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.

 Steve steveson wrote:


This. No system is balanced. You can argue over weather one system is more balanced than another, but no game is perfect. Even chess, with limited amount of movement, extreme abstraction, equal forces and only 6 different "units", about as simple as a "wargame" can get, is unbalanced. There is a big first turn advantage.

I tell you now that if 40K had a 2-6% advantage (the estimated difference of white vs black) of one side over another, not one person would complain.

kaotkbliss wrote:
What edition were those older books because the ones I played weren't like that. (at least not that I remember)

Ehh... 4th edition or so I guess? Threw away all the old books I have. But as I recall the older books had steeper prices on heavy weapons in Devastator Squads compared to Tactical Squads, for example. And cheaper guns/power weapons on sarges compared to heroes.

kaotkbliss wrote:

What is the purpose of purposely breaking a system other than to complain about the system? We played the game as the rules stated, built our lists on what models we liked and what we had. We would often pick up new models and try them out in a game to see how they worked. Often times because there were a large number of us, we would have 1 vs 2, 2 vs 2, 3 vs 1, 3 vs 3 ect battles and a lot of 1 vs 1.
.

My arse.

You didn't have to 'purposely' break a system, you just had to turn up. Or don't you remember third ed 'on a 1 I go faster' blood angels, third ed craft world elder (Saim hann, ulthwe, alaitoc) or second ed space wolves or elder, or any of the other op codices, even if you were running normal builds? Picking up new models and pjaying them in games wouldn't save you from this, regardless of who played who.

Rose tinted glasses; in other words...

kaotkbliss wrote:


The problem is now, if we were to play the same way as we did them (friendly games, by the rules) it just wouldn't work. I mean I've been wanting to start a WHFB TK army, yet everywhere I turn I hear that unless you play huge games with them, they don't work. Or how completely useless other 40k armies are like tyranids. So making any kind of list, whether you're trying to push the rules to breaking point or not, it's a fething mess.
.

No not really, it's more chaotic now, but don't think for a second that it's any less of a mess...

kaotkbliss wrote:

I'm not saying oldhammer was perfect, but the idea of the point system they worked out for building armies was.

Plenty things were over or under coated even back then. The game was always prey to over and underpowered 'builds' that maxims on points efficiencies like rhino rush etc...

 DarkLink wrote:
Because their system didn't work.

How much should a power fist be worth? GW decided decades ago that it should be 25pts. Thing is, it's 25pts regardless of whether it's on a Chapter Master or a guardsman. 1 WS3 S6 attack is not worth even remotely close to 25pts. 4 WS6 S8 attacks are. Yet they're priced the same.

The same principle applies to virtually everything in the game. It's impossible to price anything linearly, because different things are worth different amounts to different units. Centurions would get a ton of value out of BS5, but Khorne Berzerkers couldn't care less about BS5.

You can't just say "well, just figure out how many points X is worth, and apply that to everything". It simply doesn't work like that.

I remember this system from the annals of history, it was either 1st edition or Rogue Trader era I think. The cost of armour, weapons and equipment was given a % modifier based on how many points your statline came to, so yes a Power Fist would cost more for your Chapter Master than it would for a Guardsman equivalent.

3rd and 4th ed was after my time. I tried 3rd a couple times but thought that they had dumbed down the game too much for my liking so I hadn't played it all that much.

I've been trying to get back in but my GF hasn't let me yet and I'm a couple editions behind with my rulebook.

But I've read quite a lot on these and other forums about what's going on in recent game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:


My arse.

You didn't have to 'purposely' break a system, you just had to turn up. Or don't you remember third ed 'on a 1 I go faster' blood angels, third ed craft world elder (Saim hann, ulthwe, alaitoc) or second ed space wolves or elder, or any of the other op codices, even if you were running normal builds? Picking up new models and pjaying them in games wouldn't save you from this, regardless of who played who.

Rose tinted glasses; in other words...

Maybe I do have glasses on, but we had 2 players that played elder, 1 player that played Orks, 1 player that played chaos, an Ultra marine/tyranid player, I had space wolves another who had blood angels.
We played 2nd edition as this was long before 3rd came out no one ever complained about anything being op and we all had our fair share of wins/loses

My entire SW collection at that time consisted of 1 razorback, ragnar, bjorn, the 5 SW termie box set, the longfang box set, 3 bikes, 1 landspeeder, 2 - 10 man tac squads, 5 scouts, 10 blood claws an iron priest and a rune priest in termie armor. *edit* I forgot about the 10 jump packs I had as well

kaotkbliss wrote:

Maybe I do have glasses on, but we had 2 players that played elder, 1 player that played Orks, 1 player that played chaos, an Ultra marine/tyranid player, I had space wolves another who had blood angels.
We played 2nd edition as this was long before 3rd came out no one ever complained about anything being op and we all had our fair share of wins/loses

My entire SW collection at that time consisted of 1 razorback, ragnar, bjorn, the 5 SW termie box set, the longfang box set, 3 bikes, 1 landspeeder, 2 - 10 man tac squads, 5 scouts, 10 blood claws an iron priest and a rune priest in termie armor. *edit* I forgot about the 10 jump packs I had as well

Seven players with a limited set of armies (2x eldar, 3x marine favour, orks and nids) with which to draw conclusions, and in your case, a limited collection. None of you 'pushed' the game, or seemingly took the stuff that would have 'pushed' the game, and shown the flaws - bear in mind, there were plenty. The web is littered with anecdotes of how 2nd ed so easily broke down when handled tge wrong way. This is all then Compounded by you and most of your group having a generally similar attitude towards the game (you mention one tfg amongst you. Bear in mind this is a good thing ). I'm guessing that you were Probsbly also playing at the start of your wargaming careers which is a point where none of us really know anything too, or will know problems when we see them. And the rose tinted glasses on top of it all.

To be blunt, it means nothing. Especially to say that somehow gw had a system where points costs somehow meant something and things worked better 'back in the day'.

Plenty folks started in third, fourth or even fifth and lament how things were better and more balanced when they started. You are no different to anyone else.

Simply put, there was always this level of chaos and slipshod writing coupled to an anarchic system, which was held together with a 'but play nice' band-aid. It's only now with the benefit of years of playing that you see it for what it is. Pull out your second ed books, replay your second ed games, and I guarantee you that it will not be as you remember it.

If you want to make 40k work, you can. It takes a lot of effort and a cohesive, collaborative and co-operative mentality to generate the kind of games you want. This is not a bad thing. You did it in second ed. You can do it in seventh. Things really aren't that different.

I'm going to echo some of the sentiments of people who posted earlier: anyone who thought that "points cost used to be meaningful and balanced and now it's broken" was either playing a different game or happily remembers a nostalgic time that didn't exist.

In no point of the history of 40k has a point-cost system ever really worked in "pure balance" terms, because some upgrades are just better on some units than on other units. How much should is a grav cannon worth? Whatever it is -- unless it's way too cheap -- it's more valuable on a Centurion than a Devastator, because the Centurion has Relentless and is more durable.

Now, "back in the day" (ie RT & 2e) GW *did* have a formula where each statline attribute was worth x points, and each type of special rule was worth y points. I believe this was abandoned because it really didn't make sense. Paying for WS4 on a unit that isn't intended for cc sucks.

I will echo Deadnight in that 40k today isn't any harder (or easier) than 40k in 2e to have fun in There's one exception: the Internet has made it much easier for people to find lists of effective armies, which is something not readily available in 2e -- that is, we all had crappy, suboptimal units and a lot of us played with junk because we happened to buy the models. It *was* less competitive then, I think.

And/But/Finally: I have said this before, but as I play more "post-formation 40k", I'm enjoying 40k games and strategy more and more. There's just less spam, and more unusual situations that crop up as my friends and I try formations, some of which look good but are terrible, others which give us great synergies. It's like, every Formation is an expansion of sorts

How does GW sell miniatures? By releasing a new codex with broken over powered models that break the rules! Those who want to win will buy those models from that army. They also nerf or overcost the previous mvp to make the rookie look golden.

The game rules are ment to be written poorly to be interpreted by dice roll off. The point system is ment to be unbalanced to allow the new dex to be op and imba.

I actually start to be sick and tired of all the post complaining about how the game or faction can be unbalance.

I play Sisters of Battle which is describe by all as a very weak and predictable army, and I never loose (even facing Necron or Eldar). Why? Cos at the end of the day it is a strategy game. Yes luck is 1 factor, however, targeting priority, movement and objectives are more important than stats.

What most people on Dakka seems to not understand is that all board games are the result of hundreds of hours of work from Mathematicians. I saw on this topic a guy saying: "if a Power Gauntlet cost 25 PTS it is because GW decided to make it 25 PTS since the 2nd edition"…. wrong. If it cost 25 PTS it is because a mathematician (or GW staff using a calculation created by a mathematician) used a formula considering all the items externalities and come up with 25 PTS.

Everytime a game make 2 factions/parties with different stats/advantage/setup face each others, statistics are use to make sure, somehow, every party have an equal chance of winning.

Do a basic calculation and try to make your own formula and compare what you would call an "unfair" or "too cheap" with a common unit and will see the result.

If you want lets do it together. Let say that each characteristic value equivalent to 1 at the exemption of Wound which cost 4, Save/RP/ ++ saves (2 for each point bellow 7) and Toughness which worth 2 (both being the most important profile values).

A space Marine:
WS: 4 - 4
BS: 4 - 4
STR: 4 - 4
TH: 4 - 8
W: 1 - 4
A: 1 - 1
I : 4 - 4
LD: 10 - 10
Sav: 3+ - 8
Total: 47 PTS

Necron Warrior:
WS: 4 - 4
BS: 4 - 4
Str: 4 - 4
Th: 4 - 8
W: 1 - 4
A: 1 - 1
I: 2 - 2
LD: 10 - 10
Sv: 4+ / RP 5+ - 6 / 4
Total: 47 PTS

SM: 47 PTS vs NW: 47 PTS.
In codex value NW cost 13 PTS and SM cost 14pts and benefits from ETSKNF.

Seems balance to me.

Best example is a good friend of mine I play frequently (IG) and never loose against. As many IG player is strategy is to regroup his whole army behind the AL and shoot without moving.

He always say that Sister is the worst matchup ever for IG cos if he field an Armorer Army I have plenty of melta as an answer or if he field an troops/footy army I have plenty of flamer.
The answer is easier, 40K (like many other games) is a strategy game and as all strategy games, the key to victory is Ground/Field Management.

I like Xenophon00 ... Someone who actually agrees that 40k involves strategy!!!

There is so much wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

First of all, games are not designed by mathematicians. People who can count to 10 and do some basic multiplication and division, certainly, but not people with degrees in mathematics. Understanding numbers is only a part of the battle in game design. There's much more to game design and balance than straight up math.

Second of all, if you for one second believe GW does any real play testing, you're sadly mistaken. A cursory glance at any of the latest releases show that they're either trying to push model sales with formation that require a 'one of everything' purchase, or have failed so badly in the past you wonder what they were trying to do in the first place. Seriously, even the quickest glance through any codex will rapidly reveal that half of a normal codex consists of totally sub-par, underwhelming and underpowered units, while a handful are incredibly powerful.

If they did even a little bit of genuinely constructive play testing, they would have noticed that. The only conclusion we can draw is that they either don't play test, or they do so in such a way that they might as well not have.

Thirdly, your space marine vs. necron comparison is a bad joke. Why is each stat worth what you say its worth? Why not more or less? What about all the special rules? Gun stats? Other attached characters possible? Army wide special rules? Focus of the army? Squad size? Slot selection?

It also completely fails to consider that saves become increasingly more valuable as other defenses rise. A 2+ armour save is worth significantly more on a T7 monster than a T3 Guardsmen. In other words, useless.

Basically, your comparison fails on every level I can imagine.

Finally, the good old anecdote to reinforce the point. Remember that the plural of anecdote is not data, which applies doubly to a single anecdote. Plus, we have no clue what the armies look like on yours or your IG friend's side.

In other words, your entire post is either demonstrably false, or fails to make any relevant points.

If you want to make a comparison between units, compare the entire unit, then do so in the context of each codex, then do so in the context of dozens of possible army configurations using that unit.

 Blacksails wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I hardly know where to begin.

First of all, games are not designed by mathematicians. People who can count to 10 and do some basic multiplication and division, certainly, but not people with degrees in mathematics. Understanding numbers is only a part of the battle in game design. There's much more to game design and balance than straight up math.

Second of all, if you for one second believe GW does any real play testing, you're sadly mistaken. A cursory glance at any of the latest releases show that they're either trying to push model sales with formation that require a 'one of everything' purchase, or have failed so badly in the past you wonder what they were trying to do in the first place. Seriously, even the quickest glance through any codex will rapidly reveal that half of a normal codex consists of totally sub-par, underwhelming and underpowered units, while a handful are incredibly powerful.

If they did even a little bit of genuinely constructive play testing, they would have noticed that. The only conclusion we can draw is that they either don't play test, or they do so in such a way that they might as well not have.

Thirdly, your space marine vs. necron comparison is a bad joke. Why is each stat worth what you say its worth? Why not more or less? What about all the special rules? Gun stats? Other attached characters possible? Army wide special rules? Focus of the army? Squad size? Slot selection?

It also completely fails to consider that saves become increasingly more valuable as other defenses rise. A 2+ armour save is worth significantly more on a T7 monster than a T3 Guardsmen. In other words, useless.

Basically, your comparison fails on every level I can imagine.

Finally, the good old anecdote to reinforce the point. Remember that the plural of anecdote is not data, which applies doubly to a single anecdote. Plus, we have no clue what the armies look like on yours or your IG friend's side.

In other words, your entire post is either demonstrably false, or fails to make any relevant points.

If you want to make a comparison between units, compare the entire unit, then do so in the context of each codex, then do so in the context of dozens of possible army configurations using that unit.

Think what ever you want, however I can guaranty you that GW has a team of 4 mathematician working on the games system. Even mouth Trap, a game for 4+ years old had to use mathematician.

My point is, instead of complaining saying that an army is way unbalance and/or cheated, revise your list and try to see what need to be done.

Yes GW is a profitable company and need to make money to sustain. Yes GW expect us to buy more and more. But this game has been on for nearly 30 years. They certainly don't want to kill the Golden Eggs Chicken by making every body sick of a potential "unfair" game.

Regarding my calculation, it was an example and invite you to suggest another calculation method and will be glad to see if you can do better.

Conclusion: To my very opinion, nothing wrong with this game. If you can not win against specific players/armies, do not question him or his army, question your strategy and/or list.

Your comment just support what I say. You did not provide any constructive example and/or rational theory to deny what I said. You just say "you are wrong because I do not agree".
Just like your gaming experience, show me why am I wrong instead of b*tching

Really? You can guarantee that? What are their names?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Really? You can guarantee that? What are their names?

Quit the whining and L2P, you hater.

 Xenophon00 wrote:
You did not provide any constructive example and/or rational theory to deny what I said. You just say "you are wrong because I do not agree".

No he didn't. He went into excruciating detail to refute every point you had. You on the other hand are putting forth your assumptions as proof.
No, you're the one guilty of not providing anything of value.

Oh geez, are these secret mathematicians going to turn out like the last occasion of "I have seen the revenue report early and it's super positive"?

 Xenophon00 wrote:


Think what ever you want, however I can guaranty you that GW has a team of 4 mathematician working on the games system.

Names? Source? Proof?

Even mouth Trap, a game for 4+ years old had to use mathematician.

And? So? Therefore?

You don't require a mathematician to create a game. In fact, I don't see what they would contribute to the process. All the math in game design is simple stuff learned in primary and high school.

My point is, instead of complaining saying that an army is way unbalance and/or cheated, revise your list and try to see what need to be done.

And my list can only get so good with an outdated book. No matter how strong I build my Guard list, I will struggle against the likes of a tooled Eldar or Marine list.

Yes GW is a profitable company and need to make money to sustain. Yes GW expect us to buy more and more. But this game has been on for nearly 30 years. They certainly don't want to kill the Golden Eggs Chicken by making every body sick of a potential "unfair" game.

They're certainly dong a gakky job at not killing the Golden Eggs. The game is unfair, its poorly written, and has plenty of spots that barely function.

GW can still make money without charging the industry's highest in models and rules.

Regarding my calculation, it was an example and invite you to suggest another calculation method and will be glad to see if you can do better.

Its a really, really poor example that doesn't illustrate anything. People in the proposed rules have come up with rough systems that do a decent job at approximating current units.

Conclusion: To my very opinion, nothing wrong with this game. If you can not win against specific players/armies, do not question him or his army, question your strategy and/or list.

Well, mine and others opinion (many in fact) feel there is a lot wrong with the game. GW's financials suggest its a growing number and a very significant portion of the existing player base.

40k has a very strong emphasis on army construction. You could be the best player in the world facing off against average player me, but if I hand you an army of rough riders and Ogryn and other sub-optimal Guard units (properly equipped for anti-tank and infantry) vs. a tooled Eldar Scatter Bike, WK, and Serpent list, you will lose. The difference between tourney lists and casual play can be staggering. Other games don't have nearly the same gap (it exists, but player skill/decisions have far more impact).

Your comment just support what I say. You did not provide any constructive example and/or rational theory to deny what I said. You just say "you are wrong because I do not agree".
Just like your gaming experience, show me why am I wrong instead of b*tching

I provided plenty of rational theory. You are the one who put forward a flawed comparison, claimed you need mathematicians to create games, and also claimed GW has mathematicians and tests their game thoroughly. All of those things are wrong unless you can cite the mathematicians at GW, explain what a mathematician provides above and beyond what a normal person can do. I'm not saying you're wrong because I disagree; I'm saying you're wrong because nothing you've said is right or relevant.

*Edit* I just want to point the irony that Xenophon is telling me quit my bitchin', yet opened up with this gem...

I actually start to be sick and tired of all the post complaining about how the game or faction can be unbalance.

Maybe you need to get off the internet if its bothering you that much. Or maybe you should quit your bitchin'

I think GW at first used no mathematicians during development of the game in the rogue trade era. Once GW became big they probably hired 1 or 2 mathematicians. They did their best adhering to the initial arbitrary points costing system. Then at some point when the cost to hire the mathematicians was too costly they fired him or them and continue to use arbitrarily cost new units and upgrades.

I admit, I may have seen a bunch of complaining had I actually had internet back in 2nd ed. But the thing is, any one of our group members could sit down and make a list with whatever army they chose and still have (or at least felt like they had) just as good of a chance at winning a game than anyone else in the group.

They all had 2-3 times more models per army than I had (I was the youngest of the group) But I still felt like I had just as good a chance to beat anyone of them in a battle.

With all these formations and special rules floating all over the place on top of changing basic marine stats and costs from codex to codex I feel like what's the point because unless I fork out hundreds of dollars for these gargantuan war machines and fliers, I'll never stand a chance. And these formation that give all these extras to your army at no additional point cost (free tanks for everyone as an example)

Sure some of the troops /tanks you get at no extra cost aren't hard to counter, but that's a turn wasted at shooting at them that could have been used shooting at something else.

When player A's scouts are exactly the same as player B's scouts but cost 10 points less, then something is fundamentally wrong.

When formations allow a person to bring double what they normally would be able to, or rules allow for massive war machines in a low point game then it just really makes 2nd ed seem like a much better balanced game.

 Filch wrote:
How does GW sell miniatures? By releasing a new codex with broken over powered models that break the rules! Those who want to win will buy those models from that army. They also nerf or overcost the previous mvp to make the rookie look golden.

The game rules are ment to be written poorly to be interpreted by dice roll off. The point system is ment to be unbalanced to allow the new dex to be op and imba.

How do you explain it when a new codex sucks, then?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Filch wrote:
How does GW sell miniatures? By releasing a new codex with broken over powered models that break the rules! Those who want to win will buy those models from that army. They also nerf or overcost the previous mvp to make the rookie look golden.

The game rules are ment to be written poorly to be interpreted by dice roll off. The point system is ment to be unbalanced to allow the new dex to be op and imba.

How do you explain it when a new codex sucks, then?

Time to start another army project!

GW does not over power units to sell units.

See the pyrovore, for a bad unit, and the wave serpent for a unit that many already owned in multiples.

Nor do they have any mathematical formulas determining their points costs.

Just look at the Chaos Superheavy (Khorne Skull whatever) 888 points. If you think that point cost was anything other than a nod to the number of khorne you are dreaming.


Do they have Mathematicians involved in their game design? No idea...if they do those guys are robbing them blind and doing nothing much.

Blacksails pretty much said most of it. but I'll look at the formula proposed above.

If you want lets do it together. Let say that each characteristic value equivalent to 1 at the exemption of Wound which cost 4, Save/RP/ ++ saves (2 for each point bellow 7) and Toughness which worth 2 (both being the most important profile values).

A space Marine:
WS: 4 - 4
BS: 4 - 4
STR: 4 - 4
TH: 4 - 8
W: 1 - 4
A: 1 - 1
I : 4 - 4
LD: 10 - 10
Sav: 3+ - 8
Total: 47 PTS

Necron Warrior:
WS: 4 - 4
BS: 4 - 4
Str: 4 - 4
Th: 4 - 8
W: 1 - 4
A: 1 - 1
I: 2 - 2
LD: 10 - 10
Sv: 4+ / RP 5+ - 6 / 4
Total: 47 PTS

SM: 47 PTS vs NW: 47 PTS.
In codex value NW cost 13 PTS and SM cost 14pts and benefits from ETSKNF.

So first of stats don't provide a linear improvement statistically to a model, furthermore they don't have the same value to all models (a devestator sargent with 2 attacks does not get as much value from those attacks as say an assault marine might.)

A unit like a Bloodletter would be valued for its high BS even though it has no gun at all. Similarly it is valued for its saves despite the fact it only ever uses 1 (the other is largely useless 6+/5++, puts it as equal to a 4+ save), invunerable saves are valued the same as armor saves which is also poor.

You put no value on special rules, weapons, interaction with other units, etc.

Sorry the game is not balanced, at all.

I believe that Warhammer 40K still has a large strategy element to it. A poorly played army will consistently lose to a well played army. But as someone who has studied mathematics and probability, I would like to point out that the game is fairly skewed.

The points cost calculations really need to be an individual calculation. As was mentioned earlier, an upgrade will mean more to one unit than it does to another. Attempting to set a golden "X stat costs Y" across the board means that some models, such as heavy weapon squads, will get a relatively cheap cost for a high BS skill while assault squads will take I and WS stats for a cheaper cost.

To illustrate this using Xenophon00's point calculator:
WS: 1-1
BS: 5-5
S: 1-1
T: 6-12
W: 2-8
A: 1-1
I: 1-1
LD: 10-10
AS: 2-10
Total: 49

Using the same ratio as the point conversion as the Necron warrior, this gives us a 13.5 (we can even round up to 14 if it make you feel better) point model that can hit on a 2+, has 2 wounds at toughness 6 (meaning most hand weapons wound on a 6+) and with a 2+ save. Gives this model the gun of your choice and watch it kill anything it shoots at.

Yes, this is an extreme example. Yes, it probably would not go to this extreme (we hope), but this still demonstrates the problems with proposing that we fall into a fixed system.

 Blacksails wrote:
First of all, games are not designed by mathematicians. People who can count to 10 and do some basic multiplication and division, certainly, but not people with degrees in mathematics. Understanding numbers is only a part of the battle in game design. There's much more to game design and balance than straight up math.

The thing is, even if you designed the points systems purely with math you could probably get 80% of the way to being balanced, an extra 10% would require play testing to figure out some things that are near impossible to figure out with maths and then the last 10% would probably be unobtainable due to the subjective nature of things (different players with different styles are always going to place slightly different values on things).

(note: percentages pulled out of thin air and are intended as a qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative analysis ).

GW's balance is so hideous that even some basic maths could improve them (simple stuff like basing points value on potential damage vs typical survivability would get you a lot closer than GW currently is).

kaotkbliss wrote:
I admit, I may have seen a bunch of complaining had I actually had internet back in 2nd ed. But the thing is, any one of our group members could sit down and make a list with whatever army they chose and still have (or at least felt like they had) just as good of a chance at winning a game than anyone else in the group.

They all had 2-3 times more models per army than I had (I was the youngest of the group) But I still felt like I had just as good a chance to beat anyone of them in a battle.

With all these formations and special rules floating all over the place on top of changing basic marine stats and costs from codex to codex I feel like what's the point because unless I fork out hundreds of dollars for these gargantuan war machines and fliers, I'll never stand a chance. And these formation that give all these extras to your army at no additional point cost (free tanks for everyone as an example)

Sure some of the troops /tanks you get at no extra cost aren't hard to counter, but that's a turn wasted at shooting at them that could have been used shooting at something else.

When player A's scouts are exactly the same as player B's scouts but cost 10 points less, then something is fundamentally wrong.

When formations allow a person to bring double what they normally would be able to, or rules allow for massive war machines in a low point game then it just really makes 2nd ed seem like a much better balanced game.

Are we talking about the same game? Seriously, go get your second ed books and read them again. It is not even remotely as "balanced" as you seem to remember it being, and your notion of balance seems pretty skewed at that.

This is the every day, cookie-cutter "7th edition ruined the game" thread, not so cunningly masked with a facade of "wasn't 2nd ed great guys?"
All the usual check boxes are ticked - flyers, superheavies, formations, varying points costs, too many special rules... We've heard all of this before.

Listen; You can absolutely still take an army of "whatever you chose," and not only have fun with it but feel like you're having a relatively even match. How you ask? Playing with your friends, in a casual way, without pushing the rules to their limits, forging dem narratives, just generally enjoying the game the way you like. That's why it was so fun "back in the day" - because you were young, and you didn't CARE about all of the nuances and "balance" of the rules. Yes, you can still play this way - yes, even with SUPARHEAVEES and FLEERS and FORMASHUNS.

Nobody is saying that 40k is better balanced now than it was. But I absolutely refute the idea that it USED to be better. Or that the game is unplayably terrible now. If you really, truly, think that this is the case... make your own rules. Or play with 2nd edition rules. Or just don't play.

I have no problems with fliers or super heavies (except the real world $ cost). Formations just seem like a slow move over to a new money-grab format where lists will only be made of combining different formations (which must be purchased from GW) rather than picking units. And I do admit I've not gotten the grasp of formations and detachments yet.

Yes, I believe 2nd ed was the best edition which is my opinion (although it would have been cool to have the fliers and SH) as I did not experience any of this out of whack unbalance you say is in it. But I never said 7th wasn't fun or unplayable, (I honestly can't make that call until I've given it a fair go) just that there's a lot of things that make it iffy for me. I really want to give it an open-minded fair shot and I probably would have been able to had I not read everything I've seen on these (and other) forums

Which have admittedly skewed my perspective of 7th.

Probably I'll play without formations and detachments (using straight list building, I think called Unbound now?)
Maybe some restrictions on SH and fliers in lower point games but fine in higher point ones.

The thing was simply that they used to have a system in place for calculating costs for units based on stats that did have a decent balance to it (even though other aspects/rules of the game broke that balance) But it was something they could have built on and adjusted. That is all I was trying to say.

kaotkbliss wrote:
The thing was simply that they used to have a system in place for calculating costs for units based on stats that did have a decent balance to it (even though other aspects/rules of the game broke that balance) But it was something they could have built on and adjusted. That is all I was trying to say.

Except you seem to be talking about 2nd edition, which means you either are completely misremembering and just can't be bothered to actually read the stats and options for those 'balanced' models you're remembering, or never really read or understood the game in the first place, and it just happened that the way you and a very limited group of people played the game felt 'balanced.'

I'm typically a pro-GW kind of dude, but even I can't get behind the idea that a team of mathematicians were ever involved in the design of 40K. Its very clear that they tend to value certain things over others, price them accordingly. If any true methodology is used, it would be to A) use historical data, and B) then take a wild swing when determining points costs.

In no universe can math explain the points cost of the current Wraithknight. Nor can it explain the cost of Necron Wraiths, and plenty of other units. The free bonuses with the various detachments/formations are not handled in any mathematical way.

Does GW has some kind of guideline when determining points costs? Sure, its called the previous edition of that army's codex. For some weapon classes (ie, plasmagun, meltagun, etc), they have a base points cost they tend to use from edition to edition, without really considering how that edition's rules impact the weapon. Its why we still have 25 point power fists, 15 point power weapons, and 15 point plasma pistols almost across the board. However, when new weapons and wargear are implemented, the points cost is wildly inconsistent, hence Strength D being cheap as chips for Eldar, and the oddly uneven cost of Grav weapons across units and armies (20 point gravcannon/amp for relentless Centurians, 35 points for basic non-relentless marines WTF).

Its almost like GW should be required to put a disclaimer on every codex: "No mathematicians were bothered in the making of this codex."

Spetulhu wrote:

kaotkbliss wrote:
Butt the guardsman w/PF was a lot cheaper than a CM w/PF because the lower stats. so for every 1 CM, you would have 2 guardsmen. So yes, it did work but people who complained it didn't felt their army should be OP and crush everyone.

True, but the two guardsmen also die a lot easier than a marine hero

I do remember some older books where things like power weapons were cheaper on 1W models than heroes. Makes sense as they die easier and have weaker stats to put the weapon to use. And heavy weapons were more expensive in squads that could take several, since they were more effective when concentrating on one task compared to a TacSquad where that one Lascannon shot at a Landraider meant the other nine guys were useless,

AND nobody used Devastators because of that.

kaotkbliss wrote:
I admit, I may have seen a bunch of complaining had I actually had internet back in 2nd ed. But the thing is, any one of our group members could sit down and make a list with whatever army they chose and still have (or at least felt like they had) just as good of a chance at winning a game than anyone else in the group.

They all had 2-3 times more models per army than I had (I was the youngest of the group) But I still felt like I had just as good a chance to beat anyone of them in a battle.
.

Ever think they were just going easy on the kid? You know, tailoring from their larger collections so you could keep up?

Get out your second ed books. Play some second ed games. See it for what it is rather than what youd like to imagine it is. It's a flawed mess of a game. Sure, it doesn't have fliers and what not. But it did have vortex grenades... That's the thing with nostalgia. When nostalgia meets cold hard reality, it shatters into dust.