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.

Mad4Minis wrote:

caminacambob wrote:I really hope that 6th does come soon, give me an excuse to really get into the game, love the models but people have always spammed a loophole when I played them so now hopefully I can get some games in before they discover the new ones

Thats one of my biggest problems with the current rules...every army has just a couple lists that are of any use, and if you dont play them your probably going to get beat every time, and thats no fun. What the game needs is a set unit design structure...not just a random assignment of points.

I disagree. I think most 5th Ed. Codices have a wide variety of possible builds. IMHO the usual netlists, such as Razorspam etc. are simply the more forgiving armies, but most 5th Ed. Codices actually have a lot of viable units and builds that can be competitive, particularly in the hands of a skilled player.

I disagree. I think most 5th Ed. Codices have a wide variety of possible builds. IMHO the usual netlists, such as Razorspam etc. are simply the more forgiving armies, but most 5th Ed. Codices actually have a lot of viable units and builds that can be competitive, particularly in the hands of a skilled player.

That may be true, but when you go to a tournament and no one uses these different builds, they might as well not even exist because you will never see them. Sad, really. 40k was much better before the internet allowed these spam list to get around so quickly.

Just Dave wrote:I disagree. I think most 5th Ed. Codices have a wide variety of possible builds.

Possible builds, yes. Good builds? No.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Just Dave wrote:I disagree. I think most 5th Ed. Codices have a wide variety of possible builds.

Possible builds, yes. Good builds? No.

Good builds too IMHO.
Not necessarily tournament winning, but enough not a case of "your probably going to get beat every time".

My plan:

pdf until the starter set gets released, then buy the starter set rule book from ebay!

Mad4Minis wrote:

caminacambob wrote:I really hope that 6th does come soon, give me an excuse to really get into the game, love the models but people have always spammed a loophole when I played them so now hopefully I can get some games in before they discover the new ones

Thats one of my biggest problems with the current rules...every army has just a couple lists that are of any use, and if you dont play them your probably going to get beat every time, and thats no fun. What the game needs is a set unit design structure...not just a random assignment of points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deejaybainbridge wrote:

I'm confident that the rumours of the 30th June are true, too many things are pointing that way. To the point I'm setting the money aside for the pre-order (one week before payday, Grrrr).

Im not giving them $70+ for a rulebook until I have proof that they have made a vast improvement over the current rules. However, I am counting on the folks like you who will blindly give them a big chunk of cash to report on the new rules.

Ha-ha. I can see your point, however I am happy to take the risk I have made that commitment to myself that I will be playing 6th Edition when it come out. I could leave it, read the forums and see everyone saying it's terrible and decide the best course of action is to avoid, but then what? I have three armies I may not get to use much as the people I play with move over to 6th Edition and I don't.

This is the void of space between the rock and the hard place!

It seems to me that if your attitude on codices and army books put out by GW is one of disdain at the lack of 'good builds', you may as well ask Workshop to cut and paste the last big tournament winning list, add fluff and put it out there.

I can understand things like Orks having trouble with vehicles, but then I believe that adds character to them. I don't want them to bring out some new, super cool Ork Baneblade that's an automatic Heavy choice.

Tournaments aren't the beginning and ending of wargaming. In fact, the vast majority of games are friendly. If all you care about is winning, there are books and lists better suited for you. If you play Tau atm, you don't care about winning every game, you care about inventing strategies and testing them out.

Variety is the spice of life

Davylove21 wrote:It seems to me that if your attitude on codices and army books put out by GW is one of disdain at the lack of 'good builds', you may as well ask Workshop to cut and paste the last big tournament winning list, add fluff and put it out there.

I can understand things like Orks having trouble with vehicles, but then I believe that adds character to them. I don't want them to bring out some new, super cool Ork Baneblade that's an automatic Heavy choice.

Tournaments aren't the beginning and ending of wargaming. In fact, the vast majority of games are friendly. If all you care about is winning, there are books and lists better suited for you. If you play Tau atm, you don't care about winning every game, you care about inventing strategies and testing them out.

Variety is the spice of life

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "balance".

Davylove21 wrote:It seems to me that if your attitude on codices and army books put out by GW is one of disdain at the lack of 'good builds', you may as well ask Workshop to cut and paste the last big tournament winning list, add fluff and put it out there.

I can understand things like Orks having trouble with vehicles, but then I believe that adds character to them. I don't want them to bring out some new, super cool Ork Baneblade that's an automatic Heavy choice.

Tournaments aren't the beginning and ending of wargaming. In fact, the vast majority of games are friendly. If all you care about is winning, there are books and lists better suited for you. If you play Tau atm, you don't care about winning every game, you care about inventing strategies and testing them out.

Variety is the spice of life

This.

I play Tau, mostly against Orks, for a challenge. My army has a weakness which suits my enemy and vice versa so me and my opponent must use tactics to take advantage of the other's weaknesses and play to our strengths.

I don't want an uber book to ruin this by making either of us better than the other, this would ruin the game entirely.

This is one fo the reason i quite like the new 'cron dex. there is not 1 atuo-build. There a few builds whcih people gravitate towards (scarab farm, 5 barge Wraith wing etc).

But you dont HAVE to use them to win games or even hold your own.

Personally I think their rulebooks are pretty good value regardless of the changes (If you like to actually read them that is).

Im really looking forward to a new set as Ive been tired of 5th for over a year now

PhantomViper wrote:

Davylove21 wrote:It seems to me that if your attitude on codices and army books put out by GW is one of disdain at the lack of 'good builds', you may as well ask Workshop to cut and paste the last big tournament winning list, add fluff and put it out there.

I can understand things like Orks having trouble with vehicles, but then I believe that adds character to them. I don't want them to bring out some new, super cool Ork Baneblade that's an automatic Heavy choice.

Tournaments aren't the beginning and ending of wargaming. In fact, the vast majority of games are friendly. If all you care about is winning, there are books and lists better suited for you. If you play Tau atm, you don't care about winning every game, you care about inventing strategies and testing them out.

Variety is the spice of life

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "balance".

Does anyone? Is it even possible without having only one army in the entire game?

If you want balance, play chess.

Davylove21 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Davylove21 wrote:It seems to me that if your attitude on codices and army books put out by GW is one of disdain at the lack of 'good builds', you may as well ask Workshop to cut and paste the last big tournament winning list, add fluff and put it out there.

I can understand things like Orks having trouble with vehicles, but then I believe that adds character to them. I don't want them to bring out some new, super cool Ork Baneblade that's an automatic Heavy choice.

Tournaments aren't the beginning and ending of wargaming. In fact, the vast majority of games are friendly. If all you care about is winning, there are books and lists better suited for you. If you play Tau atm, you don't care about winning every game, you care about inventing strategies and testing them out.

Variety is the spice of life

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "balance".

Does anyone? Is it even possible without having only one army in the entire game?

If you want balance, play chess.

You REALLY don't understand the concept of balance... And I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here, but you never experienced any other miniature game other than GW, am I right?

Go talk to a Infinity, Malifaux or Warmahordes player, you'll find that games with multiple balanced armies are indeed possible and these marvellous mythological creations even exist in our day and age!

PhantomViper wrote:

Davylove21 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Davylove21 wrote:It seems to me that if your attitude on codices and army books put out by GW is one of disdain at the lack of 'good builds', you may as well ask Workshop to cut and paste the last big tournament winning list, add fluff and put it out there.

I can understand things like Orks having trouble with vehicles, but then I believe that adds character to them. I don't want them to bring out some new, super cool Ork Baneblade that's an automatic Heavy choice.

Tournaments aren't the beginning and ending of wargaming. In fact, the vast majority of games are friendly. If all you care about is winning, there are books and lists better suited for you. If you play Tau atm, you don't care about winning every game, you care about inventing strategies and testing them out.

Variety is the spice of life

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "balance".

Does anyone? Is it even possible without having only one army in the entire game?

If you want balance, play chess.

You REALLY don't understand the concept of balance... And I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here, but you never experienced any other miniature game other than GW, am I right?

Go talk to a Infinity, Malifaux or Warmahordes player, you'll find that games with multiple balanced armies are indeed possible and these marvellous mythological creations even exist in our day and age!

I don't even understand what you are trying to say with that image...

That an orange is slightly heavier than an apple of course! It's a bit silly to say that it's "apples and oranges" to compare one companies ability to balance games vs GW.. It's the same thing, the main difference is GW doesn't care as much because they're a model company not a game company as they've said.

Rule balance = Rule balance.. one company is just lazy

PhantomViper wrote:You REALLY don't understand the concept of balance... And I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here, but you never experienced any other miniature game other than GW, am I right?

Go talk to a Infinity, Malifaux or Warmahordes player, you'll find that games with multiple balanced armies are indeed possible and these marvellous mythological creations even exist in our day and age!

Warmahordes isn't balanced, it's just so convoluted that it's hard to tell. But at the end of the day each faction only has about 3 casters that you will ever see in tournaments, there are some terrible rock-paper-scissors matchups that make Nids vs Venomspam look like a fair game, and there is a clear hierarchy of faction power levels.

Cant' speak for the other two but they are also both more complex than 40k so I suspect it's easier to hide the imbalance there, too.

Kirasu wrote:That an orange is slightly heavier than an apple of course! It's a bit silly to say that it's "apples and oranges" to compare one companies ability to balance games vs GW.. It's the same thing, the main difference is GW doesn't care as much because they're a model company not a game company as they've said.

Rule balance = Rule balance.. one company is just lazy

I just didn't wan't to believe that he would actually consider using the "apple and oranges" argument when he used as the only example for a balanced game comparable with 40K.... chess...

I love big books, especially books with lots of pictures and background, so if the 6th edition 40K book follows the trend of Fantasy, I won't mind, and I'll probably buy some sort of collectors edition of it if they release something like that. I already spent thousands on armies, so I find GW's rulebooks surprisingly good value for money content wise.

lord_blackfang wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:You REALLY don't understand the concept of balance... And I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here, but you never experienced any other miniature game other than GW, am I right?

Go talk to a Infinity, Malifaux or Warmahordes player, you'll find that games with multiple balanced armies are indeed possible and these marvellous mythological creations even exist in our day and age!

Warmahordes isn't balanced, it's just so convoluted that it's hard to tell. But at the end of the day each faction only has about 3 casters that you will ever see in tournaments, there are some terrible rock-paper-scissors matchups that make Nids vs Venomspam look like a fair game, and there is a clear hierarchy of faction power levels.

Cant' speak for the other two but they are also both more complex than 40k so I suspect it's easier to hide the imbalance there, too.

Of course it isn't. You are completely right in everything you say!

And everyone in the entire universe agrees with you that warmahordes is the most convoluted bunch of rules ever written the rule books are practically undecipherable! Every single warmahordes game is so stock full of rules arguments and accusations of RaW vs RaI that it is impossible to finish a game in under 3 hours. And the game only ends because usually one of the players throws the table upside down in disgust!

Also I completely agree with you that no single game in the entire world can't be balanced and I heartily support your effort to decry games that you admittedly know absolutely nothing about as imbalanced and complex...

/sarcasm (just in case anyone had interpreted my post any other way)

PhantomViper wrote:

Kirasu wrote:That an orange is slightly heavier than an apple of course! It's a bit silly to say that it's "apples and oranges" to compare one companies ability to balance games vs GW.. It's the same thing, the main difference is GW doesn't care as much because they're a model company not a game company as they've said.

Rule balance = Rule balance.. one company is just lazy

I just didn't wan't to believe that he would actually consider using the "apple and oranges" argument when he used as the only example for a balanced game comparable with 40K.... chess...

A bit of a strawman here. He actually said if you wanted balance in a game then play chess. The reason why chess is balanced is because both side have exactly the same rules for exactly the same pieces. You were the one who wanted to compare "balance" between different games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:Also I completely agree with you that no single game in the entire world can't be balanced and I heartily support your effort to decry games that you admittedly know absolutely nothing about as imbalanced and complex...

You can always play chess

DarthOvious wrote:
A bit of a strawman here. He actually said if you wanted balance in a game then play chess. The reason why chess is balanced is because both side have exactly the same rules for exactly the same pieces. You were the one who wanted to compare "balance" between different games.

So he can give an example of another game that he perceives is balanced (and if you wan't to nitpick, chess isn't balanced because the white pieces always go first), but I can't give examples of other games that the community believes are balanced because then I'm comparing apples to oranges... right...

Nothing wrong with wanting a well written ballanced game... will we get that..... hell no.


Just remember its always swings and roundabouts, currently spash wooofs are OP and Gray Nits are too, but next time they will get it soooo hard by the nerf bat..l. well lol


My main fear is that DA become sooo OP that all the GK/SW/IG bandwagoners flock to it and ruin my armies rep

PhantomViper wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:You REALLY don't understand the concept of balance... And I'm taking a wild stab in the dark here, but you never experienced any other miniature game other than GW, am I right?

Go talk to a Infinity, Malifaux or Warmahordes player, you'll find that games with multiple balanced armies are indeed possible and these marvellous mythological creations even exist in our day and age!

Warmahordes isn't balanced, it's just so convoluted that it's hard to tell. But at the end of the day each faction only has about 3 casters that you will ever see in tournaments, there are some terrible rock-paper-scissors matchups that make Nids vs Venomspam look like a fair game, and there is a clear hierarchy of faction power levels.

Cant' speak for the other two but they are also both more complex than 40k so I suspect it's easier to hide the imbalance there, too.

Of course it isn't. You are completely right in everything you say!

And everyone in the entire universe agrees with you that warmahordes is the most convoluted bunch of rules ever written the rule books are practically undecipherable! Every single warmahordes game is so stock full of rules arguments and accusations of RaW vs RaI that it is impossible to finish a game in under 3 hours. And the game only ends because usually one of the players throws the table upside down in disgust!

Also I completely agree with you that no single game in the entire world can't be balanced and I heartily support your effort to decry games that you admittedly know absolutely nothing about as imbalanced and complex...

/sarcasm (just in case anyone had interpreted my post any other way)

The salt is strong in this one.

WM/H is relatively balanced, but in higher level play there are builds, just like in 40k. Some things nobody can deny, like Khador usually coming out in top in the grand scheme of things. Besides, he never said every game was "so stock full of rules arguments and accusations of RaW vs RaI that it is impossible to finish a game in under 3 hours. And the game only ends because usually one of the players throws the table upside down in disgust!" Sarcasm is so common nowadays (and so immature IMO), if you disagree with him it's better to intelligently discuss it rather than post a bitter, sarcastic tone that to me is just plain unpleasant to read. This is a community, let's start acting like one and play nice with each other.

Has anyone else ever heard of "you can't please all the people all the time"?

No matter what they do (even if they listened to us gamers suggestions) GW is never going to be able to produce a ruleset that everyone is happy with.

Some peope obviously hate 5th ed. lots of people are ok with it. i woudl hazard a guess that the vast majority of people will just accept that these are the rules and live with it.

I sometimes think that some people take thsi hobby/game a little too seriously.

PhantomViper wrote:
And everyone in the entire universe agrees with you that warmahordes is the most convoluted bunch of rules ever written the rule books are practically undecipherable! Every single warmahordes game is so stock full of rules arguments and accusations of RaW vs RaI that it is impossible to finish a game in under 3 hours. And the game only ends because usually one of the players throws the table upside down in disgust!

I meant that the rules create complex tactical situations. By way of combining special abilities. Which I'm sure you damn well know. It's easy to glance at a 40k unit entry and its points cost and immediately see whether it's worth it or not. Not so with a Warmachine model. The synergies between models can give them a power boost that isn't immediately evident and it's hard to price a unit correctly when its value depends so heavily on the rest of the army list.

I'm not exactly sure why I bothered to defend myself against your inane accusations since you can't refute any of the actual points I made, but there we have it.

Justus wrote:The salt is strong in this one.

WM/H is relatively balanced, but in higher level play there are builds, just like in 40k. Some things nobody can deny, like Khador usually coming out in top in the grand scheme of things. Besides, he never said every game was "so stock full of rules arguments and accusations of RaW vs RaI that it is impossible to finish a game in under 3 hours. And the game only ends because usually one of the players throws the table upside down in disgust!" Sarcasm is so common nowadays (and so immature IMO), if you disagree with him it's better to intelligently discuss it rather than post a bitter, sarcastic tone that to me is just plain unpleasant to read. This is a community, let's start acting like one and play nice with each other.

I have found out a long time ago that there is no point arguing with someone that doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, but just to prove this once again, here is the top 10 list of last weekends UK masters:

Name - Faction
Jamie Perkins - Khador
Phil Manwaring - Trollbloods
Martyn Jenkins - Circle Orboros
John Dale - Protectorate of Menoth
Andrew Galea - Trollbloods
Pat Vance - Legion of Everblight
Nathan Hoole - Cygnar
Liam Jordon - Minions
Tony Moore - Legion of Everblight
Alasdair Johnstone - Cryx

Your so called "best faction in game" is represented by 1 player and out of the 11 factions that Warmahordes has, 8 of them are represented in the top 10 of an 115 player event! I'd call that pretty balanced myself...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord_blackfang wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
And everyone in the entire universe agrees with you that warmahordes is the most convoluted bunch of rules ever written the rule books are practically undecipherable! Every single warmahordes game is so stock full of rules arguments and accusations of RaW vs RaI that it is impossible to finish a game in under 3 hours. And the game only ends because usually one of the players throws the table upside down in disgust!

I meant that the rules create complex tactical situations. By way of combining special abilities. Which I'm sure you damn well know. It's easy to glance at a 40k unit entry and its points cost and immediately see whether it's worth it or not. Not so with a Warmachine model. The synergies between models can give them a power boost that isn't immediately evident and it's hard to price a unit correctly when its value depends so heavily on the rest of the army list.

I'm not exactly sure why I bothered to defend myself against your inane accusations since you can't refute any of the actual points I made, but there we have it.

I just refuted.

To further refute your point, I'll call your attention to Jamie Perkins and Jake "Neutralize" who are considered to be the best players in both the UK and the USA respectively. Go watch their tournament results: when 2 players consistently win tournaments with 100+ people in them I would argue that the player themselves is what differentiates a faction from another and IMHO, when player decisions in the table top matters more than dice or list building, then you have a reasonably balanced game.

The same thing can be observed if you analyse the Malifaux tournament scene, the same restricted number of players wins most tournaments. The players win the tournaments, not the armies themselves and that, to me and allot of other people is the proof of a balanced game.

I can't offer proof of Infinity because AFAIK, Infinity still doesn't have an organized tournament "scene".

PhantomViper wrote: So he can give an example of another game that he perceives is balanced (and if you wan't to nitpick, chess isn't balanced because the white pieces always go first), but I can't give examples of other games that the community believes are balanced because then I'm comparing apples to oranges... right...

Yes white always goes first but you alternate between players who get to go white.

Yes, you are comparing apples to oranges because you are forgetting that 40K is a completely different game system than those other games with a LOT MORE OPTIONS. I have never seen any vehicles in Warmachine like tanks, I have only seen Dreadnought like comparisons. I haven't seen any jump infantry, etc, etc. The more options in 40K is where it becomes more difficult to balance. Of course Warmachine is more balanced but then Warmachine is also less diverse.

Plus, much like 40k, whoevrr goes second can.move/deploy to counter white/player 1.

DarthOvious wrote:

PhantomViper wrote: So he can give an example of another game that he perceives is balanced (and if you wan't to nitpick, chess isn't balanced because the white pieces always go first), but I can't give examples of other games that the community believes are balanced because then I'm comparing apples to oranges... right...

Yes white always goes first but you alternate between players who get to go white.

Yes, you are comparing apples to oranges because you are forgetting that 40K is a completely different game system than those other games with a LOT MORE OPTIONS. I have never seen any vehicles in Warmachine like tanks, I have only seen Dreadnought like comparisons. I haven't seen any jump infantry, etc, etc. The more options in 40K is where it becomes more difficult to balance. Of course Warmachine is more balanced but then Warmachine is also less diverse.

Yeah... You're kind of wrong again...

Taking one faction from each game:

http://www.maelstromgames.co.uk/index.php?act=cat&cre=min-wmc-cyg

http://www.maelstromgames.co.uk/index.php?act=cat&cre=min-40k-spm

Look at the amount of different choices you have for a Warmachine faction compared to a 40K faction. If anything Warmachine is allot more diverse than 40K. For tanks you have War Engines, for instance. For jump infantry you have flying infantry and burrowing infantry (and flying and burrowing warjacks)...

And I'm not even going to enter the nightmare that must be for PP to balance two distinct rules sets in the same game (Warmachine and Hordes), and yet they manage it to a very successful degree.

But the bottom line is that if PP, Corvus Belli and Wyrd can do it, then GW could do it as well! But having an imbalanced rule set helps them sell more models with less effort and at the end of the day that is all that they care about!

Also yes, players alternate between black and white pieces, but a chess match has an uneven number of games, so one player will always has the whites more often then the other.