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.

Not necessarily- although I agree arguing about balance isn't the biggest factor in a decision either way, as the game isn't. But the armies with access to the most allies also have access to the most FW. Simply saying "It isn't balanced anyway" isn't a good reason to allow FW, imo- any more than claiming perfect balance as a reason to disallow.

Redbeard wrote:

Kingsley wrote:...6th edition is quite balanced.

Right, moving on to someone who isn't living in lala land. Do you know what balanced means? And, can you extend that understanding to a matchup between, I dunno, a necron flyerwing army and an assault army (doesn't even really matter which one).

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

Realmgames wrote:

 skkipper wrote:
I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.

I run a retail store in southern California, our next 40K tourney is coming up in November and we have to weigh in on allowing FW or not. My stance on this will most likely not be becuase FW is OP or unbalanced but simply because it is a product that GW will not allow me to sell. I don't see a reason for me to support something that I cannot sell and support the store with.

This is a good point, at least for RTT style events. One reason that I like these smaller-scale tournaments is they give people a chance to support their local store. Allowing stuff that isn't sold in the store goes against this to an extent. However, this shouldn't be a consideration for larger GT events, which don't have to deal with this problem.

nkelsch wrote:Anyone who says 6th edition is balanced is intellectually dishonest and just trying to win an argument, It is incapable of being balanced simply because of the design of the allies matrix. If the codexes were balanced on their own in 6th, then the addition of allies imbalances them as it gives some too much and others not enough. If the codexes are imbalanced and the allies balances them, then we wouldn't have whole codexes without battle brothers or the worst codex ever with no allies.

All this talk of preserving the 6th edition balance is a lie... it is about preserving relational meta which benefits specific people and playstyles. Not wanting to play something which is confusing or new is one thing but claming imbalance is sheneanigans.

Try again except without the buzzwords. I think you'll find your point no longer makes sense.

 Kingsley wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Kingsley wrote:...6th edition is quite balanced.

Right, moving on to someone who isn't living in lala land. Do you know what balanced means? And, can you extend that understanding to a matchup between, I dunno, a necron flyerwing army and an assault army (doesn't even really matter which one).

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

Realmgames wrote:

 skkipper wrote:
I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.

I run a retail store in southern California, our next 40K tourney is coming up in November and we have to weigh in on allowing FW or not. My stance on this will most likely not be becuase FW is OP or unbalanced but simply because it is a product that GW will not allow me to sell. I don't see a reason for me to support something that I cannot sell and support the store with.

This is a good point, at least for RTT style events. One reason that I like these smaller-scale tournaments is they give people a chance to support their local store. Allowing stuff that isn't sold in the store goes against this to an extent. However, this shouldn't be a consideration for larger GT events, which don't have to deal with this problem.

nkelsch wrote:Anyone who says 6th edition is balanced is intellectually dishonest and just trying to win an argument, It is incapable of being balanced simply because of the design of the allies matrix. If the codexes were balanced on their own in 6th, then the addition of allies imbalances them as it gives some too much and others not enough. If the codexes are imbalanced and the allies balances them, then we wouldn't have whole codexes without battle brothers or the worst codex ever with no allies.

All this talk of preserving the 6th edition balance is a lie... it is about preserving relational meta which benefits specific people and playstyles. Not wanting to play something which is confusing or new is one thing but claming imbalance is sheneanigans.

Try again except without the buzzwords. I think you'll find your point no longer makes sense.

point is you are delusional if you call 6th edition balanced and then use that statement to justify excluding all forge world. There are valid reasons to exclude fw, but saying 6th is balanced is not one of them and anyone who makes that argument is lying to win an argument.

nkelsch wrote:
]point is you are delusional if you call 6th edition balanced and then use that statement to justify excluding all forge world. There are valid reasons to exclude fw, but saying 6th is balanced is not one of them and anyone who makes that argument is lying to win an argument.

I disagree with your opinions on game balance-- I find 6th edition highly balanced. If you don't think so, maybe try using arguments instead of just calling people who disagree with you liars.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
]point is you are delusional if you call 6th edition balanced and then use that statement to justify excluding all forge world. There are valid reasons to exclude fw, but saying 6th is balanced is not one of them and anyone who makes that argument is lying to win an argument.

I disagree with your opinions on game balance-- I find 6th edition highly balanced. If you don't think so, maybe try using arguments instead of just calling people who disagree with you liars.

and you would be wrong... The nature of codexes and allies make it impossible to be balanced codexes and balanced allies as one will always unbalance the others, if either were balanced at all, and as long as tyranids exist in the current meta, the game is not balanced. There are so many levels of imbalance between units within the same codex, units across codexes, codexes against each other, imbalance in force org, low point games, high point games... It is impossible to make a balanced system where all armies work in all the different situations. And GW didn't even try. And somehow they took the wildly unbalanced 5th and through an update to the core rulebook made it balanced?

You either have to be delusional or lying to make that statement. No one anywhere can claim 6th is balanced because it simply isn't.

"Delusional" is a bit harsh.

Let's try and keep the argument based on the facts, people.

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

So, excluding Forge World, how does one counter the Cron Air Force with, say, Black Templars? And don't say "USE IG" because some of us don't have the points for allies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

So, excluding Forge World, how does one counter the Cron Air Force with, say, Black Templars? And don't say "USE IG" because some of us don't have the points for allies.

Spam Lasplas squads and double CML or double Ass Can Tank Hunter Terminators. Hide in a bastion of some sort and fire away.

The way to beat Spam is with another Spam Army. The problem with SPAM armies is that are weak in other area's, if you take an army to Knock out a particular Spam force it will invariably be weak in other area's and not very Competitive.

Spam Begets Spam.

However Competitive Spam Armies (and there are quite a few of these) are horrendous, because they have all the advantages of a Spam Force, with only a few of the draw backs. The advent of Allies in 6th Edition is in some cases exacerbates this, because you can mix the good/excellent of one army with the good/excellent of another. To those who say "Well you can do that too", there are several forces that are Over-powered you see Tag teams of these (BA, SW, GK), you just think "Feth it why am I even here?"

There are reasons why the BA don't access to certain equipment to try and balance their codex out, but now, it doesn't matter because you just take an Ally with the things you want to field. So BA force with some Scouts and Thunderfire Cannons is now feasible. Equally if a White Scar Player wants FAST TANKS, he just takes some tanks and say they are "Blood Angel Tanks". Give it 2 Years to settle down and we will see the same builds at Tournaments everywhere.

I think "Balance" is a seperate argument to "Whether FW should be allowed/ disallowed" but the line seems to be being blurred.

While I agree in a sense, FW gives many of those same armies you mention an even more insane number of options. I could see someone saying this tips the scales even worse (I'm not necessarily saying that).

Also, I personally don't think you'll see BA winning many 6th ed tournies, since you mention them.

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced!

There's a difference between a balanced game and a balanced list. A balanced game doesn't cease to be balanced if someone brings an unbalanced list - that's the point of it being a balanced game.

If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

And yet some armies are designed, either ruleswise or fluffwise, to ignore dealing with flyers, as they weren't a part of the game when those armies were designed. How does a themed Nurgle or Slaanesh daemon army fight fliers? They can't. These were armies that worked, even if not top-tier, in 5th ed. In 6th, they're unable to contend with one specific type of unit.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

Tends to, except not every army can make a balanced army, by your definition. Hence, the game is unbalanced. You can't claim a game is balanced when some factions are unable to compete.

I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's opinion on either side.

I think that allowing FW in 2000+ double FOC games is fine, it's the smaller games where it can really turn the tide for some armies while giving nothing to others. Even the armies that can't take any good FW stuff can at least double the FOC and take more of good units at 2000+. A fair compromise?

Entirely up to the TO's as stated over and over... and I really like the point made by Realmgames about why would they allow units that they can't carry and sell in their store. Skipping over the name calling and bullheadedness, there are some good points in this thread but yeah... it's getting repetitive now.

 BladeWalker wrote:
and I really like the point made by Realmgames about why would they allow units that they can't carry and sell in their store.

That is an example of a legitimate reason for stores who run events, but that is a reason which most Indy events run by clubs and the larger Tourneys don't have.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

So, excluding Forge World, how does one counter the Cron Air Force with, say, Black Templars? And don't say "USE IG" because some of us don't have the points for allies.

Flood the board with big units of.Crusaders and Initiates, ignore the flyers that can't contest objectives, and remember that Night Scythes suck for killing MEQ bodies. He can't contest the objectives with litte squads of Immortals or Warriors since you can steamroll them on the ground. Necron Air is awesome against 5th edition armies, but really only works in 6th with a very large contingent of wraiths t give it battlefield presence.

nkelsch wrote:and you would be wrong... The nature of codexes and allies make it impossible to be balanced codexes and balanced allies as one will always unbalance the others, if either were balanced at all, and as long as tyranids exist in the current meta, the game is not balanced. There are so many levels of imbalance between units within the same codex, units across codexes, codexes against each other, imbalance in force org, low point games, high point games... It is impossible to make a balanced system where all armies work in all the different situations. And GW didn't even try. And somehow they took the wildly unbalanced 5th and through an update to the core rulebook made it balanced?

You either have to be delusional or lying to make that statement. No one anywhere can claim 6th is balanced because it simply isn't.

Oh, so you thought 5th edition was "unbalanced" too? At this point I'm simply going to say "you're wrong" and be done with it. I don't have any interest in taking the time to explain a nuanced subject in detail to someone who keeps calling me a liar.

Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced!

There's a difference between a balanced game and a balanced list. A balanced game doesn't cease to be balanced if someone brings an unbalanced list - that's the point of it being a balanced game.

Not so. The game is balanced. The thing you have to realize is that listbuilding is part of the game If someone brings an unbalanced or bad list and loses, that's because they made bad choices in gameplay and are being punished for it. Imagine that you're playing Starcraft and decide to only build Hellions. Your opponent brings heavy units and you get smashed. This is not an unbalanced outcome-- it is the expected outcome of making errors that result in you being put at a tactical disadvantage.

Bad listbuilding is a gameplay error. Bringing a bad army means you're making mistakes prior to the game starting.

Redbeard wrote:

If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

And yet some armies are designed, either ruleswise or fluffwise, to ignore dealing with flyers, as they weren't a part of the game when those armies were designed. How does a themed Nurgle or Slaanesh daemon army fight fliers? They can't. These were armies that worked, even if not top-tier, in 5th ed. In 6th, they're unable to contend with one specific type of unit.

CSM allies provide numerous means of fighting Flyers. I believe Dæmons can also take Aegis Defense Lines and Bastions just like any other army.

nkelsch wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
and I really like the point made by Realmgames about why would they allow units that they can't carry and sell in their store.

That is an example of a legitimate reason for stores who run events, but that is a reason which most Indy events run by clubs and the larger Tourneys don't have.

No it isn't, because I don't see those TOs banning the GW kits that are only available from GW. If you're going to ban models that you can't sell in your own store then you need to ban ALL models that you can't sell in your own store.

At the end of the day, I think supporting the disallowing of FW units in tournaments is just a WAAC attitude and defeats the fun of playing a game like warhammer 40,000. I know tournies arent about fun for many people anyway but

The ONLY forge world unit that is OP is the lucius drop pod (Might be another one but ive forgotten what it was) but many codex units are just as over powered.

Most of FW units are fine, overcosted, or generally under powered, and form no problems in game. People mostly just complain about FW units because they're afraid of this stereotypes created and enforced by a vocal minority on the internet.

The two other biggest arguments I see are:

1. Forgeworld rules and models aren't as accessible - doesn't make any sense. very few people have access to all of games workshop's normal rules, and forgeworld units work like any other unit and codex in that if you dont understand or know it you ask your opponent and they show you how it works and such. In regards to model accessibility, same thing with a rich player who can buy more tanks than a poor player. Simple as.

2. "Oh if you use that what stops me from using a titan?" the force organisation chart, the points you need for a titan, and the rules stating titans are for apocolypse only. It makes no sense and yet people still say it, its nonsensical.

By the way in regards to the second, a games workshop staff member (newer guy) actually said that to me about me using my tetras...

All in all, using FW is the same as using grey knights, playing dark eldar, or using a WAAC netlist. If you someone your'e playing doesn't like it, its their problem not yours, and if your'e the person with the problem, just sit back and think about what your saying. Here is someone ready to have a fun game with you and your'e actually making a fuss about them using a model that is allowed by the rules because you dont like the model they're using. Its a game, its for fun. If it bothers you that much you probably have a bigger problem than just a little model you don't see as much.

 Peregrine wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
and I really like the point made by Realmgames about why would they allow units that they can't carry and sell in their store.

That is an example of a legitimate reason for stores who run events, but that is a reason which most Indy events run by clubs and the larger Tourneys don't have.

No it isn't, because I don't see those TOs banning the GW kits that are only available from GW. If you're going to ban models that you can't sell in your own store then you need to ban ALL models that you can't sell in your own store.

Stores primary focus is to make money. The primary focus of running events is to do events which encourages participation which in turn sells product. There is *ZERO* point to run an event for a product your store doesn't carry. Why run a MTG tourney when you don't sell MTG cards?

And don't purposefully be obtuse, there is a huge difference between a direct sale GW product and Forgeworld. Also, many retailers can order those direct sales objects.

Including FW takes effort, planning and if you are going to promote FW at your local event, then you are driving sales to that product, which does NOTHING for FLGS who can't stock FW.

It is a totally reasonable explanation why a store would not want to go through the trouble of promoting or facilitating a FW tourney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:and you would be wrong... The nature of codexes and allies make it impossible to be balanced codexes and balanced allies as one will always unbalance the others, if either were balanced at all, and as long as tyranids exist in the current meta, the game is not balanced. There are so many levels of imbalance between units within the same codex, units across codexes, codexes against each other, imbalance in force org, low point games, high point games... It is impossible to make a balanced system where all armies work in all the different situations. And GW didn't even try. And somehow they took the wildly unbalanced 5th and through an update to the core rulebook made it balanced?

You either have to be delusional or lying to make that statement. No one anywhere can claim 6th is balanced because it simply isn't.

Oh, so you thought 5th edition was "unbalanced" too? At this point I'm simply going to say "you're wrong" and be done with it. I don't have any interest in taking the time to explain a nuanced subject in detail to someone who keeps calling me a liar.

Yes, 5th was also unbalanced, we have a metric ton of data to prove this as well down to the codex creep and the undercosted units. You can't honestly make that statement and be genuine. You also can't claim 5th was balanced, then with the massive changes in rules that 6th also is equally balanced as the allied matrix makes that premise exactly opposite.

*Every codex has documented cases of undercosted and overcosted units. We have documented factual imbalance within codexes.
*We have documented imbalance between codexes where some codexes have better units which are undercosted compared to other codexes.
*We have codexes who are stronger/weaker based upon point size which means it is impossible to be eqwually balanced for a 500 pt game vs a 3000 pt game
*If 6th is perfectly balanced ar 1999+1, then how does double forceorg maintain that exact balance with 1 point?

Your argument that the game is balanced and lists are unbalanced is a dishonest doubletalk statement where you acknowledge there is imbalance, but you feel like as long as you can take a competative list, not use the neglected overcosted units and can fill holes with allies, then it is 'good enough'. That is not balance, and your fake version fo a balanced ruleset doesn't address Tyranids at all as they are the worst codex out there, with no allies and almost no add-on units while everyone else is getting magical 6th edition balance.

And if you claim allies make 6th balance than by matter of cat then 5th was incapable of being balanced as it needs 6th allies to be balanced.

When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta... you seem to think because I can take a heavy bolter and a lascannon int he same list, my army is balanced as I have anti-troop and anti-tank. That is not what constitute balance and you know it.

nkelsch wrote:
Yes, 5th was also unbalanced, we have a metric ton of data to prove this as well down to the codex creep and the undercosted units. You can't honestly make that statement and be genuine. You also can't claim 5th was balanced, then with the massive changes in rules that 6th also is equally balanced as the allied matrix makes that premise exactly opposite.

Codex Creep is a myth.

nkelsch wrote:Your argument that the game is balanced and lists are unbalanced is a dishonest doubletalk statement where you acknowledge there is imbalance, but you feel like as long as you can take a competative list, not use the neglected overcosted units and can fill holes with allies, then it is 'good enough'.

Games can be balanced and have bad options, since internal balance (balance of options within one army) is much less relevant than external balance (balance of armies against one another). Starcraft: Brood War is a generally balanced game despite the fact that it has a few outright terrible options (Scout, Infested Terran) and several normally bad or extremely situational ones (Queen, Valkyrie, Dark Archon, Carrier, Battlecruiser).

nkelsch wrote:That is not balance, and your fake version fo a balanced ruleset doesn't address Tyranids at all as they are the worst codex out there, with no allies and almost no add-on units while everyone else is getting magical 6th edition balance.

Tyranids are currently one of the best armies in the game. Tyranids being bad is essentially a myth-- not only were they not that bad in 5th edition, but 6th edition gave them multiple huge buffs.

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Yes, 5th was also unbalanced, we have a metric ton of data to prove this as well down to the codex creep and the undercosted units. You can't honestly make that statement and be genuine. You also can't claim 5th was balanced, then with the massive changes in rules that 6th also is equally balanced as the allied matrix makes that premise exactly opposite.

Codex Creep is a myth.

Not true. This is documented proof from the massive amounts of data collected by 5 years of indy events and simple mathmatics and odds which show specific codexes having statistically superior undercosted units.

nkelsch wrote:Your argument that the game is balanced and lists are unbalanced is a dishonest doubletalk statement where you acknowledge there is imbalance, but you feel like as long as you can take a competitive list, not use the neglected overcosted units and can fill holes with allies, then it is 'good enough'.

Games can be balanced and have bad options, since internal balance (balance of options within one army) is much less relevant than external balance (balance of armies against one another). Starcraft: Brood War is a generally balanced game despite the fact that it has a few outright terrible options (Scout, Infested Terran) and several normally bad or extremely situational ones (Queen, Valkyrie, Dark Archon, Carrier, Battlecruiser).

But you ignore the whole points value, and not every codex has equal availability to the 'good' options' over the 'bad' options... and having 'bad' options shows the game is imbalanced, lots of types of imbalance but unit vs unit imbalance due to wrong costing is imbalance which you are simply wishing away.

nkelsch wrote:That is not balance, and your fake version fo a balanced ruleset doesn't address Tyranids at all as they are the worst codex out there, with no allies and almost no add-on units while everyone else is getting magical 6th edition balance.

Tyranids are currently one of the best armies in the game. Tyranids being bad is essentially a myth-- not only were they not that bad in 5th edition, but 6th edition gave them multiple huge buffs.

Having a limited psyker spam option does not at all make the entire codex or how the codex works with the rules balanced. It also doesn't make all of the units good or work well at all of the point values. It also doesn't have the advantages of being able to balance away the imbalance with allies. Saying Nids are the best armies int he game along with saying there is no imbalance and then ignoring 'bad choices' is why I call your position dishonest and it is delusional to believe this stuff is reality.

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

No, you are making up stuff as I have provided many forms of imbalance which are confirmed to exist with lots of independent data collection of how codexes perform and you have done nothing except spout 'there is imbalance, but the game is balanced! If everyone just played better it would be balanced!'

There is massive imbalance, there is codex creep, there are problems with allies, there are undercosted codexes, there are codexes which are unable to compete with a majority of their units. and to argue that somehow FW will imbalance a perfected balance is an indefensible position to take in this whole debate. You can argue it can further imbalance the META, but you can't claim it imbalances a perfectly balanced meta because it doesn't.

nkelsch wrote:
documented

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I tried to reply to the rest of your post but I found it difficult to understand. Is English your first language?

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

Army 1: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon: 100 points
Army 2: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon, Searchlight, Smoke: 60 points

When we say that the game is imbalanced, a 40 point difference between identical vehicles in different codexes is what we're talking about. That's what we mean when we say that we're talking about points, and codex creep.

How do you justify this difference in your 'balance' concept?

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
documented

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I tried to reply to the rest of your post but I found it difficult to understand. Is English your first language?

And hence, delusional... maybe I should ask if you have a learning disability which prevents you from doing gradeschool math since you seem to lack the understandings of basic probability and statistics which can be used to show pretty easily the imbalance between many of the units in 40k due to simple math. It is called 'mathhammer' for a reason and it is a useful tool. Now resorting to pretending I am using words incorrectly. Go to BoLS and most of the blogs for the data crunching on almost every indy event for the past 5 years... you can find the data that shows codex creep and a lot of the imbalance which is generally accepted.

And any and all comparisons to Starcraft are invalid as Starcraft re-costed units and changed stats and other aspects dozens of times to make balance, where 40k does not. You won't convince anyone that somehow GW gets it right on the first try.

You have still yet to provide any evidence of how 40k is balanced in anyway.

Delusional: A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Documented: To support (an assertion or claim, for example) with evidence or decisive information.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

Army 1: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon: 100 points
Army 2: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon, Searchlight, Smoke: 60 points

When we say that the game is imbalanced, a 40 point difference between identical vehicles in different codexes is what we're talking about. That's what we mean when we say that we're talking about points, and codex creep.

How do you justify this difference in your 'balance' concept?

Simple. Things change over time. Let's take Space Marine Devastators as an example. This unit is almost objectively worse than Blood Angel or Space Wolf Devastators. After Codex: Space Marines, GW realized that Devastators probably cost too much, so that unit and its equivalents got their costs reduced in future books. But that doesn't mean that "Codex Creep" is real, because balance changes go both ways. Codex: Space Marines also has 40 point TH/SS Terminators. After Codex: Space Marines, GW realized that TH/SS Terminators probably cost too little, so that unit and its equivalents got their costs increased in future books. Space Wolves pay 63 points for a TH/SS Terminator (albeit one with Counterattack) and Blood Angels pay 45 for an inferior model.

The myth of Codex Creep is that all changes make units better and thus new books are always better than old ones. In fact, there's a pretty even mix of units getting better and units getting worse. Thus, while some units might not be optimal in older books relative to new ones, other units are even better. A good example of this is Codex: Black Templars. In many respects, Codex: Black Templars is outdated-- but it's still a very competitive book, since, while it is missing some options that later books have, it also has some options that later books lost. For instance, Black Templars can take 5 man Terminator squads with two Cyclone Missile Launchers and Tank Hunters, which no other book can do.

By playing to an army's strengths, you can ensure that your army stays strong across a long period of time, new releases or no new releases.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

Army 1: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon: 100 points
Army 2: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon, Searchlight, Smoke: 60 points

When we say that the game is imbalanced, a 40 point difference between identical vehicles in different codexes is what we're talking about. That's what we mean when we say that we're talking about points, and codex creep.

How do you justify this difference in your 'balance' concept?

Simple. Things change over time. Let's take Space Marine Devastators as an example. This unit is almost objectively worse than Blood Angel or Space Wolf Devastators. After Codex: Space Marines, GW realized that Devastators probably cost too much, so that unit and its equivalents got their costs reduced in future books. But that doesn't mean that "Codex Creep" is real, because balance changes go both ways. Codex: Space Marines also has 40 point TH/SS Terminators. After Codex: Space Marines, GW realized that TH/SS Terminators probably cost too little, so that unit and its equivalents got their costs increased in future books. Space Wolves pay 63 points for a TH/SS Terminator (albeit one with Counterattack) and Blood Angels pay 45 for an inferior model.

The myth of Codex Creep is that all changes make units better and thus new books are always better than old ones. In fact, there's a pretty even mix of units getting better and units getting worse. Thus, while some units might not be optimal in older books relative to new ones, other units are even better. A good example of this is Codex: Black Templars. In many respects, Codex: Black Templars is outdated-- but it's still a very competitive book, since, while it is missing some options that later books have, it also has some options that later books lost. For instance, Black Templars can take 5 man Terminator squads with two Cyclone Missile Launchers and Tank Hunters, which no other book can do.

By playing to an army's strengths, you can ensure that your army stays strong across a long period of time, new releases or no new releases.

First of all, you have no evidence that the studio designs in this manner, and designing future units does not fix the imbalance with older codexes... so by your own example it proves the imbalance as when a unit is obviously undercosted, fixing similar units it in future books only leaves the older codexes further out of balance which proves the imbalance and codex creep as those older units int hose older codexes become more out of date with ever new release.

The only way they could actually address balance is if EVERY unit in EVERY codex was recosted EVERY release. Which they don't do.

So when THSS termies were too cheap... how was that not creep? And how did this not cause an imbalance for the older codexes? And how was not fixing it somehow making the game more balanced?

Well, if that's your idea of balance, then I guess its balanced in your universe. Most of us have a more realistic understanding of what balance means, and we understand that when a unit costs 40% less in a newer codex, that's a sign of imbalance, not a sign of balance.

Under your definition of balance, everything Forgeworld has ever published is perfectly balanced. Afterall, some of it is good, and some of it is bad, so it all balances out.

Actually, it is documented. Take a stroll through Rankings HQ and look at the results from the last three years in North America. There has effectively been no soft scores in the bulk of two day major events for at least that time frame and longer in some circles. There is your hard data and its pretty conclusive. IG and Spacewolves everywhere, with the occasional BT or GK Bridesmaid here and there. This despite the literal ocean of Draigowing armies that everyone moaned about. Thats a pretty convincing statistical argument for the game not being balanced.

So far in this edition, its been IG, SW, or one allied with the other, though the sample data is admittedly small at this point. This has been the case with or without FW being involved, but it you look at the top tens in those events what you will notice is that the events that allow FW have a near complete absence of Xenos books, aside from the occasional Cron list. So really the best argument that can be made based on the actual information is that FW does not alter the existing balance (or lack therof), but it appears to deepen the existing issues. Given the obvious fact that there are literally ten times the amount of imperial entries compared to xenos (and it would be worse if not for all the Tau crisis variants), no one should find this suprising.

But hey, don't let actual hard data get in the way of spirited hyperbole and thinly veiled insults. The "Is English your first language" quip is probably the dog whistle insult of the year on this board. The people making comments like that are actually the best argument against allowing FW, in my mind because if thats how low they will go to win an argument then they are probably about as much fun to play as Dash on a sober day. As much as I like the idea of FW, the way it hands out Interceptor like candy, the way most people just spam the one or two busted units, and the attitudes of those pushing for it turn me off to it, even though I own some myself. If we are going to intruduce it as a widely accepted standard into the game, then there needs to be a temporary re-introduction of soft scores to weed out the abusers.

Pick your poison people. You can learn to cope with the flyer spam (ie Razorspam 2.0) that has issues against MEQ in the majority of the book missions, which is where I think the designers were leaning (as evidenced by the trends continued in the Chaos dex). Or you can add an IG Blob with nine sabres to all of your existing imperial armies, to deal with a comp free winner takes all environment that the current 40k community has pushed for. Either way, I don't have a dog in this fight because I will just add some Sabres to my army and let my xenos armies continue to collect dust as they did through the majority of 5th.

nkelsch wrote:
First of all, you have no evidence that the studio designs in this manner, and designing future units does not fix the imbalance with older codexes... so by your own example it proves the imbalance as when a unit is obviously undercosted, fixing similar units it in future books only leaves the older codexes further out of balance which proves the imbalance and codex creep as those older units int hose older codexes become more out of date with ever new release.

Sameness is a low-level form of balance.

Redbeard wrote:Well, if that's your idea of balance, then I guess its balanced in your universe. Most of us have a more realistic understanding of what balance means, and we understand that when a unit costs 40% less in a newer codex, that's a sign of imbalance, not a sign of balance.

Ah yes, the law of comparative advantage is "unrealistic." Good argument.

Redbeard wrote: Under your definition of balance, everything Forgeworld has ever published is perfectly balanced. Afterall, some of it is good, and some of it is bad, so it all balances out.

Not so. Forge World has items that shouldn't be allowed in the game from a fundamental design perspective because they are stupid or unfun. For instance, the Lucius-Pattern Drop Pod allows Dreadnoughts to assault out of Deep Strike. This is not something that should be in the game. Units assaulting from Reserves have been totally removed because it is a fundamentally unfun gameplay element.

Other Forge World items throw off system-level balance decisions. For instance, GW has implemented a surprisingly deep system with the introduction of Flyers. Flyers are inherently weaker than other units because they have to begin the game in Reserves and have very constrained movement-- to make up for this, they are very fast and difficult to attack for most other units. To directly counter Flyers, you can either take certain Flyers of your own, which offer anti-air capabilities, or take ground-to-air units, which generally are either ineffective against non-Flyers (Hydras) or pay a large premium for their flexibility (Havocs). Thus, you have to either make interesting tradeoffs in list design to deal with Flyers or focus on indirect counters.

Forge World destroys this balance by implementing ground-to-air units that are both flexible and inexpensive. To make matters worse, many of these units have the Interceptor rule, which allows them to exploit the primary disadvantage of Flyers. Units like the Sabre Defense Platform and Hyperios Air Defense Launcher destroy the system of tradeoffs by both shutting down Flyers and being strong choices against ground units. Thus, when these options are available, there is less inherent balance in the system. This is bad and should not be allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Phazael wrote:
The "Is English your first language" quip is probably the dog whistle insult of the year on this board.

That wasn't a quip. I actually don't understand what nkelsch was trying to say. "But you ignore the whole points value, and not every codex has equal availability to the 'good' options' over the 'bad' options... and having 'bad' options shows the game is imbalanced, lots of types of imbalance but unit vs unit imbalance due to wrong costing is imbalance which you are simply wishing away" is not a grammatical English sentence. If English isn't nkelsch's first language, I'm willing to put more effort into reading his posts-- but if it is, the error is on his end, and I'm not particularly interested in trying to decipher a post from someone who can't be bothered to write correctly.

But hey, just go ahead and assume that I'm a dill weed.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
documented

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I tried to reply to the rest of your post but I found it difficult to understand. Is English your first language?

That post oozed of snark. I fail to see how anyone reading it objectively could draw any other conclusion. I know I for one had zero issues understanding what he was trying to say, unless you were confused by his use of complete sentances and accurate punction..... (hint: thats snark)

But looking at the substance of your post, I agree completely with those units being the biggest problems. What I cannot understand is how you can aknowledge those flaws on one hand and claim that the game is perfectly balanced on the other. Either you are being disengenious to win an internet argument (a time honored tradition) or you are simply denying actual evidence that conflicts with your preconcieved notions (aka being delusional /drumfill), so which is it?