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.

Broken is any tactic, unit, combo, or army list that allows your opponent an unfair, and usually unstoppable advantage, with little to no counter.

Virus grenades in 2nd edition were broken because they were cheap, destroyed most of your force, and were unstoppable.

4th edition Falcons were broken against Orks because they had few anti-tank options, allow Eldar to completely dominate Orks w/o any response.

3rd edition BA were broken because they could effectively wipe out an opposing force on turn one, without the opponent getting the ability to do anything, except die.

My recent Ebay Purchase, pretty much shattered a nicely painted iron priest because they put him in a box twice his size without packing materials.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Do we also consider things that don't work to be broken?

As in things that, either due to bad rules writing or later updates simply don't work either as intended or at all?

Not really. They're impact on The Game is negligible. I can see how you could argue that their rules are broken, in that they don't work properly, but they aren't metagame-deforming.

Units that are broken by virtue of being overcosted (I'm looking at you, Vespids) or too weak, simply don't get used. They only affect the owners of armies containing those units, by reducing their available choices.

ShumaGorath wrote:All of the GW created superheavies designed for apocalypse are broken. Someone who takes a lot of them will beat someone who does not. Every time. Without fail. They are all guaranteed to pay for their point investment.

not to rain on your parade but in apocolypse you can make your own units and they have data sheets for them. even make your own vehicle formations.

i have an arm 14 LR with a demolisher cannon two twin linked heavy flamers and a twin linked assault cannon.

is that balanced? at 300 points? not in the least especially with the new MS rules. but in apocolypse it wouldn't be half as effective.

Not when for 200 more you can get a baneblade.

Compared to tanks, which are generally overpriced and vulnerable super heavies are nasty.

However compared to anti tank infantry they are not. You bring your super heavy, and superheavy and match it against its points vaslue in Broadsides or Dev squads or anti tank squads and it will die.

The closest to an exception is the Reaver, which has such overwhelming firepower, hull and void shields to boot it can keep ahead by slaughtering any infantry that dares to get near range.

Primary weapons are overpowered, but the pricetag for most super heavies is about right. The 7" and 10" blasts should be there, but should be at reduced S. Baneblades should fire at least two types of shell, a S7 Ap4 10" beehive round or the standard shell with a 5" blast. The Hellhammer gets something similar.

wash-away wrote:

so to the quesion at hand, what to you qualifies something as being broken in an army?

When something is TOO good for its point value. For example, even I admitthat the wargear peice 'book of St Lucius' was ok in 4th, something good and solid, is rediculiously broken in 5th.

It allows you to take LD tests on unmodified leadership. So obviously in the new combat system, its way too good for only 5pts.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Do we also consider things that don't work to be broken?

As in things that, either due to bad rules writing or later updates simply don't work either as intended or at all?

BYE

I think units that are not used should be considered broken more so than units that are supposedly too good. I actually don't think there are very many choices that are in fact so good that they need to be tuned down. More often than not it just that whatever else is available is overpriced and is therefore not regarded as good/competitive.

If an effort was made by GW to make the choices within a codex balanced against each other then I think we would see more variety. That in turn that would affect the meta-game more than trying to mess with the few units/combinations that are commonly perceived as 'too good'.

The mistake that GW seems to make is when they 'fix' a codex they tend to both buff some unused units and nerf the good ones. This results in the pendulum swinging to the other extreme instead of actually getting closer to a point of balance.

The last army that beat me is broken.

The issue with SD weapons is that you need to do some serious work or shell out serious cash to FW. I'm not so bothered.

Generally in games where I get slaughtered it tend to make a tactical error that is glaringly obvious as the reason for my loss. I tend to try and take the nastiest units I can though my armies have been around long enough to where that has changed considerably in terms of the adjustments over various editions.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The issue with SD weapons is that you need to do some serious work or shell out serious cash to FW. I'm not so bothered.

So spending more money on stuff should get you an advantage?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The issue with SD weapons is that you need to do some serious work or shell out serious cash to FW. I'm not so bothered.

So spending more money on stuff should get you an advantage?

BYE

It shouldn't and it's killed apocalypse for me. I have too many friends with the cash to sink into ridiculous superheavies and will always take them. I can't even blame them, they made the investment after all. For someone in my financial and time position its impossible to keep up and the guy with four baneblades will beat the guy without them every single time.

Apocalypse is a broken game model designed for fun largescale scenario play. It will never be balanced and the guy with the biggest selection to choose from (basically the guy with the most heavy support choices) is practically assured to win in a straight up battle. No force org = no game balance.

What kind of Daemon lists were the 5 that trounced the UK GTs? Khornate blitzes? Tzeentchy blasters? Was there a general template?

Hopefully, it was one for each Ruinous Power, and the last being Chaos Undivided.

ShumaGorath wrote:It shouldn't and it's killed apocalypse for me. I have too many friends with the cash to sink into ridiculous superheavies and will always take them. I can't even blame them, they made the investment after all. For someone in my financial and time position its impossible to keep up and the guy with four baneblades will beat the guy without them every single time.

It seems to me that you're just too darn lazy to scratchbuild a "paper" Baneblade or Warhound. Do that or just play paper to their rock.

ShumaGorath wrote:Apocalypse is a broken game model designed for fun largescale scenario play. It will never be balanced

Apocalypse is balanced precisely because all it throws conventional notions of balance out the window, to the point that all players have access to equally unbalanced things.

ShumaGorath wrote:the guy with the biggest selection to choose from (basically the guy with the most heavy support choices) is practically assured to win in a straight up battle. No force org = no game balance.

No FOC = fair for both sides. Apoc is all about Objectives, rather than VPs. You can do a ton of damage, but if you don't get the Objective, it doesn't matter.

If you're playing on an Apocalypse team, against massed superheavies, I think you do just as well with either:
- massed conventional Ordnance (esp. Demolishers)
- massed MCs (Wraithlords or 'Feces)
Personally, I'm really looking foward to my next game, because there's a trick I want to test...

torgoch wrote:Hey, 40k could be worse

WFB GT Heat 2 results:

1st Andy Smilie Daemons
2nd Tristana Smith Daemons
3rd Bahri Malik Daemons
4th Eddie Eccles Daemons
5th Thomas Hall Daemons

Ouch. Interesting how a game can do downhill quickly simply due to a broken codex/army book or two. Not that you'd get GW to EVER admit that.

Regarding Apocalypse, "make it all up yourself" barely constitutes a proper game. You really might as well start rolling marbles at each other's miniatures.

That is why opinions on Apoc are divided between those who think it's great and those who think it's rubbish.

This is why it's great that nobody is forced to play Apoc.

JohnHwangDD wrote:- massed MCs (Wraithlords or 'Feces)

Because massed Feces is really what Apocalypse is all about afterall.

It seems to me that you're just too darn lazy to scratchbuild a "paper" Baneblade or Warhound. Do that or just play paper to their rock.

Or we just have standards where I play.

Apocalypse is balanced precisely because all it throws conventional notions of balance out the window, to the point that all players have access to equally unbalanced things.

Yeah, the guy with 6000 points of imperial guard armor, 2500 points of tau, and 3000 points of space marines is going to have more access then I do with my 2500 points of tyranids and 2500 points of Space Marines.


The guy has more points in offensive tanks than I have POINTS. So lets just throw the idea that openness creates balance out the window.

No FOC = fair for both sides. Apoc is all about Objectives, rather than VPs. You can do a ton of damage, but if you don't get the Objective, it doesn't matter.

Which is strikingly similar to how it works in the regular game too. Since, y'know, victory points are no longer a victory condition.

If you're playing on an Apocalypse team, against massed superheavies, I think you do just as well with either:
- massed conventional Ordnance (esp. Demolishers)
- massed MCs (Wraithlords or 'Feces)
Personally, I'm really looking foward to my next game, because there's a trick I want to test...

You assume I have the models to do that. I don't. Which is funny, because your refuting my point that the guy with the most access to high output models like heavy support and close combat troops generally wins. Sure it would be balanced if we all had the same pool to pull from but we don't. The guy with the bigger collection can make a beardier, stupider army. And wins because of it.

This is why it's great that nobody is forced to play Apoc.

facepalm.jpeg

Building a paper tank is not expensive, and can be done very well, at least we good-looking as what can be bought in plastic. It just takes a some work. Same with making a monster from sculpting clay. Crying about how unfair Apoc is, when you don't put in any effort is pure laziness.

It's the same as crying over 40k tournament player having advantage of being able to field different lists when the Rulebook / Codex cause metagame shifts.

There are answers to the army issue. You just choose not to do anything about them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And if it's just because they are a terrible unit with no redeeming features or qualities, then I'd like to lump Flash Gitz alongside them - a 400 point shooty HS slot in an Ork army compared to (cheaper and more effective) Lootas in an Elite slot. Yeah... good balance work there guys.
BYE

Yeah, I would like to add Biovores to this list

Deathrollers. Automatically hitting for d6 ST10 wounds.

So an Avatar or Bloodthrister misses a gretchin 1/3 of the time...but a lumbering warmachine can run over quins or genestealers without a chance for them to get out of the way?

Broken is:

1. Lowering the cost of basic troops to the point that it is hard to justify taking anything but the max. (Ork boyz for 6... cheapest other orc is 10 pts... most 15.)

2. Having the same model in a different codex with a different carrying capacity. (Apparently DA rhinos, drop pods and LRs need space dedicated to robe racks...)

3. Having a mandatory troop selection that has a minimum of 4 KPs and is very easy for an opponent to collect.

4. Having any T4, S4, AC 3+ or better army with fleet of foot when other races have to deal with lower toughness, strength or AC to qualify for it.

5. Taking one different character and changing the whole complexion of an army. (Hmmm shall my army fleet or outflank today... perhaps I want my stuff twin-linked.)

6. Making elite units with infiltrating or scout and then having scenarios and GW flunkies that insist you can't deploy them. (Why am I paying extra for these units anyways?)

7. Saying things are balanced when 10 BA Assault Marines with a bit of stuff costs around 300 points and when you make a new SM codex and the same 10 Blue assault marines will cost a little over 200 points.

8. Giving units a drop pod and then dropping it empty... (This is totally legal but also totally no fluffy.)

9. First person that gives a marine unit a drop pod and a rhino or razorback... (Rules lawyer run amok. Thanks GW for ambiguous english.)

10. A unit of DH inquisitor lord and 2 mystics in a LR showing up in every non-DH army just because it breaks demons and drop pod armies...

11. Giving one army a 6-man troop transport for 40 points and telling me that another army's 6-man troop transport is worth a minimum of 125 points.

12. Giving one army a 40-point 6-man transport and telling me anothers 85-point transport is worth that much more because it potentially can hit a bit more and can hold 4 more ineffective troops.

13. Telling me my WS3 BS3 S3 I3 W1 A1 Ld7 guy is equal to another guys WS4 BS2 S3 I2 T4 W1 A2 Ld7 guy that gets furious charge is fearless in numbers so we should both pay the same points for them...

.
There are more "broken" things but this is a good start.

Rangerrob wrote:Deathrollers. Automatically hitting for d6 ST10 wounds.

So an Avatar or Bloodthrister misses a gretchin 1/3 of the time...but a lumbering warmachine can run over quins or genestealers without a chance for them to get out of the way?

You have a 20 foot tall daemon made out of elemental rage, and you expect him to be nailing a bunch of hyperactive 3 foot tall goblins with his gigantic axe? :S
He should be hitting on 6s!

What I wonder is why the deffrolla still allows armor saves. "Aaaaah! 8 tons of spike-covered metal! Oh wait! I'm wearing flak armor!

Besides, don't harlies get an invul for their moving out of the way ability?

DAaddict wrote:
3. Having a mandatory troop selection that has a minimum of 4 KPs and is very easy for an opponent to collect.

And having that troop choice consist of 3 scoring units. The retinue rule is horrible for guard officers (why is he an independent character?), but aside from that, 3 killpoints is the price you pay for having 3 units able to move separately, be targeted separately (while scoring down to the last man), be assaulted separately (with no more consolidating into close combat).

DAaddict wrote:
6. Making elite units with infiltrating or scout and then having scenarios and GW flunkies that insist you can't deploy them. (Why am I paying extra for these units anyways?)

I fully agree with this. These rules get even stupider when you have abilities that allow you to "always deep strike."
"I'm sorry you can't deep strike those, it's against the rules for this mission. They have to come on as normal reserves."
"Actually, I can! They can deep strike even in missions that don't allow you to deep strike!"
"Actually you can't. You see, the rules for this special mission prohibit you from deep striking even if you have the ability to deep strike even in missions that don't allow you to deep strike."
"Damn!"

DAaddict wrote:
11. Giving one army a 6-man troop transport for 40 points and telling me that another army's 6-man troop transport is worth a minimum of 125 points.

12. Giving one army a 40-point 6-man transport and telling me anothers 85-point transport is worth that much more because it potentially can hit a bit more and can hold 4 more ineffective troops.

What are you comparing here? A razorback and a falcon? A falcon is armor 12, fast, a skimmer, and comes with better built in weaponry. There's a reason that they dominated most of 4th edition, unless I have the vehicles wrong here (which is very possible)

Razorback and chimera? Something and a chimera, I'm sure. A chimera is also armor 12, does have potentially better weaponry, and has better transport capacity. Transport capacity is worth nothing for guardsmen? Why even get a transport if they can't transport anything worthwhile?

My friend uses chimeras all the time, and has had quite a bit of success with them. They might not be the greatest vehicles in the game, but they're not so bad that they're borken.

I love Apoc... but balanced? Come on. I didn't realise that DD's delusions ran that deep, but I guess we learn something every day.

"It's balanced because it's not balanced" is basically what his argument boils down to. If anyone wants to make sense of that, go ahead. Don't blame me if your IQ shinks after you try.

BYE

DAaddict wrote:Broken is:

1. Lowering the cost of basic troops to the point that it is hard to justify taking anything but the max. (Ork boyz for 6... cheapest other orc is 10 pts... most 15.)

2. Having the same model in a different codex with a different carrying capacity. (Apparently DA rhinos, drop pods and LRs need space dedicated to robe racks...)

3. Having a mandatory troop selection that has a minimum of 4 KPs and is very easy for an opponent to collect.

4. Having any T4, S4, AC 3+ or better army with fleet of foot when other races have to deal with lower toughness, strength or AC to qualify for it.

5. Taking one different character and changing the whole complexion of an army. (Hmmm shall my army fleet or outflank today... perhaps I want my stuff twin-linked.)

6. Making elite units with infiltrating or scout and then having scenarios and GW flunkies that insist you can't deploy them. (Why am I paying extra for these units anyways?)

7. Saying things are balanced when 10 BA Assault Marines with a bit of stuff costs around 300 points and when you make a new SM codex and the same 10 Blue assault marines will cost a little over 200 points.

8. Giving units a drop pod and then dropping it empty... (This is totally legal but also totally no fluffy.)

9. First person that gives a marine unit a drop pod and a rhino or razorback... (Rules lawyer run amok. Thanks GW for ambiguous english.)

10. A unit of DH inquisitor lord and 2 mystics in a LR showing up in every non-DH army just because it breaks demons and drop pod armies...

11. Giving one army a 6-man troop transport for 40 points and telling me that another army's 6-man troop transport is worth a minimum of 125 points.

12. Giving one army a 40-point 6-man transport and telling me anothers 85-point transport is worth that much more because it potentially can hit a bit more and can hold 4 more ineffective troops.

13. Telling me my WS3 BS3 S3 I3 W1 A1 Ld7 guy is equal to another guys WS4 BS2 S3 I2 T4 W1 A2 Ld7 guy that gets furious charge is fearless in numbers so we should both pay the same points for them...

.
There are more "broken" things but this is a good start.

You've been thinking about this, haven't you.

DAaddict wrote:Loads and loads of bitterness and bile

Yes!!! Let it all out. Feels good don't it? Let it grow.


BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:I love Apoc... but balanced? Come on. I didn't realise that DD's delusions ran that deep, but I guess we learn something every day.

"It's balanced because it's not balanced" is basically what his argument boils down to. If anyone wants to make sense of that, go ahead. Don't blame me if your IQ shinks after you try.

BYE

What he means is if the other team comes with four Baneblades, there is nothing in the rules to stop you using eight Manta super-skimmers. Then someone else can use 16 titans, and the fourth team can use 32 Kroot Warspheres, and so on.

Kilkrazy wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I love Apoc... but balanced? Come on. I didn't realise that DD's delusions ran that deep, but I guess we learn something every day.

"It's balanced because it's not balanced" is basically what his argument boils down to. If anyone wants to make sense of that, go ahead. Don't blame me if your IQ shinks after you try.

BYE

What he means is if the other team comes with four Baneblades, there is nothing in the rules to stop you using eight Manta super-skimmers. Then someone else can use 16 titans, and the fourth team can use 32 Kroot Warspheres, and so on.

Which is stupid, because I don't use shoebox models and ever expanding pissing matches aren't fun to actually play. Setup maybe. Not play.