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.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
I normaly only field fluffy armies. But if I know Im playing against someone who only bring chesse I adapt my list to meet said needs. I find fluffy armies to be more fun to field and generaly allows for a better background story to be made in a campagin or series of battels betwen two armies or more.

Newsflash: Vendettaspam, Chimeraspam, Necron Flying Bakery, Razorspam, Paladinspam, Purifierspam, Inquisispam, and Raiderspam are all very fluffy armies.

Why yes I am aware of that, but I seldom bother with playing against people who use said lists. But when I need to I adapt to deal with said flavour of the month.

 Trondheim wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
I normaly only field fluffy armies. But if I know Im playing against someone who only bring chesse I adapt my list to meet said needs. I find fluffy armies to be more fun to field and generaly allows for a better background story to be made in a campagin or series of battels betwen two armies or more.

Newsflash: Vendettaspam, Chimeraspam, Necron Flying Bakery, Razorspam, Paladinspam, Purifierspam, Inquisispam, and Raiderspam are all very fluffy armies.

Why yes I am aware of that, but I seldom bother with playing against people who use said lists. But when I need to I adapt to deal with said flavour of the month.

"I like fluff, but only if its a weak list too."

Uh, what?

AnomanderRake wrote:There is no such thing as a 'weak' army, only one that is difficult to play. Based on that philosophy, Makumba's advice is perfectly valid; as starting with an easier army to play is a better way to learn the game.

Except there is such thing as a weak army, whether you want to believe it or not; facts are facts. Weak by definition is lack of power, and that's exactly what some armies suffer from.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
I normaly only field fluffy armies. But if I know Im playing against someone who only bring chesse I adapt my list to meet said needs. I find fluffy armies to be more fun to field and generaly allows for a better background story to be made in a campagin or series of battels betwen two armies or more.

Newsflash: Vendettaspam, Chimeraspam, Necron Flying Bakery, Razorspam, Paladinspam, Purifierspam, Inquisispam, and Raiderspam are all very fluffy armies.

Purifier SPAM is far from fluffy, given that the list usually has more Purifiers in it than are meant to exist in the whole 40k universe.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

Purifier SPAM is far from fluffy, given that the list usually has more Purifiers in it than are meant to exist in the whole 40k universe.

The number of purifiers is ambiguous and ever fluxuating.

It's fluffy.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:There is no such thing as a 'weak' army, only one that is difficult to play. Based on that philosophy, Makumba's advice is perfectly valid; as starting with an easier army to play is a better way to learn the game.

Except there is such thing as a weak army, whether you want to believe it or not; facts are facts. Weak by definition is lack of power, and that's exactly what some armies suffer from.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
I normaly only field fluffy armies. But if I know Im playing against someone who only bring chesse I adapt my list to meet said needs. I find fluffy armies to be more fun to field and generaly allows for a better background story to be made in a campagin or series of battels betwen two armies or more.

Newsflash: Vendettaspam, Chimeraspam, Necron Flying Bakery, Razorspam, Paladinspam, Purifierspam, Inquisispam, and Raiderspam are all very fluffy armies.

Purifier SPAM is far from fluffy, given that the list usually has more Purifiers in it than are meant to exist in the whole 40k universe.

It could easily represent one of those instances where the Purifier order is required to mobilise to combat a vile threat to the Imperium. It happens from time to time, and is explicitly mentioned in the codex.

Many of the more powerful builds have a very strong narrative because they max out on a particular aspect of the army. It's easy to build a narrative when you have a single over-riding theme like "Air cav" Imperial Guard or Necrons, or 'armoured cavalry' Imperial Guard for example.

The problem isn't that some people just like to build themed armies, it's that the balance between (and sometimes within) codexes isn't good enough. I should be able to take models I like, for whatever reason I want, and still have a moderately solid army. If we've both taken the same sized armies, they should be similarly powerful, regardless of whats in them.

Now, this isn't to say that players should be free to choose anything at all and still have a good army. If you include no anti-tank, you're going to struggle. No anti-air, and you're in for a bad time. And that's how it should be BUT at the same time, there shouldn't be distinctions like there are now between options, and between codexes. A Vendetta shouldn't be so much better for it's points than a Chimera, or a Stormtalon. Screamers shouldn't be so much better for their points than Daemonettes, or Assault Marines. It's currently a case where, if a player makes certain choices when building his army, he ends up with a significant points advantage because many of the units he has chosen are under-costed, while many of his opponents choices may well be over-costed. This is an entirely different scenario to players not building a well rounded army, or not having the tools to beat his opponent. It's that his opponent has better tools for cheaper.

And the solution is not just letting everyone have access to those cheaper, better tools. Many players don't want to use those tools. They want to use other tools. Maybe they want to take Predators instead of Devastators, or Lightning Claws instead of TH/SS. The solution is finding a way to make all the tools roughly equivalent for their points. Honestly, I think many units require a cumulative points penalty. So your first squad of Screamers costs 23? points per model. Your second squad costs 28 points per model, and a third squad costs 33 points per model. Or something like that.

 juraigamer wrote:
Playing friendly in my book is not running max nonsense from your codex. If at 1k points you have a maxed heavy support slot, or maxed elite, or take named characters, that tends to be borderline competitive without taking into account what codex it is. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

That's an incredibly simplistic definition of 'competitive'. Can you seriously argue that a 1000 point IG list that takes three units of rough riders (maxed elites) and the special character sergeant upgrade is "competitive", while a list that takes two Vendettas and a bunch of veteran squads is "friendly"?

And of course that also ignores the issue of fluff and fluff-based armies that depend heavily on single FOC slots and/or unit types. An Elysian drop troops army is going to have maxed fast attack to take Valkyries and Vendettas for all of its troops, and that's a very fluffy army (it's also coincidentally a powerful army), and taking less than maxed fast attack slots is actually making it LESS fluffy. A DA Deathwing army must take Belial to function, and would be much less fluffy without him. A fluffy Valhallan IG army is probably going to include maxed heavy support slots to take enough artillery. Etc.

 Kaldor wrote:

...
And the solution is not just letting everyone have access to those cheaper, better tools. Many players don't want to use those tools. They want to use other tools. Maybe they want to take Predators instead of Devastators, or Lightning Claws instead of TH/SS. The solution is finding a way to make all the tools roughly equivalent for their points. Honestly, I think many units require a cumulative points penalty. So your first squad of Screamers costs 23? points per model. Your second squad costs 28 points per model, and a third squad costs 33 points per model. Or something like that.

A rule like that may not be fair to some armies. Number of squads isn't so much the issue as point balance within a codex relative to another. With your proposed suggestion for example, the same total of 20 Necron Warriors would be of variable cost. I could have 1 unit of 20, 2 of 10, or 4 of 5. Each combination has its strengths and weaknesses. If I wanted to max out my troops choice, I could have a minimum of 30 warriors total in 6 units of 5 warriors, or a maximum of 120 in 6 units of 20 warriors. Same FOC slot can have such a vast difference in number of models, in this case a 400% difference. Not to mention armies like Imperial Guard who can have so much in number and variety per slot and Space Marines who can split into smaller squads, they will both have a big advantage over other armies that can't have such variety, if you suggestion is applied. In order for this suggestion to work, it would require adding or removing special rules in each codex to balance any discrepancies, as well as rethinking the FOC system.

I think the problem is that there seems to be no existing standard for points. Comparing a Space Marine and a Necron Immortal, the Immortal costs 1 more point. Their stat lines are almost identical, the only difference being, that the Space marine's Initiative is 2 points higher and the Immortal's Leadership is 2 points higher. If you add all the attributes together for each one, they will be equal. The Space Marine has the ability to split squads if they are built 10 strong, has the option to upgrade a few different weapons, and has ATSKNF. The Immortal has RP and the choice between two different guns with the same strength, both of which are 1 point stronger that the Space Marines standard bolter. I know I may be missing a few special rules, but there is enough information here to make my point, which is this; for all the similarities, is one point cost enough to make up for all the differences? Should the point difference be greater, or should they equal the same? Should one models cost be increased or the other decreased to balance them? How does one determine the value an attribute, or any special rule? It's the special rules that often make or break an army or determine how it is used, or how effective it may be in a given situation.

If everything were perfectly balanced, there would be no reason to play any army other than its physical appearance. People might as well stop playing 40K and play chess instead. People can bring their grey marble army vs. someone's red mahogany army, or beige plastic army vs. a frosted glass army. It's the special rules that give an army their character and fluff, as well as their appearance. Much of 40K has a paper, rock, scissors aspect to it. Even if you could somehow create two different perfectly balanced lists that were fluffy, mission type and terrain can change the advantages and disadvantages for any particular army. Suppose the two fluffy armies were each designed after an assault theme and a shooty theme. If there isn't enough terrain to hinder firing lines, then the assault army may be at a disadvantage and have nowhere to hide before it would get shot to pieces, or even reach the enemy. Too much terrain and the shooty army wouldn't have enough opportunity to weaken the enemy before they got overwhelmed in close combat. Also, even if everything were perfectly balanced everything should always result in a tie, random dice rolls would create an imbalance as soon as they were used.

Understanding how to create an effective list won't always result in victory. Each armies variety and special rules simulate the unexpectedness of combat and require adapting to the situation. The English longbowmen at the battle of Agincourt used the muddy ground after a heavy rain to their advantage to slow down a French heavy cavalry charge, which would have otherwise run them down if the ground were dry and solid. Napolean also lost the battle of Waterloo because of rain. You could almost say that the heavy rain special rule is not fair against a French army, but it just requires good general to overcome a disadvantage to your army, such as terrain.

If for example you have 4 gants left and 10 fire warriors within charge distance, do you as the Tyranid player, keep them in cover and not move, or do you go for the assault, risk dying or getting weaker during overwatch fire, and then risk loosing the assault, or do you just move them closer, forcing the firewarriors to choose between a weak target to draw fire away from a stronger one during their upcoming shooting phase? Sure you could get lucky with the dice, but are the odds in your favor? Probably not. These kinds of decisions are what decides weather you win or loose. I'm sure there are a few players out there who thought for sure their Terminators were good to go, only to get stuck rolling all ones for their save. Even something as simple as mindshackle scarabs can take down a model worth much more in points. It not so much what you have, but how you use it, although what you have does play it's part in success. Not having any anti-vehicle against a tough vehicle will be an uphill battle.

Warhammer 40K isn't a perfect game, but it must be doing something right to have so many players and to be making as much as much money as it does for GW.

(Edit for punctuation.)

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:There is no such thing as a 'weak' army, only one that is difficult to play. Based on that philosophy, Makumba's advice is perfectly valid; as starting with an easier army to play is a better way to learn the game.

Except there is such thing as a weak army, whether you want to believe it or not; facts are facts. Weak by definition is lack of power, and that's exactly what some armies suffer from.

Brief clarification: No such thing as a weak Codex. It is possible to play and win with an army built from any Codex if you're willing to invest sufficient funds in the army and time in learning it. Most of the armies that people gripe about are nasty because they're very easy to acquire and use, not because they're 'better' than everything else. Yes, Vendettaspam is nasty. What use is your twelve-Vendetta army if I've bunkered three Saber autocannons for every Vendetta into my infantry platoons? If I'm playing Green Tide and there's literally no way they can kill even a third of my army in a six-turn game? Most of these nightmare armies are fairly specialized at killing one sort of foe (Purifier spam likes melee armies with large numbers of infantry and light vehicles, it doesn't like fast or long-ranged armies with artillery, for instance), they're not "I win" buttons.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:There is no such thing as a 'weak' army, only one that is difficult to play. Based on that philosophy, Makumba's advice is perfectly valid; as starting with an easier army to play is a better way to learn the game.

Except there is such thing as a weak army, whether you want to believe it or not; facts are facts. Weak by definition is lack of power, and that's exactly what some armies suffer from.

Brief clarification: No such thing as a weak Codex. It is possible to play and win with an army built from any Codex if you're willing to invest sufficient funds in the army and time in learning it. Most of the armies that people gripe about are nasty because they're very easy to acquire and use, not because they're 'better' than everything else. Yes, Vendettaspam is nasty. What use is your twelve-Vendetta army if I've bunkered three Saber autocannons for every Vendetta into my infantry platoons? If I'm playing Green Tide and there's literally no way they can kill even a third of my army in a six-turn game? Most of these nightmare armies are fairly specialized at killing one sort of foe (Purifier spam likes melee armies with large numbers of infantry and light vehicles, it doesn't like fast or long-ranged armies with artillery, for instance), they're not "I win" buttons.

Vendettas, Valkyries, and Vultures.

No one would bring 12 vendettas. Your example is too ridiculous to stand as a point.

Pdelski wrote:
A rule like that may not be fair to some armies. Number of squads isn't so much the issue as point balance within a codex relative to another.

The problem is that efficiency changes with volume. One Leman Russ is ok, but six of them is nasty. Two Vendetta's are ok, but six of them suck. One squad of Flamers is a good unit. Three of them is an 'I win' button. A small imbalance is exaggerated when you take multiples of that unit, and in some cases the imbalance is literally the result of duplicate selections. It simply doesn't exist until the unit is selected two or three times.

I wouldn't expect a cumulative points penalty to apply to all units. But off the top of my head, Necron fliers, Flamers, Vendettas and Purifiers would be suitable candidates.

My thing when it comes to lists is I have always collected what I thought was cool. When I started with Space Marines, that meant Terminators and Tactical Marines. With Guardsmen, it was lots and lots of guardsmen. And when I played, I would play it like I thought a real commander in 40k would. For SM that meant Deep Strike and kill everything while yelling for the Emperor! With IG, it was about charging my men forward as artillery shelled the enemy. I tried to win, but I used the list I thought was cool. And when you pulled out the win, it was all the better!

So I say take what you want, if that means competitive, do it. If that means Necron Warrior Horde, do it. Just have fun!

I see your point Kaldor. I think this is more true for vehicles than infantry though. But what about vehicle squadrons? I have seen cases where people would purposely try to immobilize vehicle to split them from the squadron just to have more individual vehicles. I personally only own one flyer, and think that flyer spam isn't much fun at the moment, because I feel that there isn't enough skyfire out there to balance an overabundance of flyers. Sure everyone can get an aegis defense lines, and most armies have at least one flyer, but there is a difference between skyfire from flyer to flyer and anti-tank which could be a missile launcher in an infantry squad or on a walker, or even some kind of ordnance on a vehicle. Anti-tank is more diverse.

I think codex creep is also a big culprit. Why do Chaos space marines have access to flak rounds but regular space marines don't? Eventually after each codex gets an update, I'm sure this will be more balanced. There was the issue that every codex would not always get an update in each edition, but I heard that this isn't supposed to happen anymore. GW is supposed to update every codex before a new edition now, but we shall see. Even if they do, is it fair that the last codex to be updated will only have a few months before a new edition? And if they could pull off such a feat as updating every codex before 7th edition. Would the next step be to write 7th edition with every codex getting an update for it and have them released at once? How long would that take? I would feel shorted if I was the last codex before this, only to have to buy a new one in less than a year. Over I year wouldn't be so bad, but then what next? Assuming that GW took a few years after the last 6th edition codex to complete 7th edition and every codex, how many years would it take for them to create 8th edition? What would they have to work on, or put in White Dwarf at this point?

Maybe the solution isn't a point increase, or a limit to the FOC. Just like there is a limit to Unique entries in a codex to one per army, maybe a category system like Unique=1, rare=2, uncommon=3 per army might make things a bit better?

Pdelski wrote:


If everything were perfectly balanced, there would be no reason to play any army other than its physical appearance. People might as well stop playing 40K and play chess instead. People can bring their grey marble army vs. someone's red mahogany army, or beige plastic army vs. a frosted glass army. It's the special rules that give an army their character and fluff, as well as their appearance.

What makes you think that a balanced game doesn't have variation? There are plenty of games that are not only very well balanced, but also have way more diverse and unique characters/factions than 40k.

Too much terrain and the shooty army wouldn't have enough opportunity to weaken the enemy before they got overwhelmed in close combat. Also, even if everything were perfectly balanced everything should always result in a tie, random dice rolls would create an imbalance as soon as they were used.

If everything were perfectly balanced, it would be the player with the most skill winning most of the time, not the best army.

Fafnir, I guess I should have been more clear. I said perfectly balanced, to point out an extreme. The thing is, where does one draw the line to make such a determination? I think balance is different in each persons view. It's my opinion that the number of options and variations that exist in 40K allow for the very thing you suggested, but its a matter of how well a person is aware of all the possibilities and how well they build to a situation. The other part of this is that because of all the variation, even if you aren't list tailoring, you can still end up with a list that will roll over another list, if that list was designed that way.

There is no way anyone can know everything, and even if the most knowledgeable 40K person in the world designed the most efficient list they could, there would still be randomness of the dice and player skill that would make that list operate differently, depending on who's hands it was in. I guess where I'm at in regards to variation is that, it comes down to your second point. I agree with it 100%, the player with the most skill would win. I think that a very experienced 40K player would have better odds of winning with almost any list vs. a percieved powerful list. But as you said, if it were perfectly balanced, it would always be the more skilled player winning.

Because of the level of complexity and variation that exist in 40K, the more you know, the better odds you have. I know most about Necrons, so if I was given another codex to play, I wouldn't do as well as often. Also, because of my general enjoyment of strategy games, I can apply some strategies and tactics across a variety of games, which would help me vs. someone who would have less exposure to such things. I think you would agree that most 40K players share similar interests, so it wouldn't have as strong of an impact against most players.

Paper, Scissors, Rock is a commonly known game. It's pretty simple. But throw in some more complexity, and the new information will cause people unfamiliar or less experienced to struggle with it. There is a TV show that introduced this very complexity to it. Paper, Scissors. Rock, Lizard, Spock. Being more familiar with the rules gives you and advantage, until your opponent gets used to it. Here is what it's like, paper beats rock and Spock, scissors beats paper and lizard, rock beats scissors and lizard, lizard beats paper and Spock, and Spock beats scissors and rock. You go from three items having one strength and weakness to five items having two strengths and two weaknesses. More variation and uncertainty, perfectly balanced, but how much luck and skill involved?

Ultimately. I think we may be in agreement that there can be variation and balance. But in a game like 40K, finding that balance isn't always easy.

 Peregrine wrote:


That's an incredibly simplistic definition of 'competitive'.

Because it needs to be. You can't just say that all of X stuff is competitive, a broad definition is probably best in this case. Anyone with some brain cells can tell if I only brought skyrays for my tau that it's not competative, but we can't have a post that lists every army combo possible right? I'd be typing until 7th edition.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:

Makumba wrote:
or at least pick a good codex to start with

Come here so I can smack you with my tau, vanilla marine and demons codexes. Later, beat you with them on the table.

It's kinda funny how you go from one of the weakest armies through a solid mid tier army and then up to one of the most powerful armies at the moment as a means to try and say you only play weak armies.

I don't count on people looking at my signature, but my demons are mono-nurgle only, no other models, which is the 3rd in power from the demons codex and hasn't gotten any boosts. In fact, the only thing that got boosted was screamers and flamers, so lets not call the demon codex OP when it isn't, WD is OP.