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.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually zoanthropes, lictors, and rippers used to be great. In third Zoeys were fantastic. Also while it may seem like the elites and heavy choices in an ork book seem bad thats really only in comparison to the rest of the book which is amazing (Most of the book can be easily replaced with more ork boyz). A killa kan would be a fantastic choice in an IG list and flash gitz would give eldar some good options for staying in the fight longer. Whereas the issue with, lets say the humble ravener is that its just worthless in any comparison. At 46 points sans the gun its more expensive than a terminator with a 5+ save T4 and 2 wounds. It's basically a free killpoint for anyone with a gun, and even when it makes it into combat the new countercharge rules means that a squad of them will be killed in every situation every time now. The lictor is even worse at twice the points and the exact same level of surviveability. I've had my lictors dragged down by pathfinder teams repeatedly.

The only other book I know of with the same bipolar unit entries is the necron book. Paraiahs are terrible no matter what the situation is and wraiths (much like the ravener) are twice as expensive as they should be and don't actually do anything.

This is a sign of a weak codex. A weak codex shouldn't be judged by its capability of crafting a wining force (lets face it even the worst books GT entry is going to crush most people casually) it should be judged by its inability to create a workable varied and balanced force. When it only has a chance in casual play by minmaxing (and thus steamrolling the casual opponant) then something is broken with the book.

Well, certainly can see what your saying about points cost, but then isn't it the case that certain things should not correspond in cost, if something has a skill not often found in that army type, if it can do something out of the ordinary or so on (I have little familiarity with those troop types other than i know the models when I see them). I am suggesting that maybe the stat line/saving throw/damage output should not necessarily mean the troop type should match another with similar stats point wise, rather reflect its worth in the particular army (if it's a cc monster in a shooty army, if it's a solid armour vehicle in a mostly footsloggin army).

Hmm, I think what I'm saying is I don't think because two troop types in two different armies have identical stats and powers, they should cost the same, their influence on the army that employs them might be very different.

ShumaGorath wrote:

olympia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



Also, really, how do you playtest an army for its effectiveness that you do not yet have?

It's called vassal

That is?

It means before you buy a single mini you play a dozen or so proxy games with your friends. This can be done by borrowing models, substituting models of similar base size (these terminators are going to be Lictors) Or, I have even done it with pennies and empty bases. Even scraps of paper will do in a pinch.

This means that when you start buying models you'll be making infomed purchases. You'll already have a good feel for what works and what does not, and you'll know what units suit your person style the best.

It's also sometimes called playtesting or proxying.

Is there like a new Dakka rule that half the threads in the Discussion Forum have to be started by you?

Is there a rule stating that you are only allowed to actually contribute anything meaningful in one fifth of your posts?

EXALT!

Doctor Thunder wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

olympia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



Also, really, how do you playtest an army for its effectiveness that you do not yet have?

It's called vassal

That is?

It means before you buy a single mini you play a dozen or so proxy games with your friends. This can be done by borrowing models, substituting models of similar base size (these terminators are going to be Lictors) Or, I have even done it with pennies and empty bases. Even scraps of paper will do in a pinch.

This means that when you start buying models you'll be making infomed purchases. You'll already have a good feel for what works and what does not, and you'll know what units suit your person style the best.

It's also sometimes called playtesting or proxying.

Miscommunication?

Vassal is a program that simulates the tabletop experience.

Proxing also works.

ShumaGorath wrote:

olympia wrote:
It's called vassal

That is?

http://www.vassal40k.com/

malfred wrote:

Miscommunication?

Vassal is a program that simulates the tabletop experience.

Proxing also works.

Oops. My mistake.

Although proxying is still a good idea to avoid bad purchases.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

malfred wrote:

Miscommunication?

Vassal is a program that simulates the tabletop experience.

Proxing also works.

Oops. My mistake.

Although proxying is still a good idea to avoid bad purchases.

Unfortunatly the play environment I started in (the shop is now closed ) frowned upon things like proxying and using unpainted models. All the things you suggest make sense, except it's not really in the sphere of thought for a new player. Thats something a veteran does when building up a GT list for a new army. Not some new to the game rookie who is basing his model purchases on "what seems powerful" and what is cool. You're looking at this issue from the standpoint of a veteran, but thats not really an applicable platform. Of course I'm going to playtest (at least with thought excersises) before purchasing with whatever army I switch too. But that wasn't something that I would have thought about when my fresh enthusiasm powered most of my purchases.

Also not everyone is willing to proxy. Cardboardboxhamer has been pretty well engrained as a cheap copout in my mind (the play environment where you start has a pretty big influence on what you do as a player). What I'm trying to get at here is that most people make a few misteps when buying their first army. But its a sign of incredibly bad codex design when a large portion of their purchases are later deemed unusable due to comparative power to other things within the same book.

ShumaGorath wrote:You're looking at this issue from the standpoint of a veteran, but that's not really an applicable platform.

Just trying to help you out.

What I'm trying to get at here is that most people make a few misteps when buying their first army. But its a sign of incredibly bad codex design when a large portion of their purchases are later deemed unusable due to comparative power to other things within the same book.

I agree. It sucks.

I also know that it has always been this way and it always will.

Welcome to 40K.

I agree. It sucks.

I also know that it has always been this way and it always will.

Welcome to 40K.

What's sad is that the new space marine book doesn't really suffer from this. Front to back every option is "pretty good". Hopefully thats a sign of things to come.

I hate that "Welcome to 40K" thing as an argument technique. It's a terrible waste of characters.

I'm with ShumaGorath. Claiming that all codices are equally viable is bull. Some are better than others, period. 40K is more than most games a game of strategy before tactics. Each units ability on the battlefield is so limited and immutable that proper unit selection and balanced force construction is a vital part of the game. That's okay, I love list design. I especially enjoy the challenge of making a list strong enough to support a couple of fun choices that are sub par. But the Codex is your base material for constructing, and if it's shoddy and out of date, your scope for "fun" while still being in with a chance of winning is going to dwindle away to nothing.
"Just use tactics" is a really stupid way to approach 40K. A game like Hordes or Warmachine, where individual units can be altered to take on more than one threat through various means of buffing and resource usage is much more suited to this scheme of thought. No matter how great a tactician you are, so lists are just going to table you in 40K sometimes.
I firmly believe that GW should be working to make every unit in every codex worth taking. But unfortunately they seem to get it wrong a whole hell of a lot.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This is a thread about perceived internet wisdom.

Now, a case in point for this one would be the Imperial Guard. According to the Internet, it's an underpowered book which is almost impossible to win with. Now, this may well be the case, I don't know, I don't play IG. But then, it also may not be. Remember, this is being used purely as an example, and I am not decrying anyones opinions as long as they are from personal experience.

Now then, the problems come in when a relatively new gamer goes to the Tournament, Store or mates house for a game with his shiney new IG army, and, being a newbie, predictably comes off worse. Seeking inspiration, and at this point probably quite happy to accept his lack of experience to be his downfall, he logs on to the Interwebs, and seeks advice. And what does he get, at least 90% of the time?

Guard suck. Guard are underpowered. Unit X should have Stat Y. IG can't win. Your opponent is being beardy. Blah. Blah. Blah.

So the next time he loses, because the Interwebs told him so, it's not his fault. It's the Codex. It's jinxed, hated by GW, and destined to cause the death of it's bearer from tactical frustration. Soon, he is a slightly more experience gamer who, because he constantly blames his Codex, hasn't actually learnt from his experience and improved. What's worse, he is likely to go on the Interwebs and continue the hooting and hollering about how his book is rubbish and you can't win with it and Guard suck and Guard are underpowered all other Codexes are overpowered, especially that one on the army that beat him last week.

And so on.

Remember, the example above is just an example, and one I felt people would be familiar with on this board. I am not having a dig at peoples opinions.

So, just how many complaints about nerfing, underpowered units, overpowered cheese etc are actually all that valid. Some of them are, I know they are. 6th Edition Warhammer, Skaven were horrendous to fight because of how they interacted with the main rules and their own. But not all of them. Just how many complaints are caused not by the book, rules or anything else, but from the player not actually being all that great at the game compared to their opponents, and deciding an attempt at whinging their way to victory might make a difference.

Funny, it didn't take "Perceived Internet Wisdom" to tell me that my 3rd Edition Orks sucked in comparison to their counterparts way back when I started playing in early 4th.

Oddly enough in my local competitive shop, when I switched from Orks to the Space Marines I won the local tournaments and placed well at GamesDay, and instead of a meager few wins that were few and far between I was able to keep pace with other highly skilled players who also used very tough army lists.

So what caused such a dramatic shift in performance? Did I magically become a master tactician the night before I switched over to Space Marines as my primary army? Or did it just MAYBE have something to do with the power level of respective codex's in the game at that time?

And subsequently when the Ork codex was redone, and Ork Boyz went from 9 or 8 points per model to 6 Points a model with drastically increased weaponry (Shootas), and suddenly had very good long ranged anti-tank options, they were catapulted from being one of the weakest books in the game to one of the hardest books in the game.

If you even think for a second that these codex's or army books are even remotely balanced against each other with the huge disparity in time (and core rules editions) between releases then you're a fool. Hell this is GW, most army books have a huge disparity in table top effectiveness between models in the same book!

And of course this is a problem GW is just increasing as we go forward. My nice Ogre army is now essentially completely invalidated for Tournament play right now, thanks to the wonderfully "balanced" Daemon Army Book (which has been dominating most events if you care to pay attention). Honestly with the way they've been having their games go I've switched over almost completely to Privateer Press, where it may not be perfect but at least some thought is given to balance before rules are published.

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually zoanthropes, lictors, and rippers used to be great. In third Zoeys were fantastic.

I'm with you on Lictors (at least if you're talking about 2nd ed.) and rippers (as long as you're talking about 3rd ed. mutable genus rules), but I think Zoeys are better now then they've ever been. IK immunity increased their survivability dramatically. I'm really surprised that you'd say that, as I don't know where you're coming from.

I'd also add Warriors to your list of viable units. And although they're kind of a retinue, I'd add Tyrant Guard as well. And considering that a number of Tyranid units are highly customizable, I don't think the Tyranid codex is in that bad of a shape.

Not saying I don't think some units could use a minor points break, mind you.

gorgon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually zoanthropes, lictors, and rippers used to be great. In third Zoeys were fantastic.

I'm with you on Lictors (at least if you're talking about 2nd ed.) and rippers (as long as you're talking about 3rd ed. mutable genus rules), but I think Zoeys are better now then they've ever been. IK immunity increased their survivability dramatically. I'm really surprised that you'd say that, as I don't know where you're coming from.

I'd also add Warriors to your list of viable units. And although they're kind of a retinue, I'd add Tyrant Guard as well. And considering that a number of Tyranid units are highly customizable, I don't think the Tyranid codex is in that bad of a shape.

Not saying I don't think some units could use a minor points break, mind you.

Zoanthropes are marginally useful, but given their high cost (~80 with synapse and warp blast) and your now just 20 points shy of a dakkafex. There's simply no reason to take the zoanthrope over the other choice. Warriors are in an odd place in that while they are overcosted and terrible they are also required to field the gaunt heavy swarm force. Point for point they are outshot by basically every other unit in the game and even in combat their only advantage is an immunity to power fists. And with the new countercharge rules (especially now that rending has been nerfed and they are a full kill point in a bizarrely easy to kill squad) the unit isn't going to last long. I didn't count tyrant guard because they are a retinue. If they weren't I would be fielding an army of them. One of the best single units in the game.

The problem is its only useful to customize the good units a little bit. Make a gaunt squad too expesive and you're wasting points. Make a warrior too expensive and it's still just 2 easily scored wounds. The upgrades are expensive and overly situational in everything other than the monstrous creatures (And indeed most of the examples I gave are of creatures that can't even be customized. Lictors, raveners, biovores, zoanthropes, etc). Don't get me wrong. The codex isn't in rough shape. It's just amazingly bi polar.

Zoanthropes are marginally useful, but given their high cost (~80 with synapse and warp blast) and your now just 20 points shy of a dakkafex. There's simply no reason to take the zoanthrope over the other choice.

I guess there's our difference. I don't view the Zoey as shooting support. I see it as synapse support that can dabble in other things. Mine are usually all about synapse and psychic scream. When they could be IKed, they weren't worth much as synapse support.

Warriors are in an odd place in that while they are overcosted and terrible they are also required to field the gaunt heavy swarm force. Point for point they are outshot by basically every other unit in the game and even in combat their only advantage is an immunity to power fists. And with the new countercharge rules (especially now that rending has been nerfed and they are a full kill point in a bizarrely easy to kill squad) the unit isn't going to last long.

I think leaping ST/RC Warriors got a real boost in 5th because of the run rule. I also like them kitted with twin devs. Some people seem to be getting some mileage out of them in deathspitter/barbed strangler spam armies. They're overcosted a bit, but they're far from terrible IMO.

The problem is its only useful to customize the good units a little bit. Make a gaunt squad too expesive and you're wasting points. Make a warrior too expensive and it's still just 2 easily scored wounds. The upgrades are expensive and overly situational in everything other than the monstrous creatures (And indeed most of the examples I gave are of creatures that can't even be customized. Lictors, raveners, biovores, zoanthropes, etc). Don't get me wrong. The codex isn't in rough shape. It's just amazingly bi polar.

Sure, it's usually better to keep things cheap, which is mostly true for any army. And there are a lot of options that are DOA (also true for most codices). But I don't feel as strongly as you do. IMO, the Lictor is the unit Phil K. dropped the ball on most. They even created a new unit (BL) which basically has the statline and role that the Lictor should. Never saw the design logic there. Phil stuck a little too closely to Andy C's codex in spots, and that's where some of the mistakes happened, IMO.

And for what it's worth, I have to believe that DE have the most bi-polar codex according to your definition.

The main problem with Zoanthropes, Lictors and (to a greater extent) Biovores is Kill Points.

Each Zoanthrope is worth a Kill Point, and it's not particularly hard to knock off a T 4, W 2, Sv 2+/6+ model, especially if you have some Las/Plas.

That is, however, a function of the new edition (and GW's philosophy on updating codices) and not the current Tyranid codex.

@: Mad Doc Grotsnik

Yep seems most people play some game lose and then blame the units they took, their codex or the BGB ... Any thing can win if you know 3 things what your enemys guys can do, what your guys can do against them, and most importantly how to react to changes in the battle (a plan for victory is good but it'll rarely last a game)

@: ShumaGorath

zoanthropes, lictors, ravener, rippers and Paraiahs can all have a place in an army, you just need to use them right.

zoanthropes ... these guys can be a huge pain. Running through there powers
Catalyst ... uses this on a unit and even if killed they'll still attack great to use on unit WON (so remove models from the front if you win the enemy must then pile in moving them closer to you're units ... if not, you pile in no loss)
Psychic Scream ... pain in the ass if theres 3 being used. LD test are every where
Synapse Creature ... can't have enough of these in your army (unless you're running a Genestealer army)
The Horror ... sounds naff to start with till you read the 5th BGB and realise that if they fail that morale check they must now fall back (page 45 FALL BACK! 2nd para)
Warp Blast ... 24" S: 5 Ap:3 blast ... most expensive power he can take but since he can't really miss every one not really a problem
also fires at _18" S:10 Ap:2 ... so make people think twice about running in that LR (or other high armour vehical)
<EDIT> also these guys cost 35pts each so with Synapse 10pts and Warp Blast 20pts how do manage to make up 80pts (since my math makes it 65pts)

lictors ... I HATE FIGHTING THESE GUYS ... you know where your enemys gona put that unit of Devisator, darkreapers, ect ... and that where you place the Lictor when he arrives he assualts them (he like the combat squads rules ... it normaly means he finds small 5 man units with out a sargent). His stealths rule puts him on par with pathfinders (+2 to all cover saves and 5+ even if in the open) ... Phermon Trail ... re-roll a reserve each turn ... 'fearless' and 'hit and run'

ravener... ok these guys need lots work to be used well but they get alot of attacks each (+1 & rending or +2)... weapon symbiots optional so don't give every one a weapon symbiot ... Deathspiter 24" s:5 ap:5 Assualt blast (great gun) ... Devourers 18" S:3 AP:- Assault 6 reroll to wound ( wounds T3-5 better then you'd think thanks to the reroll ... still don't bother with it)... Spinefist 12" S:4 AP:5 Assault 3 TL (you're gona charge them might as well shoot ? again don't bother most of the time its wasted buy more Deathspiter)... So how to uses these guys well? firstly they want to pick off non-assualt units like looters but they don't want to be shot at, so when you DS them in make sure you hide them from TLOS they happly assualt 12" so keep them back 18" watch as they cause panic (note if the unit runs away they won't be shooting so the Raveners have done there job ... don't follow them or next turn they'll simply shoot you to bits)

Rippers Swarms... odd little suckers, troop but not scoring ... never give'm spine fists ... wings are nice (they can DS in and move about easily) but cost alot ... so how do you uses these suckers? easy take one or so full units and run them ahead of your army 10 Rippers basses gives you a +4 cover save (unless your a MC) and killing off rippers will be a pain since theres W30 in that unit (only 100p) ... and if you're enemys firing S:6+ weapons to instant kill them, then there not shooting at you're more important units

Finaly...
Paraiahs ... don't take these guys on there own they need another unit of CC necrons to back them up ... uses these guys with a lord and VoD and slice through daemons, vehicals, warlocks... WBB is great but they don't have it ... they die live with it ... any one near these guys is max LD 7 (losing CC and you're falling back unless you're lucky)

Pariahs are terrible.
I can't see why anyone would ever take them.
No tactic can make up for their shortcomings.

Da Boss wrote:Pariahs are terrible.
I can't see why anyone would ever take them.
No tactic can make up for their shortcomings.

QFT. Hopefully this will be rectified in the new Necron codex.

Fantasy used to be a lot better at this, but compare the new daemons to ogres...

It's amazing, in 40k daemons are proper weak sauce, in fantasy they are gods carved out of win.

Tri wrote:Finaly...
Paraiahs ... don't take these guys on there own they need another unit of CC necrons to back them up ... uses these guys with a lord and VoD and slice through daemons, vehicals, warlocks... WBB is great but they don't have it ... they die live with it ... any one near these guys is max LD 7 (losing CC and you're falling back unless you're lucky)

What does a Lord with a Veil of Darkness do to help them? They can't be teleported as they are not "Necrons". They are one unit of guys who have to run after their targets, with less survivability than the rest of the army. Make them "Necrons" and they'll be worth their points. Until then, they're not.

Frankly if you haven't had a new codex in over 5 years you get to complain about it. That's my personal rule.

Now if only GW will start updating armies with errata between major codex releases. Or Necrons, they got hosed by 5th edition.

Some codexes are clearly weaker than others. This can be because of poor balance within the codex, poor balance between codexes, or poor interaction with the main rules (possibly between editions). All of these things will contribute to an overall power level of the codex. That being said, there is a lot more of a difference to be had with player skill. Give a GT level player any crap army and he will probably win over a noob with a tuned power build army. However, get two noobs playing each other and the one with the power build army will kick the crud out of the one playing with whatever came in his battle force box every time. This will probably lead to the battle force noob quitting the game in frustration eventually. It simply isn't fun to lose all the time.

In a perfect world, every unit in a codex would be useful depending on how you want to build your army. The marine codex (at least the 4th edition one) did a rather good job at it. The only unit I can think of that was "bad" was bikes, and even they could have their uses. That sort of balance is what I would like to really see in the game so that there can be more variety than just one or 2 different builds per codex. I really cringe when I think of books like Nids, Dark Eldar, Necrons, or 3rd edition eldar where only half of the units in the codex are worth taking...ever. The sad thing is that most of the problems could be solved (more or less) by just making the problem units cost less.

Of course, GW is in the business of selling models so there is a high likely hood that the pendulum effect is intentional. Take the units that were made of win (that everyone now has) and make them suck. This not only makes the cheeze criers happy, but effectively takes models out of circulation. Then take units that used to be crap and make them super good so that everyone goes out and buys them. I'm waiting with baited breath for the 5th edition eldar codex so I can field 30 swooping hawks with 30 inch range, S4, AP3, Assault 2 las blasters for 18 points each.

The ultimate issue is that GW's failure to update every codex with every edition hurts the game. I understand they have business constraints, but that doesn't make it any less true.

True.

GW's problem is they don't just want to update codexes and make them compatible and balanced, they want them to be a driver of new models so they are compelled to add or change units and rules in each new codex.