6th edition books too balanced or just me?

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.

**Skriker**

JWhex wrote:
The CSM and DA armies are fine. I dont see the demon armies as being balanced with them though. Any competent marine/power armor/shooting army should just wipe the floor with demons.

A T3, 5+, no significant shooting, no AAA, no fliers army is just sad, sad, sad, so much for balance in 6th edition. It lasted two whole books.

Before making blanket statements like these I suggest you actually read the Deamons codex, because more shooting was added, there is AAA and there are flyers in the book...they do just fine and even a single deity slaaneshi force is viable for a change now. Slaanesh was always the poor stepchild list, but can now bring the pain incredibly fast and hit very hard with rending attacks. Used to be you used tzeentch for psychic power and shooting, khorne for assault and nurgle for staying power and just kind of ignored slaanesh...now slaanesh is a standout on its own.

Skriker

**labmouse42**

Zweischneid wrote:
Name a single person who won two tournaments with at least 50 people attending back-to-back.

Tony Kopach NOVA 2012
Tony Kopach NOVA 2011
Tony Kopach NOVA 2010

Zweischneid wrote:
The only reason the same names keep cropping up is because the tourney-scene is so small. There is no "skill advantage" as you would see with people like Tiger Woods or Roger Federer (against a far, far larger pool of "pros")

You are partially correct. Luck does play a factor but skilled players continually get into the upper brackets. Take a look at the top 10 from major events, and you will see the same names again and again.

Of course, things might be different in jolly o'l England. Here you tend to see the same players rise to the top. That's based on skill and not luck.

**easysauce**

Evileyes wrote:
I think the 3 new armies, are on par, with the most powerfull book's of 5th edition. They are not more powerful than them, or weaker than them. And that's how it should be, I don't mind this level of power, being the standard that eventually get's passed to all the armies.

exactly,

all the complaining about the later codexes, IG necrons GK ect is just because they were designed with 6th in mind,

when all codexes are in 6th gear, esp eldar, tau and orks, I will have lots of fun playing more variety of armies,

its a great era, i remember 14 years ago it was always space marines,

now there is a good mix, and will only get better with the new codexes

**Plumbumbarum**

Zweischneid wrote:
Kerrathyr wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
This thread title is so wrong. You can't have too balanced game (and say that as sth negative about the game) and perfect balance, though unachievable should be what you aim for.

Totally agreed.

The term "too balanced" is a true oxymoron

Also, a true balanced gameplay is more enjoyable.

I disagree. On both points.

Perfect balance makes the hobby aspect of the game, i.e. what army you pick, etc.. meaningless. If I can just throw darts at the army list on the wall and whatever I hit is equally valid, the entire point of "building" your army becomes moot.

The entire point of pouring over a codex and trying to find the "best" combination (which implies there are worse-than-the-best combinations in there) pivots on the idea that they are NOT all balanced.

Moreover, 40K (like virtually all collectable/hobby games) works to create (an evolving) metagame, precisely by keeping things moving.

(nearly) balanced games - such as chess - are stagnant. They don't evolve. They don't move. They relegate "top-level-play" to a few highly talented, full-time pros.

Imbalanced games with a "healthy" meta-game evolve and, crucially, mitigate the importance of player skills (as in, a less-skilled player with a better list can (potentially) beat a more-skilled player with a worse list, even from the same Codex) to make the game itself accessible and constantly evolving, keeping the "entry barrier" for serious play at a manageable level (again, unlike Chess).

Not specifically 40K, but the same subject

I for one enjoy 40K much more than Chess, precisely because I don't have the time, patience, will and, quite likely, skill to dig full-time into a balanced game like chess.

I also enjoyed 5th Edition books that "changed things up", such as Grey Knights or Necrons, a lot more than the 3 stale 6th Edition books. The latter didn't really add anything new to the game (except Heldrakes perhaps) that made you re-think your game, tinker on your list and try to adapt.

Not really, there's still terrain, movement of an entire army at once and dice, 40k even "perfectly balanced" would be far from chess, especialy that in chess you don't make a list of chess figures before you play so 4 queens vs 24 pawns (unless you play Allesio version heh). Not to mention it could use some more reliance on skill, not to the point of chess ofc but let's say something in the middle between chess and its current state.

Units balanced in point cost doesn't mean you couldn't make a better composed list, it just means no mighty OP ones which after you spam them give you a stupid advantage. You mistake the idea of balanced 40k with a wargame of identical armies fighting each other.

40k does not need lazy codex job to keep the game varied and interesting. The current trend in codieces, though could use more adequatly costed craziness, is a very good one (bar the random crap but let's hope that stops after cd). The game needs to be fair and your advantage should come from really coming up with a plan and a list to fit it instead of throwing obviously OP units and easy to find OP combos at your opponent unless he finds a counter which forces you to change your list. That whole idea of perfect imbalance produces shallow and stupid games, 40k shouldn't be one of them.