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.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

List making should matter, but it shouldn't determine the winner. There could always be bad match ups, but not to the extent that GW does it. Little Timmy comes in with his shiny new Blood Angels army and goes up against Tau and Eldar. He has no chance. Even an experienced player would not have good odds.
The balance issue is a serious problem for many people and makes the game fun when the type of army they like is utterly useless. GW should reward fluffy armies, not punish them.

i agree here, what i see though is that example is used alot, and i use it too, eldar and tau are what i think are 6th ed oddities, as in they are powerhouses, that no one before or after matches up to... atleast they cant really ally any more. it also comes from BA are a heavy CC type force and CC is weak in 6th/7th though i think BA have decent delivery systems compared to other CC based forces.

IF you were to look at the other 6th books besides eldar and tau would you say they are all rather similar in power level? not a massive difference between them, sure some of the 6th books are better than others but they are reasonably close. (jsut talking the books released in 6th here).

They're used because it's a quick and easy way to make the point because the power difference is so blatant that even people who don't care about power balance can see it and go "dayum that's fethed up". There are many more examples, but they tend not to be so blatant as they're at a unit level rather than codex. Compare some necron untis such as the lychgarde or praetorians to wraiths. The lychgarde and praetorians are hugely overcosted/underpowered in comparison for units that fill a similar roll. Then you compare CSM zerks to plague marines, CSM bikes to warp talons, SM bikes to assault squads and you see many examples of extremely poor internal balance in the codices which results in greatly limited choices if you want to be competitive and the risk of unintentionally having greatly disparate power levels between players in a game. Most codices can field a decent list but if you stray too far from it you're boned which sucks.

Sucks to be the non-waac player taking 800 points of necron lychgarde and praetorians (20 models) for his low model count elite list against the non-waac player taking a nurgle list with 800 points of nurgle bikers (30 models) for example. That's only going to end one way no matter how many times you play.

Makumba wrote:

ya it adds alot more randomness to the game but you have to think in those terms to win

Ok how to you outthink your opponent getting objectives in his deployment unlike you or him getting missions he can do unlike you ?

You're forging a raging narrative there!
(I really dislike random objectives like this)

 Grimtuff wrote:
So, they say a picture is worth 1000 words. Here's the state of 40k right now.

Spoiler:

Riddle me this. How is that good for the health of a wargame?

If only 40k played that fast!

 SHUPPET wrote:
However, who cares! I like having stronger and weaker armies! It lets me pick between "hard mode" and "easy mode". I personally enjoy hard mode for my armies - it adds to the skill required to win.

Welcome to handicaps, available in most competitve games (just look at golf). If every codex and unit was balanced you could get a much more enjoyable "hard mode" game by giving yourself a handicap of 100, 500 points, whatever and not need to intentionally gimp your list. A large part of the enjoyment is trying hard to win so when you artificially limit yourself by playing poorly or choosing poor units I find it much less fun.

yeah random is random, it doesn't help or hinder any one more than another.

Newer players would have a much better chance of winning if they weren't horribly gimped by their choice of units - ie. horrible balancing. "Oooh rough riders, they look fun!"... no, not going to work sorry mate. Nor are the great looking warp talons or lychgarde. Even against an average player with an average list, taking many of these "tier" of units is just going to get you destroyed as a new player which is not really the best introduction to the hobby.

The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

If it weren't subjective there would be no reason for this thread. The OP gave multiple options implying that he expects people to have different opinions.

People can have different opinions due to a knowledge gap or personal bias, that does not make the topic subjective. You can prove using mathhammer that certain units are objectively worse. A lot of people think with no rational basis that the rapture is coming or that climate change isn't real despite 97%+ of scientsts studies saying otherwise. That does not mean there's a debate on the topic.

You're arguing that it's subjective - it's not.

 Icelord wrote:
I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

This is blatantly false, just check any new release thread in news and rumours.

Yep, I watch hours of SC2 tournaments each week and have for a couple years now. Most imbalance complaints from average players in SC2 are things like banelings or widow mines which are more effective at low skill levels than at high skill levels where a good terran can split well or a zerg knows to have an overseer with their muta flock. Every unit in SC2 is currently balanced to be useful though carriers and motherships... bring on the protoss expansion to reinvigorate these imo! Maps can also be a large source of balance concern in SC2, much like terrain in 40k I guess - wide open spaces for blink stalkers to harass gave rise to brutal blink stalker all ins, just like low terrain in 40k favours gun lines over assault.

If 40k received balance tweaks like SC2 did - +40 points on the vendetta here, +1A to a model there etc in regular updates it would be a much better game. The meta would constantly change, but it would start to approach a much more balanced state.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Wow Yonan, not only are you my random steam bro who appears to share my tastes in gaming judging by your library, you also play Starcraft, share my views on both it and 40k, and you're a good ol Australian like yours truly! We'll have to have a match or two when the NBN guys finally show up to one of their arranged appointments to finish up connecting my internet :(

/hug
If you win it's only because I'm only on 8mbit adsl2 still ; p

 TheKbob wrote:
Warhammer 40k definitely needs balance tweaks, but bug fixes have to come first.

I heartily agree, having an alpha and beta with community testing with bug fixes from their reports would have been wonderful ; / Sadly we'll get neither!