Equally playable? Yes. Equally efficient? No. It's about finding the area in between that keeps all the options available to you as potentials to mix into your playstyle, while also keeping each unit feeling unique and different from similar units.
And some units can be better than others, provided they're not in the same Codex - Guardsmen could cost the same as Cultists since the IG player has a completely different tool set to a CSM player, who will have to make do with an inferior unit in favour of the things he gets that an IG player doesn't have. Again, however, the unit still needs to end up being feasible to play.
The question doesn't make sense. You would need to define better, points efficient, and playable to be able to answer this question. Even then, context matters; a unit that's good in one army could be terrible in another, so I'm not holding my breath on this going anywhere.
Same points = basically the same capabilities. If I have a model with x statline over here, and I have a model with the exact same statline over here, assuming everything else is equal, they should cost the same thing.
No. A variety of situations occur in this game. What is "good" for one situation may be "bad" for another. It removes all flavor from the game if any option is just as good as any other in every situation.
In every other situation, yes, models with the same capabilities should cost the same. But I still voted "no" to alter your precious polling percentages.
Lansirill wrote: The question doesn't make sense. You would need to define better, points efficient, and playable to be able to answer this question. Even then, context matters; a unit that's good in one army could be terrible in another, so I'm not holding my breath on this going anywhere.
I'm going to give Traditio the benefit of the doubt on this one simply to keep the thread from turning into a garbage fire; I believe by having equal points efficiency, he means that each unit will (factoring in chance) translate equally in battlefield output to points spent on it.
The flaw in that is that some units are deliberately designed to be inefficient, such as a Big Mek with a Shokk Attack Gun. And like you said, context can have a massive effect on any unit's efficiency, as every unit in the game has its strengths and weaknesses.
Traditio wrote: Same points = basically the same capabilities. If I have a model with x statline over here, and I have a model with the exact same statline over here, assuming everything else is equal, they should cost the same thing.
I wouldn't base it around statlines, but there should be some kind of centralised points costing for capabilities on the tabletop. Be a hell of a thing to try and design, though.
No, because different armies should have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, Tau are good at shooting and movement but terrible in the assault phase. If GW gives Tau any assault units they should be weak for their point cost so that Tau keep the weakness of being bad if you can successfully charge them. The hypothetical Tau assault unit would be available if you really want to upgrade from "auto-lose if charged" to "can stop some weaker threats", but it wouldn't be efficient enough that you'd ever consider it a significant element of your strategy. If you assume that all options must be equally point-efficient then the only way to have Tau be good at shooting but weak in melee would be to give them no units at all which can do anything but automatically die when charged, since any unit which is even somewhat assault-focused in design concept would have to be as good in that role as assault units in assault-heavy armies.
All units should be good, meaning they can all be used and work in the right list, so they should be equally playable. But no, not all units have to be equal for points
Same points = basically the same capabilities. If I have a model with x statline over here, and I have a model with the exact same statline over here, assuming everything else is equal, they should cost the same thing.
(Preface: I'm assuming we're talking about units being roughly equally useful for their points, not necessarily identical in terms of their intended roles or abilities.)
My gut instinct is to say, "Of course things that have similar capabilities should have the same cost!" That said, I can see some solid alternative arguments.
As Peregrine has already mentioned, some armies are designed with certain strengths and weaknesses in mind. To modify his Tau example, Tau are (supposedly) designed around the idea that they bring quality firepower to the table, but they struggle if you can reach melee. This is part of their playstyle and identity. Therefor, any assault unit they have should probably not be as good at killing things in close combat as a melee unit of similar points. Now, that's not to say that a unit should just be flat-out worse for their points than the melee unit of another codex of similar cost. That would just mean that the melee unit was a terrible choice that never got fielded except for fluff purposes. A Tau "melee unit" that costs the same as a khornate melee unit might be less killy, but maybe it's relatively mobile or has hit & run thus allowing it to "block" enemies from assaulting shooty units and then disengage them so that the rest of your army can shoot them up on your turn.
You could also probably make an argument for some armies being intentionally having varying levels of points-efficiency in different places. For instance, it's arguably fluffy for tyranids to have relatively inefficient troops (cheap, but not cheap enough for their limited capabilities) and relatively efficient big bugs if we assume the theme of the army is to have lots of little bugs that are mostly there to distract/lock-down units while the big guys do all the heavy lifting. Not that that's necessarily where 'nids are right now, but you can see where that might be a reasonable design philosophy for them. If 200 points of gaunts were as good at killing a wide variety of targets as a 200 point MC, then you lose the feeling that the little guys are there to swarm you while the big guys do the heavy lifting.
There's also a really odd, counter-intuitive perspective that Riot developers have expressed in regards to their game League of Legends. At one point, a developer basically suggested that it was okay for some champions to be less effective/efficient/powerful than others because sometimes it's fun to intentionally play a more challenging champion knowing that you had to work that much harder for your win. As much as I want my dark eldar to get some love, part of me acknowledges that there's a certain appeal to winning with an underpowered army.
This is the fundamental issue. When some people ask this question they're trying to make a rhetorical/sarcastic point about how making everything identical would kill the personality of the game.
The basic problem here is that we can ask the basic question "should every option be equally good?" and debate endlessly when the actual problem is that it's very difficult to work out what it means or how to do it. I'd suggest an alternative test and definition as follows:
A unit is "strictly better" than another rather than simply "better" if it fills the same role and is a superior choice in all circumstances and against all targets. In an ideal game no unit or Codex is strictly better than another, since you take choice away from the players and depth away from the game by reducing the possibility space, and you annoy people who pick their stuff based on how cool it looks before realizing how terrible it is. The issue with how 40k is designed is that too many units are sat in the same narrow design spaces and hence challenge the designers to avoid making one strictly better than another; if two units do the same thing but have different costs the choice between them becomes meaningless.
For a few points of comparison here let's look first at Grey Knight Strike Squads and Grey Knight Purifiers. A Strike Squad is ML1, and is 20pts/model for one Attack; Purifiers are 24pts/model for two Attacks (the same price as a Strike Squad would be with Falchions for that extra attack), with ML2 and an extra offensive power. The two units have almost identical profiles, equipment, and options, the difference is that the Purifiers are better at almost everything than the Strike squad. You could argue that the prices should be better-balanced but all you'd accomplish by doing that is changing which unit is strictly better; any way you price it either one is better or they're indistinguishable and the choice is meaningless.
Consider second Legion Tactical Squads versus Legion Veteran Tactical Squads in the 30k Legion list. A Tactical Squad is Scoring (in an environment where only Troops are Scoring), only armed with bolters, and has the power to fire their bolters twice in exchange for not shooting next turn, a Veteran Tactical Squad has special/heavy/melee weapon options and a few extra special rules. They're two units designed to do different things, by comparison to the usual Elites unit as Troops unit +stuff design philosophy that pervades 40k.
If there was more attention devoted to making sure every unit had a distinct and useful role, then the question of which units are 'better' becomes more manageable. You'd have the added benefit of dodging the concept of the 'tax' unit taken only because army-building restrictions require it, rather than because you actually want to use it, and the frustration/resentment that causes.
This is the fundamental issue. When some people ask this question they're trying to make a rhetorical/sarcastic point about how making everything identical would kill the personality of the game.
The basic problem here is that we can ask the basic question "should every option be equally good?" and debate endlessly when the actual problem is that it's very difficult to work out what it means or how to do it. I'd suggest an alternative test and definition as follows:
A unit is "strictly better" than another rather than simply "better" if it fills the same role and is a superior choice in all circumstances and against all targets. In an ideal game no unit or Codex is strictly better than another, since you take choice away from the players and depth away from the game by reducing the possibility space, and you annoy people who pick their stuff based on how cool it looks before realizing how terrible it is. The issue with how 40k is designed is that too many units are sat in the same narrow design spaces and hence challenge the designers to avoid making one strictly better than another; if two units do the same thing but have different costs the choice between them becomes meaningless.
For a few points of comparison here let's look first at Grey Knight Strike Squads and Grey Knight Purifiers. A Strike Squad is ML1, and is 20pts/model for one Attack; Purifiers are 24pts/model for two Attacks (the same price as a Strike Squad would be with Falchions for that extra attack), with ML2 and an extra offensive power. The two units have almost identical profiles, equipment, and options, the difference is that the Purifiers are better at almost everything than the Strike squad. You could argue that the prices should be better-balanced but all you'd accomplish by doing that is changing which unit is strictly better; any way you price it either one is better or they're indistinguishable and the choice is meaningless.
Consider second Legion Tactical Squads versus Legion Veteran Tactical Squads in the 30k Legion list. A Tactical Squad is Scoring (in an environment where only Troops are Scoring), only armed with bolters, and has the power to fire their bolters twice in exchange for not shooting next turn, a Veteran Tactical Squad has special/heavy/melee weapon options and a few extra special rules. They're two units designed to do different things, by comparison to the usual Elites unit as Troops unit +stuff design philosophy that pervades 40k.
If there was more attention devoted to making sure every unit had a distinct and useful role, then the question of which units are 'better' becomes more manageable. You'd have the added benefit of dodging the concept of the 'tax' unit taken only because army-building restrictions require it, rather than because you actually want to use it, and the frustration/resentment that causes.
Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?
Insectum7 wrote: Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?
Exactly, value is enormously contextual.
A meltagun in squad that can take three is much more valuable than in a squad that can only take one.
A meltagun is much more valuable in a squad that has an effective means of closing on an enemy unit.
A meltagun is more valuable in a unit that has higher BS.
A meltagun is more valuable in a unit that is harder to kill.
Every unit should have a purpose and be relatively viable. Perfect balance isn't possible but nothing should stand out as being terrible in every situation and nothing should stand out as being over the top op.
Insectum7 wrote: Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?
Very much an achievable goal. People often get hung up on trying to ensure everything is perfect, but all you need is "good enough". You figure out the cost of a drop pod based on a rough guess of how much it improves the usefulness of the units it can transport (and compared to other transports), then give it a point cost that straddles a good middle ground.
This allows players to find synergy without breaking the game. It means weapons like melts guns can have an effective role to play in a game where you could achieve the same result by parking a bunch of lascannons in the back field. It allows for variety of play styles.
We know balance like this is achievable simply because other games have achieved it. 40k isn't some special case where it can never be balanced and fixed. It's just another wargame and they all follow the same basic principles that you can balance if you take the time and effort.
Insectum7 wrote: Not an achievable goal, as value is ultimately contextual. Does a drop pod increase the value of melta guns? Should a drop pod cost different for a squad armed with lascannons compared to a squad armed with meltaguns?
Very much an achievable goal. People often get hung up on trying to ensure everything is perfect, but all you need is "good enough". You figure out the cost of a drop pod based on a rough guess of how much it improves the usefulness of the units it can transport (and compared to other transports), then give it a point cost that straddles a good middle ground.
This allows players to find synergy without breaking the game. It means weapons like melts guns can have an effective role to play in a game where you could achieve the same result by parking a bunch of lascannons in the back field. It allows for variety of play styles.
We know balance like this is achievable simply because other games have achieved it. 40k isn't some special case where it can never be balanced and fixed. It's just another wargame and they all follow the same basic principles that you can balance if you take the time and effort.
I think "perfect balance" is often what these thought exercises are about, which is why I say it's not achievable. But I agree that "good enough" is really the goal we're after.
However I also feel that 40Ks balance is "good enough".
You put up a binary poll, ascribe a whole bunch of inference to "yes" or "no" that isn't explained in the OP AND try and use it as any sort of evidence when there's barely 50 responses?
Truly, every time I think you can't create a worse thread, you go ahead and prove me wrong.
To the rest of Dakka: This poster is deliberately wasting your time, stop giving him oxygen.
No. There should be bad units, bad builds, etc. In other words, some lists should be auto-lose.
If you don't take a dakka flyrant, then yes, your tyrranids army should lose. Every time.
GW should DESIGN it that way.
Uh oh, troll voters are among us!
I voted no for the reasons I said in the very first response in this thread, not for some fairy tale narrative you've come up with to villainise me for not agreeing with you.
Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?
I think it's more that the OP asks two yes or no questions, meaning we've no way of knowing which one people are responding to, rendering the whole affair meaningless. As per.
Should all options in the game be equally points efficient and equally playable in game?
Should one unit selection be "better" than another unit selection?
Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?
I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.
The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.
In other words:
"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."
Traditio wrote: I think that the poll shows why the 40k community is so toxic.
There is basically a 50/50 split.
A little less than half of people agree with me:
Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.
The other half disagree:
No. There should be bad units, bad builds, etc. In other words, some lists should be auto-lose.
If you don't take a dakka flyrant, then yes, your tyrranids army should lose. Every time.
GW should DESIGN it that way.
Looks like someone is jumping to conclusions again.
Just because someone voted "no" doesn't mean that they think it's fine having some builds be bad. It just means that it's impossible to balance things as perfectly as you seem to think is possible. Your poll is way too generalized to be meaningful, and hasn't even been up long enough to get the black-and-white results that you are claiming.
And just because the poll is split does not somehow make the 40k community "toxic". Frankly, it's people like you making things toxic.
Why don't you just sell me your 40k stuff at a bargain and use the money to get stuff for another game if you think 40k is so broken. I mean, three (or more?) threads in one week complaining about this or that broken thing in 40k?
Traditio wrote: I think that the poll shows why the 40k community is so toxic.
No, your posts in this thread do a much better job of this. You've clearly decided that you don't like certain types of players, and this thread is just one more attempt to "prove" that you're right to dislike them.
A little less than half of people agree with me:
Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.
The other half disagree:
No. There should be bad units, bad builds, etc. In other words, some lists should be auto-lose.
First of all, that's not what the poll asks. You ask about unit selections in the poll, and now you present it as if people are endorsing your opinions on army balance.
Second, your idea that "I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning" is terrible game design. Should you, in a game where tanks exist, be able to deliberately take an army with zero weapons capable of hurting a tank and expect a decent chance of winning? Of course not. Good game design means that bad strategies are not effective. Otherwise you remove the elements that make a game a game, and replace interesting strategy with a 50/50 coin flip where both sides get a participation trophy no matter how badly they play.
Finally, your claim that "bad units" and "some lists should auto-lose" are equivalent is nonsense. Read the example I gave with the Tau. Giving Tau a weak assault unit (in line with their army concept of being good at shooting but poor at assault) means that there is a bad unit, and a bad build if you build your whole list around it. But that doesn't mean that any reasonable Tau list automatically loses because of it. If you're taking the assault unit in its intended role as a minor supporting element the Tau advantages in shooting and movement offset the weakness of the assault unit, and your list as a whole can still win just fine. You only get an auto-lose list if you, for some insane reason, decide to build your assault-focused army from the Tau codex instead of Khorne CSM. And see above about how bad ideas should not be effective.
If you don't take a dakka flyrant, then yes, your tyrranids army should lose. Every time.
That is a blatant straw man. Nobody is arguing that having a codex where you either take a single specific unit or lose every time is a good thing. Nobody. If you can't have a discussion without strawmanning the other side then please stop trying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.
And there you go again, pretending that the poll is asking something other than what you put in the OP. The question your poll asks has nothing to do with power creep or scale creep.
Power creep is about increasing the power of the entire game over time. You start with weapons doing 1 damage against 10 HP targets, and after a few updates you've got weapons doing 10,000 damage against targets with 100,000 HP. And because power creep is generally a gradual process it doesn't necessarily produce major balance issues at any specific point in time. The new unit/army/whatever might be 5% more effective than some of the older stuff, but from an "is it fun" point of view that's not a major issue.
Scale creep is about increasing the size of models/units/armies. It has absolutely nothing to do with balance. It is possible to change 40k from a small-scale skirmish game to a default of 50,000 point Apocalypse games with multiple Warlord titan equivalents on each side without introducing any balance issues at all, as long as things like those Warlord titans have appropriate point costs for their rules.
Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?
I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.
The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.
In other words:
"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."
Nobody is getting mocked for taking tac marines though.
Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?
I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.
The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.
In other words:
"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."
Nobody is mocking you for taking Tactical Marines per se, but you are being mocked based on the fact that you seems to use Tactical Marines with Bolters as your baseline comparison model for absolutely everything.
Peregrine wrote:
Traditio wrote: I think that the poll shows why the 40k community is so toxic.
No, your posts in this thread do a much better job of this. You've clearly decided that you don't like certain types of players, and this thread is just one more attempt to "prove" that you're right to dislike them.
Should 2 Main battle tanks at the same point cost perform near the same level? Yes.
Should they perform at the same level against the same targets? No.
For example. lets say the Russ battle take vs a predator
The russ for 150 points comes with HB's and a battle cannon which is a 5" blast, S8 AP3
The Predetor is 140 for TL laz cannon and side laz guns that are each S9 AP2.
Now, both are Main Battle tanks but both serve different purposes. The Pred is an armor hunter, its going to do a far better job at popping vehicles then the Lemmen russ. BUT the lemmon russ is better at taking out MEQ or groups of enemies because of its large blast tahts going to ignore most armor saves.
Its very hard to compare units and how good they are because their roles may vastly differ.
To more accurately assess if a unit is worth its price, you need to look at the role it provides on the field vs how well it can perform that role.
For example, we will use the pred again, i can outfit a pred for 140 points and its going to get at most 3 shots with AP2 S9 at a target. Compaire with a dev squad, say fully loaded with grav its going to be able to fire off 12 AP2 shots, wounding on armor value, if they move, if still its going to be a deady 20 shots. Now compare price tags.
pred is 140, and the dev squad is 210, BUT its a lot more damage out on the field. You then would need to compare those units to another acquitted unit that performs the same role.
Now if we are saying, person A shows up with 1500 points and person B shows up with 1500 points, should that match be balanced?
Yes, IF, those lists are equally loaded out to deal with each other.
If you show up with 1500 of flyers and i show up with 1500 of AA that 1500 points should be at a disadvantage.
There are too many variables from army to army to demand that any two selections of equal point value be equal to one another in all regards.
Exalted for truth.
While ideally any two lists of equal points should be equally matched, the reality is that bad matchups do happen. Even the powerful armies (like Eldar) can run into something that can hard counter them. Perhaps not as often as the "weaker" armies, but it still happens. And it's not just in 40k; I've heard about this kind of thing in Warmachine and X-wing as well, so it's just a fact of life that no game system will give perfect, even games 100% of the time. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.
If you want two armies that are perfectly evenly matched 100% of the time, play chess. Both players get the exact same armies, with the exact same rules.
If you ever take Rhino marines with flamers and missile launchers you should have an autolose. All other armies should be reasonably balanced with each other, with all wargear having a use, but not in every situation.
Like, if you put terminator armor on your captain to go with your bike command squad, you should lose because you're being dumb.
I think there should be a reason to take each unit and option. Everything in the Codex should be the best tool for the job in at least one situation.
Perfectly balancing the game's points costs is an impossible task. I once tried to imagine the variables needed to calculate the perfect points value for every option. Ten seconds in I realized the formula would be way too long and would have to be recalculated every time something new is added to the game. It's actually a better approach to playtest units and try to make an intuitive guess as to an appropriate points value.
I hope 8th edition is just a single book called Codex: Traditio's Tacticals and the entire game is just tactical squads slinging missiles at each other.
Then we can finally get around to banning those damn missile launchers
Overall balance should be the aim. Balance, however, doesn't mean identical. That's chess.
Let's say my son brings 1500 points of Terminators to the table to face my 1500 points of Grots. All in all, he should win, since model for model his are "better". However, I might get lucky, and, in a recent game, my Grots did wipe out a Terminator unit (after they'd been thoroughly softened up by 3 other units).
More importantly, the OP question ignores dice in the question. My grot rolling a 6 will almost always do better than my son's Terminator rolling 1s.
stroller wrote: Overall balance should be the aim. Balance, however, doesn't mean identical. That's chess.
Let's say my son brings 1500 points of Terminators to the table to face my 1500 points of Grots. All in all, he should win, since model for model his are "better". However, I might get lucky, and, in a recent game, my Grots did wipe out a Terminator unit (after they'd been thoroughly softened up by 3 other units).
More importantly, the OP question ignores dice in the question. My grot rolling a 6 will almost always do better than my son's Terminator rolling 1s.
There will never be a version of WH40k where any army can go up against any other army and have a fair fight.
Proof: An army of Land Raiders against an army of Tactical Marines with Bolters.
Traditio wrote: Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.
So you think that if I use nothing but Grots and a Boss without any upgrades I should be able to equally match someones all flyer Necron list?
Yes, at least, in an objectives game. The necron fliers should have such a low rate of fire and should be so points expensive that, if you use cover and position your dudes right, you should be able to swarm the field with bodies, laugh at your opponent and win the game. Sure, your opponent should be able to hit your grots hard, but he shouldn't be able to get through all of your grots.
Ok, but what about the horde of grots (with no weapons capable of damaging vehicles) against an IG army full of Wyverns and Hellhounds, specialized light infantry killers? Are you now going to suggest that the grot horde should be so durable against an army full of things dedicated to killing grots that the grots have a 50% chance of winning on objectives? Or should the dedicated grot killers be so poor at their job that even against an army with nothing but their preferred target the best they can manage to do is a 50% win rate?
Traditio wrote: Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.
So you think that if I use nothing but Grots and a Boss without any upgrades I should be able to equally match someones all flyer Necron list?
Yes, at least, in an objectives game. The necron fliers should have such a low rate of fire and should be so points expensive that, if you use cover and position your dudes right, you should be able to swarm the field with bodies, laugh at your opponent and win the game. Sure, your opponent should be able to hit your grots hard, but he shouldn't be able to get through all of your grots.
Should units/upgrades with the same statlines/abilities cost the same amount of points? Yes absolutely. The opposite of this is what we have now, a complete mess. I'm actually pretty surprised most of the community disagrees on this.
I don't have my rulebook infront of me so feel free to correct me on the point cost. Here is an example. You have a imperial guardsman & a space marine. You upgrade each with a powerfist.
Imp guard is now hitting in melee at S6.
Space marine is now hitting in melee at S8.
Both pay 25 points for the upgrade, yet it is significantly better on the space marine. Now, the only way this makes sense is if point cost = the cost of said technology. In which case, yeah lore wise I could see a power fist on both examples needing similar resources/technology. On the tabletop however this creates imbalance. The guardsman has less survivability, worse melee potency, is more likely to fail leadership tests and so on and so on. These kind of examples exist in every army in the game and there will be no semblance of balance until it is resolved. Does that mean I am saying each army has to be the same? Absolutely not. Keep everything as it is but point costs MUST be brought in line. Create a codex in a new edition, then balance everything around said codex using it as the metric. All of these formation shenanigans GW is trying to implement to balance the game have only negatively impacted one of the best aspects of the hobby which is list building. It ignores the underlying problem, which is point costs which reside at the codex level. Point costs should reflect the statline, power, utility of each model. Currently that isn't the case.
So the player who went all flyers against grots and a Warboss shouldn't have a chance to win and auto lose while the grot player laughs? Doesn't sound balanced.
In a 2k point game, I can bring 5 Stormsurges or 10 Riptides that will do poorly against anything that I face, or I can bring a couple and enough markerlights to properly support them. Which should do better?
Sorry, I weighted the question. 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' Bringing multiples of a special weapon should never do you as good a job as bringing a balance to the field of battle. If I am facing an army packed full of flamers, I am going to engage with my tanks. If my opponent brings a hundred meltaguns to a game, I'm going to engage from range. If my opponent brings a bunch of battle cannons? Cover. Barrage weapons? Spread out. Psykers? that one wargear, but otherwise try to mitigate what they are doing as much as possible.
If Traditio and the others like him want to play a game that has an equal chance of winning, don't play any tabletop game, play rock paper scissors to best of 3 and call it a day.
In an I Go Ugo type of game, there is only so much that can mitigate for even battles. 'History is replete with armies that come back from a defeat and beat the enemy.' IMHO, seize the initiative was a masterstroke for the game, as it encourages the first go player from deploying things too aggressively.
You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.
Rolsheen wrote: You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons.
Welcome to the line of people trying to get Traditio to do so haha.
Rolsheen wrote: I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.
Traditio really, really doesn't like either apparently
On Topic:
Should all options in the game be equally points efficient and equally playable in game?
An over-simplified question to which the over-simplified answer is 'Yes'., a prime example of which was the Power Fist example given by Commissar Benny. But - like always - you've over-simplified a very complex balance issue.
Should one unit selection be "better" than another unit selection?
An extreme over-simplification that has no simple answer.
You put up a binary poll, ascribe a whole bunch of inference to "yes" or "no" that isn't explained in the OP AND try and use it as any sort of evidence when there's barely 50 responses?
Truly, every time I think you can't create a worse thread, you go ahead and prove me wrong.
To the rest of Dakka: This poster is deliberately wasting your time, stop giving him oxygen.
Boycott Traditio!
But he's so entertaining! It should be abundantly clear by now that he's got his own narrative and nothing will ever move him from it, yet something about his delivery still makes people think that maybe this time, they could be the one to make him see the truth. It's a thing of beauty.
Rolsheen wrote: You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.
Does anyone like GW?
Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?
Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?
Rolsheen wrote: You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.
Does anyone like GW?
Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?
Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?
Yes. Yes they have. They're very active on their own social media, dropping leaks, engaging the fans, doing FAQs, and have put out a ton of inexpensive box sets recently. Of course they're still the evil, mustache twirling villain who holds out one open palm witha grenade launcher waiting behind their back (to some). A lot of us recognize they are making improvements. But some black/white arguers will say that one or two items (lowered costs on everything or bad rule sets) haven't happened, so any improvements they make are meaningless. They were in a deep hole with their fans. You can't blame them for testing the rope before they start to make the climb.
Rolsheen wrote: You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.
Does anyone like GW?
Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?
Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?
Have you missed the last ~6months or so?
Community site is back, FAQs for EVERY codex and the brbiirc, bundles that actually save money, new models for chaos, and that's all I can remember offhand. That's quite a nice turn around for GW (feth Tom Kirby driving it into the ground)
Rolsheen wrote: You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.
Does anyone like GW?
Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?
Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?
Yes. Yes they have. They're very active on their own social media, dropping leaks, engaging the fans, doing FAQs, and have put out a ton of inexpensive box sets recently. Of course they're still the evil, mustache twirling villain who holds out one open palm witha grenade launcher waiting behind their back (to some). A lot of us recognize they are making improvements. But some black/white arguers will say that one or two items (lowered costs on everything or bad rule sets) haven't happened, so any improvements they make are meaningless. They were in a deep hole with their fans. You can't blame them for testing the rope before they start to make the climb.
Okay then. I feel bad about a rather rude e-mail I sent GW a couple of weeks ago.
I've been out of the loop for a while. I had to pack up my WH40k stuff last June when we started trying to sell our house. Haven't unpacked it yet since I decided I'd rather do Kill Team than standard games, and plastic Sisters kits are what I'd need to get my Kill Team force going, so I haven't even set up my table in its new spot yet.
Rolsheen wrote: You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.
Does anyone like GW?
Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?
Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?
Have you missed the last ~6months or so?
Community site is back, FAQs for EVERY codex and the brbiirc, bundles that actually save money, new models for chaos, and that's all I can remember offhand. That's quite a nice turn around for GW (feth Tom Kirby driving it into the ground)
I hope the community site isn't just a facebook page. I'll go check it out though.
To answer the original question - yes, basically. While there will always be units that are more useful against one thing than another, I think GW should really be aiming at having no units that are objectively bad and I can't fathom why they seemingly aren't. Looking at the likes of Wyches, Hellions, Pyrovores, Bloodcrushers. Do GW not want to sell those kits or something?
Basically I want to feel spoilt for choice when I read through a codex. I want every unit to have something good about it that makes me want to field it. I don't want to be discounting half of the codex as useless before I even start putting together an army list.
As much as possible within a very broad definition of "good" and "points efficient". Because a unit that can tie up another unit while not actually killing it needs to have that added to its points efficiency calculation and most people don't do that, for example.
Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?
I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.
The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.
In other words:
"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."
Nobody is getting mocked for taking tac marines though.
Nope - I mock you for taking tactical marines. Are you taking tactical marines? Consider yourself mocked!
There are too many variables from army to army to demand that any two selections of equal point value be equal to one another in all regards.
Exalted for truth.
While ideally any two lists of equal points should be equally matched, the reality is that bad matchups do happen. Even the powerful armies (like Eldar) can run into something that can hard counter them. Perhaps not as often as the "weaker" armies, but it still happens. And it's not just in 40k; I've heard about this kind of thing in Warmachine and X-wing as well, so it's just a fact of life that no game system will give perfect, even games 100% of the time. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.
If you want two armies that are perfectly evenly matched 100% of the time, play chess. Both players get the exact same armies, with the exact same rules.
Except, and I saw this posted 2 other places, the player that goes first in chess has a distinct advantage, and should win the greater proportion of games, the strength of going first.
As seen in 40k with alpha strike list versus alph strike list. He who goes first wins.
Traditio wrote: Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.
So you think that if I use nothing but Grots and a Boss without any upgrades I should be able to equally match someones all flyer Necron list?
Yes, at least, in an objectives game. The necron fliers should have such a low rate of fire and should be so points expensive that, if you use cover and position your dudes right, you should be able to swarm the field with bodies, laugh at your opponent and win the game. Sure, your opponent should be able to hit your grots hard, but he shouldn't be able to get through all of your grots.
Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.
There are too many variables from army to army to demand that any two selections of equal point value be equal to one another in all regards.
Exalted for truth.
While ideally any two lists of equal points should be equally matched, the reality is that bad matchups do happen. Even the powerful armies (like Eldar) can run into something that can hard counter them. Perhaps not as often as the "weaker" armies, but it still happens. And it's not just in 40k; I've heard about this kind of thing in Warmachine and X-wing as well, so it's just a fact of life that no game system will give perfect, even games 100% of the time. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.
If you want two armies that are perfectly evenly matched 100% of the time, play chess. Both players get the exact same armies, with the exact same rules.
Except, and I saw this posted 2 other places, the player that goes first in chess has a distinct advantage, and should win the greater proportion of games, the strength of going first.
As seen in 40k with alpha strike list versus alph strike list. He who goes first wins.
Yes but no mater what you do to the game, there always going to be armies that can do that, unless you water everything down to the exact same thing except a different skin on it.
I think there should be price discrepancies in this game to give armies flavor (strengths and weaknesses). However - each unit should have an explicit purpose in its rule-set and for their cost should do something better than other units in their own codex. There should be no auto includes and no bad units. All units should be viable. If you don't agree with this - I just dont get it.
MarsNZ wrote: I hope 8th edition is just a single book called Codex: Traditio's Tacticals and the entire game is just tactical squads slinging missiles at each other.
Then we can finally get around to banning those damn missile launchers
I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)
This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:
50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile
25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak
100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well
Martel732 wrote: I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)
This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:
50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile
25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak
100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well
This one time, in Starcraft, my brother and I fought to a stalemate. Eventually we decided to just spam Zealots and Zerglings and send them at the enemy base to see which side would win.
I think about 2 hours later without either side managing to attack a single building our LAN disconnected.
Units in 40K not having a temporal cost do make them more challenging to price. If Eldar had to build WKs and I had a chance to rush them before they could field them.
Martel732 wrote: Units in 40K not having a temporal cost do make them more challenging to price. If Eldar had to build WKs and I had a chance to rush them before they could field them.
It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.
It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.
It's got some of the same issues normal 40k does, though the funniest (to me) is the sheer unadulterated transparency of Retribution. The Imperial Guard got released around the same time the 5e 40k book did, so Relic made the entire faction out of units that were new in the book and made them terrifyingly powerful and frustrating to fight (base-hugging Manticores you couldn't interact with that just dropped infinite-range missiles that wiped any effort you made to push somewhere the Guard player had LoS).
(And before anyone accuses me of being a DoW n00b who needs to learn to play I freely acknowledge I'm terrible at it, the Guard army made to sell the 5e Codex just makes me laugh.)
It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.
In video games, the difference between Chapters is just a paint job on the models. Space Marines are just Space Marines.
It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.
It's got some of the same issues normal 40k does, though the funniest (to me) is the sheer unadulterated transparency of Retribution. The Imperial Guard got released around the same time the 5e 40k book did, so Relic made the entire faction out of units that were new in the book and made them terrifyingly powerful and frustrating to fight (base-hugging Manticores you couldn't interact with that just dropped infinite-range missiles that wiped any effort you made to push somewhere the Guard player had LoS).
(And before anyone accuses me of being a DoW n00b who needs to learn to play I freely acknowledge I'm terrible at it, the Guard army made to sell the 5e Codex just makes me laugh.)
I play DoW1 because I suck at micro and prefer macro.
Sometimes I like to play IG and just send Guardsmen squads at my enemy until they die.
Crispy78 wrote: To answer the original question - yes, basically. While there will always be units that are more useful against one thing than another, I think GW should really be aiming at having no units that are objectively bad and I can't fathom why they seemingly aren't. Looking at the likes of Wyches, Hellions, Pyrovores, Bloodcrushers. Do GW not want to sell those kits or something?
Basically I want to feel spoilt for choice when I read through a codex. I want every unit to have something good about it that makes me want to field it. I don't want to be discounting half of the codex as useless before I even start putting together an army list.
Yep totally agree, I'm not expecting my blood crusher to outshoot that firewarrior squad, nor am I expecting those warriors to out fight my crushers, but I do want everything to be as balanced as possible given there roll.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon.
Table Top Gaming will never be fair and/or balanced; The games I just referenced have been around for a long time, and have undergone extensive play testing. Backgammon is over 5,000 years old; Go is thought to be around 4,000 years old. Chess is only about 1,500 years old, and Checkers (also called Draughts) is a baby compared to the others: It was "invented" in the 12th century in France.
40K is incredibly complicated compared to those games. GW could spend years and millions of pounds trying to balance their game, and I doubt they ever could. I doubt anyone could. It's too big and too complicated. They only way to balance it would be to restrict the armies severely, take away options, and homogenize the game.
Martel732 wrote: I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)
This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:
50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile
25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak
100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well
Starcraft is just such a beautifully balanced game that having played it makes you wonder how a game like this struggles with balance. No unit is terrible - if any unit is used at the right time and in the right way - it will be extremely effective. If strong units are used at the wrong time and in the wrong place they can be destroyed by much weaker units.
Heres a good example of something SC2 did with balance. Thors used to be an unstoppable unit and they were crushing their supposed counter (protoss immortals) because their special ability basically allowed thors to 1 shot an immortal. What did SC2 do? They said fck it - these thors are already so strong - they don't need a special ability and straight took it away. Now a thor is a niche unit used for splash AA and to protect siege tanks from melle units. If a thor goes up against an immortal - it gets PWNED now like it should. That same immortal will get greesed by t1 marines with stimpacks for about half the resources.
Always like the immortal concept too. Hardend sheilds make them practically immune to heavy firepower but takes damage normally from small arms.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
I think Soulstorm's the only WH40k video game where you can play Sisters of Battle.
Martel732 wrote: I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)
This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:
50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile
25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak
100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well
Starcraft is just such a beautifully balanced game that having played it makes you wonder how a game like this struggles with balance. No unit is terrible - if any unit is used at the right time and in the right way - it will be extremely effective. If strong units are used at the wrong time and in the wrong place they can be destroyed by much weaker units.
Heres a good example of something SC2 did with balance. Thors used to be an unstoppable unit and they were crushing their supposed counter (protoss immortals) because their special ability basically allowed thors to 1 shot an immortal. What did SC2 do? They said fck it - these thors are already so strong - they don't need a special ability and straight took it away. Now a thor is a niche unit used for splash AA and to protect siege tanks from melle units. If a thor goes up against an immortal - it gets PWNED now like it should. That same immortal will get greesed by t1 marines with stimpacks for about half the resources.
One of the advantages of video games is that you can patch the game rules when issues come up. Another advantage is that the computer handles all the rules, so there's no arguing over rules interpretations.
Tamwulf wrote: If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon.
Table Top Gaming will never be fair and/or balanced; The games I just referenced have been around for a long time, and have undergone extensive play testing. Backgammon is over 5,000 years old; Go is thought to be around 4,000 years old. Chess is only about 1,500 years old, and Checkers (also called Draughts) is a baby compared to the others: It was "invented" in the 12th century in France.
40K is incredibly complicated compared to those games. GW could spend years and millions of pounds trying to balance their game, and I doubt they ever could. I doubt anyone could. It's too big and too complicated. They only way to balance it would be to restrict the armies severely, take away options, and homogenize the game.
We have several games on the market that are leagues better at balance and generally considered fair and balanced. It will never be perfect, which is what people always get hung up on in these discussions, it just needs to be good enough, which many other games achieve just fine.
40k isn't a special snowflake in that it somehow can't be balanced or is better off being a poorly balanced mess.
It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.
Psionic strorm? Yamatoo cannons? Hydra Swarms? Everything has a counter in SC. Even the best stuff will fail vs their counters.
Tamwulf wrote: If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon...
GAH. Please. Stop. This is an incredibly annoying false dichotomy that keeps cropping up for some reason. "Balance" isn't binary, it isn't a linear continuum. Your choice isn't between current 40k without any changes or Chess. There's an infinite amount of space in between, and this comparison is incredibly useless.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.
I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.
Tamwulf wrote: If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon.
Table Top Gaming will never be fair and/or balanced; The games I just referenced have been around for a long time, and have undergone extensive play testing. Backgammon is over 5,000 years old; Go is thought to be around 4,000 years old. Chess is only about 1,500 years old, and Checkers (also called Draughts) is a baby compared to the others: It was "invented" in the 12th century in France.
40K is incredibly complicated compared to those games. GW could spend years and millions of pounds trying to balance their game, and I doubt they ever could. I doubt anyone could. It's too big and too complicated. They only way to balance it would be to restrict the armies severely, take away options, and homogenize the game.
I disagree. A bunch of units don't even pass the eyeball test. The WK and the pyrovore are two such examples.
It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.
Psionic strorm? Yamatoo cannons? Hydra Swarms? Everything has a counter in SC. Even the best stuff will fail vs their counters.
Maxxed carriers beat most of their "counters" because of the way supply works. However, maxxing carrier takes FOREVER. Besides, as terran, once I scout a stargate, it's balls to the wall marines because I know they won't have colossi in time. Similar to how maxxed void rays will beat most of the void ray "counters". But you just never let them get there.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.
I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.
Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.
I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.
Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.
Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.
I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.
Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.
Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.
Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.
I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.
Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.
Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.
Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.
It doesn't matter what "taxes" you think they are. Anyone CTA with Necrons won't have any issues because they're taking it for the Wraiths, which are fast, and the Scarabs are fast and the Spyder is likely dead by T3. Even then, neither of those units are really a tax anyway.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.
I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.
Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.
Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.
Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.
It doesn't matter what "taxes" you think they are. Anyone CTA with Necrons won't have any issues because they're taking it for the Wraiths, which are fast, and the Scarabs are fast and the Spyder is likely dead by T3. Even then, neither of those units are really a tax anyway.
I was referring to say- A necron - who wanted to use a far-seer to fortune his wraiths. The units don't function together. There are endless lists of these examples. Point being - whatever your main force is basically what you are restricted to using (with the main exception being imperium of man - and you still have to take tax units to make this work). In magic if I want to use 2 colors in a deck - all I really need to do is figure how much of each type of mana to use.
MarsNZ wrote: I hope 8th edition is just a single book called Codex: Traditio's Tacticals and the entire game is just tactical squads slinging missiles at each other.
Then we can finally get around to banning those damn missile launchers
All that'd happen is he'd make a thread entitled "OP Missile Launcher Cheese" complaining that MLs are scale creep cheese that is driving players away from the game with their AP3 and 48" range.
9th Edition - Codex: Traditio's Tacticals features Tactical Squads with Assault Cannons and Flamers. A thread appears, "OP Rending Cheese".
10th Edition - Codex: TT has only flamers and bolters, drawing complaints from Traditio about "OP Bolter Cheese".
11th Edition - Codex: TT has only CCWs. "OP First Charge Cheese" draws 50,000 comments, all people asking GW to just call time on the franchise. And with that, Traditio has won. Just as Planned.
Martel732 wrote: "...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."
That seems even lazier.
I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).
Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.
I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.
Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.
Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.
Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.
It doesn't matter what "taxes" you think they are. Anyone CTA with Necrons won't have any issues because they're taking it for the Wraiths, which are fast, and the Scarabs are fast and the Spyder is likely dead by T3. Even then, neither of those units are really a tax anyway.
I was referring to say- A necron - who wanted to use a far-seer to fortune his wraiths. The units don't function together. There are endless lists of these examples. Point being - whatever your main force is basically what you are restricted to using (with the main exception being imperium of man - and you still have to take tax units to make this work). In magic if I want to use 2 colors in a deck - all I really need to do is figure how much of each type of mana to use.
Wraiths don't need Psyker support though and therefore your casting can go elsewhere. The two parts still function together, just not as you want them to.
Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.
This basically explains the poll results.
40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.
If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.
Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.
And no, it's because in a realistic, balanced, rational setting, tanks and elite units beat chaff like tactical marines. What would be the point of ever running an elite unit or tank if Tacticals can counter and kill it with a missile launcher and flamer?
Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.
This basically explains the poll results.
40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.
If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.
Have you heard of the concept of a "Take All Comers" list?
Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.
This basically explains the poll results.
40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.
If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.
Have you heard of the concept of a "Take All Comers" list?
That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list
CrownAxe wrote: That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list
That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.
With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.
If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.
Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.
People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:
It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.
CrownAxe wrote: That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list
That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.
With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.
If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.
Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.
People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:
It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.
exactly. That's not a fair match up for the land raiders. They have 0% of winning 5/6 eternal war missions. How is that part of you idea of fair?
CrownAxe wrote: That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list
That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.
With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.
If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.
Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.
People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:
It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.
Well, in reality you wouldn't have a matchup of Land Raiders versus Tactical Marines. Neither is a sound choice for an army. The Land Raiders, while highly durable, lack killing power, and the Tactical Marines are numerous, but lack staying or offensive power.
The skill with list building is in bringing a variety of tools to deal with various threats. Different units specialize in different things, so you need to bring the capability to take on whatever you might face, which means taking a variety of different units.
I'll admit I don't know your preferences, but there have been a lot of references to your love of Tactical Marines. Tactical Marines are a fairly weak unit by modern standards, so it's not surprising that you face difficulties on the battlefield. However, it's worth noting that Space Marines don't go to war just with Tactical Marines, they bring other forces when they benefit the mission, because Tactical Squads are flexible but specialize in nothing. They will die to dedicated melee units. They will get outgunned by dedicated ranged units. They will lack the stopping power to take on highly durable foes. Space Marines bring their specialist troops to provide heavier firepower or choppier melee.
I you absolutely insist on using nothing but Tactical Marines, and there is no other option for whatever reason, then I'm sorry, but the reality is that 40k is not set up for spamming nothing but standard troops being an effective army. And it never will be. You will have to either live with the reality that your army is incredibly underpowered due to poor listbuilding choices, or break from your habit and start including other units in your army. There is no option C where an army of nothing but Tactical Marines is viable. It will simply never happen.
Blacksails wrote: Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.
You're not even trying anymore.
So true. He only hears what he wants to hear. Trying to explain this stuff to Traditio is like talking to a brick wall. We really should stop it, but it's so entertaining (much more so than actually talking to a brick wall anyway).
Blacksails wrote: Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.
You're not even trying anymore.
So true. He only hears what he wants to hear. Trying to explain this stuff to Traditio is like talking to a brick wall. We really should stop it, but it's so entertaining (much more so than actually talking to a brick wall anyway).
I don't know, I've met some interesting brick walls in my life.
Blacksails wrote: Its like you don't bother reading anything, and then twist a single post into validating your backwards beliefs and make a sweeping generalization about the community.
You're not even trying anymore.
So true. He only hears what he wants to hear. Trying to explain this stuff to Traditio is like talking to a brick wall. We really should stop it, but it's so entertaining (much more so than actually talking to a brick wall anyway).
I don't know, I've met some interesting brick walls in my life.
I once met a very interesting person who didn't even have a visible body.
She was a space alien and we communicated telepathically for quite a few months.
Eventually the schizophrenia meds got up to the right level and she went away. Found out it was called a thought insertion delusion, though my description of our conversations to my psychiatrist made him believe she was a command hallucination.
CrownAxe wrote: That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list
That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.
With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.
If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.
Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.
People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:
It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.
exactly. That's not a fair match up for the land raiders. They have 0% of winning 5/6 eternal war missions. How is that part of you idea of fair?
Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.
Basically this is what annoys me.
"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."
"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."
"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."
"Tacticals suck."
"Ok. Should they?"
Nobody said tacticals suck. You're putting words in our mouths (again... ). We just said that there are better units, which are more specialized at whatever job they do. Tactical squads are basically a "jack of all trades but master of none". They aren't bad at holding objectives, but lack the firepower of a shooty specialist unit and the melee strength of a dedicated assault unit. They can have a place in some lists (such as the Gladius/Lion's Blade/etc.). All we are saying is that running a list consisting of mostly tacticals is not a great strategy. You should bring some specialists for handling certain types of foes, as generalists like tacticals are not going to fair well against specialists.
Tactical squads SHOULD be weak, otherwise the entire rest of their model line doesn't need to exist. They are a basic troop, I don't care how cool you want your army to be the idea that a basic troop unit could do everything you want them to is absurd.
I have a very limited amount of units with my harlequins, my primary damage dealer is my troop slot. I still would NEVER come onto an open forum and declare that they should have an equal chance of taking on any list in the game if they're all I field.
The nonsensical idea that the game should allow you to take whatever you want and have a 50/50 chance to win destroys the idea of a local meta and collection upgrades with your friends.
Did you honestly start belittling your opponent's when they started buying units to counter your loadings because they played you a lot?
When you say the weapons you equipped to your marines were free, then you admit to trying to obtain an unfair advantage gave by manipulating the point cost for your unit to your benefit. Now that other things are eliminated by your load out AND you have to pay points for them you claim the game is becoming to rediculous and things need to be banned
IIt is the heightght of arrogance to believe that your personal and subjective taste in the game should be considered so utterly important that it requires others to subject themselves to your personal play style. I hope you enjoyed denying other people in your group the thrill of victory by denouncing their units as overpowered. Of them building a list to counter one that you have played unchanged for upwards of a decade and you declaring them to be abusing the system. If you haven't bothered to change your army to meet what is on the tables near you, then the onus is on you.
It is not the fault of the company that you refuse to change.
Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.
Basically this is what annoys me.
"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."
"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."
"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."
"Tacticals suck."
"Ok. Should they?"
Basically this is what annoys me.
There are a thousand Chapters of a thousand Space Marines each. One million Marines strong.
Spread over one million planets in the Imperium.
Space Marines are so rare it's like having a military force composed exclusively of Planetary Governors.
Then they give half a dozen of the Chapters their own Codices and model ranges.
Then they take WH30k and make it a GW game with full support, developing tons of new models.
Virtually all the WH40k video games are about Space Marines.
Back in 2006 I start what becomes my favorite army. Sisters of Battle. A common sight on Imperial worlds, tasked with guarding pilgrimage routes, with guarding Ecclesiarchy personnel, with guarding Ecclesiarchy property, with guarding relics, shrines, taking out rogue Marine chapters on occasion, dealing with heresy, acting as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus, and even embarking on entire wars on their own. If you are an Imperial citizen, you are very familiar with Sisters of Battle. You have seen them all your life. Their medics are a sight of relief for Imperial Guard troops, because it means high-quality care is imminent.
If you are an Imperial citizen, you have almost certainly never seen a single Space Marine in your entire life, of any kind. Sisters of Battle outnumber Space Marines so much it's not funny.
And I collect my new army, the models are very spiffy despite their age. Five years go by, until I buy my second Exorcist and finally have nothing more to buy. My collection of Sisters of Battle is complete for now, and I'll just wait for plastic models to come out so I can start doing conversions and rebuild my army.
And I wait, and wait, and wait...
Oh look, Mechanicus get their own plastics.
Oh look, Imperial Knights are their own force.
More waiting. Years pass.
Oh look, GW's doing WH30k now, a Space Marine versus Space Marine game set 5,000 years before Sisters of Battle would exist in the lore.
More waiting.
Video game after video game comes out. Marines. Marines. Marines. Marines versus Marines. Marines. Marines. Some of these games look so similar I wonder if I'm seeing the same one twice. Still just Dawn of War: Soulstorm with Sisters of Battle, the most awful of the series, with buggy units and a godawful campaign.
More waiting.
Then it's a few months ago, and I've pretty much given up. But then I hear of a video from GW that's teasing plastic Sisters of Battle. I'm skeptical, but I watch it. It comes off like a joke.
Still, maybe GW just sucks at dealing with Sisters of Battle. Let's wait a few months, see what happens.
Three months pass, December comes, I've already forgotten about it. A friend tells me there are Sisters of Battle preorders on GW's site.
Could this be it? Could this be the moment I've waited for for five years?
Nope, just repackaged metal squads and a terrible Canoness model. And Celestine's been removed. And we don't have our own Codex anymore.
Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.
Basically this is what annoys me.
"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."
"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."
"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."
"Tacticals suck."
"Ok. Should they?"
Should a unit be bad in basically every way without the aid of formations that give tons of free points? No
Tacs need a buff, probably a price reduction, but that shouldn't happen until the Gladius is either removed or changed drastically.
It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.
Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.
Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".
HANZERtank wrote: It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.
Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.
Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".
After flipping the coin, you could do battle with your now-useless army of models like they're army men. Complete with human-made sound effects.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Tactical squads SHOULD be weak, otherwise the entire rest of their model line doesn't need to exist. They are a basic troop, I don't care how cool you want your army to be the idea that a basic troop unit could do everything you want them to is absurd.
I have a very limited amount of units with my harlequins, my primary damage dealer is my troop slot. I still would NEVER come onto an open forum and declare that they should have an equal chance of taking on any list in the game if they're all I field.
The nonsensical idea that the game should allow you to take whatever you want and have a 50/50 chance to win destroys the idea of a local meta and collection upgrades with your friends.
Did you honestly start belittling your opponent's when they started buying units to counter your loadings because they played you a lot?
When you say the weapons you equipped to your marines were free, then you admit to trying to obtain an unfair advantage gave by manipulating the point cost for your unit to your benefit. Now that other things are eliminated by your load out AND you have to pay points for them you claim the game is becoming to rediculous and things need to be banned
IIt is the heightght of arrogance to believe that your personal and subjective taste in the game should be considered so utterly important that it requires others to subject themselves to your personal play style. I hope you enjoyed denying other people in your group the thrill of victory by denouncing their units as overpowered. Of them building a list to counter one that you have played unchanged for upwards of a decade and you declaring them to be abusing the system. If you haven't bothered to change your army to meet what is on the tables near you, then the onus is on you.
It is not the fault of the company that you refuse to change.
This is so right.
Should armies suck because they have no good units? No, I don't believe so.
Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models.
Keeping up or getting left behind is up to you.
Dakka Wolf wrote:This is so right.
Should armies suck because they have no good units? No, I don't believe so.
Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models.
Keeping up or getting left behind is up to you.
I wish to point out that this is the second user IN THIS THREAD to express the view: "No, there shouldn't be balance because I LIKE pay to win."
You all recognize this, yes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HANZERtank wrote: It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.
Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.
Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".
This is a massive misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It's a complete strawman. Because you are leaving out the essential clause of what I say: "Apart from player skill."
The fact that you would have a roughly 50% chance apart from player skill wouldn't make the game not be worth playing. It would mean that the outcome of the game wouldn't be decided in advance of us rolling dice and you'd actually have to make good IN-GAME decisions.
But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?
Traditio wrote: I wish to point out that this is the second user IN THIS THREAD to express the view: "No, there shouldn't be balance because I LIKE pay to win."
You all recognize this, yes?
Yes, I do in fact recognize your straw man argument here. You've turned "I understand why GW, as a for-profit business that wants to make lots of money selling plastic toys, uses power creep to sell the newest releases" into "I like 'pay to win' games".
But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?
List construction is part of the game, like it or not. Winning or losing based on your ability to make good in-game decisions during the list building part of the game is no different than winning or losing based on your ability to make good in-game decisions during the movement phase.
Dakka Wolf wrote:This is so right.
Should armies suck because they have no good units? No, I don't believe so.
Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models.
Keeping up or getting left behind is up to you.
I wish to point out that this is the second user IN THIS THREAD to express the view: "No, there shouldn't be balance because I LIKE pay to win."
You all recognize this, yes?
No. I recognize an utter misuse of the "pay to win" label.
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
Pay to win is a term used exclusively for F2P video games. It refers to how some games will let players buy gear that is more powerful than anything a player who doesn't pay can get.
This cannot apply to WH40k, as you must buy every unit you use - there is no "free" option.
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
No it isn't. It's more like saying: "That dude paid $50 for a special gun and armor that makes it extremely easy to kill other people and extremely difficult to be killed himself. If I don't pay the $50 myself, ON TOP OF THE COST OF THE ACTUAL GAME, I literally cannot beat him in a multiplayer game. That's not fair."
CrownAxe wrote: That the problem. Tradito thinks every and any possible list should be a Take All Comers list
That is simply a flat-out impossibility. Basic troops versus a Land Raider debunks that ever being a thing that can happen.
With all due respect, I must disagree with this point, assuming that we are playing an objectives game.
If you have 1000 points of landraiders and I have 1000 points of tactical marines with bolters, I may or may not be able to destroy your landraider (I might actually be able to kill your landraider: #CatchThatMeltaBomb), but killing your landraider isn't the whole game.
Good luck killing that many tactical marines over the course of 5 turns. The marines have objective secured.
People complain about landraiders, but I like the landraider from a balance perspective:
It's extremely tough against anything that's not specifically supposed to kill it, but it has a high points cost and it doesn't really deal much damage. It packs a punch...against tough individual models. Against entire units of things? Not so much.
exactly. That's not a fair match up for the land raiders. They have 0% of winning 5/6 eternal war missions. How is that part of you idea of fair?
I'm going to take the lack of a response again as a yes.
Pouncey wrote:No. I recognize an utter misuse of the "pay to win" label.
He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
That's the definition of pay to win.
"Literally" he didn't.
He did. I quote:
"Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that. I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models."
Actually my statement was more along the lines of pay to stay valid.
I came to 40k from Magic the Gathering where old stuff is quickly replaced by new stuff due to a legality system that is essentially how the company stays in business.
GW claims to be a model producing company, not a game making company, what I'm saying is you're lucky your tac marines still have a playable data sheet.
Dakka Wolf wrote:GW claims to be a model producing company, not a game making company, what I'm saying is you're lucky your tac marines still have a playable data sheet.
This statement speaks for itself. "GW's business model is pay to win, and I'm fine with it."
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
Pay to win is a term used exclusively for F2P video games. It refers to how some games will let players buy gear that is more powerful than anything a player who doesn't pay can get.
This cannot apply to WH40k, as you must buy every unit you use - there is no "free" option.
Melissia wrote: That's like saying "This video game is pay to win, I have to pay 60 bucks in order to play it and I can't win if I don't play!"
No it isn't. It's more like saying: "That dude paied $50 for a special gun and armor that makes it extremely easy to kill other people and extremely easy to kill other people. If I don't pay the $50 myself, ON TOP OF THE COST OF THE ACTUAL GAME, I literally cannot beat him in a multiplayer game. That's not fair."
Tabletop games like WH40k don't revolve around buying equipment.
The purchases are to expand your collection of models, to give you options to make your armies from.
It's also worth noting that while it appears that GW makes units more powerful to drive sales, what is actually happening there is that people buy the better units more often. More powerful units sell more, less powerful units sell less. GW strives for balance the best they can, so they make weaker units stronger, and stronger units weaker. This in turn shifts where players spend their money.
Basically it's just the result of trying to balance the game.
It's also worth noting that GW sets their prices based on how many of the kit they expect an average player to need, because they need to pay off the costs of developing the models and keeping them on shelves. HQs cost more because you usually only need 1-2 of them. Troops cost less because you need lots of them.
Centurions have an apparently absurd price tag, but it becomes less absurd when you see that their points cost is so high they're probably only expecting Space Marine players to buy one box set each.
The rules drive what models players focus on buying, and that happens regardless of how balanced the rules are.
He essentially said, in answer to the thread poll, "No. I don't think that things should be balanced. If you're not 'up to date,' you should auto lose."
Table wrote:Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on this.
This basically explains the poll results.
40k players don't want balance. They like the pay-to-win scheme.
If there weren't such massive game imbalance, if tactical marines had just as much a chance of winning as anything else, they would start to feel silly about actually paying GW's ludicrous prices for the new, big, expensive, shiny models.
That is actually not what I said at all. I said you did not have the money to update your army. I was nicer about it than I am being now.
HANZERtank wrote: It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.
Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.
Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".
This is a massive misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It's a complete strawman. Because you are leaving out the essential clause of what I say: "Apart from player skill."
The fact that you would have a roughly 50% chance apart from player skill wouldn't make the game not be worth playing. It would mean that the outcome of the game wouldn't be decided in advance of us rolling dice and you'd actually have to make good IN-GAME decisions.
But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?
Never mind the fact that it would be near impossible to eliminate the player skill level when play-testing a rule set to ensure balance. You're also forgetting that even if player skill could be eliminated in the play-testing phase of making the rules balanced, there are so many units in so many codeces along with all the rules in the core rule books and supplements than getting true balance such that any two lists of equal points value have a 50/50 chance of winning against each other is practically and financially impossible.
You're arguing the merits of something that will never ever exist.
As for my answer to the original questions, see this post.
He essentially said, in answer to the thread poll, "No. I don't think that things should be balanced. If you're not 'up to date,' you should auto lose."
In my experience, when someone in an argument tries to summarize their opponent's statements, they invariably skew it in their own favor.
He essentially said, in answer to the thread poll, "No. I don't think that things should be balanced. If you're not 'up to date,' you should auto lose."
In my experience, when someone in an argument tries to summarize their opponent's statements, they invariably skew it in their own favor.
Part of the problem might extend from the fact you're arguing with a person with a loose grasp of what 'literally' means.
Why isn't 'boycott Tradito' a poll option? Can we get that fixed?
Pouncey wrote:No. I recognize an utter misuse of the "pay to win" label.
He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
That's the definition of pay to win.
"Literally" he didn't.
He did. I quote:
"Should some units suck because they've been left behind in the big scheme of things? I' fine with that.
I hate to insert logic into a 40k setting but from a gaming level war is an arms race. From a sales perspective arms races sell models."
In other words:
Old models should suck. New models should rock.
If.you aren't capable of applying such a basic term as "literally" correctly, nor using the actual quote function (because, let's face it, anything you type as representative of what someone else has said has likely been altered beyond recognition) then why do you feel qualified to make the already tenuous argument you've laid out in this thread?
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
Your poll could use an "Other (write in)" option. Things aren't always black and white.
Traditio wrote: He literally just said that the units of previous editions SHOULD be bad in order to spur new sales.
No, you inserted the "should" in there and turned a statement acknowledging GW's business model and the need to sell new products constantly into a statement that making old stuff no longer playable is a good thing.
If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
Because maybe he didn't mean "should" maybe he meant exactly what he said, not what you're twisting it to mean, as usual.
Traditio wrote: If the "should" wasn't implied then please pray tell why he posted it as a reply to a thread, the title of which begins with the word "should"?
I don't know, perhaps you should ask them for clarification instead of declaring that you know what they meant to say and changing the quote to match your opinion? One obvious answer is that discussion in forum threads often drifts from the strictest literal interpretation of the thread title, and so posts are often a reply to the ongoing discussion rather than the initial question/comment.
HANZERtank wrote: It's a fun idea, having it so no matter what I take there's always a 50/50 chance of me winning. Would mean I always have time for a game. It would go something like this.
Find opponent. Agree points. Write lists. Deploy army. Admire opponents list and models. Flip coin. Congratulate opponent/wish hum better luck next time (delete where appropriate). Pack up models. Go home.
Optional steps include forging a narrative as to how the battle could have played out if the game was more engaging rhan always being 50/50 win chance because "balance".
This is a massive misrepresentation of what I'm saying. It's a complete strawman. Because you are leaving out the essential clause of what I say: "Apart from player skill."
The fact that you would have a roughly 50% chance apart from player skill wouldn't make the game not be worth playing. It would mean that the outcome of the game wouldn't be decided in advance of us rolling dice and you'd actually have to make good IN-GAME decisions.
But of course, someone who is a fan of pay-to-win would never actually want to have to make good in-game decisions, right?
Never mind the fact that it would be near impossible to eliminate the player skill level when play-testing a rule set to ensure balance. You're also forgetting that even if player skill could be eliminated in the play-testing phase of making the rules balanced, there are so many units in so many codeces along with all the rules in the core rule books and supplements than getting true balance such that any two lists of equal points value have a 50/50 chance of winning against each other is practically and financially impossible.
You're arguing the merits of something that will never ever exist.
As for my answer to the original questions, see this post.
IM:
We've had basically these discussions before, and I'm willing to concede the general idea:
Yes, yes, I understand that exactly, or even roughly, 50/50 is probably unattainable.
Fine.
But I'm with black sails on this point:
We aren't even close to what is achievable. The fact that an unupgraded wraithknight is 295 points and a landraider is 250 points is a joke.
Here, I fully expect Peregrine to start telling me about how they are for different things, have different uses, and aren't really comparable...
...
...even though meanwhile he completely agrees that each of those things are, in fact, ridiculous.
Even if you compare the same release:
Iron Warriors legion tactics compared to Death Guard?
Ravenguard chapter tactics and Cptn. Shrike compared to white scars chapter tactics and khan?
Traditio wrote: Here, I fully expect Peregrine to start telling me about how they are for different things, have different uses, and aren't really comparable...
It must be so much easier to "win" arguments when you can invent posts for your straw man opponents to say. How about, rather than deciding what I will say, you wait to hear my actual opinion? And that opinion is that Wraithknights and Land Raiders are clearly not balanced at the same level. There are in fact difficulties in comparing units with such vastly different roles in such vastly different armies, but those particular units are so clearly polar opposites on the power level scale that it's safe to say there's a problem.
So, your assumption that I will disagree with the idea that 40k balance needs to improve, despite saying that exact thing over and over again in the past, is both absurd and dishonest. I very strongly believe that 40k balance needs to improve. However, I disagree just as strongly about your theories of how balance should work and how it should be achieved in 40k. You make blatant game design errors that undermine anything you have to say on the subject.
Pouncey wrote:Personally, I don't think Space Marines should even be a playable faction.
Basically this is what annoys me.
"There should be restrictions to make the rules require a more troops heavy meta."
"No. That limits player choice. I want to run whatever I want."
"Ok. Well I want to run tacticals and have a fair shot."
"Tacticals suck."
"Ok. Should they?"
Basically this is what annoys me.
There are a thousand Chapters of a thousand Space Marines each. One million Marines strong.
Spread over one million planets in the Imperium.
Space Marines are so rare it's like having a military force composed exclusively of Planetary Governors.
Then they give half a dozen of the Chapters their own Codices and model ranges.
Then they take WH30k and make it a GW game with full support, developing tons of new models.
Virtually all the WH40k video games are about Space Marines.
Back in 2006 I start what becomes my favorite army. Sisters of Battle. A common sight on Imperial worlds, tasked with guarding pilgrimage routes, with guarding Ecclesiarchy personnel, with guarding Ecclesiarchy property, with guarding relics, shrines, taking out rogue Marine chapters on occasion, dealing with heresy, acting as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus, and even embarking on entire wars on their own. If you are an Imperial citizen, you are very familiar with Sisters of Battle. You have seen them all your life. Their medics are a sight of relief for Imperial Guard troops, because it means high-quality care is imminent.
If you are an Imperial citizen, you have almost certainly never seen a single Space Marine in your entire life, of any kind. Sisters of Battle outnumber Space Marines so much it's not funny.
And I collect my new army, the models are very spiffy despite their age. Five years go by, until I buy my second Exorcist and finally have nothing more to buy. My collection of Sisters of Battle is complete for now, and I'll just wait for plastic models to come out so I can start doing conversions and rebuild my army.
And I wait, and wait, and wait...
Oh look, Mechanicus get their own plastics.
Oh look, Imperial Knights are their own force.
More waiting. Years pass.
Oh look, GW's doing WH30k now, a Space Marine versus Space Marine game set 5,000 years before Sisters of Battle would exist in the lore.
More waiting.
Video game after video game comes out. Marines. Marines. Marines. Marines versus Marines. Marines. Marines. Some of these games look so similar I wonder if I'm seeing the same one twice. Still just Dawn of War: Soulstorm with Sisters of Battle, the most awful of the series, with buggy units and a godawful campaign.
More waiting.
Then it's a few months ago, and I've pretty much given up. But then I hear of a video from GW that's teasing plastic Sisters of Battle. I'm skeptical, but I watch it. It comes off like a joke.
Still, maybe GW just sucks at dealing with Sisters of Battle. Let's wait a few months, see what happens.
Three months pass, December comes, I've already forgotten about it. A friend tells me there are Sisters of Battle preorders on GW's site.
Could this be it? Could this be the moment I've waited for for five years?
Nope, just repackaged metal squads and a terrible Canoness model. And Celestine's been removed. And we don't have our own Codex anymore.
And that's when my spirit breaks completely.
just because your faction gets completely screwed over doesn't mean space marine players or people who love space marines have to pay for it.
Dakka Wolf wrote:GW claims to be a model producing company, not a game making company, what I'm saying is you're lucky your tac marines still have a playable data sheet.
This statement speaks for itself. "GW's business model is pay to win, and I'm fine with it."
Its not pay to win.
I also come fro magic, same thing. GW is a company, and crazy, economics exist. In a perfect world 40k would be nicely balanced, but this isn't a perfect world and GW needs to sell models, I don't blame them. I'm not fine with it, I put up with it because god dammit do I love my Dark Eldar and Space Wolves.
gummyofallbears wrote: just because your faction gets completely screwed over doesn't mean space marine players or people who love space marines have to pay for it.
This is gonna sound weird, but since I posted that, I found a lot of reasons to be happy about my army.
You're right though. Space Marines are a significant part of the Imperium's defence and lore, it makes sense they be playable. I just wish they'd stuck to a single Codex with a well-made traits system to let them customize their chapter.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. In the lore, Space Marines are actually a pretty minor part of the Imperium's defense. An important minor part to be sure, but still but a tiny fraction of the Imperium's military might.
Melissia wrote: Eh, I wouldn't go that far. In the lore, Space Marines are actually a pretty minor part of the Imperium's defense. An important minor part to be sure, but still but a tiny fraction of the Imperium's military might.
I wasn't speaking in terms of their firepower or numbers.
The role they serve is crucial. They crack open the enemy's defenses, then the IG flood in and burst it wide. They do the surgical strikes on critical targets.
They don't kill as much as others do, but they hit the tough targets that need to be taken out to weaken the enemy overall for the IG to smash to bits.
They're a small, elite force, but the role they serve is crucial.
Melissia wrote: Eh, I wouldn't go that far. In the lore, Space Marines are actually a pretty minor part of the Imperium's defense. An important minor part to be sure, but still but a tiny fraction of the Imperium's military might.
I wasn't speaking in terms of their firepower or numbers.
The role they serve is crucial. They crack open the enemy's defenses, then the IG flood in and burst it wide. They do the surgical strikes on critical targets.
They don't kill as much as others do, but they hit the tough targets that need to be taken out to weaken the enemy overall for the IG to smash to bits.
They're a small, elite force, but the role they serve is crucial.
Their role can't be crucial because there aren't enough of them to matter. An entire chapter would be wiped out by Tau or Eldar in an afternoon's fight. 1000 per chapter is far too small to accomplish anything of value on a strategic scale. Marines aren't even that good vs tough targets. Tough targets have a tendency to ignore that power armor. The entire Eldar race ignores it 16% of the time.
Martel732 wrote: Their role can't be crucial because there aren't enough of them to matter. An entire chapter would be wiped out by Tau or Eldar in an afternoon's fight. 1000 per chapter is far too small to accomplish anything of value on a strategic scale. Marines aren't even that good vs tough targets. Tough targets have a tendency to ignore that power armor. The entire Eldar race ignores it 16% of the time.
...You do understand the difference between gameplay and lore, right?
Even in lore, Eldar weapons are hyper lethal and the Tau suits would melt marines wholesale. Remember that they have lorek, too. Besides, if you go full movie marine, they pass the Ogre limit are all all dead in a year by necessity.
The number that GW has assigned to the marine chapters is absurd, and no amount of fan boy hand waving changes that. For the BA to pull off ANYTHING in their lore, there would have to be MILLIONS of them.
Pouncey wrote: ...You do understand the difference between gameplay and lore, right?
The basic principle is still true lore-wise. GW's writers just have no sense of scale, and don't understand how small a force of 1000 soldiers is relative to even modest wars. A chapter needs to be increased in size by several orders of magnitude for space marines to make any sense.
Melissia wrote: Eh, I wouldn't go that far. In the lore, Space Marines are actually a pretty minor part of the Imperium's defense. An important minor part to be sure, but still but a tiny fraction of the Imperium's military might.
I wasn't speaking in terms of their firepower or numbers.
The role they serve is crucial. They crack open the enemy's defenses, then the IG flood in and burst it wide. They do the surgical strikes on critical targets.
They don't kill as much as others do, but they hit the tough targets that need to be taken out to weaken the enemy overall for the IG to smash to bits.
They're a small, elite force, but the role they serve is crucial.
Their role can't be crucial because there aren't enough of them to matter. An entire chapter would be wiped out by Tau or Eldar in an afternoon's fight. 1000 per chapter is far too small to accomplish anything of value on a strategic scale. Marines aren't even that good vs tough targets. Tough targets have a tendency to ignore that power armor. The entire Eldar race ignores it 16% of the time.
Are we talking on the board or in the fluff? Because on the board you may be right, but in the fluff it's a different story. Just like how, on the board, you don't have literally endless waves of Ork Boyz charging across the board, or how on the board the Swarmlord would get his butt kicked by Calgar and his Honour Guard instead of nomming them all while Calgar escapes.
Anyways, in regards to the original question... (I haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been stated already.)
No, because this is impossible. Maybe if we went back to using the 5th-edition setup of '1 HQ, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 of Everything else' with no detachment bonuses, this could work, but in the current form of the game, there'd be no way to balance it.
For example, lets say that we made a stock Devestator that's part of a CAD equally potent to, say, an Imperial Knight. (Point-for-point, that is.) I dunno how this would be accomplished, but let's assume that someone does it. This is two in-game options that are equally efficient.
Now, let's put that same Devestator in a Skyhammer formation instead. Suddenly, he gets a huge buff, and his point-to-damage ration changes, meaning that he's better than he was, and more points efficient than our poor knight. Right there, you've got in-game options that are necessarily different in points efficiency. (Now, there are still reasons to take a Devestator in a CAD, but the fact remains that they are differently efficient if played in otherwise the same conditions.)
Now, should there be units which are so bad as to be unusable? No! Of course not!
Pouncey wrote: ...You do understand the difference between gameplay and lore, right?
The basic principle is still true lore-wise. GW's writers just have no sense of scale, and don't understand how small a force of 1000 soldiers is relative to even modest wars. A chapter needs to be increased in size by several orders of magnitude for space marines to make any sense.
To be fair, no human can really comprehend defending an interstellar Imperium with a million planets in it. We have no reference for it.
My mentioning the gameplay/lore thing was because the person I had replied to was referring to the 1 in 6 chance for a Bladetorm with Shuriken weapons.
But it wouldn't be. Because 1000 is a very, very small number.
Imagine, say, 1000 copies of Iron Man showing up at a war on Earth. Say, WWII, because that's an easy example. They'd pretty much own the show. Even if they can't spread their resources across the entire war, wherever they show up is going to be a one-sided slaughter.
Now, I'm not saying that a Space Marine in the Imperium is as powerful compared to the average soldier as a superhero is to your average joe, but my point is that 1000 people can still make a huge difference if each individual person is powerful enough.
(Not to mention, that level of power is packed into a tiny, super-efficient package, and strikes more like a razor blade than a hammer. It cuts tendons and weakens specific points, so the Guard can do the heavy lifting.)
But they're not that powerful. And they don't enjoy an iron man vs WWII earth advantage over any of their foes. Not a single one. They are an absurd concept as stated in the lore. Multiply all the numbers by 5,000 and it starts to make sense.
This goes back to how good tac marines should be. They are utter trash in 7th ed unless they are receiving free transports. Maybe that's by design, maybe it's not. Plan accordingly.
Pouncey wrote:Tactical Marines are a fairly weak unit by modern standards
Do you think that tactical marines should be weak?
Of course. Troops that are strong against everything make the rest of the codex pointless (see scatter bikes).
Do you think that a basic guy with a rifle should be effective against heavily armed tanks, aircraft, enormous creatures?
They're passable against some theat types depending on the upgrades you select and they are obj sec objective sitters. That's their role and it has always been their role.
40K is a game with a wide range of threat types that require different tools to deal with them. Even if every unit was perfectly costed you can still take a poor combination of units and upgrades such that you will struggle against certain unit types.
Your codex has the tools to deal with anything. The ork codex, for example, does not. That is a problem.
Tradito you don't get it
Some armies should be better at things than others. For example engaging tau in a SHOOTING fight should be a bad idea for any army other than a Tau army
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Tradito you don't get it Some armies should be better at things than others. For example engaging tau in a SHOOTING fight should be a bad idea for any army other than a Tau army
That's the problem though. The whole 'Tau are now the shooting army' design philosophy leaves existing shooting based armies (Imperial Guard) laying in the dust storm created by the army of weaboos rushing to buy their gundam-tides. GW has all the subtlety and nuance of a handbag full of bricks.
I was not in any way stating the game should be pay to win, I specifically said that your troop units should not be able to answer every challenge in the table top. I don't give a gack if you bought your 5 man troop unit for $150 dollars, it should still be unable to answer every challenge out there. Your army should have killy-er units, more durable units, faster units, etc. than what your basic troops provide.
I don't expect my elite slot to answer every problem, nor the fast attack and heavy support slots. They should have different roles to play, and you should decide on what you want them to do in the game before you ever put them on the table. You plan, you build a list, you play a game, you adjust the list and strategy until you find one that works for you. That's how the game is played.
If someone comes along with a list that defeats you, change strategies or change lists. Don't cry because you lost. It's insulting.
I like the way my original statement about believing the game should be balanced was completely ignored, pay to win is not balanced. If you want my view on money look back on threads about WYSIWYG, something along the lines of letting people play coke bottles as drop pods as long as they're well painted.
My belief in some units being rubbish comes from a preference to facing new lists rather than the same old things. A unit's validity should change, some editions they're good, some editions they suck, it forces people to make new lists.
Accepting that new stuff is often strong so it sells is not the same as demanding new stuff be expensive and game breaking so my opponents have to pay through the nose to stand a chance against me, especially when my only demand on proxies is that they've at least had some effort put into making them.
MarsNZ wrote:That's the problem though. The whole 'Tau are now the shooting army' design philosophy leaves existing shooting based armies (Imperial Guard) laying in the dust storm created by the army of weaboos rushing to buy their gundam-tides. GW has all the subtlety and nuance of a handbag full of bricks.
Ditto:
Why should either imperial guard or tau have the monopoly on shooting? Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists know a thing or two about shooting also.
Wolfblade wrote: SM shooting is only bad if you only bring MLs, flamers and bolters. Imperial shooting is quite good with grav weapons.
Why should I have to take grav weapons?
This thread is full of people telling me that, if there's going to be balance, then specific things should have specific niche purposes. One thing shouldn't be good in every situation.
But grav fits basically that exact description (it's literally good for everything, except for the things that it isn't good against, and the things that carry grav usually have bolters, and that kills the rest...so it's all good).
So you criticize me for thinking that tactical marines should do OK against everything else.
And promptly follow that up by telling me that I should be using grav, because that is, in fact, good against everything, at least, everything when it counts.
So nothing should be one size fits all. Except grav. Which is one size fits all. I should be using that. Because it's one size. But it fits everything.
Fantastic. Very well thought out on your part. Very coherent. #Sarcasm
That if the option is more expensive point ts wise it damn well should be the best option. The only issue I have at all with grav is re-rolling only the fails when using the grav amp. Otherwise it is perfectly fine as is.
Also, I play wolves, orks, corsair eldar, and harlequins. So I get no benefit from stating as such. You want balance of points, but complain when the more expensive options are better.
1) 40k is poorly balanced. Its a poorly written, poorly designed mess of a game at the moment. People's level of enjoyment with 40k seems to be entirely independent of the quality of the rules due to the momentum of the game, the detailed lore, and all around excellent miniatures in easy to deal with plastic.
I don't believe anyone here is or can argue that 40k isn't anything but a poorly balanced mess, and examples are everywhere.
2) Balance doesn't need to be perfect. If I see one more person make a reference to chess, I might have to do something extreme, like write a sarcastic forum post explaining how moronic the example is. In tabletop wargaming, the balance just needs to be good enough. It will never be perfect because there's simply too many variable, but it can be so good that the ultimate deciding factor is player skill. Without going into all the details, this can be more or less accomplished in 40k by having the right point values assigned to the right units, and in specific cases, some statline or USR changes for formations.
Of course, 40k would benefit from more sweeping changes, like fixing the issues with MCs vs. vehicles, or shooting vs. assault, or any number of problematic areas, but you could make 40k significantly better balanced by simply having the right costs reflecting the unit's power.
3) Every unit has a role to fill. When assigning point costs, or indeed designing the unit, it needs a role to fill in an army list. Something like 'this unit kills tanks'. Great. Now you give it weapons to do the job effectively and give it a point value to reflect how well it does that job. You can have multiple units doing the same role, all doing it in different ways. As an example, see the lascannon vs. the melta gun. In general, these two weapons are a good example of how the same role can be filled by two different weapons and accomplished in two different ways.
When costing a unit, the context needs to be considered. Outside of kill team, you'll never have an army of a single unit, so why consider things in a vacuum? Armies can be geared to do certain things better, and thus will pay less or be more effective at doing those particular things, while units that fill other roles might cost more than would otherwise be found in other armies. As an example, Kroot with Tau. A close combat oriented unit who's primary purpose is to be a cheap and effective tarpit. They do the job well, and pay a small premium in CC ability over other books because Tau are a shooting army to the extreme.
So should all in game options be equally points efficient? No, not worded in that way.
Instead, try this; all in game options should have a role to fill in the army list and costed correctly for how well they perform said role in the context of the army. How you go about doing that is whole different animal and better left to the professionals (or a super dedicated individual/small team with game design experience), but the idea is that you can pluck any unit you want, and then build an army around it to effectively support the units you want to field. You still need to cover your bases, or, if you choose not to, accept that you'll run into hard counters or end up being someone's hard counter. But that's fine. That's what list building is all about. You can either try and bring a small rock, scissor, and paper to the table, and against someone doing the same thing, you'll have a close match. But if you run into a giant rock, you'll have to play your rock and paper elements smart while hiding your scissor elements.
TL;DR Everything should be costed appropriately to their role in the army list (or have their abilities match the point cost, as the case may be).
Also not because I like a play-to-win environment.
I voted no because I think a certain degree of list-building competence should be required. If you take an army of all foot infantry with no anti-armor capability, and I take an army of mech infantry, I'm gong to beat you most of the time. You'll have more boots on the ground, but I'll be able to move my forces more rapidly, achieve localized supremacy over chunks of your army, and pick it apart piecemeal. That doesn't make transports overpowered, it just makes me more competent at list building than you are.
For my money, 40K's main problem is that GW has never enforced any list building requirements with any bite. There's a degree of truth to "Tacticals suck" not because they're a bad Troops unit, but because players can get away with spending less than 10% of their points on compulsory Troops, and spend the vast majority of their points on units that are supposed to be scarce support units. Do Tacticals suck compared to most other armies' Elites, Fast Attacks, and Heavy Supports? Yeah they do, but that's not a fair yardstick by any measure. My gaming group has been using a 40% Troops house rule for a couple years now, and that's working fantastically for us - we generally have close games, and everybody's Troops can actively engage in the game, as opposed to just sitting on an objective or two and hoping to not get noticed. It has the added benefit of making lists look like actual military units that are typical of their respective factions.
Eh, I'd be happy if this game leaned more towards rewarding having a large base of "troops" and a sprinkling of specialists for flavor, rather than the reverse. But it is obvious I approach this game with an entirely different mindset than just about everyone else on this board.
As far as unity parity, I'd prefer that two units that cost about 100 points were equally killy (and survivable), but in different ways; for example, tac squads would do their killing between shooting and melee, but bezerkers would primarily get their kills from close combat and tau fire warriors would work best when their opponent is at arms range. But they would "earn their points" if you could use them tactically effectively.
I think you should be rewarded for having more of a TAC list. Where units excel at certain things but can baseline in others.
I feel spam should be punished to an extent, not sure how to do it. But, if someone brings only Scat Spam, there should be a hard counter to it that will give them a disadvantage for only having that one type of unit.
Yeah, if there was an escalating cost instead of linear cost for bringing non-troop options, that would help against spamming troublesome units (though fixing underpriced/overpriced units would help too). Say, 1 squad of scat bikes was 30, but 2 squads were 75.
As long as you couldn't make the units "troops"...
In an absolutely perfect world, the points would be balanced. The points involved in an upgrade should directly correlate to its effectiveness in game.
The trouble with that is always metagame. If you regularly play against Nids, Melta will always seem inferior. If you regularly play against Knights, anything less than S7 is basically a waste. If you regularly play against Green-Tide Orcs, you're only ever going to be taking Heavy Bolters.
When the scale of 40k stretches to encompass too wide of a spectrum, the centre can't hold. You can't make a points system in which a Lasgun toting Guardsman is worth anything, relative to a Knight. They simply can't hurt them. They could essentially be free and the Knights would eventually win, assuming you have more than half of the available objectives' worth of Knights.
[3 Knights in a 5 objective game, for example.]
I believe an after-the-fact balancing factor could easily be applied. Particularly at a tournament level. If you observe that certain armies "always" perform better, or at least appear to do better, apply a percentage modifier to their points cost, army-wide. For example, Orks get a +0% point modifier. IG get a +5% modifier. Eldar get a +15% modifier [for the giggles.]
At that point, you can easily figure out the relative base cost for all units, if you're willing to reverse engineer the costs. It simply takes effort, and a willingness to spend the time on research. You could hypothetically alter unit costs pretty easily.
My opinion is that you can only truly determine the cost of a unit relative to an army, which would make the "army" modifier system work well. Allies can be easily handled by applying a different modifier to each faction. Eldar get +15%, while DE get +5% , so if they're allies, apply the appropriate modifiers to units from the correct codex.
The centre can hold by averaging across all possible matchups. Melta is not valuable because vehicles have a plethora of weakness while MCs laugh off almost every weapon in the game.
greatbigtree touches on a problem with 40k that would need a total overhaul; the scale of the game is off. Its a 28mm heroic platoon+ game but has been dressed up to essentially be a reinforced company level game. Many of the mechanics (look out sir, shooting from the front, model by model movement, damage tables) are all in line with how a smaller skirmish level game would work, but then units like Knights (and whole armies of them at that) show up and the game is no longer a skirmish game.
So while you could get pretty damn close to balance with regards to basic infantry weapons, the disparity between unit sizes and general game bloat/creep has rendered many basic infantry weapons a waste to bring, let alone shoot.
Now, you can always just adapt to what the game is now, and that's fine, but it also misses out on all the units left behind the power curve or creep.
With every edition comes change, and your army will always need to change to adapt to the changes, but there's also a point where you start scratching your head about the rate of the power and scale creep of 40k. Of course, house rules for army construction help greatly depending on your play group, but something should be done to 40k so that weapons like the humble lasgun are not just a waste of time to shoot.
Vash108 wrote: I think you should be rewarded for having more of a TAC list. Where units excel at certain things but can baseline in others.
I feel spam should be punished to an extent, not sure how to do it. But, if someone brings only Scat Spam, there should be a hard counter to it that will give them a disadvantage for only having that one type of unit.
Well, for starters, Windriders should be shifted back over to Fast Attack, where they belong. They were a FA choice back in 3rd edition. They got shifted to Troops in the 4th ed dex because GW dropped the Craftworlds supplement, and they wanted to keep Samm Hann armies viable - this was before conditional FOC swaps were a thing. That said, they haven't been a problem as a Troops choice till every single squaddie could take a heavy for +5pts. Now that they can, they definitely deserve to be back in Fast Attack.
One idea for discouraging spam would be to require Troops choices be taken to unlock other slots. Say the compulsory 2 Troops unlocks 1 each of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. Then, to get another of any of those slots unlocked, you have to take another Troops choice. It's not perfect - it rewards taking many smaller Troops choices over beefing up existing ones - but it does impose a cost on spamming units.
Vash108 wrote: I think you should be rewarded for having more of a TAC list. Where units excel at certain things but can baseline in others.
I feel spam should be punished to an extent, not sure how to do it. But, if someone brings only Scat Spam, there should be a hard counter to it that will give them a disadvantage for only having that one type of unit.
Well, for starters, Windriders should be shifted back over to Fast Attack, where they belong. They were a FA choice back in 3rd edition. They got shifted to Troops in the 4th ed dex because GW dropped the Craftworlds supplement, and they wanted to keep Samm Hann armies viable - this was before conditional FOC swaps were a thing. That said, they haven't been a problem as a Troops choice till every single squaddie could take a heavy for +5pts. Now that they can, they definitely deserve to be back in Fast Attack.
One idea for discouraging spam would be to require Troops choices be taken to unlock other slots. Say the compulsory 2 Troops unlocks 1 each of Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. Then, to get another of any of those slots unlocked, you have to take another Troops choice. It's not perfect - it rewards taking many smaller Troops choices over beefing up existing ones - but it does impose a cost on spamming units.
Or you could go back to 1 in 3 and fix prices and not invalidate peoples armies.
That idea seems bad. I don't want to have to take a load of troops just to field my army. Some troops is fine but having to spam them isn't.
These represent the most commonly available soldiers in an army. ... Typically, these are the warriors that make up the bulk of an army.
Armies should be mostly Troops. That is what's thematically appropriate, and having a high concentration of Troops makes lists actually look like military units from the factions they are representing, rather than the cherry-picked wishlist most lists resembled before GW started coming up with Detachment bonuses to basically bribe players into playing thematically appropriate lists. Furthermore, units that are supposed to be super-rare should go back to being 0-1. I shouldn't be seeing armies entirely comprised of Riptides and Ghostkeels. Things like those, or Wraithknights, etc, should only be one per army, or if the player takes multiples, pays a steep penalty for doing so.
We've had basically these discussions before, and I'm willing to concede the general idea:
Yes, yes, I understand that exactly, or even roughly, 50/50 is probably unattainable.
Fine.
But I'm with black sails on this point:
We aren't even close to what is achievable. The fact that an unupgraded wraithknight is 295 points and a landraider is 250 points is a joke.
Here, I fully expect Peregrine to start telling me about how they are for different things, have different uses, and aren't really comparable...
...
...even though meanwhile he completely agrees that each of those things are, in fact, ridiculous.
Even if you compare the same release:
Iron Warriors legion tactics compared to Death Guard?
Ravenguard chapter tactics and Cptn. Shrike compared to white scars chapter tactics and khan?
It's like GW isn't even fething trying.
A thought occurs.
Maybe instead of arguing for perfect point balance, you should be asking for what you really want.
Tactical Marines are quite weak nowadays. They could use a buff.
Ask for that instead. You might get more support.
Tactical Marines don't need a buff as much as they need an adjustment.
Think about why units like Scouts, Bikers, Sternguard (granted they aren't troops, so Deathwatch instead), Grey Hunters, Sisters, Chaos Space Marine units (especially after Legions), and even Scions are better. The answer is because they have the ability to somewhat specialize. The reason Trad thinks Relentless is broken is because Tactical Marines are STUCK with taking a Heavy Weapon, even though no CSM unit is going to be taking any (because why would they? Special Weapons are the workhorse and any heavy weapon is going on a different unit).
So the simplest solution I always propose is to let them take a second special or heavy at 10 dudes. That is the reason you don't see them at 10 dudes and won't even see them at 5 dudes until the Rhino is free. Once that is done people might actually want to spend points on them.
Actually, tac marines being completely inept at CC rubs me the wrong way the most. I can just not buy a heavy weapon and pretend the option doesn't exist. Being inept at shooting isn't great,but the CC really hurts. Bottom line: tac marines can't punch the shooty or shoot the choppy.
I believe that every unit should be, within an acceptable range of variation, equally playable. What I mean by this is that every unit should have at least one reason to take it, that those reasons should be relevant versus at least one unit in any army either on its own or with minimal support like a transport (though maybe this is a lot to ask if we keep getting mini-codices like Militarum Temptestus), that whatever the reason to take them is is in the form of something that doesn't make it powerful against an entire army (such as the dreadknight vs orks, again mini-codices kind of complicate this), and that the unit's point efficiency is inversely proportionate to its TAC utility and consistency. It would work better if units from the same army didn't overlap too much.
In short, everything should be good against some things, shouldn't be good against everything a faction has, and should be less efficient the more versatile and the more consistent it is. Under these guidelines S6-7 spam units like scatbikes would become less efficient, because they are useful versus most things the game has to offer, the bubblechukka would either be reworked or made cheaper to reflect its inconsistency, and wyches would be reworked so that they are effective versus at least one kind of enemy in each army.
"that every unit should have at least one reason to take it, that those reasons should be relevant versus at least one unit in any army either on its own or with minimal support like a transport"
This is not a difficult bar, actually, and yet GW pumps out crap like half the DE codex and terminators.
These represent the most commonly available soldiers in an army. ... Typically, these are the warriors that make up the bulk of an army.
Armies should be mostly Troops. That is what's thematically appropriate, and having a high concentration of Troops makes lists actually look like military units from the factions they are representing, rather than the cherry-picked wishlist most lists resembled before GW started coming up with Detachment bonuses to basically bribe players into playing thematically appropriate lists. Furthermore, units that are supposed to be super-rare should go back to being 0-1. I shouldn't be seeing armies entirely comprised of Riptides and Ghostkeels. Things like those, or Wraithknights, etc, should only be one per army, or if the player takes multiples, pays a steep penalty for doing so.
The armies can be mostly troops without being forced into taking silly amounts of it. You're trading the WK spam issue with another problem.
These represent the most commonly available soldiers in an army. ... Typically, these are the warriors that make up the bulk of an army.
Armies should be mostly Troops. That is what's thematically appropriate, and having a high concentration of Troops makes lists actually look like military units from the factions they are representing, rather than the cherry-picked wishlist most lists resembled before GW started coming up with Detachment bonuses to basically bribe players into playing thematically appropriate lists. Furthermore, units that are supposed to be super-rare should go back to being 0-1. I shouldn't be seeing armies entirely comprised of Riptides and Ghostkeels. Things like those, or Wraithknights, etc, should only be one per army, or if the player takes multiples, pays a steep penalty for doing so.
The armies can be mostly troops without being forced into taking silly amounts of it. You're trading the WK spam issue with another problem.
Agreed - the other thing that campaign books have demonstrated is that regardless of the most commonly available soldiers in an army, some missions / campaigns / vanguard deployments / or specific strike-forces call for smaller more elite forces.
If we are going to stick to canon, then most battles fought by Imperials would be AM by an enormous margin, with only rare involvement by Space Marines in general. The beauty of 40K is that we are not stuck to that narrative.
Martel732 wrote: "that every unit should have at least one reason to take it, that those reasons should be relevant versus at least one unit in any army either on its own or with minimal support like a transport"
This is not a difficult bar, actually, and yet GW pumps out crap like half the DE codex and terminators.
One of GW's issues, to me, is they often build in too much specialization into certain units. I don't mind so much if I bring a unit that has a disadvantage against a certain unit, but with the fact armies are generally built without knowing exactly what the enemy is bringing, the resulting match-ups can be frustratingly ineffective. Doubly so if you aren't familiar with the enemy army's units (I couldn't tell you what one Dark Eldar unit has/does, for example).
Example, hormagaunts vs. vehicles - there's simply nothing I can ever give them that would even let them harm an AV10 vehicle. Yeah, I'll bring bigger bugs to the fight but if my IG opponent is running a fully mech list, my little gribblies are just going to be a'knocking, but they can't get in.
I know it has been said but I want to emphasize that a major reason that the game is probably impossible to balance is meta.
The most commonly complained about problem in the game right now are WraithKnights, Scatter bikes, and Grav. I play Astra Millitarum as my primary army and I usually play tons of infantry with light tank/Artillery support. Wraith Knights don't bother me a bit. Sure it will kill my artillery as soon as it can see it but my challenge with artillery is keeping it protected. If the wriathknight can't draw line of sight to my artillery it's killing two 5pt models a turn. Oh Darn. The wraithKnight is a problem for everyone who plays death stars and super units where that one D shot can invalidate their army but if the meta shifted to tons of cheap dudes I think wraithknights would become a less common (though still good) unit.
Same with Grav Cannons. I always have a good laugh when I see my SM opponent podding up a bunch of grav because I know it won't get anywhere near my tanks which means it will be an very expensive and inefficient cheap dude killer again. I especially enjoy seeing grave come out when I am playing my deamon army.
Scatter bikes are much more of a problem for me because they are able to gun down so many of my guys so quickly I accept that is a hard counter to my play style. But I also know that scatter bikes are pretty useless against high AV or tough creatures.
The major problem I see is that Eldar are able to so easily spam Scatter bikes and D cannon wraithknights and that is what makes them unbalanced and it would be an easy issue to solve. Beyond that I don't have too much of a problem with balance in the game. I'm actually pretty sure Traditio would beat me in a game of points effectiveness because my army is pretty weak to flamers and missile launchers but I would never claim that makes Tac Marines OP.
My favorite example of how meta impacts power levels is that Tyranid Lictor shame list from a while back. If you told me lictors were OP I would have laughed in your face and yet they were able to find a competitive niche because the meta allowed it.
I voted no because I like pay-to-win and have more disposable income than you. Fear the units I have purchased to be superior to you! Fear the Nurgling spam! My plague bearers can glance vehicles of any AV! My daemon princes can FLY! There is nothing I can't do, I've spent my money so well!
1. Against the person who said that grav should be the best become it costs the most:
A. That's true broadly speaking. If x costs more points than y, than x should probably be better than y.
B. It's not true as applied.
Grav should, like everything else, be a niche weapon that's proportionately more effective at doing its specific job.
It isn't an niche weapon. And it's not proportionately more effective. It's the most expensive weapon (and that's the grav cannon; grav guns cost the same as plasma guns, even though they're superior in most circumstances), but it's also the most points efficient in most games.
It's simply not true that grav vs. plasma vs. lascannons is even a real option in the current meta.
2. I disagree with the people who are saying that the same things should cost different points in different armies because army-context matters.
The appeal of 40k is that I can play what I want. GW itself says, at least in the 4th ed rulebook (I'm sure it said the same thing before and after), that you should buy what you like, not what you think you "should" bring.
If that's how the game is marketed, then I should expect to be able to bring a kroot army and have just as good of a chance at winning, point for point, as if I had brought an army of space marine scouts.
If the book doesn't tell me "bring this army list," then you can't assume the "context" that you're basing unit points prices on. Unless you tell me that I have to take a librarian, you can't assume that I'm taking a librarian when you put a points cost on a tactical squad.
And even if context did matter, literally all that GW can assume is that I'll take at least one HQ and at least one troop. Which HQ? Which troop? If they're giving me the option, then they can't assume.
If we are going to stick to canon, then most battles fought by Imperials would be AM by an enormous margin, with only rare involvement by Space Marines in general. The beauty of 40K is that we are not stuck to that narrative.
By that logic, there should only be 2 armies, period - IG and Orks. Obviously that's taking the argument to the illogical extreme. It not the illogical extreme to argue that army rules should encourage lists that resemble each faction's most typical fighting forces, and disincentives spamming what are supposed to be rare support units. If players actually had to take lists that were indicative of the factions they were playing, we wouldn't be having this discussion on whether or not Tactical Marines were any good - in an environment where everyone has to take a healthy chunk of Troops, Tac Marines stand up pretty well on their own merits. So do IG Infantry Platoons, Tau Fire Warriors, Eldar Dire Avengers, Adeptus Sororitas Battle Sisters squads, and so on.
But that's the way the game is played. People "hypothetically" choose models that work well together, to form a cohesive whole. I'd enjoy a game where each faction had two or three "playable" archetypes in the codex, and that the points for the units assume you play with one of those styles in mind.
The only way to balance that, points wise, is in relation to the rest of the force. AM for example, as an Infantry Swarm, As Mechanized Infantry with Tank Support, and maybe... Full Mix with Aerial Support. Just to throw a few ideas out there.
In the current format, even if you took a SM Psyker in an Astra Millitarum force, no matter what unit you buff, the buff is less valuable than if you buffed a Deathstar unit. Math is simple. You buff a Vet squad with a trio of Plasmaguns with re-roll misses... or you buff a Deathstar with re-roll misses. The benefit to the Deathstar is more valuable than the Vets, therefore the Psyker is more valuable to the Deathstar using army than to a typical AM force. The only way to balance that would be to pay more for the Psyker depending on... the most valuable unit in your army list?
40k was never intended to be a take anything and have a competitive chance game. I think it was originally intended to have a nice mix of units that all had a reasonable chance to interact with one-another. See the Imperial / Chaos ethos of giving a small number of dudes from each unit an upgrade that "could" allow them to attack a variety of units, not just other Infantry.
You can only balance those sort of points as a whole army... not as an individual unit.
gummyofallbears wrote: just because your faction gets completely screwed over doesn't mean space marine players or people who love space marines have to pay for it.
This is gonna sound weird, but since I posted that, I found a lot of reasons to be happy about my army.
You're right though. Space Marines are a significant part of the Imperium's defence and lore, it makes sense they be playable. I just wish they'd stuck to a single Codex with a well-made traits system to let them customize their chapter.
They aren't that significant, but I understand why they are focussed on. But just like every game, theres gonna be a super "cool" central character that the company loves, and obviously people have their own opinions on that super "cool" central character
Honestly, Sisters are super cool and I think a lot of players like me don't understand that they are significant because of how under-represented they are.
I do wish GW focussed on the specialization of the Space Marines though. Like even the deathwatch are made out to be the end all be all but it is never really focussed on that they are super special and rare.
But hey, sisters players are the only people that can melt their army down and sell it for scrap if the economy goes down the hole
Traditio wrote: Grav should, like everything else, be a niche weapon that's proportionately more effective at doing its specific job.
This directly contradicts your stated opinion that your army full of missile + flamer tactical squads should be viable. If everything is a niche weapon then that missile/flamer army should be effective at killing the specific targets that missile launchers and flamers have as their niche, and bad at killing everything else. IOW, it should lose most of its games because you didn't bring a TAC list. What you actually want is for there to be a weapon that is good at every role, you're just outraged that it's grav squads that would require you to spend money on grav bits instead of the missile launchers and flamers that you already own the models for.
2. I disagree with the people who are saying that the same things should cost different points in different armies because army-context matters.
Too bad, you can disagree all you like but you're obviously wrong. This is basic game design here, the game is played between armies so balance at the army level is most important. And having good balance between armies often requires having units and/or upgrades that are not equal in power, especially when you're comparing units and upgrades in two different armies.
GW itself says, at least in the 4th ed rulebook (I'm sure it said the same thing before and after), that you should buy what you like, not what you think you "should" bring.
So what? This isn't 4th edition. Please stop quoting stuff from previous editions of the game.
Unless you tell me that I have to take a librarian, you can't assume that I'm taking a librarian when you put a points cost on a tactical squad.
You absolutely can do that. In fact, you must do that. If the librarian and tactical squad interact in a way that makes the whole better than the sum of its parts (as often happens with buff/leader type units) then you have to price the tactical squad based on the assumption that it has the buffs from the librarian. Otherwise you create a situation where the tactical squad is priced appropriately some of the time, but becomes overpowered if you add a librarian. And then you either accept the fact that people will exploit the combination and win more than 50% of their games as a result, or you turn the community into a toxic mess where people like you whine endlessly about "WAACTFGs" and shame people into never playing librarians and tactical squads together.
In short: you once again fail at basic game design.
gummyofallbears wrote: But hey, sisters players are the only people that can melt their army down and sell it for scrap if the economy goes down the hole
2. I disagree with the people who are saying that the same things should cost different points in different armies because army-context matters.
bs.
Take an imperial guard sergeant and a space marine sergeant.
Give them each a power fist. The Space Marine is now S8, and the IG fether is S6. Is that equal? One will cause instant death on any T4 or lower enemy (Half the fething models in the game), the other causes instant death on commissars and eldar.
Now take a BOG standard marine and a BOG standard IG feth head and give them each a plasma gun.
One needs 3's to hit, and the other needs 4's.
Furthermore, if they each have a Get's Hot result, one needs a 3+ to not fething die, and the other needs a 5+.
Still think all options should cost the same, regardless of whom the item/weapon is for?
If we are going to stick to canon, then most battles fought by Imperials would be AM by an enormous margin, with only rare involvement by Space Marines in general. The beauty of 40K is that we are not stuck to that narrative.
By that logic, there should only be 2 armies, period - IG and Orks. Obviously that's taking the argument to the illogical extreme. It not the illogical extreme to argue that army rules should encourage lists that resemble each faction's most typical fighting forces, and disincentives spamming what are supposed to be rare support units. If players actually had to take lists that were indicative of the factions they were playing, we wouldn't be having this discussion on whether or not Tactical Marines were any good - in an environment where everyone has to take a healthy chunk of Troops, Tac Marines stand up pretty well on their own merits. So do IG Infantry Platoons, Tau Fire Warriors, Eldar Dire Avengers, Adeptus Sororitas Battle Sisters squads, and so on.
Yeah seriously if we are sticking to canon you're right... just IG and Orks... I get the point you are trying to make though. But here's the thing. Using Space Marines as an example... the way a chapter is organized, and exactly how many Tactical marines and Devastator marines, squads and companies etc, is not necessarily reflective of the "most typical fighting forces"; read through any SM codex.
Nearly every space marine chapter has tons of tactical marines throughout all of their battle companies - but space marines don't fight that way where they send the entire chapter and its mass organization of tactical marines into battle. This, also being a narratively driven game, to varying degrees anyway, lends itself perfectly to situations where just Scouting type elements might be fighting, or just heavy Armour, or just close-quarters (terminator) fighters, or just elite vanguard units, or some odd mix of several different elements.
In a world where tournament players insist on fielding Sisters of Silence and Custodes, Space Marines must adhere to some narrow vision of just tactical marines? ...please.
In regards to purchasing options in the game and their point totals, you can't look independently at the model and the upgrade, you have to look at the whole.
When a guardsman gets a plasma gun, he is upgrading g his weapon significantly more than a marine is. As a model, he is also still significantly cheaper than the marine in that instance as well while maintaining the same maximum damage capability.
Now, for melee weapons I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be a change, but not to the price. I have a house rule that makes any weapon that multiplies strength by 2 to instead add 4 to strength. I alleviates the price discrepancies significantly while also rebalancing a lot of units.
Traditio wrote: Grav should, like everything else, be a niche weapon that's proportionately more effective at doing its specific job.
Be a bit less vague if you want people to stop poking fun at you. You're talking about stuff being "efficient" at doing "jobs", but there's never any specifics. What "jobs" do Grav guns do that makes them points efficient or OP or whatever?
2. I disagree with the people who are saying that the same things should cost different points in different armies because army-context matters.
The appeal of 40k is that I can play what I want. GW itself says, at least in the 4th ed rulebook (I'm sure it said the same thing before and after), that you should buy what you like, not what you think you "should" bring.
So I stick 14 Purestrains and a Patriarch in a Land Raider Crusader and that's fine by you? That's "what I want to take", and if army context is irrelevant then it doesn't matter what I mount where. There's no particular advantage to be gained by sticking that unit in a Crusader so why bother with the restriction?
If that's how the game is marketed, then I should expect to be able to bring a kroot army and have just as good of a chance at winning, point for point, as if I had brought an army of space marine scouts.
The way the game is marketed is irrelevant to the way the game must be played if you want to compete. Fact is you **can** buy and bring whatever you like to a game, but if you bring a bunch of gak then you'll probably lose games.
I **can** turn up to a drag race in a forty year old Morris Minor. If I do that, I shouldn't expect to win. If and when I don't win, I shouldn't go on the drag racing forums posting threads about "OP Bored-Out Cylinder Cheese" and whining because cars have too many components to tune up and I shouldn't be expected to know which ones I need to work on if I want to win a drag race.
If the book doesn't tell me "bring this army list," then you can't assume the "context" that you're basing unit points prices on. Unless you tell me that I have to take a librarian, you can't assume that I'm taking a librarian when you put a points cost on a tactical squad.
What you're saying here is that because the game gives you choices, every single one of those choices should be exactly as useful in every situation as every other. In a system where tanks, monsters and infantry models are all exactly the same as each other, that might work. that's not the game we're playing. It's not a game I want to play, because it sounds like a gakky boring game.
If you don't want to learn the game, or can't be bothered building proper army lists, that's fine. If you want to dodge even these cursory efforts yet still whine about "OP Cheese", expect to be mocked. If you think that's toxic, that's fine too. Other readers may disagree, even ones who you think agree with you.
pm713 wrote: Why add 4? It doesn't seem that useful to me. S4 is the same, S6 is a tiny bit better and S5 is the only one to get nerfed.
Because it eliminates a lot of questions in regards to upgrade timing etc. Most walkers with them are str6 so they end up even. Strength 7 may not cause instant death to T4, but it will harm av13 and the difference in damage potential is smaller. Each model paid for their strength score, so they should pay the same for an addition to it. It only becomes unfair is they are charged the same for the multiplication.
For what it's worth, I understood the question to be asking,
"Should a weapon like a Power Fist cost more for a Chapter Master than for a SM Sergeant than for a Guard Sergeant?". In order to reflect that the power fist is most useful / powerful on a CM, then SM Sarge, then IG Sarge.
Also as noted, should something like a Plasmagun be more expensive for a Space Marine than for a Guardsman? Since they're more likely to enjoy the benefit and less likely to be harmed by the drawback.
'Cause in a perfect world, that would mostly be related to overall unit role. For example, IG Vets should definitely pay more for their Special Weapons than Platoon Guardsmen. Not just because they're at a higher BS, but also, if you think about it, 3x PG in a Vet Squad costs 95 points base, or roughly 32 pts per Plasmagun, if you consider the Plasma to be the significant factor in that unit. 3x PG in Infantry Squads cost 195 pts, or 65 pts per Plasmagun. That's a gross oversimplification, but the basic point stands. The Plasma is vastly more efficient in Vet Squads, so should hypothetically cost more points than in an Infantry Squad.
All options should have an appropriate points cost assigned to them, but that doesn't mean that each upgrade will help you equally, depending on your target.
I've made a10-Man, Heavy Bolter laden Devastator squad "playable" by including Tigurius, and giving the unit Rending each round... plus re-roll misses. I took down a Knight with all the rending shots. It was mostly a silly, for the giggles game, but my buddy still cried cheese over it. Until I pointed out that the unit didn't move all game, and cost almost 400 points with Tiggy included. You can make most anything playable, if you consider their role and the available options.
However, traditio's question is actually - should every combination of choices (both units and uogrades) be equally effective?
There is no way to accomplish this without stripping all variety from the game. All units would need locked in weapon options with all units having the same spread of capabilities (e.g. Anti tank, anti flyer, anti infantry, etc.). Adittionally the differences between unit types would need to be suppressed or removed entirely.
Any kind of specialisation of either offense or defense must be removed or you end up with people building an army that lacks essential capabilities.
Even if this were possible (and it isn't without utterly gutting the game of variety) is it actually desirable?
It would require all units to be very samey, it would make positioning and target priority close to irrelevant (everything needs to be effective against everything, remember) and it eliminates any skill from army building.
Given how popular games with army building or deck building are it would seem that this would be a really bad move.
Traditio - can you point to any games where you feel that your desired state of any combination of choices is equally effective has actually been achieved.?
pm713 wrote: Why add 4? It doesn't seem that useful to me. S4 is the same, S6 is a tiny bit better and S5 is the only one to get nerfed.
Because it eliminates a lot of questions in regards to upgrade timing etc. Most walkers with them are str6 so they end up even. Strength 7 may not cause instant death to T4, but it will harm av13 and the difference in damage potential is smaller. Each model paid for their strength score, so they should pay the same for an addition to it. It only becomes unfair is they are charged the same for the multiplication.
Personally I've never had many issues with people confused about upgrade timing.
pm713 wrote: Why add 4? It doesn't seem that useful to me. S4 is the same, S6 is a tiny bit better and S5 is the only one to get nerfed.
Because it eliminates a lot of questions in regards to upgrade timing etc. Most walkers with them are str6 so they end up even. Strength 7 may not cause instant death to T4, but it will harm av13 and the difference in damage potential is smaller. Each model paid for their strength score, so they should pay the same for an addition to it. It only becomes unfair is they are charged the same for the multiplication.
Personally I've never had many issues with people confused about upgrade timing.
Primarily the thunderwolves, but otherwise it just seemed to make sense. Adding a static bonus to a statistic instead of multiplying it would allow for the upgrade to maintain the same cost. Also, for the unwieldy property on weapons means that marines are losing one more initiative than a guardsman for the trade-off of one higher strength.
Gunzhard wrote:
Yeah seriously if we are sticking to canon you're right... just IG and Orks... I get the point you are trying to make though. But here's the thing. Using Space Marines as an example... the way a chapter is organized, and exactly how many Tactical marines and Devastator marines, squads and companies etc, is not necessarily reflective of the "most typical fighting forces"; read through any SM codex.
Nearly every space marine chapter has tons of tactical marines throughout all of their battle companies - but space marines don't fight that way where they send the entire chapter and its mass organization of tactical marines into battle. This, also being a narratively driven game, to varying degrees anyway, lends itself perfectly to situations where just Scouting type elements might be fighting, or just heavy Armour, or just close-quarters (terminator) fighters, or just elite vanguard units, or some odd mix of several different elements.
In a world where tournament players insist on fielding Sisters of Silence and Custodes, Space Marines must adhere to some narrow vision of just tactical marines? ...please.
No, Space Marines are not the only army that should have to take a lot of Troops. Every faction should have to take Troops-majority lists, because Troops are supposed to be the most numerous and common units on the battlefield.
Space Marines may not generally go into battle as an entire chapter very often, but their main fighting forces are the battle companies - hence the name - and those are made up of primarily Tactical Squads. Then, two of the reserve companies are completely comprised of Tac Squads. So, the most common Space Marine unit on the battlefields of the 41st millenium are going to be Tac Squads.
The other instances you mentioned are not going to be very frequent occurrences, but you can still theme lists around them with Troops-majority rules. If you're required to take, say, 40% Troops, that still leaves you 60% of your points to spend elsewhere. Close quarters fighting? Spend the points on Terminators and Veterans, with the Troops there to secure the ground they've taken. Heavy armor breakthrough? Spend the other 60% on Vindicators and Predators, with the Troops there to support them - and they can be in Razorbacks to support the overall theme. Vanguard force? Same thing. And, quite frankly, Assault Squads could probably just be a Troops choice. Scouting force? Easy. Scouts are Troops.
There is absolutely no reason one can't make a themed list around a Troops requirement with some actual bite. You many not be able to squeeze in each and every thing you want the list to have, but quite frankly list building is more fun when you have challenges to work around. You get to test yourself, to see how clever you are at balancing out what you have to take against what you want, and to see how you can make the compulsory stuff fit what you have in mind in a meaningful way, rather than just being a minor tax that sits around in the backfield.
Plus, games get more interesting when you actually have to take a lot of Troops. You can't always rely on being able to hit your opponent's best units with your best units. Sometimes your Troops have to try and carry their weight. Maneuvering becomes more important, because you're trying to match up units with appropriate targets, or bring more Troops to bear on something tough because your killer units are engaged elsewhere. It allows for asymmetrical matchups to happen in a game that is balanced overall. That's a lot more interesting than everyone just taking max killer units and running them at each other.
All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
That's not the way to balance. See: Starcraft.
Oh i know its not the way to balance, But somehow i imagine tradito would be really satisfied with it deep down. Although i suppose i did leave missile launchers and flamers out. but we all make sacrifices this way
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
That's not the way to balance. See: Starcraft.
Oh i know its not the way to balance, But somehow i imagine tradito would be really satisfied with it deep down. Although i suppose i did leave missile launchers and flamers out. but we all make sacrifices this way
woah woah, MLs are op as feth! Remember, using cover is SHENANIGANS! We can't have ANY of that, so a weapon that wounds on a 2+ AND ignores a marine's armor? No way man, no way.
My biggest issue with GW's rules is the lack of internal balance. Everytime a codex comes out and I browse through it, I can just completely ignore about 25% of the codex because it's so, so much worse than anything else.
It's either overcosted, redundant, or isn't supported properly by the rest of the codex. Then you have the cream of the crop, the 25% of the codex that is just so necessary, so points efficient, so obviously pushed that if you don't take them in games you feel like you are handicapping yourself.
Then the other 50% tends to be just fine, if you take them you won't feel bad and generally they'll have their good and bad matchups.
From a Tyranid players' perspect there are a few units that have been frustratingly left on the shelf over the series of several codexes:
I use to be a power-gamer and really competitive player. I wasn't a rules lawyer, but whenever I played I would only play what I thought to be the best army was at the time, and I would spam it's best units.
I was that guy who had that Space Marine army with a generic name paint scheme. One week they were Blood Angels, then maybe Space Wolves. Or Chaos, or regular Space Marines, or Dark Angels.
From a really competitive min-max perspect, the game became frustrating. I got annoyed with GW with their inability to really properly points cost things. I got so annoyed anytime a codex would get released I would go through the books and modify points costs to try and make sure every unit was appropriately costed.
I can still do this, but I don't. I now just take cool models that do neat things and I put the most work into. My local group has even gone so far to do some house rules for units that almost never see play. And it's fun and I fell in love with the game again.
But part of me still resents GW rules writers for being unable to balance their game. Why isn't there basic playtesting done for every codex? Why don't they accept advice from known good, competitive players? I think their attitude of "our games aren't made to be competitive" is just a cop-out from them. So people will be happy with the fact that they can't seem to properly balance their codexes.
I get it, if you want a hard fought competitive tournament environment, tabletop war-gaming is probably not your avenue. Try eSports (DOTA, Starcraft, CS:GO, etc) or maybe Magic: The Gathering. But I still want GW to try and make Warhammer as balanced and tight as possible, and sometimes I just don't think they even bother.
Gunzhard wrote:
Yeah seriously if we are sticking to canon you're right... just IG and Orks... I get the point you are trying to make though. But here's the thing. Using Space Marines as an example... the way a chapter is organized, and exactly how many Tactical marines and Devastator marines, squads and companies etc, is not necessarily reflective of the "most typical fighting forces"; read through any SM codex.
Nearly every space marine chapter has tons of tactical marines throughout all of their battle companies - but space marines don't fight that way where they send the entire chapter and its mass organization of tactical marines into battle. This, also being a narratively driven game, to varying degrees anyway, lends itself perfectly to situations where just Scouting type elements might be fighting, or just heavy Armour, or just close-quarters (terminator) fighters, or just elite vanguard units, or some odd mix of several different elements.
In a world where tournament players insist on fielding Sisters of Silence and Custodes, Space Marines must adhere to some narrow vision of just tactical marines? ...please.
No, Space Marines are not the only army that should have to take a lot of Troops. Every faction should have to take Troops-majority lists, because Troops are supposed to be the most numerous and common units on the battlefield.
Space Marines may not generally go into battle as an entire chapter very often, but their main fighting forces are the battle companies - hence the name - and those are made up of primarily Tactical Squads. Then, two of the reserve companies are completely comprised of Tac Squads. So, the most common Space Marine unit on the battlefields of the 41st millenium are going to be Tac Squads.
The other instances you mentioned are not going to be very frequent occurrences, but you can still theme lists around them with Troops-majority rules. If you're required to take, say, 40% Troops, that still leaves you 60% of your points to spend elsewhere. Close quarters fighting? Spend the points on Terminators and Veterans, with the Troops there to secure the ground they've taken. Heavy armor breakthrough? Spend the other 60% on Vindicators and Predators, with the Troops there to support them - and they can be in Razorbacks to support the overall theme. Vanguard force? Same thing. And, quite frankly, Assault Squads could probably just be a Troops choice. Scouting force? Easy. Scouts are Troops.
There is absolutely no reason one can't make a themed list around a Troops requirement with some actual bite. You many not be able to squeeze in each and every thing you want the list to have, but quite frankly list building is more fun when you have challenges to work around. You get to test yourself, to see how clever you are at balancing out what you have to take against what you want, and to see how you can make the compulsory stuff fit what you have in mind in a meaningful way, rather than just being a minor tax that sits around in the backfield.
Plus, games get more interesting when you actually have to take a lot of Troops. You can't always rely on being able to hit your opponent's best units with your best units. Sometimes your Troops have to try and carry their weight. Maneuvering becomes more important, because you're trying to match up units with appropriate targets, or bring more Troops to bear on something tough because your killer units are engaged elsewhere. It allows for asymmetrical matchups to happen in a game that is balanced overall. That's a lot more interesting than everyone just taking max killer units and running them at each other.
Not going to be very frequent occurrences? ...have you read the fluff side of ANY SM codex ever? ...they almost never fight as entire 'battle companies' unless they're facing apocalypse level events like a Hive fleet arrival for example. And again, this is a narratively driven game, ...scouting missions could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, an Armoured only / tank battle phase (or entire battle) could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, sometimes the entire battle is just aerial assaults and bombing, etc etc etc... if your vision of imaginary space battles is just troops against troops - well you're in luck, you can do that too.
And again, just because an army or space marine chapter is organized in such a way doesn't necessarily reflect, per the fluff, how they approach each battle. Now that space marines get free rhinos we see battle companies everywhere and I certainly wouldn't call that balanced or fun or interesting.
I've played every edition of this game and I certainly wouldn't agree that the heavy Troop driven editions were "more interesting", nor do I see that as any sort of qualifier for balance. Though I agree we do need better balance. Simply nerfing a few OP units would go a long way for starters.
And again, you can field Custodes in this game, why limit Space Marines or other armies to some narrow idea of troop-battles.
So my imperial guard regiment made entirely of tanks, with no infantry of any kind in it shouldn't exist in game. Despite it being made explicitly clear in the fluff this is how guard regiments operate. Entirely focused on one aspect and not having support from within the regiment itself. They have to take from other regiments to fill their weakness. But I guess that would be deemed as ally shenanigans and be too op? And I can't use forge world list because it too is op. And formations are op so I can't do it that way. Guess we'll have to rewrite the fluff then, but that couldn't end well (see necron rewrite) so what do we do?
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
That's not the way to balance. See: Starcraft.
Starcraft just is not a comparable game. Every player starts off with nothing and builds up trying to counter and outplay there opponents. In Warhammer you have to spend all your resources blind to your opponents and try your best to bring the tools to deal with everything. It would be comparable if starcraft started with a set number of minerals, and had to spend everything before ever getting to see what your opponent is buying. Obviously you would try to make an army that can handle as much as possible. Then traditio would come along and complain that he cannot win with his army of only marines, because he likes marines and he does not like medics, and it is totally unfair that lurkers can just kill all of them with zero counter play because he doesn't want to take detection because it is not a marine.
Not going to be very frequent occurrences? ...have you read the fluff side of ANY SM codex ever? ...they almost never fight as entire 'battle companies' unless they're facing apocalypse level events like a Hive fleet arrival for example. And again, this is a narratively driven game, ...scouting missions could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, an Armoured only / tank battle phase (or entire battle) could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, sometimes the entire battle is just aerial assaults and bombing, etc etc etc... if your vision of imaginary space battles is just troops against troops - well you're in luck, you can do that too.
And again, just because an army or space marine chapter is organized in such a way doesn't necessarily reflect, per the fluff, how they approach each battle. Now that space marines get free rhinos we see battle companies everywhere and I certainly wouldn't call that balanced or fun or interesting.
I've played every edition of this game and I certainly wouldn't agree that the heavy Troop driven editions were "more interesting", nor do I see that as any sort of qualifier for balance. Though I agree we do need better balance. Simply nerfing a few OP units would go a long way for starters.
And again, you can field Custodes in this game, why limit Space Marines or other armies to some narrow idea of troop-battles.
I don't think the game needed Custodes, but GW wanted to put them out, so we have them now. If they float your boat, then fine. I don't see why that has anything to do with whether or not the game should require lists with an actually significant amount of Troops.
I already addressed how you can build a list themed around a scouting force or armored task force, so those examples are weak. The game is not designed around bombing runs, nor do Space Marine players really have the units for that kind of thing, so I don't see how that's relevant, but if two players want to set that up as a special scenario, I don't see how normal rules requiring actually significant amounts of Troops would hinder them in any way.
The fluff in dexes usually only devotes a paragraph or two, or at most a page or two, to battles or even entire campaigns. As such, those descriptions usually only depict what a named character and maybe one or two elite squads were doing. It simply doesn't have the space to devote to what the entire force is doing. That doesn't mean there aren't rank-and-file units in those battles performing their roles though. Plus, not every fringe example needs to be rules-supported. I've read some fluff about all-Land Raider forces fighting engagements. That doesn't mean we need rules allowing a player to play an all-Land Raider army. Again, players are free to set up special one-offs outside the sanctioned rules.
Because GW hasn't written into the rules requirements that players play lists that are representative of their factions' typical fighting forces, they've instead had to bribe players into it with formation and detachment bonuses. That's another way to go, but what it's done is turned Space Marines into a horde army - because other players are free to build deathstars, or spam power units, in order for anything resembling a SM battle company to be competitive, it has to put more units on the board than an opponent can easily deal with, even with a cheesed-out list. I don't like how GW did the battle company formations, but without the free transports and detachment-wide ObSec, there's no way a list comprised of units you'd find in a battle company would ever be competitive in the current environment.
If everyone had to take a significant chunk of Troops, it would, in fact, improve the balance of the game, if only because it would go some way towards flattening out the balance curve - everyone would have less points to spend on power units. Also, it's been my experience over the last couple years that a 40% Troops requirement does, in fact, make for much more balanced games across a decent variety of armies. Having Custodes or whatever else wouldn't bother me if such a requirement were written into the game. You want a squad of Custodes? If you have your X amount of Troops, that's fine with me. You want to play all-Custodes? Special one-off time.
Surely we're in a really good place at the moment as far as list building goes. We've got the choices to run anything from just Tac Marines and fluffworthy extras led by a Captain and mounted in Rhinos to an army composed only of Mega Nobz. We've got the freedom to do any extreme and everything in between, which I think is great. The old way of only ever HQ + 2 troops minimum is unrepresentative of a lot of fluff (canon and head varieties). If you want to play with more troops in your games you're able to do so within the current confines of the rules, you can even set that as a personal rule amongst your gaming group but most people are enjoying the freedom that current list building involves. The problem doesn't lie with the force organisational charts (though the power disparity between the bonuses they provide could do with being looked at) it's to do with the imbalance between codexes and the units inside them.
Freedom isn't some sort of end-all be-all of game design. I have unlimited freedom when playing green army men in a sandbox, but of course I choose to play a wargame which has rules and restrictions.
Part of that is list building, which GW has jumped the shark. Its complicated, poorly balanced, and arguably less fluffy than it was previously with the way allies work and are constantly used.
The solution to the old HQ+ 2 troops being 'unfluffy' (it wasn't unfluffy, just a little restrictive) wasn't to scrap it entirely, it was to make troops more interesting and have methods of altering what troops you have. A great example was the old Marine list where a Captain on a bike would make bike squads troops. Apply the same logic to most other unit types and you can have a somewhat restrictive, yet simple and fluffy solution without jumping the shark entirely to the mess of allies and formations/detachments we have now.
Not going to be very frequent occurrences? ...have you read the fluff side of ANY SM codex ever? ...they almost never fight as entire 'battle companies' unless they're facing apocalypse level events like a Hive fleet arrival for example. And again, this is a narratively driven game, ...scouting missions could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, an Armoured only / tank battle phase (or entire battle) could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, sometimes the entire battle is just aerial assaults and bombing, etc etc etc... if your vision of imaginary space battles is just troops against troops - well you're in luck, you can do that too.
And again, just because an army or space marine chapter is organized in such a way doesn't necessarily reflect, per the fluff, how they approach each battle. Now that space marines get free rhinos we see battle companies everywhere and I certainly wouldn't call that balanced or fun or interesting.
I've played every edition of this game and I certainly wouldn't agree that the heavy Troop driven editions were "more interesting", nor do I see that as any sort of qualifier for balance. Though I agree we do need better balance. Simply nerfing a few OP units would go a long way for starters.
And again, you can field Custodes in this game, why limit Space Marines or other armies to some narrow idea of troop-battles.
I don't think the game needed Custodes, but GW wanted to put them out, so we have them now. If they float your boat, then fine. I don't see why that has anything to do with whether or not the game should require lists with an actually significant amount of Troops.
I don't think Custodes needed to be in the game either - but people wanted them, like Sisters of Silence and Terminators and heroes etc etc, because they are interesting.
The great variety is what makes this game so much more appealing to me than Flames of War for example. But look back at previous wars or modern warfare, yes the bulk of nearly every army on earth is made up of troops/infantry, but that is not necessarily reflective of how combat is "most often" approached, I'd say logically, it'd be even less so in futuristic, imaginary warfare, but the beauty of 40k is - you can treat it however you like.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: I already addressed how you can build a list themed around a scouting force or armored task force, so those examples are weak. The game is not designed around bombing runs, nor do Space Marine players really have the units for that kind of thing, so I don't see how that's relevant, but if two players want to set that up as a special scenario, I don't see how normal rules requiring actually significant amounts of Troops would hinder them in any way.
The fluff in dexes usually only devotes a paragraph or two, or at most a page or two, to battles or even entire campaigns. As such, those descriptions usually only depict what a named character and maybe one or two elite squads were doing. It simply doesn't have the space to devote to what the entire force is doing. That doesn't mean there aren't rank-and-file units in those battles performing their roles though. Plus, not every fringe example needs to be rules-supported. I've read some fluff about all-Land Raider forces fighting engagements. That doesn't mean we need rules allowing a player to play an all-Land Raider army. Again, players are free to set up special one-offs outside the sanctioned rules.
So any battle that's not a Troop-battle is a "fringe example"? ...says you, have you read any of the campaign books? And for the record we actually do have Aerial combat rules however unpopular, and GW did make rules allowing an All-LandRaider (Spearhead) at one point - but beyond that IG can field all tanks now, Blood Angels can and often send elements of their 1st company (not troops) into battle alone etc etc... Your "troop battle" can be a special one-off if you want. Heck Aeronautica Imperialis is in the very newest Codex.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Because GW hasn't written into the rules requirements that players play lists that are representative of their factions' typical fighting forces, they've instead had to bribe players into it with formation and detachment bonuses. That's another way to go, but what it's done is turned Space Marines into a horde army - because other players are free to build deathstars, or spam power units, in order for anything resembling a SM battle company to be competitive, it has to put more units on the board than an opponent can easily deal with, even with a cheesed-out list. I don't like how GW did the battle company formations, but without the free transports and detachment-wide ObSec, there's no way a list comprised of units you'd find in a battle company would ever be competitive in the current environment.
If everyone had to take a significant chunk of Troops, it would, in fact, improve the balance of the game, if only because it would go some way towards flattening out the balance curve - everyone would have less points to spend on power units. Also, it's been my experience over the last couple years that a 40% Troops requirement does, in fact, make for much more balanced games across a decent variety of armies. Having Custodes or whatever else wouldn't bother me if such a requirement were written into the game. You want a squad of Custodes? If you have your X amount of Troops, that's fine with me. You want to play all-Custodes? Special one-off time.
Having a significant chunk of troops is in NO way a leveler of balance. It may be how you think the game should be played, or how you envision imaginary space battles, but having X amount of troops isn't going to fix anything. For some armies that is an enormous tax for others a massive boon, and we've been there before and 40k has yet to have a "balanced" set of codex or rules. Further some people don't want to field Troops; you do, so you can go ahead and do that.
I view this game as a hybrid between board gaming and role playing.
I realize tournament and competitive play may alter a person's stance, but at the same time i've never seen a game, outside of a generic shooter with no classes, be totally balanced, and even then there's disputes regarding certain maps, and auto team balance versus not.
So, should the game be perfectly balanced?
I voted no, because I think that is when you start to have watered down, homogenized choices. A better way to think about it, would be what if every single unit, across every single race/faction, were equivalent to space marines. In other words, each race was just a re-skinning of space marines. Would that be fun? Probably not...
I voted no, because I think that is when you start to have watered down, homogenized choices. A better way to think about it, would be what if every single unit, across every single race/faction, were equivalent to space marines. In other words, each race was just a re-skinning of space marines. Would that be fun? Probably not...
But that's not what it's claiming. It is claiming that elements of the design can be unbalanced, but taken holistically can still create a balanced environment.
Azreal13 wrote: But that's not what it's claiming. It is claiming that elements of the design can be unbalanced, but taken holistically can still create a balanced environment.
"Element" is too broad for me. Yes, marines are different than zerglings which are different than zealot in Starcraft, but none are unbalanced. There is no way to have a balanced environment with the 295 pt WK.
The Wraithknight has deviated too far from the "Jedi curve" there's is no effective counter that does not require a disproportionate investment of resources.
It needs "patching," but it's existence doesn't somehow invalidate the theory of perfect imbalance, it is just an example where designers got it wrong.
The Wraithknight has deviated too far from the "Jedi curve" there's is no effective counter that does not require a disproportionate investment of resources.
It needs "patching," but it's existence doesn't somehow invalidate the theory of perfect imbalance, it is just an example where designers got it wrong.
There is simply no advantage to miscosting a unit. Any given unit might be undesirable because of meta shifts, but miscosting for the sake of miscosting is foolish.
I have a consideration for those saying that making the game balanced would remove all strategy, etc. from the game (which is complete bull gak):
Consider the current alternative. How much strategy is involved when many games are determined simply by the lists that are being opposed to each other?
Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
I'm making the (strange, I know) suggestion that in-game decisions actually should matter. They should be the most important factor in deciding who wins, in fact.
Traditio wrote: I have a consideration for those saying that making the game balanced would remove all strategy, etc. from the game (which is complete bull gak):
Consider the current alternative. How much strategy is involved when many games are determined simply by the lists that are being opposed to each other?
Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
I'm making the (strange, I know) suggestion that in-game decisions actually should matter. They should be the most important factor in deciding who wins, in fact.
Because your option doesn't add strategy, it just means you can literally throw things down and have a 50/50 chance to win?
I write a list
You write a list
We trade lists
Then we flip a coin, congratulations play again?
Because what sort of game can guarantee a 50/50 chance regardless of 20+ options within a book?
HANZERtank wrote: So my imperial guard regiment made entirely of tanks, with no infantry of any kind in it shouldn't exist in game. Despite it being made explicitly clear in the fluff this is how guard regiments operate. Entirely focused on one aspect and not having support from within the regiment itself. They have to take from other regiments to fill their weakness. But I guess that would be deemed as ally shenanigans and be too op? And I can't use forge world list because it too is op. And formations are op so I can't do it that way. Guess we'll have to rewrite the fluff then, but that couldn't end well (see necron rewrite) so what do we do?
The same thing should be done that was done for marines as a whole:
Ignore the fluff and make sacrifices for the sake of game balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Because your option doesn't add strategy, it just means you can literally throw things down and have a 50/50 chance to win?
I write a list
You write a list
We trade lists
Then we flip a coin, congratulations play again?
Because what sort of game can guarantee a 50/50 chance regardless of 20+ options within a book?
Again, you're making a strawman of my position. It's not 50/50 regardless of in-game decisions. It's 50/50 prior to in-game decisions.
Once you start deploying, moving your units around, selecting targets to shoot and assault, rolling dice, etc., your chances should start changing.
The Wraithknight has deviated too far from the "Jedi curve" there's is no effective counter that does not require a disproportionate investment of resources.
It needs "patching," but it's existence doesn't somehow invalidate the theory of perfect imbalance, it is just an example where designers got it wrong.
There is simply no advantage to miscosting a unit. Any given unit might be undesirable because of meta shifts, but miscosting for the sake of miscosting is foolish.
I'd say Eldar players have derived a massive advantage from a miscosted unit. Anyway, that's beside the point. As the video says, that deliberate (mild) miscosting can help drive the game state and also the sales (which, done well and as part of a generally healthy approach to a game, nobody should really begrudge a producer making a living from their product) helping keep the game interesting and dynamic.
Picking on the Wraithknight as an example of why the system doesn't work is not a strong argument, the WK isn't an example of perfect imbalance, it's an example of a monumental clusterfeth of poor design.
It's not just the Wraithknight. It's any miscosting. You don't need miscosting to drive the meta. That's bs. The meta is driven by perceived advantage, it doesn't have to be a mathematically absolute advantage.
It's just that the WK is a EASILY perceived advantage.
Miscostedness does NOT make something interesting and dynamic. The players do that. As well as sidegrade units. Not superior, not inferior. Different.
The thing with a meta curve is that it can be relatively inelastic depending on the game.
For instance, in League of Legends, it's fairly easy to acquire the best champion of the month, and a few minor runes you might need to buy, but only for your first couple months of playing are runes an issue.
However in Warhammer40k, it's a much longer path to creating a counter or adapting to the meta. I can't just suddenly not be a space marine player if that's all I have, and suddenly have a functioning eldar army with Wraithknights.
Hence, the meta here is fairly inelastic.
It's far more likely that rules will come out to address the Wraithknight before the meta would shift.
But in any case, we were talking in a general sense, not in regards to 1 specific unit. Having some overpowered units is a small price to pay for a game that presents a wide variety of fundamentally different options.
One poster mentioned strategy bearing into play. In a perfectly balanced game, the strategy is set out for you, from the beginning. So, it really does come down to dice rolls, and over enough trials, that is a 50/50 outcome. So his point wasn't a strawman and is completely valid.
"In a perfectly balanced game, the strategy is set out for you, from the beginning. So, it really does come down to dice rolls, and over enough trials, that is a 50/50 outcome. So his point wasn't a strawman and is completely valid."
That's completely not true. Your decisions of when and where and how to engage matter a lot. A good terran player can beat another inferior terran player in SC in a match of 20 marines vs 20 marines.
Gunzhard wrote:
The great variety is what makes this game so much more appealing to me than Flames of War for example. But look back at previous wars or modern warfare, yes the bulk of nearly every army on earth is made up of troops/infantry, but that is not necessarily reflective of how combat is "most often" approached, I'd say logically, it'd be even less so in futuristic, imaginary warfare, but the beauty of 40k is - you can treat it however you like.
I'm not saying "Don't play those units". What I am saying is I want lists to be representative of the fighting forces the factions are most likely to field. In the current state of the rules, the only mechanic that does so are detachment bonuses, which are much derided. As for the state of warfare 40,000 years in the future, the whole idea of ground forces fighting each other seems a little silly when city-sized starships can just obliterate them from orbit. So, arguing it's more "realistic" for army lists to be comprised of less Troops and more exotic units is farcical.
So any battle that's not a Troop-battle is a "fringe example"? ...says you, have you read any of the campaign books? And for the record we actually do have Aerial combat rules however unpopular, and GW did make rules allowing an All-LandRaider (Spearhead) at one point - but beyond that IG can field all tanks now, Blood Angels can and often send elements of their 1st company (not troops) into battle alone etc etc... Your "troop battle" can be a special one-off if you want. Heck Aeronautica Imperialis is in the very newest Codex.
Yes, we have aerial combat rules, but we don't really have rules for a force entirely comprised of strategic bombers striking a ground force, which is what I envisioned when you mentioned bombing runs. Nor do we have strategic bombers - well, I suppose there's the Forge World Marauder. I didn't say engagements where one side or the other doesn't field anything that their dexes categorize as Troops don't happen. However, I'm going to stand on them being fringe cases because commanders won't have unlimited access to unlimited numbers of every exotic elite unit all the time. Most of the time, they would have to make do with what they have, and what they're reliably going to have is Troops. Hence Troops-based lists are the most thematically appropriate.
Having a significant chunk of troops is in NO way a leveler of balance. It may be how you think the game should be played, or how you envision imaginary space battles, but having X amount of troops isn't going to fix anything. For some armies that is an enormous tax for others a massive boon, and we've been there before and 40k has yet to have a "balanced" set of codex or rules. Further some people don't want to field Troops; you do, so you can go ahead and do that.
The only army a high mandatory Troops requirement would be a massive boon to is Eldar. Take Windriders out of the equation (they should be a Fast Attack choice), and the environment is much more balanced. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and in all that time there has never been an edition that required more than 2 Troops choices, and most armies could and can satisfy that requirement for little more than 100pts. So, you can't actually comment on how balanced a mandatory Troops-heavy environment would be. I can because I've been playing in one for years now. The armies members of my group play include Eldar, Dark Angels, Tau, Chaos Marines, Imperial Guard, and Sisters of Battle - some top tier, others bottom tier. We generally have close games, some so tight they literally turn on a single die roll. I'm not saying it's the panacea that fixes all of 40K's ills, but it does help considerably.
Traditio wrote:I have a consideration for those saying that making the game balanced would remove all strategy, etc. from the game (which is complete bull gak):
Consider the current alternative. How much strategy is involved when many games are determined simply by the lists that are being opposed to each other?
Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
I'm making the (strange, I know) suggestion that in-game decisions actually should matter. They should be the most important factor in deciding who wins, in fact.
The state of balance in 40K is certainly deplorable. However, that doesn't mean the rules have to protect incompetent list builders from the consequences of their incompetence. For instance, if you take a list where your only anti-armor weapons are missile launchers, and I take a list with 3 Dreadnoughts, you're probably going to have a bad game - especially if your battle plan is to pod non-upgraded Sternguard on my deployment zone. If I'm at all competent at deployment, your chances of popping 3 Dreads with MLs are tiny, which means my Dreads are almost certainly going to be able to charge your Sternies when they drop in. The Sternies won't be able to do a damn thing to them in the shooting phase, and their chances of damaging a Dread in the assault phase are vanishingly small. One could cry "OP DREADNOUGHT CHEEZE!", or one could learn to take some combi-meltas in his Sternguard squads.
Now, is it annoying to have the rules change, to have things that were good become less good, and have new things added that require you to add new things to adapt? Yes. I've got scads of Marines with missile launchers that used to be worth fielding back in 3rd ed, and had their place all the way through 5th. I don't use them now, because MLs suck for the price in this edition.
That said, you're playing an army that takes advantage of things that have not always been in the game. Sternguard weren't a thing until 5th edition, and drop pods weren't a thing till 4th edition. If someone had been playing since 3rd edition and refused to adapt to drop pods, you'd refuse to give much credence to their complaints, and you'd be right to do so. Games Workshop is going to add new things, because people like new things. Heck, I love everything about my armies, and I love to have a little bit of everything in them - or in some cases, a lot of everything.
You may think it's unfair to have to buy new stuff in order to keep your army competitive, and that's an attitude that is not entirely without validity. However, consider the return on the investment. If, say, $100 gets you 2-3 Devastator Squads, netting you grav cannons and some combi-weapons you could use to upgrade your Sternies, that's an investment that's going to serve you well for the entire edition. People will routinely buy a console game for $60 and trade it in after a week. If $100 is an investment that will help your army for even 6 months, that's a much better return on your investment, and given that the usual edition cycle is 3-4 years, one would usually be apt to get much more return off that $100.
Martel732 wrote: "In a perfectly balanced game, the strategy is set out for you, from the beginning. So, it really does come down to dice rolls, and over enough trials, that is a 50/50 outcome. So his point wasn't a strawman and is completely valid."
That's completely not true. Your decisions of when and where and how to engage matter a lot. A good terran player can beat another inferior terran player in SC in a match of 20 marines vs 20 marines.
You need to clearly define inferior.
Because once you know the strategy, and the maps, it boils down to micro, not strategy.
Like, if your inferior player built no units, of course he'd lose, but we're not dealing with cases rooted in hyperbole, right?
Yeah 40k can't be compared to Starcraft for a variety of reasons, mostly turn-based. You really can't micro your army out of range until after the enemy shoots it. The person who moves into range can shoot before the enemy has an opportunity to moget away.
No, there's still build order and building the right counter units and expo timing. If we are talking Starcraft.
Inferior:
250 pt Land Raider vs 295 pt Wraithknight.
Inferior.
And build order, counter units, and expansion timers mean nothing if your armies are banelinged to death, swarm hosted, tank shocked *INSERT MORE STUFF HERE* to nothing each time you attempt combat.
Traditio wrote: I have a consideration for those saying that making the game balanced would remove all strategy, etc. from the game (which is complete bull gak):
Consider the current alternative. How much strategy is involved when many games are determined simply by the lists that are being opposed to each other?
Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
I'm making the (strange, I know) suggestion that in-game decisions actually should matter. They should be the most important factor in deciding who wins, in fact.
Its not that making the game perfectly balanced would remove all strategy. Making the game such that any list has a completely equal chance of taking on any other list requires an extreme dumbing down of the game. Units that are directly meant to counter one other kind of unit, or that cannot deal with another kind of unit effectively cannot exist. There would still be strategy involved in this dumbed down game it just would not be as dynamic and interesting. There is an alternative to this ridiculous dichotomy of play deciding everything vs lists deciding everything. Both can matter, and currently in 40k both do matter. Personally I think both should matter.
Designing a list is fun, and strategic. You have to think about all the threats you will have to manage, and then how you will manage them. Your list will have some strengths and weaknesses, and you should have a plan for how you will manage them. As long as the game has enough room for players to make interesting strategic moves in game then unfavorable match ups can be won. We see the same lists of names making it to the tops of tournaments each year, even when there are plenty of other players playing very similar lists. These players make it there because they play well. 40k is a far cry from being balanced, but tournaments do show us that that skilled play does matter. Sure a tournament winning list will probably beat a casual list with relative ease, but this is true in pretty much every game. You don't see low level magic card players saying that the pre-boxed deck they bought should have an even chance against the recent vintage champions deck. I don't expect my garbage infinity army to match up against the ITC champs list. When I bring my ridiculous death star of every eldar unique character I do not expect to win ever. You should not expect your list to always have a fair chance. As long as players come to the game with an understanding of what level of competition they are playing at then skill will matter, and the players will have fun.
No, there's still build order and building the right counter units and expo timing. If we are talking Starcraft.
Inferior:
250 pt Land Raider vs 295 pt Wraithknight.
Inferior.
And build order, counter units, and expansion timers mean nothing if your armies are banelinged to death, swarm hosted, tank shocked *INSERT MORE STUFF HERE* to nothing each time you attempt combat.
Martel732 wrote: It's not just the Wraithknight. It's any miscosting. You don't need miscosting to drive the meta. That's bs. The meta is driven by perceived advantage, it doesn't have to be a mathematically absolute advantage.
It's just that the WK is a EASILY perceived advantage.
Miscostedness does NOT make something interesting and dynamic. The players do that. As well as sidegrade units. Not superior, not inferior. Different.
Then adopt a different method of imperfectly balancing aside from cost. The issue I was addressing with the video, and something you haven't really addressed simply by ragging on the WK as an example of poor balance, is that it isn't necessary for everything to be the same to be balanced.
It is perfectly ok for one thing to be better at something than another, the problems occur when the designers stuff up and cross the line between "strong but manageable" and "broken." Then it gets compounded if the totality of the faction, as with Eldar, don't really offer any real weaknesses to be exploited outside of the egregious outlier. Then it gets further compounded in 40K because there's so little player agency once lists are drawn up and the models hit the table. It isn't coincidence that most games that are held up as better examples of balance over 40K require a lot more in-game decision making, making room for skilled play can help mitigate balance issues, and when a serious effort is made to balance factions and units in the first place, any issues pretty much disappear altogether, at least to the standard that many players find acceptable.
Traditio wrote: Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
Look at any thread in the Tactics or Army List forums and you'll see dozens of people doing this exact thing. Very little of the comparisons will meet with agreement, unless the army list is extraordinarily bad. You can't resolve a game in this way. Need to play it out.
I'm not saying "Don't play those units". What I am saying is I want lists to be representative of the fighting forces the factions are most likely to field. In the current state of the rules, the only mechanic that does so are detachment bonuses, which are much derided. As for the state of warfare 40,000 years in the future, the whole idea of ground forces fighting each other seems a little silly when city-sized starships can just obliterate them from orbit. So, arguing it's more "realistic" for army lists to be comprised of less Troops and more exotic units is farcical.
So any battle that's not a Troop-battle is a "fringe example"? ...says you, have you read any of the campaign books? And for the record we actually do have Aerial combat rules however unpopular, and GW did make rules allowing an All-LandRaider (Spearhead) at one point - but beyond that IG can field all tanks now, Blood Angels can and often send elements of their 1st company (not troops) into battle alone etc etc... Your "troop battle" can be a special one-off if you want. Heck Aeronautica Imperialis is in the very newest Codex.
Yes, we have aerial combat rules, but we don't really have rules for a force entirely comprised of strategic bombers striking a ground force, which is what I envisioned when you mentioned bombing runs. Nor do we have strategic bombers - well, I suppose there's the Forge World Marauder. I didn't say engagements where one side or the other doesn't field anything that their dexes categorize as Troops don't happen. However, I'm going to stand on them being fringe cases because commanders won't have unlimited access to unlimited numbers of every exotic elite unit all the time. Most of the time, they would have to make do with what they have, and what they're reliably going to have is Troops. Hence Troops-based lists are the most thematically appropriate.
I'd like to stop you here and just point out, your idea of "most likely to field" is entirely opinion, not based in modern warfare, or fictional imaginary warfare that is 40k either; not to say it couldn't be and there are indeed examples of it in the fluff... but there are just as many if not more examples of the exception to that - despite the overall organization of the armies on paper. I completely disagree that "troops-based lists" are the most "thematically appropriate"... in a high-tech sci-fi battlefield it is more likely the least thematically appropriate. You are trying to push "theme" and fluff when it suites your point but ignore it everywhere else... like I said before - just IG and Orks baby; or Knights/Titans and tanks/flyers.
Having a significant chunk of troops is in NO way a leveler of balance. It may be how you think the game should be played, or how you envision imaginary space battles, but having X amount of troops isn't going to fix anything. For some armies that is an enormous tax for others a massive boon, and we've been there before and 40k has yet to have a "balanced" set of codex or rules. Further some people don't want to field Troops; you do, so you can go ahead and do that.
The only army a high mandatory Troops requirement would be a massive boon to is Eldar. Take Windriders out of the equation (they should be a Fast Attack choice), and the environment is much more balanced. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and in all that time there has never been an edition that required more than 2 Troops choices, and most armies could and can satisfy that requirement for little more than 100pts. So, you can't actually comment on how balanced a mandatory Troops-heavy environment would be. I can because I've been playing in one for years now. The armies members of my group play include Eldar, Dark Angels, Tau, Chaos Marines, Imperial Guard, and Sisters of Battle - some top tier, others bottom tier. We generally have close games, some so tight they literally turn on a single die roll. I'm not saying it's the panacea that fixes all of 40K's ills, but it does help considerably.
Except for Tau my group has all the same armies, we don't force any homebrew comp with troop heavy lists and our games are usually close too. There have been several editions where 'troops' gained some advantage, scoring, ob-sec etc... and I remember GW-GT's from at least as far back as 3rd have troop comps; I still keep my Army-Builder set to show the %-age.
Anyway my point is -- narratively it doesn't make sense to force people to field more troops, and balance wise is doesn't actually improve anything either.
You're just creating a new imbalance... shifting it to the right but not actually solving it.
I agree that in game decision should have more impact, but that shouldn't mean that list building decisions should have none. If all is equal it comes down to who's played the most, and they then start to have an advantage. If someone just started and played someone whos been going since 2nd edition, that new guy will get ruined. How is that fair, this game is supposed to be balanced yet I constantly get beaten. I would go and add new elements into my army but whats the point, everything performs jsut as well as any other combination. And if I try learn new tactics a more experienced player will probably know the counter tactic before I fullly understand it myself. Guess I either give up, or play people of similar experience where it becomes that 50/50 may as well toss a coin chance again.
I'm not. I'm saying that there is NO advantage to having miscosted units in the game at all. Cheap stuff should be weak and have little battlefield efficacy and expensive stuff should be powerful and have a lot of efficacy. Instead, what we have in 40K are 27 pt models that can school 400 pts models because of arbitrary strengths and AVs assigned to said models. We have 225 pt models that can absorb more firepower than 800 pt models.
Martel732 wrote: We have 225 pt models that can absorb more firepower than 800 pt models.
It's not like the Riptide is without weaknesses to exploit.
You just happen to want to shoot it with Lascannons.
Oh please enlighten me. It takes an unrealistic number of grav cannon shots as well. Since they are expensive and hard to get SAFELY within range. There's a guy who fields 10 grav cannons in a marine list who usually gets 4 or 5 safely to range against Tau on a consistent basis. That will kill ONE Riptide. And you sacrificed half your list to do it.
Martel732 wrote: We have 225 pt models that can absorb more firepower than 800 pt models.
It's not like the Riptide is without weaknesses to exploit.
You just happen to want to shoot it with Lascannons.
I'm pretty sure he uses Lascannons because they're a pretty common weapon. What weaknesses are they then?
I use them because they are common and to get people to think about how much other stuff you could kill with that many lascannon shots. Multiple IKs. A Warhound. Multiple, multiple Tyranid MCs.
I'm pretty sure he uses Lascannons because they're a pretty common weapon. What weaknesses are they then?
Their weakness is Melee. If you can get to them, you can stop them from shooting.
Getting there is hard, but the reward is great.
They are not weak in melee. Because MCOP. Free AP2, and 2+/5+++ means they retain their immortality and slowly squish your dudes. There's maybe two units in the whole BA codex that can beat a Riptide in CC.
I'm pretty sure he uses Lascannons because they're a pretty common weapon. What weaknesses are they then?
Their weakness is Melee. If you can get to them, you can stop them from shooting.
Getting there is hard, but the reward is great.
Except I still need to get there which is pretty hard considering the Riptide can keep moving at least 6+2D6" every turn, it and the rest of the army have strong shooting and even if I do I need enough models to survive the combat long enough to kill the T6 2+ 5++ and maybe FnP monster with a lot of wounds.
They are not weak in melee. Because MCOP. Free AP2, and 2+/5+++ means they retain their immortality and slowly squish your dudes. There's maybe two units in the whole BA codex that can beat a Riptide in CC.
Even if you're in CC with guys incapable of killing it, having it slowly kill a squad in melee is a hundred times better than having it quickly kill guys with shooting.
On the flipside, if you're engaging it with something that can kill it, and it loses the combat and it flees, you don't have to spend all that extra effort to get through it's shield and FNP, it just dies in the sweep.
They are not weak in melee. Because MCOP. Free AP2, and 2+/5+++ means they retain their immortality and slowly squish your dudes. There's maybe two units in the whole BA codex that can beat a Riptide in CC.
Even if you're in CC with guys incapable of killing it, having it slowly kill a squad in melee is a hundred times better than having it quickly kill guys with shooting.
On the flipside, if you're engaging it with something that can kill it, and it loses the combat and it flees, you don't have to spend all that extra effort to get through it's shield and FNP, it just dies in the sweep.
In general, by the time you can engage the Riptide, you are just adding to its kill count by tarpitting your own unit. The Riptide has already easily paid for itself by the time you can assault it. Another reason it is hopelessly broken.
Martel732 wrote: "It is perfectly ok for one thing to be better at something than another"
This is critical for meaningful choices. The problem comes in when you have so many units that are STRICTLY better in 95% of circumstances.
No, the problems come when you have units that are strictly better with no meaningfully greater investment of resources. If one unit is twice as durable and has twice the damage output, but doesn't cost double the points, then there's a problem, unless there's some sort of trade off, eg the better unit has very short range and poor mobility. If the efficacy is exponential, rather than linear, then, again, the resource cost needs to reflect that.
Marmatag wrote: I think people are conflating the argument "not all in game units need be balanced," with "the Wraithknight is balanced and fine."
Another way to look at it is that the WK itself might be imbalanced, but it's extreme stats don't make it so just by themselves. If it was 100% the same, but cost 200 points more and was harder to get into an army by way of Formations, we'd have a completely different situation.
Martel732 wrote: "It is perfectly ok for one thing to be better at something than another"
This is critical for meaningful choices. The problem comes in when you have so many units that are STRICTLY better in 95% of circumstances.
No, the problems come when you have units that are strictly better with no meaningfully greater investment of resources. If one unit is twice as durable and has twice the damage output, but doesn't cost double the points, then there's a problem, unless there's some sort of trade off, eg the better unit has very short range and poor mobility. If the efficacy is exponential, rather than linear, then, again, the resource cost needs to reflect that.
I mean for the cost implicitly in my statement. 40K units don't have enough trade offs for sure.
In general, by the time you can engage the Riptide, you are just adding to its kill count by tarpitting your own unit. The Riptide has already easily paid for itself by the time you can assault it. Another reason it is hopelessly broken.
Given a choice, would you rather have it continue killing whatever it wants fast, or force it to kill something specific slow?
The answers pretty self evident, imo. Even in the worst case scenario, keeping it from shooting is the way to go.
In general, by the time you can engage the Riptide, you are just adding to its kill count by tarpitting your own unit. The Riptide has already easily paid for itself by the time you can assault it. Another reason it is hopelessly broken.
Given a choice, would you rather have it continue killing whatever it wants fast, or force it to kill something specific slow?
The answers pretty self evident, imo. Even in the worst case scenario, keeping it from shooting is the way to go.
I agree, but that solution is so far from perfect as to not be a "weakness". It's just slaughtering my list less fast.
Marmatag wrote: I think people are conflating the argument "not all in game units need be balanced," with "the Wraithknight is balanced and fine."
Another way to look at it is that the WK itself might be imbalanced, but it's extreme stats don't make it so just by themselves. If it was 100% the same, but cost 200 points more and was harder to get into an army by way of Formations, we'd have a completely different situation.
I don't disagree.
GW would be well served by a free errata sheet made available on their website to affect balance in between editions.
"Yes, your codex says the Wraithknight is only 295 points (or w/e) but the published errata says it actually costs you 350."
Really only needed to affect tournament play, where this is the issue. I mean, if you're playing with your friends, it's a much easier conversation anyway. "Hey i have no answer to the Wraithknight, can you not use it?"
I think the last time I swept one (with my non-CC oriented army) I charged it and another unit. Might have been Pathfinders. Killed the Pathfinders and won the Combat, then Swept the Riptide without doing a single wound to it in CC.
So, technically you don't have to be able to wound it in the first place
Insectum7 wrote: I think the last time I swept one (with my non-CC oriented army) I charged it and another unit. Might have been Pathfinders. Killed the Pathfinders and won the Combat, then Swept the Riptide without doing a single wound to it in CC.
Don't stand your weak ass pathfinders next to the indestructible killbot. I swear half the Tau stories I hear are Tau players shooting themselves in the foot.
Martel, I sincerely suggest you draw up a tailored BA force as a thought experiment.
List a common Tau army composition which gives you trouble, and let's start from there. I'm sure many people would be happy to help, including tournament Tau players.
Nobody's telling you to bring a tailored list to your meta. But you're closing yourself off to solutions when you simply say "I won't even consider what's necessary".
Traditio wrote: I have a consideration for those saying that making the game balanced would remove all strategy, etc. from the game (which is complete bull gak):
Consider the current alternative. How much strategy is involved when many games are determined simply by the lists that are being opposed to each other?
Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
I'm making the (strange, I know) suggestion that in-game decisions actually should matter. They should be the most important factor in deciding who wins, in fact.
Because your option doesn't add strategy, it just means you can literally throw things down and have a 50/50 chance to win?
I write a list
You write a list
We trade lists
Then we flip a coin, congratulations play again?
Because what sort of game can guarantee a 50/50 chance regardless of 20+ options within a book?
I think the idea is that if both armies are roughly equal in power level, then strategy is what will decide the game, not who brought better rules. In a game with all units balanced then if one player plays badly and the other plays well the player who played well will win. (barring an extreme streak of bad rolls, of course.)
gnome_idea_what wrote:I think the idea is that if both armies are roughly equal in power level, then strategy is what will decide the game, not who brought better rules. In a game with all units balanced then if one player plays badly and the other plays well the player who played well will win. (barring an extreme streak of bad rolls, of course.)
Precisely.
Roughly half of respondents are against this, of course. Because apparently, making in-game strategy the most important factor in winning or losing the game would somehow remove strategy from the game.
Go figure.
But it's just a ruse. I know it. You know it. They know it.
What they really mean and think is:
"What? Use strategy? I paid top dollar to get the most broken stuff in the game. Why should I have to use strategy?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:The state of balance in 40K is certainly deplorable. However, that doesn't mean the rules have to protect incompetent list builders from the consequences of their incompetence. For instance, if you take a list where your only anti-armor weapons are missile launchers, and I take a list with 3 Dreadnoughts, you're probably going to have a bad game - especially if your battle plan is to pod non-upgraded Sternguard on my deployment zone.
1. Dreadnoughts are AV 12. Missile launchers should be able to take down dreadnoughts. As a boltgun is to a T4, 3 wound, AP - infantry, so too is a missile launcher to a standard dreadnought.
2. If you think that I should have no reasonable chance of winning, then why should I even play you in those circumstances? Why shouldn't we trade lists, compare what we've brought, shake hands and say "good game; rousing bout of fun that was!" without even unpacking our minis?
I will say this, though:
I do agree that not all models should be equally effective against all models. The standard "rock, paper, scissors" of certain medieval war games comes to mind: Infantry vs. archers vs. cavalry.
But then balance should happen at the level of the FOC slots. If I bring a reasonable blend of troops, elite, fast attack and heavy support units, I should have roughly a 50/50 chance against anyone else who has done the same.
And probably more than a 50% chance against someone who hasn't.
That said, that's nowhere near the level of balance that 40k is at.
gnome_idea_what wrote:I think the idea is that if both armies are roughly equal in power level, then strategy is what will decide the game, not who brought better rules. In a game with all units balanced then if one player plays badly and the other plays well the player who played well will win. (barring an extreme streak of bad rolls, of course.)
gnome_idea_what wrote:I think the idea is that if both armies are roughly equal in power level, then strategy is what will decide the game, not who brought better rules. In a game with all units balanced then if one player plays badly and the other plays well the player who played well will win. (barring an extreme streak of bad rolls, of course.)
Precisely.
Roughly half of respondents are against this, of course. Because apparently, making in-game strategy the most important factor in winning or losing the game would somehow remove strategy from the game.
Go figure.
But it's just a ruse. I know it. You know it. They know it.
What they really mean and think is:
"What? Use strategy? I paid top dollar to get the most broken stuff in the game. Why should I have to use strategy?"
I think this is at least a mildly unfair assessment.
I also think that part of the strategy should be List Building. Even if we assume that any two armies of equal points is completely balanced against each other is possible, you would effectively remove the List Building element of strategy. Are there Detachments and Formations that are auto-picks and/or over-powered? Of course, but leave list building as part of the strategy. There needs to be some middle ground between "Making every list of equal points equal in balance" and "Let's leave List Building as part of the Strategic Planning of any given player).
IllumiNini wrote:I think this is at least a mildly unfair assessment.
I also think that part of the strategy should be List Building.
I'm fine with some of the strategy being list building. The problem with 40k is that list building is too much of the strategy. List building is potentially so much of the strategy that, depending on the lists, there's no good reason actually to play in the first place, depending upon the lists that have been brought.
If I brought a CAD with devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but no grav, why should I even bother unpacking my models to play a game with someone who brought wraithknights and scatter bikes?
IllumiNini wrote:I think this is at least a mildly unfair assessment.
I also think that part of the strategy should be List Building.
I'm fine with some of the strategy being list building. The problem with 40k is that list building is too much of the strategy. List building is potentially so much of the strategy that, depending on the lists, there's no good reason actually to play in the first place, depending upon the lists that have been brought.
If I brought a CAD with devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but no grav, why should I even bother unpacking my models to play a game with someone who brought wraithknights and scatter bikes?
That's a fair point to make, but at the same time you have to remember that - because of the insane variety of models as well as the poorly optimised rules that form the 7th Edition Rule Book - not all list matchups are going to be worth playing. That's just the nature of 40K. I'm not necessarily saying it's acceptable or ideal, but hey - you just gotta find the games that are worth playing.
Also, just change the game type. The lore is filled with heroic last stands and all out assaults. Whenever I find a serious imbalance between my and my opponents' armies I will always set the mission up in their favor (old battle missions book or the new planetary assault have some really nice options for this)
Had a game against the exact type of list you're talking about with the marines forming a foot slogging missile launcher and lascannon list against my corsairs. I saw I had a serious maneuverability advantage on him, so we played the battle mission where marines hold the center with the only objective in the middle of a ruined cathedral and my HQ/ heavy support units start off the table. He hadn't playedd in a while, and I did end up winning on turn 6, but the game was still fun and tense all the way to the end!
The game itself allows for non optimised lists to do well, but nobody seems willing to not play an uneven matchup to even things out. (Like the chaos battle mission where every piece of terrain blocks line of sight and is dangerous due to burning, solves a lot of problems with them right there since it allows them to move down field with less casualties and weaker armor saves won't want to hide in the terrain to negate it)
Once you start deploying, moving your units around, selecting targets to shoot and assault, rolling dice, etc., your chances should start changing.
If every unit is equally effective against every other unit (which it must be for any combination of units and upgrades to be effective) then what difference does target selection, etc. make? Every unit might as well be interchangeable.
I think you completely fail to understand what it means to make every combination of choices viable - it effectively eliminates choice.
If I brought a CAD with devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but no grav, why should I even bother unpacking my models to play a game with someone who brought wraithknights and scatter bikes?
If you choose to select units and upgrades whilst knowing full we'll that you're unable to deal with a whole bunch of common units then what do you expect to happen? It's not just wraith knights that you can't handle, anyone with lots of flyers, 2+ infantry, av14, light vehicle spam or strong mc's is basically immune to your army because you insist on relying on missile launchers and flamers despite having multiple superior options.
Either list building is part of the game or it isn't. If it is then you need to actually participate in that part of the game rather than sticking your head in the sand and taking an army that you know has serious weaknesses.
Or stop playing pickup games against strangers and pre-arange your games. I suspect this will be a problem for you due to your attitude of "everyone else must adapt to my army".
Traditio wrote: I'm fine with some of the strategy being list building. The problem with 40k is that list building is too much of the strategy. List building is potentially so much of the strategy that, depending on the lists, there's no good reason actually to play in the first place, depending upon the lists that have been brought.
You can't be fine with that, because it directly contradicts your statements on balance. You can't have both strategy in list building and a game where even very poorly designed lists (like the cultist horde with zero anti-tank weapons matched against a tank army) have a 50% chance of winning. If all lists have to be capable of that 50/50 win rate then there's no incentive to improve your list building strategy. No matter how much work you put into figuring out the perfect strategy and combination of units to execute it you won't win more frequently than someone who throws down a random collection of units and upgrades without any coherent plan. If you want to have that strategic element in list building then you have to allow bad lists to lose.
If I brought a CAD with devastators, tactical marines and assault marines, but no grav, why should I even bother unpacking my models to play a game with someone who brought wraithknights and scatter bikes?
Obviously this is a problem, but you keep using the extreme outliers of balance problems to justify your general theories on balance. The problem with wraithknights and jetbikes has nothing to do with broad concepts of balance between armies, how to compare units in different armies, successful TAC lists vs. bad list building, etc. Those two specific units are broken because they have blatantly wrong point costs and/or rules. And the solution to those units involves changing their individual rules, not any kind of changes to the core structure of the game. So when you use those specific units to argue about the core structure of the game you're pulling a bait and switch, and claiming support for something people aren't declaring their support for.
If you make everything an equally valid choice there is no point in ever changing a list. Your list will be as good as it ever will, you'll ha e everything you ever need. A similar thing happened in Fantasy, people had their army and it worked,nobody was buying anything so they had to do a massive shake up.
If all it ever comes down to is player skill, we should write lists then roll a dice and add our amount of years played. Whoever gets higher wins. Rewards those with more experience while still having an element of luck. We can even use a D10/D12 if that would help balance it more.
I feel Traditio has a view on balance like someone but him a house. Except in the house some of the curtains are too short for the tall windows and there are curtains to long for short windows. He stamps his feet and demands that you tearthe windows out and make them all the same despite you doing it because you have a lovely beach view out the big one and the small one faces a wall. But he says the curtains don't work on the windows And despite being able just to swap the curtains around, he insits the fundamental features of the house are broken and usesless just because he won't buy new curtains.
Peregrine wrote:You can't be fine with that, because it directly contradicts your statements on balance. You can't have both strategy in list building and a game where even very poorly designed lists (like the cultist horde with zero anti-tank weapons matched against a tank army) have a 50% chance of winning. If all lists have to be capable of that 50/50 win rate then there's no incentive to improve your list building strategy.
Fair enough.
But I'll ask you this question: Just how much should list building matter?
If I bring a cultist spam list and you bring an army of wyverns, what should my chances of winning be? I'll admit that that it should be less than 50 percent.
But if it's 0 or anywhere near 0, why should I even bother playing?
No matter how much work you put into figuring out the perfect strategy and combination of units to execute it you won't win more frequently than someone who throws down a random collection of units and upgrades without any coherent plan. If you want to have that strategic element in list building then you have to allow bad lists to lose.
Fair enough, but here, I'm going to question what "bad lists" mean. If you tell me that it's "not optimal according to the current meta," then I'm going to disagree all day long for obvious reasons.
But I want to go back to the medieval games example:
Infantry, archers and horsemen. Presumably, a list that spams only infantry or only archers or only horsemen is a bad last. If you only have horsemen and I have a large number of spearmen, then clearly, your chances of winning should suffer.
But if I have infantry, archers and horsemen, then my chances should be good in general.
But here, Peregrine, I find myself wondering:
Why don't you think that YOUR list should be a "bad list"? In medieval terms, in the way that you've described it, it's a list of only cavalry. Why should a cavalry only list be able to have a 50/50 chance or greater against a well-balanced list of infantry, archers and horsemen?
Obviously this is a problem, but you keep using the extreme outliers of balance problems to justify your general theories on balance. The problem with wraithknights and jetbikes has nothing to do with broad concepts of balance between armies, how to compare units in different armies, successful TAC lists vs. bad list building, etc. Those two specific units are broken because they have blatantly wrong point costs and/or rules. And the solution to those units involves changing their individual rules, not any kind of changes to the core structure of the game. So when you use those specific units to argue about the core structure of the game you're pulling a bait and switch, and claiming support for something people aren't declaring their support for.
As much as people make fun of me and ridicule my ideas, I only ever tend to complain, at least as of the last 6 months or so, about the outliers. Ridicule me if you want for decrying the death guard rules, but from what I understand, it isn't just my opinion that the death guard received the "more favorable" end of the treatment when it comes to the new rules in the traitor legions supplement.
Roughly half of respondents are against this, of course. Because apparently, making in-game strategy the most important factor in winning or losing the game would somehow remove strategy from the game.
Go figure.
But it's just a ruse. I know it. You know it. They know it.
What they really mean and think is:
"What? Use strategy? I paid top dollar to get the most broken stuff in the game. Why should I have to use strategy?"
Instead of accusing people who don't agree with you as being moronic or simply stirring the pot, why don't you try interpreting their response differently.
How about we appreciate the fact that 40k has almost no strategy outside of list building in it's current form, thanks to the ridiculous amount of chance rolls you have to make to do just about anything. Players have next to no control over the outcome of their shooting attacks, running, any type of save and even psychic powers. This is the real problem that should be discussed if you want to talk about improving the strategy element in 40k.
To be fair, list building has been the primary strategy in 40k since 40k first began. Every edition I've played in since the 3rd edition have had a small handful of builds you saw everywhere, and then there was everything else. That hasn't changed in any edition.
The problem with list building being the primary strategy is that actually playing the game can often largely be a waste of time since the conclusion of the game is often evident before the first die is cast.
This poll also illustrates a divide that is nearly always split in half whenever this poll is posted and that has not changed in the years that I've paid attention to this question asked and the responses.
grr. I hate when people mistake STRATEGY and TACTICS.
Strategy: 2 parts.
1. What you can bring to a fight.
2. What you decide to bring to a fight.
Tactics: what you do in the fight.
GW made the first part of strategy rather simple; anyone can bring anything The second part? Is called list building.
Strategy, is what everyone seems to be bemoaning. But tactics is what is made irrelevant when you don't bother to play the game. Understand the difference.
Ever hear of a GOTH plan? It is GO To Hell, it means that you are woefully unprepared for what you are going to face, but you take the field anyway. And there is a certain glory in doing so. Dylan Thomas' poem is rather poignant on the subject.
Strategy and Tactics may as well be the same thing in 40k, as one of them is almost entirely missing any sort of manipulation by the player. You can't claim to be a good tactician when random chance that cannot be influenced does the majority of the work for you.
Peregrine wrote:You can't be fine with that, because it directly contradicts your statements on balance. You can't have both strategy in list building and a game where even very poorly designed lists (like the cultist horde with zero anti-tank weapons matched against a tank army) have a 50% chance of winning. If all lists have to be capable of that 50/50 win rate then there's no incentive to improve your list building strategy.
Fair enough.
But I'll ask you this question: Just how much should list building matter?
If I bring a cultist spam list and you bring an army of wyverns, what should my chances of winning be? I'll admit that that it should be less than 50 percent.
But if it's 0 or anywhere near 0, why should I even bother playing?
It sounds to me that you assume, even if there isn't a 50/50 chance of winning, that every list should have at least a reasonable chance against every other list. A flawed assumption at best. The main problem I see with list building in relation to chances of winning relate back to how you come to a game.
Let me explain:
Because I play mostly against my good friends who have regular codeces that that use (e.g. one of my friends always plays Dark Angels), it's very easy for me to tell my friends "I'm looking for < X > in a game." Where < X > could be as simple as a points limit or as complicated as a list of restrictions as long as my arm. In this way, we have a better chance of making our games more balanced. I get the feeling that a lot of the games played by the 40K players in the DakkaDakka community are such that this is not an option (e.g. pickup games at their FLGS, or tournaments). In my opinion, this is one of the biggest factors that contributes to the over-importance of list building. Funny how this has nothing to do with the actual rules, isn't it?
No matter how much work you put into figuring out the perfect strategy and combination of units to execute it you won't win more frequently than someone who throws down a random collection of units and upgrades without any coherent plan. If you want to have that strategic element in list building then you have to allow bad lists to lose.
Fair enough, but here, I'm going to question what "bad lists" mean. If you tell me that it's "not optimal according to the current meta," then I'm going to disagree all day long for obvious reasons.
The Meta is simply the most commonly used good units and lists as well as their counters. That doesn't mean that a good list that is not in the meta is bad. Don't believe me? Take a look at the parallel example of Champion Selections in MOBA Games such as Dota 2 and League of Legends, where the Meta Champions changes all the time. Just because a Champion is not in the meta doesn't make them a bad Champion. Same applies to army lists in 40K. So if I were you, I wouldn't put too much stock in arguing over lists in relation to the meta because it ultimately means nothing, especially if your intention is to balance the game.
Also, the Medieval example is an over-simplification.
If I bring a cultist spam list and you bring an army of wyverns, what should my chances of winning be? I'll admit that that it should be less than 50 percent.
Armies in 40K need to be able to effectively handle the majority of target types (elite infantry, mass weak infantry, high save units, high toughness units, mass light vehicles, heavy vehicles, flyers) , hold objectives and claim objectives.
A cultist spam army is incapable of even threatening a whole bunch of target types, is mediocre at holding objectives and is too slow&weak to be effective at claiming objectives.
If you deliberately select an army composition that has none of the required capabilities for victory why would expect to win games?
Fair enough, but here, I'm going to question what "bad lists" mean. If you tell me that it's "not optimal according to the current meta," then I'm going to disagree all day long for obvious reasons.
It means lists that lack many of the capabilities required in order to be successful.
You can take a horribly optimized list that is able to stand a chance (if only a limited one) against many other lists because despite it's poor optimization it has sufficient range of capability to at least try against a range of target types.
When you take a list that simply has no effective action against many common units then you are setting yourself up for failure.
Gunzhard wrote:
I'd like to stop you here and just point out, your idea of "most likely to field" is entirely opinion, not based in modern warfare, or fictional imaginary warfare that is 40k either; not to say it couldn't be and there are indeed examples of it in the fluff... but there are just as many if not more examples of the exception to that - despite the overall organization of the armies on paper. I completely disagree that "troops-based lists" are the most "thematically appropriate"... in a high-tech sci-fi battlefield it is more likely the least thematically appropriate. You are trying to push "theme" and fluff when it suites your point but ignore it everywhere else... like I said before - just IG and Orks baby; or Knights/Titans and tanks/flyers.
Space Marine chapter strength:1000 marines. 4 Battle Companies with 100 Marines 60 of whom are Tactical Marines. Two Reserve Companies entirely comprised of Tactical Marines, 100 strong each. 10th Company Scout Company, strength depending on how recruitment is going, but probably 100ish. That makes the total strength of a Space Marine chapter 50+% Troops. And you would have us believe they spend most of their time twiddling their thumbs. No matter how you rationalize, you can not argue against the basic organizational structure of a chapter, which has been consistent forever. Nor can you fall back on Tac Marines being rear echelon or garrison troops, because that's not what Space Marines do. That's also been a consistent part of the fluff forever.
Plus, I'm not arguing that players shouldn't theme lists around rapid scouting forces, heavy breakthrough forces, close quarters assault forces, or anything else. I'm just saying they should do so within an expectation of a robust presence of Troops within each list. Your arguments to the contrary could be based on sincere belief in the sanctity of player choice over all else. Or, they could be rationalizations of a WAAC player who likes just fine being able to spam Wraithknights, or use invisible deathstars, or any of the other broken builds the current rules make possible. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. All I know is that you're spending a lot of time and energy defending broken lists that would suck to play against in a pickup game environment.
Except for Tau my group has all the same armies, we don't force any homebrew comp with troop heavy lists and our games are usually close too. There have been several editions where 'troops' gained some advantage, scoring, ob-sec etc... and I remember GW-GT's from at least as far back as 3rd have troop comps; I still keep my Army-Builder set to show the %-age.
Anyway my point is -- narratively it doesn't make sense to force people to field more troops, and balance wise is doesn't actually improve anything either.
You're just creating a new imbalance... shifting it to the right but not actually solving it.
You're incorrect, but even if you were, at least my imbalance would be more newbie friendly than the current imbalance. I'm pretty sure if someone new walked into your group and played a list that was built around one of the starter sets - Assault on Black Reach or Dark Vengeance - they'd get tabled in a couple turns and wind up having a terrible experience. The same player could walk into my group with the same army, and they probably wouldn't win, but they could at least make a game of it.
Traditio wrote:
1. Dreadnoughts are AV 12. Missile launchers should be able to take down dreadnoughts. As a boltgun is to a T4, 3 wound, AP - infantry, so too is a missile launcher to a standard dreadnought.
Based on the last list of yours I saw, if every single marine that could be equipped with a missile launcher was in fact equipped with one, you'd have a grand total of 14. Approximately a third of those will just plain miss, so we'll say you get 10 hits. 5 of those will simply bounce off and do no damage whatsoever. Of the 5 that you do successfully roll at least a glance on, if I can get a 4+ cover save (not hard with a model the size of a Dreadnought), it cuts your damage output out to less than 3 hp, which won't even destroy a single Dread. You can't even necessarily guarantee focusing all your ML fire on one Dread at a time - odds are the damage will be spread over at least two of them. So, the reasonable best to expect is you do a couple hull points of damage, then they wreck face among your Sternies.
That's also assuming normal Dreads. If I'm using Ironclads, or one of the BA variants with AV13 fronts, you're not even going to do that much damage. You'll be lucky to get more than 1 hp to stick.
Traditio wrote:
2. If you think that I should have no reasonable chance of winning, then why should I even play you in those circumstances? Why shouldn't we trade lists, compare what we've brought, shake hands and say "good game; rousing bout of fun that was!" without even unpacking our minis?
My point is, there is no reason that matchup should be horrible for you. The tools exist in your dex for you to effectively deal with my hypothetical Dreads. But you don't do it by stubbornly clinging to what used to be good. You do it by adapting to the current realities of the game. In this example, you do it by ditching missile launchers because they're not a good weapon anymore, and adding some combi-weapons to your Sternies so they're not helpless against my Dreads.
In a more general sense, instead of complaining about the balance of 40K because what used to work an edition or two ago aren't effective against what's currently in the game, it's much more productive to study your dex and see what tools it has do deal with the things you're having trouble with. Protesting about having to buy new things ring hollow if you're using an army that has anything that you couldn't take in 3rd edition. That would include drop pods and Sternguard by the way. If you played against someone who complained about your drop Sternies because they didn't exist in 3rd edition and wreck his 3rd-ed build army, you wouldn't take him seriously. However, you're expecting us to take you seriously because you refuse to budge off a 5th ed build in 7th ed. I'm not saying 40K is perfectly balanced, but you're not playing one of the armies that has a lack of tools to deal with the things currently in the game.
It was mostly a silly, for the giggles game, but my buddy still cried cheese over it. Until I pointed out that the unit didn't move all game, and cost almost 400 points with Tiggy included. You can make most anything playable, if you consider their role and the available options.
