daedalus wrote:
One of the guys I play 40k with sent me this video the other day:



I believe it significantly relevant to the conversation. I don't want to agree with it, but it nails what GW's been doing since the beginning of time pretty well.

It also made me stop and consider whether rotating meta is a good thing or not. I feel like it could be, as long as it was done by types of units, and not necessarily armies. The alternative is either relying on pure chaos, like 7th's "decide everything by die rolls" mechanic worked, or turning into chess, which means that games become even more rote than they are now. And whichever you choose, you're stuck with, because there's no rotating meta.

It also made me realize that my enjoyment of (most) games are based upon how much I look at the mechanics of a game and are loosely modeled as a bell curve:
- I start a game, and I have that excitement and wonder about all the various components to it.
- I start looking at each of the mechanics and comparing choices I can be making, and the depth seems sprawling.
- I get really into it, and invest a lot of time in it, and I tear apart the mechanics piece by piece, building stuff to simulate scenarios and determining the most optimum way to handle them.
- (This is about when it peaks.)
- The next step is realizing that I'm either deliberately making bad decisions, or I'm making the best decision I can and hoping the die rolls come out on my side.
- I devolve into staring at two lists and saying "nah, this one beats this one" before we even start playing, and I'm arguing at people for their flippant statements about math and power levels online. I have an equal amount of contempt for the game as I do interest, and friends start asking my why I do this to myself.

I think I just realized I'm a casual gamer, or, at least, that I want to be.

Anyway, yeah, so, IG are overpowered because tournament results don't matter. Or not because they do. Or we need to wait and see because it's not enough results to know. Because <insert unjustifiable assertion for each one>.

I'm going for a walk.

Martel732 wrote:


I vehemently disagree with the entire premise of this video, as well as their examples. There is no perfect imbalance, especially when there are no efficient counters to many units.

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I vehemently disagree with the entire premise of this video, as well as their examples. There is no perfect imbalance, especially when there are no efficient counters to many units.

I might be wrong, but I thought the point was to not have a efficient counter (which I feel like is a major hangup) but to have a sufficient counter. That's the imbalance. I have a dim view on LoL though, so maybe I misunderstand.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
I've been saying that the new guard codex was more of a nerf than anything, and this tournament more or less proves it. Not only did space marines get probably the most broken codex but they are also now apparently able to table baneblade only lists with their most basic troops choice. You can say all you want about OP forgeworld units like earthshakers and elesians, but GW codex guard have never done this poorly since 8th ed dropped (NOT a coincidence). I'm hoping the new chapter approved drops sooner rather than later to either balance missions or provide much needed point reductions.

Tyran wrote:

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
I've been saying that the new guard codex was more of a nerf than anything, and this tournament more or less proves it. Not only did space marines get probably the most broken codex but they are also now apparently able to table baneblade only lists with their most basic troops choice. You can say all you want about OP forgeworld units like earthshakers and elesians, but GW codex guard have never done this poorly since 8th ed dropped (NOT a coincidence). I'm hoping the new chapter approved drops sooner rather than later to either balance missions or provide much needed point reductions.

Congratulations, you won the thread with the most slowed post, and that's saying something.

It's actually kind of shocking to see someone disagreeing with me about time limits in tournaments not being a problem.

Martel732 wrote:
I vehemently disagree with the entire premise of this video, as well as their examples. There is no perfect imbalance, especially when there are no efficient counters to many units.

 Hollow wrote:
Xeno... is hilarious. No matter how many times it turns out he has overstated the case, made mistakes, made false claims, been wrong and proven to be reactionary and completely biased in his view. He just keeps on hammering on. He's like the terminator, if it was the terminators job to kill logical thought and rational debate.

Ushtarador wrote:

It's actually kind of shocking to see someone disagreeing with me about time limits in tournaments not being a problem.

This makes me question again if you ever played in a serious larger tournament. In all tournaments I've ever been to games almost always go at least to turn 5. Also, players who repeatedly fail to finish their games get punished for slowplay.

Just admit already that you can't judge the outcome of a match or the balance of the game by mathhammering some units in a forum.

Tyran wrote:
Saying that marines are garbage is ignoring how cover works now.

Remember how in previous editions, horde armies depended on cover? well now it is the inverse.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Your player turns average 15 minutes then?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:

It's actually kind of shocking to see someone disagreeing with me about time limits in tournaments not being a problem.

This makes me question again if you ever played in a serious larger tournament. In all tournaments I've ever been to games almost always go at least to turn 5. Also, players who repeatedly fail to finish their games get punished for slowplay.

Just admit already that you can't judge the outcome of a match or the balance of the game by mathhammering some units in a forum.

Your player turns average 15 minutes then? which doesn't even factor in army deployment. Rules debates - running to get the dice that flew off your foot. ect. Forgive me - your aren't making sense. Turn 5 in a 2/12 hour game is pretty unrealistic. I'm not even talking about intentional slow play.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Your player turns average 15 minutes then? which doesn't even factor in army deployment. Rules debates - running to get the dice that flew off your foot. ect. Forgive me - your aren't making sense. Turn 5 in a 2/12 hour game is pretty unrealistic. I'm not even talking about intentional slow play.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I remember getting a 4+ cover save from plasma, earthshaker cannons, ect in 7th edition. Now I only get a 5+. I also remember getting a full 3+ save against heavy bolters - and my 2+ saves laughing off ap3 too. Armor saves have never been so worthless. I'm not even saying marines are garbage ether. Just tactical marines are garbage. Guilliman and razorbacks and stormravens are some of the best units in the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Fast players man.

blaktoof wrote:
If only the basic rules included something to penalize players with twenty+ deployments like whoever finishes deploying first has the pick of first or second turn....

Niiru wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If only the basic rules included something to penalize players with twenty+ deployments like whoever finishes deploying first has the pick of first or second turn....

Which would be great, except you can still get first turn half the time with a dice roll, so it doesn't really make much difference.

As far as the OP goes, it seems that GW aren't doing much to 'fix' the power of the IG codex. Their ideal solution would be to release competing codices that match/counter the IG one, and hope balance happens. Current outlook on the upcoming Eldar codex is that it's more likely to be at Admech levels, or maybe low-grade space marines. They're using copy/paste rules from the marine dex anyway, so no unique or fluffy abilities like what they did for Guard.

It does seem like they're making the favourtism a bit -too- obvious. If the head development guy came out and said "Yeh, I play a pure Imperial Guard army" I would not be at all surprised.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Niiru wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If only the basic rules included something to penalize players with twenty+ deployments like whoever finishes deploying first has the pick of first or second turn....

Which would be great, except you can still get first turn half the time with a dice roll, so it doesn't really make much difference.

As far as the OP goes, it seems that GW aren't doing much to 'fix' the power of the IG codex. Their ideal solution would be to release competing codices that match/counter the IG one, and hope balance happens. Current outlook on the upcoming Eldar codex is that it's more likely to be at Admech levels, or maybe low-grade space marines. They're using copy/paste rules from the marine dex anyway, so no unique or fluffy abilities like what they did for Guard.

It does seem like they're making the favourtism a bit -too- obvious. If the head development guy came out and said "Yeh, I play a pure Imperial Guard army" I would not be at all surprised.

That would be...extremely unexpected, and certainly a new direction for GW. IG have never been a studio favorite, and were only ever particularly strong in one previous edition and have otherwise languished in the bottom-mid tiers for the most part throughout the history of this game. Most of whats making IG good isnt even necessarily the codex stuff itself, but rather the ability to use cheap units to manipulate army construction metarules. Half the stuff in the IG codex is still gonna sit on shelves for the most part.

Lets wait for the Eldar book to drop or at least get leaked before we start placing it. Eldar have *never* had anything less than a top level, first power tier codex release in any edition yet. That could change, but it would be a first.

blaktoof wrote:
If only the basic rules included something to penalize players with twenty+ deployments like whoever finishes deploying first has the pick of first or second turn....

Niiru wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Niiru wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If only the basic rules included something to penalize players with twenty+ deployments like whoever finishes deploying first has the pick of first or second turn....

Which would be great, except you can still get first turn half the time with a dice roll, so it doesn't really make much difference.

As far as the OP goes, it seems that GW aren't doing much to 'fix' the power of the IG codex. Their ideal solution would be to release competing codices that match/counter the IG one, and hope balance happens. Current outlook on the upcoming Eldar codex is that it's more likely to be at Admech levels, or maybe low-grade space marines. They're using copy/paste rules from the marine dex anyway, so no unique or fluffy abilities like what they did for Guard.

It does seem like they're making the favourtism a bit -too- obvious. If the head development guy came out and said "Yeh, I play a pure Imperial Guard army" I would not be at all surprised.

That would be...extremely unexpected, and certainly a new direction for GW. IG have never been a studio favorite, and were only ever particularly strong in one previous edition and have otherwise languished in the bottom-mid tiers for the most part throughout the history of this game. Most of whats making IG good isnt even necessarily the codex stuff itself, but rather the ability to use cheap units to manipulate army construction metarules. Half the stuff in the IG codex is still gonna sit on shelves for the most part.

Lets wait for the Eldar book to drop or at least get leaked before we start placing it. Eldar have *never* had anything less than a top level, first power tier codex release in any edition yet. That could change, but it would be a first.

It certainly is an odd one, but seems to be the way it's tilting. Two out of five 'doctrines' have now been released, along with some of the rules changes, and the biggest improvement is Wraithlords going from T7 to T8. Even with the buff though, they're still categorically worse than dreadnoughts for the points, so it hasn't changed anything.

One of the remaining traits will definitely be the standard -1 to hit outside of 12" one, which will likely be the best choice out of all of them (ravenguard/alpha legion clones).

The only saving graces might be stratagems, but Eldar can't field 20+ CP armies like Guard can, usually a list might have 6-9 CP at best, so stratagems can only do so much.

Early days, as people will say, but from what has been released so far this is what it's pointing towards. Might be pleasantly surprised, but only if they turn around and say "and also everything has a 25% price cut". Unlikely.

Not saying Eldar won't be playable. Against index armies they'll be a fairly strong force, and I think they'll be better than a pure admech list, but vs Chaos, Gulliman Marines, Imperial Guard or Imperial Soup lists, Eldar will struggle unless some huge surprise drops in the next couple days.

Next hopes get pinned on the Tyranid codex. They, at least, should be much more difficult to turn into Space Marine clones.

Niiru wrote:


It certainly is an odd one, but seems to be the way it's tilting. Two out of five 'doctrines' have now been released, along with some of the rules changes, and the biggest improvement is Wraithlords going from T7 to T8. Even with the buff though, they're still categorically worse than dreadnoughts for the points, so it hasn't changed anything.

One of the remaining traits will definitely be the standard -1 to hit outside of 12" one, which will likely be the best choice out of all of them (ravenguard/alpha legion clones).

The only saving graces might be stratagems, but Eldar can't field 20+ CP armies like Guard can, usually a list might have 6-9 CP at best, so stratagems can only do so much.

Early days, as people will say, but from what has been released so far this is what it's pointing towards. Might be pleasantly surprised, but only if they turn around and say "and also everything has a 25% price cut". Unlikely.

Not saying Eldar won't be playable. Against index armies they'll be a fairly strong force, and I think they'll be better than a pure admech list, but vs Chaos, Gulliman Marines, Imperial Guard or Imperial Soup lists, Eldar will struggle unless some huge surprise drops in the next couple days.

Next hopes get pinned on the Tyranid codex. They, at least, should be much more difficult to turn into Space Marine clones.

 ross-128 wrote:
The -1 to hit doctrine might be extremely hilarious on Eldar, because Index Eldar already have tons of sources of -1 to hit that can stack with it.

 ross-128 wrote:

Niiru wrote:


It certainly is an odd one, but seems to be the way it's tilting. Two out of five 'doctrines' have now been released, along with some of the rules changes, and the biggest improvement is Wraithlords going from T7 to T8. Even with the buff though, they're still categorically worse than dreadnoughts for the points, so it hasn't changed anything.

One of the remaining traits will definitely be the standard -1 to hit outside of 12" one, which will likely be the best choice out of all of them (ravenguard/alpha legion clones).

The only saving graces might be stratagems, but Eldar can't field 20+ CP armies like Guard can, usually a list might have 6-9 CP at best, so stratagems can only do so much.

Early days, as people will say, but from what has been released so far this is what it's pointing towards. Might be pleasantly surprised, but only if they turn around and say "and also everything has a 25% price cut". Unlikely.

Not saying Eldar won't be playable. Against index armies they'll be a fairly strong force, and I think they'll be better than a pure admech list, but vs Chaos, Gulliman Marines, Imperial Guard or Imperial Soup lists, Eldar will struggle unless some huge surprise drops in the next couple days.

Next hopes get pinned on the Tyranid codex. They, at least, should be much more difficult to turn into Space Marine clones.

The -1 to hit doctrine might be extremely hilarious on Eldar, because Index Eldar already have tons of sources of -1 to hit that can stack with it.

Imagine what your opponent being at -3 to hit will do for your durability, you'll have Space Marines only hitting on 6+!

 ross-128 wrote:

Niiru wrote:


It certainly is an odd one, but seems to be the way it's tilting. Two out of five 'doctrines' have now been released, along with some of the rules changes, and the biggest improvement is Wraithlords going from T7 to T8. Even with the buff though, they're still categorically worse than dreadnoughts for the points, so it hasn't changed anything.

One of the remaining traits will definitely be the standard -1 to hit outside of 12" one, which will likely be the best choice out of all of them (ravenguard/alpha legion clones).

The only saving graces might be stratagems, but Eldar can't field 20+ CP armies like Guard can, usually a list might have 6-9 CP at best, so stratagems can only do so much.

Early days, as people will say, but from what has been released so far this is what it's pointing towards. Might be pleasantly surprised, but only if they turn around and say "and also everything has a 25% price cut". Unlikely.

Not saying Eldar won't be playable. Against index armies they'll be a fairly strong force, and I think they'll be better than a pure admech list, but vs Chaos, Gulliman Marines, Imperial Guard or Imperial Soup lists, Eldar will struggle unless some huge surprise drops in the next couple days.

Next hopes get pinned on the Tyranid codex. They, at least, should be much more difficult to turn into Space Marine clones.

The -1 to hit doctrine might be extremely hilarious on Eldar, because Index Eldar already have tons of sources of -1 to hit that can stack with it.

Imagine what your opponent being at -3 to hit will do for your durability, you'll have Space Marines only hitting on 6+!

 Marmatag wrote:
I find it funny that the imperial guard cheesepologists don't understand the concept of a sample size. One tournament means nothing. A feth ton of tournament data does.