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.

Have you seen 5th ed dex that is balanced? I think that GW is trying to make 5th edition balanced edition but I think they have failed that.
Imperial armies are bestest armies that 5th edition has so why? New GKs are better than any imperial army (I think) so why?
Do GW try to do imperial armies owerpowered against alien armies? Only few alien armies can do something against imperials, DE for example.
There is so many questions. Can you answer to them?
This is only my opinion so what is yours?
Tell me!

I'm pretty sure DE was toned down from its previous Codex but I think everyone has the "OMG the new (insert army name here) Codex is completely broken" when it first comes out. The only ones I can think of that weren't such a huge craze was DE and Nids. We have to see on a tournament scale how GKs actually do.

Jone96 wrote:Have you seen 5th ed dex that is balanced?

Against itself or against other 'dexes?

Honestly, while the newer codexes are a bit OTT, they're far from being unbeatable.

I think that GW is trying to make 5th edition balanced edition but I think they have failed that.

I think there's still too many old codexes that need updated in order to make that call, unless you're a standard SM player.

Imperial armies are bestest armies that 5th edition has so why?

Imperial armies aren't the best 5th ed. armies, they're just the easiest to play. DE require a fair amount of finesse to play effectively, and are downright devastating when they do.

A lot of the "best" 'dexes are the ones for which common counters haven't yet been developed.

New GKs are better than any imperial army (I think) so why?

I don't know why you think that... I suspect it has something to do with more experienced imperial players mopping the floor with your army, but I don't know you or your play style, so I can't say if that's true or not. New GKs get blowed up real easy if you're not careful, and they need higher quality damage output to make up for it

Do GW try to do imperial armies owerpowered against alien armies?

Can't say, but it has alot more to do with the quality of the player and the strength of the list than the codex in general. I know some clever 'nid players that can do some serious damage to IG if the IG player isn't careful.

Only few alien armies can do something against imperials, DE for example.

It's all a matter of deployment and play... and having dice that don't break out the long gloves frequently enough to make you want new ones.

There is so many questions. Can you answer to them?

No, I cannot answer TO them, because that would make me crazy, and it would do you very little good.
I cannot answer FOR them, because I'm not GW.
I can, however, provide some personal insight as a response.

I agree, there will always be something (or several somethings) in every new codex that players will look at and go "OMG!! SO UNFAIR!!! (or equivilent).

Things tend to either even out int he long run or everybody works out a common counter for the OTT thing that started the uproar in the first place.

It is also, as stated above, entirley dependant on the player/deployment/dice gods on any given day.

Example: a friend of mine has a 2.5k IG army and should, in theory, mop the floor with my necrons, yet he has never beaten mye 1-on-1. Why? because he insists that the IG is a static army desinged for long range pounding and gun lines, therefore he refuses to put any of his troops in deep cover or trasnports and just cmaps out around 1 objective hoping i'll coem to him. With a decent build and tactics he coudl absolutely detroyer a necron army.


Some thigns will just always be iffy. my fave "WTF" rule at the moment is a SW character that can throw his Thunderhammer (counts something like S9 AP2) and have it return to him! Just sounds to me like something a 10 year old wishlisted.

I think this should probably be in a different section but to chime in,

It's hard to say imperial armies are better, considering they've just simply had a lot more armies updated for 5th edition. Especially when you throw in the DA/BT updates. I think when you look at the non-imperials that were designed with 5th ed in mind (orks, daemons) those armies are perfectly competitive. I also think Nids are underrated as they are a much more complex army based around psynergy not single hammer/death star units that can win. Perhaps a bit underpowered but not on a grand scale. I also think DE codex is well balanced. All in all I think 5th edition is well balanced within itself, the major issue is just severely outdated books trying to compete. GW has been doing a good job at picking the oldest books to work on and we're seeing that.

A few months ago DH was basically a dead army that was severely handicapped.

Jone96 wrote:This is only my opinion so what is yours?

Mine is that there are too many of these pointless complaining threads. We get a new one every week or so.

Like already said, all of the armies updated since 5th + Orks & Daemons, but perhaps with the exception of Tyranids, are perfectly fine and balanced against eachother.

All this talk about "unbalanced" is just parroting in the mind of sheeple.

I think that every game that is made will have some OP thread. The only example that I have is starcraft 2. People are still whining about OP races. The same is happening here. Stop whining and try to find a way to beat that army, that is a way better way to spend your time.

Every 5th ed book so far is absolutely perfect within the context of 5th ed - Guard and Wolves are at the top of the curve but everything (including Nids) released in 5th is balanced against each other. The problem is the old books, some of which are 2 editions out of date, which struggle to compete. If GW remain committed to updating the oldest books at a decent rate (and it's not too many to go now - Necrons and Sisters gets us out of 3rd ed and it's only Tau and Eldar that desperately need an update from 4th) then the game will be fine.

If the 5th ed Dex' where all OP. Then Chaos, Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Orks (?) and the others wouldn't be able to beat the 5th Ed codex', and that isn't the case. Really, they are just more designed to work well in 5th., a codex written for 4th or even 3rd ed, isn't going to be as good at 5th. The Best thing to do, would be to completely re-do the whole range to the same set of rules, because if the rumours about 6th ed coming out next year are true, that means there will probably only be one or two 'proper' 5th ed codex coming out (If Tau/Necrons are next, and not out until October time).

Really, and this is probably the best way to talk about anything being OP or cheesy etc. Its down to the player. Someone who has won 10 tournaments with his Necrons, probably wouldn't win his first tournament with IG or Wolves if he had only been playing them for 3 weeks. Its all down to list writing, practise and optimising your play-style/list, and essentially you can get players from any army, if they have been playing long enough, practising, and optimising, and codex can be powerful. But strictly speaking, IG, Wolves, Space Marines etc should be easier for a noob to pick up and win with than say Eldar or Chaos.