This is a question that I've found myself asking on multiple occasions, to which, it seems, I have never really been given a satisfactory answer.
Example:
"Leeman Russes are mediocre at best." Compared to what?
"Tactical marines are terrible." Compared to what?
"Riptides are balanced." Balanced against what?
Basically, whenever there is a discussion about whether something is overpowered, underpowered or appropriately powered, I find myself wondering about the presuppositions of the persons speaking.
What are x, y and z units underpowered, overpowered, etc. against?
Example:
In comparison to what are thunderfire cannons appropriately powered for their points cost?
In comparison to what are manticores appropriately powered for their points cost?
I've read multiple people claiming that manticores are "good" for their points cost, but not overpowered. Compared what?
It is an oft repeated axiom of mine, which should be seen as self-evidently true, that every balance claim is relative.
What is it that you have in mind, against what are you making the comparison, when you talk about the power level of a given unit?
Are leeman russes mediocre to tactical marines? Predators? Landraiders?
DE Scourges are underpowered vs Crisis suits as a weapons delivery platform. They are a fast attack unit and should be JSJ. This would give them some sorely needed extra durability i.e. jump out of cover, shoot then back behind LoS blocking terrain. Also a tad pricey imho.
When I compare infantry, I tend to compare them to Tactical Marines, but beyond that I don't really do much meta-analysis or listening to net-bickering.
Its very difficult to make these kinds of comparisons. Ideally if the point system had any semblance of balance that would be the metric one could use to make comparisons but you cannot.
Point costs are all over the place. You have units like Wolfen, which cost about as much as terminators, but are terminators on steroids.
You have units like Bullgryn, that cost more than both when upgraded, yet are inferior to both.
You have units like assassins who cost as much as most tanks yet will be lucky if they ever make their points back with the exception of the cullexus temple. The other temples need a 25-33% point reduction.
Here is my standard of comparison:
Will (x) unit pay for itself on the field. If no, and it isn't providing some insane utility or diversion it is not worth fielding. Pretty much 1/2 of the IG codex.
I think most people will be comparing them based on similar units to them, such as Leman Russ variants compared to something like a Predator. Either that, or MEQ's and how effective they are at taking them out, since MEQ's are far and away the most common army found in the game, competitive or not.
It's pretty subjective though - while you find many objectively better units, people compare them on different levels to different things, so getting a straight answer is a bit difficult
You have units like Bullgryn, that cost more than both when upgraded, yet are inferior to both.
And that's a sad state of affairs. They added such an awesome unit, and then they made it too trash to take. The shield ones need a better special rule. Like that they cover the area between them too?
There are a few references that I use. ( none are mentioned in the poll)
1: The games I play. If it is bad in there its just bad. I tried mega dreads. Looked cool and all. But they all died before they could ever come close to making their points back -> BAD!
2:The codex that those units are in. I have 10+ buggies I like them a lot, but I also have deffkopta's and they are just better in almost any way. They are faster, sturdier, never dmg my own boyz by exploding ignore terrain and can attack stuff in close combat. This makes my poor buggies bad.
3:stuff I like to ally my army with. Ork mek guns look great and all until I look at my allied renegade guard atillery. Now my ork kannons and other artillery are suddenly really bad.
You have units like Bullgryn, that cost more than both when upgraded, yet are inferior to both.
And that's a sad state of affairs. They added such an awesome unit, and then they made it too trash to take. The shield ones need a better special rule. Like that they cover the area between them too?
It is. The new ogryn/bullgryn models look outstanding. I own them, but never field them because their point cost is so outrageous per model. Despite being what should be the dedicated counter assault unit of the codex, they only have 1 loadout that fill that niche. Slab shield/grenade launcher & ripper guns offer no bonus to melee whatsoever despite ripper guns being specifically designed to be used as clubs in the lore. To make matters worse, the delivery systems available to them is extremely limited. Meaning they are likely going to be foot slogging it across the board. As if that wasn't enough, they have low leadership as well meaning you need to attach a commissar or some other babysitter to the unit to ensure they don't break bloating the cost of a small unit of ogryn/bullgryn to that of 1-2 tanks.
I think an option is missing from the poll: Things that can do the same job in the same codex.
From a SM perspective, it’s easy to compare scouts to tacs, WWs to TFCs, pred to devs, etc. Some have a reasonable balance list of pros/cons, but others (at least historically) did not. One example that springs to mind is the Whirlwind before it had its price dropped. IIRC it was 85 points, while the TFC was 100. And the cannon brought so much more to the table. The WW was a bad unit. Sure, it could drop a pie plate of fun anywhere on the table, but the TFC did that, with more fire modes, while tougher, and had the techmarine to fortify a ruin and other tricks. For 15 more points.
Another way to be bad is to not do your job. Terminators, for example are not the tough-as-nails walls they are made out to be. Railguns don’t do a good job popping tanks. I can understand units being overpriced. They may be inefficient, but at least they do what is says on the tin. And some units that are bad at what they are supposed to be, can still find a use. Assault marines, for example are going to fold to any true CC unit. But with a pair of flamers, they can go bully backfield campers; plenty of non-assault units out there need killing.
I try not to compare across codexes. External power levels are wonky. Direct comparisons are a little more legit, i.e. dreadnoughts from different chapters. While some of those are artifacts of the print order, some represent strengths/weakness of their codex.
I can understand the need to compare to the top end. If I’m playing at that level, I should. "Does this unit meet the gold standard? Am I going to replace the overpowered stuff in my list with it?” For people squeezing every drop of power out of their lists, this is the only test that maters. On the flip side, does a unit make a difference against the OP stuff? Can it deal with scatbikes/WKs better then what I already have? If not, why bother. I don’t play at this level, so don’t need to deal with it, but understand the POV.
Suppose you are an ork player and you would like to know shoota boyz are any goods. Well there is little point in comparing them with anything in the list now is it. Sure you can say that SM tactical are better but whats the point you can't buy them in an ork army. The only reason to compare stuff with SM's is if you are deciding to switch to playing them or not.
It's so circumstantial but it's a good topic. For troops I'd compare to tac marines if it's a codex/unit I'm unfamiliar with just to get a general idea of how efficient the unit is, but when it comes to making a list I'd just compare with the other troops available. I've seen it suggested plenty of times that CSM troop units aren't worth taking because tac marines are better, but so what? You can't have SMtac squads instead so you can only compare to cultists, cult troops and sometimes chosen to determine your CSM troops selections (though more often than not fluff decides my choice of troop units more than anything else)
In terms of overall power level I'd rate a unit on its own specific merits and then also what it costs vs a similar unit (any codex) that has the same role. Flesh hounds never come out badly compared to other fast CC pressure units, neither do screamers or ork bikes. Warp talons don't compare favourably with any of those units, and more importantly don't compare well with chaos bikes and raptors
It gets harder when a unit requires support from other units to function (non synapse tyranid creatures, low Ld conscripts) or supports other important parts of your army (HQ's sharing special rules, venomthropes, meks). Then it isn't so easy to compare. Part of why I love this game so much- a unit that seems bad on paper and doesn't hold up well against similar units in a vacuum may have an important purpose in your own list and become a decent pick. I think there are few things more satisfying in this game than surprising an opponent with a unit they think is bad because of common wisdom
Terrible poll is terrible, but what else is new with OP.
Comparisons are relative. There are units that are universally good, and some that are situationally good, and yet others that are only relatively good while being relatively bad based on the comparison point, which is fluid and varies person by person and situation by situation.
So what are these 'mid tier' options? They're entirely subjective! Are Hive Tyrants mid tier? Are Thunder wolves? Wulfen? Dreadnoughts? Riptides? You'll get people arguing both sides for each if these units being mid tier, so we should really get some more detail, Traditio
Wait, Bullgryns and Leman Russes are bad? Those are usually some of the toughest units when I face Guard lists. Bullgryns with a Priest are particularly tough for me.
People in my area generally compare all mid tier shooting to scat bikes, mobile units to spiders, flyers to Crimson hunters, and gargantuans to wraithknights. Essentially, people in my area hate my eldar(only eldar player around) xD I personally think there are other cheese(most other 7.5 codexes) but other people here love to hate on them space elves
I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole
Wat
Nothing to see here, just a standard denialist, move along.
Hahaha I personally have no problem against even the new SM gear and rules mainly due to me playing slanneshi daemon gak. But I just thought it was an amusing quote as I can't throw a rock without hitting someone complaining about how OPSM are
I always compare it to a similar unit elsewhere in the game. For example, comparing a chaos cultist to a guardsmen, or a tactical marine to a chaos space marine.
I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole
Wat
Nothing to see here, just a standard denialist, move along.
I thought I explained this very comprehensively in the previous thread, but it seems like people still assume 'superfriends' is the same as the overall strength of the codex.
I guess we'd better nerf CSM then, just look at how strong Belakor is.
I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole
Wat
Nothing to see here, just a standard denialist, move along.
I thought I explained this very comprehensively in the previous thread, but it seems like people still assume 'superfriends' is the same as the overall strength of the codex.
I guess we'd better nerf CSM then, just look at how strong Belakor is.
Space Marines have many powerful combos and units, so yes the army strength is high. You could say the same about any army; if you ignore the powerful stuff the army is weak...
If we only take the absolute top of each codex, the Marine options are competetive - well, if you take DA/SW allies, anyway - but you will notice that my initial post said 'as a whole' which is not to be disregarded.
If we only take the absolute top of each codex, the Marine options are competetive - well, if you take DA/SW allies, anyway - but you will notice that my initial post said 'as a whole' which is not to be disregarded.
There are two terminator units (excluding HQs), one tactical marine unit, one predator, and three types of land raider... But how many units are there in the codex? Pretty sure those listed units don't make up all of the codex.
Space Marines rely on the extra special stiff they get given because GW wants the players to feel extra special, such as Death from the Skies, ally shenanigans, so many formations, extra rules just because and many game breaking stuff.
Necrons aren't that great without the Decurion, so no, I don't think they're powerful overall.
Elder? Without their stronger stuff they're pretty fragile, so pretty easy to kill.
There are two terminator units (excluding HQs), one tactical marine unit, one predator, and three types of land raider...
Vanguard Veterans. Scouts are not good either. Land speeders are unimpressive, as is the Whirlwind. The AA tanks are mediocre at best. The Razorback is only useful in Gladius. Sternguard would be horrid without drop pods, and even with them they are expensive for a suicide unit. Bikes are rather inefficient, only grav command squads on bikes have any noteworthy damage output (and they are locked behind a captain wall).
Most of the meat of SM codex is barely any better than the CSM equivalents, and CSM are absolute bottom tier.
Space Marines rely on the extra special stiff they get given because GW wants the players to feel extra special, such as Death from the Skies, ally shenanigans, so many formations, extra rules just because and many game breaking stuff.
Allies hardly counts. SM have the same allies as the rest of the Imperium. Does anyone actually use DFTS?
Necrons aren't that great without the Decurion, so no, I don't think they're powerful overall.
Not at all. Even if we exclude their strongest stuff, like Wraiths, the rest of the codex is still solid. They have a couple of dud units (C'tan shard) but they are few in number and even the C'tan shard is really not worse than most of Codex: SM.
Elder? Without their stronger stuff they're pretty fragile, so pretty easy to kill.
The Eldar codex is perhaps the most internally balanced codex in the game. Take away Bikers, Librarians, Centurions and Drop Pods from Marines and they are as helpless as a turtle flailing on its back. Take away Jetbikes, Farseers, Wraithguard and Wraithknights from Eldar and they still have a powerful codex. Warp Spiders, Fire Prisms, War Walkers, Autarchs...
Even Eldar 'dud' units, such as Banshees and Storm Guardians, have jobs they can do quite well (Banshee fragility is well balanced out by their speed, Overwatch immunity, and high initiative). They are niche units and require working together with the rest of the Codex, but that does not make them bad.
Compared to other units in a similar battlefield role and FOC slot.
Comparing outside of battlegroups (a codex and its BB allies) doesn't seem super productive to me beyond just complaining. (Compare Archons to other HQ leaders and weep.)
Nevelon wrote: I think an option is missing from the poll: Things that can do the same job in the same codex.
From a SM perspective, it’s easy to compare scouts to tacs, WWs to TFCs, pred to devs, etc. Some have a reasonable balance list of pros/cons, but others (at least historically) did not. One example that springs to mind is the Whirlwind before it had its price dropped. IIRC it was 85 points, while the TFC was 100. And the cannon brought so much more to the table. The WW was a bad unit. Sure, it could drop a pie plate of fun anywhere on the table, but the TFC did that, with more fire modes, while tougher, and had the techmarine to fortify a ruin and other tricks. For 15 more points.
This seems to be a common answer in the thread. "X unit is bad in comparison to this other unit, y, which fills a similar role (whether it be in the same codex or not)."
But how does this justify the claim that x is a bad unit? All that you're allowed to derive from this is that y is better than x.
"At 100 points, the thunderfire cannon is better than an 85 points whirlwind."
What entitles you to derive from this that an 85 point whirlwind is bad? You could just as easily argue that the thunderfire canon is OP at 100 points.
In fact, not only can you argue this, but this is a common opinion.
So basically, answers like this are just pushing back the question.
"Whirlwinds are bad compared to thunderfire cannons if whirlwinds cost 85 points."
Ok. But what are you comparing thunderfire cannons to? Why aren't 85 point whirlwinds fine, and 100 points thunderfire cannons OP?
Because Thunder fire Cannons aren't destroying much for 100 points and are only somewhat durable whereas a Whirlwind at 85 kills way less and has way less durability, which would therefore make it garbage.
If a thunderfire cannon kills 5 naked sternguard, it's more than made up its points.
If it kills 8 naked tacticals, it's more than made up its points.
If it kills 20 naked guardsmen, it's made up its points.
2. They aren't destroying much in what contexts?
If your opponent is running foot-slogging infantry, thunderfire cannons and whirlwinds will both lay waste.
for 100 points and are only somewhat durable
Only somewhat durable?
Again, what meta are you assuming?
A thunderfire cannon fires shots at 60 inch range and has the barrage special rule. And it's not an extraordinarily large model, is it? And even if you do fire on the thunderfire cannon at range, it's T7, 2 wounds with a 3+ armor save. The techmarine has a 2+ armor save.
Are thunderfire cannons fragile when they're facing up against tactical marines? Guardsmen? Chaos cultists?
I thought most people have established that power per unit is established based on whatever meta you're surrounded by; it just happens that most metas share something in common based on units and codexes that fair the best most of the time, and how they fair going against MEQ's, the most popular armies in probably 99% of 40k gaming communities, competitive meta or not. I think most people assume that the meta we compare by is whatever is most agreed on globally, which is currently SM, Eldar and Tau at the top of the spectrum.
General Annoyance wrote: I thought most people have established that power per unit is established based on whatever meta you're surrounded by; it just happens that most metas share something in common based on units and codexes that fair the best most of the time, and how they fair going against MEQ's, the most popular armies in probably 99% of 40k gaming communities, competitive meta or not. I think most people assume that the meta we compare by is whatever is most agreed on globally, which is currently SM, Eldar and Tau at the top of the spectrum.
And I'm assuming you mean SM cheese, Eldar cheese and Tau cheese.
So if that's what you mean, what people are actually saying is:
"Leeman russes are underpowered compared to wave serpents, scatter bikes, wraithknights, wraithguard, etc."
What people are actually saying is:
"Manticores are balanced relative to thunderfire cannons."
But I have two points to make about this:
1. This only proves that the 40k community basically suffers from split personality. They will simultaneously say that wraithknights are OP, but at the same time complain that leeman russ battle tanks are underpowered. Why? Because they're not as good as wraithknights (or whatever other OP bull gak).
It's utterly bizarre.
It's just like the fact that people will complain about OP cheese and say that it should either be nerfed, removed from the game, or whatever, but when you go over to the list building section of dakka..."You're not running the OP cheese? WHY NOT?!?!?!?!"
2. Again, why should we make our assessments against OP bull gak? Why shouldn't I think that leeman russes are well balanced (I don't; I think that the ability to spam leeman russes is imbalanced, for one thing), but wraithknights (or whatever comparable model) is OP and needs to be nerfed?
1. This only proves that the 40k community basically suffers from split personality. They will simultaneously say that wraithknights are OP, but at the same time complain that leeman russ battle tanks are underpowered. Why? Because they're not as good as wraithknights (or whatever other OP bull gak).
The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be very overpowered, while something else can be very underpowered. Its not a black and white issue.
It's utterly bizarre.
No, it really isn't. Your poor understanding of game design and balance is utterly bizarre.
Blacksail wrote:The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be very overpowered, while something else can be very underpowered. Its not a black and white issue.
Yes, they are:
Overpowered means "too good."
Underpowered means "not good enough."
If you're complaining that x is underpowered because it's not as good as y, because y is overpowered, then what you are saying is:
"x isn't good enough. Why? Because it's not as good as the thing that's better than it should be."
Which is, of course, just silly.
No, it really isn't. Your poor understanding of game design and balance is utterly bizarre.
pm713 wrote: It's almost like the community with "split personality" is actually a very large amount of people who all have different opinions.
I know a guy who runs white scars grav biker spam, uses both the death from the skies supplement and the relics, etc. from the angels of death supplement. He uses eye of the hunter in the squad with a chapter master and grav command squad on bikes (don't worry; he runs Khan on a bike too!).
I think you're overshooting the point slightly Traditio; a Wraithknight is almost double the value of a standard Leman Russ Battle Tank, so comparison between them is silly by anyone's standards. It's more along the lines of people looking at top tier armies and their units, looking at theirs and saying "these two have similar values/battlefield roles, yet one is objectively better than the other. Why?".
People compare to the competitive armies because that is usually what most people are playing, at least in a competitive meta. If you aren't part of a competitive meta, chances are not a single word of this matters to you.
I've always considered Leman Russ squads to be thematic to what IG are all about, but in terms of a game it can skewer people who don't have tailored lists to deal with them all at once. Unbound doesn't help this much either.
40K is just a mess in terms of it's gameplay, balance, meta, organisation and things that make it a fun game for all parties. Can't we all agree on this after years of discussion and put it to bed? No discussion about balance, unit hot or not, or why x current meta exists has ever produced anything we can work on other than "you have 3 options; play in a different environment, play with your mates and house rules, or don't play at all"
Overpowered means "too good."
Underpowered means "not good enough."
If you're complaining that x underpowered because it's not as good as y, because y is overpowered, then what you are saying is:
"x isn't good enough. Why? Because it's not as good as the thing that's better than it should be."
Which is, of course, just silly.
If everything is overpowered, nothing is. And vice-versa. Or a middle ground somewhere in between. Plus, you're also doing the classic move of taking every opinion of every poster and merging them into one contradictory statement to make a point against something no one has seriously said. Its almost as if a community is a large gathering of individuals and not a literal hive mind.
Stop looking for the simple answer to a complicated question.
Rule 1.
Pointing out your poor understanding of a concept based on numerous interactions while also having these things explained to you in detail and at great length by dozens of users is not a personal insult. The same way telling you you're wrong is not a personal insult. You don't seem to learn from any of these discussions and I can bring up dozens of examples of your poor understanding of many of these concepts and ideas and how to apply them.
And honestly, I don't know what you're expecting to get out of this. Its a complicated question with no right or wrong answer that can't be boiled down to a one line response. It literally requires going into a detailed breakdown of how one would balance a game from the ground up, which of course leads to issues when discussing an existing game with serious balance issues.
*Edit* I also neglected to mention the continued tradition of terrible polls. Seriously, how hard is it to have a sensible poll, seeing as you're such a fan of trotting out poll numbers (or denying them, as you see fit).
*Further edit* My user name has an 's' on the end. I kindly ask it be included when quoting me.
pm713 wrote: It's almost like the community with "split personality" is actually a very large amount of people who all have different opinions.
I know a guy who runs white scars grav biker spam, uses both the death from the skies supplement and the relics, etc. from the angels of death supplement. He uses eye of the hunter in the squad with a chapter master and grav command squad on bikes (don't worry; he runs Khan on a bike too!).
Nevelon wrote: I think an option is missing from the poll: Things that can do the same job in the same codex.
From a SM perspective, it’s easy to compare scouts to tacs, WWs to TFCs, pred to devs, etc. Some have a reasonable balance list of pros/cons, but others (at least historically) did not. One example that springs to mind is the Whirlwind before it had its price dropped. IIRC it was 85 points, while the TFC was 100. And the cannon brought so much more to the table. The WW was a bad unit. Sure, it could drop a pie plate of fun anywhere on the table, but the TFC did that, with more fire modes, while tougher, and had the techmarine to fortify a ruin and other tricks. For 15 more points.
This seems to be a common answer in the thread. "X unit is bad in comparison to this other unit, y, which fills a similar role (whether it be in the same codex or not)."
But how does this justify the claim that x is a bad unit? All that you're allowed to derive from this is that y is better than x.
"At 100 points, the thunderfire cannon is better than an 85 points whirlwind."
What entitles you to derive from this that an 85 point whirlwind is bad? You could just as easily argue that the thunderfire canon is OP at 100 points.
In fact, not only can you argue this, but this is a common opinion.
So basically, answers like this are just pushing back the question.
"Whirlwinds are bad compared to thunderfire cannons if whirlwinds cost 85 points."
Ok. But what are you comparing thunderfire cannons to? Why aren't 85 point whirlwinds fine, and 100 points thunderfire cannons OP?
You start by comparing one unit to another. Then keep comparing units to each other until you get a large enough sample size to draw general conclusions. Now this can be difficult, because units are good at different things, so there is a lot of subjectivity in there. We are not just comparing how many points of X they can kill, but how mobile they are, how tough they are, etc. And once you make enough comparisons, you can figure out where on the bad-good spectrum they fall. In an ideal world, that spectrum looks like a bell curve. Most units in the balanced middle, with a few outliers on either end. In your poll options, this is the judge by the mid range, and how I generally view things.
In the WW example, the fact that it is 65 points in the current codex lends some weight to the fact that it was bad at 85. Of course, TFCs got better and their points stayed the same, so there is that.
Compounding judging units individually against each other are formations. Suddenly bad/mediocre units can gain buffs, or be key parts in combos. And issues of opportunity cost of FOCs are changed.
Traditio wrote: It is an oft repeated axiom of mine, which should be seen as self-evidently true, that every balance claim is relative.
And so what if it is? Do you actually have a point with this poll, or are you just posting polls for the sake of posting polls?
I think the point of the poll is for him to see where others compare a certain unit to, but he's kinda answered his own question here I think on the accuracy of said comparison. At least from his viewpoint.
As a poll though, it seems pretty narrow, and I couldn't answer it with what I justified in my posts. Does this make me a troll guys? I think it does
If a thunderfire cannon kills 5 naked sternguard, it's more than made up its points.
If it kills 8 naked tacticals, it's more than made up its points.
If it kills 20 naked guardsmen, it's made up its points.
2. They aren't destroying much in what contexts?
If your opponent is running foot-slogging infantry, thunderfire cannons and whirlwinds will both lay waste.
for 100 points and are only somewhat durable
Only somewhat durable?
Again, what meta are you assuming?
A thunderfire cannon fires shots at 60 inch range and has the barrage special rule. And it's not an extraordinarily large model, is it? And even if you do fire on the thunderfire cannon at range, it's T7, 2 wounds with a 3+ armor save. The techmarine has a 2+ armor save.
Are thunderfire cannons fragile when they're facing up against tactical marines? Guardsmen? Chaos cultists?
Again, my point about balance being relative.
Just say...
Artillery and heavy weapons should always be devestating vs exposed infantry in the open.
There ment to be kings of battle for a reason.
Martel732 wrote: Russes are bad because their firepower to point ratio is poor. Old school imperial weapons are basically worthless in 7th ed.
Going back to the topic thread, poor compared to...?
A lot of units.
Its also better than a number of other units.
Its all relative and there's no definite answer.
Might as well be asking how deep a hole is.
*Edit* I'll expand. 40k has a problem of rampant power creep. Back in 5th there might've been a unit or two I could have pointed at and said that they represent an ideal of balance and make a good baseline for comparisons across codices. Now, the gap has widened such that we have units previously excluded to Apoc competing against 2pts/model units, where trying to effectively balance such a massive gap in capability becomes increasingly difficult. As such, finding a baseline is harder and harder. Do we pick a newer codex that competes with other top codices but stomps all the older books? What about a solid middle tier codex that still struggles against the top books? Why not pick the worst and adjust everything from there? All theoretically valid answers of course, with each coming with merits and drawbacks for how to move forward balancing the game.
In contrast, a game like BFG which has never really encountered a serious problem with power creep (worst being Eldar and Necrons) has a defined baseline that all ships are compared to. We have also have the distinct advantage in that game to having a game that hasn't seen any serious overhauls, so the original design notes are present and valid even today. We know for a fact the two first ships created were the Imperial Lunar and Chaos Murder (I think, could be Carnage, doesn't matter though) which you can roughly break down into constituent parts to have a sort of universal template for ship construction. With that baseline, when people ask you 'relative to what?', you can answer with one of those two units and extrapolate from there.
Unfortunately, 40k has kind of jumped the shark and you can't really pin down even a handful of units to use as baselines as there's so many vastly differing units covering so many roles that direct comparisons start to get muddy and confusing. So with 40k when asking for comparison points, you kind have to shrug and say, 'it just feels like it', which is honestly about as valid as any other point of reference you can come up with.
Concrete proof is hard. What I could show is how few models the various Russ hulls actually end up removing from the table per turn. Couple that with an occasional pen that causes firepower to go to practically zero, and you have an overpriced box of suck.
That cuts both ways. If asking how deep a hole is isn't relevant saying "Oh, very," isn't particularly relevant either.
I expanded on my thoughts in the post you quoted if you're interested.
Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Concrete proof is hard. What I could show is how few models the various Russ hulls actually end up removing from the table per turn. Couple that with an occasional pen that causes firepower to go to practically zero, and you have an overpriced box of suck.
So instead of saying you 'could show' why the Russ is bad you could show it.
Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.
Well yeah, because if my frame of reference is a universally bad unit, then most units in the game would be considered good. Likewise the opposite is true. Does either really accomplish anything? How useful it is to have a discussion claiming heavy weapon squads are amazing compared to ratlings? Likewise, claiming the riptide sucks in comparison to the wraithknight is also useless.
*Edit* I guess my point is that you can't really find a suitable baseline in 40k at the moment. The power gap is so wide you'd be left wanting trying to explain why you feel any particular makes a good baseline, which would be its argument because of course someone would disagree with your idea of a good baseline unit.
Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.
Well yeah, because if my frame of reference is a universally bad unit, then most units in the game would be considered good. Likewise the opposite is true. Does either really accomplish anything? How useful it is to have a discussion claiming heavy weapon squads are amazing compared to ratlings? Likewise, claiming the riptide sucks in comparison to the wraithknight is also useless.
*Edit* I guess my point is that you can't really find a suitable baseline in 40k at the moment. The power gap is so wide you'd be left wanting trying to explain why you feel any particular makes a good baseline, which would be its argument because of course someone would disagree with your idea of a good baseline unit.
I suspect a better conclusion to reach is that comparing one unit to one other unit isn't helpful and you'd have to come up with a range of units to formulate some sort of baseline.
Honestly, I don't feel like at this moment. But lascannons, plasma cannons and heavy bolters have been discussed thoroughly. That leaves the turret weapons. Ordnance is a pure curse now, leaving things like the punisher and the ignore cover variant. The punisher is okay, but all the blasts fail vs MCs hard. For the price tag, I expect much better in 7th ed. If you don't believe me, keep bringing Russ hulls by all means.
Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.
Well yeah, because if my frame of reference is a universally bad unit, then most units in the game would be considered good. Likewise the opposite is true. Does either really accomplish anything? How useful it is to have a discussion claiming heavy weapon squads are amazing compared to ratlings? Likewise, claiming the riptide sucks in comparison to the wraithknight is also useless.
*Edit* I guess my point is that you can't really find a suitable baseline in 40k at the moment. The power gap is so wide you'd be left wanting trying to explain why you feel any particular makes a good baseline, which would be its argument because of course someone would disagree with your idea of a good baseline unit.
I suspect a better conclusion to reach is that comparing one unit to one other unit isn't helpful and you'd have to come up with a range of units to formulate some sort of baseline.
Sure, which I don't believe is helpful in 40k with the power gap. My BFG example was to prove it is possible to have a good baseline and that it works if the game doesn't go bonkers.
I suspect one could trace a lot of the issues, for infantry certainly, back to the fact that a stat of 3 is considered "normal" but thanks to a preponderance of Marines, is functionally below average.
Nevelon wrote:You start by comparing one unit to another. Then keep comparing units to each other until you get a large enough sample size to draw general conclusions. Now this can be difficult, because units are good at different things, so there is a lot of subjectivity in there. We are not just comparing how many points of X they can kill, but how mobile they are, how tough they are, etc. And once you make enough comparisons, you can figure out where on the bad-good spectrum they fall. In an ideal world, that spectrum looks like a bell curve. Most units in the balanced middle, with a few outliers on either end. In your poll options, this is the judge by the mid range, and how I generally view things.
This indicates that it's not enough to compare thunderfire cannons to whirlwinds. You'd have to compare thunderfire cannons, whirlwinds, etc. to all barrage platforms (or some subset of those). And even then, I'm not sure how you'd go about answering the question of whether or not barrage in general is well balanced.
Imperial Knights come to mind. It's my understanding that the general consensus holds that IKs are appropriately costed for what they are. However, a substantial portion of the player base doesn't think that IKs should even be a part of the "normal" game to begin with.
And this is another one of those things that has me wondering. Who precisely thinks that IKs are appropriately costed or balanced? What is their point of comparison?
Example:
Martel will insist that IKs are significantly underpowered because wraithknights, scatter bikes and fire dragons tear them to shreds for far cheaper.
Others will insist that IKs don't belong in the game at all.
Others will insist that IKs, granted that they are in the game, are well balanced.
Again, I ask:
"Compared to what?"
This is actually a thread I've been wanting to make for a while, precisely because people insist on throwing out claims like these, and it always has me wondering:
"What are your presuppositions?"
In the WW example, the fact that it is 65 points in the current codex lends some weight to the fact that it was bad at 85.
Therefore wraithknights were bad when they weren't GMCs?
Traditio wrote: However, a substantial portion of the player base doesn't think that IKs should even be a part of the "normal" game to begin with.
This has nothing to do with balance. People who make this argument usually want those LoW type units excluded because they're too big from a fluff/theme point of view of "what 40k should be", not because they're too powerful for their point costs. As usual so much of your confusion seems to come from the fact that you bring in marginally-related arguments and demand that everyone explain how it can all be consistent.
Azreal13 wrote: But they hit on different numbers near every time.
BS4 is a 33% increase in firepower over BS 3. Which kinda sucks, I admit. However, BS alone isn't that great looking at DE and old school marine heavy weapons.
Traditio wrote: However, a substantial portion of the player base doesn't think that IKs should even be a part of the "normal" game to begin with.
This has nothing to do with balance. People who make this argument usually want those LoW type units excluded because they're too big from a fluff/theme point of view of "what 40k should be", not because they're too powerful for their point costs. As usual so much of your confusion seems to come from the fact that you bring in marginally-related arguments and demand that everyone explain how it can all be consistent.
As well as the thread that I started, of which the one I linked above was the spin off, the opinion was voiced, among the substantial minority view, that SHVs and GMCs constribute to game imbalance.
SHVs are almost universally overcosted, as they are subject to extra HPs from melta/AP1 and being hull pointed out by S 6/7. They are NOT a balance problem. IKs are a joke compared to Riptides and Wraithknights. Even the mighty Warhound titan can be felled relatively easily compared to GMCs.
My point was that you can compare two units, and decide if one is better or worse then the other. (Subjetively and generally)
But to tell if one is bad or OP, you need to look at the sum of the units to see where they fall in the group.
For example, you could say that dev cents are better then grav bikers. That does not mean that either one is bad/OP by themselves. Just that on average, one is better. When we compare them to the rest of the codex, we find them both to be some of the stronger options. OP? In some eyes yes, but not in others. That's where looking at every unit comes into play. Different people have different benchmarks.
Howling banshees are better the eldar rangers. Both are widely panned as being the worst units in their codex. But the overall power level of the eldar make them not bad in an overall sense. Heck, most of the stuff in there is decent on it's own merits, but just suffers from not being scatbikes and WKs.
Martel732 wrote: SHVs are almost universally overcosted, as they are subject to extra HPs from melta/AP1 and being hull pointed out by S 6/7. They are NOT a balance problem. IKs are a joke compared to Riptides and Wraithknights.
Do you think that riptides and wraithknights are well-balanced?
That's an 11 page thread. Stop wasting our time with "here's hundreds of posts, go find something to make my point for me".
As well as the thread that I started, of which the one I linked above was the spin off, the opinion was voiced, among the substantial minority view, that SHVs and GMCs constribute to game imbalance.
Yes, of course LoW-type units contribute to balance problems. D-spam titans, Wraithknights, etc, are too powerful for what they do. A Malcador, on the other hand, is indisputably a weak unit that contributes to balance issues in the exact opposite direction. Making any kind of blanket statement about what LoW do to game balance is complete nonsense. The only reasonable blanket anti-LoW argument to be made is the theme one: that 40k is supposed to primarily be a game of "normal" squads, and allowing LoW-size units in a normal game breaks the theme too much. This is an argument that is entirely independent of balance.
Nevelon wrote: My point was that you can compare two units, and decide if one is better or worse then the other. (Subjetively and generally)
But to tell if one is bad or OP, you need to look at the sum of the units to see where they fall in the group.
For example, you could say that dev cents are better then grav bikers. That does not mean that either one is bad/OP by themselves. Just that on average, one is better. When we compare them to the rest of the codex, we find them both to be some of the stronger options. OP? In some eyes yes, but not in others. That's where looking at every unit comes into play. Different people have different benchmarks.
Howling banshees are better the eldar rangers. Both are widely panned as being the worst units in their codex. But the overall power level of the eldar make them not bad in an overall sense. Heck, most of the stuff in there is decent on it's own merits, but just suffers from not being scatbikes and WKs.
I basically agree with what you are saying, and ultimately, this is the point that I'm trying to get at myself.
"Leeman russes are bad."
No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad.
Traditio wrote: Do you think that riptides and wraithknights are well-balanced?
By your own premise you can't answer that question. If you choose Wraithknights and Riptides as your reference point then Wraithknights and Riptides are well balanced. If you choose naked tactical marines (with no formations or weapon upgrades) as your reference point then they're overpowered. If you choose D-spam titans as your reference point then Wraithknights and Riptides are probably a little on the weak side. So why are you asking a question that, under your own beliefs, can't be answered?
Martel732 wrote: SHVs are almost universally overcosted, as they are subject to extra HPs from melta/AP1 and being hull pointed out by S 6/7. They are NOT a balance problem. IKs are a joke compared to Riptides and Wraithknights.
Do you think that riptides and wraithknights are well-balanced?
Part of me says no, but I've also partially accepted them as the new normal. There is no mechanic to stop people from bringing them, and mass Riptide is even encouraged by a formation. This is why I say SHV are likely overcosted, or at worse, completely fair.
"No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad."
They're bad, because even my lowly BA kind of sneer at their ineffectiveness. I know I can get across the table against them, and once I do, they all die. You can't do enough damage with heavy bolters, lascannons, and the amount of S5 the punisher generates.
Peregrine wrote:A Malcador, on the other hand, is indisputably a weak unit that contributes to balance issues in the exact opposite direction.
This.
This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about in the OP.
Malcadors are weak in comparison to what?
Making any kind of blanket statement about what LoW do to game balance is complete nonsense.
That may be your opinion, but it's not one that is universally shared. A substantial minority of people disagree with you.
and allowing LoW-size units in a normal game breaks the theme too much. This is an argument that is entirely independent of balance.
I'm afraid I don't follow. How can you simultaneously assert that allowing LoW-size units into the normal game breaks the game, but not assert that LoW-size units are imbalanced in relationship to the rest of the game?
Traditio wrote: No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad.
But it does, if most people are using the "game breakingly OP" options. Taking LRBTs in that environment means putting yourself at a huge disadvantage and probably losing games because of your choice to bring LRBTs. That's a pretty good definition of "bad". And LRBTs don't even compare all that favorably compared to less-powerful units.
In comparison to whatever you're comparing units to when you say that Wraithknights and Riptides are overpowered. The Malcador is one of the weakest units in the game for its point cost, even basic LRBTs are a better use of ~300 points.
That may be your opinion, but it's not one that is universally shared. A substantial minority of people disagree with you.
I don't care about your "substantial minority", they are indisputably wrong. You can't make a blanket statement about "all LoW" when LoW include the full power level from Malcadors to D-spam Reaver titans.
I'm afraid I don't follow. How can you simultaneously assert that allowing LoW-size units into the normal game breaks the game, but not assert that LoW-size units are imbalanced in relationship to the rest of the game?
Because it's breaking the theme, not balance. Seriously, why are you having so much trouble with this? The argument against LoW is "I think 40k should be a game between 5-10 'normal' size squads, it ruins my enjoyment of the game when my opponent puts down a single giant tank and a token squad of infantry as their entire army". This is an argument about what the game should be like from a theme point of view, it's just as true if the LoW army loses every game.
Because Dante breaks the game? LoW is just another FOC slot. What goes into it is what matters. Drop melta is still a huge risk for any SHV, as virtually none have interceptor. That's a risk GMCs don't have to worry about.
Traditio wrote: No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad.
But it does, if most people are using the "game breakingly OP" options.
It makes them bad in comparison to those things. It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts.
Taking LRBTsin that environment means putting yourself at a huge disadvantage and probably losing games because of your choice to bring LRBTs.
Emphasis mine.
And LRBTs don't even compare all that favorably compared to less-powerful units.
What "less-power units" do you have in mind? Would you like to trade your codex option for leeman russes with my codex option for predators?
" It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts. "
But they're not even good then. Well-played BA and CSM can over run you pretty easily. You're paying a lot of points for marginal killing power. No one cares about AV 14 anymore.
Traditio wrote: It makes them bad in comparison to those things. It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts.
Malcadors are bad compared to most of the game, including options that aren't taken in competitive contexts.
What "less-power units" do you have in mind?
Taking a blob of 150 points worth of guardsmen and giving them FRFSRF. The blob of guardsmen is clearly not at the same power level as a Wraithknight, but it is still better than the poor LRBT.
Would you like to trade your codex option for leeman russes with my codex option for predators?
Sure. At least the Predator is cheap, while the LRBT is ineffective and expensive. I probably wouldn't take either in a competitive environment though.
Martel732 wrote: " It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts. "
But they're not even good then. Well-played BA and CSM can over run you pretty easily. You're paying a lot of points for marginal killing power. No one cares about AV 14 anymore.
What BA? What CSM?
Are 10 man chaos space marines squads trampling over those leeman russes?
Traditio wrote: Are 10 man chaos space marines squads trampling over those leeman russes?
You don't need to trample over them, you just ignore the LRBT. A LRBT might kill 1-2 MEQs per turn with average dice, assuming it never takes a penetrating hit and loses the ability to shoot for a turn (remember, the main gun can't fire snap shots), which means it's going to take the whole game to have a decent chance of killing the whole CSM squad. Camp on an objective and laugh at the LRBT. Or get in close and kill it in melee, where AV 10 is a fatal problem.
Martel732 wrote: " It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts. "
But they're not even good then. Well-played BA and CSM can over run you pretty easily. You're paying a lot of points for marginal killing power. No one cares about AV 14 anymore.
What BA? What CSM?
Are 10 man chaos space marines squads trampling over those leeman russes?
Blood Angels devastator marines with lascannons?
I don't think unit vs unit. I think list vs list. Both BA and CSM have access to cheap transports and deep striking melta. Imperial heavy weapons are sufficiently inefficient than when placed on an even more inefficient hull like the Russ then taking out the Rhinos becomes an issue. I don't use BAdevs or ASM with jump packs, so I would never consider those units.
Even if Thunderfire Cannons didn't exist, I still won't take 85 point Whirlwinds.
I fail to see how the fact that you personally would not take an 85 point whirlwind makes an 85 whirlwind bad.
It means to him the Whirlwind is bad because it is overpriced.
And frankly I agree. Compared to other anti-infantry options it is severly undergunned. All it's really good at is forcing Guardsman out in the open to fall back if they are isolated.
Anything else in the same slot (for example, the very crowded Elites section in the Tyranids codex)
Anything else in a different slot in the FoC that performs a similar role to them. (Helbrute VS The Dinobots)
I generally dislike people saying something along the lines of "But that army can take something like this too for much cheaper!" and ignoring that, in the context of that army, it's filling a necessary niche while in this army it's also being buffed into the stratosphere. The only exception is if the unit is just good at everything (Wraithknights and Scatbikes are the biggest offenders).
Lol how did you guys all got baited into discussing why SM suff are not OP but actually bad. We all knew this was going to happen the moment Traditio opened this thread.
oldzoggy wrote: Lol how did you guys all got baited into discussing why SM suff are not OP but actually bad. We all knew this was going to happen the moment Traditio opened this thread.
Ah crap, I should have looked at the poster. This is what happens when I'm bored at 3am with insomnia.
That was pretty obvious when one of the choices was tactical marines.... I'm surprised it didn't specify tactical marines without grav.
Anyway, the poll is a total failure as the correct answer is:
You compare them firsts to other units within the army that they compete with and second to units that fulfill the same role in other armies.
Even if Thunderfire Cannons didn't exist, I still won't take 85 point Whirlwinds.
I fail to see how the fact that you personally would not take an 85 point whirlwind makes an 85 whirlwind bad.
Whirlwinds are bad because they are worse than other marine heavy support choices and worse than other marine anti-infantry choices and worse than similar units in other codexes.
My short answer to the OP question is: "That depends". And if you ask me "But depends on what exactly?" the answer is, again: "That depends". To elaborate:
First step when trying to make any kind of meaningfull comparison is to determine the context AND goal of such comparison. And some answers that I can see in this thread make some silent axiom asumptions about the context of the possible answer, which bias or obscure the answer itself...
First an (obviously not complete) list of basic factors you have to consider, when defining the basis of your comparison:
1. "the local meta": this may be the tournament scene in you country, your typical local FLGS army structure or your single oponent army and playstyle, etc..
2. Typical scenario or set of scenarios that will be played with compared units/armies.
3. (this one was completely ommited in this thread at the time I'm writing this) Your typical TERRAIN style on which those scenarios are played.
4. The timeframe of your context game.
5. ...
Some examples of consequences of those few factors:
- if your local meta does not include Eldar or Tau players, then for all intents and purposes of your comparisons Wraithknights and Riptides simply do not exist and comparing anything to them is pointless. Or if you never play against Tyranids or Orks, then large blast weapons are not as crucial to you. One great example of a unit which strong points "depend" are Swoopin Hawks - up until grenades FAQ, they were praised as tank killers due to Haywire Grenades. But those same grenades are completely useless against Tyranids - in which case, against swarm builds, the amassed S3AP5 shots and secondary large blast grenades are important. And Poisoned weapons will be useless against an IG armoured list while they make your game against Nidzilla/MC heavy armies...
- some units will perform drastically different in Eternal War scenarios and Maelstrom scenarios.
- two extreme examples of terrain influence: if you play mainly on featurless flat tables or with minimum terrain, then barrage and other non-LOS special rules are point wastes and there is only slight differences between cavalry, beast, jump and jetpack unit types, they are all basically just fast. And CC units depend on 1st-2nd turn assault delivery capabilities. If you however, would set up your terrain with a table-wide LOS blocking wall in the middle, then your basic ground units are severly crippled, if not entirely useless. Usually, terrain will be something in-between those two extremes, but oddly enough, there are a lot of players that treat a completely flat table as "normal" and complain that 7th ed is "shooty edition" while simultanously treat maze-like, terrain heavy tables as an "unfair advantage" for assault-centric armies...
- if you are bound by tournament time restrictions, you will generally favour vechicles or MCs over multi-model squads, even if entire squad's usefull firepower depends heavily on a few non-basic weapon upgrades, or less numbered squads deriving their survivability/firepower from toughness/armour than from sheer model number...
Now, after considering all that different context factors, you can finally ask a question about the goal of comparison:
- is it a choice you have to make when choosing a faction you will play/collect/use as a basis for next tournament
- is it a choice of a unit you will include in your army for a given game
- is it an analysis focused on establishing ways of balancing games in your local environment, either by buffing/nerfing stats/rules; creating varied enough scenarios or setting up terrain to accomodate for army imbalances
- is it aimed at general internet disputes on how bad rules are at the moment and what should GW change in their game to achieve balance/community acceptance/financial succes/personal praise, whatever the current "flavour of the week" of such discussion/poll is...
- any other viable reason you may have at the moment..
Only after considering all such factors and assumptions you can try to establish your "reasonable mid-tier" units/weapons and sort all other in an underpowered-reasonable-overpowered order. Depending on the goal, there will be some obvious offenders, some garbage units, some overpriced and some underpriced but otherwise reasonable units. Some units/builds across current codexes are universal enough to fall into "generally overperforming" category in large enough number of common enough cases to define the "current golden standard" in a given context. And because there are hundreds of players from around the world here on dakka alone, with everyone falling into some kind of "typical local meta", you will never be able to establish an absolute "zero point standard" for the entire community at once and meet everyone's expectations, so you will always be restricted only to "conclusions accepted by signifficant majority of players verbal enough to reach your ears". And because of 2nd-to-3rd and 5th-to-7th editions paradigm shifts in 40K focus, the community as a whole is far from being homogenous in expectations from/experience with 40K.
Gen.Steiner wrote: I think I'm playing a totally different game to some of you lot.
I pick units that make sense for the army, and play with them... whatever floats your boat I guess.
The rule of cool is great and all, but it quickly becomes uncool getting one's face pounded in week in and week out. This becomes the great filter for units. "How do I not get my face pounded?". Step one for marines: get rid of terminators and land raiders.
Gen.Steiner wrote: I think I'm playing a totally different game to some of you lot.
I pick units that make sense for the army, and play with them... whatever floats your boat I guess.
The rule of cool is great and all, but it quickly becomes uncool getting one's face pounded in week in and week out. This becomes the great filter for units. "How do I not get my face pounded?". Step one for marines: get rid of terminators and land raiders.
Some of us live in places where that doesn't happen.
Gen.Steiner wrote: I think I'm playing a totally different game to some of you lot.
I pick units that make sense for the army, and play with them... whatever floats your boat I guess.
The rule of cool is great and all, but it quickly becomes uncool getting one's face pounded in week in and week out. This becomes the great filter for units. "How do I not get my face pounded?". Step one for marines: get rid of terminators and land raiders.
Some of us live in places where that doesn't happen.
If you can't discuss the the game as though it always happens, then there's little point for conversation, as everyone is then a special snowflake and you can make everything work and the heart of the cards etc.
I think it really depends on the situation. Obviously comparing a Thunderfire Cannon to a Whirlwind is more useful than comparing a Thunderfire Cannon to Scouts, but everything can (at least theoretically) can be compared, with said comparison provide at least some information.
That being said, I fully expect Traditio to argue vehemently and this thread to get derailed. How many pages before we get into the "Validity of the Poll" argument? haha
Even if Thunderfire Cannons didn't exist, I still won't take 85 point Whirlwinds.
I fail to see how the fact that you personally would not take an 85 point whirlwind makes an 85 whirlwind bad.
Because they don't kill many Guardsmen or Marines for 85 points and you have to be reliant on a non-bad scatter?
How can you be this dense?
To break even, you'd need to kill 17 naked guardsmen. If you kill 6 naked marines, you've practically broken even (14 X 6 = 84).
How many guardsmen or marines can you realistically expect to kill with a whirlwind in the course of 5-7 turns?
Note, of course, that this assumes no upgrades to those guardsmen or marines.
And it also doesn't take into account the fact that your opponent will have to change the way that he deploys and moves because you are firing large blasts which don't need line of sight to fire.
"Huddle up in this 3 story ruins? Er...maybe not."
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I wouldn't have to change anything in my deployment with my marines because I know 3+ is perfectly fine against a weapon that's likely to scatter.
You didn't answer my question. How many guardsmen or marines can you reasonably expect to kill in the course of 5-7 turns with a whirlwind?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote:It means to him the Whirlwind is bad because it is overpriced.
Correction:
What he means is that he thinks that the whirlwind is bad because he thinks that it's overpriced.
The fact that you or he thinks that something is true doesn't actually make that thing true.
And frankly I agree. Compared to other anti-infantry options it is severly undergunned. All it's really good at is forcing Guardsman out in the open to fall back if they are isolated.
That doesn't prove that 85 point whirlwinds are bad. It only shows that they are inferior to those other options. To show that 85 point whirlwinds are bad, you'd have to show that the other options are well-balanced and appropriately costed in terms of points, and the whirlwind is STILL inferior for its points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scott-S6 wrote:You compare them firsts to other units within the army that they compete with
What if those units are underpowered? What they're overpowered?
If you look at the eldar codex, a jetbike with shuriken cannons is going to look underpowered/bad compared to the scatterbike.
Does that make a shuriken cannon jetbike bad?
and second to units that fulfill the same role in other armies.
Which armies?
I'm still waiting for an answer with respect to Leeman Russ battle tanks. Peregrine basically admitted to thinking that LRBTs are inferior to predators for their points cost, but I'm not sure how common this opinion is.
Whirlwinds are bad because they are worse than other marine heavy support choices and worse than other marine anti-infantry choices and worse than similar units in other codexes.
Which heavy support choices? Which anti-infantry choices?
Would you prefer a devastator squad with heavy bolters to a whirlwind?
I think the OP made a very valid point, though a very mathematical one.
Saying something is bad or good requires a reference point, otherwise there would be no way to tell if it is actually bad or good.
Personally, what I read in this thread leads me to believe that what actually happens is that people pick a reference point that proves whatever they're trying to say about that model or unit. So if someone wants to say something is bad, they'll compare it to something better. If they want to say something is good, they'll compare it to something that's worse.
It's kinda impossible to be wrong about your comparison when there is only one thing in the game that would not actually have a better option, and one other thing in the game that would not actually have a worse option. Because a large part of having a range of fixed values is that one is highest and one is lowest and the vast majority fall somewhere in between.
what are you comparing it to when your poll title calls riptides and stormsurges "opbs" ? How do you know they are not perfectly balanced?
You already know the answer to this question. I was going to give a serious response to this thread but reading it more I get the impression you are just trying to push a very tired narrative
ShredderShards wrote: what are you comparing it to when your poll title calls riptides and stormsurges "opbs" ? How do you know they are not perfectly balanced?
You already know the answer to this question. I was going to give a serious response to this thread but reading it more I get the impression you are just trying to push a very tired narrative
They actually would be perfectly balanced if power creep continues and even more ridiculously OP bullgak becomes common.
ShredderShards wrote: what are you comparing it to when your poll title calls riptides and stormsurges "opbs" ? How do you know they are not perfectly balanced?
Traditio doesn't because they seem to have a misguided idea that there has to be a single (or a very small sub-set of) unit(s) that any given unit should be compared to in order to be balanced, while it should be noted that it would be more prudent to consider as many comparisons as would provide useful information.
Notice that Traditio asked the question: "What is your standard of comparison?"
Now, if I answered Tactical Marines, then that all well and good if I'm considering balancing MEQ's, but what if I'm looking at flyers? Tactical Marines are not a good standard when you're considering flyers (yes, you can make the comparison, but a more prudent initial comparison is another flyer).
Saying something is bad or good requires a reference point, otherwise there would be no way to tell if it is actually bad or good.
Personally, what I read in this thread leads me to believe that what actually happens is that people pick a reference point that proves whatever they're trying to say about that model or unit. So if someone wants to say something is bad, they'll compare it to something better. If they want to say something is good, they'll compare it to something that's worse.
This is why I think a single baseline from which you make comparisons (especially in the generic sense that the poll implies) is a bad approach. For example: If we have units W, X, Y, and Z (increasing in power from left to right), we need to compare all of them to understand whether or not something needs to be balanced. In this example, we could compare X to W and conclude that it's too powerful, or compare X to Z and conclude that it's under-powered, or do the correct thing and compare X to W, Y and Z and find that it's just right.
ShredderShards wrote: I was going to give a serious response to this thread but reading it more I get the impression you are just trying to push a very tired narrative
Look, it's a very complex problem that I answer in my brain after 20 years of wargaming. I imagine all possible priority targets, and then consider how good unit X is against subsets of those targets, then consider how much damage it can tank for me and how much damage it's going to deal out.
For example, whirlwinds can't barrage snipe like a wyvern, so it's not as good vs sergeants and units like venomthropes.
Traditio isn't wrong in the sense that comparisons need to be made when trying to properly balance things, but it's a fallacy to say that Tactical Marines (or anything else on the list of poll options) could ever be a standard baseline for comparisons for everything in the tabletop game.
The wyvern does the Whirlwind's job better and for less points. It also has +1 AV on the front and a heavy bolter.
So what?
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
I showed you an example of an self propelled artillery piece used in a similar role that is both superior in firepower and cheaper to boot. It proves that the Whirlwind is subpar in it's classs. And that is about the best way I can answer your question about how a unit's worth is determined in the meta. There is no objective metric to measure a unit's capabilities in 40k nor in any other wargme I know of. There are simply too many variables to get such a forumla. You have to understand Tradito that the world doesn't always fall into clean absolutes. And your quest to find the clean absolute to prove whatever point you are trying to make will inevitably fail.
If you could find out how a unit is determined to be bad by a master objective metric I am sure you could make a clean bit of cash being a games designer. Because your basically trying to determine what dozens of professional game designers have been pouring countless hours into figuring out. And even they have failed.
Traditio isn't wrong in the sense that comparisons need to be made when trying to properly balance things, but it's a fallacy to say that Tactical Marines (or anything else on the list of poll options) could ever be a standard baseline for comparisons for everything in the tabletop game.
ShredderShards wrote: what are you comparing it to when your poll title calls riptides and stormsurges "opbs" ? How do you know they are not perfectly balanced?
All of warhammer 40k prior to 6th edition.
Do you know why, whenever something new comes out, there are cries of "OP," "CHEESE" and "IMBALANCE?"
Because It's usually OP, cheese and imbalanced in comparison to the rest of the game up until that point.
Do you know why people keep answering this by saying things like "adapt newb"?
So they don't have to feel bad when they buy those OP, cheesetastic things and demolish their opponents.
I have a suspicion. I won't even call it a theory. It's just a suspicion, but I think that will be corroborated by the opinions of others:
Warhammer 40k is actually a very balanced game...in a certain respect.
What I mean by this is that the editions are well balanced. If you take a set of units from 4th edition, it will be balanced relative to other units from 4th edition.
If you take units from 5th edition, it will be balanced relative to other units from 5th edition.
If you take a stormsurge and balance it against a wraithknight, it's basically fine.
The problem is when different editions meet.
So when people complain that something is underpowered, they're comparing it to the models from the most recent edition/set of releases.
"The riptide is balanced" means "the riptide is on par with the general power levels in 6th and 7th edition."
"Leeman Russes suck" means "The LRBT is not as good as post 6th edition units."
But again, that's just a suspicion on my part. I can't actually prove it right off hand.
Traditio isn't wrong in the sense that comparisons need to be made when trying to properly balance things, but it's a fallacy to say that Tactical Marines (or anything else on the list of poll options) could ever be a standard baseline for comparisons for everything in the tabletop game.
Gotta pick something though.
But that's my point:
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
And then you have to show that whatever you used to show that the Wyvern is fairly costed is also fairly costed, and on and on in an endless circle. But we come back to the same question I asked before:
WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT HERE?
If we assume that your premise here is correct, what exactly does it lead to? How does it change our understanding of balance to argue over whether a unit is called "overpowered" or "sdoifgnjodgodfjg"? Saying "Riptides are fine, the rest of the codex is weak" and "Riptides are overpowered, the rest of the codex is balanced" are functionally identical claims about the Riptide's power level: that it is more powerful than other options. The only possible difference I can see is that the latter option allows you to continue your "Riptides are WAAC cheese and anyone who uses them is TFG" crusade.
Finally, I'd like to point out that you don't even consistently follow your own premise. When you, over and over again, rant about how "OP" Wraithknights/Riptides/grav spam/etc are you don't include any disclaimer about what units you're comparing them to and how they could be "balanced" if compared to different units. In fact, your poll in this thread starts off by labeling those units "OP bullgak" as if that's an objective evaluation of their power level.
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
Then how do you balance different unit types against each other?
Wraithknights and chaos cultists are both in the game. How do you balance them against each other if there's no way to compare them?
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
I think that would take too much math for anyone to actually work out.
So, instead of saying, "X unit is bad" instead say, "X unit is worse than alternative unit Y at task Z."
And make sure that unit Y is something in the same Codex, or at least one of the rulesets in the combined force being discussed.
Because ultimately, if you say, "Unit X is bad because it's power level is 4" that's not enough information to figure out if it's bad or not. We don't know if 4 is low, high, or average unless we have a reference point to what is average. So... just compare it to a similar unit that's meant to do something similar.
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
Then how do you balance different unit types against each other?
Wraithknights and chaos cultists are both in the game. How do you balance them against each other if there's no way to compare them?
I didn't say they weren't comparable, I'm saying that when your balancing a unit, it's best to at least start with more appropriate comparisons. For example, it's better to compare LRBT's to Predators than t is to compare LRBT's to Land Raiders and thus should have a majority of the balancing done with the more appropriate comparisons in mind. Then, when all that is done, then you can start asking questions like "Do they do too much damage to Tactical Marines and other MEQ's? If so, let's nerf LRBT's and their equivalents; and if not, maybe we should buff LRBT's and their equivalents." That way we can maintain the balance of all the units that fall under a type and/or category and then maintain said balance when we start comparing them to other unit types/categories.
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
I think that would take too much math for anyone to actually work out.
So, instead of saying, "X unit is bad" instead say, "X unit is worse than alternative unit Y at task Z."
And make sure that unit Y is something in the same Codex, or at least one of the rulesets in the combined force being discussed.
Because ultimately, if you say, "Unit X is bad because it's power level is 4" that's not enough information to figure out if it's bad or not. We don't know if 4 is low, high, or average unless we have a reference point to what is average. So... just compare it to a similar unit that's meant to do something similar.
Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Cant believe Im chiming in between you two but my idea to my buddy was a mathematical equation/algorhythm. Start with values for point cost for each rule, stat, inch of range, heavy, fast, torrent, character, facing armor value, hull point wound, special rule etc etc. With multipliers and dividers etc etc. Complex equation and poof.... instabalance. Would it be hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Iterative and contentious? Most definitely.
It would turn into old school battletech where tge unit could be designed from the ground up.
There just no denying some units are soooooo much better than others.
doktor_g wrote: Cant believe Im chiming in between you two but my idea to my buddy was a mathematical equation/algorhythm. Start with values for point cost for each rule, stat, inch of range, heavy, fast, torrent, character, facing armor value, hull point wound, special rule etc etc. With multipliers and dividers etc etc. Complex equation and poof.... instabalance. Would it be hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Iterative and contentious? Most definitely.
The problem is that the value of things like point costs for a stat depends on everything else about the unit. For example, BS 10 on an assault marine with only a bolt pistol for a ranged weapon is worth much less than BS 10 on a devastator marine with a heavy weapon. And once you've accounted for all these complex interactions you've died of old age before ever finishing your equation, and spent way more time than it would take to do the traditional "guess at a point cost, iterate through playtesting to fine-tune it" method with good results.
doktor_g wrote: Cant believe Im chiming in between you two but my idea to my buddy was a mathematical equation/algorhythm. Start with values for point cost for each rule, stat, inch of range, heavy, fast, torrent, character, facing armor value, hull point wound, special rule etc etc. With multipliers and dividers etc etc. Complex equation and poof.... instabalance. Would it be hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Iterative and contentious? Most definitely.
The problem is that the value of things like point costs for a stat depends on everything else about the unit. For example, BS 10 on an assault marine with only a bolt pistol for a ranged weapon is worth much less than BS 10 on a devastator marine with a heavy weapon. And once you've accounted for all these complex interactions you've died of old age before ever finishing your equation, and spent way more time than it would take to do the traditional "guess at a point cost, iterate through playtesting to fine-tune it" method with good results.
The problem isn't that it would take too long (practically speaking), but instead the problem is that it would probably have to supersede any major releases for the foreseeable future as well as making sure that new units that are released follow the formula by which they're now balancing the game. In short, they'd have to sacrifice Sales for Rules Balancing, which is something GW will never ever do.
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
And then you have to show that whatever you used to show that the Wyvern is fairly costed is also fairly costed, and on and on in an endless circle. But we come back to the same question I asked before:
WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT HERE?
If we assume that your premise here is correct, what exactly does it lead to? How does it change our understanding of balance to argue over whether a unit is called "overpowered" or "sdoifgnjodgodfjg"? Saying "Riptides are fine, the rest of the codex is weak" and "Riptides are overpowered, the rest of the codex is balanced" are functionally identical claims about the Riptide's power level: that it is more powerful than other options. The only possible difference I can see is that the latter option allows you to continue your "Riptides are WAAC cheese and anyone who uses them is TFG" crusade.
Finally, I'd like to point out that you don't even consistently follow your own premise. When you, over and over again, rant about how "OP" Wraithknights/Riptides/grav spam/etc are you don't include any disclaimer about what units you're comparing them to and how they could be "balanced" if compared to different units. In fact, your poll in this thread starts off by labeling those units "OP bullgak" as if that's an objective evaluation of their power level.
Peregrine:
I'm not sure that I really have a point. As I said in the OP, this thread was inspired by a trend that I noticed, i.e., that people tend to make blanket claims about whether a unit is good or bad, but provide no frame of reference to critically assess what they are saying. The topic of the OP is very open ended.
To the extent that this thread has a point, I suppose I could summarize:
"Balance is relative. Please provide a frame of reference when you talk about a unit's being good or bad. Be specific. LRBTs suck...compared to what? In what contexts?"
LRBTs suck against drop pod melta and against wraithknights. Against tactical marines with plasma weapons? Different story.
The wyvern does the Whirlwind's job better and for less points. It also has +1 AV on the front and a heavy bolter.
So what?
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
Here's the proof.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
That certainly shows something about your personal dispositions, beliefs, tendencies, etc. It doesn't show anything about the whirlwind.
You didn't answer me. I ask again:
How many naked guardsmen can you expect to kill in the course of a game with a whirlwind?
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Traditio wrote: I'm not sure that I really have a point. As I said in the OP, this thread was inspired by a trend that I noticed, i.e., that people tend to make blanket claims about whether a unit is good or bad, but provide no frame of reference to critically assess what they are saying. The topic of the OP is very open ended.
Then why are you making a thread about it, if you don't have anything to say? It reminds me of the people who google "philosophy" one time and rush to make an excited post about "whoa, did you know the whole world might be all in your head" or some nonsense like that. It might technically be a true thing to say, but even if it is it doesn't mean anything.
"Balance is relative. Please provide a frame of reference when you talk about a unit's being good or bad. Be specific. LRBTs suck...compared to what? In what contexts?"
LRBTs suck against drop pod melta and against wraithknights. Against tactical marines with plasma weapons? Different story.
I expect you to do the same, and never again talk about Wraithknights/Riptides/etc being "OPWAAC cheese" without being very specific about what you're comparing them to, and to never again talk about how the people using those units are WAACTFGs because the units might be "balanced" in the comparison they're making.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
That certainly shows something about your personal dispositions, beliefs, tendencies, etc. It doesn't show anything about the whirlwind.
You didn't answer me. I ask again:
How many naked guardsmen can you expect to kill in the course of a game with a whirlwind?
How many naked marines?
IIRC, a Whirlwind is S6 with a standard round, so I don't think it actually matters the difference between naked Guardsmen and naked Marines since you're wounding on a 2+ either way.
Can you actually take naked Guardsmen or Marines though? I haven't bought a new Codex in a while so I didn't know armor was optional now.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
That certainly shows something about your personal dispositions, beliefs, tendencies, etc. It doesn't show anything about the whirlwind.
You didn't answer me. I ask again:
How many naked guardsmen can you expect to kill in the course of a game with a whirlwind?
How many naked marines?
Out in the open? Are we assuming 6 turns? How many fall under the template? What rounds are being used?
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Yes!
I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
The wyvern does the Whirlwind's job better and for less points. It also has +1 AV on the front and a heavy bolter.
So what?
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
Here's the proof.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
It must be a cold day in hell since I'm backing up Traditio on this, but you didn't actually answer the question. Why do you not want to take it? Is it because it get's countered by too many other units? Or because it's weapons don't do enough damage? Or something else?
Traditio wrote: I'm not sure that I really have a point. As I said in the OP, this thread was inspired by a trend that I noticed, i.e., that people tend to make blanket claims about whether a unit is good or bad, but provide no frame of reference to critically assess what they are saying. The topic of the OP is very open ended.
Then why are you making a thread about it, if you don't have anything to say? It reminds me of the people who google "philosophy" one time and rush to make an excited post about "whoa, did you know the whole world might be all in your head" or some nonsense like that. It might technically be a true thing to say, but even if it is it doesn't mean anything.
The point is that people say "X unit is bad" as a full and complete point. When they shouldn't, unless they actually do have a standard baseline reference.
Pointing out that people are frequently making arguments that don't actually say anything should be pointed out, because no one has been noticing that it's even a problem.
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Yes!
I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
So then you shouldn't say the opposite either then
"Riptides are broken. Period" "Wraithknights are broken. Period"
Traditio wrote: I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
I don't know why you think this is a clever observation. When people say "LRBTs are bad, period" everyone but you understands that it means "LRBTs are weak relative to most of the things you can expect to face and should not be taken if you're making a TAC list", not "there is no possible situation, even against the weakest possible opposing list, where a LRBT can win". Stop being over-literal about this and you'll no longer see any reason for this thread.
Peregrine wrote:Then why are you making a thread about it, if you don't have anything to say? It reminds me of the people who google "philosophy" one time and rush to make an excited post about "whoa, did you know the whole world might be all in your head" or some nonsense like that. It might technically be a true thing to say, but even if it is it doesn't mean anything.
It's an open ended topic. It's asking a question and designed to promote discussion.
"What exactly do you have in mind when you say that x unit is good or bad?"
I expect you to do the same, and never again talk about Wraithknights/Riptides/etc being "OPWAAC cheese" without being very specific about what you're comparing them to, and to never again talk about how the people using those units are WAACTFGs because the units might be "balanced" in the comparison they're making.
At this point, my standard of comparison should basically be evident to everyone: "Relative to pre-6th edition power levels."
Pouncey wrote: The point is that people say "X unit is bad" as a full and complete point. When they shouldn't, unless they actually do have a standard baseline reference.
But you don't need a standard baseline reference of a single unit. You can look at an average sample of what kind of armies people bring and how the unit performs against them. If a unit is significantly more powerful than most of the opposing units/armies in the average sample it's probably overpowered. If it compares well to most stuff but loses to a few of the most powerful units/armies then it's probably a mid-tier unit. If it compares badly to almost everything and would be a liability if you brought it against an unknown opponent from that random sample then it's a bad unit.
In the case of the LRBT we look at that representative sample and find that the most powerful armies can wipe LRBTs off the table, and against most armies it will struggle to kill anywhere near its point cost in enemy models. The LRBT only does well against the weakest lists/strategies (tactical squads with no transports played by someone who doesn't space out against blast weapons, etc) so it's a bad unit. If you take a LRBT against an unknown random opponent the odds are strongly in favor of that LRBT being a liability.
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Yes!
I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
I will fully admit that I have a ton of forum experience with making a valid point that I simply am incapable of expressing articulately enough to have it understood. At one time I expressed myself so badly that my post about how bikini armor in WoW could be a sensible option with an extremely tiny change to lore that simply required making an existing feature canon, received over 100 dislikes (that's a metric gakton on that forum) from people who either believed I was arguing against armorkinis, didn't believe armorkinis needed a reason to be sensible at all, or didn't believe my explanation was valid at all. And my argument was solid enough that people who hate armorkinis admitted fully that it was a pretty good way to make them make sense. Seriously, I think my argument in favor of armorkinis got more acceptance from the anti-armorkini crowd than the pro-armorkini crowd. More than that though, while everyone focused on my actual argument in favor of armorkinis, my point with the thread was simply just to use some sort of good reason instead of the terrible one everyone keeps insisting on using.
Traditio wrote: At this point, my standard of comparison should basically be evident to everyone: "Relative to pre-6th edition power levels."
Which is stupid because we're playing two editions later and not in 5ed
This. Who gives a about 5th edition power levels, the game isn't 5th edition anymore. Talking about 5th edition power levels makes about as much sense as talking about how a unit in a 2016 codex is overpowered when you use the 5th edition rules for wound allocation, or how Wraithknights are ok because the 4th edition rules limit superheavies/GMCs to a separate war machine detachment that can only be taken above 2000 points.
Traditio wrote: I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
I don't know why you think this is a clever observation. When people say "LRBTs are bad, period" everyone but you understands that it means "LRBTs are weak relative to most of the things you can expect to face and should not be taken if you're making a TAC list", not "there is no possible situation, even against the weakest possible opposing list, where a LRBT can win". Stop being over-literal about this and you'll no longer see any reason for this thread.
So then the relative point of reference is the majority of options facing you on the table?
Traditio wrote: Chances are, you don't only use units that were released in 6th and 7th edition.
What does that have to do with anything? You might be using the same pieces of plastic but the rules for those models are all from 7th edition (unless, like the one remaining SoB player, you have a codex that GW has neglected). For example, you might have the same plastic tactical squad kit that you had in 5th edition but those tactical marines now cost less per model, have access to different upgrades, etc. Talking about how a unit is balanced relative to a 5th edition tactical squad in a 5th edition Rhino makes no sense at all.
CrownAxe wrote:Which is stupid because we're playing two editions later and not in 5ed
A common rebuttal, but not really true.
What army do you play? What models do you use?
Chances are, you don't only use units that were released in 6th and 7th edition.
You probably use models that were released prior to 6th edition.
And even if you don't, your codex is probably loaded with them.
It wouldn't make sense to complain about the disparity between 5th and 6th+ edition power levels if only 6+ edition power levels were in the game.
They aren't.
6th edition onwards is a mix-mash of units/rules from different editions.
Chances are, you are still playing 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition, etc. to varying degrees.
None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Pouncey wrote: So then the relative point of reference is the majority of options facing you on the table?
Exactly, but in a broader sense than your personal table. A unit is still "bad" if it compares poorly to the pool of representative options for the game as a whole even if it's really effective for a person who only ever plays 40k against their 10 year old kid and a space marine starter set.
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
You're dodging my question. Why is it prior to 6th edition, and not prior to 5ed, 4ed, or 3ed?
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
But what has this actually got to do with anything?
Just because a unit was conceived before or after a given edition does not mean that we can or should have to use any edition of the core rules other than 7th Edition since 7th Edition is the current edition.
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
The wyvern does the Whirlwind's job better and for less points. It also has +1 AV on the front and a heavy bolter.
So what?
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
Here's the proof.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
It must be a cold day in hell since I'm backing up Traditio on this, but you didn't actually answer the question. Why do you not want to take it? Is it because it get's countered by too many other units? Or because it's weapons don't do enough damage? Or something else?
I answered it earlier by saying it doesn't kill much for 85 points and having to be reliant on the Scatter Dice. He then ignored it by saying what I'm comparing it to.
I don't have to compare anything to anything. There's no direct comparison for Rubric Marines but they're still garbage.
Traditio wrote: Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
I did this, I counted a total of zero. The old codices had some units with a similar name and fluff but that has nothing to do with the rules. All of the rules in my codex are from 7th edition.
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Yes!
I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
Because in the majority of matchups, they don't pull their weight.
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
Easy. A 7th edition codex has zero units from any previous edition. Every rule in the codex is new, any resemblance to previous rules for units with similar fluff and/or models is entirely coincidental. And you will never find any situation where a 7th edition codex says "keep using the rules from this older book".
(And then of course there are the armies that didn't exist at all before 6th edition.)
Easy. A 7th edition codex has zero units from any previous edition. Every rule in the codex is new, any resemblance to previous rules for units with similar fluff and/or models is entirely coincidental. And you will never find any situation where a 7th edition codex says "keep using the rules from this older book".
(And then of course there are the armies that didn't exist at all before 6th edition.)
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
You're dodging my question. Why is it prior to 6th edition, and not prior to 5ed, 4ed, or 3ed?
Compare sternguard veterans to tactical marines. Different editions, different capabilities, but there's not so much of a power disparity.
If Deathwatch armies end up becoming a "thing" in the competitive setting, it's not because the deathwatch codex is essentially an army of sternguard veterans.
From 6th edition onwards, things changed. The new releases were decidedly different from the status quo up until that point. Flyers come to mind. The wraithknight comes to mind. Jink comes to mind. The riptide comes to mind. Grav comes to mind.
If you compare 3rd, 4th and 5th edition selections to each other, the disparities aren't as noticeable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:I have zero selections after 6th.
1. Jinking grav bikers are a 6th edition innovation.
I think what Traditio is trying to get you guys to realize on your own, is that reverting to 5th edition would invalidate large swathes of people's model collections.
Also, Traditio, trying to get people to realize your point on their own is a losing strategy in every instance I've tried it.
Traditio wrote: Compare sternguard veterans to tactical marines. Different editions, different capabilities, but there's not so much of a power disparity.
What's your point? Both of those units have had their rules changed over the past few editions, so their current relative balance has nothing to do with what they used to be way back in 5th edition. Meanwhile Eldar jetbikes existed in 5th edition but are a major balance problem in 7th edition. On the other hand nob bikers still exist (I think?) and were overpowered in 5th but they're garbage in 7th.
From 6th edition onwards, things changed. The new releases were decidedly different from the status quo up until that point. Flyers come to mind. The wraithknight comes to mind. Jink comes to mind. The riptide comes to mind. Grav comes to mind.
So what? Who cares about 7th edition power levels relative to 5th edition power levels, nobody is playing games with 7th edition rules against 5th edition rules. It doesn't matter if a 5th edition army (complete with 5th edition vehicle damage tables, 5th edition wound allocation, etc) would be crushed by a 7th edition army, or if the 5th edition army would crush the 7th edition army. What matters is how 7th edition armies and units compare to other 7th edition armies and units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: I think what Traditio is trying to get you guys to realize on your own, is that reverting to 5th edition would invalidate large swathes of people's model collections.
No, that's not his point at all. His point is that everything should be measured against his 5th edition tactical-heavy C:SM army, the style of game that he wants to keep playing. Riptides/Wraithknights/etc are overpowered because they beat his 5th edition army, regardless of how they compare to units/armies that actually exist 7th edition. It's nothing more than nostalgia and yet another attempt to portray anyone who doesn't want to continue playing 5th edition style games as some kind of WAACTFG.
A unit is bad if it's not capable of performing it's intended role in the army for the cost to field it.
Dirt cheap units incapable of anything are bad (spore mines), Units too expensive for their capabilities are bad, (Raveners) And units that are simply unfocused messes that just can't seem to fill any particular niche and thus get outclassed by all the other better designed options are bad.
No, that's not his point at all. His point is that everything should be measured against his 5th edition tactical-heavy C:SM army, the style of game that he wants to keep playing. Riptides/Wraithknights/etc are overpowered because they beat his 5th edition army, regardless of how they compare to units/armies that actually exist 7th edition. It's nothing more than nostalgia and yet another attempt to portray anyone who doesn't want to continue playing 5th edition style games as some kind of WAACTFG.
The crux of every post and poll the OP creates regarding 40k.
No, that's not his point at all. His point is that everything should be measured against his 5th edition tactical-heavy C:SM army, the style of game that he wants to keep playing. Riptides/Wraithknights/etc are overpowered because they beat his 5th edition army, regardless of how they compare to units/armies that actually exist 7th edition. It's nothing more than nostalgia and yet another attempt to portray anyone who doesn't want to continue playing 5th edition style games as some kind of WAACTFG.
The crux of every post and poll the OP creates regarding 40k.
Sounds about right.
@Traditio
Here's why your obsession with previous editions both makes sense and doesn't make sense: It makes sense in regards to codeces that are not up to date (i.e. don't have an edition to match the current - 7th Edition - Core Rule Book), but only as long as we consider the most recent edition of the given codex (since it is not only the most recent but also the one most likely to be used in casual and tournament play). Where it doesn't make sense, however, is when you talk about the previous editions of the game (i.e. editions of the Core Rule Book prior to 7th Edition) as if they should be some benchmark for units in 7th Edition. There is no valid reason for this. Please stop. It doesn't matter what edition the unit was conceived in or how much you value the relative balance of previous editions versus 7th Edition. We are in 7th Edition and want to balance 7th Edition. How is that not clear to you by now?
And regardless of what edition you think we should all live in, the On-Topic point still remains that a single unit to act as a universal standard of comparison is simply not viable. Yes: Everything should be compared with other units in order t achieve game balance, but there is no universal standard by which every single unit in the game can be compared with. I'm curious as to why you think such a concept is anything other than completely and utterly flawed?
Theoretically, one or two units per unit type could be used as a baseline if the game had been designed that way. As an example, BFG has a Chaos and Imperial cruiser that were designed first, tested against each other, and the rest of the game built around them as a baseline.
In 40k however, you are correct in that there's simply no good way to even determine a baseline and that everyone will think of a different power level as a comparison point.
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
The SM Tactical Squad is a new unit (not the same as the 5th edition unit of the same name). So it's balanced against wraithknights according to your theory?
As to numbers - the below compares 7th ed to 5th ed, excludes named characters and excludes units changed due to core rule changes.
Codes Space Marines - Units not new to 6th/7th
IronClad (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Attack Bikes (changed from T4(5) to T5 but it's close enough)
Rhino (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Drop Pod (cost of deathwind changed from 20pts to 15 pts but it's close enough)
Thunderfire Cannon
Land Raider (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Crusader (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Redeemer (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
So that's 32 new units, 7 new units that are very similar to 5th edition units and 1 unit from 5th edition (albeit buffed significantly by core rule changes)
That is not in fact what he said.
He's trying to point out that some of your units did not exist prior to 6th.
That's correct - virtually every unit in the SM codex is new. The Thunderfire Cannon is the only unit with a datasheet identical to a 5th ed unit (but the core rules did change artillery substantially so even that is a dubious claim to being the same as the 5th ed version.
When people say x unit sucks, its not based off of another unit, its based off of the point cost for the unit and the upgrades given with what they can do.
For example, Ravenwing bikes squads with plasma gun vs black knight. Same point cost, but the ravenwing are loads better.
Terminators, for 235 points, i get 5 tac marines with a 2+ save and an assault cannon. For the same price i could get a tac squad with 10 guys so 10 wounds vs 5, with a special, and a heavy weapon like a grav and for a little more i can get a transport.
When people say x is bad, its not comparing them to space marines, or the standard mid tier unit, its a comparison of points and what you are getting when you pay for a unit.
Scott-S6 wrote:The SM Tactical Squad is a new unit (not the same as the 5th edition unit of the same name).
No, it isn't. The fact that tactical squads lost combat tactics, gained chapter tactics and went through a few other changes does not magically make them a new unit any more than releasing a patch for a video game makes that video game into a new game.
No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.
Even so, the missile launcher didn't magically become a new weapon concept in 5th edition when they changed the way that blast weapons resolved their attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IllumiNini wrote:Here's why your obsession with previous editions both makes sense and doesn't make sense: It makes sense in regards to codeces that are not up to date (i.e. don't have an edition to match the current - 7th Edition - Core Rule Book), but only as long as we consider the most recent edition of the given codex (since it is not only the most recent but also the one most likely to be used in casual and tournament play).
Again, my point have nothing to do with the rules of previous editions. My point has everything to do with the power-level disparities between pre and post 6th edition weapon concepts.
Again, chances are, most people are still playing some degree of 3rd, 4th and 5th edition.
I have a general idea of what your army is, IN, and let me tell you: you are, for the most part, if not entirely, playing a pre-6th edition army (unless you've drastically altered your army list in the recent past).
Where it doesn't make sense, however, is when you talk about the previous editions of the game (i.e. editions of the Core Rule Book prior to 7th Edition)
Where did I say anything in this thread about editions of the CRB prior to 6th edition? Please quote me.
as if they should be some benchmark for units in 7th Edition. There is no valid reason for this. Please stop. It doesn't matter what edition the unit was conceived in or how much you value the relative balance of previous editions versus 7th Edition. We are in 7th Edition and want to balance 7th Edition. How is that not clear to you by now?
Again, you're simply missing my point. The reason I bring up 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th editions is because there is still a power disparity between pre-6th and post 6th edition unit concepts. My point, note, is not that general power levels were ratcheted up as of 6th edition. I'm not complaining about the fact that tactical marines got chapter tactics. I'm not complaining about the fact that tactical squads gained the ability to take a special or heavy weapon in a 5 man squad.
No. I'm complaining about the fact that currently existing units, in this edition, which were initially released prior to this edition (even if they have updated rules in this edition), suffer from a power disparity relative to units conceived and released from 6th edition onwards.
If I have devastator squads with lascannons and you have [insert flying MC released from 6th edition onwards here], I'm going to have a bad time.
Some are just bad on their own, even within other options in the same codex. For example, the Leman Russ tank is bad, simply on its own because of its highly restrictive rules regarding what weapons it can fire.
Martel732 wrote: The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.
Speaking as someone to graduate with an accounting degree next year, and who has taken some advanced chemistry classes in the past.... without the concepts, the math has no meaning. You must understand the concepts, then, and ONLY then, can you understand the math.
Granted, it takes a lot less study to understand the concepts of the tabletop game than Accounting or Chemistry. But you still need to know them.
Melissia wrote: Some are just bad on their own, even within other options in the same codex. For example, the Leman Russ tank is bad, simply on its own because of its highly restrictive rules regarding what weapons it can fire.
In and of itself, this fact is perfectly meaningless.
You might as well be telling me that the LRBT is bad because it can't sprout wings and fly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.
I don't necessarily disagree with this.
My point is that the math is different for units prior to and posterior to 6th edition.
The math required to take down a flier is different from the math required to take down a rhino.
Traditio wrote: In and of itself, this fact is perfectly meaningless.
If, as I noted, an option is a bad choice just when comparing to other options in the same codex, rarely is it good in other meta. Not unheard of, but rare.
Melissia wrote:If, as I noted, an option is a bad choice just when comparing to other options in the same codex, rarely is it good in other meta. Not unheard of, but rare.
Ok, then you have a different argument that actually holds some degree of water.
But simply saying: "This model can't do this" or "this model carries these restrictions" doesn't really say anything about how good that model is. Do other models have similar restrictions? Are other models able to do that?
Again, it's all relative.
And again, there's a ton of codices in warhammer 40k. How does the LRBT stack up to similar models in other codices? How does the entire class of units, of which the LRBT is a part, stack up against other unit types?
Would you rather have an LRBT or its cost equivalence in tactical marines with missile launchers and flamethrowers as the heavy and special weapon options?
That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:
Melissia wrote: even within other options in the same codex.
Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.
Melissia wrote: That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:
Melissia wrote: even within other options in the same codex.
Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.
Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?
Melissia wrote: That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:
Melissia wrote: even within other options in the same codex.
Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.
Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?
What am I against? That makes a fair difference with most choices.
Melissia wrote: That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:
Melissia wrote: even within other options in the same codex.
Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.
Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?
I would rather spend the points on something else in the IG codex than the LRBT. The Predator and LRBT serve very different purposes for their individual codices, so the comparison doesn't really work that well.
The only situation the LRBT MIGHT be better than a predator is against T4 3+ infantry clumped together as tight as possible, in the middle of an open field. Otherwise, the predator is a better buy for tank hunting and putting wounds on infantry units that aren't huddling together for warmth like penguins in the Antarctic. (plus, the pred doesn't fire its sponsons as snapshots)
Melissia wrote: Some are just bad on their own, even within other options in the same codex. For example, the Leman Russ tank is bad, simply on its own because of its highly restrictive rules regarding what weapons it can fire.
Martel732 wrote: The concepts are less important than the math. It's all about the math.
Speaking as someone to graduate with an accounting degree next year, and who has taken some advanced chemistry classes in the past.... without the concepts, the math has no meaning. You must understand the concepts, then, and ONLY then, can you understand the math.
Granted, it takes a lot less study to understand the concepts of the tabletop game than Accounting or Chemistry. But you still need to know them.
It's easy to understand the concept of the missile launcher. It fires two different types of shots for two different purposes. The math tells you that both modes of fire are terrible in practice. That's what I mean. The concept in this case fails because of the math.
Traditio wrote: No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.
Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.
Traditio wrote: No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.
Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.
It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.
Grimskul wrote: It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.
Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.
The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.
The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.
Let's make sure we're sticking to the points in posts rather than other users' approaches to such. If we're finding that we can't do this, then perhaps just take a breather.
Grimskul wrote: It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.
Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.
The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.
The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.
Which is a bad thing to do because ignoring posts makes it look like you can't handle someone actually challenging your position and refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong.
Don't just ignore peoples post. If you agree with someone's post, or don't have a counter for an argument that is directed towards you then acknowledge it
Traditio wrote: No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.
Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.
And let's not forget the theoretically awesome Gorkanauts.
CrownAxe wrote: Which is a bad thing to do because ignoring posts makes it look like you can't handle someone actually challenging your position and refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong.
Don't just ignore peoples post. If you agree with someone's post, or don't have a counter for an argument that is directed towards you then acknowledge it
Really?
I usually assume that if someone doesn't reply to one of my points, they have no counter-argument, and thus I consider my point to be successful and move on.
CrownAxe wrote: Which is a bad thing to do because ignoring posts makes it look like you can't handle someone actually challenging your position and refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong.
Don't just ignore peoples post. If you agree with someone's post, or don't have a counter for an argument that is directed towards you then acknowledge it
Really?
I usually assume that if someone doesn't reply to one of my points, they have no counter-argument, and thus I consider my point to be successful and move on.
I guess we're all a bit different.
Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.
...I generally prefer it when people convince me what part of what I'm saying is wrong. Because I very often am wrong about lots of things, but I say what I say because I think I'm right. So the only way to show me I'm wrong, is to prove me wrong. And then I learn and improve. Sometimes I even switch sides on an argument entirely after a revelation like that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.
...I generally prefer it when people convince me what part of what I'm saying is wrong. Because I very often am wrong about lots of things, but I say what I say because I think I'm right. So the only way to show me I'm wrong, is to prove me wrong. And then I learn and improve. Sometimes I even switch sides on an argument entirely after a revelation like that.
Then flat out state "I agree with everything you said except this statement, and this is why:".
Scott-S6 wrote:The SM Tactical Squad is a new unit (not the same as the 5th edition unit of the same name).
No, it isn't. The fact that tactical squads lost combat tactics, gained chapter tactics and went through a few other changes does not magically make them a new unit any more than releasing a patch for a video game makes that video game into a new game.
No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.
Ok, theoretical:
Against all expectations, Codex:CSM follows soon after the Traitor's Hate supplement.
Chaos Space Marine squads now carry bolters, bolt pistols and CCW as standard, they must choose a mark, but may do so for free, and can be upgraded to carry 2 special weapons, including grav and volkite from 30k, per 5 models, and now have some thing functionally analogous to ATSKNF.
They cost 55 points for a base squad of 5.
By your own standards, they still suck because they're an old unit with updated rules?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Usually the post is ignored because it can be considered cherry-picking and therefore it is thought you can't stand being wrong and have to find the single piece that might be incorrect, ergo proving yourself right again, rather than taking the time to say whether or not you agree to specific points.
...I generally prefer it when people convince me what part of what I'm saying is wrong. Because I very often am wrong about lots of things, but I say what I say because I think I'm right. So the only way to show me I'm wrong, is to prove me wrong. And then I learn and improve. Sometimes I even switch sides on an argument entirely after a revelation like that.
Then flat out state "I agree with everything you said except this statement, and this is why:".
Indeed. You may think its redundant, but whenever you're speaking in text you need to be pretty damn explicit regarding your stance on things otherwise, just like how you're assuming people implicitly know you agree with them, many people will assume the worst and consider your lack of response as a sign of you ignoring them. There's no real tone, facial cues or body language to read off of to know otherwise. It's the same when you write out an essay, you really have to be as concise and open about every angle you're considering to your reader when you explain your thesis and arguments, you can't have them assume they're mind-readers and know every single thing you're talking about (and that's why you have citations/quotes).
Melissia wrote: That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:
Melissia wrote: even within other options in the same codex.
Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.
Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?
For 150 points I can buy a Tri-las predator. A Tri-las predator...
-Has better BS -Can fire all of it's guns
-Has three S9 AP2 shots and thus can threaten a wider variety of targets
-Faster
-Can get bonuses from CT/Being in a full squadron
Seems like a better deal to me especially since blast weapons are kind of... pants.
An absence of response can easily be a disingenuous attempt to sidestep an argument which the responder cannot rebut, but does not wish to openly concede because that hurts their position.
Actually saying "fair point, I can't argue with that" carries no such issues.
An absence of response can easily be a disingenuous attempt to sidestep an argument which the responder cannot rebut, but does not wish to openly concede because that hurts their position.
If they're unwilling to argue the point anymore... why does it even matter? That point is not going to be something that comes into play again, and the discussion moves on to other things they are willing to debate.
Actually saying "fair point, I can't argue with that" carries no such issues.
So... for some people, it's not enough to know they're right, they have to hear other people say they're right too?
Look, this is off topic and it isn't even up for discussion. Irrespective of how it sits with you, your absence of response will not necessarily be interpreted the way you intend.
It doesn't matter if you understand the whys and wherefores, just accept that it is.
Azreal13 wrote: Look, this is off topic and it isn't even up for discussion. Irrespective of how it sits with you, your absence of response will not necessarily be interpreted the way you intend.
It doesn't matter if you understand the whys and wherefores, just accept that it is.
Grimskul wrote: It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.
Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.
The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.
The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.
Grimskul wrote: It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.
Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.
The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.
The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.
No, the person I was replying to brought it up. I provided an explanation for why people might act that way.
So, now that we're completely off topic into a discussion of whether or not people should ignore posts, I think it's safe to say that this thread has reached the end of its useful discussion and we can all agree that Traditio's latest balance theories are terrible?
Peregrine wrote: So, now that we're completely off topic into a discussion of whether or not people should ignore posts, I think it's safe to say that this thread has reached the end of its useful discussion and we can all agree that Traditio's latest balance theories are terrible?
1. I agree that this most recent discussion is off-topic. The question of the OP is what they use to make value-judgment claims about any given unit. Note that this question is an open question. It's not as though I had some thesis that I had in mind in the OP.
2. Whether or not you agree with me, there's no need to engage in this kind of rhetoric, and especially no need, Peregrine, to divulge personal information which was not divulged as a matter of public record (as you have done in a previous thread). You are an adult. I am an adult. I expect that you will act and speak accordingly, and I will be happy to do likewise. If you disagree with a given point that I'm making, I ask that you please restrict yourself to a discussion of that point. There's no need to engage in a game of mockery, ridicule and public points-scoring.
Rule 1 and all.
3. I also wish to note that, for all of your rude interjections, your point is no more on-topic than that of Pouncy et al.
Complaining about posters going off topic is itself offtopic. Very meta. I know.
Again, I reiterate the question of the OP:
What do you mean when you say, e.g., "LRBTs are bad"?
Traditio wrote: No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.
Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.
It's an exception that proves the rule. Eldar jetbikes, and bikes in general, fall into an exceptional category of old units that got bizarrely bosted in 6+ edition due to thinks like jink rules.
The eldar jetbike is particularly exceptional because of the release of the new kits which provided scatter lasers for all of the bikes.
Go through your codex. Go through the space marine codex. Go through any modern codex.
Individually speaking, how many models, in and of themselves, are "good" relative to the competitive meta which are 6+ edition releases? Prior to 6th?
What do you mean when you say, e.g., "LRBTs are bad"?
As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.
Wolfblade wrote:As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.
Anything else? Anything?
Ok. How about the points equivalence in chaos cultists?
What about the points equivalence in space marine devastators with missile launchers?
What about the points equivalence of chaos space marine predators?
How about the points equivalence of Tyrranid Carnifexes without twin-linked devourerers?
How about the points equivalence of a non-bike space marine captain?
Wolfblade wrote:As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.
Anything else? Anything?
Ok. How about the points equivalence in chaos cultists?
What about the points equivalence in space marine devastators with missile launchers?
What about the points equivalence of chaos space marine predators?
How about the points equivalence of Tyrranid Carnifexes without twin-linked devourerers?
How about the points equivalence of a non-bike space marine captain?
Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role, I didn't think I needed to specify that we're comparing units with the same role as it's almost impossible to balance every unit against every other unit.
But yes, I'd take SMDevs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las), and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).
Not to the SM captain, because again, similar roles. A captain does not fill the same role a LRBT tries to fill.
Traditio wrote: 2. Whether or not you agree with me, there's no need to engage in this kind of rhetoric, and especially no need, Peregrine, to divulge personal information which was not divulged as a matter of public record (as you have done in a previous thread). You are an adult. I am an adult. I expect that you will act and speak accordingly, and I will be happy to do likewise. If you disagree with a given point that I'm making, I ask that you please restrict yourself to a discussion of that point. There's no need to engage in a game of mockery, ridicule and public points-scoring.
Rule 1 and all.
I have broken no such rules. Your balance theories are terrible, and I'm not going to hesitate to call them that. I don't know where you are getting this idea that I am not restricting myself to discussion of that point, every post I have made in this thread is directly related to your balance theories. Please don't make false accusations for the sake of claiming some weird moral high ground.
It's an exception that proves the rule. Eldar jetbikes, and bikes in general, fall into an exceptional category of old units that got bizarrely bosted in 6+ edition due to thinks like jink rules.
The eldar jetbike is particularly exceptional because of the release of the new kits which provided scatter lasers for all of the bikes.
Go through your codex. Go through the space marine codex. Go through any modern codex.
Individually speaking, how many models, in and of themselves, are "good" relative to the competitive meta which are 6+ edition releases? Prior to 6th?
And now you're just handwaving away criticism. Eldar jetbikes don't count because they were boosted in 7th edition. Presumably tactical marines won't count because their free transports don't count for some reason. And so on until you're left with only the units that are not powerful in 7th. You're "proving" your theory by declaring that all of the evidence fits once you remove the evidence that doesn't fit!
The simple fact here is that there is no rule that models which existed prior to 6th edition have any particular power level. Some of them are good, some of them are awful, some are in the middle. Just like some new units are good, some are awful, and some are in the middle. Your theory that there is some "pre-6th" level of balance that is separate from the rest of 7th does not match reality. Nor is pre-6th balance relevant in a discussion of power levels in 7th edition.
"What do you mean when you say, e.g., "LRBTs are bad"? "
It means I would never pay the points GW has assigned to it to field one. I don't have to compare a unit to another unit; I can compare it to the cost to field said unit.
K I'll bite. Lets compare things with Tactical marines.
10 bare Tacticals in Rhino 140 points in the popular formation
The best orks can do to approximate it is 10 'eavy armor shoota boyz + nob in a ard cased looted wagon. 171 points
For these extra 31 points Orks get: -No rhino repair -Don't press that -4+ sv instead of 3+ sv -Ld 7 instead of ld8 -Mob rule instead of ATSNNF -BS2 instead of 4 -I2 instead of 4 -S3 instead of 4 -No chapter tactics -18" range weapons instead of 24" range weapons -Only assault grenades -No special weapon options -Only heavy weapon options are nerfed heavy bolter nerfed missile launcher. -Needs CAD, and takes up a heavy support slot -No meltabomb, power weapon or special weapon option for the nob
+2 attacks instead of 1 +Furious charge +Assault instead of rapid fire weapons +Ere we go +Acces to kill cannon, and ork vehicle upgrades.
Yeah lets call that a fair trade
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now the relevant question. Does this make shoota boyz bad in my list? I have no idea how should I know. I can't buy those marines can I
It was never an assault vehicle it was an open topped vehicle. making it not open topped makes it less vulnerable to explode results and protects the crew vs flamers etc. but more importantly it now is a rhino. Making the comparison better.
oldzoggy wrote: It was never an assault vehicle it was an open topped vehicle. making it not open topped makes it less vulnerable to explode results and protects the crew vs flamers etc. but more importantly it now is a rhino. Making the comparison better.
Wolfblade wrote:Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role
Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?
But yes, I'd take SMDevs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las)
You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT. So how about a CSM predator with autocannon and heavy bolter side sponsons? Would you take that over the LRBT?
and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).
You said "anything." A carnifex without devourers falls under "anything." Would you take that over an LRBT?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL what flamers? The two to three on every map?
1. Eldar love their d-scythes.
2. The new deathwatch meta is probably going to be frag cannon heavy.
That said, it's true that normal flamers are relatively rare in the competitive metas.
That doesn't prove that 85 point whirlwinds are bad. It only shows that they are inferior to those other options. To show that 85 point whirlwinds are bad, you'd have to show that the other options are well-balanced and appropriately costed in terms of points, and the whirlwind is STILL inferior for its points.
Wolfblade wrote:Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role
Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?
But yes, I'd take SMDevs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las)
You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT. So how about a CSM predator with autocannon and heavy bolter side sponsons? Would you take that over the LRBT?
and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).
You said "anything." A carnifex without devourers falls under "anything." Would you take that over an LRBT?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL what flamers? The two to three on every map?
1. Eldar love their d-scythes.
2. The new deathwatch meta is probably going to be frag cannon heavy.
That said, it's true that normal flamers are relatively rare in the competitive metas.
Anyone running Wraith guard is likely going for the Cannons due to the range they have, rather than making them a one hit wonder.
Also you have any clue how expensive Frag Cannons are? You're going to see a few but not enough to make grabbing an Ard Case worth it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: So I guess it's okay for Tradito to compare units that are a different role and points costs but it's not if we do it since earlier he said:
That doesn't prove that 85 point whirlwinds are bad. It only shows that they are inferior to those other options. To show that 85 point whirlwinds are bad, you'd have to show that the other options are well-balanced and appropriately costed in terms of points, and the whirlwind is STILL inferior for its points.
Ashiraya wrote:A looted wagon is not a battlewagon, Melly.
The boomwagon (looted wagon with boomgun) has similar role to the LRBT really. No transport, similar weapon.
Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.
Traditio wrote:Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?
I don't think anyone would prefer the Looted Wagon if they had the choice; the LRBT has better armour, better crew and better hull mounts as well as the option for sponsons, though sponsons are a bit too pricey for what you can often do with them.
Wolfblade wrote:Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role
Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?
No, but only because you're picking from one of the codexes worse than IG. You got me, you found one of few units that are worse. Doesn't mean the LRBT is good however. Anything was hyperbole, as obviously I wouldn't take the LRBT points in ork boys, or naked SM tactical squads, etc.
But yes, I'd take SMDevs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las)
You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT. So how about a CSM predator with autocannon and heavy bolter side sponsons? Would you take that over the LRBT?
You said units, nothing about how they're configured. Tri las preds yes. Autocannon/HB depends on what I'm facing, but even those have a more consistent output than a LRBT.
Also, the original post about this I think:
Melissia wrote: That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:
Melissia wrote: even within other options in the same codex.
Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.
Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?
Wolfblade wrote:As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.
Anything else? Anything?
Ok. How about the points equivalence in chaos cultists?
What about the points equivalence in space marine devastators with missile launchers?
What about the points equivalence of chaos space marine predators?
How about the points equivalence of Tyrranid Carnifexes without twin-linked devourerers?
How about the points equivalence of a non-bike space marine captain?
"Relevant upgrades", meaning tri las if I want to hunt tanks/MCs, or autocannon/HB if I want infantry. Nothing about upgrades, so I'll take my tri las preds over LRBTs. Also you're cherrypicking out the upgrades that make things even remotely viable.
and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).
You said "anything." A carnifex without devourers falls under "anything." Would you take that over an LRBT?
You're also cherrypicking things that are almost worse than a LRBT with your crap upgrades (i.e. SMdevs with MLs, dakka preds instead of tri las), so no, I'll take my carnifexes WITH the devourers. You can't just exclude certain upgrades because they prove you wrong. That's exactly what you were doing as Peregrine said before:
And now you're just handwaving away criticism. Eldar jetbikes don't count because they were boosted in 7th edition. Presumably tactical marines won't count because their free transports don't count for some reason. And so on until you're left with only the units that are not powerful in 7th. You're "proving" your theory by declaring that all of the evidence fits once you remove the evidence that doesn't fit!/quote]
The eldar jetbike is particularly exceptional because of the release of the new kits which provided scatter lasers for all of the bikes.
And SM bikes were boosted with the addition of grav guns.
Devestators got grav cannons and skyhammer.
Tacticals got the whole range of grav weapons and a points drop and access to free transports.
Lots of pre-6th units got boosted for 6th or 7th.
There are also plenty of terrible units that came out in 6th and 7th.
You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT.
No, not regardless of configuration. Most units can be made dramatically worse by poor upgrade selection as you've demonstrated with your gladius.
If you're trying to compare unit capability why would you deliberately include poor unit configurations other than to be obtuse or pedantic?
General Annoyance wrote: Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.
No, not identical, just similar. Specifically, the Ork weapon is 24".
No, I do not have the new Ork codex, nor have I read it. I only have the 4th edition one. But GW does not change this kind of thing in this kind of codex.
Go through your codex. Go through the space marine codex. Go through any modern codex.
Individually speaking, how many models, in and of themselves, are "good" relative to the competitive meta which are 6+ edition releases? Prior to 6th?
Sure, I'll bite.
Of the 10 new tyranids released since the start of 6th edition, 2 see any time in competitive lists. (Mucolid spores and hive crones).
Of the ~35 pre-6th tyranids, about 9 commonly feature in competitive lists. Tyrants, rippers, lictors, venomthropes, gargoyles, harpies (admittedly as a tax unit), spore mines, mawlocs, and malanthropes. (YMMV, but close enough)
Most people would rather have a LRBT than 150 points of crisis suits with no weapons (and lots of expensive upgrades to get 150 points in as few models as possible), therefore LRBTs are not terrible!
General Annoyance wrote: Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.
No, not identical, just similar. Specifically, the Ork weapon is 24".
No, I do not have the new Ork codex, nor have I read it. I only have the 4th edition one. But GW does not change this kind of thing in this kind of codex.
Apparently we're both wrong to an extent the datasheet for their use in 7th (they weren't put in the codex at launch) states that they can only take a Killkannon, which is the thing that's mounted on Battlewagons - S7, AP3, 5" blast, 24".
So now they're even worse But I guess it is a hell of a lot cheaper than an LRBT, and it can now hold onto its transport capacity, so I could potentially see them being taken over an LRBT.
You still only have front armour 11, and "Don't Press Dat" makes a return
In the modern game, everything gets compared to Tactical Marines (Thus MEQ, for Marine Equivilent)
Going back a long ways, the baseline was the Imperial Guardsman, whose statline was the basis of the Rogue Trader "How much should this model cost?" metrics.
As such, when it comes to footsloggers, those are my measuring sticks. (Which hurts when you compare, say, 60 points of Guardsmen with flashlights vs 60 points of Ork Boys with Choppas and Sluggas, but, there ya go.)
Peregrine wrote: Most people would rather have a LRBT than 150 points of crisis suits with no weapons (and lots of expensive upgrades to get 150 points in as few models as possible), therefore LRBTs are not terrible!
TheCustomLime wrote: So I guess it's okay for Tradito to compare units that are a different role and points costs but it's not if we do it since earlier he said:
That doesn't prove that 85 point whirlwinds are bad. It only shows that they are inferior to those other options. To show that 85 point whirlwinds are bad, you'd have to show that the other options are well-balanced and appropriately costed in terms of points, and the whirlwind is STILL inferior for its points.
I already proved it and he ignored me
It's been proven several times and yet people still bite at the bit to get in on the conversation that isn't actually happening in these threads. There's a different set of rules a certain poster lives by and that poster is exempt from them. We should really stop engaging.
about 5th edition power levels, the game isn't 5th edition anymore. Talking about 5th edition power levels makes about as much sense as talking about how a unit in a 2016 codex is overpowered when you use the 5th edition rules for wound allocation, or how Wraithknights are ok because the 4th edition rules limit superheavies/GMCs to a separate war machine detachment that can only be taken above 2000 points.
