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.

 CKO wrote:
I tend to think that almost nearly every unit can be used. If Phil Kelly or Matt Ward wrote the book its almost a gurantee that every unit can be used.

That's great that you think that, but it doesn't make you right, and the second sentence above kind of proves that, because neither of these authors (Kelly in particular) have a clue about balance. Kelly makes some choices way too obviously superior to other choices within the same book, whereas Matt Ward writes such outrageous books as to destroy the external balance of the game making some choices in other books useless. These are simple facts about the game. I'm also curious as to why you would use Phil Kelly and Matt Ward as examples and then use a book that neither of them wrote as a further example.

You say it is unjust animosity toward you,bu when you insistently argue a point you clearly don't know much about against a group of people who do understand and then tell them they don't understand or are narrow-minded, then that's what happens. Furthermore you have gotten narky at most of the people who disagreed with you (which so far as been all but one poster who made one post with no argument at all within it).

As for your overall argument, I'm not sure you entirely are sure about what you are saying given that you have contradicted or 'changed' your points several times over; a very good example is when you said something along the lines of you 'want people to look at their Codex and themselves and make the best list', yet the whole point of your OP was advocating the opposite of this and telling people not to make the best list, because apparently we should take bad choices and try make them good, because apparently we all suck. So if you want to convince anyone, I suggest you first convince yourself.

But you are right in that it isn't the unit's fault, because as someone above said already, it's the player's fault for taking a bad unit in the first place.

So I'm wondering if this counts as blaming a unit. The other week I was in a 1250 game Tau (me) vs IG.

I should have deep struck a couple suit squads, but I thought he had too many autocannons to risk him focusing on a few suits I couldn't hide and destroying the few units I would have deployed.

So turn 2 he gets all three of his Vendettas and drops plasma vets right next to my suits and completely decimates my army. I'm left with maybe 6 firewarriors, 1 broadside, and 3 crisis suits. My turn rolls around and I'm completely unable to even take down a single Vendetta. So instead of going further I just condeded.

Can I blame the unit? Do I blame my older codex or do I blame the codex that gets an outflanking flier with three powerful guns that can deny me cover because of outflank? Do I blame the BS4 troops that got deployed right next to my units with three special weapons?

That is some lucky scatter if he was able to deploy them safely and still have LOS with his vendettas, cause they cant still fire if they hover mode on/deploy since they need to move over 6 to get on the table(their length).

I think the OP was saying that just because it is not the best does not mean that it is bad. Like being the dumbest guy in mensa. However sometimes these units have other qualities that can shine in a different list or under a different general. For example I am stuck between plague marines and MON marines in my epi list. Although plague marines are good and in some cases better, in my experience I have found that most of them get killed before the tally can kick in. Also even after the tally kicks in they dont have as many numbers to benefit from the increased offensive output. Its a difference between 24 bolters and 6 plasmaguns or 12 bolters and 8 plasma guns. Different variables like this can make a difference in how a unit is perceived. What if I didnt want to take a nurgle lord? Now the MON CSM are better because that mandatory slot is now open. So in this case a sub optimal unit can be better than the more optimal one because of the content of the rest of the list. I am most likely going to go with a hybrid approach of two units of plague, one unit of CSM, and a zombies(with typhus) or another unit of CSM if not.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Doomhunter wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Niiai wrote:DE loves hydras like a blue whale loves a fall from orbit next to a tulip pot.

I don't understand you Norwegians at all.

Sounds like someone doesn't understand the reference.

Was that Hitchhikers?

Shameful confession: never read it.

nothing more to see here; back on topic now.

I am sorry. It apears that I might be the inintended troll in this thread. But if the DE loves the hydras, would not flyers hate them pasionetly as the bane of their existences with all their hearts, like mentioned tulip pot?

Even withouth the skimmers, the re-rolls would mean that the hydra is "just" two BS 4 atutocannons for 75 points (and a heavy bolter?) It is super cheap.

One of my main oponenets at 1250 points during 5th edition used to run 3 veterans in 3 chimeras, backed up by two hydras and something else. It was hard to beat, in fact I think I never did. I always crashed and burned. It really is a bit undercosted.

 Niiai wrote:
Even withouth the skimmers, the re-rolls would mean that the hydra is "just" two BS 4 atutocannons for 75 points (and a heavy bolter?) It is super cheap.

Not in 6th. Now the Hydra has Skyfire but not Interceptor, so against everything but flyers and skimmers it is shooting at BS 1. So it's still a good AA unit, but against everything else it's garbage.

[geek]

Wasn't it actually a sperm whale?

[/geek]

Peregrine: I still has the rerolls (on the autocannons, not the heavy bolter) so it is like a BS 2 autocannon. Not that bad actualy. 75 points is not so expensivem but a bargein when the skyfire can be used.

Hedhehog: The norwegian translation at the time it was translated did not diferemsiate so mutch one the whale. (Or I remember badly.)

Please re-read the 1st post, there is a misunderstanding!

So... Shame on me for not power gaming?

Well, back on topic:

"I apologize there is a misunderstanding, dont blame the unit blame unit selection. I am not saying somehow if you were good enough player you could make poor units like IG techpriest work, I was saying blame your unit selection and tactics. I apologize for the misunderstanding, I changed the title aswell, thanks Godless Mimicry post. " As CKO has adjusted his post.

OK, sooo...I do not know how to attack this. This is the fundamental problem with this game. Let me see if I can sum my thoughts up in a 2 dimensial string from a to å (or a to z as moast of you would say.)

[... blame your unit selection and tactics. Does this mean I should blame my unit selection and tactic? Well...if I do not winn these are the two factors I could take into acount. Unit selection (this would be armylist) and tactics (this would be how I play.)

How I play: Well, as with moast things. I can alwasy improve, always.

Armylist, AKA, unit selection: I find this harder. Should you be playing with the best posible units? Let us asume yes. This would lead to strong competetive lists. However, as a long time tyranid player during the current codex I am not feeling the love. I feel quite confident in my current list (Tervigons, gaunts, gargoyles, ravaners, zoanthropes and tyrant guard.) I try to have an awser to everything and I am an all commer list. (IMHO) I could go for a narrower list. I never did try the 60 genestealer lists in 5th edition, but as long as you do not meet too many flyers I would think it could still be viable. (Give some infiltrating genestealers feel no pain and get them into melle.) Let us just asume that we are searching and searching, thinking new, thinking inovative for ways to make a good army list. Perhaps there are things there that we have not seen. This is after all what the CKO is ecuraging us to do in my opinion.

But if we zoom out, we see that the tyranid codex is not so good. Not a) in having a good codex of witch to chose units (a good codex in general) or b) in making the best list there possible is!

In the widened horison with ouer intension to build better lists we have the top tiers. Space Wolves with undercosted Grey Hunters and Long Fangs, Grey Knights with some wholesome funnbags. The necrons with a very strong codex and the imperial guard.

The imperial guard list would be good. The Chimera, Veterans, Vendetta are all low priced so they would be a good place to start building your list. Also the hydra stil seems good. Marbo is a good trick. With the imperial guard codex you can build better lists then a tyranid player. It is a better codex. The same can be sead for the Necron Codex.

As for building the best army lists: Well, as long as you cannot kill all his models and have the first gameturn, there is very little that can beat the flying french crossant necron list. How does it winn? Cheap scoring units and superior firepower. Since it has some 5-10 (depending on point level) flyers in it it removes your oponents abilaty to interact with it.

The last tournament we had at 1750 points in my local play aria in 5th edition was wonn by a dark angels list: Loads of predators, terminators with rocket launchers and landspeeders. A good list from a bad codex. I would play one of these 2 lisst if I was going for the best choise possible.

This senario will also lead to the metagame that if you do not play very hard lists then you loose.

If we are choosing best unit based on how cool it is the metagame would not be so hard. Not only that, but it would be easier to reqruit new players (enshuring a long living healthy hobby) and you could play untradisonaly tactics. And it would be more funn for all parties involved.

If I wanted to play something competative I would not be playing warhammer. This game is poorly balanced. If the competision is to choose 2> over >1, then what we are really competing in is being dicks. Warhammer is not a good enough game that we should be playing it compettivaly to winn. We could play it competativaly to have funn. That this game is very good at. It has a lott of flavor. When people are complaing that the oponents units are undercosted what they are really complaining is that the opponent is using a mutch better codex then him. Not that the opponent is better then him. This is not a case of cyclical imbalance done right. This is an example of matt ward, phill kelly and what's theyr name doing a gakky baøancing job on the fact that they are not playing the same game as the rest of the competeteive players. They are playing the funn game amongst the casual players. It is funn to winn games, but it is more funn to have an opponent who wants to play you again some other time.

I am not blaming the unit. I am blaming my opponent.

At first, reading the title, I was thinking "Okay, this makes sense. I can agree."

But OP, you're refusing to see reason, don't know your rules, are being defensive, and arguing the point. It's kindof ridiculous.

Shame too, coulda been a good thread.

Am I allowed to blame other peoples units? Sometimes they are really good and do stuff that mine have a hard time compensating for in the way they were built for and then I'm all like, well I guess the game has moved on and my using this unit in this way isn't going to cut it, so then I sorta think my blaming the unit is kinda justified because I didn't decide to be super cut throat in my play and my army building because I didn't understand this situation would come up and there are a lot of times when you realize your gakky answer doesn't do it's job at the efficiency you need to given POWACREEP.

So yeah, it's my fault for falling into the trap, but that still means there are traps out dere innit.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So turn 2 he gets all three of his Vendettas

I stopped reading here.

Sure, if you complain about Vendettas you're blaming the unit. But in the case of the Vendetta, almost every complaint you can think of is justified.

Did opposite day arrive without anyone telling me?

Saying the Vendetta is underpriced is like saying Firewarriors are good in assault.

 Niiai wrote:

Armylist, AKA, unit selection: I find this harder. Should you be playing with the best posible units? Let us asume yes. This would lead to strong competetive lists. However, as a long time tyranid player during the current codex I am not feeling the love. I feel quite confident in my current list (Tervigons, gaunts, gargoyles, ravaners, zoanthropes and tyrant guard.) I try to have an awser to everything and I am an all commer list. (IMHO) I could go for a narrower list. I never did try the 60 genestealer lists in 5th edition, but as long as you do not meet too many flyers I would think it could still be viable. (Give some infiltrating genestealers feel no pain and get them into melle.) Let us just asume that we are searching and searching, thinking new, thinking inovative for ways to make a good army list. Perhaps there are things there that we have not seen. This is after all what the CKO is ecuraging us to do in my opinion.

I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me and it leads to low sportsmanship scores. Thats why I continued to just bang my head against the wall but eventually the wall gives! Niiai you did what I could not do and explain my point of view and I thank you for it, and I agree sometimes your codex is to blame if you have studied the book and are using the best units and its just not able to compete with the newer codexes there is little player skill can do for you.

However at that point you have to ask yourself how bad do I want to win? If you want to win that badly (like me) you get one of the newer codexes or one that you know you can win with and use that one. The game is not unbalanced, the game is exatcly the way it should be it is design to make you have to go buy the newer stuff to win! GW goal is not balance its profit and if you have to buy new stuff to win than GW's formula is perfect, at the end of the day its a buisness and the only balance they care about is on the balance sheet. Is there something wrong with them making money?

If you do decide that you want to win that bad and use one of the newer codexes or one that you believe you can win with and you dont win, its no longer GW's fault its your fault as a player. You should have studied the codex examine the units and determined if this codex can get the job done for you. I pretend like I am the boss and the codex is trying to get a job! Sounds crazy but let me explain by using the new Chaos codex as an example.

Do you as my new codex have the units I need to be able to win?

You should be able to use your player knowledge and look through that codex and see if it does.

What do you have over the other codexes or canidates?

You should notice an av 12 flyer with a 5+ inv save, 5+ hull point renewal that can vector strike and have an ap 3 torrent. That type stuff is obvious but, did you notice that obliterators can now have t 5 and not instant die to lascannons. They now are immune to most instant death meaning there 6 wounds are actually 6 wounds and did you notice they gave them an assault cannon aswell. Ok, I get 6 wounds for 210 thats 35 points per wound before the upgrades, thats cheaper than a terminator and I get all that fire power and they added an assault cannon and I can make them toughness five, but I cant fire the same weapon twice, can I manage that during a game if so how? This is how deep I get into analyzing each unit.

I notice your best unit is the helldrake, what units can I take to make it even better?

The helldrake is good against infantry it needs help cracking open vehicles to torrent the squad inside, what can do that. Havocs with 4 autocannons can open any vehicle up. I can have rhinos full of melta and plasma flat out first turn than blowup vehicles on the second turn which is the same turn that the drakes should come in.

What about that chessy spam flyer list, how do you beat it?

Helldrakes can vector strike a flyer per turn, also the torrent is perfect against their scarabs. They may blow up the rhinos easy but if we have plague marines in those rhinos than they will have a hard time killing them. I also have blob units if you want to see if ignoring them is a possibility.

I really like IG why should I pick you over IG and there vendettas?

(Pretending that the codex is speaking)
The IG codex has been out for a while now and people have played against it and already have effective strategies to deal with them. I am new, which means new tactics to beat me. I am going to be frank with you sir most players are to lazy to figure out how to beat new tactics. They want it to be given to them by the internet or divine intervention you can use that to your advantage. If you give me a chance we can get together and see if we can get that early knockout combo going with blowing up transports and helldrakes killing infantry. Anti-tank covered, anti-infantry covered, and I have a flyer please give me the job.

(Back to CKO)

Yes, some codexes are not as good as others but its your decision! You know that the codex you are using is not as powerful but you use it anyway in my mind you have given up your right to complain. You know that the codex that you picked and bought figs for can not handle the extreme competitive environment, so you are putting yourself in a position to where you have to blame the unit. You pick the codex, you pick the units, you execute the tactics, so why is GW to blame? You have so much control over everything that you really cant blame gw or the unit.

I dont give anyone control over me, I pick the codex, I buy the minature, I put it in my list, I use tactics and make it work, and I won that game or I lost that game. I have complete control and its up to me and when something goes wrong its my fault, and I cant blame anyone but myself.

 CKO wrote:
The game is not unbalanced

Yes, some codexes are not as good as others but its your decision! You know that the codex you are using is not as powerful but you use it anyway in my mind you have given up your right to complain. You know that the codex that you picked and bought figs for can not handle the extreme competitive environment

Can we close this thread already? OP is clearly trying to flamebait.

To CKO and everybpdy else I am calling quits on this thread. I have spend a lott of time playing games and looking at game balances. I have also been playing GW for a while now. While i am in no way an expert I think we all can see that as a game warhammer 40k and fantasy are very bad games. However they are a funn hobby. I do not belive this kind of competeteive play encuraged in this thread is good for your local hobby.

If the goal of playing GW is to winn at tpurnaments it means sacrefiaing to mutch of what i like about the hobby. I'd rather start playing chess or buy a rubix cube because pitching a codex that has good chances of winning on an optimaly tuned list vs a rubbish codex is a lott like beating up little hildren and feeling good about myself.

 CKO wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

Armylist, AKA, unit selection: I find this harder. Should you be playing with the best posible units? Let us asume yes. This would lead to strong competetive lists. However, as a long time tyranid player during the current codex I am not feeling the love. I feel quite confident in my current list (Tervigons, gaunts, gargoyles, ravaners, zoanthropes and tyrant guard.) I try to have an awser to everything and I am an all commer list. (IMHO) I could go for a narrower list. I never did try the 60 genestealer lists in 5th edition, but as long as you do not meet too many flyers I would think it could still be viable. (Give some infiltrating genestealers feel no pain and get them into melle.) Let us just asume that we are searching and searching, thinking new, thinking inovative for ways to make a good army list. Perhaps there are things there that we have not seen. This is after all what the CKO is ecuraging us to do in my opinion.

I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me and it leads to low sportsmanship scores. Thats why I continued to just bang my head against the wall but eventually the wall gives! Niiai you did what I could not do and explain my point of view and I thank you for it, and I agree sometimes your codex is to blame if you have studied the book and are using the best units and its just not able to compete with the newer codexes there is little player skill can do for you.

However at that point you have to ask yourself how bad do I want to win? If you want to win that badly (like me) you get one of the newer codexes or one that you know you can win with and use that one. The game is not unbalanced, the game is exatcly the way it should be it is design to make you have to go buy the newer stuff to win! GW goal is not balance its profit and if you have to buy new stuff to win than GW's formula is perfect, at the end of the day its a buisness and the only balance they care about is on the balance sheet. Is there something wrong with them making money?

If you do decide that you want to win that bad and use one of the newer codexes or one that you believe you can win with and you dont win, its no longer GW's fault its your fault as a player. You should have studied the codex examine the units and determined if this codex can get the job done for you. I pretend like I am the boss and the codex is trying to get a job! Sounds crazy but let me explain by using the new Chaos codex as an example.

Do you as my new codex have the units I need to be able to win?

You should be able to use your player knowledge and look through that codex and see if it does.

What do you have over the other codexes or canidates?

You should notice an av 12 flyer with a 5+ inv save, 5+ hull point renewal that can vector strike and have an ap 3 torrent. That type stuff is obvious but, did you notice that obliterators can now have t 5 and not instant die to lascannons. They now are immune to most instant death meaning there 6 wounds are actually 6 wounds and did you notice they gave them an assault cannon aswell. Ok, I get 6 wounds for 210 thats 35 points per wound before the upgrades, thats cheaper than a terminator and I get all that fire power and they added an assault cannon and I can make them toughness five, but I cant fire the same weapon twice, can I manage that during a game if so how? This is how deep I get into analyzing each unit.

I notice your best unit is the helldrake, what units can I take to make it even better?

The helldrake is good against infantry it needs help cracking open vehicles to torrent the squad inside, what can do that. Havocs with 4 autocannons can open any vehicle up. I can have rhinos full of melta and plasma flat out first turn than blowup vehicles on the second turn which is the same turn that the drakes should come in.

What about that chessy spam flyer list, how do you beat it?

Helldrakes can vector strike a flyer per turn, also the torrent is perfect against their scarabs. They may blow up the rhinos easy but if we have plague marines in those rhinos than they will have a hard time killing them. I also have blob units if you want to see if ignoring them is a possibility.

I really like IG why should I pick you over IG and there vendettas?

(Pretending that the codex is speaking)
The IG codex has been out for a while now and people have played against it and already have effective strategies to deal with them. I am new, which means new tactics to beat me. I am going to be frank with you sir most players are to lazy to figure out how to beat new tactics. They want it to be given to them by the internet or divine intervention you can use that to your advantage. If you give me a chance we can get together and see if we can get that early knockout combo going with blowing up transports and helldrakes killing infantry. Anti-tank covered, anti-infantry covered, and I have a flyer please give me the job.

(Back to CKO)

Yes, some codexes are not as good as others but its your decision! You know that the codex you are using is not as powerful but you use it anyway in my mind you have given up your right to complain. You know that the codex that you picked and bought figs for can not handle the extreme competitive environment, so you are putting yourself in a position to where you have to blame the unit. You pick the codex, you pick the units, you execute the tactics, so why is GW to blame? You have so much control over everything that you really cant blame gw or the unit.

I dont give anyone control over me, I pick the codex, I buy the minature, I put it in my list, I use tactics and make it work, and I won that game or I lost that game. I have complete control and its up to me and when something goes wrong its my fault, and I cant blame anyone but myself.

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that any unit can be good? It sounds like you just admitted that your entire premise was incorrect.

Indeed, you go from saying that the game is not unbalanced to admitting that it is unbalanced within the span of a single paragraph.

Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who wants to be competitive should have to spend $500 every year codex-hopping?

Power creep is an unavoidable part of the game. GW needs to sell models to stay in business. This does not, however, translate to "only 3 or 4 codexes should be competitive at any given time".

But if we're going to be ridiculous here, all right. How about I come play you someday and put a 24" by 24" piece of paper labelled "lethal terrain" in your deployment zone (fully legal within the rules), thereby causing you to instantly lose because you die at deployment? If we're going to agree that GW should never be blamed for bad rules, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with tactics such as the one I just described (which effectively reduce the game to "roll a D6 to see if you win").

If abusing terrain rules to win games at deployment sounds like the wrong way to play to you, then congratulations; you have undermined your own argument yet again.

reaper with no name wrote:

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that any unit can be good? It sounds like you just admitted that your entire premise was incorrect.

If I am not in an tournament environment and me and my friends are just goofing off, I can make a unit of IG ogyrns good in a friendly game.

reaper with no name wrote:

Indeed, you go from saying that the game is not unbalanced to admitting that it is unbalanced within the span of a single paragraph.

What is your definition of balance? I think we have a misunderstanding.

reaper with no name wrote:

Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who wants to be competitive should have to spend $500 every year codex-hopping?

Yes! If I play magic the gathering or any card game can I compete at a high level if I stop buying cards? Why do you think warhammer 40k is different?

reaper with no name wrote:

Power creep is an unavoidable part of the game. GW needs to sell models to stay in business. This does not, however, translate to "only 3 or 4 codexes should be competitive at any given time".

Power creep is unavoidable, GW needs to sell models this results in 3- 4 codexes being competitive. Is it good for the players no, is it good business yes.

reaper with no name wrote:

If we're going to agree that GW should never be blamed for bad rules, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with tactics such as the one I just described (which effectively reduce the game to "roll a D6 to see if you win").

I have a different opinion I dont think the rules are bad.

reaper with no name wrote:

If abusing terrain rules to win games at deployment sounds like the wrong way to play to you, then congratulations; you have undermined your own argument yet again.

I did not understand the terrain comments at all, will you please attempt to explain it to me again so we can understand each other.

Wow, this has made the post much better and now I see what you are talking about. I for one will forget about the threads "bad" vibe in the near past. (In regards to the change of title)

 CKO wrote:

reaper with no name wrote:

What does any of this have to do with your original claim that any unit can be good? It sounds like you just admitted that your entire premise was incorrect.

If I am not in an tournament environment and me and my friends are just goofing off, I can make a unit of IG ogyrns good in a friendly game.

reaper with no name wrote:

Indeed, you go from saying that the game is not unbalanced to admitting that it is unbalanced within the span of a single paragraph.

What is your definition of balance? I think we have a misunderstanding.

reaper with no name wrote:

Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who wants to be competitive should have to spend $500 every year codex-hopping?

Yes! If I play magic the gathering or any card game can I compete at a high level if I stop buying cards? Why do you think warhammer 40k is different?

reaper with no name wrote:

Power creep is an unavoidable part of the game. GW needs to sell models to stay in business. This does not, however, translate to "only 3 or 4 codexes should be competitive at any given time".

Power creep is unavoidable, GW needs to sell models this results in 3- 4 codexes being competitive. Is it good for the players no, is it good business yes.

reaper with no name wrote:

If we're going to agree that GW should never be blamed for bad rules, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with tactics such as the one I just described (which effectively reduce the game to "roll a D6 to see if you win").

I have a different opinion I dont think the rules are bad.

reaper with no name wrote:

If abusing terrain rules to win games at deployment sounds like the wrong way to play to you, then congratulations; you have undermined your own argument yet again.

I did not understand the terrain comments at all, will you please attempt to explain it to me again so we can understand each other.

Balance means that the rules do not significantly favor one side over the other. This is not feasible within the game. However, it is possible for the game to be closer to balance than it is now. And it should be.

There is a vast gulf between needing to buy a few new models every year to stay competitive and needing to start a whole new army every year. One is healthy, the other is not.

If only 3-4 codexes are ever competitive why bother having more than that? Once again, there is a big difference between some codexes being better than others and some codexes being so bad they cannot compete. Power creep does not necessitate only 3-4 worthwhile codexes. It is entirely possible to have each new codex stronger than the last, yet have the gap small enough for the weakest codexes to still be competitive.

If we play the game just as the rules are written, with no concerns for fairness, only exploiting what the rules themselves allow, there is no game, because every game would devolve into the following:

The player who wins first terrain placement puts a 24" by 24" piece of lethal terrain over the other player's deployment zone. Since the second player's army will die on deployment, the game is effectively over.

In other words, if we take the competitive douchebag philosophy you are advertising to heart and exploit the rules as much as possible, all games would end at deployment, because one player (or both!) would cover the other's deployment zone with lethal terrain. If you think the game should not be played the way I described, then you have admitted that the rules should not be exploited to the utmost potential, which would contradict your assertion that we should embrace the lack of balance and poor rules in the game.

Now I'm really confused.

You're actually applauding the mentality that the company could/should make every codex more powerful than the last to the point where only that newer and stronger codex can compete. To add to that, because I don't want to be a codex-hopper it's now my fault and I'm a bad player because I am playing an army that gets outdated and left forgotten on the wayside?

1.) Why would you suggest that a game with 14 armies be reduced to ~5?
2.) That sounds so boring to face the same army all the time because that's what the choices would limit.
3.) There is a difference between playing to win and playing to win at all cost. I play Tau and I play to win, because it wouldn't be fair to either player if I didn't try to win the game. But grabbing the latest codex and an armful of flyers just so I can make sure I win? That's just ruining the point of the game.

This thread has really devolved into madness.

Anyone who labors under the idea that all units are balanced is clearly delusional. It isn't just the fault of GW-- it happens in all games. Are all of the guns in Call of Duty balanced? All of the characters in Super Smash Brothers? Even in games in which the host company creates frequent updates, there will always be some things that are comparatively better than others. Such is the nature of any game.

What I think the OP was originally trying to argue is that players should put more original thought into their lists. Which may or may not be true. 6th edition (which it seems he doesn't have great experience in), is full of new combinations. List building can now be more original than ever, which is awesome. However, as much as it can be cool to run something different, there are pitfalls.

The main problem people run into is thinking that because X unit is now better, X unit is now worth taking. That simply is not the case. I would argue that most units gained utility in 6th edition. That doesn't mean that they are good, especially because other competing units got better as well. Necron Praetorians are "better" in 6th. Necron Praetorians still should not be considered "good" or "competitive" because almost everything else in the Cron Dex also got "better", some things exponentially so. Thus, it is important to make this distinction.

I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me

Try chess?

I'm sorry, that's not what you wanted to hear?Ok, how about this.

Yes, your clever use of Lychguard which netted you a 5th place finish should be viewed as nothing less than a stroke of genius. Nobody else is able to make bad units good quite like you. I hereby propose we officially change this day to Chad Knight Day in order to honour your unique and special place in competitive 40k lore.

Happy now? Can we be done with this thread yet?

CKO wrote:I have a hard time communicating because I am unique and sometimes people just dont understand me and it leads to low sportsmanship scores.

Sorry, but if by unique you mean what I think you mean, I am calling shenanigans. I highly doubt any player, even TFG, is going to give someone a low sportsmanship score because a medical issue they have.

CKO wrote:What is your definition of balance? I think we have a misunderstanding.

Is this what you are going to say every time you realise you are wrong? It's getting old. As Peregrine said before, there's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong, just so as long as you man up and say it; pussyfooting around it just makes things look bad.

I know a lot of us are starting to sound outright rude, but this thread is ridiculous no matter what way you look at it. You post one thing, then say that's not what you meant and change it slightly, and then you do a complete 180 and change what you are saying to the exact opposite of what the original post said, all the while contradicting yourself every second sentence.

Is there a purpose to all this? Really? Because this certainly isn't a rational discussion about Warhammer anymore.

I think we are being a little rough on the guy he just wanted to get us thinking... granted he does need to learn the rules and things arent balanced

but in a pure friendly game which im sure about 80 percent of the people who are on dakka play I suppose we can find a use for any model or any army list and have fun with it.

Either that or that we have to go out and buy a flying croissant army, allied with flamers and screamers or we arent worth our salt as 40k players

 CIAbugguy wrote:
I think we are being a little rough on the guy he just wanted to get us thinking... granted he does need to learn the rules and things arent balanced

The subject isn't the issue people are having, it is the way it has been presented.

 CIAbugguy wrote:
Either that or that we have to go out and buy a flying croissant army, allied with flamers and screamers or we arent worth our salt as 40k players

Hyperbole doesn't make a point, it ruins it.

 Peregrine wrote:
That might have been a good policy back in 1990. Now that we have the internet and dozens of forums/blogs/etc within a week of a new codex being released it's been analyzed in detail and all of the good and bad units have been identified. Now which is more likely: that all of these people, who are all trying very hard to maximize their chances of winning, have missed something and the "overlooked" unit is really a good one, or that you're just wrong and the overlooked unit is overlooked because it's garbage?

The Internet community is much less unified and competent than you think. "Knowing what's good" is a very high-level skill and most people don't have it. Your statement might be true for Magic: the Gathering but it certainly isn't true for 40k-- most people still think Tyranids are bad! Most people don't know what's good in Codex: Chaos yet! The existence of this thread and the serious debate about whether Vendettas (IMO an objectively great unit) are worth it is evidence that there is not the kind of consensus and knowledge that you claim.

Are we more advanced than 1990? Sure. But we're nowhere near the level that serious competitive games like Magic: the Gathering or Starcraft enjoy-- and even in those games, advanced players often develop builds with unexpected techniques long after the metagame has been largely hashed out.

The OP is great and more people need to think like this in the 40k community.

Also in my experience most people won't play with models they dont like, no matter how good they are. Also rule of cool kicks in, and that is just a hard thing to overcome. Half of the time I know there are 1-2 units that I want in my list before I even see the rules. Is that a handicap? sure it can be, but I think that a majority of players are like that. I think also that a majority of players know they are not going to be in those top 10 spots at events like adepticon, I know I will never be. So when I go to events like that I bring the units I want to play.