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.

 Traditio wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Bet you wish you weren't spending a hundred and sixty points on each one-shot weapon now, don't you?

180 points (120 + 35 + 25).

Just the marine with boltgun and no other gear would be 155.

But you're basically just corroborating my point:

There is a massive power disparity for different weapons, even accounting for points costs differences.

Power armored marines with bolt guns are completely useless in this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnomanderRake wrote:Bet you wish you weren't spending a hundred and sixty points on each one-shot weapon now, don't you?

I also wish to point out that this is a non-answer to what I'm arguing.

You're trying, I assume, to claim that the HWP is not OP.

You support this by saying that it's "just" a T3 model with a 5+ save on the other side.

My answer is that the statistics of the gunner aren't what make the equipment OP. What makes the equipment OP is the equipment, and even more so when combined with battle focus..

The statistics of the gunner are irrelevant if he can literally sit in a barrel and then close off the end of the barrel with the HWP.

No. I'm trying to claim that it hard-counters your specific strategy of feeding a warband composed entirely of expensive models with single-shot weapons down its barrel.

Maybe if you had access to some cheap dudes you could, I don't know, spread out some, flank the operator? Like, say, Cultists? Or a Sustained Fire weapon of your own, so getting into a firefight with the operator wasn't quite so suicidal?

As for the 'cap-off-the-barrel-with-the-gun-platform' crap I put it to you that you're playing on a really, really stupid board if you've got a position where that's a) possible and b) gives the gunner a decent field of fire while doing so.

 Traditio wrote:

Between the fact that it can literally be anywhere within 2 inches of the person who's manning it AND the fact that guardians have battle focus, good luck hitting that model, much less killing him.

You may want to re-read Battle Focus. It isn't the same as it is in 40k.

Why didn't you mellee them to death? Crawl up your dudes, use cover to hide behind. Don't forget that weapon platforms are extremely expensive - means that they won't have enough guyz to deal with your outnumbering marines crawling up the board.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I've literally never had an argument over cover. This seems very foreign to me. In an event where there's a disagreement I just let my opponent call it. Maybe the group i'm a part of is just a little more laid back than usual.

Nah, I think certain people are just less laid back than usual

When in doubt, you announce your intention. "My guardsman is moving behind these barrels to take cover. It should be heavy cover." opponent: "Yup, heavy cover."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:It dies if you can kill a single-Wound T3 model with a 5+ armour save.

You're the one insisting on designing a team that can't do anything to it beyond stand in front of it and get shot.

Good luck!

Between the fact that it can literally be anywhere within 2 inches of the person who's manning it AND the fact that guardians have battle focus, good luck hitting that model, much less killing him.

Especially with a weapon that only fires one shot per turn.

Very easy to take out with a 25 point frag grenade. Toss it at the weapon platform, and blow up the Guardian.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
to the OP -

The Eldar HWP is powerful, but with a limit of one, it's easily ignored. You could shut it down by advancing hidden so it can't target your models. Then pop a grenade and kill the operator in the explosion. It sounds like you approached the game like stand up fight instead of a Tactical Stealth Espionage game.

But it could be that Shadow War is just not a game for you! The game shines with tons of cover (no more than six inches of clear LOS is my goal), stealthy movement, ambushes, ridiculous skills, epic close combats on the precipice of terrain fifteen inches from the ground, etc.

 koooaei wrote:
Why didn't you mellee them to death? Crawl up your dudes, use cover to hide behind..

Most specifically, use the Hide ability.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Why didn't you mellee them to death? Crawl up your dudes, use cover to hide behind..

Most specifically, use the Hide ability.

in my estimation, Hide is not used nearly enough - and it's because of two things - either people not realizing how powerful it is, or a distinct lack of terrain on the tabletop. any model should be able to hide any turn, basically.

Agree with the OP, SWA is terrible.

A lot of people here tried it, even hosted a tourney for it. Not well received at all and we gave it a few tries. Tourney only had 4 people turn up (one person being the host himself playing).

All they did was try to feed on peoples nostalgia for necromunda by releasing a bastardized version of it. But for what it is worth, necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

yeah I haven't had the chance to play this version. As a fan of Necromunda and a Thousand Sons player (I would have made the same list, infernal bolts are the BOMB!) I saw myself returning to WH40K (Been away awhile due to KIDS!!!!!). The last tourney I played in was only 500 points and I was treated to a slaughter by those who cheese!

Thanks for posting your experience and giving me insight to this games play style. It is very frustrating when you go to have a good game but find it is not balanced. My gaming group is trying out Infinity which is very similar and this sounds a lot like what GW is trying to do to survive the competition.

I guess I should play my Eldar if I do get the chance to play (Finally my guardians will be better used than as cannon fodder!!!!)

Have fun in all things!!!
Tim (Deathguard633)

P.S. Yeah my main army is Death Guard but it is all RT and drives the judges crazy as they always tell me those are NOT legit models but the joke is on them!!!!! They are!!!!

Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

str00dles1 wrote:
necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

lol how isn't Necro balanced?

probably one of the most balanced games I have played tbh..

TBF at this point we're going to need a precise definition of "balanced" in order for the conversation to meaningfully continue.

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

I'd really be interested to know why you think that. Games I feel are unbalanced you can tell by just what factions are playing who's going to win.

 Manchu wrote:
TBF at this point we're going to need a precise definition of "balanced" in order for the conversation to meaningfully continue.

I don't believe this can ever happen, as people's ideas of balanced are very different.


To me, balanced means every single option in the game has an equal amount of usefulness in the game. Some options will give a benefit against certain enemies, others will give against others. But the usefulness will always change with the meta. Look for example at the 5th Ed GK codex's Plasma Syphon, which forces any weapon that uses Plasma to shoot at BS1.

Now, if Orks are the latest flavour of the month, this becomes next to useless. However, if everyone and their brother is bringing many Fire Warriors, a Plasma Syphon becomes the best thing since sliced bread, as sticking one of the se models deep in Fire Warrior territory strips them of their most potent aspect, their firepower. If this became all too common, Tau would eventually die out or switch to Crisis suits with Burst cannons or ion weapons. The Plasma Syphon then becomes useless again, as do Fire Warriors, as when the Fire Warriors return, the Plasma Syphon does too, cancelling each other out in an endless cycle.

This is the issue of balanced in a meta-based competitive circuit. Some things are better against others, and there will always be those switching to the top tier competitive options, which may be as simple as Tactical Squads MSU.

A balanced game would have no meta because nothing would be top tier and more powerful than anything else, meaning everything is equally good against everything, making 40k into a "A > B > C > D > A" situation. Except, that C doesn't just beat D, but also A, as replacing D with C now means A is no longer working, forcing switch to B, which means C is no longer useful, meaning C now switches to A, in an endless loop.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

I'd really be interested to know why you think that. Games I feel are unbalanced you can tell by just what factions are playing who's going to win.

Any faction can create an awful list that's gona loose to about anything. You can't tell that orks will loose to eldar. That's simply not true. An ork can bring a trukk rush list while eldar will jump around with footslogging guardians or spiders (that's considered to be a strong list but doesn't do particularly well vs trukkboyz). It's all about listbuilding.

GodDamUser wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

lol how isn't Necro balanced?

probably one of the most balanced games I have played tbh..

The whole game is a campaign game. The campaign is so broken its unplayable

Eh? People have been playing and enjoying Necromunda campaigns for over 20 years!

It seems that the definition of "balanced" in this thread is:
"no matter what I take, and no matter how poorly I play, there should be an exact 50% chance that I will win the game"

I think someone complained earlier that you get punished in a campaign game for losing.

Imagine that!

Cover's not an issue. Sometimes, it's up in the air, in which case, have a quick talk with your opponent. If you can't agree, roll a die. On a 1-3, it's partial cover, on a 4-6, it's full cover.

Alternatively, if you play at a gaming shop, ask one of the other customers to take a peak and give their opinion, as a neutral third party.

It probably could be BETTER, but it's hardly bad.

Tradito, you complain a lot about people just using instant-win buttons. Why are you complaining that your first attempt isn't just an instant win?

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:What I like about the game is the progression, while not as in depth as Necromunda does have a set end point and can in theory with a small group get a campaign done over a weekend. I also do enjoy the challenge of after taking a heavy loss, working my way back up to the top

How is that good game design or even remotely "balanced"?

It's a game that quite literally kicks you when you're down.

It's perfectly possible to play a game in which there is a massive points disparity between the players.

And not even by ordinary GW standards, where there is simply a de facto points disparity, because units and upgrade options are inappropriately priced.

No. It's a literal points disparity.

Welcome to gw games? I'm not sure what else there is to say.

I have to quote all of this for emphasis.

There are expectations to be considered here, and expecting GW to have a tightly balanced game is an expectation that is born of people that are obliviously new, or just oblivious. The past 40 years of precedent should be enough to inform even casual observers of their game designs.

But you aren't new, yet have expectations that GW games conform to your ideal instead of taking them at face value for what they are. This is a trap a lot of people get caught up in with games, and instead of dealing with it on the terms of the design, they refuse to accept that reality and decide it is flawed because of that delusion.

It's not meant to be a criticism of the person, but of the mind set that so many have and then complain about it publically. It may be time to find a game design you do enjoy rather than kvetch about this being terrible. Time spent on something you do enjoy, is time well spent. Life's too short to do stuff that stinks. Ain't nobody got time fo' dat!

Agree with judgedoug - I don't think "balanced" can reasonably be understood to mean that any possible list will have an equal chance of winning against any other possible list, all else equal. That's what I would call the "hard" definition of balance, which is applicable to something like chess - games with little to no set up variation and little to no randomization. Clearly, SWA is nothing like that.

I think a better definition of "balanced" for SWA is that a reasonably strong list from each faction has a chance of winning against a reasonably strong list (but please note, not any reasonably strong list) from every other faction. I'd call this the "soft" definition of balance. Put it another way, a balanced game is one where play is not abstractly dominated by one or two strategies - which implies more than just list building, of course.

Plus - part of the fun of games with a list-building component is, after all, game mastery - discovering which combinations work better and worse.

The thing that makes Necromunda the most balanced game for me is that, All of the gangs are basically the same and have pretty much the same options in the list build.. the main difference is in their Skill Trees

As it is a game about becoming the top dog, in a campaign there is someone who is going to be stronger as a whole.. but this is also balanced out by giving bonuses to the weaker gang, and several missions where the weaker gang can have the advantage (Ambush comes to mind, as well as raid)

 Manchu wrote:
...I think a better definition of "balanced" for SWA is that a reasonably strong list from each faction has a chance of winning against a reasonably strong list (but please note, not any reasonably strong list) from every other faction. I'd call this the "soft" definition of balance. Put it another way, a balanced game is one where play is not abstractly dominated by one or two strategies - which implies more than just list building, of course...

My short-form working definition of "balanced" is "every faction, option, and unit comes with a good reason to use it". I don't have enough live experience with SWA to comment more directly, but if you find yourself saying frequently/constantly (examples from 40k) "Pyrovores suck, never take them" or "You must field Dreadknights to play Grey Knights" you've run into pretty strong indicators that the game isn't well-balanced.

(By that definition Infinity seems fairly well-balanced to me; I haven't seen every faction/unit in action but the only thing I've run across that actually shouldn't be used is basic non-specialist line infantry (and that mostly because the FO upgrade is so absurdly cheap).)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

My short-form working definition of "balanced" is "every faction, option, and unit comes with a good reason to use it".

This is true in SWA for faction and unit, no arguments. It's not so much true on every option. There aren't many objectively poor choices, but some exist.

Also the issue here is that the OP didn't make a 'Balanced list' he wrote a fluffy list and then was sad when he lost

GodDamUser wrote:

str00dles1 wrote:
necromunda is terrible also as both games are not balanced in any form for campaign

lol how isn't Necro balanced?

probably one of the most balanced games I have played tbh..

I will play Ratskins (or else Spryers) against your Hivers any time. Bring it. You will lose every campaign against me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I will play Ratskins (or else Spryers) against your Hivers any time. Bring it. You will lose every campaign against me.

Pfft.. you wish..

Spyers are terrible (but they are a gimmick list)

and Ratskins are not any better than any other gang, the only thing they have going for them is they ignore a lot of the 'weather'

I know I have never lost a Campaign with my Delaque...

TL;DR: Guy plays a game where you have to pick your forces, picks a terrible combo, gets pwnd, soapbox "the game is broken".

If you want a game where picking your units has zero impact, you should play a game where you can't pick your units.

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

Sorry for being harsh but... You obviously have little experience with infinity...


Btw, back on topic... I tried the game and I found it lacking, for my taste. It is s simplistic ruleset that gives little tactical depth to the game. Moreover, it is a ruleset designed for representing gangs of thugs and it poorly scales up once you include aliens, supehumans and cyborgs.

I guess that its suitability for campaigns is its strong point.

 punkow wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Infinity is nowhere near balanced either.

Sorry for being harsh but... You obviously have little experience with infinity...

I guess different people understand balance differently. I cringe from infinity's action point system.

Back to swa. We're havving a lot of fun running it and you can never tell who's going to win. There even was a game where witches lost 5/7 fighters vs a 5-man necron team in the first few rounds of combat and than pulled a win via cunning positioning and acrobatics. There are lots of equipment options 95% of which make sense. Skill trees are also quite even. Though shooting seems dominant, it's not improving as dramatically as close combat depending on what skills you're getting. And cc is a really vital part of this game - not just an afterthought. While at the same time, you can't really auto-win with any of the playstyles. Isn't it balance?

Yep, there are some issues with how specialists balance out against each other but they seem ok overall.

A) SWA is not a well-balanced competitive game, as others have pointed out. That means it is meant to be played with a fair amount of gentlemanly agreement.

B) Sounds like you played one game, with sub-par list, against a pretty well optimized list. Did you even bother to roll for the after-game campaign stuff? The game is designed to be very forgiving, over the course of a campaign even if you lose. In fact, you may end up losing in the actual game but winning with the stats on your warband after the game ends. Again, this is not to be balanced but to be fun and to be forgiving (or at times brutally, unfairly punishing), and personally, it gives me the context to enjoy an unevenly matched battle.

For example, i played a game the other day where my gaggle of mutants faced off against four grey knights... a great deal of my warband was skipping the mission due to rolls on the injury chart from last game... including my heavy weapons.. but i still can say i enjoyed the challenge of being the underdog, because i know i may come back.

Anyway the point is that SWA has so much of a random-generated swing to it that you have a good chance of enjoying the ride even if your warband is outclassed, and if it is, there are ways you can react to that. But paragon of competitive balance and modern streamlined rules it is not. That is not to say that with some decently balanced forces it can't be a very tactical and deep game to play at times.

But in any case there's nothing wrong with giving a bad review of something, it may inform others with a similar mindset to you.