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.

Joey wrote:Off the top of my head I could come up with a GK and an IG list that would easily squash that. Stop pretending GW have broken 40k.

That is a wildly inconsistant statement you just made there.

Ignoring that bit, I actually love almost everything that I've heard so far. I'm really only disappointed by two things:
1) I do with the allies were more restricted; I think most armies can have about 5-7 ally options. I'd have preferred it if it were 2-3 at the most.
2) I wish PE was re-roll all misses, not just the 1s.

Otherwise, this sounds awesome.

So that's 3k points of pure broken right there.

Biggest problem in your list is that 30 missile launchers only cause 0.55 glances and 1.1 penetrating hits against a zooming and evading Vendetta

Still thinking 5th edition. Think 6th. Think flyers...

Noir Eternal wrote:

Joey wrote:GW are not a software company. They cannot release patches for games 3 times a week in order to balance them.
Try playing unpatched Warcraft 3, then lecture the community (and professional games developers) about "game balance".

Maybe not to the same degree but GW can technically release patches in the form of Erratas whenever they want to.

"Sup, this unit used to be WS4, now it's WS5 and costs 2 points less".
No they'd never do that (quite rightly). Errata don't rebalance the game, even if GW wanted them to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:

Joey wrote:Off the top of my head I could come up with a GK and an IG list that would easily squash that. Stop pretending GW have broken 40k.

That is a wildly inconsistant statement you just made there.

How is it? His Missile Launchers will need 6s to hit my Vendettas and 6s to glance my Russes.

Therion wrote:

So that's 3k points of pure broken right there.

Biggest problem in your list is that 30 missile launchers only cause 0.55 glances and 1.1 penetrating hits against a zooming and evading Vendetta

Still thinking 5th edition. Think 6th. Think flyers...

Pretty certain that I can generally just ignore the fliers and table everything else. The fliers will not table me, nor can they capture objectives.

puree wrote:GW are not writing a book aimed at the hard core WAAC tournament players

And now you're on my ignore list, good job. Anyone who equates regular competitive play with the "WAAC" mindset is a...in the interest of not breaking Rule #1 let's just say I'm not listening to a fething word they have to say and leave it at that then.

Pretty certain that I can generally just ignore the fliers and table everything else.

Talk about wild presumptions. You won't ignore 6 Vendettas, just like you won't ignore 6 Doom Scythes and their Night Scythe support. Those Scythes table you with no additional help even required. Insult to injury the Necrons will keep popping night fight so you can't properly even see whatever little they have on the ground. I'm not trying to piss you off, but you'll need a plan (skyfire) about enemy flyers because you can't be sure the enemy has just one or two you might be able to ignore. Entire armies can be made out of flyers.

*Hypnotic sound* Think 6th. Think flyers...

Joey wrote:

Noir Eternal wrote:

Joey wrote:GW are not a software company. They cannot release patches for games 3 times a week in order to balance them.
Try playing unpatched Warcraft 3, then lecture the community (and professional games developers) about "game balance".

Maybe not to the same degree but GW can technically release patches in the form of Erratas whenever they want to.

"Sup, this unit used to be WS4, now it's WS5 and costs 2 points less".
No they'd never do that (quite rightly). Errata don't rebalance the game, even if GW wanted them to.

So I just wanted to clarify, you are basically saying that it's okay for GW's games to be horribly unbalanced because it's impossible to get it done "right" the first time, even with playtesting and decades worth of experience, and because there's no way whatsoever for them to fix something after it's gone to print.

That's your argument, right? Just wanted to make sure because people always jump my ass for misinterpreting gak or "reading what I want to" or just plain getting it wrong, so...

Noir wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Formosa wrote:its NOT, repeat NOT the rules that will be the problem, its the players.... YOU, not the rulebook, YOU are the one who will cheese it up and break the allies rules by having OVER 9000!!!!!! Spambacks, GW is not forcing you to take them or even use them, im ging to add some Stormravens to my ravenwing as its fluffy (DA will get a new flyer no doubt, but for the time being i must make do) and will add some MUCH needed punch to my overcosted underpowered army... but mainly... a black Ravenwing stormraven will look the shiz niz and what not

It is most definitely the rules that are the problem, because they allow this gak to happen. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand. There's really no other way to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simple.

It is not my responsibility to keep GW's game balanced, it's theirs.

Why do people keep saying "keep the game balanced", it wasn't before.

Until GW starts from the ground floor up, playtesting for a 2-3 year and releases the Core Book and every Codex at the same time, 40K will never be balanced. I don't know how else to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simply... for excepting a balanced system with there track record..

Going to agree with Noir here. Plus Sidstyler you're coming off as massively abrasive, you need to calm down.

Even if Gee Dubya started from the ground up like you said, people would still find something unbalanced and people like Sidstyler would whine that it took GW 4 years to balance everything that that they still messed up. Chess is really the only game that I can think of that is truly "balanced". However on the other hand it has no flavor.

I will take an imbalanced ruleset with lots of cool, fun storytelling opportunities versus something that is highly balanced but lacks any sort of "feel" behind it.

Also I find it funny that a lot of people who disliked 5th (like myself) are really looking forward to 6th, whereas many who seemed to enjoy 5th are dreading 6th. I'm just glad that 40k is returning to its roots as opposed to becoming bland and boring.

puree wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
It is not my responsibility to keep GW's game balanced, it's theirs.

GW job is to write a book that works for their target audience.

It's your responsibility to play in a way that eveyone you play with finds fun.

GW are not writing a book aimed at the hard core WAAC tournament players, they are aiming at the youngsters who like shiny models, and want to have some framework to play with them. Most of them are not going to be building competitive lists or worrying about the tourney balance.

Old style role playing games were far more open ended and open to abuse, but, heh, guess what each gaming group would decide how far to go with that themselves based on what they found fun, if you didn't agree with charts handing out +99 swords of uber killyness you didn't use them.

If you don't like the idea of X and Y allying then don't do it. You don't have to play with those who do if that is not fun for you. Just as they don't have to play with you if that is what they find fun.

you it better than i did to be fair

i will be useing allies to make my army fluffy and fit some units in that i like the look of, i will be useing a BA libby as a HQ because i want to test the new psy powers and it allows me to take a stormraven in my ravenwing force (i have been anyway, this just makes it legal) and some BA scouts as my version of ...well scouts... come to think of it... why the hell dont Ravenwing actually get scout bikers, and before you say it "ravenwing are the scouts" you try sneaking up to someone on a bloody harley davidson built to carry a half ton superhuman.

I dont even know what psy powers BA get for that matter lol

Edit: just looked, im gonna use shakle soul (fit DA theme i feel) and Fear of the darkness ( i mean... cmon that screams DA to me lol)

Therion wrote:

insaniak wrote:...but you get to move 6" after disembarking. End result is the same as now.

End result is not the same. Firstly the transport itself will be further away than before, and secondly from what we've heard disembarking isn't the same. You no longer disembark 2" away from the doors but in base to base contact with any part of the vehicle's hull or base. Someone could confirm this from the dude on reddit if they have the time.

The transport moving 12", or the transport moving 6" and the unit climbing out and moving 6" both result in 12" (plus disembark distance) of movement or the unit.

So the only difference is the distance from the access point. If they're doing away with access points and forcing you to base the hull, then yes, you lose an inch or two. Not really seeing that as a big deal, personally.

Joey wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, MH
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, JotWW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, TW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, SC
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
and...
1x Coteaz
7x Servitors (troops) w/ Plasma Cannons
3x Psyrifleman Dreads
3x Venerable Psyrifleman Dreads

So that's 3k points of pure broken right there.

Off the top of my head I could come up with a GK and an IG list that would easily squash that. Stop pretending GW have broken 40k.

And seeing as the list you posted isn't even legal. Proven by your own quote. I'm not exactly worried. Too many people lack intelligence enough too not be the sky is falling chicken littles. But the rest of us are gonna be fine. Rest assured.

Chancetragedy wrote:

Joey wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, MH
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, JotWW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, TW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, SC
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
and...
1x Coteaz
7x Servitors (troops) w/ Plasma Cannons
3x Psyrifleman Dreads
3x Venerable Psyrifleman Dreads

So that's 3k points of pure broken right there.

Off the top of my head I could come up with a GK and an IG list that would easily squash that. Stop pretending GW have broken 40k.

And seeing as the list you posted isn't even legal. Proven by your own quote. I'm not exactly worried. Too many people lack intelligence enough too not be the sky is falling chicken littles. But the rest of us are gonna be fine. Rest assured.

Yeah that's 4 too many dreadnoughts.

Did anyone ask about Squadron rules or hear anything about any changes?

Tongue planted somewhat in cheek, I have to say so far it looks like people claiming 6Th was going to be Imperial circular wankfest have been vindicated and get to post that on their blogs and facebook pages.

Marines get to have their cake and eat it too. They get powerfists, so they have a CC option against 2+ armor in CC, unlike many other armies. They can even spam AP thunder hammers with shields on assault termis so that CC is -always- viable for them, and get to tap IG, fellow chapters and GK to fill any gaps.

Necrons have gained a lot too, but that seems to have been a casual side-effect.

Orks, Eldar and Dark Eldar get taken down considerably. Their CC specialists now either lack the means to get into combat reliably, or their best way to deal with enemy CC specialists (Have fun plinking your pretty swords against terminators and artificer armor, Banshees and Incubi!)

Tyranids...wow. To think of the bullet i dodged when I skipped picking them as my first army a year and a half ago. I came so close.

We'll see how it develops. Maybe the faq and erratas will patch much of ths over. Not expecting it, but it would be nice.

Joey wrote:

Noir Eternal wrote:

Joey wrote:GW are not a software company. They cannot release patches for games 3 times a week in order to balance them.
Try playing unpatched Warcraft 3, then lecture the community (and professional games developers) about "game balance".

Maybe not to the same degree but GW can technically release patches in the form of Erratas whenever they want to.

"Sup, this unit used to be WS4, now it's WS5 and costs 2 points less".
No they'd never do that (quite rightly). Errata don't rebalance the game, even if GW wanted them to.

Well you said that they did not have a way to release a patch when in fact they do and I mearly stated such.
So yes, they could technically put in an errata that a units stats has changed.

No, an errata may not be able to re-balance the entire game but a unit or a single rule that was worthless/broken, could be fixed in such a way.

The same goes for patches, a single patch is not meant to re-make an entire game, just fix a small portion of it. Erratas can work in the same way.

Sidstyler wrote:
So I just wanted to clarify, you are basically saying that it's okay for GW's games to be horribly unbalanced because it's impossible to get it done "right" the first time, even with playtesting and decades worth of experience, and because there's no way whatsoever for them to fix something after it's gone to print.

That's your argument, right? Just wanted to make sure because people always jump my ass for misinterpreting gak or "reading what I want to" or just plain getting it wrong, so...

Editing the emotive rhetoric out of your words: "it's okay for GW's games to be somewhat unbalanced because it's impossible to get it done right the first time, even with playtesting and decades worth of experience".
Pretty much, yes.
You can't change the stats/points costs for units on the fly because it'd screw peoples' armies up.
The fact that you regard 40k as THAT unbalanced at present shows you're either really bad at 40k, or you need to stop playing against Grey Knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noir Eternal wrote:
Well you said that they did not have a way to release a patch when in fact they do and I mearly stated such.
So yes, they could technically put in an errata that a units stats has changed.

No, an errata may not be able to re-balance the entire game but a unit or a single rule that was worthless/broken, could be fixed in such a way.

The same goes for patches, a single patch is not meant to re-make an entire game, just fix a small portion of it. Erratas can work in the same way.

"Sup, this peice of paper I printed at home says my ogryns are now 30 points a model and have FNP, so I'm fielding 30 of them. Suck it."
No. There is such a thing as continuity, constantly changing the data in codexes would wreck it, and constantly create new areas of inbalance.

tetrisphreak wrote:

Chancetragedy wrote:

Joey wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, MH
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, JotWW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, TW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, SC
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
and...
1x Coteaz
7x Servitors (troops) w/ Plasma Cannons
3x Psyrifleman Dreads
3x Venerable Psyrifleman Dreads

So that's 3k points of pure broken right there.

Off the top of my head I could come up with a GK and an IG list that would easily squash that. Stop pretending GW have broken 40k.

And seeing as the list you posted isn't even legal. Proven by your own quote. I'm not exactly worried. Too many people lack intelligence enough too not be the sky is falling chicken littles. But the rest of us are gonna be fine. Rest assured.

Yeah that's 4 too many dreadnoughts.

And even ASSuming the FOC for allies doubles as well at 2k. It's still 2 dreadnoughts too heavy haha.

Joey wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
So I just wanted to clarify, you are basically saying that it's okay for GW's games to be horribly unbalanced because it's impossible to get it done "right" the first time, even with playtesting and decades worth of experience, and because there's no way whatsoever for them to fix something after it's gone to print.

That's your argument, right? Just wanted to make sure because people always jump my ass for misinterpreting gak or "reading what I want to" or just plain getting it wrong, so...

Editing the emotive rhetoric out of your words: "it's okay for GW's games to be somewhat unbalanced because it's impossible to get it done right the first time, even with playtesting and decades worth of experience".
Pretty much, yes.
You can't change the stats/points costs for units on the fly because it'd screw peoples' armies up.
The fact that you regard 40k as THAT unbalanced at present shows you're either really bad at 40k, or you need to stop playing against Grey Knights.

DA codex vs GK codex, BA, SW, Imp guard

Yes 40k is imballanced at the mo, BUT! haha! thats because of codex creep lol

Im lucky though as my local meta is bloody great and friendly, apart from ... 2 people i can think of, no one runs tourny lists at all, i play DW and ravenwing for crying out loud, as some one said "40k on hard mode" lol, those poor bloody Nid players (to be fair our local nid player was good, Kudos lorna) in 5th...

Joey wrote:"Sup, this peice of paper I printed at home says my ogryns are now 30 points a model and have FNP, so I'm fielding 30 of them. Suck it."
No. There is such a thing as continuity, constantly changing the data in codexes would wreck it, and constantly create new areas of inbalance.

That just shows me you basically have to result to sarcastic and completely un-realistic scenarios to show a rediculous point that makes 0 sense. Yeah, I definitely meant by using erratas to help game balance I meant constantly changing units to make them insanely powerful and that everyone should be constantly updating their rulebook.

What I meant (to clarify) is that GW, could/conceivably, use the errata to make small changes to rules that were unbalanced enough to affect the game negitively in a major way.

I never said that I thought they should, that I wanted them to, or that they were a horrible company becuase they did not use this option.

I only stated that it was a possibility, and that you saying that using an errata to fix rules being an impossibility was ludicrous.

Sidstyler wrote:

puree wrote:GW are not writing a book aimed at the hard core WAAC tournament players

And now you're on my ignore list, good job. Anyone who equates regular competitive play with the "WAAC" mindset is a...in the interest of not breaking Rule #1 let's just say I'm not listening to a fething word they have to say and leave it at that then.

You probably won't see this if I'm on ignore, but...

If you want to have a 'balanced' tournament scene game then it is the hard core WAAC players who you need to aim your product at.

If it isn't balanced for them then you are still going to get hosed by overpowered lists in any regular tournement cos those players will still be there, and they will have worked out those imbalances.

Or are you saying that you are only interested in balance at some unknown intermediate point between none and hard core WAAC, in which case how would you define that level of balance in clear precise objective terms that someone could work to.

Noir Eternal wrote:
That just shows me you basically have to result to sarcastic and completely un-realistic scenarios to show a rediculous point that makes 0 sense. Yeah, I definitely meant by using erratas to help game balance I meant constantly changing units to make them insanely powerful and that everyone should be constantly updating their rulebook.

What I meant (to clarify) is that GW, could/conceivably, use the errata to make small changes to rules that were unbalanced enough to affect the game negitively in a major way.

I never said that I thought they should, that I wanted them to, or that they were a horrible company becuase they did not use this option.

I only stated that it was a possibility, and that you saying that using an errata to fix rules being an impossibility was ludicrous.

It is ludicrous.
Most gamers don't even check the internet for information. If something has changed in their codex, how would they know?
What if they showed up for a battle and their opponent told them that their models actually cost a couple points more, or had a point less toughness? How would you know they were telling the truth?
Truth be told there's actually very few units that are so bad that they desperately need changing. Even if there are, GW fethed up, so only take them if you like them or for fluff reasons.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Noir wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Formosa wrote:its NOT, repeat NOT the rules that will be the problem, its the players.... YOU, not the rulebook, YOU are the one who will cheese it up and break the allies rules by having OVER 9000!!!!!! Spambacks, GW is not forcing you to take them or even use them, im ging to add some Stormravens to my ravenwing as its fluffy (DA will get a new flyer no doubt, but for the time being i must make do) and will add some MUCH needed punch to my overcosted underpowered army... but mainly... a black Ravenwing stormraven will look the shiz niz and what not

It is most definitely the rules that are the problem, because they allow this gak to happen. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand. There's really no other way to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simple.

It is not my responsibility to keep GW's game balanced, it's theirs.

Why do people keep saying "keep the game balanced", it wasn't before.

Until GW starts from the ground floor up, playtesting for a 2-3 year and releases the Core Book and every Codex at the same time, 40K will never be balanced. I don't know how else to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simply... for excepting a balanced system with there track record..

Going to agree with Noir here. Plus Sidstyler you're coming off as massively abrasive, you need to calm down.

Even if Gee Dubya started from the ground up like you said, people would still find something unbalanced and people like Sidstyler would whine that it took GW 4 years to balance everything that that they still messed up. Chess is really the only game that I can think of that is truly "balanced". However on the other hand it has no flavor.

I will take an imbalanced ruleset with lots of cool, fun storytelling opportunities versus something that is highly balanced but lacks any sort of "feel" behind it.

Also I find it funny that a lot of people who disliked 5th (like myself) are really looking forward to 6th, whereas many who seemed to enjoy 5th are dreading 6th. I'm just glad that 40k is returning to its roots as opposed to becoming bland and boring.

4th and 5th edition 40k were just fine, the games worked pretty well. The balance issues came in that they quite blatantly write codexes to make the newsst ones the strongers will all the best toys so that every wants to sell their old stuff and buy another army. I can live with that stuff, the basic deisng of the game worked well.

People who say balance doesn't matter are kidding themself. I'm sure your really "fun" army is a blast to play when you line up against an army that crushes you without losing a single model, just because of a bad matchup. That's the life of a 40k Dark Eldar player, you either get tabled or crush your oppoenent based on their list. That's not FUN for anybody, I've been on both sides of that game, nobody likes getting destroyed and most people don't like face rolling somebody in a game just because of a bad matchup.

Now that take, and then add in the fact that not only do you have to balance codexes against each other, you'll have to balance every posible combination of stupid units between codexes as well.

My 40k community is tiny. I'll show up to a local shop once a month and nobody else will be there, I'll sit for an hour before just driving 30 minutes back home. I can't afford to turn down games from the 50% of people who are just going to take the wackiest gak (Eldar + Dark Eldar) just because it looks fun and works well on the tabletop. But I also will not play them, because that's not how the 40k universe works in my head, and that was the only thing keeping me in the game.

I would have already switched to a different game by now, but nobody plays WarmaHordes either.

Guess I'll have to try my hand at fantasy, at least they haven't gone completely daft.

Joey wrote:

Noir Eternal wrote:
That just shows me you basically have to result to sarcastic and completely un-realistic scenarios to show a rediculous point that makes 0 sense. Yeah, I definitely meant by using erratas to help game balance I meant constantly changing units to make them insanely powerful and that everyone should be constantly updating their rulebook.

What I meant (to clarify) is that GW, could/conceivably, use the errata to make small changes to rules that were unbalanced enough to affect the game negitively in a major way.

I never said that I thought they should, that I wanted them to, or that they were a horrible company becuase they did not use this option.

I only stated that it was a possibility, and that you saying that using an errata to fix rules being an impossibility was ludicrous.

It is ludicrous.
Most gamers don't even check the internet for information. If something has changed in their codex, how would they know?
What if they showed up for a battle and their opponent told them that their models actually cost a couple points more, or had a point less toughness? How would you know they were telling the truth?
Truth be told there's actually very few units that are so bad that they desperately need changing. Even if there are, GW fethed up, so only take them if you like them or for fluff reasons.

Doesnt every GW store have a computer now? it would be easy to put up a poster and say "40k update out now" and done, the better question is, if they did this wouldnt it invalidate the £20 codex i payed for?

azazel the cat wrote:

6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
6x Long Fangs w/ 5x ML
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, MH
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, JotWW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, TW
1x Rune Priest w/ LL, SC
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
5x Grey Hunters w/ Melta, Wolf Standard & Mark of the Wulfen in a Rhino
and...
1x Coteaz
7x Servitors (troops) w/ Plasma Cannons
3x Psyrifleman Dreads
3x Venerable Psyrifleman Dreads

So that's 3k points of pure broken right there.

Didn't realise the GK Dreads came in squadrons, either that or you didn't actually read the chart.

Therion wrote:

Pretty certain that I can generally just ignore the fliers and table everything else.

Talk about wild presumptions. You won't ignore 6 Vendettas, just like you won't ignore 6 Doom Scythes and their Night Scythe support. Those Scythes table you with no additional help even required. Insult to injury the Necrons will keep popping night fight so you can't properly even see whatever little they have on the ground. I'm not trying to piss you off, but you'll need a plan (skyfire) about enemy flyers because you can't be sure the enemy has just one or two you might be able to ignore. Entire armies can be made out of flyers.

*Hypnotic sound* Think 6th. Think flyers...

Yeah, good point. On that note, I do find it somewhat interesting that the Night Scythe seems to be the only flier that is also dedicated transport. So my Necrons can take 6x Night Scythes and 3x Doom Scythes even under 2k levels, and can generally just not care about snap fire penalties. In the dark.

Chancetragedy wrote:And even ASSuming the FOC for allies doubles as well at 2k. It's still 2 dreadnoughts too heavy haha.

Oh noes!!1
I listed 3 instead of 2 in a list that I don't even plan to make and was only doing so to illustrate a point that you missed completely. And then managed to call me a 'chicken little', pointing out the fact that you haven't bothered to read anything for the past 70-some-odd pages, wherein I've been very pleased with what I know of 6th so far.

puree wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

puree wrote:GW are not writing a book aimed at the hard core WAAC tournament players

And now you're on my ignore list, good job. Anyone who equates regular competitive play with the "WAAC" mindset is a...in the interest of not breaking Rule #1 let's just say I'm not listening to a fething word they have to say and leave it at that then.

You probably won't see this if I'm on ignore, but...

If you want to have a 'balanced' tournament scene game then it is the hard core WAAC players who you need to aim your product at.

If it isn't balanced for them then you are still going to get hosed by overpowered lists in any regular tournement cos those players will still be there, and they will have worked out those imbalances.

Or are you saying that you are only interested in balance at some unknown intermediate point between none and hard core WAAC, in which case how would you define that level of balance in clear precise objective terms that someone could work to.

No, no it's not. I play tournaments all the time. I try to write lists that work well on the tabletop. I enjoy 40k as a game of tactics where I'm trying to out think my opponent, and I the closer and close games are, the more fun they are for me and my opponent. I am not a WAAC gamer, MOST tournament players aren't WAAC gamers. Look at the best players in the US, they're the nicest group of guys you'll ever meet. I'm sick of people who suck at tabletop games label the people who are better than them as WAAC gamers, that's insutling and completely ignoring.

Fun fact, if you balance the game for "WAAC" games, then you've just balanced the game for everybody. Like I said before, even your most laid back, beer and pretzels 40k gamers will NOT have fun if their army gets whiped off the table in two turns and they don't even get to do anything. That happened quite a bit in regular 40k, now it's going to happen even more.

WAAC lists are only truly an issue because they don't have a dedicated rules team. Instead they have 1 guy make one book, another guy make the next, and so on. And then when these 2 guys have different design philosophies, or are encouraged to create whacked out things to sell models, well then you're left with what we have now.

GW really should be trying harder to make their game viable in the competetive scene even if that meant they balanced around a specific point value and the game went completely nuts outside of that point range.

It's silly the way things have been going the past decade. I mean we're approaching the point where they may as well stop supporting 40k in its entirety and create a 30k horus heresy game.

Griever wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Noir wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Formosa wrote:its NOT, repeat NOT the rules that will be the problem, its the players.... YOU, not the rulebook, YOU are the one who will cheese it up and break the allies rules by having OVER 9000!!!!!! Spambacks, GW is not forcing you to take them or even use them, im ging to add some Stormravens to my ravenwing as its fluffy (DA will get a new flyer no doubt, but for the time being i must make do) and will add some MUCH needed punch to my overcosted underpowered army... but mainly... a black Ravenwing stormraven will look the shiz niz and what not

It is most definitely the rules that are the problem, because they allow this gak to happen. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand. There's really no other way to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simple.

It is not my responsibility to keep GW's game balanced, it's theirs.

Why do people keep saying "keep the game balanced", it wasn't before.

Until GW starts from the ground floor up, playtesting for a 2-3 year and releases the Core Book and every Codex at the same time, 40K will never be balanced. I don't know how else to explain it, you're just wrong, plain and simply... for excepting a balanced system with there track record..

Going to agree with Noir here. Plus Sidstyler you're coming off as massively abrasive, you need to calm down.

Even if Gee Dubya started from the ground up like you said, people would still find something unbalanced and people like Sidstyler would whine that it took GW 4 years to balance everything that that they still messed up. Chess is really the only game that I can think of that is truly "balanced". However on the other hand it has no flavor.

I will take an imbalanced ruleset with lots of cool, fun storytelling opportunities versus something that is highly balanced but lacks any sort of "feel" behind it.

Also I find it funny that a lot of people who disliked 5th (like myself) are really looking forward to 6th, whereas many who seemed to enjoy 5th are dreading 6th. I'm just glad that 40k is returning to its roots as opposed to becoming bland and boring.

4th and 5th edition 40k were just fine, the games worked pretty well. The balance issues came in that they quite blatantly write codexes to make the newsst ones the strongers will all the best toys so that every wants to sell their old stuff and buy another army. I can live with that stuff, the basic deisng of the game worked well.

People who say balance doesn't matter are kidding themself. I'm sure your really "fun" army is a blast to play when you line up against an army that crushes you without losing a single model, just because of a bad matchup. That's the life of a 40k Dark Eldar player, you either get tabled or crush your oppoenent based on their list. That's not FUN for anybody, I've been on both sides of that game, nobody likes getting destroyed and most people don't like face rolling somebody in a game just because of a bad matchup.

Now that take, and then add in the fact that not only do you have to balance codexes against each other, you'll have to balance every posible combination of stupid units between codexes as well.

My 40k community is tiny. I'll show up to a local shop once a month and nobody else will be there, I'll sit for an hour before just driving 30 minutes back home. I can't afford to turn down games from the 50% of people who are just going to take the wackiest gak (Eldar + Dark Eldar) just because it looks fun and works well on the tabletop. But I also will not play them, because that's not how the 40k universe works in my head, and that was the only thing keeping me in the game.

I would have already switched to a different game by now, but nobody plays WarmaHordes either.

Guess I'll have to try my hand at fantasy, at least they haven't gone completely daft.

yeah the new fantasy books seem to be trying to ... ballance the game, we can but hope 40k will go the same way

Noir Eternal wrote:What I meant (to clarify) is that GW, could/conceivably, use the errata to make small changes to rules that were unbalanced enough to affect the game negitively in a major way.

In the case of Tyranids they could have simply ruled exactly the opposite on every ruling in the FAQ. That's literally all it would have taken. The codex would still have issues, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would work a hell of a lot better and would have allowed for a few more competitive builds than what's currently possible.

You don't always have to adjust stats lines or points costs, or do it constantly like you're suggesting. You're just making excuses for GW being lazy and simply not wanting to fix anything.

Joey wrote:

Noir Eternal wrote:
That just shows me you basically have to result to sarcastic and completely un-realistic scenarios to show a rediculous point that makes 0 sense. Yeah, I definitely meant by using erratas to help game balance I meant constantly changing units to make them insanely powerful and that everyone should be constantly updating their rulebook.

What I meant (to clarify) is that GW, could/conceivably, use the errata to make small changes to rules that were unbalanced enough to affect the game negitively in a major way.

I never said that I thought they should, that I wanted them to, or that they were a horrible company becuase they did not use this option.

I only stated that it was a possibility, and that you saying that using an errata to fix rules being an impossibility was ludicrous.

It is ludicrous.
Most gamers don't even check the internet for information. If something has changed in their codex, how would they know?
What if they showed up for a battle and their opponent told them that their models actually cost a couple points more, or had a point less toughness? How would you know they were telling the truth?
Truth be told there's actually very few units that are so bad that they desperately need changing. Even if there are, GW fethed up, so only take them if you like them or for fluff reasons.

In an age when kickstarters are showing up every week for new games, when half the population has the internet in the palm of their hand, when an email address is more permanent than a home address, when GW has been using FAQ PDF's for years, when every other major game releases FAQ and Errata as online PDF's, when every major tournament is organized almost entirely online, when people shop stores across the entire *planet* for the best prices on models, players can't be bothered with internet errata?