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.

That typing and syntax is acceptable for internal e-mail where you work?

Saying Tau is cheesy because they have a S5 basic gun is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

They're BS3, the Gun is S5. They need 4's to hit and 3's to wound vs. MEQ, which is exactly the same as a Marine firing at a MEQ needing 3's to hit and 4's to wound. So yes a Firewarrior shoots as well as your tactical marine vs. MEQ's, except remember he's WS2, I2, T3, and 4+ save.

Yes 3 railheads are good, but playing marines you have access to one of the most over abundant and over costed unit setups in the game: 5 or 6 Man Las/Plas Tactical squads. For the points outlay and their survivability, they're as good if not better than the Tau and their 3 Railhead army assuming you take the right things to support your extremely cheap firebase.

Oh and FYI I don't play Tau, I play Orks and Traits Marines.

As far as theere being no such thing as a balanced army, read yakfaces post.

you huys are so sad, Its like attack of the idiots and ~Yakface is your God. And yes my typing is fine as longs as its not an email to the Senior Managers.

You mentioned how tau are not as good as marine but i like the way you fail to mention they are also 5 points cheaper.
What about eldar war walkers at 65 points each with either starcannon or brrightlance, fielded in sqauds of 3 x3. that still 10 points cheaper each than the assualt cannon speaders. And Let me guess thats not imbalanced?? i remember B4 assualt cannons were rending that 3x3 warwalker squads were all the rage with eldar players??

Maybe cos the majority of players play marines and non marine players are a minority they feel they have to complain.

go exploit your own list and stop complaining.

I didn't have to mention that they're 5 points cheaper because I mentioned the GLARING WEAKNESSES that they have built into their statline. W2, I2, T3, 4+.

For +5 Points I'm sure most tau would take them if they had the marine statline and kept their STR5 gun.

I haven't had any kind of conversation with yakface at all on these boards, but the fact remains that he posted a well written out reply that explained how you are incorrect that you pretty much never responded to.

Warwalkers are no where near as good as Tornados because:

1.) They can not move 12" and fire all their weapons.
2.) They can not opt to not shoot and move 24" to claim an objective or hide when shaken/stunned.
3.) They do not have a gun that can kill AV14 better than a Lascannon, while still being better at taking out hoards of infantry.
4.) They do not have the ability to keep moving fast enough so that all incoming hits are downgraded to glancing.

There is a reason no one takes war warlkers and instead goes with Falcons or Wraithlords. Walkers are in no way comparible to speeders in versatility in both moving, shooting, and objective taking.

Posted By beef on 07/02/2006 8:12 PM
you huys are so sad, Its like attack of the idiots and ~Yakface is your God. And yes my typing is fine as longs as its not an email to the Senior Managers.

And see, that's what doesn't make sense to me.  In all the internal e-mails I used to have to deal with, you never knew which one might make it to one of the senior managers or not... so you made sure all of them were up to the standard necessary for them to find acceptable.

I just think that's weird.

I'm actually a follower of Grammar, and you're defiling it in ways I never thought possible.

If you'd like to be taken seriously, write properly.  You don't take money market investment advice from a man covered in feces, and you don't listen to people who don't communicate maturely.

 Cant you read English?? Proper English that is not the fake one that you seem to think the rest of the world speaks> Not american.

 

Ironically enough I assumed you were an American, and between the ages of 12 to 15.  At least I hope you are.

Also do you play marines?  If you were playing Kroot I could see you complaning about the Tau being beardy but marines?  Geez it is like the millionaire whining about not being able to afford that 5th Lexus and venting it on some poor guy who drives a ten year old yugo.

 

Beef, again, let me elaborate on some points....
1.) In a company, almost every internal e-mail is seen at some level by a vp or some higher up. I work for a major Corporation, I'm not a salesman, I'm an finance specialist and advisor for the company and I have been in major trouble for even spelling a word wrong because it looks bad for the company if e-mails are typed choppy and look like an uneducated person wrote it.
2.) On topic, the Tau can be made to be cheap, but any army can; SM librarian and assault cannons, eldar seer council/3 falcons, CSM iron warrior 9 oblitz, etc....
3.) The fact remains that taking all of these armies as factors, Tau generals need to use strategy and blah blah blah...
4.) No army is able to be 100% successful, you will win and lose; you should know all situations before starting a flame war.
5.) Find a person that never played Tau, and I'll beat him with an army I'm fimiliar with; going a step further, do you know why Tau generals win...? They use strategy and are fimiliar with their armies and win just as much as other skilled players.
6.) When you project yourself clearly, people will listen and respond in a positive way, just for the future.

Yakface is your God

Umm, do you know who you're talking to here? Clearly, as a founding member of the 100% Unofficial Mauleed Fan Club, I worship Mauleed, not Yak, as a God. Thanks.

To Blank in answer to your first point i cant send an internal email to managers by accident. I did however send an email to a lady in another branch thanking her for the previous night. It was obviously meant for someone else. I appologised as she was shocked (and married). After that i have been very very careful. I agree with your second point which is if you have the skills, experiance and a good stratagy you can win despite what army you play. (my brother beats me nomatter what armies we play as he has better tactics than me).
As for your Final point most people do not listen on threads as its not face to face communication it gives them courage to disagree. Also some people just jump on to what other people have said and agree with them as they themselves cannot a) put it so well themselves b)they are sheap and follow the crowd as its easiar to agree than disagree.

As for your Final point most people do not listen on threads as its not face to face communication it gives them courage to disagree.

Ahh yes the internet, home of the steroid geek lol. Good point.

Ok so I have cleared one misunderstanding up (with Blank) only a couple of hundred more to go. . .

If Beef defines what he means by the term 'balance', this would be a lot easier to discuss.

Personally, I think this could be a really decent discussion ? so let's hear the definition and start again.

 

Ok so I have cleared one misunderstanding up (with Blank) only a couple of hundred more to go. . .

Yeah, now that I get what you mean... But Yakface is not my God ::Cries::

Ok My def of BALALNCED ARMY:- An army that does not have so called "broken units" Ie Blood angels Death company. The BA DC are apparently overpowered and underpriced. Also most people say that Assualt cannon heavy drop pod marine armies are unbalanced. The main bone of discontent people have is that marines are "training wheel" and are underpriced in general and have to many great weapons etc and therefore tend to unfair compared to the other races.
What I ws saying was that there is no such armt out there that is balanced as all the races have there underpriced, overpowered units and special rules and goodies.
It just seems that the people who say marine armies are not balanced tend to be people who play a different race. They also say that SM's dominate GT's which i do agree with in so far as that most people play SM therefore atleast 50% of the armies at GT's tend to be marines. they are just popular thats why people play them as opposed to the argument that they are easy to play with. Despite the fact that the GT's are usually won by eldar, chaos and tau
I hope that helps.

Please tell me how Tau, IG, new 'Nids, or Orks have any "overpowered and underpriced" units. I'd like to hear what they are. At least in your opinion.

Also, Eldar and IW win the UKGTs which is what you're trying to say in the end. Tau get some high placements but never won anything. Not this last circuit at least, IIRC. I'm pretty sure Blood Angels won two USGTs last year, with DP marines in another.

That seems like a fair definition, but Stonefox makes a good counter-argument.

The 'problem' codices (with overpowered and undercosted units) tend to be older than the newer codices; which implies that the newer codices are better balanced (i.e. there are no no-brainer units like Death Company, and fewer Shining Spear-like units ? underpowered and overcosted).

However, if one codex is unbalanced, does this make the whole game unbalanced? Further, how is it possible to decide what is a balanced army? What can we measure armies against, if there is no generic, perfectly-balanced army?

Perhaps we can refine the definition of balanced...

Internally balanced ? balanced in terms of a single codex: i.e. all the units are equally useful; choosing an army is based on taste, not effectiveness.

Externally balanced ? balanced in terms of the game as a whole: all the codices are equally internally balanced.

It seems we'd all agree that some armies are more balanced in terms of the game as a whole than others; and we'd probably also agree that the game as a whole is not balanced. The question becomes:

Following the trend for better internal balance within codices, will the game develop to become better externally balanced?

Following the trend for better internal balance within codices, will the game develop to become better externally balanced?

No.  This is a fallacy.  Example:  If GW were to create - say, Codex Pan-Fo, and decided to give them, say, S2 T2 Sv5+ models, with S4 choppa-guns as a racial technological trait, with disrupting anti-tank heavy weapons (i.e. auto-stun) - while this might be internally balanced, it would not be balanced in the world-view of 40k:

Specific Examples:

While Choppa-guns might be points-balanced against Sv3+ armies, they would disproportionately hurt Sv2+ armies.

While auto-stun might be a nifty and fluffy feature, it would still be negated by spirit stones, daemonic possession, extra armour etc.  So what would be an appropriate points cost?  It'd be very strong against stuff like a Monolith, but useless against a possessed predator.

Existing Examples:

Orks have no reliable way to harm a monolith.  While it may be balanced against armies with easy access to S9+ or S8 AP1 weapons, armies without have between a 1/108 chance (BS2) to a 1/54 chance (BS4) of downing it per S8 weapon fired.

Nobody has a reliable way to harm a tooled up Falcon.

IMHO, the probem doesn't lie with internal balance.  It does not even lie with conflicting special ablities.  The main issue is that every army should have access to a full range of anti-infantry and anti-tank options such that they can deal with the full range of possible statlines - granted, these options may normally be sub-par, but they need to be there.  The next issue is that GW may want to standardize the costs of special abilities and/or place further restrictions on buying advantages for your army.  The traits list was a step in the right direction, though a lot of the disadvantages are laughable at best:  "We stand alone".

There is no such thing as balance though. My whole point, not arguing with anyone, is that some armies in 40k will be stronger than others. Take this as an example, I'll say marines vs. ig... Now due to assault cannons, libs with fear/fury, minmaxed las/plas squads, and drop pods, it seems the marines (and they do) have a stronger list/options. This is not to say ig can not win, it just takes a certain scenario.... For example (real life) United States v. N. Vietnam, the US would be marines (planes, tanks, technology, etc...) but yet the N. Vietnamese essentially well, we all know what happened... What GW needs todo is introduce new scenarios that will help non-meq armies out... Less missions that say, you start there, your opponent starts across from you now go kill him/her oh and by the way there are 2 loot counters on the board worth 100 pts each; c'mon now, the marine doesn't care about the counters turn 1-5, that is the time it will take to kill most of the ig, then turn 6 the marine will move like a scout squad on the counter (das uber geh). What GW should do is more things like escilation and city fight (new rules), because in CoD, I've seen an ig army do unthinkable deeds, move 50 conscripts w/ 5 hbs into a building rerolling dice and having a decent save...

Posted By Blank on 07/05/2006 9:24 AM
For example (real life) United States v. N. Vietnam, the US would be marines (planes, tanks, technology, etc...) but yet the N. Vietnamese essentially well, we all know what happened... What GW needs to do is introduce new scenarios that will help non-meq armies out... Less missions that say, you start there, your opponent starts across from you now go kill him/her oh and by the way there are 2 loot counters on the board worth 100 pts each;

While I agree that more varied missions would be nice, you seem to have missed the point behind balance. The Vietnam analogy is flawed, since War != Game. If 40k was "like war" as you suggest, there would be no composition rules and no points values. Games would consist of rolling off for attacker, defender, and rolling off for who deploys the terrain. The defender would be forced to deploy all his units, minus the ambush/reserves and the attacker would go first. 40k is obviously not like this because this style of play would not use pre-determined army lists due to changes in mission role, there would be huge disparities in army composition.

Games like this might be 120 or so Guardsmen entrenched with 4 Basilisk support and 8 Leman Russes in reserve, with 60 or so Demo Charge Teams ambushing. Marines would be attacking in 3 waves, with 20 Landspeeder Tornadoes as Wave 1, 30 Rhinos, 5 Landraiders as Wave 2 and 10 Drop Pods with 50 Deepstriking Terminators as Wave 3. Backup with 8 Whirwind Batteries. Knowing that the Guard have around 3 platoons worth of troopers, with Artillery Support and an Armored Squadrion, why would I go with anything less?

The fact that there are points values and field alowance limits assigned to models at all suggest that this mechanism is in place to control opposing army sizes and composition for games. Since 40k is a game, it is in GWs interest to make the game winnable by all available factions. It is not in GWs interest to make certain factions sub-par, since that will not sell models.

The balance issue is not with strong units. It is with availability of strong units.

The fact that there are points values and field alowance limits assigned to models at all suggest that this mechanism is in place to control opposing army sizes and composition for games.

Good point, I get what you mean. I was wrong, and agree with you nice call.

Tyranids are obviously the most unbalanced army. Have you ever noticed how Hormagaunts always fall forward? Man thats a pain.

I also hate the Orks' invulnerable "WAAAGH!" 3+ save.  Buh-RO-ken.

Hey Lorek, just 5 more posts.

i can see why people think marine armies are unbalanced. But i still think that generally its non marine players that think so. I played a BA army today with my SW's and the Ba guy had 2 chaplains with 15 death company with 2 power weapons and 3 powerfists. I could have won as I assualted his DC with my wolf lord and Blood claw squad with 2 powerfists and I was also suposed to throw my other Blood claw squad lead by the wolf priest but they assualted through cover and rolled snake eyes. (they only needed 2 inches to get in). If instead of 1 sqaud aasualting both managed to I would have won that combat. But instead my Lord got stuck in combat and in his turn his assualt squad dived in and together with the death company killed my Lord and his blood claws. Meanwhile his 8 strong scout squad with vet sergent with power weapon assualted my Wolf priest and his blood claws and tied them up till his DC and assualt sqauds have eaten my lord and his blood claws who then consolodated into my Rune priest and his blood claws.

My point is that I did not lose cos he had an unbalanced army with 15 DC with 2 Chaplains. I lost due to bad dice roll, it happens. My tactics were sound. If your tactics are good it does not matter who you play.

Somebody mentioned that there is a difference between US and UK GT's in terms of what armies win. I can only go by the Uk ones and the tournies I have played. BA or any other marine armies dont win. Not in all the years I have seen/played. Maybe in the US its marine armies which just leads me to think that non marine players in the US are not that good.

Posted By beef on 07/05/2006 6:43 PM
i can see why people think marine armies are unbalanced. But i still think that generally its non marine players that think so.

 

Sorry Beef but isn't that just restating the obvious?  In general marine players are not going to say their lists are unbalanced, just like eldar starcannon love armies are not going to say their lists don't thrash marines.

Beef:  You are just not getting the point.  Its not that Marines are overpowered, but that the whole points system is out of whack across the board:  If it is to be believed that points values are supposed to denote approximate equal strength...

Tau Firewarrior vs Inquisition Stormtropper:  These are both Troops infantry.  +1 Initiative, +1 WS = +2S on the Gun and 30" Rapidfire.

Eldar Guardian vs Dark Eldar Warrior:  These are both Troops infantry.  +1BS, +1WS, +1A = +1S on the gun and assault 2.

Landspeeder vs Vyper Jetbike:  These are both AV10/10/10 Fast Skimmers, squadron size 1-3, 50 points each base.  Since they are the same points, the only differences between them are open topped, -12" range and +1S on the Vyper's gun and +1BS on the Landspeeder's gun.  Therefore, -12" range and +1S must be equal in value to +1BS and closed top.

These are obviously not equal.  While these values are taken out of context, consider that Inquisition Stormtroopers and Sisters of Battle are in the same codex.  With a Sister's squad you get bolters, powerarmour, possible acts of faith, access to Immolators while only giving up a second plasmagun and mounting in a chimera.  Consider that Shining Spears are the same cost as a stock Vyper.  These are comparitively useless choices in the same codex.

Also consider the previously mentioned scenario of the Blood Angel Death Company.  Even if it is made out of a stock Marine, the DC Marine gets:  Free Jump Pack (or Rhino), free furious charge, free feel no pain.  For the upgrade cost to Vet Sgt, you get discounted powerfists. - Sure there are some drawbacks, but compared to a Worldeaters army with 19 point models and must purchase feel no pain, the BA are a fabulous deal!  Its not about stuff being overpowered, but rather stuff being incorrectly and arbitrarily given wonky points values.

I agree that the points system is not equal and I agree keezus in what he says. However If they were all the same points for same ability would the game not be boring?? everything would be the same in stats or points apart from that the models all looked different?? Not all the Armies can have the same stats or points to reflect there advantages. For some armies these imbalances are their strongpoints.

I like this thread. It pleases me.

Posted By beef on 07/06/2006 10:04 AM
I agree that the points system is not equal and I agree keezus in what he says. However If they were all the same points for same ability would the game not be boring?? everything would be the same in stats or points apart from that the models all looked different?? Not all the Armies can have the same stats or points to reflect there advantages. For some armies these imbalances are their strongpoints.

Oh I agree. I'm not advocating a rigid points alocation system.

There are two things that the game needs. 1. Rejuggling of the points cost of the "useless" units. These include Shining Spears, Fireprism, Tankbustas, Penitent Engines, Repentia etc. etc. etc.

The other thing is to give each army a way to handle another army's special rules. While it is impossible to anticipate what special rules might be coming out in the future, it is easy to give each army weapons that alow it to deal with every enemy type. At the same time it is imperative not to introduce special rules which neuter the capabilities of any one race (at least, not without introducing a fix).

Living armor is a prime example of something that -should not- have been combined with AV14, since this neuters the Orks, and Dark Eldar anti-tank shooting (and the Eldar and SOB to an extent). Their standard tank hunting weapons: Tankbusta Bombs, Meltas and Lances are all useless against the Monolith. While the Eldar have other options and the SOB got back some bite after making AP1 auto pen, they took away the Lance AP1 - the Orks and DE really do not have anything else effective vs AV14 (Zzzaap gun being way too unreliable). - Detractors will advise these armies to ignore the Monolith, but with the prevalance of deepstrike in the new ruleset, and the pitiful armour saves of the Eldar, DE and Orks, ignoring it is not really an option.

1. Living armor should have been changed to something else such that Lances, Meltas and Tankbusta bombs can deal with it. - Maybe convert it to a 4+ field save, or always glances only.

2. Give armies without S9+ weapons some S9+ weapons which are short ranged. i.e. 6-12" range so they can deal with the monolith deepstriking.

Well, that's my 2 cents.