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.

In the team tournaments you will also see Crons come into the light with so many game affecting powers like with the ctans, or night fight with the storm lord. Combo Those with de and sw you have a force. Hiding twc in night fight with acture sense long fangs or the terrain hindering protecting IG, or de hiding in night fight.. I see more cron combos then gk combos.

Draigo wrote:In the team tournaments you will also see Crons come into the light with so many game affecting powers like with the ctans, or night fight with the storm lord. Combo Those with de and sw you have a force. Hiding twc in night fight with acture sense long fangs or the terrain hindering protecting IG, or de hiding in night fight.. I see more cron combos then gk combos.

Hmmm.. The Adepticon TT rules tend to frown upon mixing armies across different races. It is perfectly legal, but I don't think anyone has ever won doing that, except the first year. There are to many "fluff" points lost in that setup. Besides the power of Draigo + Coteaz having both their force org altering rules applied to all 4 players, two of which can still take librarians, is awe inspiring. Paladins and psy-back henchmen (or deathcult assassins) everywhere and they are both scoring units to boot. The TT missions are all about the scoring units.

Redbeard wrote:There's your proof for why you should balance units across codexes. Because if you don't, and you achieve internal balance, then the entire weaker codex, by simple logic, is weaker than the entire stronger one. And there's no way that leads to a balanced game.

Wouldn't that require simultaneous releases for all the Codexes with all the new points calculations at once?

How would you sell products effectively if each army was recieving a Codex at the same time?

I'm not arguing against you, however, with the current gap between releases it seems that balancing Codexes across the board seems an logistical nightmare.

Even if you managed to balance out all the Codexes with spaced out release dates, there's still the problem with the core game rules/mechanics getting updated in between, which can 'unbalance' certain armies before their next release.

While I agree with your assessment of external balance, it seems far reaching and lofty.

@Darthdiggler: I'll give you that this year will really show us how the codex progresses, but I wouldn't say Team Tournament is a good metric. The game isn't really balanced for team play like that.

gendoikari87 wrote:.
I already did, look back by about a page, and for the second point see above.

Found it about 5 pages back. Getting some massively weird numbers from this, and missing some key features (e.g. there's no accounting for ATSKNF that I can find, hammerhand, force weapon over power weapon, etc). When I put in a basic SB/PF terminator, I get a cost of 49.65pts, and a cost of 63.43pts for a TH/SS termi not accounting for Thunderhammer effect.

For a basic GK, yes, your calculator gives ~21.54pts for their value. However, again, no accounting for stuff like hammerhand. If you calculate them at S5 (basically any time they'll be engaging anything not multi-wound in CC), they're suddenly worth nearly 29pts.

It apparently also calculates S as being *way* more important than Attacks, almost twice as important, which is rather odd given that 2 S4 attacks against T4 will result in higher average casualties than 1 S6 attack. Apparently being S6 base makes for a *huge* boost in cost, but noting S6 on a charge in the special rules section changes almost nothing in comparison.

I'm also not sure how on earth a Power Weapon is such a cheap upgrade, as apparently there's little in the way done to cost for that.

Looking through the excel file I have no idea on what basis you are designing many of these equations (especially as several reference empty cells and/or have to be actively modified to take items listed in their column into account, particularly the Special Rules entry apparently)

Speaking of designing in a vacuum, it appears this thing is entirely designed around comparison to a basic space marine without ATSKNF or any other of their special rules, and little else.

And yeah, we've still got that point about long range AT in troops hanging there...for which I see no ability to cost for in this excel calculator.

It apparently also calculates S as being *way* more important than Attacks

Because it is, At least until they change vehicles getting hit in the rear. The calculator does also take into account what a unit can do in CC against a tanks. And that's 5 points right there for str 5, and I also made it based on an average av of 10. if you change that to 11, you find after hammerhand the cost of each goes to a WHOPPING OMG 23...

However, again, no accounting for stuff like hammerhand. If you calculate them at S5 (basically any time they'll be engaging anything not multi-wound in CC), they're suddenly worth nearly 29pts.

it also doesn't activate all the time and can blow the head off your justicar.

And yeah, we've still got that point about long range AT in troops hanging there...for which I see no ability to cost for in this excel calculator.

Seeing as that is done codex to codex, you can't do that with just this, you have to actually use your own judgement and actually think.

Apparently being S6 base makes for a *huge* boost in cost, but noting S6 on a charge in the special rules section changes almost nothing in comparison.

No it does nothing, that's a vestigial organ from an earlier incarnation it needs to be deleted.

Speaking of designing in a vacuum, it appears this thing is entirely designed around comparison to a basic space marine without ATSKNF or any other of their special rules, and little else.

ATSKNF has little if any measurable effect. Get over it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
actually changing the av of the test vehicle solves the terminator problems as well.

Here it is fixed, TH/SS is still 57 but I'd accept that as a fair price for them.

Now, if you really want broken you've skipped over a unit, SB acolytes. Those mothers are undercosted. Just don't give them any armor.




No where's your model saying they're so broken?

gendoikari87 wrote:
Because it is, At least until they change vehicles getting hit in the rear. The calculator does also take into account what a unit can do in CC against a tanks.

And how exactly is that being accounted/costed for?

And that's 5 points right there for str 5, and I also made it based on an average av of 10. if you change that to 11, you find after hammerhand the cost of each goes to a WHOPPING OMG 23...

At which point we have a unit that's undercosted by 3ppm, over a 2000pt army, that's rather noticeable.

Additionally, I'm still wondering how it's calculated that power weapons are only worth ~2ppm. That's a rather...interesting value for them. And that's the big crux of the matter here. 2ppm for power weapons is, to anyone, a wee bit silly. Meanwhile, in your cost calculator, getting extra S4 Ap5 shots between 12-24" is a significantly larger cost factor than ignoring armor saves and the ability to inflict Instant Death in close combat.

Using your newest calculator for a basic Space Marine with just a bolter, I get a cost of 13.5pts without accounting for any special rules. Giving him a Storm Bolter over a normal bolter makes him 19.4pts (a ~6pt increase by itself ) while giving him a powerweapon is only 2pts, and to match the Storm Bolter I'm having to not only give him a power weapon but also increase Attacks from 1 to 2. Giving him a pistol somehow by itself also is a 2pt upgrade, but there's nowhere to gauge BP+CCW. Something is off.

Stormbolters are not worth anything near that, and power weapons are worth a hell of a lot more.

What's even odder is that marking a unit as "Monstrous Creature" is apparently worth less than an assault bolter.

it also doesn't activate all the time and can blow the head off your justicar.

It activates the overwhelmingly vast majority of the time (5/6 times with Ld9) and you've got a 1/18 chance to kill the Justicar, relatively low.

Seeing as that is done codex to codex, you can't do that with just this, you have to actually use your own judgement and actually think.

So apparently the huge thing that justified them being undercosted (despite it applying just as much if not moreso to the majority of other armies in the game) we get to what I stated earlier: It's largely irrelevant because it's not the role of those units.

ATSKNF has little if any measurable effect. Get over it.

Really? It's so worthless that the defining Space Marine special rule isn't worth taking into any cost cosnsiderations at all?

There seems to be a rather noticeable calculation involving comparative fleeing rates, which ATSKNF very much factors into. If you aren't making *any* cost considerations for an ability that ignore several game mechanics (sweeping advance, below 50% regrouping, movement penalties on regroup...), then this tool is failing to properly accomplish it's goal. It's very much worth taking into account, especially given that the unit this tool is entirely dedicated to comparing against has a special rule that can trigger ATSKNF every time they have to take a morale test.

gendoikari87 wrote:Here it is fixed, TH/SS is still 57 but I'd accept that as a fair price for them.

Not sure how I feel about that one. On the one hand I feel they are currently drastically undercosted an in general having entire units with flat 3++sv's on top of 2++sv's is rather poor game design, but at the same time 57pts feels weird. For now, I'll leave it aside.

Now, if you really want broken you've skipped over a unit, SB acolytes. Those mothers are undercosted. Just don't give them any armor.

Stormbolter acolytes? 7pts for a 2 shot BS3 s4 gun on a T3 5+sv model? With bolters according to your calculation they should be 6pts, its difficult to see how additional BS3 S4 shots at 12-24" is worth increasing their price by 4ppm when there's otherwise no difference in unit survivability, weapon S/AP, or statline changes. Hard to see that being undercosted, especially next to something like an Ork Shoota boy who is 6pts, granted slightly shorter range and lower BS, but higher T, 2 attacks, furious charge, mob rule, WS4, and apparently comes out to about 10pts in your calculator, at which point you'd expect them to be the most ridiculously broken thing in the game being nearly half the cost they should be.

Also, I'll note that using your calculator, they're undercosted by about 3ppm, the same difference you make to be trivial earlier.

Methinks there's something off with your calculations here. Using a basic profile of WS4 BS3 S3 T3 I2 A1 Ld10 Sv6 with a 2 shot assault S4 18" gun (not corresponding to any particular actual unit) I drop BS to 2 and to make up the points drop I have to increase A from 1 to 2, T from 3 to 4, Init from 2 to 4, and Rng from 18 to 24" to make up for that. Methinks there's some weird valuations here, especially as the only thing that seems to be taken into account here in balance considerations is the basic MEQ statline. WS and Init in particular seems to essentially simply be a trinary stat (<4,=4,>4) with no other costing considerations, likewise frag grenade availability seems to only make any difference in calculation if Init >=4. I can make a WS10 I10 unit and it's cost is no different than if it were WS5 I5.

What's *really* funny is Dreadknight costing, which comes out to be 24-40pts undercosted base using this tool, and damn near 90pts undercosted with dual gatling psilencers (apparently it should be ~288pts according to this tool)

weapon AP also apparently a nebulous factor at best.





TL;DR costing is wayyyy off, BS and Assault weaponry drastically over-valued, power-weapons and CC stats under valued, no account for special rules, too many stats accounted for only in "less than, equal to, greater than" in comparison to "4" only.

I agree with Vaktathi.

That calculator is not "proof", nor can its findings be presented as FACTs.

As the point-values assigned to various rules and wargear is a matter of opinion, so are the findings......just opinions.

If one was to agree with the philosophy of Gendo, then one could say that it is an informed opinion, but still just an opinion.

Why the hell is this thread still going on?? I've been watching it from a far and the fact this was even taken off another topic and made it's own thread is daft, it should have ended when it was off topic in the last thread like the OP stated.

The fact is, it's a great codex, one of the better ones but not overpowered.

The End. It's a mini adventure.




Full stop.

gendoikari87 wrote:
ATSKNF has little if any measurable effect. Get over it.

Ok. Now, tell that to any CSM, SoB or Necron player.

The ability of a similar unit to automatically regroup when falling back - thus NOT being wiped out by a Sweeping Advance (only taking some additional wounds, which, on a 3+ save unit is a lot less deadly than being completely gone) has a hell of a effect.

Now combine this with Combat Tactics.

You have the ability to withdraw, automatically regroup and assault again next turn....

With TH/SS Terminators, Assault Squads, kitted up command squads....this has a hell of an effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

Leenus wrote:I began to type a bunch of examples, but if you truly believe that army wide interactions don't matter, I think we're done debating.

No please, share your examples. I do think that army-interactions matter. I simply believe that the cost for the interactions needs to be paid in the least restrictive place.

Redbeard, Leenus.

Gentlemen.

I want you to explain to me... The Pyrovore.

Please explain my 60 point Heavy Flamer that tries so hard to compete with Zoanthropes, Tyrant Guard, Ymgarls and even Lictors.

I'd be interested to see what you guys make of this.

But that aside....

Army-interactions do matter as Redbeard has already explained - how Unit X affects Unit Y really does need to be taken into account when designing a codex...

Which unfortunately, with a design theory that rivals a crack-addicted squirrel on a pogo stick, it doesn't for pretty much everything from SW onwards.

DarkStarSabre wrote:
Redbeard, Leenus.

Gentlemen.

I want you to explain to me... The Pyrovore.

Please explain my 60 point Heavy Flamer that tries so hard to compete with Zoanthropes, Tyrant Guard, Ymgarls and even Lictors.

I'd be interested to see what you guys make of this.

What is there to explain. It's simply yet another example of GW's amateur rules design team and complete lack of testing. In the world of throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, the pyrovore didn't stick, and as a result, all the effort spent in designing, and sculpting the model has been wasted, as no one is buying them.

gendoikari87 wrote:Here it is fixed, TH/SS is still 57 but I'd accept that as a fair price for them.

Now, if you really want broken you've skipped over a unit, SB acolytes. Those mothers are undercosted. Just don't give them any armor.

No where's your model saying they're so broken?

I want to really give you kudos for working on something like this. I really like how you build a point base upon the ability for the model to kill and survive.

The value you give to special rules or gear can be subjective, which is the only challenge I see. For example, a power sword in the hands of a guardsman is not nearly as effective as in the hands of a BA sergeant. Having a STR 5 charge is significantly more effective than a STR 3 PW. Similarly, PG are more effective on high armor models. A guardsman dies 2/3 of the time during a get-hot, where a MEQ dies 1/3 of the time.
Maybe you can determine the value of benifits such as a power weapon based upon the base cost. IE, a PW upgrade costs for for a BA than a guard.

ATSKNF has a huge effect, and should be priced accordingly. The ability to rally between half strength, and to auto-rally after falling back is huge. This is one of the strongest aspects of MEQ over GEQ armies.

I also notice there are some special items that are not defined. What is the value of being on a bike, for example? Witchblades are another example.

Here are some of the spreadsheet values. Honestly, considering how easy fire dragons die, I think their a bit overpriced. I'm surprised that your spreadsheet prices the other aspect warriors well under the value. I find it very hard to believe that the assault value on the guardian shuriken cat makes them worth nearly as much as an avenger. The difference between a guardian and avenger is significant. As mentioned before, if special rules such as 'assault' are based upon the models CC ability, then it would make for a more clear value. After all, who cares if a guardian has an assault weapon. Hes not going to assault you.
Dire Avenger : 11.5 pts
Fire Dragon : 38.7 pts
Banshees : 8.04 pts
Warlocks : 23 pts
Guardian : 10.44 pts
Scorpions : 10.5 pts

So there are a few minor quirks when trying to use a formula to define the value of a model -- which come from the cost of special rules. Overall, though, I give it enormous kudos.

Steelmage99 wrote:I agree with Vaktathi.

That calculator is not "proof", nor can its findings be presented as FACTs.

As the point-values assigned to various rules and wargear is a matter of opinion, so are the findings......just opinions.

If one was to agree with the philosophy of Gendo, then one could say that it is an informed opinion, but still just an opinion.

It's not opinion, it's math. Designed specifically to balance armies point for point. if you knew anything about math you'd know that.

As mentioned before, if special rules such as 'assault' are based upon the models CC ability, then it would make for a more clear value.

it is, the assault rule adds damage potential to the CC section. The only ones that are straight up a solid point value are invuln saves, and the grenades.

What is the value of being on a bike, for example?

I knew I forgot something. I think I also forgot gets hot, i'll have to go check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I want you to explain to me... The Pyrovore.

Crack, that is the only explaination.

gendoikari87 wrote:

It's not opinion, it's math. Designed specifically to balance armies point for point. if you knew anything about math you'd know that.

And yet somehow apparently the only balance mechanic that matters is direct comparison to a basic profile of WS4 BS4 S4 T4 I4 W1 A1 Sv3+, and has very odd costing components, where powerweapons/monstrous creature upgrades, T/A/I/Init combined increases, etc are apaprently worth less than making a bolter Assault 2 from Rapid fire

gendoikari87 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I agree with Vaktathi.

That calculator is not "proof", nor can its findings be presented as FACTs.

As the point-values assigned to various rules and wargear is a matter of opinion, so are the findings......just opinions.

If one was to agree with the philosophy of Gendo, then one could say that it is an informed opinion, but still just an opinion.

It's not opinion, it's math. Designed specifically to balance armies point for point. if you knew anything about math you'd know that.

Any song with an young female singer is worth 10pts. Any song with a male singer is worth 5pts.

Therefore, Rebecca Black's "Friday" is better than Nirvana's "Smells like Teen Spirit."

It's not an opinion. It's math!

Provable math starts from axioms, not from "I've looked at it really hard and decided that frag grenades are worth x points."

Yeah, you cannot do raw mathematical calculations, because things have different impact based on the role they serve.

Wyches get nightfighting. That's swell. It's a close-combat unit that have 12" pistols. If they're not within 6" of you, they're not going to shoot, they're going to fleet. Long Fangs get nightfighting. They're a sit back&shoot unit with a ton of ranged fire. They get a big benefit from being able to re-roll their spotting range. Same ability, different units getting it.

Feel No Pain is worth less on a model with a 2+ save than a model with a 6+ save. FNP changes the odds of losing a model from 1/6 to 1/12 on a 2+ model, a boost of 1/12. On a model with a 6+ save, it increases their odds of losing a model from 5/6 to roughly 2/5, a boost of roughly 2/5, more than twice the advantage, from the same ability.

Assault grenades mean very little on models that are not expected to launch assaults.

Leenus wrote:@ Polonius

A few things. First, sure, "baseless" is a bit over the top. I know you understand my point though, so let's not derail based on that word. Someone posting in this thread and saying "I beat my friend who plays GK" or "I never beat my friend who plays GK" doesn't really help determine if GK are overpowered.

Well, the word showed a contempt that was out of line, so it needed some correction.

Tournaments are an excellent *indicator* if a book is overpowered. It gives us the best look at GK played in a competitive setting against other competitive lists where people, on average, play to win. It's not perfect. There will be outliers. That's why it's necessary to use a lot of tournaments. But I think showing that GK win an abnormal amount of tournaments (in battle points) is a far, far, far, far, far more persuasive than any personal anecdote or unit by unit analysis. Do you really believe otherwise? Are you telling me that if GK won every tournament, you would say "they're not overpowered" ?????? I 100% doubt it.

I think everybody agrees with you. I think everybody also pretty much knows that the data isn't available.

You seem overly hugn up on what you consider to be the best possible evidence that you overly devalue all other evidence.

Now, a lot of this comes down to your definition of overpowered. To me, overpowered means that an army is miles stronger than the competition (e.g. 7th daemons at release). The game will never be truly balanced. GK might be slightly stronger than the competition, but certainly not over the top. I believe that if they were really over the top, the results would start to reflect in tournaments as it did with 7th daemons.

This is where you start to make sense. You want evidence that GKs are winning most of the tournaments because you consider that the definition of overpowered.

Most people, I think, would go with a broader definition, if only because tournament play isn't the only way people enjoy 40k.

I agree with the broader point that tournament results show that GK, while gravely upsetting to the meta-game, are not stricly dominating top play. OTOH, I also agree with the argument that an army that can shut down other armies (as warp quake and cleansing flame both come close to) is poorly designed and, at least in those narrow paramaters, overpowered.

i have two things to say

first off this is impressive. the amount of time you people put into this. and there are a lot of valid points. but as stated earlier it will not matter what any of us say unless some one has a magic line to GW and has complete control over it. it is they way it is

second.... you should all take a step back and look at what you are doing. you are argueing about the rules for dolls. you play with dolls. i play with dolls. we all play with dolls.

have fun arguing about dolls

I devalue specific evidence which is comparing individual GK units versus individual units from other codexes as a way to prove that GK are overpowered.

I've said in previous posts why I believe it is flawed to look at individual units across codexes. Non-tournament evidence that I would look to as relatively helpful evidence would be looking at entire lists versus other entire lists. If you look through this thread, there is very little, if any, of such analysis.

As an example, you look at warp quake in isolation and show me it is poorly designed / overpowered. However, when you look at the lists that spam warp quake at levels that make it broken you realize that the list is pretty crappy against the non daemon / deepstrike armies (majority of the tournament field). So, overall, it's not actual an issue in practice (cost outweighs benefit, unless an abnormally large percentage of people play daemons / deepstrike which we know is simply not the case). The power is certainly not well designed. The power is certainly overpowered comparing a warp quake unit versus daemons. The power is NOT overpowered, when you consider the costs of spaming warp quake in a tournament setting.

Nothing is broken outside of a tournament setting where people play for fun. It's up to you to take what you believe is "fun" and make the game mold to your own subjective view of the game. If you play for fun and feel that warp quake is broken and ruins the fun, why take it? Because you lack the self-control to moderate yourself?

marmaduke wrote:i have two things to say

first off this is impressive. the amount of time you people put into this. and there are a lot of valid points. but as stated earlier it will not matter what any of us say unless some one has a magic line to GW and has complete control over it. it is they way it is

second.... you should all take a step back and look at what you are doing. you are argueing about the rules for dolls. you play with dolls. i play with dolls. we all play with dolls.

have fun arguing about dolls

Nuh uh, they're not dolls bra, they're ACTION FIGURES[/sarcasm] In all seriousness this is the most valid point of the whole thread.

gendoikari87 wrote:

marmaduke wrote:[snip]
have fun arguing about dolls

Nuh uh, they're not dolls bra, they're ACTION FIGURES[/sarcasm] In all seriousness this is the most valid point of the whole thread.

Agreed, we should all pity the fools who happen to be passionate about their hobby. Being involved in a hobby is the lamest thing of all. We should all point and laugh.[/counter sarcasm ]

Calm Clarification: I just believe that if it is totally acceptable for a 40 yo. male to scream and shout about a guy who kicked a ball into some other guy's net that the same principle should be used here.
It's not about the dolls specifically. It's about expression (insert some other smart word) and the topic is just to let the conversation going. There is no harm in heated discussion if there are no personal attacks involved (or overuse of sarcasm; which is NOT indication of somebody's superior intelligence - the stupidest lie spreading like fire throughout the internet). Too emotional is bad but this is the interents. Everything seems hyper-exaggerated here.
Just tell me, what hobby is serious enough for arguing?

Leenus wrote:I devalue specific evidence which is comparing individual GK units versus individual units from other codexes as a way to prove that GK are overpowered.

I've said in previous posts why I believe it is flawed to look at individual units across codexes. Non-tournament evidence that I would look to as relatively helpful evidence would be looking at entire lists versus other entire lists. If you look through this thread, there is very little, if any, of such analysis.

As an example, you look at warp quake in isolation and show me it is poorly designed / overpowered. However, when you look at the lists that spam warp quake at levels that make it broken you realize that the list is pretty crappy against the non daemon / deepstrike armies (majority of the tournament field). So, overall, it's not actual an issue in practice (cost outweighs benefit, unless an abnormally large percentage of people play daemons / deepstrike which we know is simply not the case). The power is certainly not well designed. The power is certainly overpowered comparing a warp quake unit versus daemons. The power is NOT overpowered, when you consider the costs of spaming warp quake in a tournament setting.

Nothing is broken outside of a tournament setting where people play for fun. It's up to you to take what you believe is "fun" and make the game mold to your own subjective view of the game. If you play for fun and feel that warp quake is broken and ruins the fun, why take it? Because you lack the self-control to moderate yourself?

If I play daemons, it's not my self control I'm worried about. And warp quake isn't an optional power for one HQ choice... it's built into a troops choice. When random daemon player A shows up to play a pick game or low level tournamen t game, and player B has warpquake... that turns a game that should be balanced and fair into a ridiculous uphill slog. You don't need to spam the unit to make games excruciatingly difficult for (non-optimized) daemons. It's hard to really point to another example of a troop unit from one army nerfing another army.

I also reject the idea that you can't look at units in isolation. First off, it's a true vacuum: you're looking at a unit compared to the rest of the units in the game. I'm just not sure how the rest of the GK book somehow makes psychic vehicles at a 5pt upcharge balanced. That could be true if the rest of the army were overcosted, but that's not really the case.

In some codices this is true. Look at Nids. They have some stuff that's undercosted, but relies on overcosted stuff to really be good. Vulkan is hideously undercosted, but that makes up for having to buy two overcosted tactical squads. Other times, stuff that's undercosted is just undercosted.

ATSKNF has little if any measurable effect. Get over it.

Yeah, us Xenos players would love to have a prolonged debate about that one....

Also, the math lies plenty because that spreadsheet is based on numerous dubious assumtions of value (as has been extensively pointed out) that all seem to revolve around a marine centric viewpoint.

There is only one math here that does not lie. Wins and losses. GKs are winning, but not as much as IG, SW, or even DE, at the tournament level. Given the large influx of new GK players, their relative win rate per player is probably comparable to BAs. You can spend hours arguing the minute nuances of Strike Squad point values and how they rook Daemons (ignoring that the better GK builds don't even use many Strikes, if any), but the hard truth is that they are probably the overall least successful codex in their first year of release in the new edition, aside from Nids. Seriously, go back and look at what Orks, SW, IG, DE, and even BA racked up in generalship and overall trophies.

No one cares if they are broken in casual play because.... its casual and your friends should stop being tools.

Okay then, lets see yours and how close it gets to 5th editon units?

gendoikari87 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I agree with Vaktathi.

That calculator is not "proof", nor can its findings be presented as FACTs.

As the point-values assigned to various rules and wargear is a matter of opinion, so are the findings......just opinions.

If one was to agree with the philosophy of Gendo, then one could say that it is an informed opinion, but still just an opinion.

It's not opinion, it's math. Designed specifically to balance armies point for point. if you knew anything about math you'd know that.

Are you serious?

Phazael wrote:No one cares if they are broken in casual play because.... its casual and your friends should stop being tools.

This is one of the more worrying opinions I see here. It's been implied throughout the thread, and articulated here.

Balance is more important to casual players. Tournament players know how to beat other elite armies, and build armies that can do so. Casual players find themselves either losing constantly, and being in the humiliating position of making their opponent play at less than full strength.

Having an army become a great tournament army is actually good for tournaments. Having an army crush face at pick up play or club play is bad, because it discourages more players.

It's hard to really point to another example of a troop unit from one army nerfing another army.

Strakenblob vs Nids and just about any assault army
Ravenwing Hamminators vs lots of armies
Nob Bikers vs Tau and Vanilla SM
Grey Hunters vs the entire known universe

Honestly, I don't know about other GK players, but I never even include Strikes (much less the FA ones) unless I am trying to make my army _weaker_ for casual play. Its just pure irony that it happens to bone Daemons harder. Its kind of sad, but the baseline mechanics of Daemons are so off the grid anyhow that its really not worth honing in on. Really, all they would have to do to fix the issue is say "Daemons deploy normally when facing grey knights" to represent daemon world invasions and the problem would be solved.

Fortitude they dropped the ball on. It should have been non-psychic and worked exactly like living metal. The issue it has now is, its priced under the assumption that the enemy always has some form of psychic defense, for which that cost is fair. But not all armies do, either by choice or lack of an option. So either its completely broken (vs Guard, Orks, Tau, ect), on target (vs anyone with a hood, esp SW), or a big game of pray you don't make things worse (eldar).

Steelmage99 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I agree with Vaktathi.

That calculator is not "proof", nor can its findings be presented as FACTs.

As the point-values assigned to various rules and wargear is a matter of opinion, so are the findings......just opinions.

If one was to agree with the philosophy of Gendo, then one could say that it is an informed opinion, but still just an opinion.

It's not opinion, it's math. Designed specifically to balance armies point for point. if you knew anything about math you'd know that.

Are you serious?

yes, and whether you like it or not it's the truth. It's not perfect, no, but it's close. and infinitely more so than whining saying "OMG THE BROKEN" with nothing but opinion to back that statement up.

You want to refute me, use your own math. Come up with something to prove me wrong other than simply whining. Or can you not do math?

Polonius wrote:

Phazael wrote:No one cares if they are broken in casual play because.... its casual and your friends should stop being tools.

This is one of the more worrying opinions I see here. It's been implied throughout the thread, and articulated here.

Balance is more important to casual players. Tournament players know how to beat other elite armies, and build armies that can do so. Casual players find themselves either losing constantly, and being in the humiliating position of making their opponent play at less than full strength.

Having an army become a great tournament army is actually good for tournaments. Having an army crush face at pick up play or club play is bad, because it discourages more players.

And if your friends who you play casual with keep bringing the beatface army.... how are they not being tools? Letting casual games dictate gamebalance is like a barrito before sex; a recipe for total disaster. Casual players often can (and should) disregard rules and limitations on a whim in favor of doing something fun with their friends, so its impossible to even begin to balance around that. Tournament play, where all the gloves are off and everyone is playing by the rules closely, is the best place to adjust things and the only chance to see people apply theoryhammer in a controlled environment.