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.
This is something I've asked of other games, but I feel it will be slightly harder to pin down in 40k.
What, exactly, makes a model 'broken'?
And before anyone says it, no, I'm not referring to when it hits the floor in one piece, and bounces back up in three.
As I've said, I've asked this of other games, and the most important distinction going in is always that 'broken,' in general, does not necessarily mean over powered. A model can be bad, and still be broken. Like wise, being over powered does not, necessarily, mean something is broken. Being over-powered, or even under-powered, is not necessarily what being 'broken,' in the context I'm looking for, means. Yes, something that's broken can have those characteristics, but it's not entirely mandatory.
I always find answers to this question very interesting, because this tends to be one of those things where people can point out something that Is broken, but have a hard time answering Why that's the case.
Again, please, no jokes about hitting the floor, or falling over, etc. Also, please don't just list off things that you feel are broken, as that will likely just end up side-tracking the discussion.
Anything that is obscenely hard to bring down due to some sort of combination of rules that can be abused. On the individual model front, at the risk of being perhaps too broad, anything that is remarkably good (not necessarily overpowered) without the price cost to match it. There are obviously loads of units and models that are exceptional at what they do, but they've got a points cost to match it for balance purpose.
I believe most people use the term to describe something as completely unacceptably good at helping you to win. I suppose what you're describing is something that if you choose to use it has an influence, good or bad, on the game beyond what should be considered normal. For instance currently a transcendent c'tan can be considered broken good, while flayed ones would be broken bad. Either of those units, if used, would have an influence on my game, good or bad, beyond what I should expect from an average unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/27 07:30:33
Broken stuff is anything that does not perform according to it's point costs.
This can be "positive" - like a unit virtually guaranteed to do more damage than it's points costs no matter what your opponent uses to bring it down (think pre-nerf Hellturkey).
This can be "negative" - like a unit costing a lot but not delivering it's points back unless your enemy acts extremely stupid (think 1k Sons).
Both cases are bad and definitely reduce the fun and quality of any game. They even work almost the same as some units become auto-includes while others become auto-excludes, reducing the variety of the game. You end up with riptide-only lists on one side and Hellturkey-only lists on the other. gee, what variance, what tactical possibilities...
I think a lot of people confuse 'broken' with 'overpowered'.
Overpowered is when something costs few points but performs like a model of a much higher cost. If guardsmen had carnifex statlines, that would be overpowered because guardsmen are dirt-cheap.
'Broken' means that something is very strong because the rules allow for very little counterplay (most of the time because rules don't work as intended). A common way of somethig becomming broken is when a new edition hits the table while codex rules remain. For example: When the new Shield of Baal book came out, the necron catacomb command barge could take a relic which, RAW, allowed you to give the chariot a 3++ invul save, rerolling ones. The lord himself had a 2+/3++ rerolling 1's.
The new codex will change this, so we know that it wasn't intended to work like that, but the ruled allowed it because:
- 7th edition changed chariot rules.
- Codex: necrons has a very outdated ruleset (5th ed)
- Shield of Baal introduced new relics which are probably intended for the new codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/27 10:27:51
You don't have to be happy when you lose, just don't make winning the condition of your happiness.
Colloquially? It often means "the thing that just beat me." Odds are decent that if somebody mentions "unit X is broken" at the FLGS, that unit just crushed them.
In more reasoned discourse, the term tends to blur into meaning "overpowered", or at the other extreme, "worthless," but the term actually refers less to poor balance than to a glitch, or exploit. The idea is that something is so good (or bad) that it was clearly not what the designer intended.
At the end of the day they are the most important factor when choosing a unit, or deciding how broken it is.
Wave serpents are good for example, but if they were 50 points more expensive it is certain you would see them less often.
Sorry but I can't say that I agree.
If Rough Riders were 2 PPM, I still wouldn't take them. If the Pyrovore (before getting the pod) was only 5PPM, I still wouldn't take them, solely because they take up an important slot. On the other side, Be'Lakor could be increased to 500 points and you'd still see people field him.
I acually find the term 'Broken' rarely comes up at my local.
Overpowered, Underpowered, Exploted/Glitchy and sometimes Cheesey/Beardy are probably the most commonly used terms for their respective reasons.
I'd put 'Broken' down as something that actually breaks gameplay or the rules in some fashion, this is usually caused by lack of updates to older books when an edition changes or in some cases the original mix of FW into regular games (although that isn't an issue now.)
The last thing I'd have put down as Broken would have been the Warp Storm table for Daemons. It wasn't that it was unfair or anything to that extent, it was simply that it caused massive interruptions to the game, was altogether confusing and hard to keep track of and caused several confusing contradictions and arguments in terms of rules.
Thats just my 0.02 USD though, although the last unit I would label broken would probably be from years ago when I played in 3rd Ed, although due to old age and relative youth at the time, it was probably just butthurt at losing to something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/27 11:56:51
At the end of the day they are the most important factor when choosing a unit, or deciding how broken it is.
Sorry but I can't say that I agree.
If Rough Riders were 2 PPM, I still wouldn't take them. If the Pyrovore (before getting the pod) was only 5PPM, I still wouldn't take them, solely because they take up an important slot. On the other side, Be'Lakor could be increased to 500 points and you'd still see people field him.
Contested FOC slots is one of the few reasons to not take an underpriced unit, though it is less of a problem if you play with multiple detachments.
I would be all over 2 point rough riders or 5 point pyrovores, and I'm certain other players would be too.
500 Points for Be'lakor might be justifiable, but he would certainly be considered less broken.
Consider the wave serpent. If they costed 50 more points there would not be as much dislike for them, as they would not be considered as broken.
Special powers and abilities can be potentially game changing, but it is the purpose of points to put every thing in balance.
If a ~300pts model can survive multiple turns of shoting from 1500pts, then it is broken.
If something is like the sob walker , for the points it costs, it is broken too.
Some things are just bad or underpowered, but sometimes GW makes those super resilient and killy units, which happen to be eldar most of the time or 200 pts t3 melee models that suck at melee and have few to non ways of reaching itl
There is no concrete definition, just like overpowered or underpowered, but generally speaking, broken would imply the model is either performing well above the standard, or well below the standard.
There are many reasons why a model may be broken, and often combinations of those reasons.
As an example, the Wave Serpent is considered by many to be broken. Some people will draw distinct lines between broken and overpowered or undercosted, but at that point you're just playing a game of semantics.
As an another example, Rough Riders are equally broken in the opposite direction. They are a poor unit to begin with that competes in the same slot as other much better units. They have no real role not filled by most of the book, and cost too much and do too little to be effective in most scenarios.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
A unit is broken when it has a cool/distinguishing/special rule or combinations of rules that is not available to your army. Or at least that's what it seems like. If you can think of a unit, I'm sure that someone, somewhere finds it broken.
Broken would really be 'something without a counter'. For instance the constant complaint is the Wave Serpent. Can't be slowed down, can't be intercepted by Melta bomb troops on foot, can't be one-shotted reliably even with the best ranged anti-tank weapons because of shields and has the weapons that effectively counter other difficult units like flyers and hordes of infantry. The entire package makes it 'broken'.
Wraithknights are 'broken' because their guns can just demolish so many HQs or really 90% of the multiwound models without Eternal Warrior and make even AV14 laughably easy to penetrate. It looks at a large target and that target is dead. All out of a Heavy Support slot that literally can not be wounded by S4 weapons.
The counter to that unit, and the Wave Serpent in fact, is a LOT of S7 and higher weapons. But not everyone has a Sicaran tank or a Maulerfiend and frankly the Serpent and Wraithknight can kill both of those units easily as well. So even the good counters of the unit itself, it can counter.
But when we look at the Flying Hive Tyrant, T6, flies, can have five of them in a list and are easily one of the best units in the game, I don't see any cries of 'broken'. A single Flyrant can knock out tanks in a single turn, or wipe out an infantry squad. But, it can be countered easily by Skyfire or a few dozen S4 shots. There's ways around it's obvious power level and yes, it's difficult if you don't have that Skyfire, but not impossible. Thus, not 'broken' just powerful.
Necroes wrote: This is something I've asked of other games, but I feel it will be slightly harder to pin down in 40k.
What, exactly, makes a model 'broken'?
And before anyone says it, no, I'm not referring to when it hits the floor in one piece, and bounces back up in three.
As I've said, I've asked this of other games, and the most important distinction going in is always that 'broken,' in general, does not necessarily mean over powered. A model can be bad, and still be broken. Like wise, being over powered does not, necessarily, mean something is broken. Being over-powered, or even under-powered, is not necessarily what being 'broken,' in the context I'm looking for, means. Yes, something that's broken can have those characteristics, but it's not entirely mandatory.
I always find answers to this question very interesting, because this tends to be one of those things where people can point out something that Is broken, but have a hard time answering Why that's the case.
Again, please, no jokes about hitting the floor, or falling over, etc. Also, please don't just list off things that you feel are broken, as that will likely just end up side-tracking the discussion.
Basically for something that is considered to be broken, it has to be so insanely overpowered that nothing else stands a chance of beating it and it ends up ruining the game. Broken models and codices are often used by donkey-caves (usually people who are new to the hobby), who care more about using insanely overpowered models, as opposed to actually putting some thought into the game, to win and for the express purpose of rubbing your nose into it.
Also, some things can be more or less broken based on the size of the game they're in. An Imperial Knight in a 2000pt game is fine, but one in a 400pt game is in that broken territory. The above mentioned Flyrants would be fine in a large game, but five of them in a 1000pt game or less would probably not.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
It's a matter of semantics in the end,but for me 'broken' means dysfunctional. By disfunctional I mean something that mireor less obviously doesn't work as intended, or flat-out doesn't work.
For example I consider Wave Serpents broken because they are able to fulfill the MBT role better than most MBTs, which assuming non-clueless designers probably wasn't intended.
Likewise I don't consider let's say.Tc'tan broken, just overpowered as hell, because it does exactly what it was intended to do.
Blacksails wrote: Some people will draw distinct lines between broken and overpowered or undercosted, but at that point you're just playing a game of semantics.
A game that I play frequently.
To me, a "broken" thing is something that plays in the opposite way to what makes sense. I'm fine with developers ignoring realism in order to make a smoother game, give a more dramatic feel, etc, but going way into the absurd for no reason whatsoever? Yeah, I view that as broken. It doesn't matter how effective it is on the tabletop, just that the effect makes no sense whatever angle you look at it from.
So...
[rant]
Spoiler:
Templates and blast weapons with "Ignore Cover" are excellent counters to concealed foes... unless the concealment takes the form of invisibility, in which case templates and blast weapons can't even be fired at them. At all. But battle rifles? Yeah, they still fire.
Tanks (including walking tanks) should be wary of the earthshaker cannon, battle cannon, missile launcher, and (sometimes) the autocannon. Unless the tank uses the monstrous creature rule with a 2+ save (e.g. the riptide), in which case it suddenly becomes largely invulnerable to such AT weapons. Because reasons.*
The best anti tank weapons sacrifice the ease of production and high rate of fire of lesser weapons for superb power - the tachyon arrow, the railgun, or the vanquisher cannon. There's a tank whose main feature is its ability to ignore that benefit.**
*In fact, I view the whole distinction between walkers and monstrous creatures as a foolish game mechanic.
**Yes, the serpent shield is more complicated than that... but seriously, what game design company*** would produce a tank with wargear that can negate the advantage pure anti-tank weapons have over regular weapons? That makes as much sense as giving TEQs great protection against specialized anti-TEQ weapons, or giving tanks great protection against specialized short-range anti-tank weapons. Oh, wait, plasma syphons and armoured ceramite... ***Yes, I know that GW claims to be a models company, not a rules developer. That's why they give away their rules for free instead of selling them at incredibly high prices. Oh, wait...
[/rant]
Polonius wrote:Colloquially? It often means "the thing that just beat me."
Waaagh an' a 'alf
1500 Pts WIP 
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
