Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its a POLL!!! and i know some of you are going to look at this and say well there are 4 who arnt a threat at all but hey lets see what you think!

I voted IG and SW as they really put the hurt out. I should probably find the person who voted Nids as they really aren't overpowered. Or Powered without 1 or two specific builds.

Do we really need this? Do we really need more scrubs bitching about how "broken" armies are, when they really aren't broken at all and it's just that their armies were designed for a 10-year-old edition and haven't been updated yet because of GW's stupid schedule for releases that's the problem?

I voted Necrons, because it's pretty obvious they're the next release and, as we all well know, every new codex that comes out is always the MOST BROKEN THING and literally impossible to beat because it trumps everything that came before. Or would that be Sisters of Battle because of the White Dwarf codex? Yeah I'd say Sisters are the most broken army right now because it's always the newest thing.

The internet is never wrong.

Sidstyler wrote:Do we really need this? Do we really need more scrubs bitching about how "broken" armies are, when they really aren't broken at all and it's just that their armies were designed for a 10-year-old edition and haven't been updated yet because of GW's stupid schedule for releases that's the problem?

I voted Necrons, because it's pretty obvious they're the next release and, as we all well know, every new codex that comes out is always the MOST BROKEN THING and literally impossible to beat because it trumps everything that came before. Or would that be Sisters of Battle because of the White Dwarf codex? Yeah I'd say Sisters are the most broken army right now because it's always the newest thing.

The internet is never wrong.

I second this

Sidstyler wrote:Do we really need this? Do we really need more scrubs bitching about how "broken" armies are, when they really aren't broken at all and it's just that their armies were designed for a 10-year-old edition and haven't been updated yet because of GW's stupid schedule for releases that's the problem?

I voted Necrons, because it's pretty obvious they're the next release and, as we all well know, every new codex that comes out is always the MOST BROKEN THING and literally impossible to beat because it trumps everything that came before. Or would that be Sisters of Battle because of the White Dwarf codex? Yeah I'd say Sisters are the most broken army right now because it's always the newest thing.

The internet is never wrong.

Completely agree with this and therefore voted Necrons and Sisters for the same reasons.

I don't think there is an over-powered army in 40K; all the 5th edition ones are of a very similar power-level, though there are the occasional balance issues (such as Long Fangs, Vendetta's, Vets etc.) I wouldn't point out an individual codex as being over-powered. Any 5th edition Codex (at least) can beat any other, which probably wouldn't be possible if they were overpowered.

There isn't overpowered, only improperly balanced. See valks, vendettas and longfangs.

Blood Angels get to re-roll everything. And when you do get to wound them they get feel no pain. And don't get me started on Furioso Dreads.

juraigamer wrote:There isn't overpowered, only improperly balanced. See valks, vendettas and longfangs.

Which is the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:Do we really need this? Do we really need more scrubs bitching about how "broken" armies are, when they really aren't broken at all and it's just that their armies were designed for a 10-year-old edition and haven't been updated yet because of GW's stupid schedule for releases that's the problem?

I voted Necrons, because it's pretty obvious they're the next release and, as we all well know, every new codex that comes out is always the MOST BROKEN THING and literally impossible to beat because it trumps everything that came before. Or would that be Sisters of Battle because of the White Dwarf codex? Yeah I'd say Sisters are the most broken army right now because it's always the newest thing.

The internet is never wrong.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Plenty of people however tend to disagree. Also, hyperbole does not serve to make your argument more convincing. Overpowered and unbalanced does not mean unbeatable. The first, overpowered, refers to the odds being different from 50:50 for two evenly skilled players. The latter, unbeatable, would imply the odds are 100:0 irrespective of the players. These are evidently two very distinct and different things we are talking about than. And the OP asked for the former, not the latter. You are seriously hurting your own credibility by confusing the two.

In short, why did you even click on this threat to vote and read?

It's hard to call anything "broken" the way Daemons in 7E Fantasy were, but it's hard to say there isn't something wrong with some things, most particularly Space Wolves. There are very clear differences & tiers of armies, not as bad as in some other systems or previous editions, but it's very clearly there, and likely always will be given GW's release patterns and design attitudes.

Sidstyler wrote:Do we really need this? Do we really need more scrubs bitching about how "broken" armies are, when they really aren't broken at all and it's just that their armies were designed for a 10-year-old edition and haven't been updated yet because of GW's stupid schedule for releases that's the problem?

I voted Necrons, because it's pretty obvious they're the next release and, as we all well know, every new codex that comes out is always the MOST BROKEN THING and literally impossible to beat because it trumps everything that came before. Or would that be Sisters of Battle because of the White Dwarf codex? Yeah I'd say Sisters are the most broken army right now because it's always the newest thing.

The internet is never wrong.

Quote this forever.

Voted Tau for maximum irony.

Funny how all the naysayers go about "nothing is overpowered, all armies are fair game, balance is all about player-skill yadda, yadday, yadday.... I voted Tau/Necrons/Tyranids to prove my point!"

Talk about shooting your own argument in the foot by voting for "weak" armies to prove the point that there are no "strong" or "weak" armies and the game is supposedly balanced.

Zweischneid wrote:Funny how all the naysayers go about "nothing is overpowered, all armies are fair game, balance is all about player-skill yadda, yadday, yadday.... I voted Tau/Necrons/Tyranids to prove my point!"

Talk about shooting your own argument in the foot by voting for "weak" armies to prove the point that there are no "strong" or "weak" armies and the game is supposedly balanced.

There's a difference between "X is overpowered" and "Y hasn't been updated in a decade and has rules that reflect that"

Brother SRM wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Funny how all the naysayers go about "nothing is overpowered, all armies are fair game, balance is all about player-skill yadda, yadday, yadday.... I voted Tau/Necrons/Tyranids to prove my point!"

Talk about shooting your own argument in the foot by voting for "weak" armies to prove the point that there are no "strong" or "weak" armies and the game is supposedly balanced.

There's a difference between "X is overpowered" and "Y hasn't been updated in a decade and has rules that reflect that"

There is however an argument to be made for armies even relatively close to be rather disparate in power level. E.G. CSM's and Tyranids vs Space Wolves.

Brother SRM wrote:There's a difference between "X is overpowered" and "Y hasn't been updated in a decade and has rules that reflect that"

No there is no difference.

These are simply different reasons why some armies are under/overpowered. Perhaps, some of those reasons are "more" legit (aged Codex) while other reasons are "less" legit (bad Codex-design) to people like you. But that was not the question. The question was which of the currently not-balanced Codexes is the most powerful. As there are several that are considered weak (for a variety of reasons, including outdated design to a different era of 40K among them), the question is still in the room as to which one is the most powerful.

Zweischneid wrote: As there are several that are considered weak (for a variety of reasons, including outdated design to a different era of 40K among them), the question is still in the room as to which one is the most powerful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be more a question of which is the weakest rather than which is the most powerful?

I also believe there is a difference between overpowered and out-dated. It's not that Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Deldar, Grey Knights etc. are more powerful than the others, but simply because they have rulesets designed for the current environment; they are all on a very similar level power-wise, so you could argue that either none are overpowered (like I am) or that all are overpowered, as all of the 5th Edition Codices and more (it seems) are capable of beating one-another, which wouldn't be the case if it was overpowered, surely?
If it was between just the 5th edition Codices, I know I wouldn't say that any specifically are overpowered.
Adding in older Codices doesn't then make these overpowered IMHO, it just makes the older ones appear more outdated.

It's not that "there are no "strong" or "weak" armies" for me, but rather there are no 'strong' armies; in that no one army is overpowered IMHO. Whereas some are underpowered.

The other reason I would claim none are overpowered is simply to try and prevent any hubris and almost encouragement for the regular cries of _____ being overpowered, or "______ Codex that is about to be released is broken" etc. etc. To me at least, it's similar to how most threads discussing Mat Ward are quickly shut down; it just helps prevent further exaggeration that prevents actual discussion but encourages ranting and moaning IMHO.

I don't think any of the 5th edition armies are OP when you compare them to each other nids are the worst of the bunch but the genestealer spam that will be prevelent at the ETC really messes up IG gun lines.

The problem comes when you compare them with older editions which isn't a fair comparison. I believe certainly that in fifth its fairly balanced, each book can build an army that can compete with the others.

Just Dave wrote:
I also believe there is a difference between overpowered and out-dated. It's not that Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Deldar, Grey Knights etc. are more powerful than the others, but simply because they have rulesets designed for the current environment;

Hrm, I'd argue that SW's are probably out of synch. IG can bring a lot of stuff to the board (especially armor that some lists just can't deal with), GK's are murder against MEQ's and have tons of transport popping power, etc, but SW's feel like they can do everything, and do it on the cheap. I've seen SW armies that can match mech IG for long range fire and tank hulls and simultaenously meet CSM's in combat on equal if not better footing.

Tyranids were a recent (5e) update and no one (legitimately) claims they are over-powered.

Being up to date does not necessitate being over-powered, balanced, or competitive.

Just saying.

I voted Space Wolves and Grey Knights. As my friend pointed out, Space Wolves are so much better than Space Marines that they had to drop the prices for their army. Most of the things in the army are fairly powerful, and can be made on the cheap. It's not an unbeatable army - anything that counters MEQ will probably take it down quick - but it can definitely keep the opponent on his toes.

As for Grey Knights, they took that one step further. For 5 points more than a standard Grey Hunter, a Grey Knight gets a force weapon, psychic powers, and a wrist-mounted storm bolter - and just adding a power weapon and storm bolter to a Grey Hunter runs an extra 18 (using the 3 point price from the Wolf Guard entry, since Grey Hunters can't normally take the storm bolter). It's just a powerhouse army that can potentially shred most things in close combat, and can get there quick with Scout moves, Teleports, and Rhinos.

Nothing is overpowered. It's called codex creep.

Vaktathi wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
I also believe there is a difference between overpowered and out-dated. It's not that Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Deldar, Grey Knights etc. are more powerful than the others, but simply because they have rulesets designed for the current environment;

Hrm, I'd argue that SW's are probably out of synch. IG can bring a lot of stuff to the board (especially armor that some lists just can't deal with), GK's are murder against MEQ's and have tons of transport popping power, etc, but SW's feel like they can do everything, and do it on the cheap. I've seen SW armies that can match mech IG for long range fire and tank hulls and simultaenously meet CSM's in combat on equal if not better footing.

I still wouldn't call that overpowered, nor would I call that exclusive to Space Wolves.
I don't deny some of the imbalance of the Space Wolf army, but I wouldn't say it's worse than Vendetta's, Veterans, Chimeras, Manticores etc., nor arguably Psyfleman, Purifiers, Fortitude etc. etc.
I don't want to debate this, because I feel it's largely semantics and that any (5th edition) army can beat any other.
At the very least I wouldn't call any of them overpowered, nor do I get the impression you would...

kirsanth wrote:Being up to date does not necessitate being over-powered, balanced, or competitive.

Just saying.

Agreed.

Most of the 'imbalance' nowadays is simply based on cost. There is nothing inherently broken about vendettas and long fangs. What is broken is the cost. Long fangs shouldnt be cheaper AND better than most other MEQ heavy weapon guys. As for vendettas, plenty of armies can bring TLLC to the table. Its just that when we get 3 of them, on a fast skimmer, WITH transport capacity, for that cheap? Adjustment of points costs is all that would need to be done to fix all of this.

lledwey wrote: There is nothing inherently broken about vendettas and long fangs. What is broken is the cost.

Err. . .isn't the cost an inherent part of the unit?

Space wolves and Grey Knights.....nothing else to say

What I mean by that, and sorry if it wasnt clear, is the capability. If you tell me "I have 5 MLs and can shoot at 2 targets" that doesnt make me think of overpoweredness. 3 TLLC isnt overpowered on its own either. Its only when you say "yeah those 5 MLs, I have that unit 3 times along with a full complement of other forces" that gets me thinking "how can he fit all that in his army?". Thats what is unfair about it.

This is opposed to something that is inherently overpowered due to its abilities. For example, a made up vehicle with AV14 all around, immune to lance and melta, 3+ invuln, and all sorts of nasty weapons. That vehicle is overpowered, regardless of cost, as many armies simply couldnt kill it.

kirsanth wrote:

lledwey wrote: There is nothing inherently broken about vendettas and long fangs. What is broken is the cost.

Err. . .isn't the cost an inherent part of the unit?

Depends on how you look at it, if you see cost as something inherent, sure. But there are things that could be broken regardless of cost (e.g. if it is unkillable). That said, I think there are a couple things inherently wrong with these units. Vendettas should be HS not FA units, while Long Fangs need to go back to having only 4 weapons instead of 5 in addition to a cost bump for that split fire ability.

Wardknights.

Zweischneid wrote:Funny how all the naysayers go about "nothing is overpowered, all armies are fair game, balance is all about player-skill yadda, yadday, yadday.... I voted Tau/Necrons/Tyranids to prove my point!"

Talk about shooting your own argument in the foot by voting for "weak" armies to prove the point that there are no "strong" or "weak" armies and the game is supposedly balanced.

I didn't say that there weren't weak armies. There most certainly are weak and strong armies, which is caused by GW's painfully slow release schedule not keeping everyone up-to-date...you can't put out a new edition when only half the armies have been updated for the current edition. My point was that there were no "broken" armies, only that the newer ones seemed "broken" because of the wildly different design philosophies between 5th and 3rd edition books. When the game has gone through two major revisions, what used to be good enough 10 years ago doesn't really work anymore.

Sidstyler wrote:
I didn't say that there weren't weak armies. There most certainly are weak and strong armies, which is caused by GW's painfully slow release schedule not keeping everyone up-to-date...you can't put out a new edition when only half the armies have been updated for the current edition. My point was that there were no "broken" armies, only that the newer ones seemed "broken" because of the wildly different design philosophies between 5th and 3rd edition books. When the game has gone through two major revisions, what used to be good enough 10 years ago doesn't really work anymore.

There was never any mention in the OP or elsehwere about "broken". There is only a poll about most over powered. If you acknowledge that there are weaker and stronger armies (for perhaps only fully legitimate reasons) as you just said, I wonder why you felt incapable of just putting in a vote as per the original question and instead decided to fight a straw-man of "broken" that wasn't even raised in the first place.

Any army my opponent is playing.