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.

 Amaya wrote:
Chess and ASFAIK Starcraft don't have random damage output and saves. That alone will give room for tactical innovation within games.

Completely hilarious reading about how Starcraft needs to be more like 40k in order to be more competitive.

Wikipedia wrote:StarCraft was released internationally on March 31, 1998 and became the best-selling PC game for that year, selling over 1.5 million copies worldwide.[77] In the next decade, StarCraft sold over 9.5 million copies across the globe, with 4.5 million of these being sold in South Korea.[78] Since the initial release of StarCraft, Blizzard Entertainment reported that its Battle.net online multiplayer service grew by 800 percent.[79] StarCraft remains one of the most popular online games in the world.[80][81]

Generally, StarCraft was received positively by critics, with many contemporary reviewers noting that while the game may not have deviated significantly from the status quo of most real-time strategy games, it was one of the best to have applied the formula.[8][48] In addition, StarCraft's pioneering use of three distinct, unique and balanced races over two equal sides was praised by critics,[7] with GameSpot commenting that this helped the game to "avoid the problem that has plagued every other game in the genre".[8]

One of the best selling, best reviewed, most competitive, and most played computer RTS games of all time needs to learn from how GW has handled their competitive community.

(which I guess makes sense since you're an ork).

Yup, pretty much lol the game is no fun if you dont RP a bit (least for me, im always talking orky when i play)

As for the comment bout me bringing tau allies/lootas and complaining bout peek-a-boo games, i did that because im basically FORCED to since it works. An ork army without lootas is pretty much doomed to failure for the sole reason you cant thin their front lines down or pop light vehicles before your mass of boys reach the short-range heavy hitting weapons and lose half their numbers or so.

Pretty much the only reason i never run a green tide is because i lack THAT many boyz lol. I have enough to fill the gaps in a 1500pt game after 2 groups of lootas and whatever missile im using (MANz on wheels or bikernobz) which is about it (bout 95shootas and 45sluggas. I have more unbuilt but i havent gotten to them yet, busy scratchbuildin kannons atm). Im pretty fast at moving the ~60-80 boyz i take on average so i imagine i'd be fine bringing ~120, i spend my turns going "Do i want to do this or that" with my missiles/lootas than i do moving models. As i get better i wont need as much time to think on those situations though. Im still fairly new.

You'll get the hang of it, Vine. Don't worry. ^^

I haven't seen much of the inside of the 6th ed codices, but there is that idea that with the 6th ed books newbies will be able to choose a codex that not only looks good and plays well rather than has only has one boring flavour that wipes out the competition. I got in the hobby for the models and the fun, so I like the fact that books are allowing different flavours of lists.

For example: someone coming into the hobby likes the look of Kroot( ). Now he spends the outrageous price amounts that GW demands for an army these days, looks at the tons of Kroot he has bought and realises, the Kroot are pretty useless . OR the Alternate dimension: the same new hobbyist comes into the hobby. He likes the look of Kroot, but finds out how gak they are . Now this hobbyist does want to win now and again, so he goes to say Necrons, cause he hears they win alot etc. Now he spends a lot of money to get an army. Yeah he may win a bit, but he hates the fact that every box is the same - the same faces, the same weapon choices etc.; instead of an army like this (an army that has indiviual models), he has an army of pure this: . He has a winning army but an army that he doesn't like the look of and units that are bland and the same as the next guy's army.

To avoid this I think it is good that army books are balanced so that there isn't that one army to rule them all (LoTR reference hehehehe), but you can simultaneously get an army and units that you like the look of (and aren't useless) and an army that has the capability of winning. I for one hope that the balanced books of 6th ed will lead us into this generation of hobbying that will allow us to have that; the one guy who has an actually useful squad of Kroot, who don't die in droves for the low low price of $45 gor more for 10.

Basically, balanced codexes mean impulse buys (which is most of GW's income) that still allow playable and enjoyable lists.

@rednecroncryptek I must give you a high-five. That is so right. I actually lived that situation: started playing orks because of the converting oppotunities chose a blood axe klan because I -like- the idea of ork kommandos. Soon, I learnt that they are overpriced for what they can achieve (which isn't much, 10-15 slugga boys don't go far without a trukk nowadays).

@vineheart01: Soo, I'm not the only one talking orky as I play! Hahaha! I have a little fun with that, giving nonsensical orders while playing, like "Dat's IT! Ya boyz load da BIG shell now!" "But boss, da big shell don't fit!" "Hush, do as da boss sez."
As it happens, I rolled a 'Don't press dat' on the boomwagon that particular turn, hehehe. It's fun playing a goofy army.

The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"

On the one hand I understand wanted to play a broken codex. Winning is fun and knowing you are probably going to win most of your games is good. Having a powerful codex is also fun because it allows you to pick weaker, wackier options that would be unplayable alone but because you have those broken units you can risk taking them and still come out okay, this is one of the reasons necrons can take so many different builds because it has so many overtly powerful unites that you can play around and you don't have to min/max so hard. An army like Tau can't afford to be wacky and take tons of vespids and kroot.

On the other hand balance is really what the game needs. On the opposite side of the table is going to be a player who wants to win too. Balance means you both have an equal chance at winning and strategy and luck are more of a factor. People like to play fair games and 6th edition codices are strong but fair. Balance means people will play more. I have seen people turn down games verses necrons and IG because they just don't want to deal with knowing they are probably going to lose going into it. But as a Tau player people never turn me down games and often I have multiple people asking if they can play against me because they know my army is strong but I am not going to table them.

 rednecroncryptek wrote:
I haven't seen much of the inside of the 6th ed codices, but there is that idea that with the 6th ed books newbies will be able to choose a codex that not only looks good and plays well rather than has only has one boring flavour that wipes out the competition. I got in the hobby for the models and the fun, so I like the fact that books are allowing different flavours of lists.

For example: someone coming into the hobby likes the look of Kroot( ). Now he spends the outrageous price amounts that GW demands for an army these days, looks at the tons of Kroot he has bought and realises, the Kroot are pretty useless . OR the Alternate dimension: the same new hobbyist comes into the hobby. He likes the look of Kroot, but finds out how gak they are . Now this hobbyist does want to win now and again, so he goes to say Necrons, cause he hears they win alot etc. Now he spends a lot of money to get an army. Yeah he may win a bit, but he hates the fact that every box is the same - the same faces, the same weapon choices etc.; instead of an army like this (an army that has indiviual models), he has an army of pure this: . He has a winning army but an army that he doesn't like the look of and units that are bland and the same as the next guy's army.

To avoid this I think it is good that army books are balanced so that there isn't that one army to rule them all (LoTR reference hehehehe), but you can simultaneously get an army and units that you like the look of (and aren't useless) and an army that has the capability of winning. I for one hope that the balanced books of 6th ed will lead us into this generation of hobbying that will allow us to have that; the one guy who has an actually useful squad of Kroot, who don't die in droves for the low low price of $45 gor more for 10.

Basically, balanced codexes mean impulse buys (which is most of GW's income) that still allow playable and enjoyable lists.

Yes this! 1000 times this!

 Vineheart01 wrote:
The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"

That's part of the reason Orks are so awesome. There's just so much fun involved.

 Melissia wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"

That's part of the reason Orks are so awesome. There's just so much fun involved.

But I thought all the randomness of the last couple of codexes were what some people said was ruining 40k?


I like playing against Orks because you almost never know what's about to haplen with them.

Yea, but right now the only real randomness is the SAG, Looted Wagons, and Flash Gitz. Nobody uses flash gits even as a joke cuz theyre so bad, Looted Wagons are good just situational, and SAG is downright awesome lol. Except where the first time you use it you roll snakeeyes my boyz be like "Wot da zog wuz dat blue flashy ting 'appenin behind us?"

The randomness makes them fun yes but there is a degree of "ok thats just too random." Ive had games where not a damn thing in my army did anything because they need so many high dice to do anything.

OK, Lootas are random too i guess. Always funny when i roll a 5/6 on how many shots when my 10man lootas are aiming at something my opponent really doesnt want to die yet and i throw 30shots into its face lol.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
The one time i managed to get a boomgun and not feel like i wasted points since it was out of line for the type of list i brought i rolled a 1 and yelled "YOU PRESSED DAT!!! YOU GIT!! WOT DA ZOG DID YOU PRESS DAT FOR!?"

That's part of the reason Orks are so awesome. There's just so much fun involved.

But I thought all the randomness of the last couple of codexes were what some people said was ruining 40k?


I like playing against Orks because you almost never know what's about to haplen with them.

I love orks for that reason
one of my friends traditionally bringas a big mek with shokk attacjk gun, for lolz, with one game seeing the mek on the first turn teleport himself into a mob of 20 CSM, and in another fire at a PM squad killing all of them (7). Fun times...

Ork randomness is fun and wacky and doesn't screw them over too much. In some ways, Orks are the last remnant of the old "glue guns to elves" crazy-fun aspect of 40k it first started out with.

Daemon randomness is just overwhelming. It's gotten to the point where you can't even build an army list, you just throw dice and the paper and see what you've got. That is a step too far. How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?

IAMSANDLIONS - As for the Necron codex, it's not that it has a few broken units that can carry you through the game. It's that it has very few bad units. You don't need to rely on one or two broken units. None of the Necron options are truly broken by the codex - the most egregious example of "broken Necrons" is the flying bakery, which we can blame solely on 6th edition. Nobody played bakery in 5th because Necron aircraft were too fragile to bother with. But most of the Necron options are good, or at least viable - the only outright useless things in the book are Flayed Ones and Illuminor Szeras, and Szeras at least gets a by because his artwork is freaking awesome.

TedNugent wrote:

And we all know that chess if the most boring game ever made. There is nearly no depth to it whatever!

You missed the point so much that it's hard to even respond. I never claimed chess was boring or without depth. I said that it is limited to pre-set strategies, leaving the only room for innovation to new players and grand masters. Following textbooks of strategies doesn't make for a fun or engaging game. It's why a lot of people love chess initially, but then find it to be rather tedious.

Actually, good game design is about creating a variety of units that are valuable in some nuanced way, so that all units are implicitly viable but suited to a range of different tactical applications.

You've pretty much described perfect imbalance without realising it.

TedNugent wrote:
Completely hilarious reading about how Starcraft needs to be more like 40k in order to be more competitive.

Dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. I never once said that 40k was even close to perfect imbalance. Outright lying makes you look foolish.
Starcraft progressed the same way as chess. It became pre-set strategies against different opponents. Which lead to multiple patches and finally, the superior Starcraft 2. Which is so incredibly close to perfect imbalance that it's amazing.

Griddlol, I'm fairly sure that TedNugent was being sarcastic. Starting a sentence with 'And' is usually a good indicator. >>

 curran12 wrote:
So because they are not as broken as the most broken codexes, they are uninspiring?

:|

Sorry, but that is kind of backwards.

Doesn't it just make it more challanging to win that game, fair and square?

Also, this is a clear example of "I want what I can't have". Last edition we said too OP, now we say nerfed.

Look at BA. they've become middle Tier in 6th edition. Doesn't mean they can't win convincingly.

OP =/= a good codex just as balanced =/= underpowered.

Only in 40k would we whine for ages that everything was OP, but as soon as there is more balance introduced we complain that it is boring or underpowered.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?

You can, though, can't you?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?

You can, though, can't you?

He just deceives you into believing that he hasn't got the same gifts every game. That's why he's called "the deceiver"

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Griddlol, I'm fairly sure that TedNugent was being sarcastic. Starting a sentence with 'And' is usually a good indicator. >>

*sigh* you mean I got my panties in a ruffle over nothing?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?

You can, though, can't you?

Only if you always take the 'primaris' gift. You buy, for example, a "Greater Gift" then roll at the start of the game to find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can swap it for the default one for your god.

Eldercaveman wrote:
Black Templar need a big re-do, but that doesn't really count because, how big of a re-do can you really get as Space Marines?

We have a few things that need to be addressed:

We still pay for grenades
50 pt. rhinos/70 point heavy bolter razorbacks

Things that need to be addressed IMO:
Sword brethren (the regular kind) are rather expensive if you buy terminator honors for the second attack
Righteous zeal needs to be redone or at least back to the way it was in 5th. That, or IIRC in the armageddon book we only ran forward if we failed, I would like that
The EC kind of sucks at fighting challenges

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?

You can, though, can't you?

Only if you always take the 'primaris' gift. You buy, for example, a "Greater Gift" then roll at the start of the game to find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can swap it for the default one for your god.

Personally I don't see this as a bad thing... Tzeentch Daemons for example are especially known for having a million or so various disguises, thus I look at my Tzheralds always having different combos of gifts as them simply appearing under a different name each game.
So sure, in one game my Herald Tzeen'Dhaazyr might have an Etherblade + Corrosive Breath + Spell Breaker, and then next game he'll instead have Burning Blood + Corrosive Breath + Warp Strider. The narrative is still there as he's simply assumed another one of his many forms by which various mortal worlds know/fear him!

Plus, when you get those games where you're blessed with an absolutely savage set of gifts, you can add a new moniker to your characters to comemorate it!

At least we ALWAYS keep the option of taking either a kick@$$ Etherblade/Greater Etherblade/Hellforged Artifact or a God-specific magic weapon. (And unlike in Fantasy, we can have multiple copies of those same items to boot!)

 Castiel wrote:
Only in 40k would we whine for ages that everything was OP, but as soon as there is more balance introduced we complain that it is boring or underpowered.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've seen anyone from any game complain about a game being balanced.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
How the hell am I supposed to "forge a narrative" if I can't even guarantee that Exalted Ahri the Deciever of Westborough has the same Gifts every game?

You can, though, can't you?

Only if you always take the 'primaris' gift. You buy, for example, a "Greater Gift" then roll at the start of the game to find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can swap it for the default one for your god.

Yes. So you can, though, can't you?

Just wait, Ward hasnt done a 6th ed book yet.

I haven't gotten a chance to look at the Daemon book yet. I don't see anything wrong with the DA book inspiration wise. The problems with the CSM book aren't necessarily power related, or are indirectly so, it's just that it in itself is supremely uninspired and a lot of the "flavor" stuff they added in is either confused as to its role, detracts from the ability of the army unnecessarily, or duplicates something that another unit already does.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Just wait, Ward hasnt done a 6th ed book yet.

His first 8th edition book isn't leaving much room for optimisium... I've never seen such a confused and internally fethed-up-to-the-nines army in my 15 years in the hobby as the new 8th edition Daemons.
At least on the positive side, Daemons aren't breaking the game for everyone else this time round.

I sincerely hope he doesn't get the Ork project - we know how his greenskin book turned out last time.

I don't know what you're smoking OP but I'd love to have some.

6th is far from balanced, in fact I'd say it's the least balanced system I've ever played.

Go try a few other game systems and you'll see what I mean.

If it wasn't for the friends I have from this game and my love for my two main armies (orks and IG) I would've quit a long time ago.

This thread title is so wrong. You can't have too balanced game (and say that as sth negative about the game) and perfect balance, though unachievable should be what you aim for.

What you can have is a game balanced in a wrong way, like for example every army has the same units and stats just soldiers look different. Not a good idea particularly for 40k. Or balanced through taming units and abilities out of fear of breaking something, that might be the uninspiring part you mentioned. Or balanced through excessive randomness which is cheap.

Proper balance as far as 40k goes should be imo variety extravaganza with crazy units and ability madness all balanced by adequate point cost.