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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?

It is in the part of the rules where SOB can either take allies or do unbound and get any thing they want to deal with those things. See, the perceived imbalance comes from the mentality of "well, I want to play with only X models and those limited set of models should be able to take on anything else of equal points." However, that is not necessarily the appropriate measure of balance and is faulty reasoning. The blanket statement of "x points of any one thing should be able to take on and deal with x points of any other thing" is also based on faulty reasoning.

Overall, it is one thing to say "X army against Y army does not match-up well in any way shape or form" and even if that is true, it is quite another to say that the game itself is imbalanced. One does not necessarily mean the other.

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?

It is in the part of the rules where SOB can either take allies or do unbound and get any thing they want to deal with those things. See, the perceived imbalance comes from the mentality of "well, I want to play with only X models and those limited set of models should be able to take on anything else of equal points." However, that is not necessarily the appropriate measure of balance and is faulty reasoning. The blanket statement of "x points of any one thing should be able to take on and deal with x points of any other thing" is also based on faulty reasoning.

Overall, it is one thing to say "X army against Y army does not match-up well in any way shape or form" and even if that is true, it is quite another to say that the game itself is imbalanced. One does not necessarily mean the other.

So, Morty, not every army has answers to everything (Like you said) unless you ally. And unbound wouldn't help in the case I presented.
If I wanted to play mono SOB (which I did) then I'd just be out of luck. "Sorry bro, buy another expensive dex to cover the holes GW didn't think to fill."

 mortetvie wrote:
Zagman, the problem with your analysis is summed up in asking you why your chosen means of determining balance is correct, authoritative or appropriate? Also, you fail to show why the Starcraft example is faulty because while different units have a different effect on the game, the point of the game is to kill a person's army/base and if the Battle Cruiser can destroy the Ultralisk with impunity, and do so relatively easily, it gives the appearance of imbalance much like comparing certain other units in 40k with each other gives a similar appearance of imbalance. Therefore, how a unit impacts the game is irrelevant if it doesn't have an opportunity to impact the game at all. The starcraft analogy is there to illustrate how it is actually faulty to make comparisons in a vacuum as virtually anyone and everyone is doing so to support the proposition that 40k is imbalanced.

Indeed, there is one thing in saying the game is imbalanced (i.e., the rules and mechanics of the game and the game as a whole); and quite another in saying units or match-ups are imbalanced (e.g., comparing Scatter Jetbikes with Devastators). One does not necessarily mean the other and just because the latter exists, does not mean the game is imbalanced since as per 40k rules, everyone technically has access to the same exact things-they just choose not to take those things or they choose to accept limitations imposed upon them via social contract or tournament restrictions.

It is not my means of determining balance, it is the definition of balance extrapolated to include the points cost and capabilities of the units. We pay a price, and receive a unit capable affecting the game to varying degrees. My chosen means is not authoritative on my own account, but it is correct and appropriate as it is the system that is supplied to us to measure balance.

We pay a cost for a unit and upgrades. We pay opportunity cost and "Taxes" for Formations and synergy.
We receive a certain ability to affect the game for that cost.
We compare the ability of those units to affect the game with one another taking into the account the complexity of the game and its different phases.
Balance, by its definition, means we should have a similar, even if different in scope, ability to affect the game. The more similar units are, the easier this comparison is.

In regards to your Starcraft reference, you are the one who is creating a strawman argument about comparing them in a vaccuum. Yes, in a vacuum they are a terrible comparison. I said, that through different mechanisms, it is quite possible and likely they are balanced as they have a similar ability to affect the game in relation to their cost. Please do not put words in my mouth to suit your own ends.

Again, another strawman. We are not comparing units in a vacuum, indeed we are comparing units in regards to the varying different kinds of situations they can be in. What matters is a units "actual" and "real" ability to affect a game and in the varying situations it can be found. Comparing Devastators to Scatter Bikes seems like a silly comparision, until we compare Devastators with Heavy Bolters to Scatter Bikes, and then we could ass the pricing and balance of those relative units. Identical toughness, identical range, mobility or lack there of, leadership, special rules, and damage versus different target profiles. We could quite easily compare those two things, not in a vacuum, but in regards to their ability to affect the game. As they are similar in many characteristics it is a vialbe method of determing balance in relation to point cost. We could clearly show that Scatter Bikes can pay 27pts for 4S6 Shots at 36" while Devs pay 24pts for 3 S5 Shots at the Same range. Dev also must pay for another ablative would, do not have relentless, have a limited ability to field those weapons, max 4 HBs in a unit whereas Scatterbikes can put one on each. We could clearly show that there is an imbalance between the codices between the two units and a cost disparity. One is much more mobile, capable of moving and firing at full effect, capable of generating its own cover save, fielding more firepower per point, able to field much more total firepower, and one can have Objective Secured as well. The strength of the Scatterbikes significantly outweigh the few advantages the Devs have. That is how balance works, we clearly see that the SM player fielding Devs is paying too much for their ability to affect the game compared to the Eldar player. Now, when more units are examined, in game context of all of the phases of game and likely situations, we see that there is a large balance disparity, with EJBs being far superior. Eldar Points, for many units, are worth more than Space Marine Points.


Saying that everyone has access to every choice is moving the goal posts and avoiding the issue of balance. Sure, everyone can play Eldar, but that does not make Eldar nor 40k Balanced.

Yes, we can create a social contract, but that contract references point costs which are the metric for which intercodice balance is to be maintained. Similar pointed units should have similar abilities to affect the games, now how we netermine a true impact on a game is more difficult, it should be appropriate for the cost of the unit. We can clearly demonstrate many times over how imbalanced many things are, and how some armies are recieving a larger ability to affect the game than the cost in points they pay. That is by definition imbalanced.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?

It is in the part of the rules where SOB can either take allies or do unbound and get any thing they want to deal with those things. See, the perceived imbalance comes from the mentality of "well, I want to play with only X models and those limited set of models should be able to take on anything else of equal points." However, that is not necessarily the appropriate measure of balance and is faulty reasoning. The blanket statement of "x points of any one thing should be able to take on and deal with x points of any other thing" is also based on faulty reasoning.

Overall, it is one thing to say "X army against Y army does not match-up well in any way shape or form" and even if that is true, it is quite another to say that the game itself is imbalanced. One does not necessarily mean the other.

So, Morty, not every army has answers to everything (Like you said) unless you ally. And unbound wouldn't help in the case I presented.
If I wanted to play mono SOB (which I did) then I'd just be out of luck. "Sorry bro, buy another expensive dex to cover the holes GW didn't think to fill."

The problem there, as you admit it, is that you want to play mono SOB. Therefore, if you impose those limitations upon yourself, then of course you will have an unbalanced result. That doesn't necessarily mean that the game is unbalanced.

And Zagman, I have not created any strawmen nor have I moved the goal posts. Simply put, Warhammer out of the box lets you take anything and everything and so the perceived imbalance is in what people choose to put in their armies compared to what they may face on the tabletop. Therefore, if you have an imbalanced match-up, that is because of the respective players' choices in making army lists and not the game's fault.

Now if you want to talk about why making an army entirely from the SOB codex is not as strong as making an army entirely from the Eldar codex, that is another issue altogether.

So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yep. The game is balanced because everyone can play Eldar.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yes and no. The thing I am harping on is WHAT exactly we are calling imbalance and what exactly we are saying is imbalanced. Call it semantics but as Brother pointed out, I am an attorney and words matter.

I maintain that the game is balanced as a whole because anyone CAN take anything. The imbalance comes when people CHOOSE to take one thing over another thing. Those are two completely different things that we are discussing.

I never denied and I am willing to concede that Eldar have an advantage over many armies, especially an army like SOB-when things like allies and the options to take whatever you want are off the table. When people have either self-imposed or TO imposed limitations on how an army can be built, then the balance and relative strength between different armies and units is something that should be discussed as people are then actually limited in what they actually can take in an army.

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yes and no. The thing I am harping on is WHAT exactly we are calling imbalance and what exactly we are saying is imbalanced. Call it semantics but as Brother pointed out, I am an attorney and words matter.

I maintain that the game is balanced as a whole because anyone CAN take anything. The imbalance comes when people CHOOSE to take one thing over another thing. Those are two completely different things that we are discussing.

I never denied and I am willing to concede that Eldar have an advantage over many armies, especially an army like SOB-when things like allies and the options to take whatever you want are off the table. When people have either self-imposed or TO imposed limitations on how an army can be built, then the balance and relative strength between different armies and units is something that should be discussed as people are then actually limited in what they actually can take in an army.

Very well, Morty, I'd say I define imbalance as "codecies having distinct advantages or disadvantages over other codicies." (Such as DA against Eldar)
Of course you can just buy Eldar and have a balanced game against Eldar. But few people want that and ruins their enjoyment of the game. Thus, codex imbalance leads to people not enjoying the game, as was my case.
But many people get into this game due to the fluff and have attachment to one faction or the other. You're basically saying that they can't play their faction that they love because the game is imbalanced. That's the problem we're dealing with.

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So basically Morty is saying ally stuff in or you're screwed.

Exactly.
Mono SOB (or DA, BA, SW, etc) is at a severe disadvantage to Mono Eldar.
I think we call that...imbalance.

Yes and no. The thing I am harping on is WHAT exactly we are calling imbalance and what exactly we are saying is imbalanced. Call it semantics but as Brother pointed out, I am an attorney and words matter.

I maintain that the game is balanced as a whole because anyone CAN take anything. The imbalance comes when people CHOOSE to take one thing over another thing. Those are two completely different things that we are discussing.

I never denied and I am willing to concede that Eldar have an advantage over many armies, especially an army like SOB-when things like allies and the options to take whatever you want are off the table. When people have either self-imposed or TO imposed limitations on how an army can be built, then the balance and relative strength between different armies and units is something that should be discussed as people are then actually limited in what they actually can take in an army.

You are dancing through arguments by altering definitions to suite your needs. It's evident in all of your arguments, 40k or not.

You have settled on arguing balance by choice, when almost everyone else is arguing imbalance in choice.

We all understand we can each have the ability to choose the best options, ie Scatterbikes, Wratihknights, etc, but, where the disagreement comes in is that those choices are relatively limited and centered in a few codices. Eldar are getting more raw capability and often potential synergy out of their units per point when compared to almost every other army in every single slot, you view this as acceptable and balanced as everyone has the choice to choose those units whereas everyone else views the lack of viable options or simply inferior options from other codices are imbalanced.

We are giving a metric, points cost, to evaluate units. Currently there exists a gross imbalance in choice rendering the vast majority of selections in many codices inferior to those present in other codices.

Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice. That is the root of the disagreement. The largest complaint is that codices, especially Eldar and Decurian Necrons, are able to purchase significantly more for their points than many other codices, an especially prevalent trend in 7th edition. A half dozen or so internally and externally balanced codices followed by one with a majorly over effective Detachment, and one that was the strongest and received nearly across the board buffs, many of which are completely unwarranted. That disparity in what a point buys you depending on whether you are holding a Dark Angels or Eldar codex is the grievance, simply saying everyone has the choice to choose the best options from the best codex is a copout. There shouldn't exist such a massive difference in the potency of options.

Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice.

Guys, where's he supposed to move the goal post to with you guys leaving all your reasoned arguments just lying all over the place?



40k is teeh balanced cuz ne 1 can haz eldar - bols commentator voice

Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

 Zagman wrote:
Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice.

Not being snide here, but that sounds like "Composition", like Highlander, or the old 3e formula ... (guessing from fuzzy memory):

HQ 15%
Troops 40%
FA, E, HS ~ 17%

... That doesn't look right. Anyway.

Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.
This guy has been amazingly wrong and all he does is argue about pointless issues.
Fact is everyone knows elder are overpowered.
Each day there is more and more battle reps being put out showing how busted elder are.
Tournaments organizers are already nerfing the codex.
And yet he continues arguing pointless obsfucated issues that have nothing to do with the fat eldar as an army is overpowered and broken. If he is a lawyer the only thing he has been good at is sidetracking you with nonsense. The only care about balance in 40k has nothing to do with his blathering. What matters is can most army codexs have a fair game and reasonable chance to win vs eldar when two equal players play against each other. The answer unequivocally and shown by many many battle reps is no.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

Another dick post from OverWatchCNC. Douche.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.

Cue Ren Hoek, "I told them! But they wouldn't believe me!"

gungo wrote:
Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.
This guy has been amazingly wrong and all he does is argue about pointless issues.
Fact is everyone knows elder are overpowered.
Each day there is more and more battle reps being put out showing how busted elder are.
Tournaments organizers are already nerfing the codex.
And yet he continues arguing pointless obsfucated issues that have nothing to do with the fat eldar as an army is overpowered and broken. If he is a lawyer the only thing he has been good at is sidetracking you with nonsense. The only care about balance in 40k has nothing to do with his blathering. What matters is can most army codexs have a fair game and reasonable chance to win vs eldar when two equal players play against each other. The answer unequivocally and shown by many many battle reps is no.

Exalted and advice taken.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

Another dick post from OverWatchCNC. Douche.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Holy crap you guys are still arguing with mort.

Cue Ren Hoek, "I told them! But they wouldn't believe me!"

It's ok, this thread reached screaming into the void status about 9 pages ago.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Chess called, it has the balance you've been looking for

Chess is balance through no choice.

No one is arguing for perfect balance, or homogeneous choices, but much could be done... Too bad GW puts almost no effort into logically costing units and upgrades.

Brothererekose wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Balance by choice, or imbalance in choice.

Not being snide here, but that sounds like "Composition", like Highlander, or the old 3e formula ... (guessing from fuzzy memory):

HQ 15%
Troops 40%
FA, E, HS ~ 17%

... That doesn't look right. Anyway.

If you read Composition out of anything I said, you failed at reading comprehension.

I wasn't suggesting solutions, merely illuminating and explaining the problem especially how Adam was describing balance compared to most.

Having yet to play the new eldar I will comment to feel free to take my advice with more then a grain of salt.

When I first saw the codex I was blow away. Thought the sky was falling and was wondering why the hell I was going to do. But I listen to some friends who had played vs the dex. Inculding list like DE allies with Webway deep strikes. And they were walking away with victories.

Is the codex Strong? oh yes. All the d is scary. And the bikes can put out quite the volume of shots. However it seems these options lack durability. Most of the game right now is a bit overly focused on low Ap over volume of shots so everyone is scared because the eldar Excel at this and with there jink saves can survive onslaughts of attacks by them.

And with the Bikes squads that can fire 40 STR 6 shots a turn it seems they have volume of fire too.

However Eldar never really get the anything better then a 3+ save and are pretty rubbish in melee. This means they are extremely vulnerable to Massed fire and lots of the Big blasts.

So it seems to me they are going to be a pain to play around but have there legitimate weaknesses.

 Zagman wrote:
If you read Composition out of anything I said, you failed at reading comprehension.

As a teacher, I *will* snidely say, " Stick it, buddy! " You in *my* kitchen sucka, and I know reading comprehension when I see it.

 Zagman wrote:
I wasn't suggesting solutions, merely illuminating and explaining the problem especially how Adam was describing balance compared to most.

(no more sarcasm or snarkiness)
Of course, maybe I was reading with Rose-colored glasses, more specifically, solution-colored glasses, and hoping to see resolution, acceptance and peace, I read what was not there.

And you state you were not headed so. I apologize.

Now, though, I ask why not? Why not propose solutions?

Or is just being on the gripe-about-it-around-the-pickle-barrel-committee the best way to go ? Certainly seems the popular choice.

Me? I wanna play.

Nerf the Destroyers? Fine. Limit the skeezee Ballistic Skill 5 formations? Fine. One Heavy gun per JB unit? Fine.

And, though Overwatch stated the void was being screamed at, I'd like to see this thread come back to something more productive, like solutions for play?

ITC already has done so. Maybe, we get outta this thread, something for all folks (not intending to sound hokey), but for our global community, too.

Zag, I'm gonna PM you. I think we met at a LVO or BAO ....

People act as if 3+ armor and/or 3+ cover is bad.
I don't know what game you've been playing.
You do realize we are talking about the basic cheap ob sec troop choices?

People act as if banshees stil suck and things like wraith lord,wraith blades, wraithknight, avatars are bad in Melee or things like harlequins and dark eldar aren't easily battlebrothered in if you remotely care about assault. Assault is basically unneeded anyway and I fully expect most eldar players just not to care about putting any of these good assault units I their lists anyway.
Ap3 cover ignoring shooting isn't really a common weapon in 40k especially in any type of abundance but even if there is an army with a decent amount of ap3 cover ignoring shooting eldar psychic powers, warp spiders and harlequins still have a ridiculous amount of invis or shadowseer combos or shooting shenanigans that make those protected units practically impossible to hit. And nearly every eldar army list will have a decent amount of psychic powers. There is no easy answer to the current eldar codex and people posting like its no big deal obviously haven't played them. While defensively eldar didn't change a whole lot they did get a few considerable bumps in defensive power.

The only ap3 ignore cover shooting I have comes on the side of a land raider redeemer or the top of a predator that can't sneak up on you anymore, and has a mighty long range of almost 9 inches!
Be afraid jetbikes!

Not saying 3+ is bad at all. Its quite durable. MEQ is nice. However its 1/2 as effective as TEQ and thus allot more vulnerable to mass fire. A squad of 10 bikes w/ scats is 270 points. Drop pod a 10 man bare bones Tac squad on them and on average that will be enough for the to take a leadership check and you can field 2 units of them for every 1 unit of Bikes.

Any thats not counting fun special weapons you can equip squads with. (I use marines as example as they are the most played)

niv-mizzet wrote:
The only ap3 ignore cover shooting I have comes on the side of a land raider redeemer or the top of a predator that can't sneak up on you anymore, and has a mighty long range of almost 9 inches!
Be afraid jetbikes!

There's the FW whirlwind relic that is S4 AP3 I believe and ignores cover with the legacy of glory(I forget the name)

It seems this thread has more than outstayed its welcome for now.

I'm sure time and the calm, thoughtful player base will come up with something.