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.

Breng77 wrote:
Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.

Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.

I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.

Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.

I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.

I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.

Davor wrote:
Been reading way to many complaints and rants as of late. So this got me thinking. How do people want their 40K to be? A lot of the negativity I believe is because, 40K is not their vision.

So I am curious as to what people want 40K to be. How do you want it to be played? What kind of rules do you want?

My big wishes:

1: Balanced, first of all. By which I mean that my skill at the game should matter more than what army I plonked down, and there should never be a case where I could take X, but Y does everything they can do, only better. Skew lists (all armour, all infantry) will of course, represent a risk of over-specialising, but if you take a variety of stuff, then the chances of a "why did I show up?" game should be minimal. Yes, there's always going to be a best list, but selection should never matter more than skill and nobody should ever be censured or judged to be a bad person for their list being "too good". 40K is actually really unusual in that regard!

2: Clear rules, as distinct from balanced ones. People say 40K is friendlier than games with more precise rules, but does any of this strike you as friendly?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582966.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582695.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573543.page
Seriously, GW has been operating with the same basic ruleset for over fifteen years now, and when you look at how other game systems have improved in fewer editions over less time, there isn't much defence of how shoddy and hole-ridden it still is. "Cheat on a 4+" is not a patch, and it's not, in my experience, the least bit unfriendly to expect the rules to actually answer rules questions. Rules-lawyering is only a problem when the rules are unclear.

3: The edition / codex cycle being fixed. The situation right now is a hot mess, and aggravates the last two problems. You can't have a good ruleset when the changes in editions shake up the needs of an army without addressing point cost for stuff that's more or less useful, nor does it help matters when an army can languish for multiple editions with no updates.

 Elemental wrote:
1: Balanced, first of all. By which I mean that my skill at the game should matter more than what army I plonked down, and there should never be a case where I could take X, but Y does everything they can do, only better. Skew lists (all armour, all infantry) will of course, represent a risk of over-specialising, but if you take a variety of stuff, then the chances of a "why did I show up?" game should be minimal. Yes, there's always going to be a best list, but selection should never matter more than skill and nobody should ever be censured or judged to be a bad person for their list being "too good". 40K is actually really unusual in that regard!

I'd rather not be forced to take an unfluffy list with a variety of units in it, nor would I like to be forced to play a faction where it is fluffy to do so. And 40k may be unusual in that people socially scorn people who bring hard lists, but my experience with other games is that you get socially scorned for not bringing a hard list (both Warmahordes and Star Trek: Attack Wing come to mind).

 Elemental wrote:

2: Clear rules, as distinct from balanced ones. People say 40K is friendlier than games with more precise rules, but does any of this strike you as friendly?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582966.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582695.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/573543.page
Seriously, GW has been operating with the same basic ruleset for over fifteen years now, and when you look at how other game systems have improved in fewer editions over less time, there isn't much defence of how shoddy and hole-ridden it still is. "Cheat on a 4+" is not a patch, and it's not, in my experience, the least bit unfriendly to expect the rules to actually answer rules questions. Rules-lawyering is only a problem when the rules are unclear.

While certainly valid, I cringe at the use of internet forum threads as evidence for friendliness or unfriendliness. I have never encountered any vehemence to the level displayed in those threads in real life. And I think this could be also part of the community's problems - in part. Again, I do wish to emphasize that the rules could certainly be clearer.

 Elemental wrote:

3: The edition / codex cycle being fixed. The situation right now is a hot mess, and aggravates the last two problems. You can't have a good ruleset when the changes in editions shake up the needs of an army without addressing point cost for stuff that's more or less useful, nor does it help matters when an army can languish for multiple editions with no updates.

I agree, although there is a practical limit to the rate at which new material can be released.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.

Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.

I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.

Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.

I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.

I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.

I don't associate fun with winning or losing either...I associate fun with games where I have a chance to win or lose. A game where I get smashed or smash my opponent typically are not fun. I'm glad that you have a narative in your head that makes anything fun for you. But I don't see how the rules will impact that at all. If your tank army is answerable by most other reasonable built list I don't see how that impacts your narative....which makes it sound like you want match-ups where your opponent is fairly helpless against your army, rather than needing to work to win the game because you both have a chance.

That is what I enjoy (in fact most of my favorite games have been losses), close, tight games, where both players have some ability to impact the outcome of the game. What I don't enjoy is LOL...I brought 3 landraiders and you only have auto-cannons....I guess you lose, because you cannot hurt me.

Not things like this will still exist....what I want to go away is I play Tau, and you play Orks I guess you lose.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.

Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.

I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.

Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.

I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.

I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.

I don't associate fun with winning or losing either...I associate fun with games where I have a chance to win or lose. A game where I get smashed or smash my opponent typically are not fun. I'm glad that you have a narative in your head that makes anything fun for you. But I don't see how the rules will impact that at all. If your tank army is answerable by most other reasonable built list I don't see how that impacts your narative....which makes it sound like you want match-ups where your opponent is fairly helpless against your army, rather than needing to work to win the game because you both have a chance.

That is what I enjoy (in fact most of my favorite games have been losses), close, tight games, where both players have some ability to impact the outcome of the game. What I don't enjoy is LOL...I brought 3 landraiders and you only have auto-cannons....I guess you lose, because you cannot hurt me.

Not things like this will still exist....what I want to go away is I play Tau, and you play Orks I guess you lose.

Yes, but options will necessarily have to be removed.

For example, either you remove Land Raiders or you remove Autocannons (or turn them into copies of some other weapon, which is basically removing them), or there will always be a fight where 3 Land Raiders will crush someone who only brought autocannons.

There will never be a TAC list who can take on my Armored Battlegroup, so your options are to remove my armored battlegroup (with which I think you will understand if I disagree) or accept that there will be an imbalance (either for the ABG in some games, or against it in others).

As for the Tau - Ork dichotomy, I blame that partly on an edition disparity and partly on a ruleset which (rightly) emphasizes shooting over close combat.

Remember though, the idea of a TAC isn't something that you always use. In your case, if somebody knows that you play an armored battlegroup, they can adapt accordingly. What we are saying is that you should be able to bring a TAC list in most circumstance and not be outclassed to the point of basically auto-losing just because of what you picked.

Do you ALWAYS take an Armored Battlegroup, or do you tailor your list? For example, if you show up a tournament (and if you don't play tournaments, let's pretend you do), do you bring a balanced army that can face all possibilities, or do you show up with whatever you want? What most of us are arguing is that bringing a balanced list should work the majority of the time - sure you might run into fringe cases (your Armored Battlegroup being a good example) where a balanced army is at a disadvantage, but if you always play an armored battlegroup then an opponent shouldn't bring a TAC army in the first place - that doesn't mean that armies can't have all their choices balanced, just that against your army a lot of heavy weaponry is better than small arms fire, and that's perfectly fine.

In short, balanced rules would help the common scenario of not having a regular opponent/group of opponents and having all units be viable; there might always be fringe cases but those should be the exception.

personally, don't like flyers cuz they look inauthentic on table ~ just IMHO.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Remember though, the idea of a TAC isn't something that you always use. In your case, if somebody knows that you play an armored battlegroup, they can adapt accordingly. What we are saying is that you should be able to bring a TAC list in most circumstance and not be outclassed to the point of basically auto-losing just because of what you picked.

Do you ALWAYS take an Armored Battlegroup, or do you tailor your list? For example, if you show up a tournament (and if you don't play tournaments, let's pretend you do), do you bring a balanced army that can face all possibilities, or do you show up with whatever you want? What most of us are arguing is that bringing a balanced list should work the majority of the time - sure you might run into fringe cases (your Armored Battlegroup being a good example) where a balanced army is at a disadvantage, but if you always play an armored battlegroup then an opponent shouldn't bring a TAC army in the first place - that doesn't mean that armies can't have all their choices balanced, just that against your army a lot of heavy weaponry is better than small arms fire, and that's perfectly fine.

In short, balanced rules would help the common scenario of not having a regular opponent/group of opponents and having all units be viable; there might always be fringe cases but those should be the exception.

Yes, I do always bring an armored battlegroup - the same 1700 points. The last 300 sometimes changes, but the first 10 tanks in the company I consider mandatory.

So what you're saying, then, is that some imbalance is unacceptable, and but some is ok. Where do you draw the line? Because I also agree - I think that if there is one army that unequivocally crushes every single army it could ever fight ever, then that is bad. But I have not heard of an army that can do that. So if we just draw the line in different places, then it is subjective. And if it is subjective, then neither one of us is correct.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except that does not make a fun game. Lol...I brought a hard counter guess you lose...is not fun. A game where one army is largely impotent against another is not a fun game. I lost horribly and thats how it should be is a bad game, because it leads to scenarios where games are trivial and we might as well compare lists and go home.

Sure an all tank army should be tough for some builds but it should be weak against a lot of things, such that one can reliably expect to have a tough time if they don't prepare to fight different types of lists.

I disagree. I think there's enough of a variety of lists that you don't always meet your hard counter. Like, for example, my armored regiment, which faces a rifleman horde and wins alot, or a melta-pod and loses alot, or a knight list and wins sometimes, or an air defense list and wins sometimes, or a heavy infantry list and wins sometimes.

Also, I'm not sure your and my definitions of fun agree.

I think fun is building and painting a beautiful army that you love to a theme you enjoy, and playing the heart out of it for better or worse. I think fun is seeing how well, when faced with a melta-pod list, my tanks can do, imagining the crew's startled reactions to the appearances of the pods, and the lumbering tanks' attempt to fight back and maneuver at close range. I think fun is an armored charge over an open plain at an ill-prepared set of infantry trenches, or a running gun duel with a renegade Knight House as knights and tanks scamper and trundle from ruin-to-ruin as cover. I think fun is an air defense regiment's scrambled attempts to depress its guns at the arrival of an equally surprised and disoriented armored column. I think fun is watching an enemy Warhound stroll across the battlefield as repeated thrusts from otherwise hapless tanks dent and scratch its hull, sacrificing friends and comrades to score a little bit more damage and maybe bring the beast down.

I certainly do not associate fun with winning or losing.

I don't associate fun with winning or losing either...I associate fun with games where I have a chance to win or lose. A game where I get smashed or smash my opponent typically are not fun. I'm glad that you have a narative in your head that makes anything fun for you. But I don't see how the rules will impact that at all. If your tank army is answerable by most other reasonable built list I don't see how that impacts your narative....which makes it sound like you want match-ups where your opponent is fairly helpless against your army, rather than needing to work to win the game because you both have a chance.

That is what I enjoy (in fact most of my favorite games have been losses), close, tight games, where both players have some ability to impact the outcome of the game. What I don't enjoy is LOL...I brought 3 landraiders and you only have auto-cannons....I guess you lose, because you cannot hurt me.

Not things like this will still exist....what I want to go away is I play Tau, and you play Orks I guess you lose.

Yes, but options will necessarily have to be removed.

For example, either you remove Land Raiders or you remove Autocannons (or turn them into copies of some other weapon, which is basically removing them), or there will always be a fight where 3 Land Raiders will crush someone who only brought autocannons.

There will never be a TAC list who can take on my Armored Battlegroup, so your options are to remove my armored battlegroup (with which I think you will understand if I disagree) or accept that there will be an imbalance (either for the ABG in some games, or against it in others).

As for the Tau - Ork dichotomy, I blame that partly on an edition disparity and partly on a ruleset which (rightly) emphasizes shooting over close combat.

Not true at all actually I can think of several TAC lists that would do ok against Armored battle Group (mine for example). I also don't agree in the right of emphasizing shooting in a Science Fantasy Game where entire armies are based around close combat. Beyond that though, I don't need to remove your Armored battle Group or land raiders, just tweak them slightly so that a reasonable list can deal with them (not an all autocannon list, people can always make bad lists.), but a 3 Landraider lists against a TAC list that has say 5-10 anti-av 14 weapons is not such a one sided beating same with your Armored battle group. Perhaps drop Leman russ armor (if you allow entire armies to be composed of them, which the standard IG codex does not and as such presents no such issue but that is a separate issue), to 13-12-10 and give them 4 Hull points. Still good, still generally require specialized weaponry, still durable, but now most units can hurt them in the rear, or in Close combat. Most anti-tank weaponry has a chance in the front armor, and S6+ can glance side armor.

So you can still run your list...I have not taken it away, removed it or anything, just made it something reasonable armies can contend with.

Will it be tough for some armies to face a ton of AV 13 sure...but doable or almost all, with reasonably balanced lists.

Breng77 wrote:
Not true at all actually I can think of several TAC lists that would do ok against Armored battle Group (mine for example). I also don't agree in the right of emphasizing shooting in a Science Fantasy Game where entire armies are based around close combat. Beyond that though, I don't need to remove your Armored battle Group or land raiders, just tweak them slightly so that a reasonable list can deal with them (not an all autocannon list, people can always make bad lists.), but a 3 Landraider lists against a TAC list that has say 5-10 anti-av 14 weapons is not such a one sided beating same with your Armored battle group. Perhaps drop Leman russ armor (if you allow entire armies to be composed of them, which the standard IG codex does not and as such presents no such issue but that is a separate issue), to 13-12-10 and give them 4 Hull points. Still good, still generally require specialized weaponry, still durable, but now most units can hurt them in the rear, or in Close combat. Most anti-tank weaponry has a chance in the front armor, and S6+ can glance side armor.

So you can still run your list...I have not taken it away, removed it or anything, just made it something reasonable armies can contend with.

Will it be tough for some armies to face a ton of AV 13 sure...but doable or almost all, with reasonably balanced lists.

I haven't run into a TAC list yet that doesn't have trouble against my ABG. 5-10 AT weapons aren't nearly enough, not with the firepower I can output - I usually can silence 5 AT guns in 1 turn and 10 in 2. And we can disagree about the background all we want, but I am more readily able to forge a narrative in which guns are better than swords than one in which they even approach parity.

And now you're removing options. 13-12-10 with an identical weapon loadout is basically a Malcador heavy tank. Why would you force me to run an army of Malcadors if I want to run an army of Leman Russ tanks? So yes, you have removed an option - my ability to use anything other than Malcadors as my armored company.

As an aside, Armored Battlegroup is an army legal in standard 40k, so I think your remark about the IG codex is rather irrelevant.

EDIT:
Also, you've turned the Leman Russ into what amounts to a Hammerhead. There are already tanks with statlines lower than the Leman Russ, so lowering its stats just basically makes it into a different-model-copy of said unit. Why are you taking the option to run heavily armored main battle tanks in a company away from me? Especially if you're just turning them into clones of Xenos tanks that don't hover.

In effect I'm saying that each Codex, and the game as a whole, should have some sort of balance to where all of the units can be used in some capacity, either by themselves, with one or more additional units, or in a particular themed army.

That means that there are some fringe cases where someone picks units that don't work well together, or don't work well against a certain type of army (e.g. your ABG - someone with no heavy weapons is going to have a bad time, and nothing can be done about that, but such a scenario should also be fairly uncommon) but in most cases there should never be a unit that screams "There's no reason to take me" like we currently have.

I don't specifically remember what's in an ABG (it was "Armored Company" back in my day) but what I'm arguing against is let's imagine a hypothetical Leman Russ variant that fits no real purpose - the Vanquisher is better at anti-tank, the Exterminator is better at anti-infantry, and the regular version is better for general purpose use. This hypothetical Leman Russ variant should not exist in a balanced game, since it doesn't serve a purpose beyond aesthetics; there is literally no reason to field it other than looks. My argument is there are a lot of units in codexes that are like this hypothetical tank, and that's the problem. Whether or not you would field it, this tank doesn't belong because it has no purpose - other tanks are better at a particular role, so there's no real reason to take it over another option, and since it's weaker than the other options at it's given role, you actually hinder yourself by choosing to take it.

Now let's look at the other Leman Russ variants, that each serve a purpose. based on either other units (e.g. if you have a lot of heavy weapons, you might not need a Vanquisher, but an Exterminatior or one of the other variants might fill a gap), or by itself (the standard Russ is always a good choice if you are well-rounded), or for a themed force (e.g. a particular regiment that might field a certain variant that's produced on their homeworld).

That's basically what I'm saying. There has to always be fringe cases, so of course an army of small arms isn't going to deal with an armored company, but there also shouldn't be any "Why would I ever take this?" choices, of which there are a lot right now in various codexes.

Ummm....since when is AV 13 not heavily armored?

And if your statement that no TAC list can handle yours then it is broken and should be fixed...period.

My point was more to the fact that the Leman Russ as designed was not intended to be used to make up your whole army. FW decided that it would be ok, but the orignial rules were not written for that to be the case.

My question to you is why do you need to run AV 14-13-10/11 tanks across the boad. What is your reason.

If it is because LOL you cannot hurt me LOL I win LOL...Then sorry bad attitude.

If it is because you like the models, and the general rules (Heavy tank, lumbering behemoth etc.) it should make no difference if the AV drop 1 point per facing to balance them and make more armies capable of competing with them. I also gave you 4 HP do the other tanks you mentioned have 4 HP? No ok then not cloning right...do they have heavy bolter/plasma sponsons, lascannons/multi-melta/Heavy Bolters, and Various turrets?

Oh the xenos tanks don't? oh ok then so not the same right....oh and can xenos take whole armies of their tanks...No? well ok so you are still different.

Also background has nothing to do with shooting/CC balance, when armies are designed as CC armies, they should not be relegated to be summarily weaker than shooting armies...its bad game design realism or not. If you want shooting to rule...all armies need to shoot about equally well....or the game is a bad game.

Breng77 wrote:
Also background has nothing to do with shooting/CC balance, when armies are designed as CC armies, they should not be relegated to be summarily weaker than shooting armies...its bad game design realism or not. If you want shooting to rule...all armies need to shoot about equally well....or the game is a bad game.

Not even so much that, but in a game that has an emphasis on shooting, then all armies should shoot equally well or the armies that don't need to have a way to mitigate the shooting so they can get into melee (in that regard they still end up balanced, because they are better at melee than the shooty army and this is balanced by them being less shooty). What is NOT balance though is an shooty meta that has an army that can't shoot much and has no easy way of getting into melee, as this is one-sided (and the flip side is equally one-sided if the CC army gets into melee and wipes out the shooty army, see 3rd edition Tau).

In effect there should be no such thing as a "shooty meta", or the "CC meta" of prior editions. Both should be viable tactics. A balanced game would let you choose if you want to do a shooty army, or a "Rhino Rush" army, or anything in between and within reason be successful against any other army, instead of make the rules lend itself towards shooting and therefore all but invalidate close combat armies as a consequence. That's the epitome of poor design, since these things shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Tau vs. Khorne Berzerkers should come down to tactical acumen (and a bit of luck), not favor the shooter (current) or favor the assaulter (3rd) and make it a game of rock paper scissors.

Yup, essentially Shooting/CC need to be balances in destructive power, or everything needs to be slanted in one direction.

WayneTheGame wrote:In effect I'm saying that each Codex, and the game as a whole, should have some sort of balance to where all of the units can be used in some capacity, either by themselves, with one or more additional units, or in a particular themed army.

And you think this can be achieved without removing any options at all? Not a single one?

WayneTheGame wrote:
That means that there are some fringe cases where someone picks units that don't work well together, or don't work well against a certain type of army (e.g. your ABG - someone with no heavy weapons is going to have a bad time, and nothing can be done about that, but such a scenario should also be fairly uncommon) but in most cases there should never be a unit that screams "There's no reason to take me" like we currently have.

Why shouldn't there be? If people want to take that unit, they should, regardless of whether or not it wins them the game or loses them the game. If they like the unit, they'll have fun playing it.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I don't specifically remember what's in an ABG (it was "Armored Company" back in my day) but what I'm arguing against is let's imagine a hypothetical Leman Russ variant that fits no real purpose - the Vanquisher is better at anti-tank, the Exterminator is better at anti-infantry, and the regular version is better for general purpose use. This hypothetical Leman Russ variant should not exist in a balanced game, since it doesn't serve a purpose beyond aesthetics; there is literally no reason to field it other than looks. My argument is there are a lot of units in codexes that are like this hypothetical tank, and that's the problem. Whether or not you would field it, this tank doesn't belong because it has no purpose - other tanks are better at a particular role, so there's no real reason to take it over another option, and since it's weaker than the other options at it's given role, you actually hinder yourself by choosing to take it.

There is a reason to take it over other options. Maybe you like the look of it? Or maybe you think something is conceptually really cool about it (like it has some fluff behind how it's weapon works or something and that appeals to you). Why would you remove this from those two types of people?

WayneTheGame wrote:
Now let's look at the other Leman Russ variants, that each serve a purpose. based on either other units (e.g. if you have a lot of heavy weapons, you might not need a Vanquisher, but an Exterminatior or one of the other variants might fill a gap), or by itself (the standard Russ is always a good choice if you are well-rounded), or for a themed force (e.g. a particular regiment that might field a certain variant that's produced on their homeworld).

Well, the Eradicator doesn't really serve a purpose. A regular Russ can accomplish the same task for 10 points cheaper (this is literally true). However, I have a friend who runs several Eradicators because he likes the models (the stubby muzzle-brake) and likes that their fluff is that they have subatomic charges as their shells.

WayneTheGame wrote:
That's basically what I'm saying. There has to always be fringe cases, so of course an army of small arms isn't going to deal with an armored company, but there also shouldn't be any "Why would I ever take this?" choices, of which there are a lot right now in various codexes.

Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.

Breng77 wrote:Ummm....since when is AV 13 not heavily armored?

Since Armor 14 and 15 is a thing. Between 10 and 15, 13 is moderately well armored.

Breng77 wrote:And if your statement that no TAC list can handle yours then it is broken and should be fixed...period.

Why?

Breng77 wrote:My point was more to the fact that the Leman Russ as designed was not intended to be used to make up your whole army. FW decided that it would be ok, but the orignial rules were not written for that to be the case.

Perhaps. But it is that way now, and saying that the game 'wasn't intended' to operate a certain way implies that you know the intents of the authors. I doubt it.

Breng77 wrote:My question to you is why do you need to run AV 14-13-10/11 tanks across the boad. What is your reason.

If it is because LOL you cannot hurt me LOL I win LOL...Then sorry bad attitude.

If it is because you like the models, and the general rules (Heavy tank, lumbering behemoth etc.) it should make no difference if the AV drop 1 point per facing to balance them and make more armies capable of competing with them. I also gave you 4 HP do the other tanks you mentioned have 4 HP? No ok then not cloning right...do they have heavy bolter/plasma sponsons, lascannons/multi-melta/Heavy Bolters, and Various turrets?

The reason I want to play an IG tank company in 40k is I would like to run a tank company of the best tanks I can field. The Leman Russ is the best tank I can field, and also is the only one that can be fielded in my list. Additionally, the Malcador does all of that, and has 6 hull points. It also has a twin-lascannon turret, a five-heavy-bolter turret, with the option of mounting a hull demolisher in addition to the other options.

Turning a Leman Russ into a Predator with a Battlecannon is exactly the kind of samey-ness I am talking about though. Why don't we just have three profiles: Infantry Carrier: 12/11/10, 12 transport capacity. Cannot carry terminators. Heavy Carrier: 13/13/13, 10 transport capacity. Plane: 11/11/11. Main Battle Tank: 13/12/10. Then just add weapons to taste. That sounds like the kind of game you would enjoy. Myself? I like having some MBTs that are 12/12/10 and others that are 14/14/14 and everything in between.

Breng77 wrote:Oh the xenos tanks don't? oh ok then so not the same right....oh and can xenos take whole armies of their tanks...No? well ok so you are still different.

But the tanks aren't different. You might as well just make a unit called "Heavy Tank" and give it to every army in the game in varying amounts. That's bland, imo, and uninteresting. But very similar to what you propose.

Breng77 wrote:Also background has nothing to do with shooting/CC balance, when armies are designed as CC armies, they should not be relegated to be summarily weaker than shooting armies...its bad game design realism or not. If you want shooting to rule...all armies need to shoot about equally well....or the game is a bad game.

I consider 40k's greatest strength to be its background, and so I think the game should yield to the fluff in cases of conflict. I can't find any armies that cannot take shooting units though, or that are even really that bad at shooting. And again, we disagree on what makes good game design. If I want to play a game that is well balanced, I pull out my Flames of War Russians. But I also like a game that is very narrative, and so I pull out my 40k when I am in that mood.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.

But there is a bad thing - you're sacrificing effectiveness for looks. That's what needs to be fixed. There shouldn't be a situation where you ever think "I really like how Unit B looks, but it's not as good as Unit C and costs more - if I take Unit B I'll be at a disadvantage, but I don't like Unit C even though it'll help me win". It's not even about "winning" as it is about deliberately putting yourself at a disadvantage by picking a unit that is inferior; the fact one unit is inferior at all is a glaring flaw, and "but I like how it looks" is not a justification for that. The unit should fill a role, or not exist at all.

What I'm saying is that Unit B should have a role under certain circumstances whether that's a particular theme for your army or in tandem with other units in the codex, and the fault with the system is when you have Unit B that has no business being there other than looks. "This unit might suck but I like it" should never be words uttered in a game.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that there is no bad thing about having those options. You shouldn't take them away, and they're fine where they are - people will take them if they want to, and they won't if they don't.

But there is a bad thing - you're sacrificing effectiveness for looks. That's what needs to be fixed. There shouldn't be a situation where you ever think "I really like how Unit B looks, but it's not as good as Unit C and costs more - if I take Unit B I'll be at a disadvantage, but I don't like Unit C even though it'll help me win". It's not even about "winning" as it is about deliberately putting yourself at a disadvantage by picking a unit that is inferior; the fact one unit is inferior at all is a glaring flaw, and "but I like how it looks" is not a justification for that. The unit should fill a role, or not exist at all.

What I'm saying is that Unit B should have a role under certain circumstances whether that's a particular theme for your army or in tandem with other units in the codex, and the fault with the system is when you have Unit B that has no business being there other than looks. "This unit might suck but I like it" should never be words uttered in a game.

Sadly, I personally believe that will always be the case. I believe there will always be units like the Leman Russ Conqueror, Leman Russ Annihilator, or Leman Russ Eradicator whose roles are already covered, and whose function is basically a gimmick.
The Conqueror loses the Large Blast on its cannon, so its main gun is Str 8 AP3, small blast. But it also loses lumbering behemoth, so it can move 12" and go flat out. Almost no one takes this option except for looks. How would you fix it?
The Annihilator replaces the battle-cannon with a twin-linked lascannon. However, a Vanquisher with a co-axial stubber is the superior tank destroyer in every case. Almost no one takes this option except for looks, or perhaps a world that doesn't use projectile weapons. How would you fix it?
The Eradicator fires a sub-atomically charged shell that is Str 6 AP4, heavy 1, Large Blast that ignores cover rather than the standard battlecannon profile. However, the regular Leman Russ (at least in the Armored Battlegroup list) can buy infernus shells, which don't replace its battlecannon but do give it the option to fire a Str 6, AP4, ordnance 1, Large Blast that ignores cover. This option is also 10 points cheaper than the Eradicator. How would you fix it?

SO AV 15 is really not a thing, one Fortification in a supplement has it.. SO out of 10-14 13 is high.

As for why if your army always wins against all TAC lists, it is clearly unbalanced, and in need of fixing.

The Malcador is a regular tank or a super heavy? what's its points cost? I don't typically play with FW so I have no idea, but you also presumably cannot take it as a troop in your Armored company.

Really the tanks are not different? They move differently, have different weapons and different Hull point values, and only 2 Xenos tanks (both skimmers) have the same AV....again...how is this horrible sameness. It is not the AV 14 I have issue with it is the I can tanke AV 14 as troops and field an army that there is a realistic possibility armies cannot hurt without list tailoring...bad design. To me you need to balance units to the slot they can be fielded in having 3 or so AV 14 units is fine, having 15 is not so fine.

So you want to field the best tanks you can (and the only ones) changing the stats don't really change that if the whole game is rebalanced....

I don't propose everything be the same...I propose it all be balanced. Which is not what you want you want...oh I brought my tanks, do you have tons of anti-tank...no well lets wrap things up.

As for armies that cannot take shooting units sure there are none that can take no shooting units, but there are some where that is not the strength or focus of their army.

What Daemon list is super shooty....thats right none of them.

They have 1 shooting elite unit, 0 shooting fast attack units.1 shooting troop, 3 shooting heavy support units (2 function, and 1 is actually decent). Most of their shooting is psychic, which means it is highly unrealiable. It is also very poor for the points you pay for it.

So again....CC focused army...so if shooting should always be stronger Daemons might as well not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the above fixes...change points cost to the Battle tank upgrade to make the other tank cheaper. Make the first tank ahve heavy 2 or 3 small blast. Give the middle one 2 twin linked lascannons, or something. Simply put you test...see what works and tweak.

Breng77 wrote:
SO AV 15 is really not a thing, one Fortification in a supplement has it.. SO out of 10-14 13 is high.

More than one, and if it is only one, it still exists. Dismissing it out of hand seems like a cop-out.

Breng77 wrote:
As for why if your army always wins against all TAC lists, it is clearly unbalanced, and in need of fixing.

Why is something unbalanced in need of fixing?

Breng77 wrote:
The Malcador is a regular tank or a super heavy? what's its points cost? I don't typically play with FW so I have no idea, but you also presumably cannot take it as a troop in your Armored company.

It's a superheavy, and it's 235. And no, you can't.

Breng77 wrote:
Really the tanks are not different? They move differently, have different weapons and different Hull point values, and only 2 Xenos tanks (both skimmers) have the same AV....again...how is this horrible sameness. It is not the AV 14 I have issue with it is the I can tanke AV 14 as troops and field an army that there is a realistic possibility armies cannot hurt without list tailoring...bad design. To me you need to balance units to the slot they can be fielded in having 3 or so AV 14 units is fine, having 15 is not so fine.

They really aren't that different. There is literally no difference between a Predator and the Russ you propose except one armor point and weapons. And skimmers aren't that different from tanks in 6th except for the jink save. And I disagree that it is bad design. I like the option. Stop taking the option away.

Breng77 wrote:
So you want to field the best tanks you can (and the only ones) changing the stats don't really change that if the whole game is rebalanced....

It's not that I don't mind the stats changing as much as I mind sacrificing what makes the Leman Russ a unique tank on the altar of balance, as I do not enshrine balance as some godlike state to be achieved.

Breng77 wrote:
I don't propose everything be the same...I propose it all be balanced. Which is not what you want you want...oh I brought my tanks, do you have tons of anti-tank...no well lets wrap things up.

Balanced often yields sameness. Even the single change you proposed basically gave every heavy tank in the game the same armor value. And it's not all roses for me either. Oh, I brought my tanks, and you brought drop-melta. Well, yes, so let's wrap things up. Except let's not. I enjoy the ensuing narrative. I enjoy the spectacle of frightened tankers trying to engage such a difficult enemy. I enjoy the narrative value in the enemy dropping anti-tank troops on a tank company and seeing how it would fare if it were under my command, even if defeat is an eventual certainty.

Breng77 wrote:
As for armies that cannot take shooting units sure there are none that can take no shooting units, but there are some where that is not the strength or focus of their army.

Regrettable, but for all your ranting about daemons, I think they're one of the top 3 most complained about codexes for OP-ness right now, so I guess shooting can't be so overpowering that it stops those CC armies dead.

Unit1126PLL:

To answer your question, and keep in mind I haven't played 6th edition to know all the rules:

* Conqueror I think still fills a role in a mobile army (versus the gunline) since it can move faster (I think?)

* Annihilator and Eradicator I would probably remove, because they don't serve a purpose. I'm not sure how they are listed but they certainly shouldn't be units of their own (possibly upgrades to the standard chassis to allow for flavor).

The real question is whether taking one of those over the other actively hurts your chances of winning. The Eradicator, if what you said is correct about the Infernus Shells, is just worse overall so it would fall under my criteria for removal since taking it hurts you over taking the regular Russ with Infernus (it's more expensive and less effective). The Annihilator, without knowing how it or the Vanquisher actually play, is trickier because it might be nearly as good as the Vanq, in which case it can remain as an alternative, even if it's a little bit worse.

All units should have a purpose, and where there are multiple options each should be relatively equal with minor differences, so it comes down to personal preference.

Even if we consider that all three of the above tanks fill that role (all approximately equal and it boils down to preference), a lot of armies don't have that and have units that aren't even equal at the role they fulfill.

Breng77 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the above fixes...change points cost to the Battle tank upgrade to make the other tank cheaper. Make the first tank ahve heavy 2 or 3 small blast. Give the middle one 2 twin linked lascannons, or something. Simply put you test...see what works and tweak.

1) That still wouldn't work - the Conqueror would then become a gakky Executioner, which has a Heavy 3 plasma cannon.
2) The middle one already has two lascannons, although only one is twin-linked. It's also 50 points cheaper than my vanquisher loadout. The vanquisher is still a better tank hunter.

Tweaks are bad if they cause sameness.

WayneTheGame wrote:Unit1126PLL:

To answer your question, and keep in mind I haven't played 6th edition to know all the rules:

* Conqueror I think still fills a role in a mobile army (versus the gunline) since it can move faster (I think?)

* Annihilator and Eradicator I would probably remove, because they don't serve a purpose. I'm not sure how they are listed but they certainly shouldn't be units of their own (possibly upgrades to the standard chassis to allow for flavor).

The real question is whether taking one of those over the other actively hurts your chances of winning. The Eradicator, if what you said is correct about the Infernus Shells, is just worse overall so it would fall under my criteria for removal since taking it hurts you over taking the regular Russ with Infernus (it's more expensive and less effective). The Annihilator, without knowing how it or the Vanquisher actually play, is trickier because it might be nearly as good as the Vanq, in which case it can remain as an alternative, even if it's a little bit worse.

All units should have a purpose, and where there are multiple options each should be relatively equal with minor differences, so it comes down to personal preference.

Even if we consider that all three of the above tanks fill that role (all approximately equal and it boils down to preference), a lot of armies don't have that and have units that aren't even equal at the role they fulfill.

Boom, there - you're removing options. I told you not to do that. I have a friend who loves the Eradicator, because of its looks and he likes the way the weapon works. Stop hurting his army by removing the only Leman Russ variant he finds personally appealing.

Simpler. Think if Mantic Games took it over, the direction they'd take it in.

Actually, take Warpath, add in the 40k factions and a few fluffy rules, and you have my perfect 40k.

I never said daemons were bad I said they were bad at shooting and so this notion that shooting should always be superior to cc is a bad notion. I never stated that was currently the case (though daemons are complained about due to one broken combo, the two armies more complained about are both shooty).

as for the rest not all heavy tanks would be the same av we would provide heavier tanks for ig in the appropriate slot heavy support, but the leman Russ as a troop would be lessened to be more appropriate as a troop choice. And still a very durable, shooty tank. (Which has rules other tanks don't). A predator cannot shoot as many weapons, has fewer hull points and lower armor. Skimmers get junk and can move over other units, and have different guns.

As for the changes so if the conquered was for instance heavy 2 s 8 ap 3 ordinance, and could move 12" and fire...it would obviously be the same as a plasmacutioner.

Second turret would be 2 to-las cannons..and still have the other las cannon for 3 las cannons...


So much the same....

You just keep crying sameness, when it is obviously not at all...it comes across as don't tweak my stuff to balance the game even if it will still all be distinct.

Sometimes you have to remove options, that's what design is. If something doesn't fit, or doesn't work out, you don't keep it around because somebody somewhere might like it.

Breng77 wrote:
I never said daemons were bad I said they were bad at shooting and so this notion that shooting should always be superior to cc is a bad notion. I never stated that was currently the case (though daemons are complained about due to one broken combo, the two armies more complained about are both shooty).

as for the rest not all heavy tanks would be the same av we would provide heavier tanks for ig in the appropriate slot heavy support, but the leman Russ as a troop would be lessened to be more appropriate as a troop choice. And still a very durable, shooty tank. (Which has rules other tanks don't). A predator cannot shoot as many weapons, has fewer hull points and lower armor. Skimmers get junk and can move over other units, and have different guns.

As for the changes so if the conquered was for instance heavy 2 s 8 ap 3 ordinance, and could move 12" and fire...it would obviously be the same as a plasmacutioner.

Second turret would be 2 to-las cannons..and still have the other las cannon for 3 las cannons...


So much the same....

You just keep crying sameness, when it is obviously not at all...it comes across as don't tweak my stuff to balance the game even if it will still all be distinct.

So why does the Russ need to be a different tank when it is a troop? It's still an IG tank. And i'd go from taking 10 Armored Battlegroup to 9 regular ones, then, because the regular ones are inexplicably better. There goes the option to play a pure Russ list, instead of a list that has "looks-like-a-russ-but-has-the-armor-of-a-predator."

You can't fire blast weapons and move 12". So it would move six and fire 2 Str 8 Ap3 blasts ... except the executioner fires 3, and moves 6 as well, and gains an AP while losing a strength.

So you'd give it two twin-linked lascannons, one regular lascannon, and 13-12-10 armor?

You know a predator has one twin-linked lascannon, two regular lascannons, and 13-11-10 armor, right? And is more expensive?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Sometimes you have to remove options, that's what design is. If something doesn't fit, or doesn't work out, you don't keep it around because somebody somewhere might like it.

But see, that's why I play 40k, for the options. If I was willing to sacrifice options on the altar of balance, then I would play Warmachine or something.

Because the 9 heavy support russes can only shoot 3 targets, and take up heavy slots?

But no we change all rushes and then release a new heavy ig tank for heavy support...not very difficult .

As for the rest...we are changing the rules for units so we'll go with it can move 12" and fire...

You know a predator can't take sponsons on top of this las cannons right? And has fewer hull points...and had a different Los (you have 2 turret lascannons, pred has 2 on sponsons).

Like I said though it's all a process maybe the Russ just goes to 13-13-10, or we teak the weapons another way.your solution of changing nothing because imbalance does not matter creates one sided games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again to me it just sounds like you like having invulnerability against most things in the game and don't want it to change.

Breng77 wrote:
Because the 9 heavy support russes can only shoot 3 targets, and take up heavy slots?

But no we change all rushes and then release a new heavy ig tank for heavy support...not very difficult .

As for the rest...we are changing the rules for units so we'll go with it can move 12" and fire...

You know a predator can't take sponsons on top of this las cannons right? And has fewer hull points...and had a different Los (you have 2 turret lascannons, pred has 2 on sponsons).

Like I said though it's all a process maybe the Russ just goes to 13-13-10, or we teak the weapons another way.your solution of changing nothing because imbalance does not matter creates one sided games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again to me it just sounds like you like having invulnerability against most things in the game and don't want it to change.

Boy, you're quick to judge. You know how many games I've won with my armored company, right? Around here it's considered one of the weakest lists you can run (because it can't score).

But sure, if you want to revamp all of 40k, be my guest. But look at the trouble you've had just balancing one list. I can't wait to see what you come up with, but I guarantee you will have been compelled to do either or both of the following:

1) Remove options.
2) Make many things so similar that you may as well have removed them and put a single thing to replace them.

That a on perspective...I doubt I would do either of those things, but I'm not going to waste my time...and I would not say I'm having trouble given the 5 min I've spent on it.

The endless saga of fluff vs mathematics continues...

I can't understand how anyone thinks it is okay for a game to be unfair. Why does 40K get a pass on being blatantly unfair? Because they have lots of options? Really?

Chess, no options, balanced (Though watch out for that OP white always getting first turn and all the debate that comes along with it, wow)
40k, options out the whazoo, needs personal balance touches for your own group.

I prefer my 40k like 40k, not chess, not that I don't love chess, it just needs more Lictors...

It's a game best played with a pre existing group that can arrange games ahead of time played where the list building is loose and light and letting what happens on the table decide the victor. As a result that's what our group built, together, and i wouldn't trade it for the world. Unless 6.5/7 does something really cool we may never leave 6th...