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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


That cuts both ways. If asking how deep a hole is isn't relevant saying "Oh, very," isn't particularly relevant either.

I expanded on my thoughts in the post you quoted if you're interested.

Concrete proof is hard. What I could show is how few models the various Russ hulls actually end up removing from the table per turn. Couple that with an occasional pen that causes firepower to go to practically zero, and you have an overpriced box of suck.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


That cuts both ways. If asking how deep a hole is isn't relevant saying "Oh, very," isn't particularly relevant either.

I expanded on my thoughts in the post you quoted if you're interested.

Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Concrete proof is hard. What I could show is how few models the various Russ hulls actually end up removing from the table per turn. Couple that with an occasional pen that causes firepower to go to practically zero, and you have an overpriced box of suck.

So instead of saying you 'could show' why the Russ is bad you could show it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.

Well yeah, because if my frame of reference is a universally bad unit, then most units in the game would be considered good. Likewise the opposite is true. Does either really accomplish anything? How useful it is to have a discussion claiming heavy weapon squads are amazing compared to ratlings? Likewise, claiming the riptide sucks in comparison to the wraithknight is also useless.

*Edit* I guess my point is that you can't really find a suitable baseline in 40k at the moment. The power gap is so wide you'd be left wanting trying to explain why you feel any particular makes a good baseline, which would be its argument because of course someone would disagree with your idea of a good baseline unit.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.

Well yeah, because if my frame of reference is a universally bad unit, then most units in the game would be considered good. Likewise the opposite is true. Does either really accomplish anything? How useful it is to have a discussion claiming heavy weapon squads are amazing compared to ratlings? Likewise, claiming the riptide sucks in comparison to the wraithknight is also useless.

*Edit* I guess my point is that you can't really find a suitable baseline in 40k at the moment. The power gap is so wide you'd be left wanting trying to explain why you feel any particular makes a good baseline, which would be its argument because of course someone would disagree with your idea of a good baseline unit.

I suspect a better conclusion to reach is that comparing one unit to one other unit isn't helpful and you'd have to come up with a range of units to formulate some sort of baseline.

Honestly, I don't feel like at this moment. But lascannons, plasma cannons and heavy bolters have been discussed thoroughly. That leaves the turret weapons. Ordnance is a pure curse now, leaving things like the punisher and the ignore cover variant. The punisher is okay, but all the blasts fail vs MCs hard. For the price tag, I expect much better in 7th ed. If you don't believe me, keep bringing Russ hulls by all means.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Indeed. It was a bit circular and struck me as missing the point. If you want to say a unit is 'good' or 'bad', and you can't or don't want to define a frame of reference, then the judgement isn't particularly useful.

Well yeah, because if my frame of reference is a universally bad unit, then most units in the game would be considered good. Likewise the opposite is true. Does either really accomplish anything? How useful it is to have a discussion claiming heavy weapon squads are amazing compared to ratlings? Likewise, claiming the riptide sucks in comparison to the wraithknight is also useless.

*Edit* I guess my point is that you can't really find a suitable baseline in 40k at the moment. The power gap is so wide you'd be left wanting trying to explain why you feel any particular makes a good baseline, which would be its argument because of course someone would disagree with your idea of a good baseline unit.

I suspect a better conclusion to reach is that comparing one unit to one other unit isn't helpful and you'd have to come up with a range of units to formulate some sort of baseline.

Sure, which I don't believe is helpful in 40k with the power gap. My BFG example was to prove it is possible to have a good baseline and that it works if the game doesn't go bonkers.

I suspect one could trace a lot of the issues, for infantry certainly, back to the fact that a stat of 3 is considered "normal" but thanks to a preponderance of Marines, is functionally below average.

Stats of 4 don't really matter anymore. 3 and 4 both wound t6 on a 6 and are both wounded by s6 on a 2.

But they hit on different numbers near every time.

Nevelon wrote:You start by comparing one unit to another. Then keep comparing units to each other until you get a large enough sample size to draw general conclusions. Now this can be difficult, because units are good at different things, so there is a lot of subjectivity in there. We are not just comparing how many points of X they can kill, but how mobile they are, how tough they are, etc. And once you make enough comparisons, you can figure out where on the bad-good spectrum they fall. In an ideal world, that spectrum looks like a bell curve. Most units in the balanced middle, with a few outliers on either end. In your poll options, this is the judge by the mid range, and how I generally view things.

This indicates that it's not enough to compare thunderfire cannons to whirlwinds. You'd have to compare thunderfire cannons, whirlwinds, etc. to all barrage platforms (or some subset of those). And even then, I'm not sure how you'd go about answering the question of whether or not barrage in general is well balanced.

Imperial Knights come to mind. It's my understanding that the general consensus holds that IKs are appropriately costed for what they are. However, a substantial portion of the player base doesn't think that IKs should even be a part of the "normal" game to begin with.

And this is another one of those things that has me wondering. Who precisely thinks that IKs are appropriately costed or balanced? What is their point of comparison?

Example:

Martel will insist that IKs are significantly underpowered because wraithknights, scatter bikes and fire dragons tear them to shreds for far cheaper.

Others will insist that IKs don't belong in the game at all.

Others will insist that IKs, granted that they are in the game, are well balanced.

Again, I ask:

"Compared to what?"

This is actually a thread I've been wanting to make for a while, precisely because people insist on throwing out claims like these, and it always has me wondering:

"What are your presuppositions?"

In the WW example, the fact that it is 65 points in the current codex lends some weight to the fact that it was bad at 85.

Therefore wraithknights were bad when they weren't GMCs?

 Traditio wrote:
However, a substantial portion of the player base doesn't think that IKs should even be a part of the "normal" game to begin with.

This has nothing to do with balance. People who make this argument usually want those LoW type units excluded because they're too big from a fluff/theme point of view of "what 40k should be", not because they're too powerful for their point costs. As usual so much of your confusion seems to come from the fact that you bring in marginally-related arguments and demand that everyone explain how it can all be consistent.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But they hit on different numbers near every time.

BS4 is a 33% increase in firepower over BS 3. Which kinda sucks, I admit. However, BS alone isn't that great looking at DE and old school marine heavy weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
However, a substantial portion of the player base doesn't think that IKs should even be a part of the "normal" game to begin with.

This has nothing to do with balance. People who make this argument usually want those LoW type units excluded because they're too big from a fluff/theme point of view of "what 40k should be", not because they're too powerful for their point costs. As usual so much of your confusion seems to come from the fact that you bring in marginally-related arguments and demand that everyone explain how it can all be consistent.

In this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/691980.page

As well as the thread that I started, of which the one I linked above was the spin off, the opinion was voiced, among the substantial minority view, that SHVs and GMCs constribute to game imbalance.

SHVs are almost universally overcosted, as they are subject to extra HPs from melta/AP1 and being hull pointed out by S 6/7. They are NOT a balance problem. IKs are a joke compared to Riptides and Wraithknights. Even the mighty Warhound titan can be felled relatively easily compared to GMCs.

My point was that you can compare two units, and decide if one is better or worse then the other. (Subjetively and generally)

But to tell if one is bad or OP, you need to look at the sum of the units to see where they fall in the group.

For example, you could say that dev cents are better then grav bikers. That does not mean that either one is bad/OP by themselves. Just that on average, one is better. When we compare them to the rest of the codex, we find them both to be some of the stronger options. OP? In some eyes yes, but not in others. That's where looking at every unit comes into play. Different people have different benchmarks.

Howling banshees are better the eldar rangers. Both are widely panned as being the worst units in their codex. But the overall power level of the eldar make them not bad in an overall sense. Heck, most of the stuff in there is decent on it's own merits, but just suffers from not being scatbikes and WKs.

Martel732 wrote:
SHVs are almost universally overcosted, as they are subject to extra HPs from melta/AP1 and being hull pointed out by S 6/7. They are NOT a balance problem. IKs are a joke compared to Riptides and Wraithknights.

Do you think that riptides and wraithknights are well-balanced?

 Traditio wrote:
In this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/691980.page

That's an 11 page thread. Stop wasting our time with "here's hundreds of posts, go find something to make my point for me".

As well as the thread that I started, of which the one I linked above was the spin off, the opinion was voiced, among the substantial minority view, that SHVs and GMCs constribute to game imbalance.

Yes, of course LoW-type units contribute to balance problems. D-spam titans, Wraithknights, etc, are too powerful for what they do. A Malcador, on the other hand, is indisputably a weak unit that contributes to balance issues in the exact opposite direction. Making any kind of blanket statement about what LoW do to game balance is complete nonsense. The only reasonable blanket anti-LoW argument to be made is the theme one: that 40k is supposed to primarily be a game of "normal" squads, and allowing LoW-size units in a normal game breaks the theme too much. This is an argument that is entirely independent of balance.

 Nevelon wrote:
My point was that you can compare two units, and decide if one is better or worse then the other. (Subjetively and generally)

But to tell if one is bad or OP, you need to look at the sum of the units to see where they fall in the group.

For example, you could say that dev cents are better then grav bikers. That does not mean that either one is bad/OP by themselves. Just that on average, one is better. When we compare them to the rest of the codex, we find them both to be some of the stronger options. OP? In some eyes yes, but not in others. That's where looking at every unit comes into play. Different people have different benchmarks.

Howling banshees are better the eldar rangers. Both are widely panned as being the worst units in their codex. But the overall power level of the eldar make them not bad in an overall sense. Heck, most of the stuff in there is decent on it's own merits, but just suffers from not being scatbikes and WKs.

I basically agree with what you are saying, and ultimately, this is the point that I'm trying to get at myself.

"Leeman russes are bad."

No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad.

 Traditio wrote:
Do you think that riptides and wraithknights are well-balanced?

By your own premise you can't answer that question. If you choose Wraithknights and Riptides as your reference point then Wraithknights and Riptides are well balanced. If you choose naked tactical marines (with no formations or weapon upgrades) as your reference point then they're overpowered. If you choose D-spam titans as your reference point then Wraithknights and Riptides are probably a little on the weak side. So why are you asking a question that, under your own beliefs, can't be answered?

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
SHVs are almost universally overcosted, as they are subject to extra HPs from melta/AP1 and being hull pointed out by S 6/7. They are NOT a balance problem. IKs are a joke compared to Riptides and Wraithknights.

Do you think that riptides and wraithknights are well-balanced?

Part of me says no, but I've also partially accepted them as the new normal. There is no mechanic to stop people from bringing them, and mass Riptide is even encouraged by a formation. This is why I say SHV are likely overcosted, or at worse, completely fair.

"No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad."

They're bad, because even my lowly BA kind of sneer at their ineffectiveness. I know I can get across the table against them, and once I do, they all die. You can't do enough damage with heavy bolters, lascannons, and the amount of S5 the punisher generates.

Peregrine wrote:A Malcador, on the other hand, is indisputably a weak unit that contributes to balance issues in the exact opposite direction.

This.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about in the OP.

Malcadors are weak in comparison to what?

Making any kind of blanket statement about what LoW do to game balance is complete nonsense.

That may be your opinion, but it's not one that is universally shared. A substantial minority of people disagree with you.

and allowing LoW-size units in a normal game breaks the theme too much. This is an argument that is entirely independent of balance.

I'm afraid I don't follow. How can you simultaneously assert that allowing LoW-size units into the normal game breaks the game, but not assert that LoW-size units are imbalanced in relationship to the rest of the game?

 Traditio wrote:
No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad.

But it does, if most people are using the "game breakingly OP" options. Taking LRBTs in that environment means putting yourself at a huge disadvantage and probably losing games because of your choice to bring LRBTs. That's a pretty good definition of "bad". And LRBTs don't even compare all that favorably compared to less-powerful units.

"Malcadors are weak in comparison to what? "

Other ways to spend that many points.

 Traditio wrote:
Malcadors are weak in comparison to what?

In comparison to whatever you're comparing units to when you say that Wraithknights and Riptides are overpowered. The Malcador is one of the weakest units in the game for its point cost, even basic LRBTs are a better use of ~300 points.

That may be your opinion, but it's not one that is universally shared. A substantial minority of people disagree with you.

I don't care about your "substantial minority", they are indisputably wrong. You can't make a blanket statement about "all LoW" when LoW include the full power level from Malcadors to D-spam Reaver titans.

I'm afraid I don't follow. How can you simultaneously assert that allowing LoW-size units into the normal game breaks the game, but not assert that LoW-size units are imbalanced in relationship to the rest of the game?

Because it's breaking the theme, not balance. Seriously, why are you having so much trouble with this? The argument against LoW is "I think 40k should be a game between 5-10 'normal' size squads, it ruins my enjoyment of the game when my opponent puts down a single giant tank and a token squad of infantry as their entire army". This is an argument about what the game should be like from a theme point of view, it's just as true if the LoW army loses every game.

Because Dante breaks the game? LoW is just another FOC slot. What goes into it is what matters. Drop melta is still a huge risk for any SHV, as virtually none have interceptor. That's a risk GMCs don't have to worry about.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
No, they aren't. They're less cost efficient than the game-breakingly OP options. That doesn't make them bad.

But it does, if most people are using the "game breakingly OP" options.

It makes them bad in comparison to those things. It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts.

Taking LRBTs in that environment means putting yourself at a huge disadvantage and probably losing games because of your choice to bring LRBTs.

Emphasis mine.

And LRBTs don't even compare all that favorably compared to less-powerful units.

What "less-power units" do you have in mind? Would you like to trade your codex option for leeman russes with my codex option for predators?

" It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts. "

But they're not even good then. Well-played BA and CSM can over run you pretty easily. You're paying a lot of points for marginal killing power. No one cares about AV 14 anymore.

 Traditio wrote:
It makes them bad in comparison to those things. It doesn't make them bad in comparison to the rest of the game as a whole, including the options that aren't taken in competitive contexts.

Malcadors are bad compared to most of the game, including options that aren't taken in competitive contexts.

What "less-power units" do you have in mind?

Taking a blob of 150 points worth of guardsmen and giving them FRFSRF. The blob of guardsmen is clearly not at the same power level as a Wraithknight, but it is still better than the poor LRBT.

Would you like to trade your codex option for leeman russes with my codex option for predators?

Sure. At least the Predator is cheap, while the LRBT is ineffective and expensive. I probably wouldn't take either in a competitive environment though.

Predators have the exact same problem as Russes: antiquated Imperial heavy weapons.