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.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Sadly, I don't really see Codex: Space Marines getting the full-on Eldar and Necron treatment (great detachments/formations, buffs on less than desirable units, buffs on great units).

Two of the biggest disappointments for all marine players has been dreadnaughts and terminators. In order to give them the much needed overhaul that they need, no less than 4 previously released 7th edition armies(BA, SW, GK, and Daemonkin) would need those entries updated, and we all know how GW feels about FAQs...

I do. GW will almost certainly have formation for 3 squads of Scouts / Terminators / Dreadnoughts with extra bonuses, along with a Chapter bonus if you take at least 3 Tactical Squads + other core units.

Nope. GW doesn't care. Play your Grey Marines, your Dark Marines, your Blood Marines. Just pay your $80 for the "improved" rules.

Well I think the biggest problem why some people disagree with the TS is simply cause they have another definition of overpowered.

In the TS definition (and mine as well) something is balanced (and hence not overpowered) if a unit has an average 50/50 chance of winning. With average I mean the average about anything (mission type, every other unit in the game, codex match-ups and so on). So it should be always possible to balance a unit by its point values.

Other people state that something is overpowered if it is extremely hard to kill, which makes a game against such a unit absolutely frustrating and boring (think of necron wraith, titans etc). While you can balance such a unit by adjusting points so that there is a 50/50 chance of winning, it will stil be a absolutely boring game if you throw tons of dice just to bring down a single unit. You can call that overpowered too, but I would rather call it bad game design. Same applies for some codex rock-paper-scissor-matches where a specific unit excells against some codices while it fails against others.

So its more a question how you define overpowered for yourself.

 Talys wrote:

 Juicifer wrote:
Of course a units cost is intended to directly relate to it's power in game terms. Maybe years of edition/codex roulette have eroded people's willingness to acknowledge the basic intent of the points system?

Of course, that is the intention. I don't think that anyone disagrees with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are random abilities that are going to be better than others, and it doesn't change the fact that in 40k there are some combinations which are worthless while others are game breaking. Since there is not a surcharge for taking 2 correctly costed units in tandem, a rule change would be preferable to overcharging the two individual units on the *possibility* that they might be combined.

I'm not agreeing with the premise that under costed is universally overpowered, I'm merely pointing out that if 40k were ever a balanced game, than discussions such as this would be the stuff of wonderland tea parties.

A unit can be accurately costed, for the effect a single unit can have in game.
However, multiples of accurately costed units may have a synergistic bonus that makes the total cost of the multiple units under costed.

Some people refer to this as 'over powered'.(Rather than just under costed to make the definition between singular cost and synergistic bonuses.)

Most games counter this within the army composition lists.eg 0-1 or 0-2, or you have to take x number of common units before you can take a rare unit etc.

I only use the term 'overpowered' , when the effect of the unit is not within the scope of the game.
EG the unit is too powerful to result in enjoyable game play.

And under powered is where the unit has so little value in game, even giving it a value of 1 makes it over costed.There is no reason to take the unit what so ever.

That is just my take on it.

Under coated just means they need a bump to make them abit more expensive, not brokenly overpowering but just abit too good vs others in there cost and category's. Just need a few points adding on, slight tweak.

Overpowering and game breakers are when there just way too powerful, tough or cheap beyond a resnoble margin.

Basicly need a full rewrite and looking at.

 jhe90 wrote:
Under coated just means they need a bump to make them abit more expensive, not brokenly overpowering but just abit too good vs others in there cost and category's. Just need a few points adding on, slight tweak.

I'm pretty sure that's not what under coated means.

 vipoid wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Under coated just means they need a bump to make them abit more expensive, not brokenly overpowering but just abit too good vs others in there cost and category's. Just need a few points adding on, slight tweak.

I'm pretty sure that's not what under coated means.

yes repeating the obvious but some people out there see things in very strange ways

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Maybe people should buy the extremely large GW terrain pieces to hide their important behind, and play the missions with the GW Maelstrom (tm) deck that mitigates any tactical advantage of being able to shoot things.

Tactical objectives doesnt help you against 4 wraithknights... Trust me.