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.

So basically the arguments I have heard against it are:

The new army books have 4+ competitive builds and the old ones have 1 build. So they aren't balanced...

Number of competitive builds has nothing to do with whether armies build at the top levels are competitive.

And the other argument is one showing how certain armies do at hobby events. (at least he made not of it)

Tournament results at the moment don't really tell us much. SW and IG probably did the best at Adepticon because they are new and popular, so the most people ran them.


And yes, DH (yay allies), DA, DE, SoB can all make 1-2 competitive builds that can stand up to anything else that is made today.

I’ve found something I agree with Timmeh about!

IG and SW are certainly good codices, but I think their newness + being good combined to make them numerous at Adepticon. And the sheer number of them present certainly helped increase the number seen placing well. Lots of SW & IG armies did badly too.

It's to much the general and the match up. And they are not all balanced against each other even at the highest level.

A decent IG list will have at least as many Chimaera as I have Raiders, and each Chim will have 6-9 shots at 36 inches, each of which are capable of knocking down my Raiders. A Chimaera has 30/24 chance to get an effect on a Raider, assuming no pintle mounted weapon.

Since when do decent IG lists put heavy bolters on all of their Chimeras? The heavy flamer is the obviously superior choice for most builds.

Timmah wrote:So basically the arguments I have heard against it are:

The new army books have 4+ competitive builds and the old ones have 1 build. So they aren't balanced...

Number of competitive builds has nothing to do with whether armies build at the top levels are competitive.

And the other argument is one showing how certain armies do at hobby events. (at least he made not of it)

Tournament results at the moment don't really tell us much. SW and IG probably did the best at Adepticon because they are new and popular, so the most people ran them.


And yes, DH (yay allies), DA, DE, SoB can all make 1-2 competitive builds that can stand up to anything else that is made today.

While I think you have some points (even if there is only one competitive build, they're still competitive). However, I'm not sure that the most competitive builds for some armies can't stand up against the MOST competitive builds of others. For example:

Daemon Hunters
Chaos Space Marines
Kroot Mercenaries
Dark Angels
Dark Eldar
Necrons

Really can't make a list that can stand up against the top tier lists for Space Wolves or Vanilla Marines. Sure, they can win games (with their one good build) but against an equal opponent, the better army list will usually win out the day.

Here's a test for you guys to do. Play one of the newer codexes against an older version of itself. You will find that the new codex usually can decimate the older one (exceptions include Chaos Space Marines). But if every 'dex is on equal footing, then the update shouldn't need the power creep.


This isn't really new. Over the different editions of the game, there have been a number of better and worse codexes.

Hulksmash wrote:It's to much the general and the match up. And they are not all balanced against each other even at the highest level.

This is my feeling in a nutshell, except to include luck and to assume match up also implies mission objectives as part of it, not just the army being faced. I think where most of the "imbalance" or "tiers" questions come into play is when an army that is a one-dimensional rock-paper-scissors army runs into its kryptonite and gets curb-stomped. When strong, all-comer lists meet, this sort issue is less severe or perhaps negated altogether, and reverts back to being more about skill, luck, and mission objectives.

Further, I'd say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even design a wargame similar to 40K that is completely "balanced" from a design aspect, especially when trying to accommodate a divergent range of abilities, tactics, and playstyles. It's fairly difficult to create a game that accommodates both something as useless as gretchin and something as omnipowerful as a C'Tan and every possible gradation in-between when rolling freaking d6s for results. Even if both players had identical force lists, the game rules themselves might influence the outcome, such as the importance of having the first turn (or occasionally the last turn in objective missions). Without fixed lists, there are so many variables upon variables upon variables.

Timmah wrote:I'm just talking a straight up game with a book mission. Nothing to do with the larger picture.

My personal feelings are:

Daemons and Necrons have a slightly tougher time competing, but outside of that every army is fine.

DH are in the same boat.

Actually daemons are one of the most competitive armies, it's just that they are unpopular why people perceive them as weak.

G

The blowfly speaks the truth. Daemons are potent, but require skill to use. I really only think that Necrons are underpowered

Tau?

Tau can be very very strong. They have some of the best anti mech in the game, depending on the loadout of the battlesuits they also can have very potent anti-infantry. Although some would argue that fire warriors aren't particularly useful, I have seen Tau do awesome.

Have you ever seen Tau do crap?

"I have seen" type evidence is fairly circumstantial.

The question isn't whether Tau, or Necrons, etc. are a bad codex or incapable of a win -- it is whether they are as balanced with everything else as it is possible to be.

Kilkrazy wrote:Have you ever seen Tau do crap?

"I have seen" type evidence is fairly circumstantial.

The question isn't whether Tau, or Necrons, etc. are a bad codex or incapable of a win -- it is whether they are as balanced with everything else as it is possible to be.

What was your evidence behind "tau are crap"?



Tau are perfectly capable of winning right now.

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Have you ever seen Tau do crap?

"I have seen" type evidence is fairly circumstantial.

The question isn't whether Tau, or Necrons, etc. are a bad codex or incapable of a win -- it is whether they are as balanced with everything else as it is possible to be.

What was your evidence behind "tau are crap"?



Tau are perfectly capable of winning right now.

Where is your evidence behind "Tau are perfectly capable of winning right now" ?

And does 'perfectly capable of winning' equate to 'their army is balanced in power with all other armies', which I believe is the original question?

I don't think the armies are balance at all. The evidence can be seen from the talk in any forum, and in sales data. Look at what people are building for tournaments, and look at what is moving off the wall.

Hulksmash wrote:Not if you put on nightshields. Or get cover. Or actually go on the offensive

I don't agree with Blackmoor much but I agree there is DE builds that stand up to mech

I discounted cover for the simple reason that if I can get it, so can he. That reduces my chances to affect the enemy every bit as much as it affects his chance to affect me.

Night shields aren't as much help as you might think. If I am at extreme range of the DL where I can shoot him but be effectively out of range of his shooting, I am still within range of a Chimaera moving forward 6" and still shooting three shots at me that glance on a 4+. I am still at a 1/3 chance to affect with a DL, while the Chimaera's main gun (with it's three shots) is at a 3/4 chance to affect my Raider. (Again, I'm ignoring cover, as it is just as easy for him to get as it is for me to get. It's silly to assume that I get it and he doesn't.)

"Going on the offensive" doesn't help that much either. If I have my DL squads on the Raider, then they don't get to shoot if I move forward. At best, I might counteract the loss of DL fire from Raider Squads by gaining Blaster fire if I'm in range. Being closer would also remove the majority of the benefit of having Night Shields. Also, moving closer brings me in range of such items as Melta Guns and Flamers that are ubiquitous in IG armies. Lastly, a decent IG army will position his forces, vehicles and disembark troops from his wrecked vehicles in such a fashion as to make it very difficult to get wyches into combat with them. And, since Mech IG squads are so small, it's highly unlikely than a squad of wyches will stay engaged with a squad of any IG infantry after the initial charge.

I'm not throwing this out there from a "theoryhammer" perspective. I've been playing DE almost exclusively since 2002-2003. In the current state of the game, an even half-decent Mech IG army gives me fits, moreso than any other army build I can think of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

A decent IG list will have at least as many Chimaera as I have Raiders, and each Chim will have 6-9 shots at 36 inches, each of which are capable of knocking down my Raiders. A Chimaera has 30/24 chance to get an effect on a Raider, assuming no pintle mounted weapon.

Since when do decent IG lists put heavy bolters on all of their Chimeras? The heavy flamer is the obviously superior choice for most builds.

Not really relevant, because even if they do use a Heavy Flamer and no pintle mounted weapon, the Chimaera still has a better chance of taking out a Raider than the other way around.

@Salviden

Two words: Wych Cult

Trust me on this you can make a competitive DE army. And it is designed to go on the offensive and still have nearly the shooting of a standard cabal list. You just have to play against mech guard differently then you would other armies. Not build it specifically for anti-mech IG but build it with them in mind and how you would adjust to that game. The problem a lot of people have with DE is that they are paper airplanes with weapons designed to kill AV12+ only 28% without cover. You have to change up your style against numerous vehicles.

The same "super" list isn't cutting it with mech IG. Time to change it

So you have trouble vs one army? Congrats so do a lot of armies.

That doesn't mean the game isn't balanced. It just means certain armies have tougher matchups. (no, not rock/paper/scissors)

For example, my space marines wreck twin lash chaos lists. But my tau have trouble vs them.

1 is definitely an easier game. However they are both quite winnable.

Balance doesn't mean everything is exactly the same. It means if you field a solidly competitive take all comers list. You should have a viable chance of beating any list.

I have yet to see a situation where this isn't true.

Second thoughts: Not worth arguing about, discussion will never end, despite what poll seems to indicate.

mikhaila wrote:Second thoughts: Not worth arguing about, discussion will never end, despite what poll seems to indicate.

You're right. Popular opinion of people online couldn't be wrong...

Glad your adding to the discussion instead of being condescending.

Skarboy wrote:
Further, I'd say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even design a wargame similar to 40K that is completely "balanced" from a design aspect, especially when trying to accommodate a divergent range of abilities, tactics, and playstyles.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Or at least, it would depend on what you call "balanced." There are a lot of things that the guys down at GW could do to fix some of their game balance issues.

But first- what is not a balance issue:

1- The fact that you can be unlucky enough to lose doesn't destroy game balance. One of the aspects of strategy to every tabletop wargame is mitigation of risk. You need to decide what kind of risk favors you, and try to steer the game in that direction. Sure, it isn't always going to come out in your favor, and you could lose to an opponent who is worse than you, but that's all fine in the long run.

Mind, sometimes there are rolls where you cannot do enough to mitigate the risks involved. A lot of times this happens when rolling to decide who moves first between shooty forces (someone is just going to blow away his opponent on the first turn, and lady luck is fickle). That is a balance issue, but one that GW is trying to mitigate.

2- Not every 2000 point army that you bring to the table should have an equal chance against every other 2000 point army. That's fine. A large part of 40k strategy involves making a strong force list, and making a force list is a competitive part of the game. Sure, there are builds that we all wished worked better, but that is fine.

However, choosing a faction should not be a competitive part of the game, and I think that is the issue that we're talking about. Most 40k forces have built in weaknesses, and not all of those are balanced against each other (although this often changes with the edition).

Overall, each force has his most competitive list. Yes, it is unfair that many do not have two of these for a player to choose between. Also, some top tier lists just aren't up to snuff with others. It isn't about playing against your own kryptonite, it is about how half of the game is your kryptonite, while other top tier forces actually don't have a kryptonite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:
And the other argument is one showing how certain armies do at hobby events. (at least he made not of it)

Tournament results at the moment don't really tell us much. SW and IG probably did the best at Adepticon because they are new and popular, so the most people ran them.

This statement is, at least, not historically accurate (although it may or may not be accurate now).

During the 2nd edition, consensus was that the Eldar were overpowered. Eldar was either the first or second Codex to be released (I can't remember if Space Wolves were before them or not) but were very much superpowered when compared against every other army.

The Eldar also dominated the tournament circuit for the duration of the 2nd edition. I remember a White Dwarf battle report pitting the #1 games day winner against the #1 staff tournament winner. Both were playing Eldar, and this was four or five years after the release of the codex.

Currently, the common opinion is that there is a clear power creep whenever a codex is revised. If this is true, then it would only make sense that the top tier forces would be the newest ones.

I don't think that there is any absolute evidence that the newest lists are as unbalanced as all that, but tournament results support the theory that power is creeping upwards.

Hulksmash wrote:@Salviden

Two words: Wych Cult

Trust me on this you can make a competitive DE army. And it is designed to go on the offensive and still have nearly the shooting of a standard cabal list. You just have to play against mech guard differently then you would other armies. Not build it specifically for anti-mech IG but build it with them in mind and how you would adjust to that game. The problem a lot of people have with DE is that they are paper airplanes with weapons designed to kill AV12+ only 28% without cover. You have to change up your style against numerous vehicles.

The same "super" list isn't cutting it with mech IG. Time to change it

Two words: played that.

I've played every build you can think of, including one with six Haemonculi, 3 Taloi, and 45 Grotesques. (That build is actually kinda funny in how well it does against some armies.)

Wych cult has even less ability to pop vehicles at range due to fewer DL and can only balance that out with CC units that don't have much use versus a Mech opponent and overpriced RJB. If you, yourself, have been beating competent Mech IG players, then good on ya.

However, based on my own personal experience and just plain analysis of the numbers, I would never bet on a DE player to beat a Mech IG player of equal skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skarboy wrote:Further, I'd say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even design a wargame similar to 40K that is completely "balanced" from a design aspect, especially when trying to accommodate a divergent range of abilities, tactics, and playstyles.

It's not impossible, but GW is unwilling to do what it would take to make it truly balanced. It would require a radical rethinking of how they do business.

The main change would have to be that the core rules and all codices would have to be developed and released concurrently. The development team would have to conduct extensive playtesting between all codices using the existing rules set to find loopholes and imbalances. Future updates would have to address all rules and codices simultaneously. Rules issues would need to be addressed in a timely and official manner.

Anyway, I don't see GW doing any of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:Balance doesn't mean everything is exactly the same. It means if you field a solidly competitive take all comers list. You should have a viable chance of beating any list.

So, correct me if I'm mis-stating your point, you believe that for balance to exist that all "take all comers" lists merely have to have a "viable chance of beating any list?"

Does it matter that some take all comers lists have a much better chance at beating a wider variety of opponent's lists than do other take all comer's lists? Or is it your position that the common perception that some lists perform better against a wider variety of opponents than do some other lists is an inaccurate perception?

I never said ranged popping. You have to play differently against guard Sal. Meaning Haywire grenades. You generally lose 2 DL's (13 instead of 15)but gain the ability for every unit on the table to hurt vehicles and that can if needed actually kill MEQs if their transport goes down. It also gives you 3 empty raiders you can use as extra lift for warriors or as cover for your occupied ones.

The problem probably is that you've been playing DE since 2002-2003. No matter how open minded you are that will get you stuck in a certain style that works rut and truly stop looking at certain options. It's not a knock on you. Everyone gets that way. Heck, i got that way with my 'nids so I'm taking a break and I'll come back to them in a few months with fresh eyes and a more open mind.

Saldiven wrote:

So, correct me if I'm mis-stating your point, you believe that for balance to exist that all "take all comers" lists merely have to have a "viable chance of beating any list?"

Does it matter that some take all comers lists have a much better chance at beating a wider variety of opponent's lists than do other take all comer's lists? Or is it your position that the common perception that some lists perform better against a wider variety of opponents than do some other lists is an inaccurate perception?

It depends on how much better they are. I personally would say the difference between IG and an older codex like Tau is minuscule enough.

I know its a vague answer, but some list will have a better chance at taking out every army and some will have a better chance of taking out certain armies.

1v1 there will always be differences. The question is, are those differences small enough that a slightly better player can get around them? I would say yes.

You really can never achieve perfect balance. Heck even in checkers (the simplest game out there) there isn't balance. Whoever goes first should technically always win. (or maybe goes 2nd, not sure what it is for checkers)

Here is how I would break down the tiers:

Tier1/ IG, SW, BA, Daemons

Tier2/ SM, CSM, Orks

Tier3/ Nidz, BT, DE, SoB

Tier4/ all hte rest

I know some people will say old armies like Necrons & Tau are still top tier but really they are just diehards and you never see either winning best overall or best general at a GT level competition.

G

GBF - out of interest, why have nids in T3?
Again its a newer army with a fair few good builds, and atleast 2-3 competative builds.
In objective games i would throw them into T1 due to the sheer variety of units that can work in different situations.

However, i still think its the player that makes the game, not the list.

Also, flavour of the month still comes in heavy here with everyone wanting to play the new armies.
You would see alot more DE and GK lists in the higher tournies if more people played them.


Ardboyz after the ork release was a good example of a single army cornering the tables.

So here are my top two tiers versus Nidz which I ranked in the third tier:

Tier1/ IG, SW, BA, Daemons
Tier2/ SM, CSM, Orks, Eldar (mech)
Tier3/ Nidz, etc.

Let's quickly compare Nidz versus each army I selected from hte top two tiers:

Nidz vs. IG Mexh - I think most will agree that IG have the advantage:
• Lots of horde & MC killing power
• -1 to enemy reserve rolls
• Protection vs. heavy deep strike (Inq/Mys)
• Good anti psyker protection (Inq)

Nidz vs. SW - again I think most will agree that SW have the advantage:
• MC Killyness (Long Fangs)
• Strong anti psyker (Rune Priest)

Nidz vs. CSM
In my opinion Nidz are very vulnerable to lash spam with no real defense. A smart opponent will keep his princes outside the range of SitW, clump gaunts/stealers then blast them with plasma. CSM can also generate enough high S low AP shots per turn to drop a 6 wound MC when it moves into range of the meltaguns.

Nidz vs. Daemons
Daemons have Eternal Warrior & INV saves across the board, Nid players would love to have access to these rules. You've got units like the Skulltaker who can take out entire blocks of MCs. Nurgle Princes properly equipped can also trounce Tyranid MCs. Again Daemons are another army that has the advantage.

So this leaves BA, orks & SM. BA while unproven obvious to me have a better codex. While orks & SM will not match up as well they both perform better against the other armies listed above.

G

I recently posted an article on my blog which relates to this topic. http://gamers-gone-wild.blogspot.com/2010/04/importance-of-army-list.html

I honestly don't think which codex a player is using has as big of an effect on their results as most people think it does. I will use myself as an example. I bring Necrons to local tournaments and I do very well with them. My Necron list is optimized to the best capabilities of the Necron codex, and I face off against other optimized lists (SW, IG, BA). Now, I do not feel that I have a vast difference in skill level between me and my opponents. However, I'm still undecided on this topic because I think just using myself in Vancouver is too small of a sample size. I'm bringing an optimized Orks list to the summer GTs, so I'll get to see the contrast in results between them and my Necrons. It should be interesting.

My comments are based upon my experience over the course of attending many tournies around the US.

G

GBF (sometimes) knows what hes talking about. Too much raw tournament experience though for his opinion to be dismissed.

How do you think eldar stand in the meta right now?

I would put mechdar in hte second tier.

G