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.

Defiler wrote:
Do you really want a game where you just set up two lines of troops, one shooting and one close combat - and then over the course of 3 turns remove models from the assault troops while the shooting ones stand still. Then on turn 3-4, start removing shooting troops for the rest of the game?

I play Tau so it's kind of like that now.

agnosto wrote:

Defiler wrote:
Do you really want a game where you just set up two lines of troops, one shooting and one close combat - and then over the course of 3 turns remove models from the assault troops while the shooting ones stand still. Then on turn 3-4, start removing shooting troops for the rest of the game?

I play Tau so it's kind of like that now.

Yeah, it's what we did for pretty much all of 2E, 3E, and 4E... Some people kind of like that sort of thing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Defiler wrote:
Do you really want a game where you just set up two lines of troops, one shooting and one close combat - and then over the course of 3 turns remove models from the assault troops while the shooting ones stand still. Then on turn 3-4, start removing shooting troops for the rest of the game?

I play Tau so it's kind of like that now.

Yeah, it's what we did for pretty much all of 2E, 3E, and 4E... Some people kind of like that sort of thing.

And now the game is all about which codex has the meanest close combat troops and can get there the fastest.

Sorry if someone else said this already.

I read somewhere (could have only been someones' opinion), that GW warhammer books are balanced only against those immediately around it...

I'm not saying I believe this is always the case. But the title asks 'why?', and there is a reason

Double post, ignore.

I agree that GW wants to sell models, and the game development is important only as long as it correlates to this. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, as it has kept GW in business while supplying me the toys I want.
There also seems to be a cultural reason for imbalance as well; the GW developers seem to rely on individual player's sense of fair play and restraint to make up for any imbalance that is inherent in their system. I assume that this has precedent in British sport (e.g. cricket) and gaming (e.g. historical wargames) history & culture.

Not to be as aggressive as this might initially sound, but I think a lot of what's been suggested here is a complete load of cobblers.

Firstly, it seems to me that it's gamers who are to some degree established in the game that drive new releases.

A thirteen year old coming in to the store for the first time is going to buy a starter set, some paints (which he may never use) and maybe some extras. If he happens to include the Sanguinary Guard that's because there's a bloody big pile of them right as you walk in the door and because the staff are extolling their virtues. You could tell a newbie that your OOP Squats are the greatest ever thing and he'd be just as likely to go for those.

On the other hand, those of us that have been doing this a while and already have thousands of points of unpainted minis just can't resist the latest thing...

The codex creep is a direct result of human nature - if you've just invented the sanguinary guard, it stands to reason that they're going to be better than your run-of-the-mill MEQ.

Then, in a few months you decide to redo (say) Necrons. You now need to add a unit that balances out the aforementioned sanguinary guard, so you come up with the all-new Handmaidens of the C'tan.

After that, you decide it's time to update Dark Eldar. They need something that can stand up to Sanguinary Guard and Handmaidens and so you invent some other new power unit and so it goes on.

A lot of their stuff is very pricey, but look at the quality of what they're putting out these days.

GW aren't perfect by any means, but they are still in business after over 30 years and while they may have their ups-and-downs, I can't honestly see them disappearing in any kind of hurry.

Simon

Hi Defiler

Not sure that is what people are asking for.
The ability to combat different types of opponent by figuring out the best strategy is what people want imho.

I get the impression that GW throw new models/rules into the mix more for some armies than others. I may well be mistaken but that is how it seems.

I remember when the "Compilation" came out for 40K in the Rogue Trader days and the Eldar were uber uber with all the 'guide' and 'doom' business (Nothing that a 72 inch diameter off-table frag missile couldn't handle on turn 2 -haha) and all the kids switched to Eldar. Then, the Space Marines got a 3+ armour save with 2nd ed. and everyone switched back to Marines.

GW creates an arms race in the game and as the only suppliers of weapons makes money. Real money. MCM suckas. That's why there is no 'balance'. They've always got to fix their mistakes and make more dough in the process. It is the REAL game that is going on. The dudes on the table with swords and boltguns are just the window dressing.

That being said, I've been a 'hammer junky for like 20 years. It must be all the paint I've eaten.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:It seems as if there's a constant debate going on about how unbalanced the various 40k and WHFB armies are. That they are unbalanced is pretty much a fact, though.

40K is pretty balanced - it's only the really old codexes that have a problem. WHFB is a bit wonky.

Apparently Warmachine/Hordes players don't have this problem; one army is as good as any other.

Not true - both have seen a steady power increase with almost every new release, so much so that I struggle to believe that it's accidental.

First, define unbalanced. Give some examples of what's unbalanced in your opinion.

TBH. Coming from RT / 2d ED straight into the 5th Ed. Most of the stuff I read about and play against is pretty well balanced. Nowadays.

And as many said earlier in the post. It's a game, with a metric sh*tton of variables. It's freaking hard making it 100% balanced.

Just look at how World of Warcraft is balanced. Overall pretty good, but there's always this one or two classes/combos that owns. Usually together. This is something that the devs most likely didnt consider when putting toghether the classes for expansion X. But when the game is released to 8 million players you bet there's gonna be a few that find holes in your perfectly balanced game. Making it unbalanced.

And the only way around that. Make every army more or less the same. Same statlines, same special powers (but with other names) and more of the same.

"This month, we're going to release a.... GREEN army! Slated for the next month a... hold your breath everyone... A BLUE army!"

I haven't been playing that long, but I am able to see a shift in schools of thoughts concerning Codecies. I play DA, one of the most, if not the, most basic SM books. Little wargear options, squad sizes, etc. Compaired to the SW or BA dex, which I also play, WAY underpowered. Not that you cant use DA, its just kind of disheartining to do so.

There's ways and means of making the Dark Angels extremely nasty.

That said I agree with Yakface, the 5th edition is really well balanced, and where it's unbalanced it's in favour of the sorts of armies that should be plentiful: Imperial Guard and Orks!

Scott-S6 wrote:

Apparently Warmachine/Hordes players don't have this problem; one army is as good as any other.

Not true - both have seen a steady power increase with almost every new release, so much so that I struggle to believe that it's accidental.

Well, there's new/different and new/better.

WM Players complain when things are only new/different rather than new/better
(Exemplar Cinerators are new/different and better only under certain conditions than
Exemplar Bastions, for example). There are models in every release that are
new/different and those models get complained about.

Then there are things that are new/better.

Examples of which I speak:

Warmachine: Escalation

New/Better
*Monolith Bearer
*Devout
*Seneschal

New/Different
*Reckoner
*Guardian
*Cleansers

Warmachine: Apotheosis

New/Better
*Harbinger
*Avatar
*Testament

New/Different
*Amon Ad-Raza
*eKreoss

Warmachine: Superiority

New/Better
*Vilmon
*Vengers
*Castigator
*TFG UA
*eFeora

New/Different
*Covenant
*Daughters of the Flame
*Errants

Warmachine: Legends

New/Better
*eSeverius
*Blessing of Vengeance
*Fire of Salvation
*Hierophant
*Skirmishers

New/Different
*Visgoth Rhoven
*Bastions
*Vassal



I think the problem is people feel they must have absolutely the best and latest in order
to compete, when, at a certain point, the changing game environment means that older
things will become the latest thing given enough time. I think a player can do very well
with a basic list designed around Prime models. It's very rare to see an army built
using only one of the expansion books.

The closest thing you could do with Menoth would be a Legends themed book:

eSeverius, Fire of Salvation, Blessing of Vengeance, Idrians

And even then, you're missing out on Choir, inexpensive infantry, and other options
included in the earlier books.

Warmachine does not have anywhere near as close to the power creep as has been suggested in this thread.

many of the Prime models (the first wave) are still some of the best in the game and form the core of many armies that people field. It is also entirely possible to build and play competitive lists with just Prime models.

People like shiny and new, but that isn't power creep as much as pewter/plastic addiction...

CT GAMER wrote:People like shiny and new, but that isn't power creep as much as pewter/plastic addiction...

The difference between need and want, as it were.