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.

... also, Wraiths are just machines. Stamped out by the thousands by the production facilities of the Tomb. Their resources, though vast, are not limitless.

There's a whole fethload of time, effort and resources invested in turning an adolescent boy from a tribe of feral Space Vikings into a Space Marine of the Space Wolves Chapter. Also, wolf chow ain't cheap.

This is why the Marine costs more points. It's a reflection of the investment put into making him what he is.

 Psienesis wrote:
... also, Wraiths are just machines. Stamped out by the thousands by the production facilities of the Tomb. Their resources, though vast, are not limitless.

There's a whole fethload of time, effort and resources invested in turning an adolescent boy from a tribe of feral Space Vikings into a Space Marine of the Space Wolves Chapter. Also, wolf chow ain't cheap.

This is why the Marine costs more points. It's a reflection of the investment put into making him what he is.

It's a good take if we consider fluff .

But I think you have to do it the other way round. Consider your units and your costings, introduce a good balance to the various lists, make sure they all balance out (as much as is possible, I don't expect perfect or even near it, and I love 40k because it just has a lot more variety and flavour compared to many other game systems) relative to your rule book.

Then you slap on the fluff. Ideally you'd be developing your Unit types and sizes, your stat lines, your weapons, you special rules, your costings, potential combo's...and then going,'right what should this fella actually look like and how would be behave in the fictional game world?'.

 Redbeard wrote:
No, Tau, as a codex, is a selection of shooty units. An army is what you field on the table. An all Tau army may be shooty, but allies do indeed change that, as Tau allied with Chaos Daemons are now fielding a ton of non-shooty units.

That is not a Tau-army, it's a Tau/Daemon-army.
And balance shouldn't really come down to what Allies can bring, because that is not what wh40k is about.

And this is where your argument falls apart. So you say that a shooty army should pay more for a beatstick combat unit. But because they can take allies, they can get a beatstick combat unit for the price that it would cost in a non-shooty codex. All increasing the cost of a combat unit in a shooty codex does is make it so no one takes it. It doesn't prevent the shooty army from filling the same niche with a cheap unit from an allied codex.

No, that's not what I said.
A shooty army can get away with having a cheap and good combat-unit because they lack the synergy to take full advantage of that.
35 points for that statline with 3++ and Rending is fine for Necrons.
That stuff would be extremely overpowered for my Blood Angels.
It's a matter of context!

but these two units are as close to identical in purpose as you find in this game

Not really.
For Necrons it's the "only" close-combat they can take.
For Space Wolves it's a single unit in the entire wave of models that is travelling the board towards CC.

 Tehjonny wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

You have to BUY the powerfist...you're both talking about it like it comes intrinsically. It doesn't, and that is the difference. The Wraith gets STR6 and a 3+ invuln within it's points cost of 35pts. It costs 100pts for a TW with StormShield & PF....

They have comparable movement rules, the same BS/WS/Wounds. They have comparable init if we consider the cumulative impact of whipcoils and powerfist equipped TWC...

So the TWC gets 1 more Toughness (people are really over-egging that...), and Leadership of 2 points less. They both get rend. TWC get hammer.

We're talking a difference of 65 POINTS. Is the TWC 3 times as good as the wraith in your opinion?

Yes. Don't underestimate the usefulness of T5 and S10.

It's harder to kill TWC with small arms fire, you can't instant kill them with S8, and unlike the wraiths, they can hunt AV13-14 and MC efficiently. Oh, and with the PFs they can instantly murder T4 and T5 models, like wraiths and overlords.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

You have to BUY the powerfist...you're both talking about it like it comes intrinsically. It doesn't, and that is the difference. The Wraith gets STR6 and a 3+ invuln within it's points cost of 35pts. It costs 100pts for a TW with StormShield & PF....

They have comparable movement rules, the same BS/WS/Wounds. They have comparable init if we consider the cumulative impact of whipcoils and powerfist equipped TWC...

So the TWC gets 1 more Toughness (people are really over-egging that...), and Leadership of 2 points less. They both get rend. TWC get hammer.

We're talking a difference of 65 POINTS. Is the TWC 3 times as good as the wraith in your opinion?

Yes. Don't underestimate the usefulness of T5 and S10.

It's harder to kill TWC with small arms fire, you can't instant kill them with S8, and unlike the wraiths, they can hunt AV13-14 and MC efficiently. Oh, and with the PFs they can instantly murder T4 and T5 models, like wraiths and overlords.

That's personal opinion and you're entitled to it . I disagree but there you go. I think they are better, just not 3 times better.

Yes I agree with the small arms, and though you can't insta with STR 8, you can with STR 10 and that often comes in a nice pie plate to boot (obviously it is up to you as a general to not run your lads into that if possible).

They can instantly murder T4/T5 - if they didn't have to take a 50% chance roll to hit them first :p ((that is contextual, I play against Necrons & Other Marine Flavours mostly). The wraith, a T4 model, would not get instantly murdered however, due to their 'free' 3+ invuln...

They still have a higher chance of killing wraiths than wraiths have of killing them. You don't see S10 pieplates that often. The only one that comes to mind is the demolisher cannon, and if you are in range of that you should be able to charge it (well, provided you survive of course. Funnily enough, the chances of a TWC surviving a hit from a demolisher cannon is the same as a wraith surviving a hit from a S10 attack)

Kangodo wrote:

And balance shouldn't really come down to what Allies can bring, because that is not what wh40k is about.

That's pretty funny. So your position is so weak that your last resort is to say "it's not what 40k is about." Says who? My rulebook says allies are part of the game. The fluff has countless examples of allied forces.

No, that's not what I said.
A shooty army can get away with having a cheap and good combat-unit because they lack the synergy to take full advantage of that.
35 points for that statline with 3++ and Rending is fine for Necrons.
That stuff would be extremely overpowered for my Blood Angels.

Really? Amazing how one of the best armies for a while now has been a ton of wraiths and destroyer lords. Almost like they have the required synergy to take advantage of it.

It's a matter of context!

This is a cop-out statement that means absolutely nothing, and simply shows that you don't understand the context.

For Necrons it's the "only" close-combat they can take.

Except, of course, for Lychguards, Praetorians, C'Tan, Flayed Ones, Scarabs, and Canoptek Spyders. But don't let the facts get in the way of your point.

For Space Wolves it's a single unit in the entire wave of models that is travelling the board towards CC.

Except that most successful Space Wolf lists aren't based on having an entire army head for CC, they're based on shooting with units that can receive a charge.

So, both your assertions about how these units are used within their respective armies are incorrect, and you still haven't explained how the unit's actual use differ. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that you really don't know what you're talking about.

Redbeard and ZebioLizard2, your cogent commentary on this topic is most refreshing. I've always felt the argument that you can't compare points from one codex to another is exceedingly lame. It's the main reason for point values in the first place! It's far more relevant for external balance than any internal balance; why this is so hard to grasp I guess I'll never understand.

 amanita wrote:
Redbeard and ZebioLizard2, your cogent commentary on this topic is most refreshing. I've always felt the argument that you can't compare points from one codex to another is exceedingly lame. It's the main reason for point values in the first place! It's far more relevant for external balance than any internal balance; why this is so hard to grasp I guess I'll never understand.

Im surprised people are still replying to redbeard after he owns them that hard.

 Psienesis wrote:
... also, Wraiths are just machines. Stamped out by the thousands by the production facilities of the Tomb. Their resources, though vast, are not limitless.

There's a whole fethload of time, effort and resources invested in turning an adolescent boy from a tribe of feral Space Vikings into a Space Marine of the Space Wolves Chapter. Also, wolf chow ain't cheap.

This is why the Marine costs more points. It's a reflection of the investment put into making him what he is.

is this trolling or is that actually supposed to be an arguement?

 Redbeard wrote:
That's pretty funny. So your position is so weak that your last resort is to say "it's not what 40k is about." Says who? My rulebook says allies are part of the game. The fluff has countless examples of allied forces.

No, my position isn't weak at all nor is it a last resort.
Allies are a part of the game.
It's undoable and undesirable to balance armies around the allies they can take.

Really? Amazing how one of the best armies for a while now has been a ton of wraiths and destroyer lords. Almost like they have the required synergy to take advantage of it.

You mean the army-list that does not rely on allies?
The list that would be kinda crap if it didn't have Warriors in Night-Scythes?
The reason this list is strong is because you keep the enemy busy and use your flyers to 'steal' objectives.

But what is your point?
Wraiths + D-lord are strong.
Wraiths + BA-HQ would be overpowered.
That's why other armies cannot have Canoptek Wraiths and have to pay extra for melee units like that.

Except, of course, for Lychguards, Praetorians, C'Tan, Flayed Ones, Scarabs, and Canoptek Spyders. But don't let the facts get in the way of your point.

Crap, crap, crap, crap, only against vehicles, only usable in the laughable Scarab-farms.
What was your point again?
Or should we redo this thread and compare Lychguard against Assault Terminators?

Ooh yeah, we cannot do that.. Because we need to keep things in context!
Lychguard cannot be too strong or cheap, since that would make the codex too strong in the melee-section.
So comparing them 1 on 1 with Assault Terminators would be stupid.

Keep in mind that 6e seems to be recosting a lot of the older 'elite' units to be cheaper. And I use elite in the sense of low body copunt high point cost units that aren't MC not nesecarily just elite force org choices. Biggest example I can think off is the Eldar wraithguard that dropped 13 points per model but lost their crippling special rule weakness (dependency on wraithseers) And got flatout better stats.

I'm not sure that anything in the Necron codex should be used as a basis for a discussion on external balance. Just about every unit is undercosted when compared to other armies.

Crap, crap, crap, crap, only against vehicles, only usable in the laughable Scarab-farms.
What was your point again?
Or should we redo this thread and compare Lychguard against Assault Terminators?

Ooh yeah, we cannot do that.. Because we need to keep things in context!
Lychguard cannot be too strong or cheap, since that would make the codex too strong in the melee-section.
So comparing them 1 on 1 with Assault Terminators would be stupid.

No. Really. That is your argument for them, it's not that they are OVERCOSTED or BADLY COSTED it's that you need to keep context!

The context here is that they ed up the costs, and by trying to associate some weird "context" that doesn't make any weird sense by any sense of the word.

The fluff is fluff behind an army, the points costs are what actually gives external balance. It's why we had 5th edition SW apologists trying to say Grey Hunters NEED to be 15 points based on such reasoning.

Did you know funnily enough that tau are supposed to deal with their CC issues by taking kroot, but the problem is in the current dex they failed to do anything of the sort. This is not context, this is POOR BALANCE OF A UNIT. This is not trying to make them more shooty, it just means they failed at the goal that unit was supposed to do.

Lychguard are the same way, they were designed to be Elite Melee units (with a hint of defense with the 4++ shield) but the context is they don't do their job well because of factors, most of which involve cost

A lot of people here are just resulting to rudeness...
Quantitive cost is different to relative cost and a mixed cost system is imo better but much harder to balance, than a rudimentary fixed cost portfolio pricing system, due to the nature of business vs. game mechanics creep is unavoidable, including staggered and varied authorship into the mix and you get a rough quantitive price scheme. Nothing is ever going to be to everyone’s taste and calling people stupid over something subjective and context driven is just poor form.
A lot of good points brought up, the allied matrix is a tipping point for balance problems that would be alleviated if the costs were either fixed or relative but at the current instance the quantitive costs are broken by the ability to take allies, yet at the same time the allies system helps to alleviate some instance of creep and player choice favoured balance.
Original question alludes to crons being op vs sw my answer, in short, no.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

No. Really. That is your argument for them, it's not that they are OVERCOSTED or BADLY COSTED it's that you need to keep context!

And facepalming is your argument? Really mature..
If someone tells you the Wraith stats and asks: "Is this badly costed?", you don't answer with yes or no. You ask him what codex it's for.

The context here is that they ed up the costs, and by trying to associate some weird "context" that doesn't make any weird sense by any sense of the word.

It's overly clear that you don't get it. Which is weird, since I didn't use any real difficult words in the text.
The context is that Necrons cannot focus on a melee army, they lack the synergy to take FULLY advantage of them.
Sure, a Destroyer Lord with them is strong. But not as overpowered as most IC's from other armies.

The fluff is fluff behind an army, the points costs are what actually gives external balance. It's why we had 5th edition SW apologists trying to say Grey Hunters NEED to be 15 points based on such reasoning.

And Wraith-lists aren't that overpowered.
So the external balance seems fine.
Next argument?

Did you know funnily enough that tau are supposed to deal with their CC issues by taking kroot, but the problem is in the current dex they failed to do anything of the sort. This is not context, this is POOR BALANCE OF A UNIT. This is not trying to make them more shooty, it just means they failed at the goal that unit was supposed to do.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Lychguard are the same way, they were designed to be Elite Melee units (with a hint of defense with the 4++ shield) but the context is they don't do their job well because of factors, most of which involve cost

There is nothing wrong with Lychguard unless you look at them competitively.
They are a melee unit and (as can be expected) not extremely effective for their points because it's a shooty army.

It's overly clear that you don't get it. Which is weird, since I didn't use any real difficult words in the text.

Being insulting now? I guess your argument can't stand on much so you have to imply those arguing have a lesser intelligence.

The context is that Necrons cannot focus on a melee army, they lack the synergy to take FULLY advantage of themt

There is nothing wrong with Lychguard unless you look at them competitively.
They are a melee unit and (as can be expected) not extremely effective for their points because it's a shooty army.

So why are they there then, To look pretty?

What you are saying literally makes no sense, if they were designed in mind they should be effective at protecting their shooting army from melee attacks, but for their points cost they are ineffective in any role.

There is no hidden context, there is no hidden meaning. They are just designed poorly and as a result it is just better to spam their shooting army instead.

If someone tells you the Wraith stats and asks: "Is this badly costed?", you don't answer with yes or no. You ask him what codex it's for.

And that's just straight up silly, one can easily tell if something is poorly balanced without looking at a specific codex in question.

Kangodo wrote:
If someone tells you the Wraith stats and asks: "Is this badly costed?", you don't answer with yes or no. You ask him what codex it's for.

Not at all. Because "what codex is it for" is an increasingly pointless question. If I was going to ask any question, rather than just evaluate it for what it is (which is what I would do), I would ask what codexes can it ally with. Because in 6th ed, that's a far more meaningful question to ask. "What codex is it for" tells you only how it might fit into one build. But as an ally, it could be found in as many as 12 or 13 different builds.

You keep saying context is important, but that's not true in 6th ed. Once you realize that allies are a huge part of the game, you'll find that this context you keep talking about becomes more and more of a nebulous thing.

The context is that Necrons cannot focus on a melee army, they lack the synergy to take FULLY advantage of them.

You've just described 16 of the 17 codexes in the game. Congrats. The only codex that can currently focus entirely on melee is Daemons. Everyone else has to bring enough guns to handle the flyers they'll encounter, and to soften up the insane amounts of overwatch that Tau can put out.

Sure, a Destroyer Lord with them is strong. But not as overpowered as most IC's from other armies.

Really? Run the math sometime, and you'll find that the Destroyer Lord has a greater than 50% chance to beat any other IC in the game. Pro-tip: Mindshackle Scarabs give the destroyer lord a base 50% chance of winning over anyone Ld10, and better than that against lower leadership values. Only after this 50% chance has failed do you even need to start figuring out the actual battle between the two.

And, S7,AP1 attacks, and T6 with an additional chance to reanimate when dead is pretty impressive. The only thing they're really lacking is an invul save, but being able to resurrect on a 4+. But, again, this only comes into play after the Mindshackle rolls.

And Wraith-lists aren't that overpowered.
So the external balance seems fine.

What basis do you use to make this claim?? Because at Adepticon, out of a tournament field of 230ish players, 7/16 of those who advanced to day two did so using multiple units of wraiths. To me, that sort of performance is a clear indication that these units are overpowered, and that external balance is not fine. If external balance were good, we'd see closer to 16 different codexes qualifying, because people would be able to win with any codex. When over half the unbeaten players get there using one codex, that's a pretty darn good indicator that external balance is extremely bad.

But I guess you're the expert, what with all your data to back up your points and lack of understanding how allies impact 6th edition.

Next argument?

I don't think anything else is needed until you start providing some sort of evidence to support your obviously false claims and flawed conclusions.

They are there to play with?

It's what we like to call "internal balance".
They have a bonus to shooting units, so they get a penalty on melee-units.
There is one exception to give them at least one strong CC-unit.

Do you think the lack of Necron-melee, Tau-melee, Ork-shooting or Tyranid-shooting is a result of poorly designing them?
They are intended to be weaker than the shooty (or melee) option because that's how the army works.

And that's just straight up silly, one can easily tell if something is poorly balanced without looking at a specific codex in question.

Talking about silly.. Let's take another example: Mindshackle Scarabs!
For Necrons they are a strong option.
If Space Marine Captains had that option, it would be overpowered.
So you DO need to look at a specific codex in question.

Or the BA Death Company :') Can you imagine those guys in an Ork-codex?

How would Death Company in the Ork Codex be better than in the BA Codex? Why would an SM Captain (you know, the guy who's WORSE in CC than a Destroyer Lord) be OP with Mindshackle Scarabs?

Also, what lack of shooty Ork or Tyranid units?

Kangodo wrote:

Do you think the lack of Necron-melee, Tau-melee, Ork-shooting or Tyranid-shooting is a result of poorly designing them?
They are intended to be weaker than the shooty (or melee) option because that's how the army works.

I'm glad I'm having a slow day at work because this is just getting funny.

You know that the best ork lists in 6th ed are all about shoota boyz, lootas, and cheap kannons, right? But, you keep going with the idea that orks are bad at shooting. One ork is bad at shooting. 180 orks will shoot you off the table.

I've already pointed out why the Codex is important.
Unit/Wargear/Rule X can be overpowered for one codex, but mediocre for another one.

A Destroyer Lord is T4 because of the Majority-Toughness rule.
A Librarian or Chaplain with JP could be so more devastating.

And Adepticon proves what exactly?
A Codex could do 1% better than the others and people would flock to it.
If people flock to a Codex, it's only statistically unavoidable that the top players will end up with one of those.
It also shows that you do not know the strength of those lists, since they achieve that victory due to their fliers who are perfect at protecting the troops.

I don't think anything else is needed until you start providing some sort of evidence to support your obviously false claims and flawed conclusions.

In this thread? You have got to be kidding me.
This isn't the first time we have had this ridiculousness of "OMFG, model A is cheaper than model B when model A is better!!!"
Life-lesson: Deal with it!
Not everything needs to follow the same rules and it's just plain stupid to compare random models to the strongest CC-model from a codex.
So are you the first person to stop being a hypocrite and open up a thread comparing Flayed Ones or Triarch Praetorians to SW-melee models?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How would Death Company in the Ork Codex be better than in the BA Codex? Why would an SM Captain (you know, the guy who's WORSE in CC than a Destroyer Lord) be OP with Mindshackle Scarabs?

Because 3+ models with 5 attacks on the charge is not something you'd like to see in a codex who already has extremely well options for melee in every other slot.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm glad I'm having a slow day at work because this is just getting funny.

You know that the best ork lists in 6th ed are all about shoota boyz, lootas, and cheap kannons, right? But, you keep going with the idea that orks are bad at shooting. One ork is bad at shooting. 180 orks will shoot you off the table.

Yeah, I'm sure you are having a slow day..

Sure, whatever floats your boat..
And on what tournament are you fielding your Ork-gunlines?

Kangodo wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How would Death Company in the Ork Codex be better than in the BA Codex? Why would an SM Captain (you know, the guy who's WORSE in CC than a Destroyer Lord) be OP with Mindshackle Scarabs?

Because 3+ models with 5 attacks on the charge is not something you'd like to see in a codex who already has extremely well options for melee in every other slot.

They have 2+ models with 4 Power Klaw attacks on the charge that can be scoring, what would Death Company add? As you say, Orks have several decent melee units, why would Death Company be OP for them?

Kangodo wrote:
I've already pointed out why the Codex is important.
Unit/Wargear/Rule X can be overpowered for one codex, but mediocre for another one.

A Destroyer Lord is T4 because of the Majority-Toughness rule.
A Librarian or Chaplain with JP could be so more devastating.

He's T4 for the purpouses of being wounded if he's outside a challenge. Being with Wraiths doesn't change his ID threshold at all. So yeah, tell me all about how a Librarian or Chaplain with a JP is "so more devastating".

And you STILL haven't explained why a Space Marine Captain with MSS would be OP while a Destroyer Lord with MSS isn't.

In this thread? You have got to be kidding me.
This isn't the first time we have had this ridiculousness of "OMFG, model A is cheaper than model B when model A is better!!!"
Life-lesson: Deal with it!
Not everything needs to follow the same rules and it's just plain stupid to compare random models to the strongest CC-model from a codex.
So are you the first person to stop being a hypocrite and open up a thread comparing Flayed Ones or Triarch Praetorians to SW-melee models?

I guess this proves that you can't even provide an actual argument anymore if one can only give "DEAL WITH IT" as an actual answer and be serious about it.

Eyjio wrote:

Fearless is worse than ATSKNF - TWC win

No. Back peddling 3D6 inches is way worse than fearless. LD 8 is a huge liability for TWC and when I still ran squads of three it meant that they'd be losing too much ground to be effective in the game. Who cares if they can auto re-group? They should be farther forward, not back in the back. They are an assault unit.

@Walrus:
Short answer: Space Marines are balanced on Captains not having MSS.
Captains are fine as they are, they see play in friendly and competitive games.
But I don't want to derail this thread with other endless discussions.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I guess this proves that you can't even provide an actual argument anymore if one can only give "DEAL WITH IT" as an actual answer and be serious about it.

Did you miss the last three pages? Enough arguments have been given.

And "Deal with it." is a perfect answer!
Codices aren't externally balanced on a model to model-basis. Deal with it.
Thunderwolf Cavalry isn't going to have their cost reduced any time soon. Deal with it.
Canoptek Wraiths aren't getting their cost increased for another 3 to 4 years. Deal with it.

A quick Google shows that TWC are a viable unit for competitive lists. So it seems that there is nothing wrong with them. "Deal with it."

 amanita wrote:
Redbeard and ZebioLizard2, your cogent commentary on this topic is most refreshing. I've always felt the argument that you can't compare points from one codex to another is exceedingly lame. It's the main reason for point values in the first place! It's far more relevant for external balance than any internal balance; why this is so hard to grasp I guess I'll never understand.

Fun.y, I thought points values were there to purchase units and relevant upgrades. From book to book, points values have no relevance. As has been shown, GW has no rubric for calculating points, and they really don't need to. Every army has different priorities and roles for its units. Why is a zoanthrope an elite, yet a Tyranid anti-tank unit? Why do Blood Angels get assault marines as troops? Its how they have set up their roles.

Kangodo wrote:
@Walrus:
Short answer: Space Marines are balanced on Captains not having MSS.
Captains are fine as they are, they see play in friendly and competitive games.
But I don't want to derail this thread with other endless discussions.

When's the last time anyone took a competetive Vanilla or Blood Angels list and included a Captain, outside of making bikes troops for Vanilla? I really can't take you seriously when you say that Captains are fine, because a Destroyer Lord is just so much better in every single way (again, bar the Bike unlock) and yet it is, according to you, the CAPTAIN that would be OP if he had Mindshackle Scarabs?!

1. Blood Angels with a Captain.. hahaha xD

2. Space Marines have more good transports than Necrons have viable cc-units. So yeah, captains/sergeants with MSS would be horribly overpowered.

If everything was balanced then you would just be playing chess, in which white has a massive advantage. Imbalance is good. Diversity makes the game interesting and challenging.

 Redbeard wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Do you think the lack of Necron-melee, Tau-melee, Ork-shooting or Tyranid-shooting is a result of poorly designing them?
They are intended to be weaker than the shooty (or melee) option because that's how the army works.

I'm glad I'm having a slow day at work because this is just getting funny.

You know that the best ork lists in 6th ed are all about shoota boyz, lootas, and cheap kannons, right? But, you keep going with the idea that orks are bad at shooting. One ork is bad at shooting. 180 orks will shoot you off the table.

Orks *are* bad at shooting, that's why you bring 180 of them! You're relying on the sheer volume of fire that 180 Orks on the table rolls for to win, rather than any single Ork, or even any single squad of Orks, being able to hit the broad side of a Chimera consistently. You're playing to the statistics, not to the strengths of the army's statline (though quantity does have a quality all its own).