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.

Compared to other units in a similar battlefield role and FOC slot.

Comparing outside of battlegroups (a codex and its BB allies) doesn't seem super productive to me beyond just complaining. (Compare Archons to other HQ leaders and weep.)

I tend to compare them to their other faction counterparts in the same/similar roles.


For example. A Leman Russ to say... A Predator. The "main line tank"

Or a Whirlwind to a basilisk or Manticore (vehicle mounted artillery).

Hydras vs a Hunter or Stalker tank in the AA Tank/vehicle role.


And so on.

Compared to other units in the same FOC slot (in the same or different codices) that can fill the same role.

 Nevelon wrote:
I think an option is missing from the poll: Things that can do the same job in the same codex.

From a SM perspective, it’s easy to compare scouts to tacs, WWs to TFCs, pred to devs, etc. Some have a reasonable balance list of pros/cons, but others (at least historically) did not. One example that springs to mind is the Whirlwind before it had its price dropped. IIRC it was 85 points, while the TFC was 100. And the cannon brought so much more to the table. The WW was a bad unit. Sure, it could drop a pie plate of fun anywhere on the table, but the TFC did that, with more fire modes, while tougher, and had the techmarine to fortify a ruin and other tricks. For 15 more points.

This seems to be a common answer in the thread. "X unit is bad in comparison to this other unit, y, which fills a similar role (whether it be in the same codex or not)."

But how does this justify the claim that x is a bad unit? All that you're allowed to derive from this is that y is better than x.

"At 100 points, the thunderfire cannon is better than an 85 points whirlwind."

What entitles you to derive from this that an 85 point whirlwind is bad? You could just as easily argue that the thunderfire canon is OP at 100 points.

In fact, not only can you argue this, but this is a common opinion.

So basically, answers like this are just pushing back the question.

"Whirlwinds are bad compared to thunderfire cannons if whirlwinds cost 85 points."

Ok. But what are you comparing thunderfire cannons to? Why aren't 85 point whirlwinds fine, and 100 points thunderfire cannons OP?

Because Thunder fire Cannons aren't destroying much for 100 points and are only somewhat durable whereas a Whirlwind at 85 kills way less and has way less durability, which would therefore make it garbage.

It isn't some puzzle to figure out.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because Thunder fire Cannons aren't destroying much

1. How do you define "much?"

If a thunderfire cannon kills 5 naked sternguard, it's more than made up its points.

If it kills 8 naked tacticals, it's more than made up its points.

If it kills 20 naked guardsmen, it's made up its points.

2. They aren't destroying much in what contexts?

If your opponent is running foot-slogging infantry, thunderfire cannons and whirlwinds will both lay waste.

for 100 points and are only somewhat durable

Only somewhat durable?

Again, what meta are you assuming?

A thunderfire cannon fires shots at 60 inch range and has the barrage special rule. And it's not an extraordinarily large model, is it? And even if you do fire on the thunderfire cannon at range, it's T7, 2 wounds with a 3+ armor save. The techmarine has a 2+ armor save.

Are thunderfire cannons fragile when they're facing up against tactical marines? Guardsmen? Chaos cultists?

Again, my point about balance being relative.

I thought most people have established that power per unit is established based on whatever meta you're surrounded by; it just happens that most metas share something in common based on units and codexes that fair the best most of the time, and how they fair going against MEQ's, the most popular armies in probably 99% of 40k gaming communities, competitive meta or not. I think most people assume that the meta we compare by is whatever is most agreed on globally, which is currently SM, Eldar and Tau at the top of the spectrum.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I thought most people have established that power per unit is established based on whatever meta you're surrounded by; it just happens that most metas share something in common based on units and codexes that fair the best most of the time, and how they fair going against MEQ's, the most popular armies in probably 99% of 40k gaming communities, competitive meta or not. I think most people assume that the meta we compare by is whatever is most agreed on globally, which is currently SM, Eldar and Tau at the top of the spectrum.

And I'm assuming you mean SM cheese, Eldar cheese and Tau cheese.

So if that's what you mean, what people are actually saying is:

"Leeman russes are underpowered compared to wave serpents, scatter bikes, wraithknights, wraithguard, etc."

What people are actually saying is:

"Manticores are balanced relative to thunderfire cannons."

But I have two points to make about this:

1. This only proves that the 40k community basically suffers from split personality. They will simultaneously say that wraithknights are OP, but at the same time complain that leeman russ battle tanks are underpowered. Why? Because they're not as good as wraithknights (or whatever other OP bull gak).

It's utterly bizarre.

It's just like the fact that people will complain about OP cheese and say that it should either be nerfed, removed from the game, or whatever, but when you go over to the list building section of dakka..."You're not running the OP cheese? WHY NOT?!?!?!?!"

2. Again, why should we make our assessments against OP bull gak? Why shouldn't I think that leeman russes are well balanced (I don't; I think that the ability to spam leeman russes is imbalanced, for one thing), but wraithknights (or whatever comparable model) is OP and needs to be nerfed?

It's almost like the community with "split personality" is actually a very large amount of people who all have different opinions.

 Traditio wrote:
[

1. This only proves that the 40k community basically suffers from split personality. They will simultaneously say that wraithknights are OP, but at the same time complain that leeman russ battle tanks are underpowered. Why? Because they're not as good as wraithknights (or whatever other OP bull gak).

The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be very overpowered, while something else can be very underpowered. Its not a black and white issue.

It's utterly bizarre.

No, it really isn't. Your poor understanding of game design and balance is utterly bizarre.

Not as bizarre as the complete lack of learning from all the discussions.

It's like the ghost of Evil INC has risen.

Blacksail wrote:The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be very overpowered, while something else can be very underpowered. Its not a black and white issue.

Yes, they are:

Overpowered means "too good."
Underpowered means "not good enough."

If you're complaining that x is underpowered because it's not as good as y, because y is overpowered, then what you are saying is:

"x isn't good enough. Why? Because it's not as good as the thing that's better than it should be."

Which is, of course, just silly.

No, it really isn't. Your poor understanding of game design and balance is utterly bizarre.

Rule 1.

Apparently your understanding of rule 1 isn't all that either.

pm713 wrote:
It's almost like the community with "split personality" is actually a very large amount of people who all have different opinions.

I know a guy who runs white scars grav biker spam, uses both the death from the skies supplement and the relics, etc. from the angels of death supplement. He uses eye of the hunter in the squad with a chapter master and grav command squad on bikes (don't worry; he runs Khan on a bike too!).

He thinks that all formations are OP.

I think you're overshooting the point slightly Traditio; a Wraithknight is almost double the value of a standard Leman Russ Battle Tank, so comparison between them is silly by anyone's standards. It's more along the lines of people looking at top tier armies and their units, looking at theirs and saying "these two have similar values/battlefield roles, yet one is objectively better than the other. Why?".

People compare to the competitive armies because that is usually what most people are playing, at least in a competitive meta. If you aren't part of a competitive meta, chances are not a single word of this matters to you.

I've always considered Leman Russ squads to be thematic to what IG are all about, but in terms of a game it can skewer people who don't have tailored lists to deal with them all at once. Unbound doesn't help this much either.

40K is just a mess in terms of it's gameplay, balance, meta, organisation and things that make it a fun game for all parties. Can't we all agree on this after years of discussion and put it to bed? No discussion about balance, unit hot or not, or why x current meta exists has ever produced anything we can work on other than "you have 3 options; play in a different environment, play with your mates and house rules, or don't play at all"

G.A

 Traditio wrote:


Yes, they are:

Overpowered means "too good."
Underpowered means "not good enough."

If you're complaining that x underpowered because it's not as good as y, because y is overpowered, then what you are saying is:

"x isn't good enough. Why? Because it's not as good as the thing that's better than it should be."

Which is, of course, just silly.

If everything is overpowered, nothing is. And vice-versa. Or a middle ground somewhere in between. Plus, you're also doing the classic move of taking every opinion of every poster and merging them into one contradictory statement to make a point against something no one has seriously said. Its almost as if a community is a large gathering of individuals and not a literal hive mind.

Stop looking for the simple answer to a complicated question.

Rule 1.

Pointing out your poor understanding of a concept based on numerous interactions while also having these things explained to you in detail and at great length by dozens of users is not a personal insult. The same way telling you you're wrong is not a personal insult. You don't seem to learn from any of these discussions and I can bring up dozens of examples of your poor understanding of many of these concepts and ideas and how to apply them.

And honestly, I don't know what you're expecting to get out of this. Its a complicated question with no right or wrong answer that can't be boiled down to a one line response. It literally requires going into a detailed breakdown of how one would balance a game from the ground up, which of course leads to issues when discussing an existing game with serious balance issues.

*Edit* I also neglected to mention the continued tradition of terrible polls. Seriously, how hard is it to have a sensible poll, seeing as you're such a fan of trotting out poll numbers (or denying them, as you see fit).

*Further edit* My user name has an 's' on the end. I kindly ask it be included when quoting me.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
It's almost like the community with "split personality" is actually a very large amount of people who all have different opinions.

I know a guy who runs white scars grav biker spam, uses both the death from the skies supplement and the relics, etc. from the angels of death supplement. He uses eye of the hunter in the squad with a chapter master and grav command squad on bikes (don't worry; he runs Khan on a bike too!).

He thinks that all formations are OP.

Your point?

pm713 wrote:Your point?

I don't have to collate the views of several different people to get the kinds of "split personality" that I'm talking about.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Your point?

I don't have to collate the views of several different people to get the kinds of "split personality" that I'm talking about.

Ooooh, one example, there's totally a split personality issue with the entire community!

 Traditio wrote:
It is an oft repeated axiom of mine, which should be seen as self-evidently true, that every balance claim is relative.

And so what if it is? Do you actually have a point with this poll, or are you just posting polls for the sake of posting polls?

 Traditio wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I think an option is missing from the poll: Things that can do the same job in the same codex.

From a SM perspective, it’s easy to compare scouts to tacs, WWs to TFCs, pred to devs, etc. Some have a reasonable balance list of pros/cons, but others (at least historically) did not. One example that springs to mind is the Whirlwind before it had its price dropped. IIRC it was 85 points, while the TFC was 100. And the cannon brought so much more to the table. The WW was a bad unit. Sure, it could drop a pie plate of fun anywhere on the table, but the TFC did that, with more fire modes, while tougher, and had the techmarine to fortify a ruin and other tricks. For 15 more points.

This seems to be a common answer in the thread. "X unit is bad in comparison to this other unit, y, which fills a similar role (whether it be in the same codex or not)."

But how does this justify the claim that x is a bad unit? All that you're allowed to derive from this is that y is better than x.

"At 100 points, the thunderfire cannon is better than an 85 points whirlwind."

What entitles you to derive from this that an 85 point whirlwind is bad? You could just as easily argue that the thunderfire canon is OP at 100 points.

In fact, not only can you argue this, but this is a common opinion.

So basically, answers like this are just pushing back the question.

"Whirlwinds are bad compared to thunderfire cannons if whirlwinds cost 85 points."

Ok. But what are you comparing thunderfire cannons to? Why aren't 85 point whirlwinds fine, and 100 points thunderfire cannons OP?

You start by comparing one unit to another. Then keep comparing units to each other until you get a large enough sample size to draw general conclusions. Now this can be difficult, because units are good at different things, so there is a lot of subjectivity in there. We are not just comparing how many points of X they can kill, but how mobile they are, how tough they are, etc. And once you make enough comparisons, you can figure out where on the bad-good spectrum they fall. In an ideal world, that spectrum looks like a bell curve. Most units in the balanced middle, with a few outliers on either end. In your poll options, this is the judge by the mid range, and how I generally view things.

In the WW example, the fact that it is 65 points in the current codex lends some weight to the fact that it was bad at 85. Of course, TFCs got better and their points stayed the same, so there is that.

Compounding judging units individually against each other are formations. Suddenly bad/mediocre units can gain buffs, or be key parts in combos. And issues of opportunity cost of FOCs are changed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
It is an oft repeated axiom of mine, which should be seen as self-evidently true, that every balance claim is relative.

And so what if it is? Do you actually have a point with this poll, or are you just posting polls for the sake of posting polls?

I think the point of the poll is for him to see where others compare a certain unit to, but he's kinda answered his own question here I think on the accuracy of said comparison. At least from his viewpoint.

As a poll though, it seems pretty narrow, and I couldn't answer it with what I justified in my posts. Does this make me a troll guys? I think it does

 Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because Thunder fire Cannons aren't destroying much

1. How do you define "much?"

If a thunderfire cannon kills 5 naked sternguard, it's more than made up its points.

If it kills 8 naked tacticals, it's more than made up its points.

If it kills 20 naked guardsmen, it's made up its points.

2. They aren't destroying much in what contexts?

If your opponent is running foot-slogging infantry, thunderfire cannons and whirlwinds will both lay waste.

for 100 points and are only somewhat durable

Only somewhat durable?

Again, what meta are you assuming?

A thunderfire cannon fires shots at 60 inch range and has the barrage special rule. And it's not an extraordinarily large model, is it? And even if you do fire on the thunderfire cannon at range, it's T7, 2 wounds with a 3+ armor save. The techmarine has a 2+ armor save.

Are thunderfire cannons fragile when they're facing up against tactical marines? Guardsmen? Chaos cultists?

Again, my point about balance being relative.

Just say...

Artillery and heavy weapons should always be devestating vs exposed infantry in the open.
There ment to be kings of battle for a reason.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Your point?

I don't have to collate the views of several different people to get the kinds of "split personality" that I'm talking about.

That's an incredibly vague way of making that point and that's with me being very kind.

Russes are bad because their firepower to point ratio is poor. Old school imperial weapons are basically worthless in 7th ed.

Martel732 wrote:
Russes are bad because their firepower to point ratio is poor. Old school imperial weapons are basically worthless in 7th ed.

Going back to the topic thread, poor compared to...?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Russes are bad because their firepower to point ratio is poor. Old school imperial weapons are basically worthless in 7th ed.

Going back to the topic thread, poor compared to...?

A lot of units.

Its also better than a number of other units.

Its all relative and there's no definite answer.

Might as well be asking how deep a hole is.

*Edit* I'll expand. 40k has a problem of rampant power creep. Back in 5th there might've been a unit or two I could have pointed at and said that they represent an ideal of balance and make a good baseline for comparisons across codices. Now, the gap has widened such that we have units previously excluded to Apoc competing against 2pts/model units, where trying to effectively balance such a massive gap in capability becomes increasingly difficult. As such, finding a baseline is harder and harder. Do we pick a newer codex that competes with other top codices but stomps all the older books? What about a solid middle tier codex that still struggles against the top books? Why not pick the worst and adjust everything from there? All theoretically valid answers of course, with each coming with merits and drawbacks for how to move forward balancing the game.

In contrast, a game like BFG which has never really encountered a serious problem with power creep (worst being Eldar and Necrons) has a defined baseline that all ships are compared to. We have also have the distinct advantage in that game to having a game that hasn't seen any serious overhauls, so the original design notes are present and valid even today. We know for a fact the two first ships created were the Imperial Lunar and Chaos Murder (I think, could be Carnage, doesn't matter though) which you can roughly break down into constituent parts to have a sort of universal template for ship construction. With that baseline, when people ask you 'relative to what?', you can answer with one of those two units and extrapolate from there.

Unfortunately, 40k has kind of jumped the shark and you can't really pin down even a handful of units to use as baselines as there's so many vastly differing units covering so many roles that direct comparisons start to get muddy and confusing. So with 40k when asking for comparison points, you kind have to shrug and say, 'it just feels like it', which is honestly about as valid as any other point of reference you can come up with.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Russes are bad because their firepower to point ratio is poor. Old school imperial weapons are basically worthless in 7th ed.

Going back to the topic thread, poor compared to...?

A lot of units.

Its also better than a number of other units.

Its all relative and there's no definite answer.

Might as well be asking how deep a hole is.

That cuts both ways. If asking how deep a hole is isn't relevant saying "Oh, very," isn't particularly relevant either.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Russes are bad because their firepower to point ratio is poor. Old school imperial weapons are basically worthless in 7th ed.

Going back to the topic thread, poor compared to...?

The field.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Russes are bad because their firepower to point ratio is poor. Old school imperial weapons are basically worthless in 7th ed.

Going back to the topic thread, poor compared to...?

The field.

May I see your proof?