Switch Theme:

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

Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:10:43


Post by: Runic


Must say I am personally really happy with what GW is doing with the powerlevels of the new codices. Certainly balance in 40K is nothing compared to other games, but the Orks, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Space Wolves, Astra Militarum are all very well in line with eachother. You can do solid things with each, but there aren´t many absolutely broken things to be found within. Even the generally bottom tier classed codices of DA and CSM can play against these new codices just fine, aside from the classic issue of some units just being worse than others ( but really, is that new to anyone? ) I play both DA and CSM so I have firsthand experience in this.

I´m pretty sure the Necron codex will also be brought down in power, and I think it´s a good thing. The only issue with the new codices being a bit more tame is that Eldar and Tau are still in the old "spectrum" -and they will be allround better until they receive an update to bring them in line with the others. A lot of people are unhappy about their codex getting nerfs, but asfar as I´m concerned they are missing the big picture, which seems to have started taking place after the SM Codex, as all codices after that have been ironed to be largely in line with eachother.

In essence, if they made Centurions unable to go inside Drop Pods, and brought Tau and Eldar in line with the rest of the codices we would have ( on a GW scale... ) a fairly balanced game going.

This topic is probably completely irrelevant to the folk who want to play a footslogging terminator army - I´m speaking about balance in an enviroment where people like the use of decent/good units and somewhat competitive play. In short, I find the latest 4-5 codices have better balance with eachother than what has existed ever before in 40K. I don´t think the general powerlevel of codices coming down is a bad thing, it doesn´t matter if the end result is that it´s as similiar as possible to all. I play in 3 different groups and pretty much all factions have a player, and I now have 71 games played this year. Basically everyone except Tau and Eldar seem to be faring eachother in a more balanced way than ever before.

I hope having the key points underlined, bolded and in different colour is enough to deflect the first few "omg IG is so underpowered vs. Eldar" -posts, which are completely irrelevant to what I am trying to say.

What do you think?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:23:34


Post by: Ratius


Overall I agree but in before a derail into how crap GW is in general. Nice try for a thread though.

I think even sub builds within DAs and CSM can be very powerful which is great. Whilst I agree something abit more niche like footslogging termies, ghostwarriors or Nid horde builds dont do as well, they're still not complete write offs in a non competitive scene.
A lot of it comes down to once again, who you're playing against, you and their expectations and fun levels and whether you want to steamroll someone or just have a bit of fun without being tabled turn 3.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:27:28


Post by: Niiru


I'm yet to actually play with my "new" codex (orks, one you didnt mention) but I can't see any immediate problems with it. Certainly not overpowered. In fact if anything I'd say the codex is a bit underpowered. Certainly has a bit of a bland vibe to it, though the supplements have helped with that somewhat.

And if the ORK codex is looking a bit bland, I'd hate to think how utterly boring the other new codices are lol.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:29:51


Post by: Runic


Yeah I forgot Orks, added those. They definetly fall into this category, a player in my hometowns group ( who´s played Orks since 3. ed ) is pretty much raving about how he now has more good options than ever before.

Do you mean "bland" in a sense that the really powerful units ( compared to the rest ) are missing ( like some folk do ) or what do you mean exactly? To me it seems a lot of people see a codex being bland if it has had it´s "spikes" cut off, even if it has a ton of different, actually usable options against the other new codices.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:32:35


Post by: kingleir


Sure niche builds dont do aswell, but why shouldnt they? Why are they fluffy only?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:35:33


Post by: Formosa


What do you mean by niche?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:35:37


Post by: Ratius


I dont think they are, we're just saying they wont be as powerful as the more mainstream builds (even though overall balance has improved) but niche builds in a friendly environment can certainly do well too.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:39:36


Post by: Runic


kingleir wrote:
Why is it that niche builds are being excluded from the we want everything to be balanced thread?


Hmmh. This is not a "we want everything to be balanced" -thread, and because discussing the balance of the newer codices with eachother becomes pointless if you have to account for the footslogging terminator hordes and the like. I don´t think the day will ever come, when a fluffy themed niche army is going to be competitive ( there are a few exceptions ) and unless someone has noticed the newer codices making them so, then what´s the point really. They generally aren´t good, they probably never will be, not sure if there´s anything of substance to be added to it?

They can fair nicely if played in an enviroment with similiar lists. But that has nothing to do with the codices in the end, it has to do with the opponents basically agreeing to using such lists. ( Unless one day they will be generally competitive aswell, but again unfortunately I really don´t see that happening... )


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:39:48


Post by: BlaxicanX


I generally agree with the sentiment here- GW has done a much better job of balancing the latest string of codices against one another.

It's just unfortunate that this has come at the expense of lots of content and flavor being cut. From special characters getting dropped in droves to the systematic replacement of artwork with dull model pictures to many fluffy rules being simplified or removed altogether, it feels like the new codices are altogether very bland.

GW still needs to find that sweet-spot where codices are as flavorful as older ones like the Tau and SM ones (the gold standard for codices, imo) while still balancing well against their peers.

On a positive note, I really like the concept of formations, even if they are basically a scam.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:41:51


Post by: Blacksails


 Ratius wrote:
Overall I agree but in before a derail into how crap GW is in general.


Because that really helps. No seriously, its wonderful that you'd post something like that. It truly is. Shows how inviting and open you are to a discussion that may include opinions you disagree with.

Anyways.

The codices are better balanced externally, but still need a fair amount of work internally.

Randomly losing units, characters, and wargear options hurts whatever external balance was improved upon, especially with the lack of communication from GW informing us what the general plan is for the future.

It'll be nice when Eldar and Tau get updated, so we can the big picture without a crazy over the top codex tainting the view.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:44:18


Post by: Formosa


Ravenwing are niche and competitive, so are mechdar


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:46:45


Post by: MWHistorian


 BlaxicanX wrote:
I generally agree with the sentiment here- GW has done a much better job of balancing the latest string of codices against one another.

It's just unfortunate that this has come at the expense of lots of content and flavor being cut. From special characters getting dropped in droves to the systematic replacement of artwork with dull model pictures to many fluffy rules being simplified or removed altogether, it feels like the new codices are altogether very bland.

GW still needs to find that sweet-spot where codices are as flavorful as older ones like the Tau and SM ones (the hold standard for codices, imo) while still balancing well against their peers.

On a positive note, I really like the concept of formations, even if they are basically a scam.

I agree with this.
Generally, codex to codex balance has gotten better, but the internal balance is still wonky.
But the biggest sin is that the new dexes are a bit boring. My IG dex is functional, but bland.
Now if they could add some more excitement and internal balance, then we're talking.
(It's not a good sign when people dread getting a dex updated.)
Still, it's a step in the right direction, so GW, you get a point.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:48:30


Post by: Runic


 Formosa wrote:
Ravenwing are niche and competitive, so are mechdar


Yeah, they are. There are niche competitive builds around, not denying that. I´m not sure how to articulate what I mean any better. I tried to describe it few posts above, and edited that to be more accurate.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:50:36


Post by: Niiru


 RunicFIN wrote:
Yeah I forgot Orks, added those. They definetly fall into this category, a player in my hometowns group ( who´s played Orks since 3. ed ) is pretty much raving about how he now has more good options than ever before.

Do you mean "bland" in a sense that the really powerful units ( compared to the rest ) are missing ( like some folk do ) or what do you mean exactly? To me it seems a lot of people see a codex being bland if it has had it´s "spikes" cut off, even if it has a ton of different, actually usable options against the other new codices.



No, it was more that they lost a lot of their flavour. The ramshackle vehicle rules used to be something like (and this is a vague memory, Im at work so no cedex at hand), when destroyed, they had a chance to veer off and blow up in peoples faces. Thats orky and fun, and hardly overpowered. Now its a small chance to turn a penetrate into a glance I think? I mean thats nice... except trukks can still get glanced to death easily so its a bit pointless. And not orky. and dull.

They also dropped the fun characters. Like the guy who has the psychic power to turn an enemy character into a Squig. The enemy even gets to carry on using the squig model. Come on, thats pretty awesome. And no more overpowered than any other psychic attack.

Saying that, we do still have the shokk attack gun, but thats basically the only flavoursome bit of crazy orkiness in the codex.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:51:05


Post by: Ratius


Because that really helps. No seriously, its wonderful that you'd post something like that. It truly is. Shows how inviting and open you are to a discussion that may include opinions you disagree with.

Anyways.


Oh wind it in Blacksails, my posting history is about as far from the whiney whinger as can be. The point was pre empting the inevitable turn towards GW bashing which from what I can see has been a tediously recurrent theme over the last 6 months in the general discussion forum even with threads that have little to do with it.

Yes it was a sarky comment but I give the thread about 2 pages before it turns (again). If my comment makes even one person stop and say "ah, I'll leave it this time", then the sarcasm worked. Dont be so defensive.




Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 15:55:12


Post by: Runic


Niiru wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
Yeah I forgot Orks, added those. They definetly fall into this category, a player in my hometowns group ( who´s played Orks since 3. ed ) is pretty much raving about how he now has more good options than ever before.

Do you mean "bland" in a sense that the really powerful units ( compared to the rest ) are missing ( like some folk do ) or what do you mean exactly? To me it seems a lot of people see a codex being bland if it has had it´s "spikes" cut off, even if it has a ton of different, actually usable options against the other new codices.



No, it was more that they lost a lot of their flavour. The ramshackle vehicle rules used to be something like (and this is a vague memory, Im at work so no cedex at hand), when destroyed, they had a chance to veer off and blow up in peoples faces. Thats orky and fun, and hardly overpowered. Now its a small chance to turn a penetrate into a glance I think? I mean thats nice... except trukks can still get glanced to death easily so its a bit pointless. And not orky. and dull.

They also dropped the fun characters. Like the guy who has the psychic power to turn an enemy character into a Squig. The enemy even gets to carry on using the squig model. Come on, thats pretty awesome. And no more overpowered than any other psychic attack.

Saying that, we do still have the shokk attack gun, but thats basically the only flavoursome bit of crazy orkiness in the codex.


Allright, I get what you mean. Specifically regarding the ramshackle vehicle rules though, a lot of players want less of randomness in the game and have wanted that for quite some time. Maybe GW listened, but at the expense of those who like the random stuff ( I personally found the ork random rules fun aswell. ) In the end you just can´t please everyone.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:05:17


Post by: Blacksails


 RunicFIN wrote:


I´m thinking what Blacksails said was mostly directed at me and with the "by posting something like that" - he meant the thread. Could be wrong. Also, thanks for the pre-emptive strike Ratius.


No, its wasn't directed at you. Your post is fine. Why would I find something wrong about your post? You have a valid point; external balance is better. There are other flaws with the codices, but external balance is not chief among them with recent books.

Ratius 'pre-emptive' strike is unnecessary and acts as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Then again, I suppose fighting snark with snark isn't going to get anything anywhere.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:07:05


Post by: Ratius


Well I apologise if it offended anyone, it was a sarky, throw away remark and not meant to derail the thread.

So on with the original discussion.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:07:53


Post by: Niiru


 RunicFIN wrote:


Allright, I get what you mean. Specifically regarding the ramshackle vehicle rules though, a lot of players want less of randomness in the game and have wanted that for quite some time. Maybe GW listened, but at the expense of those who like the random stuff ( I personally found the ork random rules fun aswell. ) In the end you just can´t please everyone.

Also, thanks for the pre-emptive strike Ratius.



Removing the extra randomness from the game I approve of.

Removing the orks ability to explode and either kill the enemy or themselves? Or randomly turn the enemy leader into a pet? Pfft, might as well just paint some imperial guard green!

I'm being (slightly) facetious of course, as the orks do still have some orkiness to them... the ability for the blitzabomma to miss its bomb and crash into the target instead, for instance. But its a lot less than it should be. Orks are *the* random army.

TL;DR - Randomness in the game as a whole should be reduced. Crazy explosive randomness in the ork codex should be increased. Or at least the options for it.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:10:40


Post by: Runic


As a sidenote, the supplemental codices also offer some extra flavour for your army, but asfar as I´m concerned -none- of them have been broken ( meaning the army related supplements, not IK. ) Infact they seem to just offer alternatives and themes for your army, without completely stepping on the original codex, and I think that´s great.

Asfar as I know, the supplements also seem to be fairly balanced, none of them offer an army a tool to go from tier C- to tier A+++. They just offer alternatives and options and some flavour, with the occasional slight improvements.

 Ratius wrote:
Well I apologise if it offended anyone, it was a sarky, throw away remark and not meant to derail the thread.

So on with the original discussion.


Well, personally I understand completely why you said it and I approve of your pre-emptive strike. Your agenda with it is one of goodness.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:17:52


Post by: niv-mizzet


I have to echo the sentiment that the books have been better balanced lately, but that it's hard to get a good look at the group photo because tau and eldar are way up in front of the camera being photo hogs.

Makes me wonder how it will be to be a tau/eldar player when their new books hit. May have to get a friend to do a drawing of an ork and tyranid holding an eldar and tau, while a couple marines gut punch them, and some tech priests muck around under the hood of a riptide and wave serpent in the background.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:22:20


Post by: Runic


I´d be suprised if an Eldar/Tau player is surprised of the inevitable nerf that´s coming their way. It would also be baffling why one would find it a bad thing if they were brought in line with the others.

Unless someone enjoys playing an army that´s above the rest ofcourse. But well... personally I think it´s okay to disappoint those specific people.

For the greater good.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:31:47


Post by: MWHistorian


I think most Eldar and Tau players fear the loss of flavor and units more than power level.
Though there are certainly some that would complain about the a nerf to their Eldar. There's one poster who thinks WS are a bit underpowered.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:44:14


Post by: Niiru


 MWHistorian wrote:
I think most Eldar and Tau players fear the loss of flavor and units more than power level.
Though there are certainly some that would complain about the a nerf to their Eldar. There's one poster who thinks WS are a bit underpowered.


Going by the Ork codex (I know ive already mentioned it but its the best example I know of) Eldar and Tau are guaranteed to lose a large chunk of flavour. They probably wont lose any units, but they will lose some of their special characters.

They will also lose the characters that give the ability to have certain units as troops. So no more Iyanden wraithguard armies (which I collect, and would be sad to see disappear).


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:51:50


Post by: Peregrine


 RunicFIN wrote:
Specifically regarding the ramshackle vehicle rules though, a lot of players want less of randomness in the game and have wanted that for quite some time. Maybe GW listened, but at the expense of those who like the random stuff ( I personally found the ork random rules fun aswell. ) In the end you just can´t please everyone.


So if GW is listening to complaints and removing randomness then why is 7th edition full of stupid and (mostly) unwanted randomness? Random tables for everything, a whole new type of random mission objectives, etc.

 RunicFIN wrote:
and because discussing the balance of the newer codices with eachother becomes pointless if you have to account for the footslogging terminator hordes and the like.


How does it become pointless? The fact that it leads to a conclusion of "GW still isn't very good at balance" doesn't mean that the discussion is pointless. I just means that it isn't going in the direction you wanted it to go in.

I don´t think the day will ever come, when a fluffy themed niche army is going to be competitive


And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:53:37


Post by: MWHistorian


Niiru wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
I think most Eldar and Tau players fear the loss of flavor and units more than power level.
Though there are certainly some that would complain about the a nerf to their Eldar. There's one poster who thinks WS are a bit underpowered.


Going by the Ork codex (I know ive already mentioned it but its the best example I know of) Eldar and Tau are guaranteed to lose a large chunk of flavour. They probably wont lose any units, but they will lose some of their special characters.

They will also lose the characters that give the ability to have certain units as troops. So no more Iyanden wraithguard armies (which I collect, and would be sad to see disappear).

The old Chaos 3.5 dex is often lauded as the best Chaos dex ever. It wasn't due to power levels. (ok, for some, yes.) But it's looked back on as a golden age for Chaos players because it let them create the armies they wanted. Noise Marine dreadnaughts, Iron Warriors with artillery and other craziness filled the book. It was bursting with character and makes the current one seem drab and boring. Why can't GW let their imagination loose again while maintaining some semblance of balance? So many of the fixes are easy.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 16:57:26


Post by: Nightlord1987


I like the direction things are going. I play orks and Chaos anyway, so I'm used to lower expectations than usual. But every new book that comes out, I'm always thinking to myself "That sounds fun to play against.", rather than the dread of being thrown further under the bus with every new release.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:11:57


Post by: Runic


 Peregrine wrote:
So if GW is listening to complaints and removing randomness then why is 7th edition full of stupid and (mostly) unwanted randomness? Random tables for everything, a whole new type of random mission objectives, etc.


I won´t go into this with you. I was talking about the Orks codex and merely saying perhaps they listened in that instance alone. The end.

 Peregrine wrote:
How does it become pointless? The fact that it leads to a conclusion of "GW still isn't very good at balance" doesn't mean that the discussion is pointless. I just means that it isn't going in the direction you wanted it to go in.


If you didn´t understand what I ment then I cannot help you as I cannot articulate it any better. If you feel like talking about footslogging terminator hordes being useless in the new codices then by all means, do so. Personally I´ll still find it pointless.

 Peregrine wrote:
And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".


Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue. Would be nice if they were but I still don´t see it happening. It also doesn´t change the fact the latest codices are actually well balanced towards eachother, which was the main point anyway.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I like the direction things are going. I play orks and Chaos anyway, so I'm used to lower expectations than usual. But every new book that comes out, I'm always thinking to myself "That sounds fun to play against.", rather than the dread of being thrown further under the bus with every new release.


Yeah, pretty much this.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:14:40


Post by: ImAGeek


 RunicFIN wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".


Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.



And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:16:54


Post by: Runic


 ImAGeek wrote:


And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.


Umm... yeah? That´s why I wrote "For me"


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:19:28


Post by: ImAGeek


Yeah. But for him it is an issue... I'm just replying in kind to your reply to him...


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:21:00


Post by: Crablezworth


Can I just point out that the blandification of codex's would actually mean something if one were, I don't know, forced to actually play one codex against another. Currently, with the bloated pile of crap 7th edition is, you can make whatever absurd abomination of a list (collection?) you want.

Codex's becoming more bland in order to add some semblance of balance to me actually isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not entirely without some cynicisms either. There's a sense of holding things back so they can sell you another 60 dollar book with 2 pages of a rules. That's problematic. Also, what does the new nid releases say about GW's "plan" for codex's?

Assuming for a second you play in the context generally of one codex vs another, no allies or fortifications or super heavies or lords of war or forge world and so on and so on, I think blandification in terms of power level is a step in the right direction, however without having a baseline format that mandates simply one codex vs another, instead of the aforementioned pile of crap, it's pretty pointless. Then there's the whole other issue of the inherent conflict of interest from GW's point of vew of any real restriction on spamming, because, you know, you might buy fewer giant awesome mega robots. The way army construction works looks like the free market told the regulators to take a hike and the marketing team took over game design.

There's bee almost a conscious effort to ensure communication between potential opponent's is a political minefield instead of conscious choice of various formats, it's all 40k we're told. If you re-name every food item on the menu pizza, how does one guarantee they actually get a pizza when they order and not nachos? That's been my biggest problem with post 5th 40k, we're all pretending we're playing the same game and everyone else is doing it wrong. The community has only gotten smaller and more divisive with everyone in their little camps hurling labels back and forth. I'm not innocent, but I do lament that pretty much every game I see of 40k is basically apoc, at least back in 5th I could choose between the two games, now I feel like an old man because I don't really want to play against formations and super heavies. Or maybe I'm just wrong and the game is greatly improved by everyone and their mom having 5 model armies of giant robots...

To come back to my main point, what good does balancing codex's do in a game where it's pretty much all one big terrible codex now? What good is a blander less powerful codex in the context of a game with such loose army building restrictions? Oh there are fewer good things in your new codex? Guess that just frees up more room for an allie or some other silly abomination.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:21:20


Post by: MWHistorian


 ImAGeek wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".


Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.



And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.

That would be a great thing. Having my fluffy army not stand a chance at victory is the #1 reason I stopped playing 40k.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:21:31


Post by: Runic


 ImAGeek wrote:
Yeah. But for him it is an issue... I'm just replying in kind to your reply to him...


Well, his lacked the "my opinion" bit completely, mine did not. So yeah.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:24:05


Post by: ImAGeek


 RunicFIN wrote:
 ImAGeek wrote:
Yeah. But for him it is an issue... I'm just replying in kind to your reply to him...


Well, his lacked the "my opinion" bit completely, mine did not. So yeah.


Saying 'my opinion' to something you're saying is a bit superfluous really isn't it. It's quite obvious who's opinion it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 MWHistorian wrote:
 ImAGeek wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".


Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.



And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.

That would be a great thing. Having my fluffy army not stand a chance at victory is the #1 reason I stopped playing 40k.


I agree, I think it would be awesome. The whole 'fluffy/competitive' divide just shouldn't exist.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:28:31


Post by: Blacksails


 Crablezworth wrote:
Spoiler:
Can I just point out that the blandification of codex's would actually mean something if one were, I don't know, forced to actually play one codex against another. Currently, with the bloated pile of crap 7th edition is, you can make whatever absurd abomination of a list (collection?) you want.

Codex's becoming more bland in order to add some semblance of balance to me actually isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not entirely without some cynicisms either. There's a sense of holding things back so they can sell you another 60 dollar book with 2 pages of a rules. That's problematic. Also, what does the new nid releases say about GW's "plan" for codex's?

Assuming for a second you play in the context generally of one codex vs another, no allies or fortifications or super heavies or lords of war or forge world and so on and so on, I think blandification in terms of power level is a step in the right direction, however without having a baseline format that mandates simply one codex vs another (and possibly even and foc), instead of the aforementioned pile of crap, it's pretty pointless.

If you re-name every food item on the menu pizza, how does one guarantee they actually get a pizza when they order and not nachos? That's been my biggest problem with post 5th 40k, we're all pretending we're playing the same game and everyone else is doing it wrong. The community has only gotten smaller and more divisive with everyone in their little camps hurling labels back and forth. I'm not innocent, but I do lement that pretty much every game I see of 40k is basically apoc, at least back in 5th I could choose between the two games, now I feel like an old man because I don't really want to play against formations and super heavies.

To come back to my main point, what good does balancing codex's do in a game where it's pretty much all one big terrible codex now? What good is a blander less powerful codex in the context of a game with such loose army building restrictions? Oh there are fewer goods things in your new codex? Guess that just frees up more room for an allie or some other silly abomination.


This sums up my gripes with the current codices, and indeed, the game itself.

GW's newest codices aren't quite forcing players to use Unbound, but its being strongly pushed with the absence of FoC modifications and removing old themes and lists from newer codices.

We get supplements to add some flavour back in, but paying an additional $60 to re-inject something that was cut doesn't leave me the warm fuzzlies.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:31:14


Post by: Peregrine


 RunicFIN wrote:
I won´t go into this with you. I was talking about the Orks codex and merely saying perhaps they listened in that instance alone. The end.


Of course you won't go into it, because you know you're wrong. If GW increases randomness in every other area of the game despite the fact that people hate it then "they listened to the players" is not a plausible explanation for why one bit of randomness was removed. The more likely explanation is that there was some other reason for making the change, and GW continues to ignore player feedback in all areas of the game.

If you feel like talking about footslogging terminator hordes being useless in the new codices then by all means, do so. Personally I´ll still find it pointless.


Of course you'll find it pointless, because it gets in the way of your "GW is awesome" agenda.

For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.


Yeah, how could it possibly be an issue if, in a game that supposedly emphasizes fluff, a player who brings a fluffy army is almost guaranteed to lose and not even have much fun as they are slaughtered by the latest tournament list. I can't see anything at all wrong with having to choose between spamming units you don't like because they're the most powerful option and never playing in tournaments. None of these issues could possibly be a reason to criticize GW.

It also doesn´t change the fact the latest codices are actually well balanced towards eachother, which was the main point anyway.


Yes it does, because balance is about more than just each codex having a single unfluffy competitive option that wins at the same rate as each other codex's single unfluffy competitive option.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:36:45


Post by: Deadnight


 MWHistorian wrote:

The old Chaos 3.5 dex is often lauded as the best Chaos dex ever. It wasn't due to power levels. (ok, for some, yes.) But it's looked back on as a golden age for Chaos players because it let them create the armies they wanted. Noise Marine dreadnaughts, Iron Warriors with artillery and other craziness filled the book. It was bursting with character and makes the current one seem drab and boring. Why can't GW let their imagination loose again while maintaining some semblance of balance? So many of the fixes are easy.


Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k. It's still rightly regarded as amongst the most broken codices gw have ever done. That 'craziness' meant nothing but siren lords, iron warriors with basilisks, max havoks and oblits and turn one assaulting nike lords with daemonic visage. Best thing gw did was taking it out back and shooting it in the head.



Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:38:41


Post by: Davor


 RunicFIN wrote:
I´d be suprised if an Eldar/Tau player is surprised of the inevitable nerf that´s coming their way. It would also be baffling why one would find it a bad thing if they were brought in line with the others.

Unless someone enjoys playing an army that´s above the rest ofcourse. But well... personally I think it´s okay to disappoint those specific people.

For the greater good.


Sadly a lot of people play because a codex is above the rest. Where were all the Tau and Eldar players in 5th edition? Not many. Only people who liked Tau and Eldar played. Where were the Tau and Eldar players in the beginning of 6th edition? No where to be seen just like 5th edition. Now Tau and Eldar get a new codex and we see an explosions of new Tau and Eldar players. It just goes to show you what grown up men do in order of the need to win with plastic toy soldiers.

It will be interesting if Tau and Eldar get the same treatment, how many people will stop using them and move onto something better.

Maybe hopefully once all the codices are on the same level, people will play what they love, not what is better.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:39:45


Post by: Runic


 Peregrine wrote:
[Of course you won't go into it, because you know you're wrong. If GW increases randomness in every other area of the game despite the fact that people hate it then "they listened to the players" is not a plausible explanation for why one bit of randomness was removed. The more likely explanation is that there was some other reason for making the change, and GW continues to ignore player feedback in all areas of the game.


Infact I can´t be wrong as no one knows for a fact why randomness in the Orks codex was put down a notch. I still think it´s possible because of some Ork players being unhappy with their army performing very randomly at times, just like Daemon players are.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course you'll find it pointless, because it gets in the way of your "GW is awesome" agenda.


Hmm no, just has nothing to do with the newer codices being more balanced towards eachother than the older ones. Asfar as I´m concerned it´s almost it´s own topic entirely.

 Peregrine wrote:
None of these issues could possibly be a reason to criticize GW.


Umm, criticize all you want, no one has said anything like this.

Seems to me you´re just looking for a flamewar/argument tbh. You have your opinions.

If you want to discuss fluffy armies not being competitive in a thread about the latest codices being in fairly good balance towards eachother then by all means do so. I don´t mind personally, dunno about moderators. Go ahead and do so. Anything else you want?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:40:16


Post by: DarkLink


The internal balance in a lot of new codices is pretty bad, though. The previous GK book allowed you to take basically anything in the codex as part of a competitive list. Now, half the army is basically worthless in that certain units completely outclass other units they compete with. Why would you ever, ever waste heavy slots on Purgation Squads when you can take Dreadknights? Why would you ever take a unit of Interceptors over a Dreadknight? Terminators as troops are straight up better than Strike Squads in virtually every way.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:42:04


Post by: MWHistorian


Deadnight wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

The old Chaos 3.5 dex is often lauded as the best Chaos dex ever. It wasn't due to power levels. (ok, for some, yes.) But it's looked back on as a golden age for Chaos players because it let them create the armies they wanted. Noise Marine dreadnaughts, Iron Warriors with artillery and other craziness filled the book. It was bursting with character and makes the current one seem drab and boring. Why can't GW let their imagination loose again while maintaining some semblance of balance? So many of the fixes are easy.


Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k. It's still rightly regarded as amongst the most broken codices gw have ever done. That 'craziness' meant nothing but siren lords, iron warriors with basilisks, max havoks and oblits and turn one assaulting nike lords with daemonic visage. Best thing gw did was taking it out back and shooting it in the head.


I can only speak for myself with certainty, though I have heard many voice the same opinion. I hated the balance, but loved the creativity. I didn't enjoy the power level just as I don't enjoy the current Eldar power level and actually caused me to take a long break from 40k.
I would like to know how many people liked it for the power or for the ability to actually make chaos armies that resemble the fluff. Might have to make a poll about that...
But perhaps a bit off topic.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:44:51


Post by: Niiru


 Crablezworth wrote:
Can I just point out that the blandification of codex's would actually mean something if one were, I don't know, forced to actually play one codex against another. Currently, with the bloated pile of crap 7th edition is, you can make whatever absurd abomination of a list (collection?) you want.

Codex's becoming more bland in order to add some semblance of balance to me actually isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not entirely without some cynicisms either. There's a sense of holding things back so they can sell you another 60 dollar book with 2 pages of a rules. That's problematic. Also, what does the new nid releases say about GW's "plan" for codex's?

Assuming for a second you play in the context generally of one codex vs another, no allies or fortifications or super heavies or lords of war or forge world and so on and so on, I think blandification in terms of power level is a step in the right direction, however without having a baseline format that mandates simply one codex vs another, instead of the aforementioned pile of crap, it's pretty pointless. Then there's the whole other issue of the inherent conflict of interest from GW's point of vew of any real restriction on spamming, because, you know, you might buy fewer giant awesome mega robots. The way army construction works looks like the free market told the regulators to take a hike and the marketing team took over game design.

There's bee almost a conscious effort to ensure communication between potential opponent's is a political minefield instead of conscious choice of various formats, it's all 40k we're told. If you re-name every food item on the menu pizza, how does one guarantee they actually get a pizza when they order and not nachos? That's been my biggest problem with post 5th 40k, we're all pretending we're playing the same game and everyone else is doing it wrong. The community has only gotten smaller and more divisive with everyone in their little camps hurling labels back and forth. I'm not innocent, but I do lament that pretty much every game I see of 40k is basically apoc, at least back in 5th I could choose between the two games, now I feel like an old man because I don't really want to play against formations and super heavies. Or maybe I'm just wrong and the game is greatly improved by everyone and their mom having 5 model armies of giant robots...

To come back to my main point, what good does balancing codex's do in a game where it's pretty much all one big terrible codex now? What good is a blander less powerful codex in the context of a game with such loose army building restrictions? Oh there are fewer good things in your new codex? Guess that just frees up more room for an allie or some other silly abomination.



Just because they now give you the option to play unbound lists (allowing for you to make a fluffy list of your own, and in theory i dont dislike this), doesnt mean that you are forced to play them.
I, and the people I play against, dont use unbound. There is plenty of room for fun lists within the FOC's that are available, and the forced limitations reduces the possibility of cheesiness.

This seems self evident to me. Everyone moans about how unbound is unfair and is killing the game... except that there's no rule that says you have to play unbound. In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition. Much like special characters used to be back in the day.

As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level). Maybe a lord of war, depending on your play group. Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.

If you are having issues, then I suspect you're playing against 12 year olds in pick up games. I suggest taking them by the shoulder, and teaching them the error of their ways in a calm and gentle tone.

Preferably without looking like you're about to molest them.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:51:54


Post by: Peregrine


Niiru wrote:
Just because they now give you the option to play unbound lists (allowing for you to make a fluffy list of your own, and in theory i dont dislike this), doesnt mean that you are forced to play them.


No, you just have to have the awkward conversation where you say "sorry, but your perfectly legal army doesn't meet my standards, have fun the way I want to have fun or I'm not going to play with you". Clearly this is an appropriate substitute for making rules that don't suck.

In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition.


Nope. Unbound is a standard option, just like the option to take a tactical squad in your C:SM army. The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.

As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level).


You seem to be reading the 6th edition rulebook instead of the 7th edition one. Perhaps you should take a break from this thread until you have obtained and read the current rules?

Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.


Why? Do I have to ask for consent to put a tactical squad in my C:SM army?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:55:44


Post by: Runic


 Peregrine wrote:

The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.


Wrong. Page 116, bolded text above "Army Selection Methods."


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:56:38


Post by: Talys


BlaxicanX wrote:It's just unfortunate that this has come at the expense of lots of content and flavor being cut. From special characters getting dropped in droves to the systematic replacement of artwork with dull model pictures to many fluffy rules being simplified or removed altogether, it feels like the new codices are altogether very bland.

GW still needs to find that sweet-spot where codices are as flavorful as older ones like the Tau and SM ones (the gold standard for codices, imo) while still balancing well against their peers.


Going back to 5e codices (like the predecessor Blood Angels codex), remember that a lot of the inspirational artwork was either not drawn in color or not printed in color. Although I prefer 6e, where there was good, color artwork for everything, I'll take the 7e style of photography over the black-and-white 5e.

Personally, I think that they are doing it this way because it's cheaper: it's not necessary to have an artist depict every unit, and they need to produce studio quality painted models anyhow. The one advantage is that there are more photos to go by, if you want to reproduce codex themes.

Still, the balance would be better if there was more art, less photographs.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 17:57:36


Post by: Peregrine


 RunicFIN wrote:
Wrong. Page 116, bolded text above "Army Selection Methods."


This says that EVERYTHING requires agreement. It does NOT say that some methods are "standard" and others require special permission.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:00:02


Post by: Runic


 Peregrine wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
Wrong. Page 116, bolded text above "Army Selection Methods."


This says that EVERYTHING requires agreement. It does NOT say that some methods are "standard" and others require special permission.


It decimates "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule" -which was your claim to the letter. Your opponent doesn´t agree = you don´t play Unbound. The end.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:00:24


Post by: Makumba


Now I don't know what kind of armies people play in Finland, but could someone explain to me how GK armies with NDKs and drop pod centurions with mass terminators are balanced against IG?


Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k.

And weren't those nid MC armies and falcon spam eldar? a falcon could take shoting from a whole army and be untouched.




Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:04:52


Post by: Runic


Makumba wrote:
Now I don't know what kind of armies people play in Finland, but could someone explain to me how GK armies with NDKs and drop pod centurions with mass terminators are balanced against IG?


Are you talking about a Grey Knights CAD with Space Marine AD Centurions in Space Wolves/Blood Angels AD Drop Pods vs. singular Astra Militarum CAD?




Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:05:57


Post by: Peregrine


 RunicFIN wrote:
It decimates "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule" -which was your claim to the letter. Your opponent doesn´t agree = you don´t play Unbound. The end.


Sigh. Would you please read what I actually said before responding to it? The house rule is the idea that battle-forged armies (possibly with additional restrictions) are "standard" and allowed by default, while unbound is banned by default and you need to arrange special permission to use an unbound army. There are no "tiers" of officialness/permission, the note on page 116 applies equally to tactical squads and unbound.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:07:48


Post by: Runic


 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Would you please read what I actually said before responding to it? The house rule is the idea that battle-forged armies (possibly with additional restrictions) are "standard" and allowed by default, while unbound is banned by default and you need to arrange special permission to use an unbound army. There are no "tiers" of officialness/permission, the note on page 116 applies equally to tactical squads and unbound.


You said that the opponents consent policy regarding Unbound is just a houserule. I provided proof that this is not the case. Can you stop avoiding the fact that you were wrong, now.

In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition.


Niiru refers to Unbound in the above quote. To which you respond:

Nope. Unbound is a standard option, just like the option to take a tactical squad in your C:SM army. The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.


And that´s all there is to it.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:09:30


Post by: Niiru


 Peregrine wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
Wrong. Page 116, bolded text above "Army Selection Methods."


This says that EVERYTHING requires agreement. It does NOT say that some methods are "standard" and others require special permission.



And the army selection procedure comes under "everything". Obviously. Maybe you should go back and read the rulebook, and rejoin this thread after. Maybe bring some manners with you.

Or just go, and then dont rejoin, I doubt anyone would miss you.

edit:
And while the use of tactical squads also comes under the umbrella of "anything", only small minded people would think that a tactical squad would require permission.

However, bringing 20 tactical squads and nothing else in your army list, and you should expect the opponent to have a question or two. Perhaps "Are you serious?" being the main one.

There's a degree of obvious common sense about this.

Also the 1 FOC and 1 Allies thing isnt a 6th edition thing, its the current norm for tournaments and... everything.

- however I may be mistaken, and it may include an addition detachment... I'm not totally up on the current thinking. But there is a standard. And its not unbound.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:09:49


Post by: Peregrine


 RunicFIN wrote:
You said that the opponents consent policy regarding Unbound is just a houserule. I provided proof that this is not the case. Can you stop avoiding the fact that you were wrong, now.


No, we are not going to avoid the fact that you're deliberately misquoting me so that you can "prove" I was wrong about something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiru wrote:
And the army selection procedure comes under "everything".


Why is this so complicated? READ MY POST BEFORE RESPONDING. Here, I'll even repost my clarification for you:

The house rule is the idea that battle-forged armies (possibly with additional restrictions) are "standard" and allowed by default, while unbound is banned by default and you need to arrange special permission to use an unbound army. There are no "tiers" of officialness/permission, the note on page 116 applies equally to tactical squads and unbound.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:11:33


Post by: Talys



Hey Peregrine, way to hijack a thread about comparison of newer to older codices to your standard "GW rules suck because it doesn't have cut-and-dry rules" meme.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, you just have to have the awkward conversation where you say "sorry, but your perfectly legal army doesn't meet my standards, have fun the way I want to have fun or I'm not going to play with you". Clearly this is an appropriate substitute for making rules that don't suck.
[...]
Nope. Unbound is a standard option, just like the option to take a tactical squad in your C:SM army. The "with opponent's consent" policy is nothing more than a house rule that certain players have decided to impose because they feel entitled to veto power over their opponent's choices.


If you're going to quote the BRB, please at least quote it accurately:

The bold is as printed in the BRB p.116: "Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

Clearly, the method of Army Selection (Unbound Armies vs. Battle-Forged Armies) is a part of the rules. There is no such thing as "legal army", only such a thing as "my points add up to x" -- which doesn't even matter because the BRB also says, "Usually, both players will use the same points limit, but this does not need to be the case and is entirely up to you."

Both point limits for either side, and whether either side is Unbound or Battle-Forged is the army selection method, must be predetermined by agreement of the players prior to play. The book says so. If you want a video game style set-up where you can walk into a room and play a game with your "legal" army without the pregame agreement of what both sides want to play, clearly Warhammer 40,000 is not a game for you.

 Peregrine wrote:

You seem to be reading the 6th edition rulebook instead of the 7th edition one. Perhaps you should take a break from this thread until you have obtained and read the current rules?


Gee, did someone pee in your Cheerios?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:16:10


Post by: Runic


 Peregrine wrote:

No, we are not going to avoid the fact that you're deliberately misquoting me so that you can "prove" I was wrong about something.


You replied to Niirus sentence which was about Unbound by saying opponents consent is just a houserule, and that Unbound is standard ( which is true, it´s not any less official, before someone goes thinking I don´t know that. ) I even supplied both your quotes as you can see from my previous post. No misquoting whatsoever, those quotes were next to eachother in your own post aswell and you directly responded to Niiru regarding Unbound. Just stop, you´re just making yourself look even worse when you can´t admit you were wrong.

You claimed opponents consent is a houserule, and it is not. This is what you wrote. End of story.

Anyway, I won´t engage this offtopic facade any further. Back to new codices and their balance.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:18:20


Post by: Talon of Anathrax


 MWHistorian wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

The old Chaos 3.5 dex is often lauded as the best Chaos dex ever. It wasn't due to power levels. (ok, for some, yes.) But it's looked back on as a golden age for Chaos players because it let them create the armies they wanted. Noise Marine dreadnaughts, Iron Warriors with artillery and other craziness filled the book. It was bursting with character and makes the current one seem drab and boring. Why can't GW let their imagination loose again while maintaining some semblance of balance? So many of the fixes are easy.


Um, yes it was. That chaos codex was an abomination, and completely destroyed fourth edition of 40k. It's still rightly regarded as amongst the most broken codices gw have ever done. That 'craziness' meant nothing but siren lords, iron warriors with basilisks, max havoks and oblits and turn one assaulting nike lords with daemonic visage. Best thing gw did was taking it out back and shooting it in the head.


I can only speak for myself with certainty, though I have heard many voice the same opinion. I hated the balance, but loved the creativity. I didn't enjoy the power level just as I don't enjoy the current Eldar power level and actually caused me to take a long break from 40k.
I would like to know how many people liked it for the power or for the ability to actually make chaos armies that resemble the fluff. Might have to make a poll about that...
But perhaps a bit off topic.


Man, I would love that kind of codex. Athough I would stop anyone mixing the benefits of two fluffy chaos armies (say, Death Guard and Iron Warriors): it should be like Chapter tactics for C:SM, in that you choose one for your entire army.
Maybe you could autoally, or mix two if you have two different HQs? (kinda like what renegades have in IA13, with devotions (or lack of them) unlocking different benefits for your army or force org)
That could allow for some good themed lists, but not too much powergaming.

Any opinions?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:19:46


Post by: Peregrine


 RunicFIN wrote:
You replied to Niirus sentence which was about Unbound by saying opponents consent is just a houserule, and that Unbound is standard. I even supplied both your quotes as you can see from my previous post. No misquoting whatsoever, those quotes were next to eachother in your own post aswell and you directly responded to Niiru regarding Unbound. Just stop, you´re just making yourself look even worse when you can´t admit you were wrong.


READ THE POSTS BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THEM.

Seriously, why are you having so much trouble with this? Read the ENTIRE context of the post, not just the part that lets you "prove" I was wrong about something. Here, I'll even repost the important context that you're ignoring:

As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level). Maybe a lord of war, depending on your play group. Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.

This is clearly establishing a "tier" system of officialness/permission where battle-forged armies (potentially with other requirements) are the default, and everything else requires SPECIAL permission beyond the permission required to play the "default" army. And this is a house rule, not a rule published by GW.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:32:35


Post by: Crablezworth


 Blacksails wrote:
This sums up my gripes with the current codices, and indeed, the game itself.


I dunno, I mean it's a shrinking community, I don't really have that many regular opponents, I don't want to offend anyone, but I also don't want to give people the impression I enjoy playing against anything under the sun when I really don't. Setting up games just feels too political now, it used to be so much simpler communicate and be on the same page.




 Blacksails wrote:
GW's newest codices aren't quite forcing players to use Unbound, but its being strongly pushed with the absence of FoC modifications and removing old themes and lists from newer codices.


I am missing the foc swaps, that's some blandification I could do without, especially as an ork player . The real joke isn't unbound, it's battle forged.




 Blacksails wrote:
We get supplements to add some flavour back in, but paying an additional $60 to re-inject something that was cut doesn't leave me the warm fuzzlies.


Absolutely not and I think that's what is so cruel about the way they're doing the supplements. The reason the marine dex had such a good reception was the same thing that's worked so well for a lot of beloved codex's, multiple factions present in one book, multiple play styles and rules. A sense of identity. But at the same time, internal balance rears its ugly head, I know I use white scars traits most of the time and that's simply because of how crazy good hit and run is. I gotta say, it's not that the fluff is unwelcome but paying 60 dollars for a book with 2 pages of rules and a bunch of superfluous stuff in terms of functionality (one isn't required to read the additional fluff to be able to build operate the army). Look at the farsight enclave book, You could literally commit the relevant portions to memory and be able to play them with just the tau empire book. They all cost a ton but the level of value varies drastically. I'm almost embarrassed for gw with stuff like the legion of the damned auto lose army,

The amount of relevant content (rules to be able to play them in the game errr "shared experience") varies drastically, and I think they've blurred the line too much between "hey, if you like allies here's some more" and "hey, here's a new flavour of an existing army that can stand on it's own because it draws most or all of its units from its parent codex but does things a little differently".


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:33:30


Post by: Talys


 Peregrine wrote:
This is clearly establishing a "tier" system of officialness/permission where battle-forged armies (potentially with other requirements) are the default, and everything else requires SPECIAL permission beyond the permission required to play the "default" army. And this is a house rule, not a rule published by GW.


No, Peregrine, you're wrong. In case you missed my previous post:

The bold is as printed in the BRB p.116: "Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

Don't like it? That's ok, play one of the many games that are simpler and don't require pre-game agreements.

Can we please go back to the original (interesting) topic about balance of the new codices versus old codices? You have many other threads with many topics to move this conversation to if you wish. As you are obviously familiar with 40k and 6e vs 7e, I'd love to hear your thoughts about external balance between 2014 printed codices versus older ones, rather than gripes about unbound (make a new thread if you really want to!).


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:36:52


Post by: Wonderwolf


 DarkLink wrote:
The internal balance in a lot of new codices is pretty bad, though. The previous GK book allowed you to take basically anything in the codex as part of a competitive list. Now, half the army is basically worthless in that certain units completely outclass other units they compete with. Why would you ever, ever waste heavy slots on Purgation Squads when you can take Dreadknights? Why would you ever take a unit of Interceptors over a Dreadknight? Terminators as troops are straight up better than Strike Squads in virtually every way.


To be fair, old GK Codex was a one-in-a-million book of brilliance. The sheer amount of fun, awesome and exciting things you could make with henchmen alone was greater than the next best 5 or so codexes taken together.

Was it open to abuse? Probably. But if you could restrain yourself from being TFG, it was quite possibly the best, most diverse and most perfectly internally balanced 40K supplement ever written.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:44:21


Post by: Runic


I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played. Sounds a bit like there´s some overstatements being made tbh.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:44:31


Post by: ImAGeek


Wonderwolf wrote:
 DarkLink wrote:
The internal balance in a lot of new codices is pretty bad, though. The previous GK book allowed you to take basically anything in the codex as part of a competitive list. Now, half the army is basically worthless in that certain units completely outclass other units they compete with. Why would you ever, ever waste heavy slots on Purgation Squads when you can take Dreadknights? Why would you ever take a unit of Interceptors over a Dreadknight? Terminators as troops are straight up better than Strike Squads in virtually every way.


To be fair, old GK Codex was a one-in-a-million book of brilliance. The sheer amount of fun, awesome and exciting things you could make with henchmen alone was greater than the next best 5 or so codexes taken together.

Was it open to abuse? Probably. But if you could restrain yourself from being TFG, it was quite possibly the best, most diverse and most perfectly internally balanced 40K supplement ever written.


The last DE codex was also pretty awesomely balanced when it was released wasn't it? Nothing really over the top and the only unit not ever really taken was Mandrakes.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:46:58


Post by: Talys


Wonderwolf wrote:
To be fair, old GK Codex was a one-in-a-million book of brilliance. The sheer amount of fun, awesome and exciting things you could make with henchmen alone was greater than the next best 5 or so codexes taken together.

Was it open to abuse? Probably. But if you could restrain yourself from being TFG, it was quite possibly the best, most diverse and most perfectly internally balanced 40K supplement ever written.


Did you mean the 5e codices, or the 6e codices?

Often, I think of the 5e books as the "best" codices, when paired with the rulebooks. However, when I look on it as a whole, the 7e codices with the 7e BRB feel pretty complete too, and it seems like they've addressed a number of the balance issues.

I quite like how in the new Blood Angels codex (I just got mine Friday night, yay!) at first glance. There seem to be many viable paths to a viable army


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:47:50


Post by: ImAGeek


 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.


Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:50:13


Post by: Talys


 ImAGeek wrote:


The last DE codex was also pretty awesomely balanced when it was released wasn't it? Nothing really over the top and the only unit not ever really taken was Mandrakes.


A lot of DE players moaned about how the codex was toned down, and I actually saw a drop in the number of DE players at my FLGS (a lot of them went SM >.<. However, it actually compelled me to start collecting Dark Eldar

Since they are going to be all nicely painted though (no shortcuts; every model, even troops will be display or nearly display quality), it's going to be a loooooong time before I have a playable army


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:52:51


Post by: Las


 ImAGeek wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.


Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.


As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 18:57:16


Post by: ImAGeek


 Las wrote:
 ImAGeek wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.


Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.


As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.


I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 19:00:10


Post by: Talys


 Las wrote:

As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.


Indeed -- I suspect that as revised codices come out, certain lists that are highly abused will be made less attractive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ImAGeek wrote:

I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.


That sucks :(

You could always try starting up a new gaming league


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 19:02:24


Post by: Runic


 Las wrote:
the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnF2IoRhqbw


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 19:04:18


Post by: Niiru


 Peregrine wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
You replied to Niirus sentence which was about Unbound by saying opponents consent is just a houserule, and that Unbound is standard. I even supplied both your quotes as you can see from my previous post. No misquoting whatsoever, those quotes were next to eachother in your own post aswell and you directly responded to Niiru regarding Unbound. Just stop, you´re just making yourself look even worse when you can´t admit you were wrong.


READ THE POSTS BEFORE TALKING ABOUT THEM.

Seriously, why are you having so much trouble with this? Read the ENTIRE context of the post, not just the part that lets you "prove" I was wrong about something. Here, I'll even repost the important context that you're ignoring:

As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is "1 FOC, 1 Allies" and thats it (at the 1500-2000pt level). Maybe a lord of war, depending on your play group. Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.

This is clearly establishing a "tier" system of officialness/permission where battle-forged armies (potentially with other requirements) are the default, and everything else requires SPECIAL permission beyond the permission required to play the "default" army. And this is a house rule, not a rule published by GW.



No, I understand what he is referring to here, he is saying that my stance on the "standard game type" is a house rule, and not an official layout as written by the almighty GW.

This is true, as the official GW ruling is that ""Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies,... etc".

However, my point was that, from the perspective of the players of the game, the "standard" is the battleforged list. Generally this is 1FOC+1Allies, but it can vary. It is definitely not unbound though.

And while this is technically a "house rule", it is a common one. Tournaments, game stores, home friendlies: all of them seem to default to this. So yeh sure its a house rule, but its a pretty big house.

I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and this is the internet and I should just ignore you... but attitudes like this bother me. Maybe it's cos I'm a grown up, who liked to play this game for fun, and so I have my own standards of fair play. I will admit to writing up a couple of my own unbound lists, but they have variety and are generally either fluffy or fit a theme. And if I showed the lists to an opponent, I'm confident they would agree to play them, if only because they look fun.

I would always have a backup list though, just in case. A battleforged one.


Back to the actual topic, I am holding judgement until after the tau and eldar codices are released. I would be sad to see Iyanden lists like mine die, as I really like the wraithguard and wraithlord models. But if wraithguard can no longer be made troops (which is the common thread for all the new codices) then they will be a bit trickier to make a competitive list with. Or not, it depends on what else is changed.



Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 19:07:33


Post by: Las


 ImAGeek wrote:
 Las wrote:
 ImAGeek wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know if it´s some cultural factor that makes it so much of a hassle to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 for some users in different countries. What some people write makes it seem like you guys are sitting in a court room or a business meeting in order to come to an understanding about the match being played.

I haven´t encountered any issues or arguments regarding what kind of game will be played myself.

Basically it´s been a choice of either playing competitive armies or toning it down if someone has a fluffy theme army going, and that´s it. Tournaments have been easy, the TO sets the rules and you abide or you don´t participate.

Again, my personal experiences from a duration of 12 years and counting.


Something I've said before and I'll say again, the fact that any kind of discussion beyond point limit needs to happen before a game is a negative for 40k. Hypothetically you might come across someone who refuses to play you, or won't change their list you don't want to play against, and we can't all be picky about who we play. So you might end up either not playing, or having a crap time because your lovingly themed, converted fluffy army is being decimated. The fact this is a possibility shows the issues with the rules as they are currently.


As it stands though, aside from LoWs which is an easy discussion to have, the really problematic lists have largely been reduced to two maybe three books. That's what's being brought up here. The balance trend has imo become very positive. If it continues then your concerns, which are already pretty minor, may become a non issue.


I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.


True, I apologize for making that claim. I think the game is in a brief transitionary phase and people who refuse to acknowledge that and insist on putting down their 5 WAve Serpents outside of a pre ordained competetive environment against an opponent that wants to play in the power context of what is now literally the rest of the factions probably isn't worth playing in the first place.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 19:13:48


Post by: ImAGeek


 Las wrote:
 ImAGeek wrote:

I agree that the balance has been better lately, although at the cost of a lot of flavour (but that's been discussed already). I'm not sure it's fair to say the concerns are minor, I'm not in a position to pick and choose games, my area is barren gamer wise, and I want to enjoy the games I do get chance to play.


True, I apologize for making that claim. I think the game is in a brief transitionary phase and people who refuse to acknowledge that and insist on putting down their 5 WAve Serpents outside of a pre ordained competetive environment against an opponent that wants to play in the power context of what is now literally the rest of the factions probably isn't worth playing in the first place.


No need to apologise. It is admittedly probably quite an isolated issue and in the grand scheme of things 'I can't play with my toy soldiers much' is a minor concern.

Yeah people like that aren't worth playing against. It's just annoying because the rules allow them to do it, and we know from the odd codex that GW CAN make balanced Codexes (although they may have been flukes..) they just don't seem to care about the game to sit down and fix the issues with it, a lot of which are fairly minor but when they all add up... It reminds me of an awesome video game that's filled with annoying little bugs. It doesn't take that much away from the game but it does start to grind your gears and it's so easily fixed.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 19:17:37


Post by: Talys


Niiru wrote:
I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and this is the internet and I should just ignore you... but attitudes like this bother me. Maybe it's cos I'm a grown up, who liked to play this game for fun, and so I have my own standards of fair play. I will admit to writing up a couple of my own unbound lists, but they have variety and are generally either fluffy or fit a theme. And if I showed the lists to an opponent, I'm confident they would agree to play them, if only because they look fun.


LOL. I guess that's me, too :| I know I should shut up and move on, but I can't seem to do that, sigh.

I believe that writing unbound lists the way you've described them is pretty much the reason the possibility exists. Frankly, I never have an issue with a list that isn't strictly battle-forged, as long as it's not too silly. However, as you say, most people adhere to battle-forged as the standard, which is a good thing, especially amongst relative strangers.


Niiru wrote:

Back to the actual topic, I am holding judgement until after the tau and eldar codices are released. I would be sad to see Iyanden lists like mine die, as I really like the wraithguard and wraithlord models. But if wraithguard can no longer be made troops (which is the common thread for all the new codices) then they will be a bit trickier to make a competitive list with. Or not, it depends on what else is changed.


Yeah, the next Eldar and Tau will be quite revealing. Wraithguard no longer being troops will probably be the case, just as with ASM in Blood Angels. But even so, I think the BA codex is pretty interesting, and encouraged me to begin collecting them. I must admit, Deathstorm was a big thing too, because it was such a great value for modelling (I bought 3 boxes), and the new models really help, too. I must get further along with my Dark Eldar before I start cracking open the Blood Angels gates, but I may cheat and do a DC Dreadnought first


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 19:22:08


Post by: Crablezworth


Niiru wrote:
Just because they now give you the option to play unbound lists (allowing for you to make a fluffy list of your own, and in theory i dont dislike this), doesnt mean that you are forced to play them.


Well if the choice is play a game you don't enjoy or not get any games in, then yeah, I guess no one is forcing anyone to play a game but, is that good for the game? Should someone be content simply with the fact that they're free to choose between not playing or playing but not enjoying themselves? Should someone be content with that arrangement? I could just as easily say "if you find the rules too restrictive feel free to house rule whatever you want" without tearing away at basic game structure. Friends who were long time opponents and trusted each other were doing all sorts of adventurous things without that insanity being codified into the rules as perfect strangers wouldn't naturally be better off starting with, say, missionary position before getting too adventurous. What we have is a legally codified ideal that getting freaky and weird is good, but only done properly because the rules allow you to apparently do things that are wrong without knowing it. I mean rules are meant to be broken, why not still have some for those who wish to follow them?
Niiru wrote:
I, and the people I play against, dont use unbound. There is plenty of room for fun lists within the FOC's that are available, and the forced limitations reduces the possibility of cheesiness.


You don't need to play against unbound to see the insanity. Fun lists are subjective, anyone can play the "you're having fun wrong" game. Restricting detachments can help curb "cheesiness" but the sad reality is if one is financially inclined they can spam, a lot, of whatever they want. Highlander to me is far closer to my ideal for the game than free market 40k.

Niiru wrote:
This seems self evident to me. Everyone moans about how unbound is unfair and is killing the game... except that there's no rule that says you have to play unbound. In fact as far as I'm aware its commonly held as being a "With opponents consent" condition. Much like special characters used to be back in the day.


No, everyone moans that their super heavy or formation isn't allowed in a 1500pt tournament and lose their mind that only one combined arms detachment is allowed. Unbound is just the white wash, the red herring cooked up by jervis as something to point to as assurance that it could be somehow worse, battle forged is the real problem. Event the most permissive play groups and tournaments generally limit the amount of detachments, essentially the amount your army can transform into a pile of stuff, a collection so to speak.

People are leaving this game for greener pastures for a reason and it has nothing to do with consent and everything to do with the quality of the game and with how divisive it is to have to "build a game" every time you meet a new opponent. The game is too bloated, too regional and you risk alienating yourself even for voicing your preferences, and that cuts both ways. People are lucky to be able to find a group or set of a opponents they gel with. A wide open rule set turns the already nerve wracking experience of meeting new people and spending protracted periods of time in close proximity into a socio economic/political minefield where we're suspicious of each other and make assumptions, often baseless because of what army or units someone fields.

Niiru wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the default position on the current rules is


The default position is be on the same page, that's essentially it. That's not a ruleset nor a format and it's about as useful as informing gamers that they should also agree to date and time in the future in order to have a game.

The end result is no one disagrees that it is important to have a talk with a new perspective opponent about "what type of game" they want to have, but lament this because it used to simply be "how many points?". It can now be often unpleasant experience.

Niiru wrote:
Anything other than this, any gamer would/should know to ask for opponents consent.


Culture is not a replacement for a ruleset. Every game is with consent, they'll either play you or they won't.

Niiru wrote:


If you are having issues, then I suspect you're playing against 12 year olds in pick up games.


I'm having issues because there's fewer and fewer people playing period and the ones that are left started in 7th and think 5 robots is an army. I've been having issues since 6th, the biggest being friends are leaving the hobby and I can only shine so much gak and put on a rosie face for so long.

Niiru wrote:
I suggest taking them by the shoulder, and teaching them the error of their ways in a calm and gentle tone.


You would wouldn't you, well tell you what man, you can speculate all you want that my problem is I'm playing 12 year olds, this might shock you, but my problem is I'm playing what they're calling 40k right now, and I'm struggling to make some sort of game out of it.

I love this game, but it's hurting and this might shock you, but it's not players at fault, it's the people tasked making rules for the game.
Spoiler:



Niiru wrote:
Preferably without looking like you're about to molest them.


I'll defer to your expertise on the matter.






To bring us back to the topic, being the balance of the newest codices, I think it's only possible to conceive of their relative strength and weaknesses in the context of a game where one codex and only one fought another at a time. It's a bit like the people who are very positive about the new dark eldar dex as you realize half their list is just eldar. It's hard for armies to have much character or identity in a system that allows for failry absurd combinations. It's all one big codex unless you reel it back and put some limits and rationalize that there actually used to be a distinction between apoc and 40k.

In the context of the highlander format, I'm stoked that maybe in the end we'll have a bunch of blander codex's but it will feel a bit more balanced and we'll see more variance to the armies people play. Eldar and tau players must dread their new codex's.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 20:29:49


Post by: Blacksails


 Crablezworth wrote:

I dunno, I mean it's a shrinking community, I don't really have that many regular opponents, I don't want to offend anyone, but I also don't want to give people the impression I enjoy playing against anything under the sun when I really don't. Setting up games just feels too political now, it used to be so much simpler communicate and be on the same page.


I haven't found a gaming group out here yet, so all my games in 6th and 7th have been among friends, or have been demo/starter games for friends who are interested in wargaming. That said, I can only imagine what it'd be like at the GW in town. Popped in a few times and wasn't exactly thrilled to see what was going on there.

I am missing the foc swaps, that's some blandification I could do without, especially as an ork player . The real joke isn't unbound, it's battle forged.


Unbound is a sad replacement for FoC swaps. However, the different FoC we're getting with supplements are cool, and really is the solution for having different armies and more options without going full slow with Unbound.

Absolutely not and I think that's what is so cruel about the way they're doing the supplements. The reason the marine dex had such a good reception was the same thing that's worked so well for a lot of beloved codex's, multiple factions present in one book, multiple play styles and rules. A sense of identity. But at the same time, internal balance rears its ugly head, I know I use white scars traits most of the time and that's simply because of how crazy good hit and run is. I gotta say, it's not that the fluff is unwelcome but paying 60 dollars for a book with 2 pages of rules and a bunch of superfluous stuff in terms of functionality (one isn't required to read the additional fluff to be able to build operate the army). Look at the farsight enclave book, You could literally commit the relevant portions to memory and be able to play them with just the tau empire book. They all cost a ton but the level of value varies drastically. I'm almost embarrassed for gw with stuff like the legion of the damned auto lose army,


I'd be a lot happier with GW if rules only books/downloads were released and at a very low price, if not free. I enjoy fluff and pretty pictures, but sometime all I want/need is a book or a few pages with the relevant rules. As an example, I think Knights are cool, and I'd like to have the rules around for if I ever one day decide to make a Knight force. However, I refuse to shell out $60 for what amounts to two pages of half baked rules. Same goes for the Scions supplement.

I'm fine with them selling a book of fluff and art, though I think they could stand to come down in price significantly too.

The amount of relevant content (rules to be able to play them in the game errr "shared experience") varies drastically, and I think they've blurred the line too much between "hey, if you like allies here's some more" and "hey, here's a new flavour of an existing army that can stand on it's own because it draws most or all of its units from its parent codex but does things a little differently".


Knights have one unit effectively, with two wargear loadouts. Scions have no new units that aren't covered in the IG book, and have some new orders and detachments that could fit on a page. I don't think its unreasonable to expect stuff like that to appear within its parent codex so that you get a little more bang for your buck.

Shame. With GW its often a case of great ideas marred by poor execution, or one step forward, two steps back. The codices being better balanced externally is nice, but still have pretty poor internal balance, while losing out on flavour. Supplements are a good idea, but are way too costly and contain too little crunch to be really worth buying.

I have mixed feelings for the Guard 7th update. I imagine it'll be mostly the same, but you can never be quite sure these days.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 21:38:09


Post by: Talys


 Blacksails wrote:

I'd be a lot happier with GW if rules only books/downloads were released and at a very low price, if not free. I enjoy fluff and pretty pictures, but sometime all I want/need is a book or a few pages with the relevant rules. As an example, I think Knights are cool, and I'd like to have the rules around for if I ever one day decide to make a Knight force. However, I refuse to shell out $60 for what amounts to two pages of half baked rules. Same goes for the Scions supplement.

I'm fine with them selling a book of fluff and art, though I think they could stand to come down in price significantly too.


My ideal situation would be:

1. Rule book edition every 3-4 years @ $75 USD
2. Imperium Army Lists Compendium for all IoM, printed every year @ $75 USD
3. Xenos Army Lists Compendium for all alien races, printed every year @ $75 USD
4. A set of fluff books that are updated every 5 years or so, at whatever price. Extra scenarios or campaign-style stuff in them


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 21:41:23


Post by: Bronzefists42


Tau can be good.

Eldar is irredeemably OP as an army and has eradicated anything resembling balance.

Eldar is not at all fun to play IMO. If the Eldar codex were to be removed tomorrow the game's balance would begin to improve tenfold.

But yeah SM is pretty balanced. Nowhere near as good or fun as HH lists.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 21:54:39


Post by: Makumba


Eldar is not at all fun to play IMO. If the Eldar codex were to be removed tomorrow the game's balance would begin to improve tenfold.

But if you did that no one would take dark eldar. Dark eldar work, because they can eldar as battlebrothers.



Are you talking about a Grey Knights CAD with Space Marine AD Centurions in Space Wolves/Blood Angels AD Drop Pods vs. singular Astra Militarum CAD?

yes or simple GK builds that take 3 NDKS instead of 2 and ally. and 2 GK libbies instead of tigurius.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 22:44:13


Post by: Fauk


I 100% agree with the OP and I have to say, that I really love the way GW is going with the game. There will always be people who have a reason to complain, but for me the trick is to simply ignore these people since it is impossible to please everyone.

I play Orks in 7th Edition and the games I had against Dark Eldar, both in a friendly and tournament environment, where the most balanced, most fun, and most intense games I ever had in WH40k and I loved them!

It´s wonderful when you have to be concentrated until the very end, when everything is possible until the very end, and when at last one dice will rule them all.

With that in mind I hate it when a new codex is released and everyone is just like: "The new codex is nice, but guess what? It will lose hard to Tau and Eldar" No gak Sherlock! But it will be pretty decent and fun to play against the other 7th Edition codices.

What I also see in this thread is that the players who played back in 3th, 4th or 5th edition are the hardest to please because they liked what they had back then, and formations, allies, fliers and all of these are just nothing for them. For me, who started with the 6th Edition, I like all these things.

I remember when Unbound wasn´t released and just announced, and everyone was raging over it. To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.

So to make a long story short, I like the way the game is going, and I hope that Tau, Eldar and to some degree even Space Marines will get hit by the nerf bat, to bring them back in line to the other 7h edition codices, because it’s a hell lot of fun to play the game right now.



Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 22:48:30


Post by: Blacksails


Talys wrote:


My ideal situation would be:

1. Rule book edition every 3-4 years @ $75 USD
2. Imperium Army Lists Compendium for all IoM, printed every year @ $75 USD
3. Xenos Army Lists Compendium for all alien races, printed every year @ $75 USD
4. A set of fluff books that are updated every 5 years or so, at whatever price. Extra scenarios or campaign-style stuff in them


Take off roughly $50 from your list, and I'd agree with you.

I don't think a rulebook needs to sell for more than $50. Many on the market are around the $25, and others are offered for free. Same goes for army lists.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 22:49:27


Post by: Wayniac


At least you hope they get brought in line. It's at least a step in the right direction.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 22:57:39


Post by: Azreal13


Thing is, most of the 6th books are reasonably well set against one another too.

Then you have the brain farts like Tau and Eldar that spoil it for everyone.

I would love for 7th to be the edition where they have a chance to get all the books operating off a roughly similar base line, but until those two books are a memory, all we have is a bunch of reasonable books and those two.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 22:58:55


Post by: Thud


I have ambivalent feelings about it.

Like Crablezworth mentioned; if 40k had been a game between two codexes, it would have been awesome and normal units of dudes would be at the centre of attention, but since this is not what the game is currently, the effect is the opposite. Codexes get toned down, but there are still abominations that make so many things flat out irrelevant. Until Apocalypse goes back into its corner, nothing else really matters.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 23:03:21


Post by: Azreal13


At least Superheavies can, in the main, simply be not played if the players don't wish to.

When the only transport in the book is one of the most imbalanced units in the game, it's a whole different prospect to correct.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 23:13:24


Post by: Makumba


Maybe the FW ones. But withe escalation being part of the core rules the ctan and the eldar titan are no questions asked.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 23:16:34


Post by: Azreal13


Of course they're "questions asked" but then, you post like you're the most helpless person in the world and are powerless to affect the world around you in any way, so wouldn't expect you to get that.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 23:34:21


Post by: Peregrine


Makumba wrote:
Maybe the FW ones. But withe escalation being part of the core rules the ctan and the eldar titan are no questions asked.


If the ctan and Revenant are "core rules" and no questions asked then so are the FW superheavies.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 23:37:45


Post by: Totalwar1402


No I think Dark Eldar was a terrible codex with a huge chunk of the army list (wyches) unusable. Whats meant to be a glasshammer assault army can only be used as a shooting army.

Plus, no skyfire and aweful fliers.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/14 23:38:34


Post by: Peregrine


Fauk wrote:
I play Orks in 7th Edition and the games I had against Dark Eldar, both in a friendly and tournament environment, where the most balanced, most fun, and most intense games I ever had in WH40k and I loved them!


That's one data point, but let me offer mine: most of the games of 7th I've played have (even ones I've won) have felt like the outcome had way more to do with GW's balance issues, most of them new things in 7th, than who played a better game. 5th and 6th had their problems, but 7th feels so much worse.

I remember when Unbound wasn´t released and just announced, and everyone was raging over it. To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.


So unbound is ok because everyone realized that it's a stupid idea and refused to play against it?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 00:31:33


Post by: Niiru


 Peregrine wrote:
Fauk wrote:
I play Orks in 7th Edition and the games I had against Dark Eldar, both in a friendly and tournament environment, where the most balanced, most fun, and most intense games I ever had in WH40k and I loved them!


That's one data point, but let me offer mine: most of the games of 7th I've played have (even ones I've won) have felt like the outcome had way more to do with GW's balance issues, most of them new things in 7th, than who played a better game. 5th and 6th had their problems, but 7th feels so much worse.


Do you have a specific example?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 00:39:30


Post by: Peregrine


Niiru wrote:
Do you have a specific example?


Psychic phase (invisibility and demon summoning), Nurgle FMCs with 2+ cover saves at all times, random objectives, allowing repair effects (and other buffs) to work on superheavies and repair a Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord/etc's entire HP in one turn.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 00:51:08


Post by: Talys


Azreal13 wrote:Thing is, most of the 6th books are reasonably well set against one another too.

Then you have the brain farts like Tau and Eldar that spoil it for everyone.

I would love for 7th to be the edition where they have a chance to get all the books operating off a roughly similar base line, but until those two books are a memory, all we have is a bunch of reasonable books and those two.


Indeed -- which was kind of the point of the original topic -- that the newer codices are better balanced and have fewer gaps that make one go ZOMG... MUST... HAZ!!

This is also one of the reasons I would greatly favor releasing revisions of all of the lists at the same time, every year, in one volume (or two, one for Imperium, and one for xenos), from a gaming perspective. Then, within that year's release, they could be internally balanced. Instead of the way we have now, when codex updates might be balanced with other codices released near the same time, but way off base compared to codices released 1.5+ years ago.

Peregrine wrote:
Makumba wrote:
Maybe the FW ones. But withe escalation being part of the core rules the ctan and the eldar titan are no questions asked.


If the ctan and Revenant are "core rules" and no questions asked then so are the FW superheavies.


LoW are part of the core rules, simply because inside the BRB, there's a slot in the CAS detachment guide that says, Optional 1 LoW.

I would agree that all FW superheavies (and other units) which are Codex are equally part of core rules. I mean, they are no different than a scratchbuilt model to represent a unit inside a codex. For example, I can think of no compelling reason to allow Baneblade, but not Revenant Titan. However, FW units or variants which are not in codex, should not be allowed in games which are strictly codex (I guess that's obvious, right?).

Personally, I don't have a problem with any FW units. I welcome them, as they are so cool just to look at.

On the other hand: FLGS house rules are weird, and some of them say no FW. Maybe it's just because they can't sell the unit, but who knows, because you can play GW units that are not normally available to the store, even by special order (like many independent characters). What can you do? World we live in.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 01:13:15


Post by: Niiru


 Peregrine wrote:
Niiru wrote:
Do you have a specific example?


Psychic phase (invisibility and demon summoning), Nurgle FMCs with 2+ cover saves at all times, random objectives, allowing repair effects (and other buffs) to work on superheavies and repair a Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord/etc's entire HP in one turn.


I'm not sure about the psychic problem, the current psychic phase seems to work but I have only had limited exposure to it. 2+ saves doesnt seem like much of an issue either, but I would have to look up that unit, I can see them being annoying but not game breaking.

However the superheavy repair thing I've actually heard of, and agree its a bit... off. It's far to easy to exploit. However... it generally adds up to over half of an army points cost, and focused heavy weapons fire can destroy it entirely in one turn (barring bad luck), so I'm not sure its overly unbalanced. Just annoying. However I've not actually faced it in real world conditions and I'll agree it shouldnt be possible.

One thing we had thought of to fix it, is that the oponent should get a victory point for every 3 hull points that is taken off. This means that if they keep repairing, you can keep getting more and more victory points. Making infinite repair not a feasible tactic in the long run. But yeh I dunno what a real fix would be.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 01:28:35


Post by: Akiasura


Niiru wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Niiru wrote:
Do you have a specific example?


Psychic phase (invisibility and demon summoning), Nurgle FMCs with 2+ cover saves at all times, random objectives, allowing repair effects (and other buffs) to work on superheavies and repair a Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord/etc's entire HP in one turn.


I'm not sure about the psychic problem, the current psychic phase seems to work but I have only had limited exposure to it. 2+ saves doesnt seem like much of an issue either, but I would have to look up that unit, I can see them being annoying but not game breaking.

However the superheavy repair thing I've actually heard of, and agree its a bit... off. It's far to easy to exploit. However... it generally adds up to over half of an army points cost, and focused heavy weapons fire can destroy it entirely in one turn (barring bad luck), so I'm not sure its overly unbalanced. Just annoying. However I've not actually faced it in real world conditions and I'll agree it shouldnt be possible.

One thing we had thought of to fix it, is that the oponent should get a victory point for every 3 hull points that is taken off. This means that if they keep repairing, you can keep getting more and more victory points. Making infinite repair not a feasible tactic in the long run. But yeh I dunno what a real fix would be.


And then your opponent with the super heavy goes "uh no, I don't want a house rule that destroys my army. Play the game".

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.

Some lists are fine. I like Orks and Sm. But to claim that all of them are balanced internally...is weak. Externally it's getting better, but internally it's just as bad as ever.

Peregrine, unbound is quickly becoming opponents permission it seems. Check out the BA codex thread reaction to people being told "you can play unbound for your old army back!" By the pro GW crowd.
Spoiler: it went poorly.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 01:59:47


Post by: Niiru


Akiasura wrote:


And then your opponent with the super heavy goes "uh no, I don't want a house rule that destroys my army. Play the game".


Ah no you misunderstood, I meant that that rule change is something we thought of that could maybe fix it. Its not a rule we play. Noone uses superheavies in our group anyway.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 02:14:51


Post by: Akiasura


Niiru wrote:
Akiasura wrote:


And then your opponent with the super heavy goes "uh no, I don't want a house rule that destroys my army. Play the game".


Ah no you misunderstood, I meant that that rule change is something we thought of that could maybe fix it. Its not a rule we play. Noone uses superheavies in our group anyway.

I'm afraid you misunderstood.
I understand it's a proposed solution to a problem, I am pointing out that it goes too far and no one who spent several hundred on a super heavy would agree to it.

If your group agrees to that, great. You removed super heavies from the game. The most my group agrees to is count as armies, especially for armies like mine where the codex is awful for representing your army.

For the record, I own several armies but play alpha legion. I currently use the SM codex, though I used to use wolves for the elite scouts before too.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 02:16:57


Post by: Azreal13


Talys wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:Thing is, most of the 6th books are reasonably well set against one another too.

Then you have the brain farts like Tau and Eldar that spoil it for everyone.

I would love for 7th to be the edition where they have a chance to get all the books operating off a roughly similar base line, but until those two books are a memory, all we have is a bunch of reasonable books and those two.


Indeed -- which was kind of the point of the original topic -- that the newer codices are better balanced and have fewer gaps that make one go ZOMG... MUST... HAZ!!



Yah, I got what the topic was, what the point I was making was that 6th Ed books started off quite well, then went to gak, so to make a thread about how balanced the new 7th books are before all of the books have been updated to 7th (should that even happen) may be a tad premature.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 02:41:33


Post by: Talys


Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.


I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 02:51:32


Post by: Akiasura


Talys wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.


I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.

Wyches lost the only thing they were good at, anti tank. They are terrible at CC and cost similar points as before. They are considered awful and no longer are used according to DE players. I am taking this from threads when the DE dex released and the various tactic threads for the army. Some things in the army improved, but one of the bigger alternate lists got removed.
So while the power got improved (scrouges are better as are wracks, so army power is not an issue) do not expect to see widely varied themed lists.

BA have similar issues. They have a crowded elite slot (11 choices I believe?) And a lot of options are weaker or the same. 2 priests only giving fnp to a unit, an elite choice tax, baal preds are now heavy, asm are no longer troops.
They lack thunder fire cannons, centurions, and many other SM choices. They can't change their army around like DA. They may be a better dex than DA, though they are the next weakest, they have the least amount of builds so far it seems.

Cc would be a theme if cc was a viable play style. Maybe this will change after Tau, cron, and Eldar get new dexes, but for now it's a non starter. Doesn't change the fact they have a very limited dex.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:05:22


Post by: Peregrine


Niiru wrote:
I'm not sure about the psychic problem, the current psychic phase seems to work but I have only had limited exposure to it.


Try playing against a psyker spam demon list that summons more demons (preferably with a model hidden out of LOS where you can't target it), which generate more warp charge to summon even more demons. Your opponent has an endless supply of meatshields and objective holders, and any damage you do is negated next turn. Or try playing against an invisible death star. You hit it on 6s, you can't shoot it at all with blasts or templates, and any hits you do get are negated by saves/FNP/etc. Is it possible to beat these lists? Of course. But they can easily produce games that aren't very much fun against anything less than a top-tier tournament list.

2+ saves doesnt seem like much of an issue either, but I would have to look up that unit, I can see them being annoying but not game breaking.


It's not just a 2+ save, it's a 2+ save on a FMC. So 6s to hit (when not in charge range), followed by a 2+ cover save. And since these are melee FMCs jinking costs nothing, you can still charge without penalty. Again, it's beatable with the right army (Tau laugh at it with their abundance of no-cover shooting), but leads to frustrating games if you didn't bring the right cheese to counter their cheese.

However the superheavy repair thing I've actually heard of, and agree its a bit... off. It's far to easy to exploit. However... it generally adds up to over half of an army points cost, and focused heavy weapons fire can destroy it entirely in one turn (barring bad luck), so I'm not sure its overly unbalanced. Just annoying. However I've not actually faced it in real world conditions and I'll agree it shouldnt be possible.


Bolded the important part. If you haven't faced it don't dismiss it. It's 12 HP of AV 13 or 9 HP of AV 14 or 12 HP of AV 12 that you only hit on 6s, and if you don't kill it in one turn you accomplish nothing. Meanwhile it's continuing to shoot you at full effectiveness right up until it dies, with Apocalypse-scale weapons. And, again, it's possible to beat it if you've tailored your lists to kill a superheavy in one turn (melta pod spam, etc), but incredibly frustrating if you haven't. A lot of armies, especially armies that aren't top-tier competitive lists, simply can not kill a repair Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord.

One thing we had thought of to fix it, is that the oponent should get a victory point for every 3 hull points that is taken off. This means that if they keep repairing, you can keep getting more and more victory points. Making infinite repair not a feasible tactic in the long run. But yeh I dunno what a real fix would be.


The real fix is the "little things don't work on big things" house rule that most Apocalypse groups figured out a long time ago, where buffs/repair/etc don't work on superheavies unless they're provided by other Apocalypse-scale units. Everyone who ever considered playing Apocalypse knew that repair superheavies were overpowered, but somehow GW didn't think it would be a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote:
However, FW units or variants which are not in codex, should not be allowed in games which are strictly codex (I guess that's obvious, right?).


And "strictly codex" is a rule that only exists in the minds of certain players. GW didn't publish it, as far as they're concerned there is only one category of 40k rules: the 40k rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akiasura wrote:
Peregrine, unbound is quickly becoming opponents permission it seems. Check out the BA codex thread reaction to people being told "you can play unbound for your old army back!" By the pro GW crowd.
Spoiler: it went poorly.


Of course people are enforcing "no unbound without permission" house rules, because everyone but GW understands that it's a stupid idea. But a near-universal house rule is a pretty clear concession that the game as GW published it is broken in an inexcusable way.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:15:18


Post by: Talys


Akiasura wrote:
Talys wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.


I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.

Wyches lost the only thing they were good at, anti tank. They are terrible at CC and cost similar points as before. They are considered awful and no longer are used according to DE players. I am taking this from threads when the DE dex released and the various tactic threads for the army. Some things in the army improved, but one of the bigger alternate lists got removed.
So while the power got improved (scrouges are better as are wracks, so army power is not an issue) do not expect to see widely varied themed lists.

BA have similar issues. They have a crowded elite slot (11 choices I believe?) And a lot of options are weaker or the same. 2 priests only giving fnp to a unit, an elite choice tax, baal preds are now heavy, asm are no longer troops.
They lack thunder fire cannons, centurions, and many other SM choices. They can't change their army around like DA. They may be a better dex than DA, though they are the next weakest, they have the least amount of builds so far it seems.

Cc would be a theme if cc was a viable play style. Maybe this will change after Tau, cron, and Eldar get new dexes, but for now it's a non starter. Doesn't change the fact they have a very limited dex.


Your post made it sound like Wyches were removed from the game. We can debate the merits of BA Codex on that thread, if you like, but there are plenty of people who like it just fine.

One does not fix an overly powerful wave serpent and gunline by giving similar toys to everyone else. A better fix is to tone down obviously superior units, which inherently increases choice. I am a big fan of this type of nerf, even if I play those units, because it makes for a better game.

BA have lots to compete for the elite spot, but how is that bad? It is way better than not having enough. If you want more elites, take another detachment. This is also how you achieve balance and prevent people from taking too many units in a disproportionate manner.

It seems to me that BA are at least competitive with the other SM codices, without being obviously better. That's a win, in my book.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:17:40


Post by: Akiasura


Peregrine,
I am not saying you are wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I am merely suggesting that you read the room. To most players, unbound is the equivalent of special characters in earlier editions.

Is this right?
Debatable.

Is this by the rulebook?
No.

Is this the argument at hand?
No.

Will you gain anything by pushing this point?
Most likely not. You have to be realistic about these things.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:25:25


Post by: Talys


 Peregrine wrote:
Talys wrote:
However, FW units or variants which are not in codex, should not be allowed in games which are strictly codex (I guess that's obvious, right?).


And "strictly codex" is a rule that only exists in the minds of certain players. GW didn't publish it, as far as they're concerned there is only one category of 40k rules: the 40k rules.


At the end of the day, you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force them to play against something they don't want to, though, right? So if nobody at the FLGS wants to play them because they aren't in a codex, there isn't much you can do. Also, many tournaments say codex only, so either you play by those rules or not at all. As unsaid before, I think, some FLGS don't want FW models because they can't sell them -- so either you abide by that, or play elsewhere.

Frankly, I don't know what the big deal is, and I love the models. But anyhow, I don't think that I can recall even one instance where it would dramatically unbalance a codex (for example like wave serpent).


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:35:57


Post by: Akiasura


Talys wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Talys wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.


I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.

Wyches lost the only thing they were good at, anti tank. They are terrible at CC and cost similar points as before. They are considered awful and no longer are used according to DE players. I am taking this from threads when the DE dex released and the various tactic threads for the army. Some things in the army improved, but one of the bigger alternate lists got removed.
So while the power got improved (scrouges are better as are wracks, so army power is not an issue) do not expect to see widely varied themed lists.

BA have similar issues. They have a crowded elite slot (11 choices I believe?) And a lot of options are weaker or the same. 2 priests only giving fnp to a unit, an elite choice tax, baal preds are now heavy, asm are no longer troops.
They lack thunder fire cannons, centurions, and many other SM choices. They can't change their army around like DA. They may be a better dex than DA, though they are the next weakest, they have the least amount of builds so far it seems.

Cc would be a theme if cc was a viable play style. Maybe this will change after Tau, cron, and Eldar get new dexes, but for now it's a non starter. Doesn't change the fact they have a very limited dex.


Your post made it sound like Wyches were removed from the game. We can debate the merits of BA Codex on that thread, if you like, but there are plenty of people who like it just fine.

One does not fix an overly powerful wave serpent and gunline by giving similar toys to everyone else. A better fix is to tone down obviously superior units, which inherently increases choice. I am a big fan of this type of nerf, even if I play those units, because it makes for a better game.

BA have lots to compete for the elite spot, but how is that bad? It is way better than not having enough. If you want more elites, take another detachment. This is also how you achieve balance and prevent people from taking too many units in a disproportionate manner.

It seems to me that BA are at least competitive with the other SM codices, without being obviously better. That's a win, in my book.


Talys,

I am sorry if you misread my post. It could have been clearer, though I thought it was reasonably obvious that anyone who has the DE codex can see that wyches are a unit entry. They are also not viable and will not see much play, making them a false choice.
Now that you realize what it is about, you can feel free to debate how the DE codex is leading to more varied armies due to the internal balance increasing. The external balance has increased, but the old DE codex had remarkably few units that were not viable.

BA having lot to compete for in one slot is bad because slots are limited unless you are playing unbound. If they had 11 elite choices and 8 or 9 in the others, yes, who cares? But having 2 troops and 11 elites....? This will lead to armies only differing in their elite units if the codex is slanted this way. It's been a big problem for any codex that had certain slots being overly occupied while others are quite bare. I also do not know why you want to debate the merits of the BA codex in another thread. You went ahead and debated the merits regardless, and it is entirely relevant to the discussion.

If you think BA are at least as competitive as SM, I do not know what to say. That is not the feeling that BA players in the thread seem to be having, and that is certainly not my read. I'd ask you to back up what you feel that BA have over SM, because from where I'm sitting the best units are far and away in the SM codex.
Centurions, better bikes, Sternguard pods with combi weapons, better special characters, better chapter tactics, the ability to move the FoC around (granted this may get taken away, but that is speculation. Accurate speculation, imo, but let's stick to the game as is). BA have the ability to give 2 units feel no pain, fast transports, and death company. It seems stacked against BA to me, though that is also because CC isn't as good as shooting is, and hit and run is an amazing ability.

I do not know where your second sentence is coming from. I did not claim that anything should be brought up to waveserpent levels of power (and if I did, please quote me so I can apologize). However, I would like it if everything in an army was at least...reasonable.
Wyches, for example, were struggling to find a place in old lists and usually made it in as good anti tank, something DE lack due to the way that the game works (large amounts of Av 12) and the DE army lacking dark lances in large numbers. Now, the Wyches lost their anti-tank and gained...nothing? That is bad for the game, no one will see wyches, and wych cults are a big deal in DE fluff.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:36:31


Post by: Talys


Akiasura wrote:
Peregrine,
I am not saying you are wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I am merely suggesting that you read the room. To most players, unbound is the equivalent of special characters in earlier editions.

Is this right?
Debatable.

Is this by the rulebook?
No.

Is this the argument at hand?
No.

Will you gain anything by pushing this point?
Most likely not. You have to be realistic about these things.


Unbound falls in the same category as Forgeworld. Whether you like it or not, some players view such lists as too exotic or niche, or expensive or unattainable, or whatever. It doesn't really help to argue against people who don't want to play it, whether or not it should be playable


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:42:35


Post by: Akiasura


Talys wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Peregrine,
I am not saying you are wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I am merely suggesting that you read the room. To most players, unbound is the equivalent of special characters in earlier editions.

Is this right?
Debatable.

Is this by the rulebook?
No.

Is this the argument at hand?
No.

Will you gain anything by pushing this point?
Most likely not. You have to be realistic about these things.


Unbound falls in the same category as Forgeworld. Whether you like it or not, some players view such lists as too exotic or niche, or expensive or unattainable, or whatever. It doesn't really help to argue against people who don't want to play it, whether or not it should be playable


I....what?
I do not even know what you are arguing here.

My point was that it doesn't matter if something is in the rulebook or not (which is peregrine's argument), it only matters what the meta is by most players. And most players do not accept unbound without permission, as evidenced by most threads here on dakka and warseer.
I was never arguing for unbound or against it.
Where did you even see that?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:45:46


Post by: Talys


Akiasura wrote:

I....what?
I do not even know what you are arguing here.

My point was that it doesn't matter if something is in the rulebook or not (which is peregrine's argument), it only matters what the meta is by most players. And most players do not accept unbound without permission, as evidenced by most threads here on dakka and warseer.
I was never arguing for unbound or against it.
Where did you even see that?


I was agreeing with you

The point was addressed to Peregrine, who seems to favor unbound and forgeworld super-heavies, which I was saying, fall into the same argument. If a lot of people don't want to play it, it doesn't help to argue that it's legal (or not).


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:46:11


Post by: DarkLink


Not only does Forgeworld not screw up the game's balance, but actually gives a lot of weaker armies some flexibility to make them reasonably able to play with the big boys. West Coast tournaments have been allowing Forgeworld for several years now, and it hasn't caused a single balance issue that doesn't also exist in normal 40k.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:50:34


Post by: Akiasura


Talys wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

I....what?
I do not even know what you are arguing here.

My point was that it doesn't matter if something is in the rulebook or not (which is peregrine's argument), it only matters what the meta is by most players. And most players do not accept unbound without permission, as evidenced by most threads here on dakka and warseer.
I was never arguing for unbound or against it.
Where did you even see that?


I was agreeing with you

The point was addressed to Peregrine, who seems to favor unbound and forgeworld super-heavies, which I was saying, fall into the same argument. If a lot of people don't want to play it, it doesn't help to argue that it's legal (or not).

Explains the confusion.
When you quoted me I thought you were addressing me.

To be fair to Peregrine (and by all means, step in if I am wrong. I think you are being a little hot headed here, but you are someone who I always viewed as deeply insightful into this hobby) I do not think he is in favor of these rules.
He doesn't believe that, as written, they have any place in the rulebook at all.

His argument is merely that, as per the rulebook, these are legal, and any attempt to deny an opponent's ability to take them is a house rule or enforcing your own way on them.

I do not have an opinion on this, I was simply suggesting that he stick to the argument at hand, rather than attempt a new one, as I'd like to hear his thoughts on the topic.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 03:52:34


Post by: Vaktathi


Oh man, seriously, psychic powers can easily push a lot of units, particularly with Daemons past simple "MC" territory and solidly "GC" territory.

Watching a Great Unclean one sitting there with Iron Arm and Endurance, plus several daemonic Rewards, and it's not at all uncommon to see them rolling around with T10 W7 FNP 4+ IWND and a 5++ invul and whatnot and it's just no longer killable.

The psychic powers really seem balanced around T4 W2 psykers. Iron Arm being 1 Warp Charge on such a model is probably fine, but on an MC it gets pretty absurd.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 04:35:10


Post by: Talys


@ Akiasura- I was trying to suggest that if we want to debate specific aspects of the new BA codex, the other thread has a lot of people making good points either way.

The new commander, Karlaen, is amazing. Reserve rerolls whenever you want them is like..... crazy good. DC and DC Dreadnought are cool, and Assault terminators are pretty solid. Lots of flamers... Dante... anyhow, I could go on, but as I'll leave this thread in generalities.

As peregrine said, and I agree, invisible centstars are not fun to play against. This should not be the standard for a new codex as it is probably one or the most broken things about SM, and adding something equally annoying is not really anything good for the game. This is why I think DE and BA codex are good, and why I am actually collecting both now (aside from cool models).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akiasura wrote:
To be fair to Peregrine (and by all means, step in if I am wrong. I think you are being a little hot headed here, but you are someone who I always viewed as deeply insightful into this hobby) I do not think he is in favor of these rules.
He doesn't believe that, as written, they have any place in the rulebook at all.

His argument is merely that, as per the rulebook, these are legal, and any attempt to deny an opponent's ability to take them is a house rule or enforcing your own way on them.

I do not have an opinion on this, I was simply suggesting that he stick to the argument at hand, rather than attempt a new one, as I'd like to hear his thoughts on the topic.


I am typing on my phone as I watch Marco Polo with my wife so please pardon me if I am being inarticulate. . Or misquoting... it is so damn hard to select locks on a phone lol.

Peregrine, I hope, will let me know if I'm wrong. He always seems to argue in favor of unbound and FW units (or I seem to remember this), and obviously Peregrine likes FW models, so this is the conclusion I arrived at. I didn't mean to come off as heavy handed, to anyone... sorry if I did!

By the way, totally off-topic, but Marco Polo is actually pretty good


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 04:48:31


Post by: Akiasura


Talys wrote:
@ Akiasura- I was trying to suggest that if we want to debate specific aspects of the new BA codex, the other thread has a lot of people making good points either way.

The new commander, Karlaen, is amazing. Reserve rerolls whenever you want them is like..... crazy good. DC and DC Dreadnought are cool, and Assault terminators are pretty solid. Lots of flamers... Dante... anyhow, I could go on, but as I'll leave this thread in generalities.

As peregrine said, and I agree, invisible centstars are not fun to play against. This should not be the standard for a new codex as it is probably one or the most broken things about SM, and adding something equally annoying is not really anything good for the game. This is why I think DE and BA codeless are good, and why I am actually collecting both now (aside from cool models).


And I am coming from an opposite direction. I find the details are usually the most important part of any argument, but that could be because my profession details with about the smallest details that exist, so that could be coloring it.

Personally, I've found terminators are pretty bad, which is a shame. They were the unit that got me into the game originally, them and warp spiders. Terminators need...something, I don't know. They have twice the ability to survive for over two times the price. They are either mediocre at shooting or pretty good at CC with no ability to shoot at all. I wish they were good, but they don't feel that way when I play.
Reserving rerolls is okay, not crazy good. In an army that wasn't marines, sure. For marines? Its okay.
Flamers are okay but assume you'll be assaulting or someone is assaulting you. Not bad but not the greatest thing either. Its very nice they can take them, though I'm surprised this sin't for salamanders instead.

If you don't want to discuss the details of BA then that is fine.

However, if you do not wish to discuss any of the details of the new dexes, or any of the points I brought up, I am somewhat forced to think we have come to an agreement.

The external balance of the codexes have gotten better, at the cost of more options and weaker internal balance.

Which...is sad. But I do not play 40k as much. I like Warmahordes for gaming more, and play necromunda for the narrative play and modeling.

EDIT: I too am on my phone, usually while waiting for a sample to run. The magnets can mess with my phone as well so...yeah, I understand.
I'll have to check that show out, appreciate the tip.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 04:52:28


Post by: Peregrine


Talys wrote:
Peregrine, I hope, will let me know if I'm wrong. He always seems to argue in favor of unbound and FW units (or I seem to remember this), and obviously Peregrine likes FW models, so this is the conclusion I arrived at.


You're half right.

FW units are part of the game and refusing to play against them just because they don't have the magic "codex" label is TFG behavior IMO. And I agree with GW that they should be part of the game, functionally they're no different than codex units (or official rules published in any other source), and it's bad design to have different "tiers" of officialness.

Unbound is part of the game, and I hate it. I think it was a stupid decision by GW, and I hope that 8th edition fixes the mistake. However, I also hate the attitude that unbound is somehow not "real 40k". Whether we like it or not GW did make the rules that way. And I really hate the attitude some people have that unbound is "special permission only" because of "balance issues", but every overpowered tournament list is "official" and they're entitled to use it any time they want as long as it follows the FOC.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 05:19:19


Post by: koooaei


I like the new codexes, really. Probably except for GK. Don't think they've done a good job with this mono-build.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 06:44:30


Post by: Runic


Makumba wrote:

yes or simple GK builds that take 3 NDKS instead of 2 and ally. and 2 GK libbies instead of tigurius.


So yeah, I have no idea why you are bringing up a fairly balanced codex going against another fairly balanced codex that is utilizing units from 2 other different codices as allies to create one of the most broken combos in the game. You can take those same allies with IG all the same. You can take them with any army in the game ( altough only Armies of The Imperium will benefit from Battle Brothers. )

Doesn´t affect GK and IG codices being balanced with eachother in any way if you can create a broken combination out of 2 completely different codices to ally with.

Fauk wrote:
To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.


Same, seen 0 Unbound armies brought to the table and 0 Unbound tournaments being held. No one has even suggested playing it to me or my mates. I think this, like many other "issues", are a meaningful/real only in some peoples minds and they basically never/very rarely actually come to light when playing. Problems that bother some at a principal level, not in practice.

Unbound and "sitting down before a game to have a long talk to be on the same page about what is allowed" -are both like this. Lots of talk about them on the internets, never faced either issue myself in practice. Again, 71 games this year. Seems to me these issues seem to be impactful mostly to people who don´t play actively or at all, further enforcing the vibe that it´s basically just presuming. I don´t know anyone who has had either of these issues, and I know quite a few wargamers.

Not to say it´s not possible, I´ve just never experienced neither of these issues when actually playing instead of just talking about it.

Regarding Blood Angels, no one on the planet has enough ingame experience to dictate their new Codex being weak nor overpowered at this time. There´s only presumptions and possible kneejerking. Just like with every release, it´ll even out after a while when people play the army in practice instead of armchair theorycrafting. To me their Codex seems in line with the other new codices, including power level. And that is a good thing afaic.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 08:18:40


Post by: Talys


 Peregrine wrote:
Talys wrote:
Peregrine, I hope, will let me know if I'm wrong. He always seems to argue in favor of unbound and FW units (or I seem to remember this), and obviously Peregrine likes FW models, so this is the conclusion I arrived at.


You're half right.

FW units are part of the game and refusing to play against them just because they don't have the magic "codex" label is TFG behavior IMO. And I agree with GW that they should be part of the game, functionally they're no different than codex units (or official rules published in any other source), and it's bad design to have different "tiers" of officialness.

Unbound is part of the game, and I hate it. I think it was a stupid decision by GW, and I hope that 8th edition fixes the mistake. However, I also hate the attitude that unbound is somehow not "real 40k". Whether we like it or not GW did make the rules that way. And I really hate the attitude some people have that unbound is "special permission only" because of "balance issues", but every overpowered tournament list is "official" and they're entitled to use it any time they want as long as it follows the FOC.


Huh, interesting.

Well, going back to new codices and balance: I think that FW units, at least with respect to the ones that I've actually seen, do not unbalance any rules. I don't really go out of my way to look up stats of units that I'm unlikely to ever purchase, play or play against (mostly because after import fees, they're ungodly expensive). I wish that if GW wanted to "legitimize" them, they would either include explicit rules in a book (like Revenant Titan in Escalation), or print something official as to how FW models are intended to be played.

A possible problem with FW models is that they may be "shielded" from codex revision, since they aren't part of core rules. I don't think this has been a problem as of yet, though.

I think that unbound *can* affect codex balance, simply because the benefits of battle-forged do not outweight the benefit of "play anything you want". However, I think it has a legitimate purpose in fluff armies, or scenarios -- for instance, a group of terminators having to hold a fort against a horde tyranids would be fun to play. Having all terminators would neither be battle-forged, nor competitive. I'm pretty sure it's here to stay, and I doubt the language of its rules and when it can be used will even be changed in future editions.

I think that the TFG label gets donned on people who really want to play a FW model or an Unbound list for no reason other than that there is an competitive advantage to do so. In any case, as Akiasura said, it's really pointless to argue it IRL when you're sitting across someone or at a tournament. Better to just play a different person.

I hate to break it to you, but I join the chorus of people who simply won't play against Unbound lists, unless there's a compelling reason to do so (like a scenario, or a funky army). I mean, if someone must be "not-quite-battle-forged", because of the models they owned, that's ok (I'm even willing to give them the battle-forged bonuses). But if they want to play a totally screwed up list just so they can have all the most annoying units all at the same time, I'll pass, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fauk wrote:
To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.


Like you, I run into some new players or even friends who have started a new army and they just don't have the right models yet. Not really a big deal. Occasionally, and even before they called it "unbound" we did for-fun scenarios of "what if....", and invariably, those armies are extreme cases. One time, we tried playing 40k rules on a mass of space hulk tiles -- like enough to fill a 6x4 table


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 08:33:21


Post by: Ugly Green Trog


 ImAGeek wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".


Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.



And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.


It wouldn't have drawbacks it would just be much harder to achieve, I'm not sure anyone really knows how to go about achieving this. The current problem is that fluffy armies tend to be point for point worse value than lists built with a more competitive feel. The biggest hope for these fluffy lists are the formation data slates granting special rules to overcome their weaknesses.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 08:43:53


Post by: Makumba


The current problem is that fluffy armies tend to be point for point worse value than lists built with a more competitive feel

Unless they are necron or tyranids which have fluffy lists that work just fine . Or better yet eldar who , to use your expresion, tend to bring point for point better value in their models then other armies.

It is not a question of fluff armies being bad or good armies being unfluffy, but GW making rules at random. Can someone explain to me why GW wrote mutilators or warp talon rules the way they did? Or how were the same people able to write the DA and Eldar codex at the same time. And please don't tell me that the rules department was pushed by the sells department. Because if that was realy the truth, the the design team would want all, or at least most, units to be awesome and not make books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.

So yeah, I have no idea why you are bringing up a fairly balanced codex going against another fairly balanced codex that is utilizing units from 2 other different codices as allies to create one of the most broken combos in the game. You can take those same allies with IG all the same. You can take them with any army in the game ( altough only Armies of The Imperium will benefit from Battle Brothers. )

Doesn´t affect GK and IG codices being balanced with eachother in any way if you can create a broken combination out of 2 completely different codices to ally with.

Because being alfa strikes and losing most of your army always no matter what you do is not broken. Going by that logic there was nothing op in revenant titans in 6th ed, because all IG players could take a bane blade.

I can't take the same ally. Centurions don't have access to drop pod. I would have to use 2 books as ally to get the same effect and unlike the GK , IG can not play full reserv. Which would mean, that even if I cheated, I would still be losing more offten.

And GK can alfa strike without the use of ally too. The only difference is that without the centurions or sternguard they don't pop additional tanks turn1.

You must have very distinct definition of what fairly balanced means


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 08:44:46


Post by: Quickjager


Which we are already seeing put into use with the Tyranids... and somehow GW overlooked the flaw of having 15 point troop slots. Resulting in a HUGE reversal of 'nids being weak to instantly becoming one of the most versatile armies in the game with what you can do with them. However as Jy2 has shown, it has given birth to "Bound" lists that are just as bad as a Unbound list. GW just can't get into balance it seems, I do admit this is Unique with 'nids though due to the HQ being the all star anyway due to its MC status.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 08:46:21


Post by: koooaei


Makumba wrote:
books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.


What's the 4-th?..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, purifiers, right.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 08:53:28


Post by: Talys


Akiasura wrote:

And I am coming from an opposite direction. I find the details are usually the most important part of any argument, but that could be because my profession details with about the smallest details that exist, so that could be coloring it.

Personally, I've found terminators are pretty bad, which is a shame. They were the unit that got me into the game originally, them and warp spiders. Terminators need...something, I don't know. They have twice the ability to survive for over two times the price. They are either mediocre at shooting or pretty good at CC with no ability to shoot at all. I wish they were good, but they don't feel that way when I play.
Reserving rerolls is okay, not crazy good. In an army that wasn't marines, sure. For marines? Its okay.
Flamers are okay but assume you'll be assaulting or someone is assaulting you. Not bad but not the greatest thing either. Its very nice they can take them, though I'm surprised this sin't for salamanders instead.

If you don't want to discuss the details of BA then that is fine.

However, if you do not wish to discuss any of the details of the new dexes, or any of the points I brought up, I am somewhat forced to think we have come to an agreement.

The external balance of the codexes have gotten better, at the cost of more options and weaker internal balance.

Which...is sad. But I do not play 40k as much. I like Warmahordes for gaming more, and play necromunda for the narrative play and modeling.

EDIT: I too am on my phone, usually while waiting for a sample to run. The magnets can mess with my phone as well so...yeah, I understand.
I'll have to check that show out, appreciate the tip.


The only reason I didn't want to do a point-by-point of BA is that it's already pretty well analyzed in this forum, as well as in tactics/army lists forums. A lot of it isn't my direct observation (and I don't even have a BA army.. painted.. yet, much less played one), so I'd hate to take credit for it. I guess that I'm one of the guys who thinks theorycrafting is very nice and all, but until you put models on a table and win or lose in different situations, you just don't know.

I don't think it's the *best* chapter, but changes like the formation with priest on charge and Karlaen with reserve units lead to interesting combos. The codex lends itself to a different flavor of play to, say, ultramarines, and honestly, I think I like it better than GK, or SW, though time, and some painted armies will tell. I definitely think it will lead to more varied possibilities within the chapter than GK and SW.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 08:55:24


Post by: Makumba


 koooaei wrote:
Makumba wrote:
books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.


What's the 4-th?..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, purifiers, right.

yeah because of the pods. termis , libbies, ndks always and purfires if there are pods. That is why I said technicly.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 09:09:00


Post by: Quickjager


Makumba wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
Makumba wrote:
books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.


What's the 4-th?..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, purifiers, right.

yeah because of the pods. termis , libbies, ndks always and purfires if there are pods. That is why I said technicly.


I was hoping for more formations that emphasized the underutilized units of the codex.

I can imagine it now, a Purifier formation
* Castellan Crowe
* Three squads of Purifiers
* Two Purgation Squads

Crowe must always challege, enemy model automatically accepts.
Crowe projects a 12 inch fearless bubble.
So long as Crowe remains alive Purgation Squads have relentless and Purifiers reroll ones on their 2D6 Hits for Cleansing Flame.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 09:26:00


Post by: koooaei


Yep, the idea of formations is awesome. They add a lot. Especially to units that happened to be a bit underpowered. A helpful rule here and there and you're good to go! But...nope, not yet for some reason.

I'm really afraid that all the cries of "OH NOEZ my rules are everywhere, i hate GW!11" might eventually put them off from this awesome idea at some point.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 09:54:42


Post by: Quickjager


Speaking of formations... I just saw a Blood Angel formation that gives SIXTEEN ELITE SLOTS?!?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 09:55:29


Post by: koooaei


DC fest


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 11:47:12


Post by: morgoth


 RunicFIN wrote:
The only issue with the new codices being a bit more tame is that Eldar and Tau are still in the old "spectrum" -and they will be allround better until they receive an update to bring them in line with the others.


Yes Eldar is great, yes Tau is great.

But why do people explicitly avoid talking about Imperial Knights, Space Marines, Necrons and Chaos Daemons at the same time ?

There is statistical evidence that those 5 factions (except IK) were tied between themselves in v6, and they're still very close to each other in v7, so why pretend that there are only two black sheep ?

It really sounds as if people are still going on about some v6 Taudar thing which has been dead for almost a year now.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 12:12:37


Post by: Sidstyler


That's nothing new. Tau still got hate well into 5th edition because people were still sore about the "Fish of Fury", despite the fact that FoF wasn't even a thing anymore and Tau were struggling to stay relevant. It'll be years before people finally get over Taudar.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 12:25:02


Post by: casvalremdeikun


 koooaei wrote:
DC fest
Can't. DC are not on the list of models you can choose.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 12:45:26


Post by: Akiasura


 RunicFIN wrote:
Makumba wrote:

yes or simple GK builds that take 3 NDKS instead of 2 and ally. and 2 GK libbies instead of tigurius.


So yeah, I have no idea why you are bringing up a fairly balanced codex going against another fairly balanced codex that is utilizing units from 2 other different codices as allies to create one of the most broken combos in the game. You can take those same allies with IG all the same. You can take them with any army in the game ( altough only Armies of The Imperium will benefit from Battle Brothers. )

Doesn´t affect GK and IG codices being balanced with eachother in any way if you can create a broken combination out of 2 completely different codices to ally with.

Fauk wrote:
To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.


Same, seen 0 Unbound armies brought to the table and 0 Unbound tournaments being held. No one has even suggested playing it to me or my mates. I think this, like many other "issues", are a meaningful/real only in some peoples minds and they basically never/very rarely actually come to light when playing. Problems that bother some at a principal level, not in practice.

Unbound and "sitting down before a game to have a long talk to be on the same page about what is allowed" -are both like this. Lots of talk about them on the internets, never faced either issue myself in practice. Again, 71 games this year. Seems to me these issues seem to be impactful mostly to people who don´t play actively or at all, further enforcing the vibe that it´s basically just presuming. I don´t know anyone who has had either of these issues, and I know quite a few wargamers.

Not to say it´s not possible, I´ve just never experienced neither of these issues when actually playing instead of just talking about it.

Regarding Blood Angels, no one on the planet has enough ingame experience to dictate their new Codex being weak nor overpowered at this time. There´s only presumptions and possible kneejerking. Just like with every release, it´ll even out after a while when people play the army in practice instead of armchair theorycrafting. To me their Codex seems in line with the other new codices, including power level. And that is a good thing afaic.


You can theory craft a game like this quite easily. It's not exactly a deep complicated game. Heck, I "theory craft" reaction mechanisms at work. Trust me, THAT is a challenge.

Instead of making sweeping generalizations about the codex, why don't you try addressing my points about it directly? Saying "I think it's fine" without reasons is like me saying "Well, I think you're wrong on every level" without reasons. It doesn't get us anywhere, and the guy who posts the most wins because he/she is the loudest, not because they are right. Which, if that was your goal, by all means, continue.

As for your "as with every release..." line, yeah. Totally. That's why you don't see Chaos marine players still complaining about their army at all, right? Or DA totally fine with their relative power level, or DE completely okay with having wych cults removed as a viable option, right? I mean, it's been a while since they were released, surely all those issues were resolved!

Some of the codex releases have been fine, to be fair. I like the SM codex quite a bit, its easily my favorite dex that GW has produced in quite a while. I use it to field my alpha legion army using Ravenguard rules with IG allies. The new SW dex looks awesome if rumors are true (I haven't researched it for a while so who knows, but lately rumors have been doing pretty well, but I'm happy its not long fang spam, the codex). Necron I am hoping turn out well, as I'd like to collect them if they end up being at a good power level (which I consider SM to be without allies) with varied units that remain viable.

But the BA codex isn't great. The GK codex tore out a lot of what I was interested in, and then put it back in if I was willing to pay more. The DE codex headshot a viable army build from the previous edition. Up until formations, the Nid codex was viewed as one of the worst as well by Nid players. It became "spam FMC or go home". In fact, this, more than anything else, seems to be the trend of the new codexes.
"Sure, you can play your old army list, but you'll have to buy the new codex and a dataslate or two".

As for the whole unbound thing, I don't really care about it and it isn't the topic at all. If it's not a problem in your meta, great. If it is, I'm sorry.
Don't really know how else to handle it other than that. It's obviously broken and a useless thing to include in the rulebook.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 14:19:13


Post by: Runic


Akiasura wrote:

You can theory craft a game like this quite easily. It's not exactly a deep complicated game. Heck, I "theory craft" reaction mechanisms at work. Trust me, THAT is a challenge.


Yet countless times when a Codex has been deemed useless in the past people have come up with tournament level builds given time. My point about this still stands, no one has enough experience ingame of the new Blood Angels to make any credible statements. I know a few gamers myself who think they have it all figured out on paper, yet you can often see it very clearly they are thinking about things in a complete or partial vacuum, not accounting everything into their presumptions. I have learned ages ago that you will only know for sure after you´ve played something for quite a while. Theorycrafting can give you ideas, sure.

Akiasura wrote:

As for your "as with every release..." line, yeah. Totally. That's why you don't see Chaos marine players still complaining about their army at all, right? Or DA totally fine with their relative power level, or DE completely okay with having wych cults removed as a viable option, right? I mean, it's been a while since they were released, surely all those issues were resolved!


I don´t understand this reply, it doesn´t seem to make sense regarding my original point. With every new codex some people are doomsaying and kneejerking. Personally I happen to play CSM and DA like I mention in the original post, so I´m quite aware of their shortcomings. Somehow I have no issues playing any army with either DA or CSM on a competitive level, but I can understand that some do as they might be limited with models or the will/ability to make their armies competitive. Interestingly DA had a winrate of 52% in a Torrent of Fire article that included the data from all tournament events that had taken place from the launch of 7th till August. I´d say that´s pretty good, and not the "my codex can do nothing mew mew" that you occasionally see on the forums.

Akiasura wrote:
The new SW dex looks awesome if rumors are true (I haven't researched it for a while so who knows, but lately rumors have been doing pretty well, but I'm happy its not long fang spam, the codex).


Now I´m a bit confused again, the SW codex is already out. Or is there another supplement coming I´ve missed? Talking about rumours gives me the impression of something upcoming.

Akiasura wrote:
Don't really know how else to handle it other than that. It's obviously broken and a useless thing to include in the rulebook.


Well, couldn´t agree more.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 14:58:22


Post by: Akiasura


 RunicFIN wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

You can theory craft a game like this quite easily. It's not exactly a deep complicated game. Heck, I "theory craft" reaction mechanisms at work. Trust me, THAT is a challenge.


Yet countless times when a Codex has been deemed useless in the past people have come up with tournament level builds given time. My point about this still stands, no one has enough experience ingame of the new Blood Angels to make any credible statements. I know a few gamers myself who think they have it all figured out in paper, yet you can often see it very clearly they are thinking about things in a complete or partial vacuum, not accounting everything into their presumptions. I have learned ages ago that you will only know for sure after you´ve played something for quite a while. Theorycrafting can give you ideas, sure.

Theory crafting gives you remarkably good ideas. Play can be often lead to false assumptions. Example, I am infamous at my local hobby shop for missing 5/6 to hit rolls with my long fangs when I used them. Pretty much every time. This got to the point where people often remarked that my wolves brewed the best beer, because these guys must be wasted. I also typically rolled way over average for a 'to hit' roll on the scatter marker, making my frag weapons very deadly. My noise marines were feared since I usually scored 3 hits every time I fired, while my long fangs were viewed as a joke. This doesn't mean one unit is better than the other (math will show the other unit is better for the points), it's just how dice tend to behave for me leading me to a false assumption.

Akiasura wrote:

As for your "as with every release..." line, yeah. Totally. That's why you don't see Chaos marine players still complaining about their army at all, right? Or DA totally fine with their relative power level, or DE completely okay with having wych cults removed as a viable option, right? I mean, it's been a while since they were released, surely all those issues were resolved!


I don´t understand this reply, it doesn´t seem to make sense regarding my original point. With every new codex people are doomsaying and kneejerking. Personally I happen to play CSM and DA like I mention in the original post, so I´m quite aware of their shortcomings. In August the Dark Angels had a winrate of 52% when the data of a few events was combined in a Torrent of Fire -article. Someone will soon bust in to completely dismiss that somehow because ofcourse they will, but anyway, I´d say 52% in a tournament enviroment is better than "my codex can do nothing to anyone" -which is pretty much what you can occasionally read on the forums. Ofcourse the data is now months old, but people were saying you can´t compete with DA in August all the same. Somehow I have no issues playing any army with either DA or CSM on a competitive level, but I can understand that some do as they might be limited with models or the will/ability to make their armies competitive.

I am basically saying that, at release, these dexes were viewed as awful dexes that were capable of only mono builds. Several months later, the same thing is being said, suggesting that the theorycrafter were quite right. For the record, your chart doesn't prove anything because I am not arguing about the external balance of the dex. The external balance doesn't matter, because allies and most dexes have a monobuild at least. The issue is when I have 20-30 unit entries, but I find myself using somewhere between 10-13, or even worse, 1 per slot. This is internal balance. I've already said that the new codexes do fine against each other, I am saying that they are very boring because many unit entries are terrible. I would love it if most, if not all, units were viable as long as I changed my overall list, rather then genestealers being crap all the time, for example.
If you thought I was arguing external balance, then that is my fault. I am only arguing internal.

Akiasura wrote:
The new SW dex looks awesome if rumors are true (I haven't researched it for a while so who knows, but lately rumors have been doing pretty well, but I'm happy its not long fang spam, the codex).


Now I´m a bit confused again, the SW codex is already out. Or is there another supplement coming I´ve missed? Talking about rumours gives me the impression of something upcoming.
I wasn't aware. No one plays SW except me on a occasion and a world eaters player, who has been missing due to issues at work.
Akiasura wrote:
Don't really know how else to handle it other than that. It's obviously broken and a useless thing to include in the rulebook.


Well, couldn´t agree more.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 17:43:45


Post by: Toofast


Why would iyanden wraith as troops be disallowed by a new codex? That rule is in the supplement, which isn't invalidated just because a new codex comes out. Unless a new iyanden supplement comes out, or they FAQ it, you will still be allowed to take wraith troops. I'm not overly concerned as I only take 1 unit of wraithguard and the only benefit I get from them being troops is having 1 more objective secured wave serpent. My list won't change.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 19:00:49


Post by: Bharring


The rule is in the codex.

And slot shifting seems to be going away.

Someone in a proposed rules thread brought up an old Windrider set up that was like 2-6 FA, 0-3 Troops. We don't seem to see a lot of those.

(Shining Spears will probably get cut, and Harlies will probably get dataslated.)


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/15 19:22:34


Post by: Las


Slot shifting does seem to be going away from codeces, however the new campaign FOCs seem to suggest that manipulation of slots might be staying in certain forms in supplements an campaign books.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 00:11:34


Post by: djm55


To me, what makes a codex good or bad stems from how many choices within that codex I can use to make an army and have that army be as competitive as any other list I draw from the same codex.

For my money, that's what makes the Eldar, Tau, and Necron codicies so good. Sure, Wave Serpents are OP, Riptides are really good, Night Scythes and ABs are really good. But look at the rest of the codex. Eldar have good, usable units spread evenly across all FOC. The only real lemons are Banshees and Harlies. Crons have Flayed ones and beyond that nothing that really screams unusable. Tau have Vespids.

I would argue that while the newer codex have been themselves balanced to eachother (external) the internal balance is really lacking leading to monobuilds and spamming (internal).

I see codicies like Tyranids and Chaos Marines and I just feel like there is so much missing. Nids have a stellar HQ, which precludes the use of any other HQ in the book. Troops wise there are dirt cheap minimum take to make room for . . . more HQs. Fast attack is basically a wasteland aside from Skyblight (which as a Formation that wasn't in the codex can't be considered in the original conversation). Chaos is in a worse boat. Horribly overcosted in most aspects with serious head scratching units (Mutilators anyone?).

Having 11 elite choices in one book is just mindboggling. Give an army 6 units for each force org slot, including troops. Make those units equally balanced internally so that each is competitive in it's own right, but can be employed in very different ways. Raveners and Shrikes are a good example of two units in the same FOC that have two equally competent roles (they aren't competitive mind you, but share the same spot and fill different uses).

I agree with what was mentioned earlier about a tighter release schedule. If the basic rules were released every 5 years with yearly updates for armies (either as massed Imperium and Xenos or on a per codex basis) then I think balance issues could be nipped in the bud pretty easily.

Finally, fluff needs to return to armies. This can be done by making each army entry viable and by giving armies unique, non-overpowered fluffy things (i.e. the Ramshackle table).

Cheers!


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 00:50:46


Post by: Peregrine


 RunicFIN wrote:
Interestingly DA had a winrate of 52% in a Torrent of Fire article that included the data from all tournament events that had taken place from the launch of 7th till August. I´d say that´s pretty good, and not the "my codex can do nothing mew mew" that you occasionally see on the forums.


No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using. If your army wins an average of 50% of its games you're at a huge disadvantage and have to compensate by playing significantly better than your opponents with "easier" armies. If you don't have that skill advantage you're going to lose games and take yourself out of the competition.

Also, win rate is a rather useless stat because it doesn't give any information on which games the codex is winning. If a DA player in the losers' bracket wins some meaningless games and finishes in the bottom 50% of the overall event those wins still count towards the DA win rate, and that's just ridiculous. Similarly, the win rate of a codex can be lowered significantly if a lot of weak players bring it and lose frequently, even if the codex is virtually unbeatable in the hands of the best players. If you want information on codex power you need to look at the top finishes in each event and see which armies are consistently winning tournaments or at least coming close.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 06:25:03


Post by: koooaei




So, what's your idea on stormboyz? Is there any reason to take them over bikes or they're just an obsolete unit?

Bikes get:
t5 up from t4
4+ up from 6+
3+ cover up from no cover
flat-out up from a run move or 2d6 run move that kills 1/7 the squad on dangerous terrains and can force you a morale check
constant HoW up from potential HoW that's never gona be used
immunity to pinning up from no immunity
3 s5 ap5 tl shots at 18' with relentless up from 1 s4 ap6 12' shot

And all that goodness for just 9 pts?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 06:54:43


Post by: Mumblez


Stormboys are more fun. That's all I got though.

Oooh! Oooh! I got one! Stormboys benefit from the Waaagh! So if you're willing to take some dangerous terrain tests you can have a 6" + 4D6" threat range with them from the second turn onwards.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 07:10:49


Post by: Talys


 Peregrine wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
Interestingly DA had a winrate of 52% in a Torrent of Fire article that included the data from all tournament events that had taken place from the launch of 7th till August. I´d say that´s pretty good, and not the "my codex can do nothing mew mew" that you occasionally see on the forums.


No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using. If your army wins an average of 50% of its games you're at a huge disadvantage and have to compensate by playing significantly better than your opponents with "easier" armies. If you don't have that skill advantage you're going to lose games and take yourself out of the competition.

Also, win rate is a rather useless stat because it doesn't give any information on which games the codex is winning. If a DA player in the losers' bracket wins some meaningless games and finishes in the bottom 50% of the overall event those wins still count towards the DA win rate, and that's just ridiculous. Similarly, the win rate of a codex can be lowered significantly if a lot of weak players bring it and lose frequently, even if the codex is virtually unbeatable in the hands of the best players. If you want information on codex power you need to look at the top finishes in each event and see which armies are consistently winning tournaments or at least coming close.


Peregrine, if you have a 100% winrate amongst your play group, you need different opponents >.< I mean, how is that even fun? Who would want to play against you, knowing that you have a hundred game winning streak? I would be embarrassed if I won every game (not that I have the capability of doing so; my friends, thankfully, are at least as skilled as I )

To the point, though, RunicFIN said the article included data from all tournament events, and (not that I've read the article) it seemed to be about a faction, not about a specific list within a faction. If an analysis of Dark Angels (or Eldar, or whatever) indicated a winrate of 90% there would have to be a problem, because some lists would are inherently weaker than other lists. Therefore, on average, accounting for both weak and strong lists, a win rate of 52% seems quite high.

I think for an average player, winning every other game, or slightly better, would be okay.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 07:20:06


Post by: koooaei


Peregrine means that if you go to tournament you should take the most broken thing ever to negate your mistakes and also include a gun to threaten the opponent you'd shoot him in the leg if he wins this matchup somehow. That'd be a good tourney army.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 07:22:08


Post by: Runic


 Peregrine wrote:

No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using.


52% is not "terrible" by any means. The only codices to have a winrate above 60% were Imperial Knights and Eldar, and in the case of IK it was for the first month of their launch, after that their winrate started plummeting as people learned how to deal with them. For a bottom tier Codex it´s actually a very good winrate. Yet another argument completely besides the point, which was that DA and CSM aren´t 100% unable to win games or unable to be played competitively, which is how somet make it seem. Never said they are top tier or close to it, never said the best way to go about winning a tournament is to go with a bottom tier Codex. It would appear you are just looking for an argument, so muted.

In any case, seeing a new statistic from the biggest tournamets from august till present would be interesting. I guess it´s coming at some point.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 07:23:33


Post by: Peregrine


Talys wrote:
Peregrine, if you have a 100% winrate amongst your play group, you need different opponents >.< I mean, how is that even fun? Who would want to play against you, knowing that you have a hundred game winning streak? I would be embarrassed if I won every game (not that I have the capability of doing so; my friends, thankfully, are at least as skilled as I )


We're talking about tournaments, not everyday "casual" games. The goal of a tournament is to win, and the only way to win a tournament is to get a 100% win rate.

Therefore, on average, accounting for both weak and strong lists, a win rate of 52% seems quite high.


How can it possibly be "quite high" when 50% would be the expected win rate if every list was exactly the same strength? A 52% win rate means that it's average at best, and average lists are terrible in tournaments. If you show up with an expected 50% win rate all you're doing is giving your entry fee to the guy who brought a list with an expected win rate of 75%.

Plus, as I pointed out, win rate doesn't say anything about which games the codex wins. If you play a 6-round tournament and go 0-3 against good lists then 3-0 in the losers' bracket against three newbies with battleforce armies your codex still gets a 50% win rate. But that's not really a 50% win rate, that's a 0% win rate where it matters and some pointless clubbing of baby seals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 RunicFIN wrote:
For a bottom tier Codex it´s actually a very good winrate.


Again, you're neglecting the matchup factor. If you go 0-2 to start a 5-round tournament you're going to play your remaining three games against the weakest opponents. This gives even bottom-tier armies a decent amount of wins, simply because they're paired up against other bottom-tier armies/players.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 07:26:34


Post by: AnomanderRake


I get the distinct impression that GW is in damage control mode after the insanity that hit mid-late 6e. They're trying to bring everything back in line so the game starts working again, but since they can't admit they did something wrong and their schedule is the way it is it's taking a while.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 07:45:37


Post by: Zewrath


 AnomanderRake wrote:
I get the distinct impression that GW is in damage control mode after the insanity that hit mid-late 6e. They're trying to bring everything back in line so the game starts working again, but since they can't admit they did something wrong and their schedule is the way it is it's taking a while.


It started late 5th, mate. Blood Angels, Necrons, Space Wolfs, Kaldor Draigo Grey Knights.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 09:48:29


Post by: morgoth


Talys wrote:

To the point, though, RunicFIN said the article included data from all tournament events, and (not that I've read the article) it seemed to be about a faction, not about a specific list within a faction. If an analysis of Dark Angels (or Eldar, or whatever) indicated a winrate of 90% there would have to be a problem, because some lists would are inherently weaker than other lists. Therefore, on average, accounting for both weak and strong lists, a win rate of 52% seems quite high.

I think for an average player, winning every other game, or slightly better, would be okay.


52% is extremely balanced. I have an extensive experience of balance across strategy games, RTS's and other games that are far easier to balance than 40K, and 52% is considered excellent in those games.

Don't forget that powergamers always migrate to the highest percentage and skew the statistics.

There were more powergamers playing Eldar in v6, there are more powergamers playing IK in v7, etc. And those people never play a slightly weaker list like Tony Kopach did at Nova (where he was really lucky to even make it to the finals, even more to win).


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 10:07:37


Post by: Talys


morgoth wrote:

52% is extremely balanced. I have an extensive experience of balance across strategy games, RTS's and other games that are far easier to balance than 40K, and 52% is considered excellent in those games.

Don't forget that powergamers always migrate to the highest percentage and skew the statistics.

There were more powergamers playing Eldar in v6, there are more powergamers playing IK in v7, etc. And those people never play a slightly weaker list like Tony Kopach did at Nova (where he was really lucky to even make it to the finals, even more to win).


I agree. On the PC, I am definitely a top-of-the-ladder style powergamer, and in the context of competitive PC games, any rate over 55% is pretty extraordinary once you're playing with similarly skilled players. Partly, though, this is because with matchmaking, good players are matched with good players, so if you can maintain > 50%, you will eventually be the top ladder player, period. When it comes down to the two best players, all you need is a hair over 50%, and by definition, you are the victor, hehehe

My point was really, how can 100% even exist in a large sample size.. because what people would want to play with you so much that you could establish that 100% LOL LOL.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 12:51:10


Post by: Bharring


As the game is more balanced, *all* army winrates tend toward 50%. Any army with a winrate above 50% is in the top half. If there were an army with a 75% win rate, it would win almost every tournament. 60℅ is where Eldar got to at their worst, iirc. And that was terrible.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 13:10:50


Post by: Akiasura


 RunicFIN wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:

No, that's a terrible win rate, because it essentially means "if you bring DA to a tournament you aren't going to win". To win a tournament you need a 100% win rate for your own games, and that means a codex that is as close to 100% as possible so that your own skill isn't hindered by the weak rules you're using.


52% is not "terrible" by any means. The only codices to have a winrate above 60% were Imperial Knights and Eldar, and in the case of IK it was for the first month of their launch, after that their winrate started plummeting as people learned how to deal with them. For a bottom tier Codex it´s actually a very good winrate. Yet another argument completely besides the point, which was that DA and CSM aren´t 100% unable to win games or unable to be played competitively, which is how somet make it seem. Never said they are top tier or close to it, never said the best way to go about winning a tournament is to go with a bottom tier Codex. It would appear you are just looking for an argument, so muted.

In any case, seeing a new statistic from the biggest tournamets from august till present would be interesting. I guess it´s coming at some point.


Personally, when I consider a codex a bottom tier, I take it to mean that most of the entries are terrible.
Chaos has very few units that are worth taking. I'd be curious to see how many guys weren't mono nurgle heldrake demon allies who played chaos.
Most armies, through allies, can just cherry pick pretty good units from various armies until they come up with a pretty broken combo and just win, so no codex is truly triforce tier (for you smash players)


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 13:23:49


Post by: morgoth


Akiasura wrote:

Personally, when I consider a codex a bottom tier, I take it to mean that most of the entries are terrible.
Chaos has very few units that are worth taking. I'd be curious to see how many guys weren't mono nurgle heldrake demon allies who played chaos.
Most armies, through allies, can just cherry pick pretty good units from various armies until they come up with a pretty broken combo and just win, so no codex is truly triforce tier (for you smash players)


Well, there's the thing of the point level and CAD limitation.

For example, when I write an SMC list, my imagination runs out around 800 points.

Because at 800 points, you have 3x 5 Spawn, 3x Maulerfiend, and you have to start taking bad units that don't really synergize with your army.

Chaos Daemons is Screamer Star without allies, and very very good at that.


Without limitations, I guess you could make some really brutal all fast assault SMC lists - for example.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 14:09:11


Post by: vipoid


Honestly, I think the power level of the new books is still awful.

I don't think any of the new units have broken the game though... so I guess that's a plus. Though, in that case, we're not exactly setting the bar high.

Anyway, my main problems are twofold:

1) There's been a massive loss of flavour. Not only were a ton of special characters lost, but a lot of interesting and flavourful rules were changed to bland, boring core rules. And, in many cases, this just feels unnecessary. It can't have been for balance, because many such changes just made bad units/items worse. And, if it was to reduce complexity... why? Surely individual army books is the best place for complexity? I mean, if I wanted to reduce complexity, I'd start with the core rules - with Fear, Challenges, current wound-allocation and mysterious objectives being first for the chop.

2) This loss of flavour doesn't appear to have solved much - so it's not even like there was much of a trade-off. The internal balance of the new books is just abysmal - with many units being outright better than their competition (GK Terminators compared to Strike Squads, DE Kabalite Warriors compared to Wyches, DE Reavers or Beasts compared to Hellions, Dreadknights compared to anything else in the GK HS slot, etc.). Same with items - so many are just completely worthless. Basically, it just creates a lot of false-choice.

Also, a slightly more minor point, but the distribution of AP2 seems really wonky and unbalanced to me. Why is it that Archons are no longer allowed any AP2 whatsoever? Was S3 AP2 really overpowered in the last book? Is it because they don't want AP2 attacks to be at initiative? Because, if so, why is the Succubus allowed an AP2 weapon that strikes at initiative? Same with SWs and BAs, which also get such weapons. This is the sort of thing that really irritates me.

Anyway, long story short, I'm far from happy with the balance of the new books.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 14:20:12


Post by: morgoth


 vipoid wrote:

1) There's been a massive loss of flavour. Not only were a ton of special characters lost, but a lot of interesting and flavourful rules were changed to bland, boring core rules. And, in many cases, this just feels unnecessary. It can't have been for balance, because many such changes just made bad units/items worse. And, if it was to reduce complexity... why? Surely individual army books is the best place for complexity? I mean, if I wanted to reduce complexity, I'd start with the core rules - with Fear, Challenges, current wound-allocation and mysterious objectives being first for the chop.


It's necessary.

It's the loss of flavor that will prevent future slowed combos from being created, as well as offering a full game refresh when a new BRB comes out, instead of patching only the few things that were not exceptions.

When the new Necron dex is redone like that, it will age properly through the next editions because it will not be full of unique wording that conflicts with the BRB.

The value will only reveal itself over time though, right now....


And the reason the more specific stuff has been moved to digital is precisely so that it can be updated more often, making balance a lot easier to achieve.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 14:39:23


Post by: vipoid


morgoth wrote:
It's necessary. No it isn't. And certainly not to this level.

It's the loss of flavor that will prevent future slowed combos from being created, as well as offering a full game refresh when a new BRB comes out, instead of patching only the few things that were not exceptions. That doesn't make any sense.

When the new Necron dex is redone like that, it will age properly through the next editions because it will not be full of unique wording that conflicts with the BRB. Do you have any proof that blander codices will age better than less-bland ones?

The value will only reveal itself over time though, right now.... Right now it is just idle speculation with sod-all evidence.


And the reason the more specific stuff has been moved to digital is precisely so that it can be updated more often, making balance a lot easier to achieve. Eh?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 14:55:14


Post by: nosferatu1001


Vipod - in ansdwer to Archons vs Succy, it gives them each a distinct role. I thought this was obvious?

If you want a more tanky, more shooty and unlocks a free slot court - Archon. Still decent combat but cant take on everything. ure melee? well that would be the pure melee HQ then.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 15:20:34


Post by: vipoid


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Vipod - in ansdwer to Archons vs Succy, it gives them each a distinct role. I thought this was obvious?


So, why aren't SM HQs subjected to this?

Why aren't some of them disallowed AP2 weapons to give them a distinct role?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 15:24:27


Post by: morgoth


[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 15:25:17


Post by: Big Blind Bill


I think most of the new codices have been pretty balanced.....but then again they should be, as most of them haven't changed all that much. Most of them lost as much, if not more, as they gained.
Slight point reductions on some things have brought the armies up to match the codex creep, and slight point increases have been used to lower the power level of some of the more competitive units.

I am surprised to see so many people still complaining about tau. The rule and game changes in between 6th and 7th really took them down. I don't find them to be particularly overpowering. They could make 'ignores cover' a bit harder to attain, but besides that they are fine. Personally I find the new SM codex to be more powerful.

At the moment I would say in terms of competitiveness the top codices would be something like:

1. Eldar
2. SM / Summoning Daemons / Necrons
3. SM / Summoning Daemons / Necrons
4. SM / Summoning Daemons / Necrons
5. Tau
6. Everything else including all the new codices. (which are all quite similar power levels imo).

The biggest change that is needed is the obvious Eldar nerf, as they really are heads and shoulders above the competition at the moment.

The new necron codex would also be welcome, as it will hopefully clear up and balance some of their rules for 7th ed.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 15:54:12


Post by: Toofast


It seems like GWs only solution to balance is to take away things you can choose and pay points for and replace them with a random D6 table. Then you have a 1/6 chance of getting a broken ability. See? Balance!


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 16:00:13


Post by: vipoid


Here's a question for everyone: which codex do you think is the most balanced at the moment - both internally and externally?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 16:03:04


Post by: Toofast


Internal balance is probably space marines. You can run that codex so many different ways and none of them are head and shoulders above the rest. They have lots of viable units and list styles. If you play 10 people who use SM, you will face 10 different lists. I would probably say they have the best external balance as well. They can compete with eldar/IK but aren't super OP against some of the less powerful books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is ironic because it's a 6th edition book and this thread is about how well balanced the 7th books are. Is that why I've played 8 different space wolves armies in 7th and they were all TWC, drop pod melta or a combination of the 2?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 16:09:09


Post by: Akiasura


 vipoid wrote:
Here's a question for everyone: which codex do you think is the most balanced at the moment - both internally and externally?

Marines and wolves.
Lots of choices and both are mid to high tier.

Bad would be Nids and BA without formations, DA, DE.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 18:45:46


Post by: Runic


I´ll take the new "blander" and more balanced codices over the old broken "flavourful" ones any day. Each army has a ton of flavor, background, modeling and list building options going for them and you can still theme your army in countless ways.

My Iron Warriors don´t feel more bland because they don´t use Basilisks or have 9 Obliterators.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 19:26:21


Post by: Xenomancers


Have to disagree about DA...Ravenwing is def competitive. I also think banner of devastation can be a pretty strong build as well.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 19:29:21


Post by: vipoid


 RunicFIN wrote:
My Iron Warriors don´t feel more bland because they don´t use Basilisks or have 9 Obliterators.


Eh?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 19:31:42


Post by: Peregrine




IW used to have the ability to take extra heavy support units, including Basilisks. Naturally people complained about this, and the option was removed. Which is funny in hindsight, because IG Basilisks in 7th edition are a terrible unit that nobody takes.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 19:34:06


Post by: vipoid


 Peregrine wrote:


IW used to have the ability to take extra heavy support units, including Basilisks. Naturally people complained about this, and the option was removed. Which is funny in hindsight, because IG Basilisks in 7th edition are a terrible unit that nobody takes.


Ah.

I was more confused because I hadn't seen anyone use 'the removal of Basilisks' or 'the ability to take 9 Obliterators' as examples of blandness.

Maybe I just missed them.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 19:35:55


Post by: Talys


 RunicFIN wrote:
I´ll take the new "blander" and more balanced codices over the old broken "flavourful" ones any day. Each army has a ton of flavor, background, modeling and list building options going for them and you can still theme your army in countless ways.

My Iron Warriors don´t feel more bland because they don´t use Basilisks or have 9 Obliterators.


I have to agree. Flavorful is just code for gimmicky, because, for instance, if you make assault super awesome, of course all the armies of that faction will choose assault. In recent codices, it isn't that it's blander -- just more toned down. +1 I and Furious Charge is no joke, but it doesn't mean that every BA army has to revolve around it.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 19:39:09


Post by: vipoid


So, can an ability only be flavourful if it's also really strong?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 19:57:09


Post by: Talys


 vipoid wrote:
So, can an ability only be flavourful if it's also really strong?


I hope that flavorful, for most people doesn't just mean gimmicky, but in the context of this thread it seems to be that way.

More generally, I would rather see "flavorful" replaced with "distinctive":

For example, Grey knights are "flavorful" because they have a distinctive look, they are low model count, psychically powerful, and each unit is greatly feared. They are, sadly, also kind of gimmicky, but that's a different issue.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/16 22:48:48


Post by: Zewrath


Akiasura wrote:

Marines
Lots of choices and both are mid to high tier.


People need to stop spreading this lie.

SM is bikes and cents, lead by <Mind your language, please --Janthkin> with librarian/tigurius and nothing else.
Tactical squads are gak. Terminators are gak. Scouts are gak. Assault marines are gak. Vanguard marines are gak. Sternguard's only redeemable quality is being a 1 hit wonder. Stalker/hunter are both low tier units that sits in an absurdly contested slot. Predator is meh. Vindicators can't be spammed without handicapping your list entirely. Land raiders are gak. Land speeder's existence is null and void by the mere presence of tau/IG/Phil Kelly wave serpent. Rhino's are free VP's. Razorbacks are badly over costed and frail. All variants of dreadnoughts are gak. Assault cents are laughable. Command squads, without bikes, are mediocre at best and horrible with CC load out. Scout bikers are a joke.

Sure, there are some decent choices, but realistically your core army is build up around bikes, cent star, storm talons and Thunderfire cannons. There are some variants, but most list that doesn't build around those units as their primary units just falls flat.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/17 05:07:35


Post by: Akiasura


 Zewrath wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

Marines
Lots of choices and both are mid to high tier.


People need to stop spreading this lie.

SM is bikes and cents, lead by with librarian/tigurius and nothing else.
Tactical squads are gak. Terminators are gak. Scouts are gak. Assault marines are gak. Vanguard marines are gak. Sternguard's only redeemable quality is being a 1 hit wonder. Stalker/hunter are both low tier units that sits in an absurdly contested slot. Predator is meh. Vindicators can't be spammed without handicapping your list entirely. Land raiders are gak. Land speeder's existence is null and void by the mere presence of tau/IG/Phil Kelly wave serpent. Rhino's are free VP's. Razorbacks are badly over costed and frail. All variants of dreadnoughts are gak. Assault cents are laughable. Command squads, without bikes, are mediocre at best and horrible with CC load out. Scout bikers are a joke.

Sure, there are some decent choices, but realistically your core army is build up around bikes, cent star, storm talons and Thunderfire cannons. There are some variants, but most list that doesn't build around those units as their primary units just falls flat.


In a high tier setting, sure.
In a mid tier setting, most of those units are fine (except vanguard and tacticals, but troops tend to be bad).

Hence me saying mid to high tier.
Reading comprehension!


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/17 06:20:18


Post by: Runic


 Zewrath wrote:

People need to stop spreading this lie.

SM is bikes and cents, lead by with librarian/tigurius and nothing else.
Tactical squads are gak. Terminators are gak. Scouts are gak. Assault marines are gak. Vanguard marines are gak. Sternguard's only redeemable quality is being a 1 hit wonder. Stalker/hunter are both low tier units that sits in an absurdly contested slot. Predator is meh. Vindicators can't be spammed without handicapping your list entirely. Land raiders are gak. Land speeder's existence is null and void by the mere presence of tau/IG/Phil Kelly wave serpent. Rhino's are free VP's. Razorbacks are badly over costed and frail. All variants of dreadnoughts are gak. Assault cents are laughable. Command squads, without bikes, are mediocre at best and horrible with CC load out. Scout bikers are a joke.


There´s no denying that Gravcents + Librarian, Smash****** and Gravbikes wouldn´t be the top dogs at the moment. However:

Land Speeder Storms having the passengers equipped with a Flamer and Shotguns and optionally a Powerfist are very cost effective units and useful in quite many scenarios. There´s not many matches when one or two haven´t brought back their points for me. And you really don´t care if they died, they always cause their points worth of trouble unless your opponent gets really, really lucky. This presuming one knows what to do with them.

Basic Tactical Marines become deadly in certain lists. Drop Podding 2-3 squads equipped with Meltas and Combimeltas can occasionally decimate the opponents heavy armour right at the start of the game. I usually have a Sternguard 5man Drop Pod tagging along, equipped with 5 Combi-Meltas. Usually it translates to most of the opponents tanks being destroyed by turn 2.

Predator Annihilator isn´t meh, it isn´t an Imperial Knight but it´s a solid antitank choice for it´s points. Vindicators don´t need to be spammed, even one of them does one role better than anything else in the Codex: A cheap firemagnet no opponent ignores and usually dedicates an absurd amount of attention to. It´s great for threat saturation lists, which is what I personally play next to alpha strike ones.

Same goes for an Ironclad Dreadnought in a Drop Pod with an antitank weapon and a CCW. One of the better distraction Carnifexes out there. With the rest I pretty much agree.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/17 06:46:47


Post by: Big Blind Bill


Internally I guess tau is pretty balanced.

Many HQs have different uses, including the special characters.

Troops only has 2 options, but both are viable. Kroot are cheaper, firewarriors can shoot better and have transports.

Elite slots are very often taken up by some riptides, but crisis suits are also very viable, and often picked to provide some fusion anti tank.

Fast attack is probably the most unbalanced part, as most of the time people will be taking path finders. All the other FA choices compare well against each other, but the need for markerlights means that they won't be seen too often.

Heavy Support Has both broadsides and sniper drone teams, who I find to be excellent.
Sky rays and hammerheads have their uses, but are not as good as the other two options.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/17 08:44:31


Post by: Sketchyfk


 RunicFIN wrote:
Niiru wrote:
 RunicFIN wrote:
... a player in my hometowns group ( who´s played Orks since 3. ed ) is pretty much raving about how he now has more good options than ever before. Do you mean "bland" in a sense that the really powerful units ( compared to the rest ) are missing ( like some folk do )?

No, it was more that they lost a lot of their flavour. The ramshackle vehicle rules... had a chance to veer off and blow up in peoples faces. Thats orky and fun, and hardly overpowered. Now its a small chance to turn a penetrate into a glance I think?... a bit pointless. And not orky. and dull.

They also dropped the fun characters. Like the guy who has the psychic power to turn an enemy character into a Squig. The enemy even gets to carry on using the squig model. Come on, thats pretty awesome. And no more overpowered than any other psychic attack.
Allright, I get what you mean. Specifically regarding the ramshackle vehicle rules though, a lot of players want less of randomness in the game and have wanted that for quite some time. Maybe GW listened, but at the expense of those who like the random stuff ( I personally found the ork random rules fun aswell. ) In the end you just can´t please everyone.
I have to 2nd RunicFIN's comments. Orks have lost their shininess (or however shiny you can get with orks). I don't really know anyone who wanted the Ork Codex to get less random. You knew you were going to get random stuff going into the army, if they didn't, then they should've done more research first.

Orks lost the real ramshackle and the proper red paint. The paint has been thinned down with gallons of water IMO. And if Orks didn't want random, why did GW decide to update the Mob Rule? It's now random and painful.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 05:30:48


Post by: hawkhaven667


The new codexes aren't needing any armies they are making them more powerful and easier to play. Also all of them are being made so that all the ridiculous and convoluted rules that makes the army / game hard to learn play and master into universal special rules or making them simpler and easier to learn and play with. Also even if a codex or unit does get nerfed it will stay at about the same power level no matter what do to points reductions.

Also the new necron codex is not going to get nerfed they are the weakest army in the game right now and every model in the codex is overpriced pointswise. Also they have the midst convoluted series of rules in the entire 40k universe. It's going to get cleaned up and polished and they are going to be an awesome and fun army to play and they are going to be incredibly competitive.

Tau is not broken at all. Unlike 6th edition objectives are important and tau suck at taking objectives. So if you can survive their gun line or about 5 turns you win (which isn't hard to do despite what everyone has probably ever said)

Eldar are still going to be incredibly powerful but that's just from a gakky mess of a codex rather than anyone who plays them. The main reason for this is because every unit if so specialized so everyone spams the general use models that are good at most things but these general units and models just so happen to be some of the most broken and frustrating things in the game to play against.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 18:42:34


Post by: Bharring


The thing that gets me about the Eldar codex is just how well written and internally balanced it is.

Most non a special a character choices are viable and have ways to really get them to do work. Most choices are between two approximately-equal options, where it really comes down to player preference which to pick, but the options work very differently. A couple stinkers, but most things in there are just about right.

Then we get to the Serpent Shield, WK, and Wind riders.

What a waste of such a greatly written codex.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 19:26:13


Post by: Akiasura


hawkhaven667 wrote:
The new codexes aren't needing any armies they are making them more powerful and easier to play. Also all of them are being made so that all the ridiculous and convoluted rules that makes the army / game hard to learn play and master into universal special rules or making them simpler and easier to learn and play with. Also even if a codex or unit does get nerfed it will stay at about the same power level no matter what do to points reductions.

Also the new necron codex is not going to get nerfed they are the weakest army in the game right now and every model in the codex is overpriced pointswise. Also they have the midst convoluted series of rules in the entire 40k universe. It's going to get cleaned up and polished and they are going to be an awesome and fun army to play and they are going to be incredibly competitive.

Tau is not broken at all. Unlike 6th edition objectives are important and tau suck at taking objectives. So if you can survive their gun line or about 5 turns you win (which isn't hard to do despite what everyone has probably ever said)

Eldar are still going to be incredibly powerful but that's just from a gakky mess of a codex rather than anyone who plays them. The main reason for this is because every unit if so specialized so everyone spams the general use models that are good at most things but these general units and models just so happen to be some of the most broken and frustrating things in the game to play against.


Bro, do you even 40k?


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 19:43:33


Post by: Vaktathi


hawkhaven667 wrote:


Also the new necron codex is not going to get nerfed they are the weakest army in the game right now
Wat?

They're certainly near the top, how on earth are they weak? The only codex I can think of that's clearly above Necrons is Eldar. Necrons are extremely powerful right now.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 19:58:13


Post by: vipoid


Well, Necrons are in the unfortunate situation of appwaring powerful, because of a handful of units, whilst the rest of the book is in dire need of a boost.

However, if you only take that handful of units, it's a very strong codex indeed.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 19:59:00


Post by: Martel732


Like the Eldar in 5th.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 20:03:59


Post by: Bronzefists42


Necrons are ace in casual mid competitive. SM is passable without taking g bike cheese as long as you stick to other SM players.

Eldar are unenjoyable no matter who or how you play against.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 21:12:27


Post by: D6Damager


I really don't understand why people think Tau are still overpowered. They were only OP when Eldar were battlebrothers. Now they are middle-of-the-road at best with riptide crutches. When (not if...) riptides get nerfed with a new dex, and they don't get something as viable, they will sink right back to the bottom where we were for many years.

Competitive play forTau has boiled down to can you kill the deathstar/wave serpents in turn 1? If not, you will most likely lose.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 21:18:47


Post by: Toofast


You must not have faced a farsight bomb with buffmander and 3 riptides. Basically the whole army is putting out a high volume of AP2 fire, sometimes twin linked, some that ignore cover and LOS and have jump moves so they can stay out of assault range and in cover themselves. My friend has a list like that and I've played several different net lists against it, the only one that wins is serpent spam. Even then, it's barely over a 50% win rate. My drop pod melta list with grav cents hasn't won a single game against that list no matter what mission we run or what type of tactics I use.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/18 21:23:35


Post by: Vaktathi


 vipoid wrote:
Well, Necrons are in the unfortunate situation of appwaring powerful, because of a handful of units, whilst the rest of the book is in dire need of a boost.

However, if you only take that handful of units, it's a very strong codex indeed.
I'd say most of the book is pretty competitive.

I think I've seen the vast majority of Necron units in competitive lists even in 7E. The only ones that immediately spring to mind that I haven't seen are Flayed Ones, Praetorians, Doomsday Arks, and Monoliths.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 01:09:40


Post by: Akiasura


 Vaktathi wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Well, Necrons are in the unfortunate situation of appwaring powerful, because of a handful of units, whilst the rest of the book is in dire need of a boost.

However, if you only take that handful of units, it's a very strong codex indeed.
I'd say most of the book is pretty competitive.

I think I've seen the vast majority of Necron units in competitive lists even in 7E. The only ones that immediately spring to mind that I haven't seen are Flayed Ones, Praetorians, Doomsday Arks, and Monoliths.


Are monoliths bad? What makes them so? Is it a case of not being as great as nearly the rest of the codex?
If so, they have fallen far from their "most op unit in the entire game" status from long ago.
I'll admit, our local necron players run either the bakery, or a destroyer heavy list, so I haven't seen it.

I have never heard of the necron codex being anything other than great, outside of flayed ones and praetorians. I don't think the former is terrible in isolation, but it is pretty bad when compared to wraiths.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 02:07:46


Post by: Vaktathi


The Monolith lacks the utility and resiliency it once had (no longer unable to reroll WBB and no more "ignores melta/extra pen" stuff), and it doesn't bring a tremendous amount of firepower to the board.

While it's the hardest Necron vehicle to kill on paper, it lacks Jink and is also the most expensive vehicle.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 10:07:36


Post by: LordBlades


 D6Damager wrote:
I really don't understand why people think Tau are still overpowered. They were only OP when Eldar were battlebrothers. Now they are middle-of-the-road at best with riptide crutches. When (not if...) riptides get nerfed with a new dex, and they don't get something as viable, they will sink right back to the bottom where we were for many years.

Competitive play forTau has boiled down to can you kill the deathstar/wave serpents in turn 1? If not, you will most likely lose.


Ideally they' d only nerf the Riptide where it needs (price tweaks for some stuff like IA and EWO). Knowing GW however it's going to be Vespid level of useless.

However, also knowing GW they will buff somwthing that doesn't sell well to autoinclude in any list level. My guess/hope is Hammerhead.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 11:41:42


Post by: vipoid


 Vaktathi wrote:

I think I've seen the vast majority of Necron units in competitive lists even in 7E. The only ones that immediately spring to mind that I haven't seen are Flayed Ones, Praetorians, Doomsday Arks, and Monoliths.


I'm dubious of Lychguard, Destroyers and C'tan shards being worth their cost.

Akiasura wrote:

Are monoliths bad? What makes them so?


Well, a couple of things:

- The just don't do much. They've lost most of their support abilities and, for their cost, their firepower just isn't impressive.

If you took a Land Raider, removed its ability to transport units and knocked 40pts off its cost, do you think it would be used?

- They're not even especially resilient. The old Monolith was incredibly hard to destroy, the new one isn't. So, it doesn't even have the 'immovable object' status any more.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 12:40:28


Post by: Akiasura


 vipoid wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:

I think I've seen the vast majority of Necron units in competitive lists even in 7E. The only ones that immediately spring to mind that I haven't seen are Flayed Ones, Praetorians, Doomsday Arks, and Monoliths.


I'm dubious of Lychguard, Destroyers and C'tan shards being worth their cost.

Lychguard are not terrible. I think they are better than termies, they just fall short of the amazing destruction that is wraiths. Destroyers are really good however. Fast, durable, reasonably costed with a good gun. Throw a destroyer lord in the front and fly around doing damage. The CCB is better, but in any other list destroyers would get taken. C'tan shards can do some useful stuff, but I'll admit I forgot they were in the codex so you have a point about them being useless.
 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are monoliths bad? What makes them so?


Well, a couple of things:

- The just don't do much. They've lost most of their support abilities and, for their cost, their firepower just isn't impressive.

If you took a Land Raider, removed its ability to transport units and knocked 40pts off its cost, do you think it would be used?

- They're not even especially resilient. The old Monolith was incredibly hard to destroy, the new one isn't. So, it doesn't even have the 'immovable object' status any more.


Man the old monolith was annoying. I used a melta heavy list and couldn't touch it at all, thing drove me crazy. If they lost the ability to arrive via deep strike and it's amazing fire power, then I can see why nobody takes it. And necrons already have arguably one of the better transports in the game...
I think it speaks for the state of the game when we see 4-6 units not being great and still think the codex is pretty solid.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 12:47:25


Post by: vipoid


Akiasura wrote:

Lychguard are not terrible. I think they are better than termies, they just fall short of the amazing destruction that is wraiths.


I disagree - terminators have delivery mechanisms, and don't have to choose between a good weapon or an invulnerable save.

Akiasura wrote:
Destroyers are really good however. Fast, durable, reasonably costed with a good gun.


Again, I really don't think they're worth 40pts per model. T5 is not especially durable these days, and the gun really isn't great.

Akiasura wrote:

Man the old monolith was annoying. I used a melta heavy list and couldn't touch it at all, thing drove me crazy. If they lost the ability to arrive via deep strike and it's amazing fire power, then I can see why nobody takes it.


Well, it lost the ability to *safely* arrive by deep strike. It used to push models out of the way, now it just dies (and it's a damn big model to find a safe spot for).

I can understand GW removing the melta immunity (it did make it stupidly hard to kill), but I'm annoyed that they've just given it to other units instead - like the SW flier and the Land Raiders in the IA13 book.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 12:54:55


Post by: Akiasura


 vipoid wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

Lychguard are not terrible. I think they are better than termies, they just fall short of the amazing destruction that is wraiths.


I disagree - terminators have delivery mechanisms, and don't have to choose between a good weapon or an invulnerable save.

We can agree to disagree. I don't feel termies have viable delivery mechanisms, save for chaos termies who are basically overpriced sternguard anyway. Honestly I don't think most termie units are worth it outside of DA and SW, but they are competitive compared to the rest.
 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Destroyers are really good however. Fast, durable, reasonably costed with a good gun.


Again, I really don't think they're worth 40pts per model. T5 is not especially durable these days, and the gun really isn't great.

T5 combined with the gun and speed is what makes them so good. They are really strong at the alpha strike, and a large squad can remove most threats. In the necron codex, sure, there are better units. Put them in the Chaos marine dex and they'd see play.
 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Man the old monolith was annoying. I used a melta heavy list and couldn't touch it at all, thing drove me crazy. If they lost the ability to arrive via deep strike and it's amazing fire power, then I can see why nobody takes it.


Well, it lost the ability to *safely* arrive by deep strike. It used to push models out of the way, now it just dies (and it's a damn big model to find a safe spot for).

I can understand GW removing the melta immunity (it did make it stupidly hard to kill), but I'm annoyed that they've just given it to other units instead - like the SW flier and the Land Raiders in the IA13 book.


That...is very lame. I can see why no one takes them anymore.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 23:02:16


Post by: Grey Knight Janitor


I think the blandness comes from such quick releases. I read the Blood Angels dex the other day and I did it in one sitting pretty quickly. I remember when I'd read and reread dex's constantly because they were so well written.

From a rules stand point its fantastic. It looks like the writers are actually communicating so we don't get another ott eldar dex with a no so good csm.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/19 23:06:10


Post by: vipoid


 Grey Knight Janitor wrote:
I think the blandness comes from such quick releases.


I don't think so.

If it was just because of quick releases, then you'd just expect a lack of new, flavourful rules. Instead, a lot of existing flavourful rules are being removed or changed. I find it hard to believe that this is faster than just copying and pasting the current rules.


Balance of the newest codices @ 2014/12/20 03:50:41


Post by: Drasius


 Grey Knight Janitor wrote:
From a rules stand point its fantastic. It looks like the writers are actually communicating so we don't get another ott eldar dex with a no so good csm.


The new Archangels Sanguine Wing Formation shoots that theory down.