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.

 Pouncey wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then flat out state "I agree with everything you said except this statement, and this is why:".

No.

They can easily infer I have no counter-argument by the total lack of presenting any sort of counter-argument.

Clearly this is not the case since almost everyone here has thought otherwise.

 Azreal13 wrote:
This has already been explained.

An absence of response can easily be a disingenuous attempt to sidestep an argument which the responder cannot rebut, but does not wish to openly concede because that hurts their position.

If they're unwilling to argue the point anymore... why does it even matter? That point is not going to be something that comes into play again, and the discussion moves on to other things they are willing to debate.

Actually saying "fair point, I can't argue with that" carries no such issues.

So... for some people, it's not enough to know they're right, they have to hear other people say they're right too?

And we were talking about my ego issues?

Look, this is off topic and it isn't even up for discussion. Irrespective of how it sits with you, your absence of response will not necessarily be interpreted the way you intend.

It doesn't matter if you understand the whys and wherefores, just accept that it is.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Look, this is off topic and it isn't even up for discussion. Irrespective of how it sits with you, your absence of response will not necessarily be interpreted the way you intend.

It doesn't matter if you understand the whys and wherefores, just accept that it is.

I'm not the one who brought it up.

Yes, you did.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.

Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.

The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.

The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes, you did.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It probably also helps that he likes cherry picking which parts of posts to answer and which ones to conveniently ignore or fail to address.

Uhh, I do both of those things a lot.

The former makes it clearer what part I'm responding to.

The latter is usually because I either agree or don't have a counter-argument for those things.

No, the person I was replying to brought it up. I provided an explanation for why people might act that way.

So, now that we're completely off topic into a discussion of whether or not people should ignore posts, I think it's safe to say that this thread has reached the end of its useful discussion and we can all agree that Traditio's latest balance theories are terrible?

 Peregrine wrote:
Traditio's latest balance theories are terrible

That's about a summary of all threads he creates.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, now that we're completely off topic into a discussion of whether or not people should ignore posts, I think it's safe to say that this thread has reached the end of its useful discussion and we can all agree that Traditio's latest balance theories are terrible?

1. I agree that this most recent discussion is off-topic. The question of the OP is what they use to make value-judgment claims about any given unit. Note that this question is an open question. It's not as though I had some thesis that I had in mind in the OP.

2. Whether or not you agree with me, there's no need to engage in this kind of rhetoric, and especially no need, Peregrine, to divulge personal information which was not divulged as a matter of public record (as you have done in a previous thread). You are an adult. I am an adult. I expect that you will act and speak accordingly, and I will be happy to do likewise. If you disagree with a given point that I'm making, I ask that you please restrict yourself to a discussion of that point. There's no need to engage in a game of mockery, ridicule and public points-scoring.

Rule 1 and all.

3. I also wish to note that, for all of your rude interjections, your point is no more on-topic than that of Pouncy et al.

Complaining about posters going off topic is itself offtopic. Very meta. I know.

Again, I reiterate the question of the OP:

What do you mean when you say, e.g., "LRBTs are bad"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
No. It makes tactical squads an old unit with updated rules. That's why tactical squads still suck relative to the competitive meta. That's why chaos space marines suck even worse relative to the competitive meta.

Except, as I pointed out, this theory of yours only "works" because you pick out the units that fit the theory and ignore the others. Eldar jetbikes are an old unit with updated rules, but they're awesome relative to the competitive meta. There is nothing about being a unit that had rules in a previous edition of the game that makes a unit strong or weak. Your theory is garbage, and you really need to give it up.

It's an exception that proves the rule. Eldar jetbikes, and bikes in general, fall into an exceptional category of old units that got bizarrely bosted in 6+ edition due to thinks like jink rules.

The eldar jetbike is particularly exceptional because of the release of the new kits which provided scatter lasers for all of the bikes.

Go through your codex. Go through the space marine codex. Go through any modern codex.

Individually speaking, how many models, in and of themselves, are "good" relative to the competitive meta which are 6+ edition releases? Prior to 6th?

 Traditio wrote:

What do you mean when you say, e.g., "LRBTs are bad"?

As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.

Wolfblade wrote:As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.

Anything else? Anything?

Ok. How about the points equivalence in chaos cultists?

What about the points equivalence in space marine devastators with missile launchers?

What about the points equivalence of chaos space marine predators?

How about the points equivalence of Tyrranid Carnifexes without twin-linked devourerers?

How about the points equivalence of a non-bike space marine captain?

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.

Anything else? Anything?

Ok. How about the points equivalence in chaos cultists?

What about the points equivalence in space marine devastators with missile launchers?

What about the points equivalence of chaos space marine predators?

How about the points equivalence of Tyrranid Carnifexes without twin-linked devourerers?

How about the points equivalence of a non-bike space marine captain?

Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role, I didn't think I needed to specify that we're comparing units with the same role as it's almost impossible to balance every unit against every other unit.

But yes, I'd take SM Devs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las), and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).

Not to the SM captain, because again, similar roles. A captain does not fill the same role a LRBT tries to fill.

 Traditio wrote:
2. Whether or not you agree with me, there's no need to engage in this kind of rhetoric, and especially no need, Peregrine, to divulge personal information which was not divulged as a matter of public record (as you have done in a previous thread). You are an adult. I am an adult. I expect that you will act and speak accordingly, and I will be happy to do likewise. If you disagree with a given point that I'm making, I ask that you please restrict yourself to a discussion of that point. There's no need to engage in a game of mockery, ridicule and public points-scoring.

Rule 1 and all.

I have broken no such rules. Your balance theories are terrible, and I'm not going to hesitate to call them that. I don't know where you are getting this idea that I am not restricting myself to discussion of that point, every post I have made in this thread is directly related to your balance theories. Please don't make false accusations for the sake of claiming some weird moral high ground.

It's an exception that proves the rule. Eldar jetbikes, and bikes in general, fall into an exceptional category of old units that got bizarrely bosted in 6+ edition due to thinks like jink rules.

The eldar jetbike is particularly exceptional because of the release of the new kits which provided scatter lasers for all of the bikes.

Go through your codex. Go through the space marine codex. Go through any modern codex.

Individually speaking, how many models, in and of themselves, are "good" relative to the competitive meta which are 6+ edition releases? Prior to 6th?

And now you're just handwaving away criticism. Eldar jetbikes don't count because they were boosted in 7th edition. Presumably tactical marines won't count because their free transports don't count for some reason. And so on until you're left with only the units that are not powerful in 7th. You're "proving" your theory by declaring that all of the evidence fits once you remove the evidence that doesn't fit!

The simple fact here is that there is no rule that models which existed prior to 6th edition have any particular power level. Some of them are good, some of them are awful, some are in the middle. Just like some new units are good, some are awful, and some are in the middle. Your theory that there is some "pre-6th" level of balance that is separate from the rest of 7th does not match reality. Nor is pre-6th balance relevant in a discussion of power levels in 7th edition.

"What do you mean when you say, e.g., "LRBTs are bad"? "

It means I would never pay the points GW has assigned to it to field one. I don't have to compare a unit to another unit; I can compare it to the cost to field said unit.

K I'll bite. Lets compare things with Tactical marines.

10 bare Tacticals in Rhino 140 points in the popular formation

The best orks can do to approximate it is
10 'eavy armor shoota boyz + nob in a ard cased looted wagon. 171 points

For these extra 31 points
Orks get:
-No rhino repair
-Don't press that
-4+ sv instead of 3+ sv
-Ld 7 instead of ld8
-Mob rule instead of ATSNNF
-BS2 instead of 4
-I2 instead of 4
-S3 instead of 4
-No chapter tactics
-18" range weapons instead of 24" range weapons
-Only assault grenades
-No special weapon options
-Only heavy weapon options are nerfed heavy bolter nerfed missile launcher.
-Needs CAD, and takes up a heavy support slot
-No meltabomb, power weapon or special weapon option for the nob

+2 attacks instead of 1
+Furious charge
+Assault instead of rapid fire weapons
+Ere we go
+Acces to kill cannon, and ork vehicle upgrades.

Yeah lets call that a fair trade


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And now the relevant question. Does this make shoota boyz bad in my list? I have no idea how should I know. I can't buy those marines can I

Why would you buy an Ard Case? Doesn't that stop it from being an Assault Vehicle? Bad buy in that case as that takes away an advantage.

Also I can't believe you listed that repair rule as a pro. Pretty sure nobody remembers it exists.

It was never an assault vehicle it was an open topped vehicle. making it not open topped makes it less vulnerable to explode results and protects the crew vs flamers etc. but more importantly it now is a rhino. Making the comparison better.

Open topped confers assault vehicle...

 Azreal13 wrote:
Open topped confers assault vehicle...

Thank you for understanding my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldzoggy wrote:
It was never an assault vehicle it was an open topped vehicle. making it not open topped makes it less vulnerable to explode results and protects the crew vs flamers etc. but more importantly it now is a rhino. Making the comparison better.

LOL what flamers? The two to three on every map?

Wolfblade wrote:Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role

Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?

But yes, I'd take SM Devs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las)

You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT. So how about a CSM predator with autocannon and heavy bolter side sponsons? Would you take that over the LRBT?

and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).

You said "anything." A carnifex without devourers falls under "anything." Would you take that over an LRBT?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL what flamers? The two to three on every map?

1. Eldar love their d-scythes.

2. The new deathwatch meta is probably going to be frag cannon heavy.

That said, it's true that normal flamers are relatively rare in the competitive metas.

You want to compare the Ork land raider equivalent to the LRBT? Oookaaay.

Do you just not know much about 40k unit roles?

A looted wagon is not a battlewagon, Melly.

The boomwagon (looted wagon with boomgun) has similar role to the LRBT really. No transport, similar weapon.

So I guess it's okay for Tradito to compare units that are a different role and points costs but it's not if we do it since earlier he said:

 Traditio wrote:


That doesn't prove that 85 point whirlwinds are bad. It only shows that they are inferior to those other options. To show that 85 point whirlwinds are bad, you'd have to show that the other options are well-balanced and appropriately costed in terms of points, and the whirlwind is STILL inferior for its points.

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role

Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?

But yes, I'd take SM Devs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las)

You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT. So how about a CSM predator with autocannon and heavy bolter side sponsons? Would you take that over the LRBT?

and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).

You said "anything." A carnifex without devourers falls under "anything." Would you take that over an LRBT?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL what flamers? The two to three on every map?

1. Eldar love their d-scythes.

2. The new deathwatch meta is probably going to be frag cannon heavy.

That said, it's true that normal flamers are relatively rare in the competitive metas.

Anyone running Wraith guard is likely going for the Cannons due to the range they have, rather than making them a one hit wonder.
Also you have any clue how expensive Frag Cannons are? You're going to see a few but not enough to make grabbing an Ard Case worth it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So I guess it's okay for Tradito to compare units that are a different role and points costs but it's not if we do it since earlier he said:

 Traditio wrote:


That doesn't prove that 85 point whirlwinds are bad. It only shows that they are inferior to those other options. To show that 85 point whirlwinds are bad, you'd have to show that the other options are well-balanced and appropriately costed in terms of points, and the whirlwind is STILL inferior for its points.

I already proved it and he ignored me

Ashiraya wrote:A looted wagon is not a battlewagon, Melly.

The boomwagon (looted wagon with boomgun) has similar role to the LRBT really. No transport, similar weapon.

Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.

Traditio wrote:Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?

I don't think anyone would prefer the Looted Wagon if they had the choice; the LRBT has better armour, better crew and better hull mounts as well as the option for sponsons, though sponsons are a bit too pricey for what you can often do with them.

Also the Looted Wagon has a 1/6 chance every turn to move at top speed without your consent and be unable to shoot the Boomgun.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Also the Looted Wagon has a 1/6 chance every turn to move at top speed without your consent and be unable to shoot the Boomgun.

This too - somehow I forgot to write that even though I was thinking about it

Good job G.A

All units are inferior to eldar cheese!

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Sorry, anything else with an equivalent role

Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?

No, but only because you're picking from one of the codexes worse than IG. You got me, you found one of few units that are worse. Doesn't mean the LRBT is good however. Anything was hyperbole, as obviously I wouldn't take the LRBT points in ork boys, or naked SM tactical squads, etc.

 Traditio wrote:

But yes, I'd take SM Devs (with MLs even), CSM Preds (assuming they still get tri las)

You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT. So how about a CSM predator with autocannon and heavy bolter side sponsons? Would you take that over the LRBT?

You said units, nothing about how they're configured. Tri las preds yes. Autocannon/HB depends on what I'm facing, but even those have a more consistent output than a LRBT.
Also, the original post about this I think:

 Traditio wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's not really a different argument, considering my post included this line:

 Melissia wrote:
even within other options in the same codex.

Rather, I phrased parts of the rest of it badly and gave the impression that I was talking about the unit in a vacuum, rather than a single faction's army list itself in a vacuum.

Would you rather an LRBT or its points equivalence of predator with relevant upgrades?

and

 Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:As many have answered, they'd rather take anything else of equal points than a standard LRBT. Why? Because the LRBT is terrible at everything it does, unless it's T4 3+ clumped up as tight as possible, with no cover or invul saves.

Anything else? Anything?

Ok. How about the points equivalence in chaos cultists?

What about the points equivalence in space marine devastators with missile launchers?

What about the points equivalence of chaos space marine predators?

How about the points equivalence of Tyrranid Carnifexes without twin-linked devourerers?

How about the points equivalence of a non-bike space marine captain?

"Relevant upgrades", meaning tri las if I want to hunt tanks/MCs, or autocannon/HB if I want infantry. Nothing about upgrades, so I'll take my tri las preds over LRBTs. Also you're cherrypicking out the upgrades that make things even remotely viable.

 Traditio wrote:

and Carnifexes with devourerers (you don't get to exclude options just so it fits you).

You said "anything." A carnifex without devourers falls under "anything." Would you take that over an LRBT?

You're also cherrypicking things that are almost worse than a LRBT with your crap upgrades (i.e. SM devs with MLs, dakka preds instead of tri las), so no, I'll take my carnifexes WITH the devourers. You can't just exclude certain upgrades because they prove you wrong. That's exactly what you were doing as Peregrine said before:

 Peregrine wrote:

And now you're just handwaving away criticism. Eldar jetbikes don't count because they were boosted in 7th edition. Presumably tactical marines won't count because their free transports don't count for some reason. And so on until you're left with only the units that are not powerful in 7th. You're "proving" your theory by declaring that all of the evidence fits once you remove the evidence that doesn't fit!/quote]

(Bold mine)

 Traditio wrote:

The eldar jetbike is particularly exceptional because of the release of the new kits which provided scatter lasers for all of the bikes.

And SM bikes were boosted with the addition of grav guns.
Devestators got grav cannons and skyhammer.
Tacticals got the whole range of grav weapons and a points drop and access to free transports.

Lots of pre-6th units got boosted for 6th or 7th.

There are also plenty of terrible units that came out in 6th and 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

You said "anything." "Anything" means "anything." It means that regardless of what I name and regardless of what configuration, you'd take it over the LRBT.

No, not regardless of configuration. Most units can be made dramatically worse by poor upgrade selection as you've demonstrated with your gladius.

If you're trying to compare unit capability why would you deliberately include poor unit configurations other than to be obtuse or pedantic?