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.

 Phazael wrote:

 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)

To clarify, the first part of the post is a reference to the movie "The Princess Bride."

Phazael wrote: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?

That's the thing. I think standard 40k is balanced, but Forge World isn't, and that adding the unbalanced Sabre Defense Platforms, Hyperios Air Defense Launchers, etc. degrades the balance of the game.

 Kingsley wrote:

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out of balance which proves the imbalance and codex creep as those older units int hose older codexes become more out of date with ever new release.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.

This is a BS argument. So, because we could all play the same space marine army, everything is balanced. Right...

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

Your lack of understanding of economics is second only to your lack of understanding of game design... Comparative Advantage has nothing to do with balancing factions in a game, because we're not trading, we're playing against each other. If your army gets an underpriced unit, it doesn't make mine better, no matter how you spin it.

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.

Except for Zagstruk and Vanguard, and probably another unit or two (Ymgarls, right?). So, yeah, another case where we show specific examples that invalidate your argument. Keep trying though, it's fun. As for 'assaulting from Reserves being "unfun' - I disagree. It's no more or less fun that being shot at by something that came out of reserve. Or, for that matter, losing a unit to an interceptor gun before being able to put it on the table.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

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.

This is a BS argument. So, because we could all play the same space marine army, everything is balanced. Right...

That's not what I'm arguing. Sameness is a low-level form of balance. Sacrificing it in favor of more advanced concepts like comparative advantage and tradeoff-based balance is often better.

Redbeard wrote:Your lack of understanding of economics is second only to your lack of understanding of game design... Comparative Advantage has nothing to do with balancing factions in a game, because we're not trading, we're playing against each other. If your army gets an underpriced unit, it doesn't make mine better, no matter how you spin it.

But that's the point you're missing. The reason Codex Creep is fake is because units don't get less expensive across the board. Some get less expensive, some get more expensive. My "underpriced" unit is balanced by your "underpriced" unit; my cheaper Devastators are balanced by your cheaper TH/SS Terminators.

Redbeard wrote:Except for Zagstruk and Vanguard, and probably another unit or two (Ymgarls, right?). So, yeah, another case where we show specific examples that invalidate your argument.

I expect those to go away in their next Codices, as did every other specific instance of this rule in the game and the general case of units assaulting from standard Reserves or Outflanking. It's a failed mechanic that nearly everyone I've met and played with hates.

Redbeard wrote:As for 'assaulting from Reserves being "unfun' - I disagree. It's no more or less fun that being shot at by something that came out of reserve. Or, for that matter, losing a unit to an interceptor gun before being able to put it on the table.

The problem with units being assaulted from Reserves is that they don't get a chance to do anything about it. In 6th edition, random charge ranges and Overwatch mitigate this to an extent, but generally speaking the disadvantage of assault units is that they pay for their greatly increased killing power by being exposed to more risk, most notably while traveling across the board to engage their targets. Assaulting from Reserves eliminates this. Having someone's Callidus Assassin pop out of Reserves and charge your Devastators without a chance to react was one of the least fun parts about earlier versions of the game.

 Kingsley wrote:

But that's the point you're missing. The reason Codex Creep is fake is because units don't get less expensive across the board. Some get less expensive, some get more expensive. My "underpriced" unit is balanced by your "underpriced" unit; my cheaper Devastators are balanced by your cheaper TH/SS Terminators.

That's not balance, that's imbalance. That forces me to take a unit I potentially don't want, in order to make up for the unit you're getting on the cheap. What if TH/SS terminators aren't good overall (with a lot of 6th ed changes, I'm not sure that they're still better than tactical terminators)? My "cheap unit that balances yours" is meta'd out, yours isn't - so it's still unbalanced.

Redbeard wrote:Except for Zagstruk and Vanguard, and probably another unit or two (Ymgarls, right?). So, yeah, another case where we show specific examples that invalidate your argument.

I expect those to go away in their next Codices, as did every other instance of this rule in the game and the general case of units assaulting from standard Reserves or Outflanking. It's a failed mechanic that nearly everyone I've met hates.

Why, do they all play shooty armies? I doubt they'll be going away.

The problem with units being assaulted from Reserves is that they don't get a chance to do anything about it.

There's lots of cases where you don't get to do anything about something just coming in. Why are flyers so good? Because, short of "interceptor", you don't get to do anything about it. Why is "interceptor" good? Because the person arriving doesn't get to do anything about that (especially if it's on top of a bastion w/ full LoS).

In 6th edition, random charge ranges and Overwatch mitigate this to an extent, but generally speaking the disadvantage of assault units is that they pay for their greatly increased killing power by being exposed to more risk, most notably while traveling across the board to engage their targets.

And assaulting from reserve has no risk? Assaulting from outflanking had the risk that you'd be on the wrong side of the table. Assaulting from deep strike has the risk that you scatter into your target and mishap. Assaulting from reserve along your own table edge implied that your opponent was in your deployment zone. None of these were without risk, nor without tactics to mitigate the risk to the defending player.

Assaulting from Reserves eliminates this. Having someone's Callidus Assassin pop out of Reserves and charge your Devastators without a chance to react was one of the least fun parts about earlier versions of the game.

Some people learned to deal with it. Some people learned how to bubble wrap the important stuff. Besides, why is it less fun for something to show up and charge your devastators than it is for something to show up and roast them (Flamers of Tzeentch, for example), or for someone to deep strike with no risk and blow up your land raider (Dante)?

It's another example of how you don't understand balance. In 5th ed, assault and shooting from reserve were balanced. An assault unit that arrived from reserve could deal damage, a shooting unit that arrived from reserve could also deal damage. In 6th, only shooting units can inflict damage out of reserve (with a couple of specific exceptions). How is this not an imbalance that favours shooting over assault?

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

But that's the point you're missing. The reason Codex Creep is fake is because units don't get less expensive across the board. Some get less expensive, some get more expensive. My "underpriced" unit is balanced by your "underpriced" unit; my cheaper Devastators are balanced by your cheaper TH/SS Terminators.

That's not balance, that's imbalance. That forces me to take a unit I potentially don't want, in order to make up for the unit you're getting on the cheap. What if TH/SS terminators aren't good overall (with a lot of 6th ed changes, I'm not sure that they're still better than tactical terminators)? My "cheap unit that balances yours" is meta'd out, yours isn't - so it's still unbalanced.

If you want to take Devs and not TH/SS Terminators (and all the other considerations line up the same way), then you pick Codex: Blood Angels instead of Codex: Space Marines, since it's better for what you want to do. That isn't a balance problem, though-- selecting your Codex is a gameplay decision.

 Redbeard wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Except for Zagstruk and Vanguard, and probably another unit or two (Ymgarls, right?). So, yeah, another case where we show specific examples that invalidate your argument.

I expect those to go away in their next Codices, as did every other instance of this rule in the game and the general case of units assaulting from standard Reserves or Outflanking. It's a failed mechanic that nearly everyone I've met hates.

Why, do they all play shooty armies? I doubt they'll be going away.

I expect those things to go away because the design trend is very clearly moving away from them. See Callidus Assassins, the 6th edition rulebook, Warp Talons, etc.

 Redbeard wrote:
It's another example of how you don't understand balance. In 5th ed, assault and shooting from reserve were balanced. An assault unit that arrived from reserve could deal damage, a shooting unit that arrived from reserve could also deal damage. In 6th, only shooting units can inflict damage out of reserve (with a couple of specific exceptions). How is this not an imbalance that favours shooting over assault?

Assault from reserve isn't a balance issue, it's a fun issue. Good players knew how to counter it-- except for the Callidus Assassin, who essentially couldn't be countered, but that was a special case-- but it was extremely unfun for those who didn't. Shooting from reserve doesn't pose the same problems and thus is still allowed. See also: top of turn one charges vs. bottom of turn one charges.

 Kingsley wrote:

Assault from reserve isn't a balance issue, it's a fun issue. Good players knew how to counter it-- except for the Callidus Assassin, who essentially couldn't be countered, but that was a special case-- but it was extremely unfun for those who didn't. Shooting from reserve doesn't pose the same problems and thus is still allowed.

Why doesn't it pose the same problem? You're deliberately being vague and ignoring questions that contradict your stance. How is it less fun to be assault out of reserve, than it is to lose an entire unit to three deep-striking Flamers of Tzeentch? Or a Land Raider to Dante's infallible Deep Striking w. a couple of inferno pistols?

I've been on both sides, and there's no difference. Someone brings a Vendetta out of reserve and tri-lascannons my warlord to death, with "nothing I can do to prevent it" is no different than if they brought in a daemon prince and assaulted the warlord. In each case, I'm out a warlord. In each case, I could have positioned my model better to protect it. In each case, I was unable to do anything to prevent it. What's the difference? Why are flyers fun and assault units not-fun? You're making arbitrary distinctions with no basis in reality. Stuff arriving from reserve and killing your stuff (with you not having anything to do about it), is equally as unfun, whether it's done by assault or shooting.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Assault from reserve isn't a balance issue, it's a fun issue. Good players knew how to counter it-- except for the Callidus Assassin, who essentially couldn't be countered, but that was a special case-- but it was extremely unfun for those who didn't. Shooting from reserve doesn't pose the same problems and thus is still allowed.

Why doesn't it pose the same problem? You're deliberately being vague and ignoring questions that contradict your stance. How is it less fun to be assault out of reserve, than it is to lose an entire unit to three deep-striking Flamers of Tzeentch? Or a Land Raider to Dante's infallible Deep Striking w. a couple of inferno pistols?

I've been on both sides, and there's no difference. Someone brings a Vendetta out of reserve and tri-lascannons my warlord to death, with "nothing I can do to prevent it" is no different than if they brought in a daemon prince and assaulted the warlord. In each case, I'm out a warlord. In each case, I could have positioned my model better to protect it. In each case, I was unable to do anything to prevent it. What's the difference? Why are flyers fun and assault units not-fun? You're making arbitrary distinctions with no basis in reality. Stuff arriving from reserve and killing your stuff (with you not having anything to do about it), is equally as unfun, whether it's done by assault or shooting.

The things that make you resilient to shooting generally make you resilient to shooting regardless of how it comes in, with rare exceptions. The things that make you resilient to assault often don't. The fundamental assumption for assault is also that it will take at least a turn of vulnerability before reaching fruition, and thus people are more put out when it doesn't.

I see now... Blindly defending an indefensible position of "6th edition is balanced" is really "I prefer 6th editions meta and FW changes the meta I want to promote so I am against it." That is a position a lot of people do not respect.

Trying to say FW further imbalances an imbalanced game is a valid position and something people can disagree on as the degree of added imbalance is not clear due to how allies have impacted 6th. In 5th there was data that showed it further imbalanced an imbalanced game, but with allies, it is assumed the imbalance will further favor imperial codexes and punish xenos. We can make assumptions, we can try to extrapolate 5th edition data to believe this, but it is a point people disagree on. I guess when more FW 6th events are run, we can see what the results are.

Claiming 6th is balanced is by no means a position that is valid or a foundation for any other arguments to be based on like "it imbalances a balanced game!"

nkelsch wrote:
I see now... Blindly defending an indefensible position of "6th edition is balanced" is really "I prefer 6th editions meta and FW changes the meta I want to promote so I am against it." That is a position a lot of people do not respect.

Trying to say FW further imbalances an imbalanced game is a valid position and something people can disagree on as the degree of added imbalance is not clear due to how allies have impacted 6th. In 5th there was data that showed it further imbalanced an imbalanced game, but with allies, it is assumed the imbalance will further favor imperial codexes and punish xenos. We can make assumptions, we can try to extrapolate 5th edition data to believe this, but it is a point people disagree on. I guess when more FW 6th events are run, we can see what the results are.

Claiming 6th is balanced is by no means a position that is valid or a foundation for any other arguments to be based on like "it imbalances a balanced game!"

"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

Nkelsch, that middle paragraph of yours is great.

Guys, Kingsley in particular, can you drop the argument over the word balance? It's not helping the case for/against FW and is pretty far afield now, I think.

 Kingsley wrote:
"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

Err, what? Isn't part of the anti-FW argument that Imperial armies are favored, and FW favors them even more so we shouldn't make the problem any worse?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

Err, what? Isn't part of the anti-FW argument that Imperial armies are favored, and FW favors them even more so we shouldn't make the problem any worse?

It would be if people on either side were a homogenous block where everyone has the same opinion. People don't though.


I can agree with Codex creep being way rarer than people claim. Imperial Guard and Space Wolves were two of the earlier 5th edition Codices, and yet they dominated the rest of the edition. If Codex creep were real, it'd mean that every new army should be getting more and more powerful, but that didn't happen.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see now... Blindly defending an indefensible position of "6th edition is balanced" is really "I prefer 6th editions meta and FW changes the meta I want to promote so I am against it." That is a position a lot of people do not respect.

Trying to say FW further imbalances an imbalanced game is a valid position and something people can disagree on as the degree of added imbalance is not clear due to how allies have impacted 6th. In 5th there was data that showed it further imbalanced an imbalanced game, but with allies, it is assumed the imbalance will further favor imperial codexes and punish xenos. We can make assumptions, we can try to extrapolate 5th edition data to believe this, but it is a point people disagree on. I guess when more FW 6th events are run, we can see what the results are.

Claiming 6th is balanced is by no means a position that is valid or a foundation for any other arguments to be based on like "it imbalances a balanced game!"

"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

Except there is massive amount of data to the contrary, and 3+ armor saves have huge advantages and are not balanced right now since the counter of playing 6+ units in mass quantities is forcibly removed from the game due to game time limits and logistics of playing 200+ model swamps.

I will refer you back to the definition of delusional because there is massive amounts of evidence to the contrary of every one of your positions and you have zero supporting evidence and ever example of "balance" you site is actually imbalance which takes 6 years to be "rectified" in your examples. Just because you claim new codexes get readjusted points to make up for the imbalance doesn't help old codexes and it doesn't help with the imbalance for the duration of time between updates. We are almost 2 editions and 5 years for orks... So while their next codex may get "balanced" currently they suffer through massive imbalance and calling it balance doesn't make it so. Just makes you look like you don't understand the term balance.

The only way this system would be balanced is if every codex got points adjusted every release so if a codex was released with statistically superior cheap units, the counters or equivalents in All the codexes also become adjusted... Or the under costed unit gets its points increased. That is balance when it happens instantly, not 6 years apart like it does now.

If we can all stay polite and avoid insulting other posters t'would be greatly appreciated.

Just a general plea request. Thanks folks !

After reading the opinions of all the people wanting FW allowed at tournaments, and hearing it echoed by several dozen people in my area, I started allowing FW in my tournaments.

After 6 tournaments, only one person ever brought FW pieces in, and that was only 1 time. No one else owned the models or cared, or knew about them.

Not even going to worry about including them in future tournaments. Everyone wants to fight hard for inclusion, but it's just hot air on the interwebs.

And GW quit selling the FW books to independent stores, so there is no reason for a store to support FW.

 mikhaila wrote:
After reading the opinions of all the people wanting FW allowed at tournaments, and hearing it echoed by several dozen people in my area, I started allowing FW in my tournaments.

After 6 tournaments, only one person ever brought FW pieces in, and that was only 1 time. No one else owned the models or cared, or knew about them.

Not even going to worry about including them in future tournaments. Everyone wants to fight hard for inclusion, but it's just hot air on the interwebs.

And GW quit selling the FW books to independent stores, so there is no reason for a store to support FW.

^this FTW......FW at Tournaments is a non-issue. Commence the random argument bashing.

This may have been brought up prior to my post, I don't know, but as an IG player, what about FW things that have since popped up in the regular codex, like the heavy bolter or flamer turrets? Are those overpowered and shouldn't be allowed?

I would think that just having more options would never be a bad thing. I can understand the arguments for lack of access to a unit or option, but anyone can go online and find the stats for these things. Saying they would have no idea how they work before they face them is silly.

nkelsch wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

Except there is massive amount of data to the contrary, and 3+ armor saves have huge advantages and are not balanced right now since the counter of playing 6+ units in mass quantities is forcibly removed from the game due to game time limits and logistics of playing 200+ model swamps.

I'll just refer you to this thread to save time, and also point out that most people agree the strongest army right now is Necrons...

Just like "most" people agreed GK were the top army and SW and IG kept n winning everything. Crons have yet to win an event since their release in either edition. Belief in internet hype sold a lot of Draigowing and Cron flyer armies, though.....

 Phazael wrote:
Just like "most" people agreed GK were the top army and SW and IG kept n winning everything. Crons have yet to win an event since their release in either edition. Belief in internet hype sold a lot of Draigowing and Cron flyer armies, though.....

Except that it wasn't exclusive, the top three armies at the time were SW, IG, and GK. GK had slight advantages that put them a bit above the curb, but the other two were still powerful

 Phazael wrote:
Just like "most" people agreed GK were the top army and SW and IG kept n winning everything. Crons have yet to win an event since their release in either edition. Belief in internet hype sold a lot of Draigowing and Cron flyer armies, though.....

Oh, I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out the Internet hype isn't even consistent with itself.

Crons won the Onslaught GT and St. Valentine's Day Massacre this year. They were on the top tables or in the finals or semifinals at several other events as well.

Weren't those 5th edition events? Not that it matters for the purposes of our discussion and I think the Crons are actually better compatitively at release than GKs were at theirs. Crons in 5th were actually a really well balanced book at the right power level and lots of builds that worked. In 6th, not so much but people are in such fear of the cylon death fleet (which the "no axe for overpriced lich guard" faq has basically pushed me into) that a lot of people who shunned FW before are running to embrace it now. Though, honestly, if events used the book missions (only 1 in 6 are KP) and/or reintroduced some soft scores (at least temporarily), it would not be an issue.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
This may have been brought up prior to my post, I don't know, but as an IG player, what about FW things that have since popped up in the regular codex, like the heavy bolter or flamer turrets? Are those overpowered and shouldn't be allowed?

I would think that just having more options would never be a bad thing. I can understand the arguments for lack of access to a unit or option, but anyone can go online and find the stats for these things. Saying they would have no idea how they work before they face them is silly.

People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

 mikhaila wrote:
People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

You're right. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to go look for 6-8 books worth of material to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament, and silly to say they should have that information in their head somehow. I eagerly await your announcement of your new rule that only C:SM may be used in your tournaments.


Also, it took me less than five minutes to find a download for every single FW book, which is about as hard as it was to find a download for every single codex. The "FW is hard to find" argument is just insane.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

You're right. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to go look for 6-8 books worth of material to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament, and silly to say they should have that information in their head somehow. I eagerly await your announcement of your new rule that only C:SM may be used in your tournaments.

People learn the regular codexes from playing them regularly. Even in gaming groups that regularly use FW models, people won't learn even a fraction of those 6-8 books because of the few units they are likely to run into.

Also, it took me less than five minutes to find a download for every single FW book, which is about as hard as it was to find a download for every single codex. The "FW is hard to find" argument is just insane.

Some people find illegally downloading materials to be unethical, and thus not an option.

 helium42 wrote:
People learn the regular codexes from playing them regularly. Even in gaming groups that regularly use FW models, people won't learn even a fraction of those 6-8 books because of the few units they are likely to run into.

1) It's more like three books, with a few more that have a very small number of units (mostly marine characters in the Badab War books) that are rarely going to appear.

2) Not all armies are well represented in all gaming groups. For example, I've never seen a SoB or Black Templars army. Do you feel that we should ban rare armies because not everyone gets to play against them frequently enough to be familiar with them?

3) Who cares if they don't run into them? The rules are easily available, and I don't see why anyone should add house rules to accommodate people who are too lazy to do the research. If we were talking about MTG tournaments (an actual competitive game, unlike 40k) anyone who suggested something as insane as banning cards to make it easier to playtest would be universally laughed at.


text removed.
Reds8n

 mikhaila wrote:
People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

The person using the unit brings the book, just like they do with their own Codex. It's not hard.

I am against- only think playing big pies or Strentgh D in the game.

usa_supersonic wrote:
I am against- only think playing big pies or Strentgh D in the game.

Those are typically apart of Apoc units.