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.

Steel Angel wrote:
That may or may not be true ,but it CAN happen in two. It Can Not happen to a MC in two.

Two of any str 8 weapon can take down a IK with luck. that can not happen at all with a MC and when a player can have 2 or more MC for every IK. I rather face the Knights.


statistically your odds are better.

Yes, 2 Krak missiles can kill a Knight.... the chance of it happening is 0.004%, 1 in every 26,244 attempts, lol.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They have a modified force organisation, with a minimum of 3 and a max of 6. They are not troops, they just score.

Breng - actually fixing the game, as in making it actually balanced, is a hard problem. I know it is a hard problem, because every hard comp I have seen simply results in another imbalanced army / unit / etc becoming top dog. Every. Single. Time. And this is from people who are very knowledgeable about the tournament scene and what is "broken". Dont say it isnt "hard" unless you have given it a go [disclaimer - I have friends within the GW studio team, and in other games companies. They would fall over themselves laughing when they hear how easy you think it is to balance a game with as many interactions as 40k, or even a 2D game such as Dreadball. You really, really, really do not come across as having much knowledge of this field - this is said with respect. On the surface it appears easy. It isnt.)

My point is that if you are banning IK for "balance", then ban taudar alliances, ban farsight enclave allying with tau, ban more than 2 waveserpents, etc. Or start modifying rules - and by necessity points costs - and come up with entirely new codexes. Good luck with that, from either a sanity perspective OR from getting people to attend.

Oh, and S6 weapons are not useless. They have a rear arc you know.

IK armies are laughably easy to beat for a ton of armies out there, playing to the mission helps - you realise they are nto denial units, yes? THink about that for a second, or two.

IT is easy to do a much better job that GW does...I'm not even arguing for perfect balance....but fixing obviously broken interactions when they come up in beta testing is not difficult. I never said perfect balance was easy but given how other companies can manage some semblance of it it is far easier than the crap the GW team puts out which is laughably unbalanced. It is called erratas (those things GW rarely uses) and play testing. You need to be willing to acknowledge when you screw up and fix it (something GW rarely does). I'm not saying I could invent a game from scratch, and make everything completely balanced without extensive testing. I'm saying that putting out a game to be tested and using feed back to fix broken parts of it is in fact easy. You don't do it through hard comp either,. you errata rules to make things better. Take the Burning Chariot of Tzeentch, a unit which cannot move and fire...and as such is completely worthless....tell me that is not easy to fix. Give exalted flamer Relentless. Done. Unit now functions as intended. Grimoir giving 2++ re-roll cap the improvement at 3++ for the grim...fixed. Like I said not hard. Will there always be tweaks to be made. Yes, will there always be a bit of imbalance, sure. Is what GW has put out even a halfhearted attempt at it. NO.

Like I said I cannot do these things because as you point out ...buy in is a problem. But GW could easily do them...in 5 min by reading forums...looking at event results, and issuing errata...Point is they DO NOT CARE. SO is balance easy...no it is not. But it is way easier than GW makes it seem.

As for Denial units you do realize they can deny most objectives just by standing on them right, because unless you assault them (which is contentious with many units) you have a hard time coming within 3" of an objective due to their base size.

if you are banning IK for "balance", then ban taudar alliances, ban farsight enclave allying with tau, ban more than 2 waveserpents, etc

This, 1000 times this.............

Breng - nothing you have said suggests you do actually understand the complexity in even removing the outliers in this game, and the cumulative effects these changes have. Can I ask what your experience in games design is? 3 years? 10? More? Have you tried to design any complex interaction system before? Or are you peddling the same crap that everyone does when they rail at GW?

As I pointed out, and you ignored: "fixing" the game is hard. Very hard. Every single hard comp [which includes, by definition, points and rules changes] ever tried simply resulted in another "broken" list being dominant. Every one. - because, and I will repeat here as you still dont understand it, fixing this game is NOT an easy problem.

You assume they do not playtest. I, from a very close source and authoritative source (which you are not, by definition, as you are not studio), know they do. What they DONT do is the play testing you *want* them to do, as they have stated the aim of the game is *not* to fulfil your specific expectations.

Assault turn 5. If theyre standing there their pretty impressive (yes, sarcasm) single gun isnt doing much.

IK are handily beaten by a lot of codexes but make sme extreme builds - screamer / seer council, as a basic example - less viable. They cant get away from 5 knights.

Also note I am NOT defending GW in this - I do think they could do a lot more, adopting a key word system would help. However they repeatedly state that this is a pick up game for playing with friends. IT isnt a tournament game - it never has been.

It is a horrible pick-up game...it is only good if friends are either tailoring lists, or changing rules.

As for easy, easy is relative. Like I said it is easy to be less broken then things are right now....That is not perfect. Things will still be powerful....but less so.

And sure they playtest in house which is always a bad idea because they know how they intended things to work.

I did not say it was a small problem or that one guy could do it. I said it was a relatively easy problem for a company like GW to do. They just don't.

I personally have no game design experience which is why I said I could not by myself create a balanced game from the ground up without aid. That is not really relevant to the fact that GW with however much experience is terrible at balance and I could with a few tweaks improve overall game balance pretty easily. You may disagree, and new powerful armies may still arise which is why something like this needs to be a living process. Which again is not easy....but not impossibly difficult either.

And sure they playtest in house which is always a bad idea because they know how they intended things to work.

I'm pretty sure this isn't true due in fault that they can't apparently FAQ things to make them work and instead make it so you can use the model (Chariot)

Or they make it so incredibly weak (Soul Blaze)

Or generally just some poor decisions overall.

The chariot is the whole point...if you read the WD battle report with it, it looks like the move and shoot with it. Because that is how it is supposed to work....but that is not how the rules actually work.

Same goes for giving units like Be'lakor redundant special rules (lgnores Dangerous terrain, when he comes with Move Through Cover, or allowing a GK Brotherhood Champion to take Digital weapons, when he already re-rolls failed wounds.)

SO they play games in house to try things out, but don't know how their own rules actually function....they play RAI because they know what they meant to have happen when they wrote it, which is not how they wrote it.