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.

i have been ready and posting on BA DC and alot of people think its not balanced.  i say there is no such thing as a balanced army.  if your codex allows it than use it.  also one persons idea of balance is not always somebody elses.  i dont understand why poeple complain so much about imbalance and hopefully when a the new codex comes out for such and such race GW will sort it out.  if people want balance they should play with identical army lists.  thats the only 100% way you will get balance.  But thats just boring.

I say screw balance as well.  Just play one off scenarios where one side is heavily outnumbered like the Alamo.  Who cares about balance then.  Really I think this whole fluff vs min/maxed armies is the source of to much conflict.

People need to realize and emphasize the things that bring us together, like this hobby and stop arguing over the differences.

What do you mean by "balanced"?

I think that there are a lot of balanced armies out there, able to handle any army that it encounters.  That's what "balance" means to me.

Balance.  Balance. Balance.  Balance.

Ever notice that if you say a word too much, it loses its meaning?

I agree with Iorek. Balance is really only important when used to describe any given army's ability to handle an unknown opponent.

I.E. Tailor made lists specifically designed to kill Tau, but that consistently lose horribly to Tyranids, are not balanced.

Fluff vs Effectiveness is really no measurement of Balance.

Posted By Iorek on 06/29/2006 7:24 AM
What do you mean by "balanced"?



Balance.  Balance. Balance.  Balance.

Ever notice that if you say a word too much, it loses its meaning?

Only when you're not on a highwire

Beef:  I can only agree with you to a point.  While complete balance is a pointless excercise, the disparity in power in certain matchups is ridiculous and makes the game inherently broken.  Balance, IMO is giving each army a fair shake at winning against any opponent ( - not neccessarily in a take all comers environment.)

Consider these matchups at 1850 points:

Eldar Falcon-heavy vs Codex Orks

Necron double-lith vs Ulthwé Strike Force

Iron Warriors vs Grey Knights

The armies on the left, if run by a competent general does not leave much chance of victory by the armies on the right.  While the USF is a mini-dex list, the others are full dex lists, and Daemonhunters being a later 3rd edition dex.

Such disparities should never have been alowed to develop.

 

Who cares, play with what you enjoy, and if you enjoythe thrill of a win play an army that will probably generate more wins; if you like to play just for the 'ell of it, than play with whatever you want, be it orks, ig, kroot, insert anything here... If you like to play for fun and win either make 2 lists 1 for fun and 1 for killing your opponent, or tool out what you like to make an attempt to be more competitive than a "fun/fluff" list and make some w's.

Seriously, if you want fluff than do it, if you want to win, play the higher percentage armies that win, ifyou want both than play your "fluff" army, but add in higher win/kill percent weapons, units, etc... and let your generalmanship skills get tested.

Just please everyone stop saying that fluff vs. min/max is an issue, it is only if you make it one. If you are playing with a group that you nrmally do, like myself than play whatever, but then when it comes to GT time bust out those marines, CSM (IW), Eldar, etc... Or as I previously stated, bring your orks and hope you are a solid general and good at using them, and know that you will come up vs. the above mentioned armies...

its true i agree, i started playing with SW some 16 years ago as i really liked the fluff. Initially i used to get beat so bad by shooty armies as i went to town on my squads and leaders. it was not balanced in the true sence that it could handle itself well with most opponents, with trial and error i came up with a much better focused army list forGT's and that did so much better. it had a mix off everythingh. it was not combat heavey like my old lists, it had ample shooty stuff. still not enough to out shoot shooty armies but it could hold its own, it did not have more assualt stuff than out and out assualt armies but when i used all aspects of my army together it worked (not all the time).

Balance is about armies that can do everything well. it also depends on your tactics and skill level. you could have the beardyiest army (i hate that word as if you can field it why not, only people who lose against you call it beardy or cheasy, they dont complain when they beat you though) and still not win if you are incompetent and trust me there are a lot of people like that who switch from one army to another in the hopes of winning. they dont cos they never stick to one army long enough to learn its strenghts. they just see the weaknesses and move on.

Balance is about armies that can do everything well. it also depends on your tactics and skill level.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
When you become familiar with whatever army you play, you can do great things that many people overlook.

its true, i used to go to town with elits etx just taking the min 2 comp troop choices but then i realised that the key is the troops. Also it helps now that i pay attention to the objectives and take them rather than what i have done for the past 15yrs which was to just try and kill the opponents army in combat and forget about VC or Vp's. thats what happens when you play wolves for so long. i switched to ultramarines last year as people used to always under rate them and now i actually win as i dont worry to much about killing and more about Game victory conditions. its as if my mind is clear now, as the calm mental disapline of the Ultra boys helps unlike my beserk rages to just get ionto combat with my wolves.

beef, I find it hard to follow your posts.
I tend to agree with your philosophy but please, punctuation is the key.
Ask (read blame) malfred.

By my punctuation you would not think i have English Language and Literature A levels and a Degree in Psychology. Education system must be going down the drain. Actually I blame the mobile phone culture of SMS. It make people use words like L8r instead of later. I will try and use correct grammer and punctuation marks. Ok what should have been written.


Its true what Blank is saying. I used to go to town with my elite choices.I would just take the minimum 2 compulsory troop choices but then i realised that the key to winning games is the troops. Also it helps now in terms of winning games that i now pay attention to the objectives and take them rather than what I have done for the past 15years which was to just try and kill the opponents army in combat and forget about Victory Conditions or Victory Point's. Thats what happens when you play Space Wolves for so long. I switched to Ultramarines last year as people used to always Say they were crap but i like the idea of a chapter which was the total opposite of my savage SW. Now I actually win as I dont worry to much about killing and more about Game victory conditions. Its as if my mind is clear now, as the calm mental disapline of the Ultramarine boys helps unlike my unruly behaviour with my Space Wolves where i just want to get into combat.


I hope this is more readable. you guys should bare in mind i am work when i look at the forums and its like 3 or 4 in the morning when I post so i tend not to really watch what I am typing. No i dont do coffee.

Okee dokee, maybe breaks in between sentences then.
You've got the will, find a way.

Posted By beef on 06/29/2006 11:30 PM
No i dont do coffee.

Well, maybe you should.

I refuse to believe you have a college degree and don't specifically choose to type like that.

I'm not buying it. Either you don't have that degree or you are purposely trying to portray ignorance through your typing style.

Its a university degree and i choose to type like that as its really late when i am on the forum. I tend to be at work on nights and when your tired it does not help.

Or maybe i am just trying to portray ignorance, go figure.

If I remember correctly, you (beef) were claiming that balance was not possible when creating a game with different stats for each army (i.e. the opposite of chess, checkers, and Go). I hate that "make a balanced army" list-creation crap too, but we were talking about the ARMY itself and not the list you create with that army. And somehow you claim that it is impossible to create different armies with different features and still retain balance? You're like "that guy" in the WOW or Magic TCG forums that claim X class or X color is better than others. Those games are pretty balanced. 40k is not.

 

In short: you are attempting to turn around your original argument of the BA ARMY being balanced into LIST balance.  And somehow I think you're confusing the two by mixing support of each into one weird argument mix.

Sure their is such a thing as ballanced or for that matter unballanced armies. just because one persons definition of ballance differs from anothers doesnt mean something ceases to exist, its like a discusion of right and wrong between to people with very different moral beliefs just because they dont agree what exactly is right and wrong doesnt mean right and wrong suddenly cease to exist.
as an example the points costs of troops and the organisational charts are a form of ballance imposed on the army lists to attempt to ballance differing forces, just because its not a perfect system doesnt change the attempt. and yes you can make extremely unballanced lists from some armies, however unballanced doesnt automaticly mean uber powerfull or unfair/advantagous. It can point to underpowered or even one trick pony armies that just cant deal with a variety of other lists. anyway even identical armies do not garentee exact ballance in games of strategy and chance when you also weigh in personal play style and competence, terrain, scenario and loads of other factors.

In short: you are attempting to turn around your original argument of the BA ARMY being balanced into LIST balance. And somehow I think you're confusing the two by mixing support of each into one weird argument mix.


actually what i was saying about the BA was that people who dont play Ba just complain about DC not being balanced as they are worth more than than what they replace (i.e a tac marine) but what i said was its not a codex army its a BA army and it has its own traits.

As for balanced armies in terms of all comers yes thats a different thing altogether. I know the difference.

Yes you can make a balnced army list that can do well against most comers I.e for tournaments.

As for balanced armies in terms of unfair advantahges, troops being free or cheaper than they should who the hell is anybody to say thats unfair. Do you cry when Gw rips you off and ivercharges you for basically toy soldiers?? No you still buy them, just like that if certain armies are not balanced who cares.

My main argument that i stand by is that you can never have a balanced army if you have different races etc, the only way it would be possible is if you just had one codex and one race only so everybody had the same option. Would that be better??

Nothing is ever going to be 100% bAlanced and people will still complain.

One man idea of balance is not neccesaraly some one else. For each person that thinks DC are under priced there will be one who does not agree. Now its a bit of a piss take to say the people who do not agree are wrong or cheasy/beardy.

Like i keep pointing out, if you are that bothered PLAY BA and have loads of DC as nobody is stopping you. but dont call people who play a particular army beardy etc.

If you cant beat them then join them.

Just because different people have different opinions on what is balanced doesn't mean the concept of balance is impossible to achieve. That is an absolutely idiotic idea.

The games designers have points costs and army limitations they can use to achieve army balance. While you are correct that it is categorically impossible to make races 100% balanced (since they have different rules and options) there are certainly more balanced races and less balanced races.

Now, I do agree with you that it is rather petty to berate people for taking units/combinations that the games desingers allow. Since the Blood Angel list allows players to get a powerful unit at a bargain basement points cost, why shouldn't players take advantage of this by including bare bones vet sergeants in their army (to be upgraded to PFist wielding Death Company members)?

But players taking advantage of exploitable army lists is not the point. The point is that there are lists that are more exploitable than others. If you cannot grasp that concept then I don't know what to tell you. Army list design revolves around point cost and availability of units/gear. Designers limit the versatility (exploitability) of a list through points costs and limitations on the number of a certain thing you can take.


An example of a highly exploitable list is the Blood Angels. Blood Angles are exploitable because they have a number of bonuses: Free Furious Charge, free or reduced cost abilities in the form of the Death Company, and the ability to move more than 6" in the movement phase (due to Blood Rage).

The only real negative to the Blood Angels (to offset these bonuses) is the fact that they are forced to move (due to Blood Rage) and you may lose expensive models to the Death Company (Veteran Squads, Terminators).

Now, what makes the list exploitable is that players can easily fashion an army that uses all of the benefits of the army, but suffers none of the negatives. If a player simply designs his army so that the majority of his heavy weapons are on mobile platforms (vehicles and Attack Bikes) and doesn't take any Terminators/Vet Squads, he has done exactly that. He now has an army that costs exactly the same points as a regular Space Marine army but has a whole host of benefits and no drawbacks.

Increased benefits without an increased points cost or some offseting drawback=exploitable army. It really isn't such a hard concept to grasp. It's not the players fault for taking advantage of this exploit, it is the fault of the designers for leaving the list open to exploit.

Yak, if you haven't realize yet, Beef is slowed, so your eloquent post is completely for naught.

Yak - I love your post. Everything I wanted to say in eloquence. Too bad it's mostly wasted, as Hellion said.

Beef - "its not a codex army its a BA army and it has its own traits."??? Yes, like Yak said, please tell me what exactly is the drawback for all the free abilities you get as BA. I can just use a bunch of landspeeders as my heavy support (who'd need devastators with DC powerfists anyway, right?) and I'll have nothing as a drawback. In fact, the rhino rush is still possible with the BA because each unit can just leave their vehicle in the movement phase and assault anyway. Eh, funny what sorts of arguments people come up with to defend their army knowing full well how broken it is.

I'd love to see an IW guy and a DP guy come forward do the same thing. Then we can have a triumvirate of awesomeness and have lots of fun arguments! (We won't need an Eldar guy since their list is being fixed soon enough - we can hope.)

it has a few drawbacks. but like yak said dont take termies or vets. But what if you want to. And balace being an achievable concept?? thats just like world peace being an achievable concept, And oh yeah pigs fly in Yakfaces world. If players can exploit the li8st without having drawback more power them. whats the problem with that??

Dark hellion well done with your 2 bits worth, atleast Yak was trying to be intelligent, Whats your excuse?? does inbreading happen alot where your from??

Oh my bad thats rude is it not??


Well this was a post on balance and slow is as balanced as inbred? No its worse in your opinion. See what i meen. its all about opinions. Everybody has them and I thought thats what the forum was for??

I guess its also for Prats to be rude? Cos thats really makeing your point.

As ForSTONEFOX you talk about "whats the drawbacks" well if you dont playBA you would not know. Whats the drawback in others armies?? I would not knowas I dont play them?? You only see the advantages when you play against an army. You never see there flaws. I have 4 tooled up tack squads. I roll 2 1, for them and therefore 2 blood rage and cant fire heavey weapons. the other 2 remaining tack squads get 3+ and hit with there lascannons. one does nothing and one glances. Nect turn i still have to face 3 hammer heads/ defilers etc and my marines get shot up some more? but the person who will be playing wont think oh thats the disadvantage of BA's he will just think he is lucky. When the DC get in combat and Muller him then he will think ah yes this is the advantage.

Opponents dont see disadvatages like that they only see the advantages.

By the way iI would be interested in what Armies STONE FOX< YAK< AND Dark play?? Cmon surprise me with how balanced your armies are.

Tau. I play Tau.

And yeah, I guess I could never (roll eyes here) conceptually find the drawbacks. I need to play the army. Right. I'm sure your "disadvantages" force you to use those lasplas squads and you would never imagine taking 8-man drop pods or rhino squads instead.

actually no i would not use 8 man in drop pods or rhino's. i use a static fire base, Balance from a guy that plays tau?? One of the cheesiest armies you can get. Obviously (roll eyes) You would find the disadvantages cos your the guy that uses 3hammerheads and all those markerlights. Railguns kill DC. Your army would be maxed out with them and rail cannons.

Beef, shut up. Tau are far from cheesy, and are in fact a very difficult army to play that requires a large amount of maneuvering and planing, and has nothing that has the basic survivablity of a 15 point tac marine. And really, use some f-ing English. No one can decipher your obscenely garbled rants about whatever the f you are talking about.

Several underlying issues here....
1.) Language is important, for people to consider your points, you must relay them clearly and calmly.
2.) No army is 100% balanced, I mean when the Germans moved thier tanks into Poland, the Polish said hey that's unfair to fight us you guys need to thin down your army...
3.) Tau require skill, much like orks, ig, nids, dark eldar, etc...
4.) Necrons, Marines (almost all chapters), and some CSM (IW jumps to mind) require slim skill or planning...
5.) To balance an army, say I'm using orks and you are using the 15 assault cannon drop pod army whatever; I'm in for an uphill battle, but if I utilize the choices laid out in the ork codex and use terrain and my greenskin generalmanship experience, I may increase my chances, but the odds will still favor the marine.
6.) This thread should be locked because soon enough everyone is going to just beat the whole marine assault cannon librarian fear/fury podding double plas/melta/whatever horse to death.
7.) It's over guys, yes marines are good blah blah blah...

Yeah tau take skill to play. If you are a moron like Dark Hellion (but then he still gets help tying his shoelaces). Cant you read English?? Proper English that is not the fake one that you seem to think the rest of the world speaks> Not american. Basic weapon of tau STR5, Hmm thats not cheesy. You would not think so seeing as you play tau. this is my point exactly. If you play a certain army you will not say its cheesy or unbalanced. However you will think other armies are. So if you play BA you will not think they are unbalanced. If you play Tau you will not think they are unbalanced. Every army require skills to perfect and play. To say one army needs less skill than another is crap.

By the way DARKHELLION I was talking about you being inbred.

Beef, we were all 15 once and didn't want to admit that we weren't adults on internet forums or MMORPGs for fear of being labeled "kids" or what not. Hey, when I first started playing EverQuest, I never told my guild that I was 14 years old. I sympathize with you. We've all been there, not wanting to be that friggin' kid.

But you can do a much better job than this. Choppy typing and claiming to have a Psyche degree? Come on. It's better to play it clean and conservative while being evasive about your age. Your approach just isn't the way to do it. Not if you want anyone to believe you anyway.

You guys are soo funny, choppy typing is what i do. Its from all the quick internal emails at work and texing mates. As for being a kid thats cool, cos if you think that then i can get away with lots. Actually i'm 28, But hey think i am 15. Just cos i dont agree with some of the crap you lot talk that makes me a kid???