, nor is it AP2 on its melee attacks.

It still gets splatted by str8+, one failed save is a dead Wraith.

Wraiths are about the only decent melee unit Necrons have.

This, it really sums it all up. Thunder wolf cavalry hits much, much harder than a Wraith ever will do. And a Wraith will get ravaged by a thunderwolf or any similar unit.

3 plain TWC versus 3 Wraiths.

All TWC are striking at INIT 1. They will hardly 'ravage' a unit that is potentially twice as large who all have invulnerable saves against your costly special weapons. You get a lot more attacks granted, but they're weaker so less likely to wound (ST6 VS 4 makes a big difference...). From memory you can have 6 wraiths max in a unit, versus 6 (5 max and a potential wolf lord/battleleader). You'd have to be a pretty good general to still have some models not in base to base contact after pile-ins. Only if the TWC squad is larger would I give them a definite win (and even then a costly one).

TWC don't actually 'ravage' anything in 6th edition. No more cool fleet that allowed you to mind-measure (or indeed actually, if you want to give the game away) those set inches of movement/assault in your mind. I think they're a grand assault unit don't get me wrong - but they're no powerhouse like people think.

You do make a good point about them being the only real melee unit they have. I'd say the C'tan is also pretty badass (though costly and you need to pick small squads to attack with him to be effective...and that's if he doesn't get pounded to hell first!).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry - just as likely to wound as its ST6 vs T 5, STR 5 vs T 4. My bad.

Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

no. I wish, but they would be way OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Exergy wrote:
Wraiths are too cheap

SS are very very good, but often too expensive on non characters.

Cavalry is much better than jump infantry. Always get HoW and Fleet.


TWC arent the best thing in the SW book. Swift/Sky/bloodclaws arent either. But balance that against WG, Grey Hunters, and Long Fangs and you add in the crazy good HQ choices and you end up with a unbalance, but powerful book.

The entire Necron Codex is mis costed and truthfully is a mess. Yes it's competitive, but the imbalances are dreadful and has led to the few competitive builds available to the Codex.

 Tehjonny wrote:
3 plain TWC versus 3 Wraiths.

All TWC are striking at INIT 1.

This is not always true. It depends on how far the TWC have charged. you can set them up in a line and you have a good chance of one or two not making base contact with the wraiths so they will strike at normal initiative, which is higher than the wraiths Initiative.

You'd have to be a pretty good general to still have some models not in base to base contact after pile-ins.

This does not matter for the first round of combat as whip coils are counted before pile in moves are made.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

no. I wish, but they would be way OP.

Really??? Hmmm....gonna have to pay careful attention next time I face them because I seem to recall my buddy laying them on their side in the last game he used them against me. Probably an honest mistake.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Don't wraiths also get Reanimation Protocols?

no. I wish, but they would be way OP.

Really??? Hmmm....gonna have to pay careful attention next time I face them because I seem to recall my buddy laying them on their side in the last game he used them against me. Probably an honest mistake.

Most likely. Wraiths could come back to life last edition, but not the current one.

Flinty wrote:
That as may be, the other thing to remember is that 40k has never been designed as a tournament game. This is a function that has been thrust upon it that GW has decided not to push itself particularly. 40k has evolved over a long time and has its own baggage.

No one said anything about tournaments. In fact, tournament gamers are least impacted by the imbalances in the system. Tournament players are willing to play with 1/10th of the units in a given codex because those are the good ones, and play against others doing the same thing with their codexes. It's the casual player who suffers the most from poor design, because they're the ones who buy models based on looks and design armies based on fluff. They then get their teeth kicked in because their army can't play, and they get disillusioned with the game.

Warfare is inherently unfair, so why strain yourself and the system too much to try and make everything perfectly "fair" when that is as untenable as any other position and probably much harder to maintain over the long term?

I'm sorry, when I decide to dedicate a few hours of my precious free time to playing a game with a friend, I don't do it assuming I'm going to war with him. We're playing a game, not participating in a war. If uneven battles are your thing, it's entirely possible to stage games with unequal points per side.

GW has created a framework of rules to allow a wide range of different factions to be matched up.

Yes, poorly.

Given the number of combinations available there would always some pretty bad match-ups between different army types and this will be exacerbated by player skill and terrain being fought over, all of which change on a game by game basis.

We're not talking about bad matchups, which will certainly happen. We're talking about a system in which two players can field the exact same models, but because of what book they're using, one player gets an extra unit or two. That's not an issue with a bad matchup, it's an issue with a poorly designed game.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The reason the Thunderwolves wargear is more expensive is the same reason Wolf Guard Terminators pay more for TH/SS than other loyalists: Opportunity cost. The TH/SS Terminators, just like the Wraiths, are forced to buy all of their stuff; the Wolf Guard and Thunderwolves can choose what stuff to buy, tailoring themselves for a certain task. It's the same reason Strike Squad Marines are only 4 PPM more expensive than a Vanilla Tactical Squad; you HAVE to take all that stuff, which makes them sup-par for everything other than their specialized task.

This is exactly the poor thinking that GW operates under. You're confusing availability with use. Wolf Guard Terminators have more options available than SM terminators, sure, but in any given game they cannot use all those options. There's no reason they should be required to overpay for their storm shields and thunderhammers because of the storm bolters they're not taking. That doesn't make sense, and yields the scenario above, where two players field the exact same models, yet (in this case) the SM player can field an extra squad of terminators because the SW player also wanted TH/SS guys.

This isn't a bad matchup, it's really bad game design. You should not be forced to pay points because of the options you didn't take. If SW Wolf Guard have more options than Codex marines, that's simply one of the ways that the two books are distinct from one another.

Why do they need to be equal?
They are different armies and the units have different purposes.

It's not about TWC vs Wraiths.
It's about Space Wolves vs Necrons!

How can you have a Tyranid Spore Mine cost 10 points while a SM costs, what 16 points and doesn't have random movement, weapons to shoot at range, armour saves etc etc, for all of 6 points more?

It's GW logic is all I can think off.

They arent supposed to be equal, they are for different armies, please compare sw termies with sheilds vs necron lychguard with sheilds ect. Its not a black and white affair 10pts doesnt buy you x stats and x gear...if it did there would be no point in different armies.
Plus strangth 8 insta jib's wraiths you need strength 10 to own TWC the same way, that in its self is almost all the balence required.
The game may not be terrably well balenced but i dont think SW are overly ones to be worrying about that considering the basic troops pts cost too load out and general versitility of builds you can draw from there codex, they are imo the best current marines dex.

 Redbeard wrote:


....snip.....

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

''Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.''
IMO this is a logical fallacy within warhammer, points is a tool to help create balance but not the final answer to balance and if it was, the game would be too one dimensional.
If I spend all my points on troops then you spend all your points on artillery, I’m in trouble on the battle field. Now that’s not the points fault, it’s not the games fault, it’s the players.
You attempt to construct a balanced force from the tools given to you, i.e. your army book, you can even add in a further army book to this and generic fortifications. The books are designed to be diverse and bring different methods to the table, you touched on it yourself above; availability within a codex is what drives its cost not its actual strength but its relative strength within the codex. Yes the game suffers from being heavily fragmented, coming out one at a times ruels change after rules change and having variant authors and I’m certainly not in this thread to tell the world that warhammer is the pinnacle of balance, it’s not that would be a total lie, but I feel a lot of people over state the flaws and don’t fully understand the basic mechanic for costing, I’ve seen a lot of threads with people comparing like to like and then complaining at its differing price, without reading between the lines, IMO you just can’t do that.

You can't put units in isolate circumstances (my 3 vs. your 3).

You have to look at them in many contexts - for example, in a game just this weekend, a squad of wraiths got wiped out easily by basic shooing - why? because they are only t4, and a 3 save is just a 3 save when you are hitting them with 20 bolter shots.

Their toughness and common save failed them.

They don't have grenades, and suffer from when when charging into cover. they become int 1.

Also, when facing any opponents who are more than one model deep, the coils just don't work, so they are situational..

Finally, never underestimate they shall know no fear...it is amazing....wriaths get swept very easily and marines cant.

Overall necrons are terrible in CC, low int, not many attacks, no grenades for the most part, etc.

Are they in some specific circumstances better than TWC?
Sure.

But I am 100% confident you can find where either your TWC or any other unit in your book is better than something more expensive in a specific comparison.

Oh, and no, they don't get reanimation rolls...

I think the balance with Wraiths comes from the rest of the armies near totally lack of offensive CC ability. Yes we have one of the best and most resilient cc units in the game but at most you can take 18 models of them and all be it very effective, their are other armies that can operate effectively in combat across their entire range.

The same argument comes up with MSS as everyone feels they are OP, however Necrons lack the ability to take many options available to allot of other armies as CC weapons, we simply have the ability to use yours against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

davethepak wrote:


Finally, never underestimate they shall know no fear...it is amazing....wriaths get swept very easily and marines cant.

Wraiths don't get swept, they are fearless, they only get swept if you cast the psychic power which removes fearless. The name escapes me.

I think most peoples' quotes cover off on the issues, specifically, the lack of comparability.

In particular, wraiths really excel at taking out expensive, heavy infantry. 5 wraiths with coils will probably destroy 5 cavalry (especially if the wraiths get the charge).

But 5 wraiths against an equivalent points cost of Grey Hunters would struggle. Against Blood Claws even worse.

As a necron, I totally agree that wraiths are under-priced (more so when they DON'T have whipe coils). I also feel that Thundercav are bit overpriced. But I feel the comparison isn't right.

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

kb305 wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

Stop whining. If the game stinks so bad, why do you play?

The OP is typical of gamers right now. Every army now has to be the same as the others. It explains why a game like Flames of War typically resists power gamers, because Finland is not equal to Germany or the British. Necrons don't do assault well, as their shooting is preferable. So, can I get a Tyranid warrior equivalent troop in my Dark Angels?

I may be wrong here, but isn't space wolves a fourth edition codex? I assume everything was a skosh more expensive back then. As for the wraiths, they don't have re animation protocols and don't have terminator armor which as far as I know you still get to use. ( don't have my necron codex near me so I may be wrong about that. )

Space Wolves is an early 5e codex.

Well, in my Necron army I usually run 2 units of Wraiths. But I don't use whip coils. These points can be better spent elsewhere.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

kb305 wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

Stop whining. If the game stinks so bad, why do you play?

The OP is typical of gamers right now. Every army now has to be the same as the others. It explains why a game like Flames of War typically resists power gamers, because Finland is not equal to Germany or the British. Necrons don't do assault well, as their shooting is preferable. So, can I get a Tyranid warrior equivalent troop in my Dark Angels?

yes drrrr because everything needs to be the same drrr, that's exactly what people are saying drrr.

or GW could just balance the fricken game properly or atleast try. You know, models that are of equal strength should be around the same number of points. or if one of those models gets a nice special ability it would then cost more than the other. OMG, what a concept.

Missing my point...

Models that happen to be of "equal strength" shouldn't necessarily cost the same. Different armies may use or prioritize those units differently, so the value would be relative to the rest of the army.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

kb305 wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

Stop whining. If the game stinks so bad, why do you play?

The OP is typical of gamers right now. Every army now has to be the same as the others. It explains why a game like Flames of War typically resists power gamers, because Finland is not equal to Germany or the British. Necrons don't do assault well, as their shooting is preferable. So, can I get a Tyranid warrior equivalent troop in my Dark Angels?

I never once said anything about all the armies being the same? What you'll notice is everyone else is engaging in a normal discussion, whilst your first approach has been to accuse people of whining and then putting words in their mouth. Take a look at yourself mate is all I'd say.

You NEED some kind of internal balance. The points system is meant to achieve that. I don't expect it to be perfect, I don't expect units to be directly equivalent across codexes. I do expect some kind of balance when the game is taken as a whole though.

What would expect of a points based game? If two people turn up to a game with equal numbers of points - their armies should be of equal strength and ability (depending on what units they've gone for and what tactics they pursue). That isn't the equivalent of 'the same'. One could go assault whilst another goes shooting, or assault, or with loaded out elites choices - but the armies should be a match. Not the same as directly comparable, but roughly a match for each other.

As it is, 2000 pts of SW/Crons vs 2000pts of Sisters/Tyranids - I'm giving that to SW/Crons 90% of the time (that is a complete guesstimate) given equal player ability and equal rolling, because the armies are better and that's that.

I know it's just all about selling models at the end of the day. Which I can deal with I guess, I understand they are a business.

Which is why they're introduced ridiculously powerful fliers - sod their game, they need to sell lots of shiny new £40+ models to gamers who already have large armies and aren't buying much. So let's force them to either buy flyers, or a crappy Aegis Defence Line if they want to remain competitive. It's a good business model, and a stinking attitude.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Missing my point...

Models that happen to be of "equal strength" shouldn't necessarily cost the same. Different armies may use or prioritize those units differently, so the value would be relative to the rest of the army.

No, you're missing the point.

If it is possible to make an army with a set of models, then those are the models you are using, and it doesn't matter what else is in your codex that you could have used. If you and your opponent show up to a game with the same models, same stat lines, and so on, then the game should be close to even. (Discounting things like terrain placement, obviously). When both players show up with the same models, with the same rules, but one player gets an extra unit or two because of how badly the points in the game are balanced, there's clearly a problem.

This isn't asking that everything be the same. It's possible to create incredibly varied factions in a game without sacrificing balance to do so. You use the availability of units to do so. And, Flames of War does this. Sure, Finland isn't Germany, and doesn't get Panzers, but what they do get, they get at a reasonable cost, so that when Finland plays against Germany in a game, it's not a guaranteed stomping.

How a unit should work within a given force is an especially stupid argument, given that just about everyone can take allies now.

Imagine, if you would, that instead of saying Tau don't get a good CC unit, they instead said, Tau get an Avatar statline, but for twice the points the eldar pay, because that CC ability should be more valuable to Tau. Do you think anyone would ever play this unit? Of course not, because it's stupidly priced. Instead, Tau players who wanted that sort of thing in their army would ally in the Eldar and use the Avatar.

Saying a unit is worth more to one army than another is an argument that went out the window as soon as Allies were introduced.

Ooh God, the arguments in this thread are terrible.
Let's just remove the necron codex, copy the Space Wolves one and put Canoptek or Necron before every unit name!

Canoptekwolf Cavalry.
I'm sure that would make people happy.
Doesn't matter what army you play, because all the points and stats are exactly the same.
The only difference is the model.. Well.. until people start complaining that the model-size unbalances the game.

In short:
Things can't be balanced, things will never be balanced.
That's because things are different and that is what keeps the game interesting.
A shooty army isn't going to pay the same amount for a CC-beast as a melee army, deal with it.

kb305 wrote:
yes drrrr because everything needs to be the same drrr, that's exactly what people are saying drrr.

Well yeah, that is exactly what people are saying in here. Aren't you reading the same thread?

or GW could just balance the fricken game properly or atleast try. You know, models that are of equal strength should be around the same number of points. or if one of those models gets a nice special ability it would then cost more than the other. OMG, what a concept.

It's balanced enough to have fun.
Don't expect a perfect tournament-worthy balance, because you will never have that.

And no, models of the same strength don't need equal points.
Why not? Because you cannot calculate the strength of a model that easily.

Ooh God, the arguments in this thread are terrible.
Let's just remove the necron codex, copy the Space Wolves one and put Canoptek or Necron before every unit name!

Canoptekwolf Cavalry.
I'm sure that would make people happy.
Doesn't matter what army you play, because all the points and stats are exactly the same.
The only difference is the model.. Well.. until people start complaining that the model-size unbalances the game.

In short:
Things can't be balanced, things will never be balanced.
That's because things are different and that is what keeps the game interesting.
A shooty army isn't going to pay the same amount for a CC-beast as a melee army, deal with it.

Someone grabbed the Slippery Slope Fallacy and slid all the waaay down.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Someone grabbed the Slippery Slope Fallacy and slid all the waaay down.

Well, you have to try something if facts and logic isn't working.

This discussion will get nowhere if people don't understand that they are different units with different purposes.

Kangodo wrote:Ooh God, the arguments in this thread are terrible.
Let's just remove the necron codex, copy the Space Wolves one and put Canoptek or Necron before every unit name!

I don't think anyone has advocated making them identical. Strawman much?

In short:
Things can't be balanced, things will never be balanced.

And so no attempt should be made? Perfectly clean air will never happen, so I guess we should have no pollution controls. We'll never have 100% uncorrupt politicians, so I guess we don't need any ethics standards. We'll never cure all the diseases, so what's the point in trying? Excuse me if I'm not swayed by your argument.

That's because things are different and that is what keeps the game interesting.
A shooty army isn't going to pay the same amount for a CC-beast as a melee army, deal with it.

And so you don't understand how allies work? There is no such thing as a "shooty army" anymore. Tau can ally with orks, eldar, blood angels, space wolves, chaos daemons... Is that a shooty army?

Don't you get it? You can't design a codex in a vacuum and allow allies, because all that will do is get people to use the allies when they're less expensive than the units from the primary codex. Maybe that design philosophy worked pre-allies (and, I don't believe it did, but I'll entertain the notion for sake of argument), but once you allow allies into the game, the idea of separate internal balance and external balance goes away.

Don't expect a perfect tournament-worthy balance, because you will never have that.

As stated earlier, it's not tournament players who suffer from lack of balance, they simply adjust and only use the best units. It is casual players who pick models based on appearance and/or fluff that suffer from GWs inability to get the point costs right. And I don't think we're asking for perfect, but a little closer to reasonable would be nice. Every codex released in the last five years has had units in it that are so poorly priced that they're either so bad as to never be used, or so good as to preclude anything but them from being used.

And no, models of the same strength don't need equal points.
Why not? Because you cannot calculate the strength of a model that easily.

Wait, are you now arguing that it's too hard to do, so it shouldn't be attempted? You know there are people out there who are applying advanced mathematics to really complex problems, like stock markets. And you think that using a little bit of math to solve for maybe 1000 units is too hard? Well, obviously for the people GW hires, but it's not nearly as complicated as you're making it sound. Especially for the blatantly obvious cases.

Kangodo wrote:This discussion will get nowhere if people don't understand that they are different units with different purposes.

Please enlighten us, what are the different purposes that TW cavalry and Wraiths serve?

 Redbeard wrote:
I don't think anyone has advocated making them identical. Strawman much?

No, but people DO complain about every stat/item that is different.

And so no attempt should be made? Perfectly clean air will never happen, so I guess we should have no pollution controls. We'll never have 100% uncorrupt politicians, so I guess we don't need any ethics standards. We'll never cure all the diseases, so what's the point in trying? Excuse me if I'm not swayed by your argument.

Perfect air will never be achieved, so we should be striving to near-perfectly clean air.
But there is a point where the air is so clean that you can only forbid people to breath out in order to 'clean' it even more.

The same goes for Codices!
The balance is fine overall, making things too similar is a line that they shouldn't cross.
And we are reaching that line when people are complaining that a melee-bomb from a shooty codex is cheaper than some random FA-unit from a Space Marine-codex.

Are you going to tell me that Necrons beat Space Wolves because Wraiths are cheaper than TWC?

And so you don't understand how allies work? There is no such thing as a "shooty army" anymore. Tau can ally with orks, eldar, blood angels, space wolves, chaos daemons... Is that a shooty army?

Tau are a shooty army, allies do not change that.

Please enlighten us, what are the different purposes that TW cavalry and Wraiths serve?

I hope you do know the difference between Space Wolves and Necrons, right?

Kangodo wrote:
Why do they need to be equal?
They are different armies and the units have different purposes.

It's not about TWC vs Wraiths.
It's about Space Wolves vs Necrons!

This.

Kangodo wrote:

And so you don't understand how allies work? There is no such thing as a "shooty army" anymore. Tau can ally with orks, eldar, blood angels, space wolves, chaos daemons... Is that a shooty army?

Tau are a shooty army, allies do not change that.

No, Tau, as a codex, is a selection of shooty units. An army is what you field on the table. An all Tau army may be shooty, but allies do indeed change that, as Tau allied with Chaos Daemons are now fielding a ton of non-shooty units.

And this is where your argument falls apart. So you say that a shooty army should pay more for a beatstick combat unit. But because they can take allies, they can get a beatstick combat unit for the price that it would cost in a non-shooty codex. All increasing the cost of a combat unit in a shooty codex does is make it so no one takes it. It doesn't prevent the shooty army from filling the same niche with a cheap unit from an allied codex.

Please enlighten us, what are the different purposes that TW cavalry and Wraiths serve?

I hope you do know the difference between Space Wolves and Necrons, right?

You stated that these two units served different purposes. Yes, the base codex that they're taken from are different, but how does the purpose that you'd take these units for differ? They're both fast-moving resilient units that cannot hold objectives, and while TWC may have pistols, anyone using them as a shooty platform is doing-it-wrong. The purpose for which one would take either of these units is identical. They're there to charge the opponent, kill scoring units and engage high-priority threats in assault. They each offer the potential to escort a fighty HQ across the table. They may come from different books, their parent army's may operate differently, but these two units are as close to identical in purpose as you find in this game. As such, it's perfectly reasonable to compare the cost and effectiveness of each. Afterall, there are several codexes that can take either as allies, and so knowing which fills this assault role better is a legitimate question.

TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

Honestly the answer to this is simply matt ward wrote one book and didn't write the other one.

 juraigamer wrote:
Honestly the answer to this is simply matt ward wrote one book and didn't write the other one.

Yes, the other one was written by Phil Kelly, who also brought us 4th ed Eldar.


Edited grammar.

Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

So if Kelly was the cheesemeister of 4th ed and Ward was the cheesemeister of 5th ed...does that mean Cruddace will be the cheesemeister of 6th ed?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

So if Kelly was the cheesemeister of 4th ed and Ward was the cheesemeister of 5th ed...does that mean Cruddace will be the cheesemeister of 6th ed?

Ward didn't write two of the three strongest Codices of Fifth though (IG/SW).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

So if Kelly was the cheesemeister of 4th ed and Ward was the cheesemeister of 5th ed...does that mean Cruddace will be the cheesemeister of 6th ed?

Ward didn't write two of the three strongest Codices of Fifth though (IG/SW).

He wrote 2 of the 4 strongest (GK and crons). It counts!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

You have to BUY the powerfist...you're both talking about it like it comes intrinsically. It doesn't, and that is the difference. The Wraith gets STR6 and a 3+ invuln within it's points cost of 35pts. It costs 100pts for a TW with StormShield & PF....

They have comparable movement rules, the same BS/WS/Wounds. They have comparable init if we consider the cumulative impact of whipcoils and powerfist equipped TWC...

So the TWC gets 1 more Toughness (people are really over-egging that...), and Leadership of 2 points less. They both get rend. TWC get hammer.

We're talking a difference of 65 POINTS. Is the TWC 3 times as good as the wraith in your opinion?

... also, Wraiths are just machines. Stamped out by the thousands by the production facilities of the Tomb. Their resources, though vast, are not limitless.

There's a whole fethload of time, effort and resources invested in turning an adolescent boy from a tribe of feral Space Vikings into a Space Marine of the Space Wolves Chapter. Also, wolf chow ain't cheap.

This is why the Marine costs more points. It's a reflection of the investment put into making him what he is.

 Psienesis wrote:
... also, Wraiths are just machines. Stamped out by the thousands by the production facilities of the Tomb. Their resources, though vast, are not limitless.

There's a whole fethload of time, effort and resources invested in turning an adolescent boy from a tribe of feral Space Vikings into a Space Marine of the Space Wolves Chapter. Also, wolf chow ain't cheap.

This is why the Marine costs more points. It's a reflection of the investment put into making him what he is.

It's a good take if we consider fluff .

But I think you have to do it the other way round. Consider your units and your costings, introduce a good balance to the various lists, make sure they all balance out (as much as is possible, I don't expect perfect or even near it, and I love 40k because it just has a lot more variety and flavour compared to many other game systems) relative to your rule book.

Then you slap on the fluff. Ideally you'd be developing your Unit types and sizes, your stat lines, your weapons, you special rules, your costings, potential combo's...and then going,'right what should this fella actually look like and how would be behave in the fictional game world?'.

 Redbeard wrote:
No, Tau, as a codex, is a selection of shooty units. An army is what you field on the table. An all Tau army may be shooty, but allies do indeed change that, as Tau allied with Chaos Daemons are now fielding a ton of non-shooty units.

That is not a Tau-army, it's a Tau/Daemon-army.
And balance shouldn't really come down to what Allies can bring, because that is not what wh40k is about.

And this is where your argument falls apart. So you say that a shooty army should pay more for a beatstick combat unit. But because they can take allies, they can get a beatstick combat unit for the price that it would cost in a non-shooty codex. All increasing the cost of a combat unit in a shooty codex does is make it so no one takes it. It doesn't prevent the shooty army from filling the same niche with a cheap unit from an allied codex.

No, that's not what I said.
A shooty army can get away with having a cheap and good combat-unit because they lack the synergy to take full advantage of that.
35 points for that statline with 3++ and Rending is fine for Necrons.
That stuff would be extremely overpowered for my Blood Angels.
It's a matter of context!

but these two units are as close to identical in purpose as you find in this game

Not really.
For Necrons it's the "only" close-combat they can take.
For Space Wolves it's a single unit in the entire wave of models that is travelling the board towards CC.

 Tehjonny wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

You have to BUY the powerfist...you're both talking about it like it comes intrinsically. It doesn't, and that is the difference. The Wraith gets STR6 and a 3+ invuln within it's points cost of 35pts. It costs 100pts for a TW with StormShield & PF....

They have comparable movement rules, the same BS/WS/Wounds. They have comparable init if we consider the cumulative impact of whipcoils and powerfist equipped TWC...

So the TWC gets 1 more Toughness (people are really over-egging that...), and Leadership of 2 points less. They both get rend. TWC get hammer.

We're talking a difference of 65 POINTS. Is the TWC 3 times as good as the wraith in your opinion?

Yes. Don't underestimate the usefulness of T5 and S10.

It's harder to kill TWC with small arms fire, you can't instant kill them with S8, and unlike the wraiths, they can hunt AV13-14 and MC efficiently. Oh, and with the PFs they can instantly murder T4 and T5 models, like wraiths and overlords.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

You have to BUY the powerfist...you're both talking about it like it comes intrinsically. It doesn't, and that is the difference. The Wraith gets STR6 and a 3+ invuln within it's points cost of 35pts. It costs 100pts for a TW with StormShield & PF....

They have comparable movement rules, the same BS/WS/Wounds. They have comparable init if we consider the cumulative impact of whipcoils and powerfist equipped TWC...

So the TWC gets 1 more Toughness (people are really over-egging that...), and Leadership of 2 points less. They both get rend. TWC get hammer.

We're talking a difference of 65 POINTS. Is the TWC 3 times as good as the wraith in your opinion?

Yes. Don't underestimate the usefulness of T5 and S10.

It's harder to kill TWC with small arms fire, you can't instant kill them with S8, and unlike the wraiths, they can hunt AV13-14 and MC efficiently. Oh, and with the PFs they can instantly murder T4 and T5 models, like wraiths and overlords.

That's personal opinion and you're entitled to it . I disagree but there you go. I think they are better, just not 3 times better.

Yes I agree with the small arms, and though you can't insta with STR 8, you can with STR 10 and that often comes in a nice pie plate to boot (obviously it is up to you as a general to not run your lads into that if possible).

They can instantly murder T4/T5 - if they didn't have to take a 50% chance roll to hit them first :p ((that is contextual, I play against Necrons & Other Marine Flavours mostly). The wraith, a T4 model, would not get instantly murdered however, due to their 'free' 3+ invuln...

They still have a higher chance of killing wraiths than wraiths have of killing them. You don't see S10 pieplates that often. The only one that comes to mind is the demolisher cannon, and if you are in range of that you should be able to charge it (well, provided you survive of course. Funnily enough, the chances of a TWC surviving a hit from a demolisher cannon is the same as a wraith surviving a hit from a S10 attack)

Kangodo wrote:

And balance shouldn't really come down to what Allies can bring, because that is not what wh40k is about.

That's pretty funny. So your position is so weak that your last resort is to say "it's not what 40k is about." Says who? My rulebook says allies are part of the game. The fluff has countless examples of allied forces.

No, that's not what I said.
A shooty army can get away with having a cheap and good combat-unit because they lack the synergy to take full advantage of that.
35 points for that statline with 3++ and Rending is fine for Necrons.
That stuff would be extremely overpowered for my Blood Angels.

Really? Amazing how one of the best armies for a while now has been a ton of wraiths and destroyer lords. Almost like they have the required synergy to take advantage of it.

It's a matter of context!

This is a cop-out statement that means absolutely nothing, and simply shows that you don't understand the context.

For Necrons it's the "only" close-combat they can take.

Except, of course, for Lychguards, Praetorians, C'Tan, Flayed Ones, Scarabs, and Canoptek Spyders. But don't let the facts get in the way of your point.

For Space Wolves it's a single unit in the entire wave of models that is travelling the board towards CC.

Except that most successful Space Wolf lists aren't based on having an entire army head for CC, they're based on shooting with units that can receive a charge.

So, both your assertions about how these units are used within their respective armies are incorrect, and you still haven't explained how the unit's actual use differ. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Redbeard and ZebioLizard2, your cogent commentary on this topic is most refreshing. I've always felt the argument that you can't compare points from one codex to another is exceedingly lame. It's the main reason for point values in the first place! It's far more relevant for external balance than any internal balance; why this is so hard to grasp I guess I'll never understand.

 amanita wrote:
Redbeard and ZebioLizard2, your cogent commentary on this topic is most refreshing. I've always felt the argument that you can't compare points from one codex to another is exceedingly lame. It's the main reason for point values in the first place! It's far more relevant for external balance than any internal balance; why this is so hard to grasp I guess I'll never understand.

Im surprised people are still replying to redbeard after he owns them that hard.

 Psienesis wrote:
... also, Wraiths are just machines. Stamped out by the thousands by the production facilities of the Tomb. Their resources, though vast, are not limitless.

There's a whole fethload of time, effort and resources invested in turning an adolescent boy from a tribe of feral Space Vikings into a Space Marine of the Space Wolves Chapter. Also, wolf chow ain't cheap.

This is why the Marine costs more points. It's a reflection of the investment put into making him what he is.

is this trolling or is that actually supposed to be an arguement?

 Redbeard wrote:
That's pretty funny. So your position is so weak that your last resort is to say "it's not what 40k is about." Says who? My rulebook says allies are part of the game. The fluff has countless examples of allied forces.

No, my position isn't weak at all nor is it a last resort.
Allies are a part of the game.
It's undoable and undesirable to balance armies around the allies they can take.

Really? Amazing how one of the best armies for a while now has been a ton of wraiths and destroyer lords. Almost like they have the required synergy to take advantage of it.

You mean the army-list that does not rely on allies?
The list that would be kinda crap if it didn't have Warriors in Night-Scythes?
The reason this list is strong is because you keep the enemy busy and use your flyers to 'steal' objectives.

But what is your point?
Wraiths + D-lord are strong.
Wraiths + BA-HQ would be overpowered.
That's why other armies cannot have Canoptek Wraiths and have to pay extra for melee units like that.

Except, of course, for Lychguards, Praetorians, C'Tan, Flayed Ones, Scarabs, and Canoptek Spyders. But don't let the facts get in the way of your point.

Crap, crap, crap, crap, only against vehicles, only usable in the laughable Scarab-farms.
What was your point again?
Or should we redo this thread and compare Lychguard against Assault Terminators?

Ooh yeah, we cannot do that.. Because we need to keep things in context!
Lychguard cannot be too strong or cheap, since that would make the codex too strong in the melee-section.
So comparing them 1 on 1 with Assault Terminators would be stupid.

Keep in mind that 6e seems to be recosting a lot of the older 'elite' units to be cheaper. And I use elite in the sense of low body copunt high point cost units that aren't MC not nesecarily just elite force org choices. Biggest example I can think off is the Eldar wraithguard that dropped 13 points per model but lost their crippling special rule weakness (dependency on wraithseers) And got flatout better stats.

I'm not sure that anything in the Necron codex should be used as a basis for a discussion on external balance. Just about every unit is undercosted when compared to other armies.

Crap, crap, crap, crap, only against vehicles, only usable in the laughable Scarab-farms.
What was your point again?
Or should we redo this thread and compare Lychguard against Assault Terminators?

Ooh yeah, we cannot do that.. Because we need to keep things in context!
Lychguard cannot be too strong or cheap, since that would make the codex too strong in the melee-section.
So comparing them 1 on 1 with Assault Terminators would be stupid.

No. Really. That is your argument for them, it's not that they are OVERCOSTED or BADLY COSTED it's that you need to keep context!

The context here is that they ed up the costs, and by trying to associate some weird "context" that doesn't make any weird sense by any sense of the word.

The fluff is fluff behind an army, the points costs are what actually gives external balance. It's why we had 5th edition SW apologists trying to say Grey Hunters NEED to be 15 points based on such reasoning.

Did you know funnily enough that tau are supposed to deal with their CC issues by taking kroot, but the problem is in the current dex they failed to do anything of the sort. This is not context, this is POOR BALANCE OF A UNIT. This is not trying to make them more shooty, it just means they failed at the goal that unit was supposed to do.

Lychguard are the same way, they were designed to be Elite Melee units (with a hint of defense with the 4++ shield) but the context is they don't do their job well because of factors, most of which involve cost

A lot of people here are just resulting to rudeness...
Quantitive cost is different to relative cost and a mixed cost system is imo better but much harder to balance, than a rudimentary fixed cost portfolio pricing system, due to the nature of business vs. game mechanics creep is unavoidable, including staggered and varied authorship into the mix and you get a rough quantitive price scheme. Nothing is ever going to be to everyone’s taste and calling people stupid over something subjective and context driven is just poor form.
A lot of good points brought up, the allied matrix is a tipping point for balance problems that would be alleviated if the costs were either fixed or relative but at the current instance the quantitive costs are broken by the ability to take allies, yet at the same time the allies system helps to alleviate some instance of creep and player choice favoured balance.
Original question alludes to crons being op vs sw my answer, in short, no.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

No. Really. That is your argument for them, it's not that they are OVERCOSTED or BADLY COSTED it's that you need to keep context!

And facepalming is your argument? Really mature..
If someone tells you the Wraith stats and asks: "Is this badly costed?", you don't answer with yes or no. You ask him what codex it's for.

The context here is that they ed up the costs, and by trying to associate some weird "context" that doesn't make any weird sense by any sense of the word.

It's overly clear that you don't get it. Which is weird, since I didn't use any real difficult words in the text.
The context is that Necrons cannot focus on a melee army, they lack the synergy to take FULLY advantage of them.
Sure, a Destroyer Lord with them is strong. But not as overpowered as most IC's from other armies.

The fluff is fluff behind an army, the points costs are what actually gives external balance. It's why we had 5th edition SW apologists trying to say Grey Hunters NEED to be 15 points based on such reasoning.

And Wraith-lists aren't that overpowered.
So the external balance seems fine.
Next argument?

Did you know funnily enough that tau are supposed to deal with their CC issues by taking kroot, but the problem is in the current dex they failed to do anything of the sort. This is not context, this is POOR BALANCE OF A UNIT. This is not trying to make them more shooty, it just means they failed at the goal that unit was supposed to do.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Lychguard are the same way, they were designed to be Elite Melee units (with a hint of defense with the 4++ shield) but the context is they don't do their job well because of factors, most of which involve cost

There is nothing wrong with Lychguard unless you look at them competitively.
They are a melee unit and (as can be expected) not extremely effective for their points because it's a shooty army.

It's overly clear that you don't get it. Which is weird, since I didn't use any real difficult words in the text.

Being insulting now? I guess your argument can't stand on much so you have to imply those arguing have a lesser intelligence.

The context is that Necrons cannot focus on a melee army, they lack the synergy to take FULLY advantage of themt

There is nothing wrong with Lychguard unless you look at them competitively.
They are a melee unit and (as can be expected) not extremely effective for their points because it's a shooty army.

So why are they there then, To look pretty?

What you are saying literally makes no sense, if they were designed in mind they should be effective at protecting their shooting army from melee attacks, but for their points cost they are ineffective in any role.

There is no hidden context, there is no hidden meaning. They are just designed poorly and as a result it is just better to spam their shooting army instead.

If someone tells you the Wraith stats and asks: "Is this badly costed?", you don't answer with yes or no. You ask him what codex it's for.

And that's just straight up silly, one can easily tell if something is poorly balanced without looking at a specific codex in question.

Kangodo wrote:
If someone tells you the Wraith stats and asks: "Is this badly costed?", you don't answer with yes or no. You ask him what codex it's for.

Not at all. Because "what codex is it for" is an increasingly pointless question. If I was going to ask any question, rather than just evaluate it for what it is (which is what I would do), I would ask what codexes can it ally with. Because in 6th ed, that's a far more meaningful question to ask. "What codex is it for" tells you only how it might fit into one build. But as an ally, it could be found in as many as 12 or 13 different builds.

You keep saying context is important, but that's not true in 6th ed. Once you realize that allies are a huge part of the game, you'll find that this context you keep talking about becomes more and more of a nebulous thing.

The context is that Necrons cannot focus on a melee army, they lack the synergy to take FULLY advantage of them.

You've just described 16 of the 17 codexes in the game. Congrats. The only codex that can currently focus entirely on melee is Daemons. Everyone else has to bring enough guns to handle the flyers they'll encounter, and to soften up the insane amounts of overwatch that Tau can put out.

Sure, a Destroyer Lord with them is strong. But not as overpowered as most IC's from other armies.

Really? Run the math sometime, and you'll find that the Destroyer Lord has a greater than 50% chance to beat any other IC in the game. Pro-tip: Mindshackle Scarabs give the destroyer lord a base 50% chance of winning over anyone Ld10, and better than that against lower leadership values. Only after this 50% chance has failed do you even need to start figuring out the actual battle between the two.

And, S7,AP1 attacks, and T6 with an additional chance to reanimate when dead is pretty impressive. The only thing they're really lacking is an invul save, but being able to resurrect on a 4+. But, again, this only comes into play after the Mindshackle rolls.

And Wraith-lists aren't that overpowered.
So the external balance seems fine.

What basis do you use to make this claim?? Because at Adepticon, out of a tournament field of 230ish players, 7/16 of those who advanced to day two did so using multiple units of wraiths. To me, that sort of performance is a clear indication that these units are overpowered, and that external balance is not fine. If external balance were good, we'd see closer to 16 different codexes qualifying, because people would be able to win with any codex. When over half the unbeaten players get there using one codex, that's a pretty darn good indicator that external balance is extremely bad.

But I guess you're the expert, what with all your data to back up your points and lack of understanding how allies impact 6th edition.

Next argument?

I don't think anything else is needed until you start providing some sort of evidence to support your obviously false claims and flawed conclusions.

They are there to play with?

It's what we like to call "internal balance".
They have a bonus to shooting units, so they get a penalty on melee-units.
There is one exception to give them at least one strong CC-unit.

Do you think the lack of Necron-melee, Tau-melee, Ork-shooting or Tyranid-shooting is a result of poorly designing them?
They are intended to be weaker than the shooty (or melee) option because that's how the army works.

And that's just straight up silly, one can easily tell if something is poorly balanced without looking at a specific codex in question.

Talking about silly.. Let's take another example: Mindshackle Scarabs!
For Necrons they are a strong option.
If Space Marine Captains had that option, it would be overpowered.
So you DO need to look at a specific codex in question.

Or the BA Death Company :') Can you imagine those guys in an Ork-codex?

How would Death Company in the Ork Codex be better than in the BA Codex? Why would an SM Captain (you know, the guy who's WORSE in CC than a Destroyer Lord) be OP with Mindshackle Scarabs?

Also, what lack of shooty Ork or Tyranid units?

Kangodo wrote:

Do you think the lack of Necron-melee, Tau-melee, Ork-shooting or Tyranid-shooting is a result of poorly designing them?
They are intended to be weaker than the shooty (or melee) option because that's how the army works.

I'm glad I'm having a slow day at work because this is just getting funny.

You know that the best ork lists in 6th ed are all about shoota boyz, lootas, and cheap kannons, right? But, you keep going with the idea that orks are bad at shooting. One ork is bad at shooting. 180 orks will shoot you off the table.

I've already pointed out why the Codex is important.
Unit/Wargear/Rule X can be overpowered for one codex, but mediocre for another one.

A Destroyer Lord is T4 because of the Majority-Toughness rule.
A Librarian or Chaplain with JP could be so more devastating.

And Adepticon proves what exactly?
A Codex could do 1% better than the others and people would flock to it.
If people flock to a Codex, it's only statistically unavoidable that the top players will end up with one of those.
It also shows that you do not know the strength of those lists, since they achieve that victory due to their fliers who are perfect at protecting the troops.

I don't think anything else is needed until you start providing some sort of evidence to support your obviously false claims and flawed conclusions.

In this thread? You have got to be kidding me.
This isn't the first time we have had this ridiculousness of "OMFG, model A is cheaper than model B when model A is better!!!"
Life-lesson: Deal with it!
Not everything needs to follow the same rules and it's just plain stupid to compare random models to the strongest CC-model from a codex.
So are you the first person to stop being a hypocrite and open up a thread comparing Flayed Ones or Triarch Praetorians to SW-melee models?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How would Death Company in the Ork Codex be better than in the BA Codex? Why would an SM Captain (you know, the guy who's WORSE in CC than a Destroyer Lord) be OP with Mindshackle Scarabs?

Because 3+ models with 5 attacks on the charge is not something you'd like to see in a codex who already has extremely well options for melee in every other slot.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm glad I'm having a slow day at work because this is just getting funny.

You know that the best ork lists in 6th ed are all about shoota boyz, lootas, and cheap kannons, right? But, you keep going with the idea that orks are bad at shooting. One ork is bad at shooting. 180 orks will shoot you off the table.

Yeah, I'm sure you are having a slow day..

Sure, whatever floats your boat..
And on what tournament are you fielding your Ork-gunlines?

Kangodo wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How would Death Company in the Ork Codex be better than in the BA Codex? Why would an SM Captain (you know, the guy who's WORSE in CC than a Destroyer Lord) be OP with Mindshackle Scarabs?

Because 3+ models with 5 attacks on the charge is not something you'd like to see in a codex who already has extremely well options for melee in every other slot.

They have 2+ models with 4 Power Klaw attacks on the charge that can be scoring, what would Death Company add? As you say, Orks have several decent melee units, why would Death Company be OP for them?

Kangodo wrote:
I've already pointed out why the Codex is important.
Unit/Wargear/Rule X can be overpowered for one codex, but mediocre for another one.

A Destroyer Lord is T4 because of the Majority-Toughness rule.
A Librarian or Chaplain with JP could be so more devastating.

He's T4 for the purpouses of being wounded if he's outside a challenge. Being with Wraiths doesn't change his ID threshold at all. So yeah, tell me all about how a Librarian or Chaplain with a JP is "so more devastating".

And you STILL haven't explained why a Space Marine Captain with MSS would be OP while a Destroyer Lord with MSS isn't.

In this thread? You have got to be kidding me.
This isn't the first time we have had this ridiculousness of "OMFG, model A is cheaper than model B when model A is better!!!"
Life-lesson: Deal with it!
Not everything needs to follow the same rules and it's just plain stupid to compare random models to the strongest CC-model from a codex.
So are you the first person to stop being a hypocrite and open up a thread comparing Flayed Ones or Triarch Praetorians to SW-melee models?

I guess this proves that you can't even provide an actual argument anymore if one can only give "DEAL WITH IT" as an actual answer and be serious about it.

Eyjio wrote:

Fearless is worse than ATSKNF - TWC win

No. Back peddling 3D6 inches is way worse than fearless. LD 8 is a huge liability for TWC and when I still ran squads of three it meant that they'd be losing too much ground to be effective in the game. Who cares if they can auto re-group? They should be farther forward, not back in the back. They are an assault unit.

@Walrus:
Short answer: Space Marines are balanced on Captains not having MSS.
Captains are fine as they are, they see play in friendly and competitive games.
But I don't want to derail this thread with other endless discussions.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I guess this proves that you can't even provide an actual argument anymore if one can only give "DEAL WITH IT" as an actual answer and be serious about it.

Did you miss the last three pages? Enough arguments have been given.

And "Deal with it." is a perfect answer!
Codices aren't externally balanced on a model to model-basis. Deal with it.
Thunderwolf Cavalry isn't going to have their cost reduced any time soon. Deal with it.
Canoptek Wraiths aren't getting their cost increased for another 3 to 4 years. Deal with it.

A quick Google shows that TWC are a viable unit for competitive lists. So it seems that there is nothing wrong with them. "Deal with it."

 amanita wrote:
Redbeard and ZebioLizard2, your cogent commentary on this topic is most refreshing. I've always felt the argument that you can't compare points from one codex to another is exceedingly lame. It's the main reason for point values in the first place! It's far more relevant for external balance than any internal balance; why this is so hard to grasp I guess I'll never understand.

Fun.y, I thought points values were there to purchase units and relevant upgrades. From book to book, points values have no relevance. As has been shown, GW has no rubric for calculating points, and they really don't need to. Every army has different priorities and roles for its units. Why is a zoanthrope an elite, yet a Tyranid anti-tank unit? Why do Blood Angels get assault marines as troops? Its how they have set up their roles.

Kangodo wrote:
@Walrus:
Short answer: Space Marines are balanced on Captains not having MSS.
Captains are fine as they are, they see play in friendly and competitive games.
But I don't want to derail this thread with other endless discussions.

When's the last time anyone took a competetive Vanilla or Blood Angels list and included a Captain, outside of making bikes troops for Vanilla? I really can't take you seriously when you say that Captains are fine, because a Destroyer Lord is just so much better in every single way (again, bar the Bike unlock) and yet it is, according to you, the CAPTAIN that would be OP if he had Mindshackle Scarabs?!

1. Blood Angels with a Captain.. hahaha xD

2. Space Marines have more good transports than Necrons have viable cc-units. So yeah, captains/sergeants with MSS would be horribly overpowered.

If everything was balanced then you would just be playing chess, in which white has a massive advantage. Imbalance is good. Diversity makes the game interesting and challenging.

 Redbeard wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Do you think the lack of Necron-melee, Tau-melee, Ork-shooting or Tyranid-shooting is a result of poorly designing them?
They are intended to be weaker than the shooty (or melee) option because that's how the army works.

I'm glad I'm having a slow day at work because this is just getting funny.

You know that the best ork lists in 6th ed are all about shoota boyz, lootas, and cheap kannons, right? But, you keep going with the idea that orks are bad at shooting. One ork is bad at shooting. 180 orks will shoot you off the table.

Orks *are* bad at shooting, that's why you bring 180 of them! You're relying on the sheer volume of fire that 180 Orks on the table rolls for to win, rather than any single Ork, or even any single squad of Orks, being able to hit the broad side of a Chimera consistently. You're playing to the statistics, not to the strengths of the army's statline (though quantity does have a quality all its own).

Kangodo wrote:

2. Space Marines have more good transports than Necrons have viable cc-units. So yeah, captains/sergeants with MSS would be horribly overpowered.

The amount of CC units is irrelevant; why would the Captain be more OP with MSS than the Destroyer Lord, who's better in almost every way. You didn't say anything about sergeants being able to buy MSS until now, stop moving the goalposts.

What does the number of transports vs. good melee units have to do with anything?

Kangodo wrote:
1. Blood Angels with a Captain.. hahaha xD

Yeah, you're the one who said Captains were viable, not me. Not sure what's so funny.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Do you think the lack of Necron-melee, Tau-melee, Ork-shooting or Tyranid-shooting is a result of poorly designing them?
They are intended to be weaker than the shooty (or melee) option because that's how the army works.

I'm glad I'm having a slow day at work because this is just getting funny.

You know that the best ork lists in 6th ed are all about shoota boyz, lootas, and cheap kannons, right? But, you keep going with the idea that orks are bad at shooting. One ork is bad at shooting. 180 orks will shoot you off the table.

Orks *are* bad at shooting, that's why you bring 180 of them! You're relying on the sheer volume of fire that 180 Orks on the table rolls for to win, rather than any single Ork, or even any single squad of Orks, being able to hit the broad side of a Chimera consistently. You're playing to the statistics, not to the strengths of the army's statline (though quantity does have a quality all its own).

There is, however, not a "lack" of Ork shooting at all, which is what the argument was in the first place.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Redbeard and ZebioLizard2, your cogent commentary on this topic is most refreshing. I've always felt the argument that you can't compare points from one codex to another is exceedingly lame. It's the main reason for point values in the first place! It's far more relevant for external balance than any internal balance; why this is so hard to grasp I guess I'll never understand.

Fun.y, I thought points values were there to purchase units and relevant upgrades. From book to book, points values have no relevance. As has been shown, GW has no rubric for calculating points, and they really don't need to. Every army has different priorities and roles for its units. Why is a zoanthrope an elite, yet a Tyranid anti-tank unit? Why do Blood Angels get assault marines as troops? Its how they have set up their roles.

Really?

Let's say we play a game where you play space marines and I play orks & I reduce each model's points in my codex by two thirds. Ork boys are now 2 points, a warboss is base 20 points, etc. You're saying you'd be fine with that because the points from one codex are irrelevant to another??? My dex's internal balance is EXACTLY the same as it was before. Yet now I trounce you with ridiculous ease. Again.

Calm down, genius.

Units from book to book habe different roles, rules, and functions. Ork boyz are immensely different from Space Marines in terms of those areas. Comparing two units with moderately similar roles and complaining that they weren't identical in points is ridiculous. Necrons have a different role for wraiths than Space Wolves have for Thunderwolves. Yes, they are assault units, that's about it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Calm down, genius.

Units from book to book habe different roles, rules, and functions. Ork boyz are immensely different from Space Marines in terms of those areas. Comparing two units with moderately similar roles and complaining that they weren't identical in points is ridiculous. Necrons have a different role for wraiths than Space Wolves have for Thunderwolves. Yes, they are assault units, that's about it.

Assault units with very similar stats, abilities, and gear. Your metaphor of Ork Boys and Marines only works if the Ork Boys get the 3+ Armor of the Marines and the Marines don't have boltguns.

How about this.

BA assault terminators with TH/SS are 5 points more than the vanilla equivalent. Why?

Its because they can get FnP on top of that delicious 2+/3++. Most AP2 weaponry isn't Str8+, so they'll get FnP against it. The Terminators are paying because of the army they are sitting in.

the same with Space Wolves. Wolf Guard are much more expensive than their equivalents in other codices. Its because they have insane versatility. You can give a Longfang squad another 2 missile launchers. or a grey Hunter squad an assault cannon or combi-weapon, along with a chainfist. Any space wolf unit can get one heck of a toolbox model to aid them in their role. You have to pay for that versatility.


The Wraith doesn't pay as much for his 3++ because he doesn't nearly as much offensive capabilities as the TWC, he can't ID models nor is he all but guaranteed to wreck any vehicle he charges into. Plus he is easily killed by Str8.

 Grey Templar wrote:
How about this.

BA assault terminators with TH/SS are 5 points more than the vanilla equivalent. Why?

Its because they can get FnP on top of that delicious 2+/3++. Most AP2 weaponry isn't Str8+, so they'll get FnP against it. The Terminators are paying because of the army they are sitting in.

No, it's because every book with TH/SS Terminators since Vanilla has had the cost upped. GW probably realized that TH/SS is better than Lightning Claws and changed the price accordingly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
How about this.

BA assault terminators with TH/SS are 5 points more than the vanilla equivalent. Why?

Its because they can get FnP on top of that delicious 2+/3++. Most AP2 weaponry isn't Str8+, so they'll get FnP against it. The Terminators are paying because of the army they are sitting in.

No, it's because every book with TH/SS Terminators since Vanilla has had the cost upped. GW probably realized that TH/SS is better than Lightning Claws and changed the price accordingly.

And it's not like they retro-cut their books power levels, so C:SM has been with 40 point TH/SS as a result while all others have gone up.

Of course it's just *Context* that it's that way though.