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.

 Lobukia wrote:

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

Except that in the NOVA Tournament, which I would not describe as "local" or whatever, has 9 of the top 10 finishers using allied armies. So allies do bring something to the table in a competitive sense, and if you're not bringing allies, you're not going to win (unless you're very good). The single codex army was Eldar and finished in the top 5. Everything else as far as the eye could see had allies.

That says something.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

Except that in the NOVA Tournament, which I would not describe as "local" or whatever, has 9 of the top 10 finishers using allied armies. So allies do bring something to the table in a competitive sense, and if you're not bringing allies, you're not going to win (unless you're very good). The single codex army was Eldar and finished in the top 5. Everything else as far as the eye could see had allies.

That says something.

Not to mention most of those were CSM allied to Main Detachment Necrons.

Armies are supposed to have weaknesses that balance out their specialties for a reason. That's the balance. If you're just going to add rules to allow an assault army to easily take allies from another completely different race that is awesomely shooty, you might as well have that Assault army have said awesome shooty stuff in the first place.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, but the problem IS the people. There would be nothing wrong with an abusable system if nobody ever chose to abuse the system. Furthermore, abusers are always going to be more clever than designers.

It's not really abuse, it's an expected result of simple economics. It's just a game, one person's got to win it and there are good options and bad ones. The people who choose strong options are just people who are playing the game. The people who can't grasp that are just whiners.

 Ailaros wrote:
Certainly. But can you say with a straight face that the writers of the current tau codex wrote their rules specifically keeping in mind how they would interact with the upcoming eldar codex? Or is it more likely that it's just going to make an imbalanced game less balanced as myopic codex writers change the game in ways that they don't intend?

No I can't, but that's because the authors of the Tau codex are writers first and their mathematical skills are not the same as the people who play in tournaments. We all know that the authors don't compete and probably don't have a clue about what they're doing. Even competitive players recognize this and have learned to accept it. I won't be switching to Tau and I will continue to compete, that's half the fun of the game.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well firstly, you didn't have to spend a fortune on a new army. You only ever needed two troops and an HQ. You've never been required to play 1850+ point games.

You need to spend quite a bit to get even a 1000 pt army off the ground. An HQ and 2 Troops goes further for some armies than others, and the goal is always to have a somewhat complete army. 1850 pts is an arbitrary mark people have chosen to describe this completeness, but I think most people will probably wind up with more than that if they plan the game for any length of time.

The allies system also lets you slowly incorporate another army into your preferred game size. If you just want a couple units, then that's all you need in an allied detachment. No need to buy another 1000+ pts from scratch.

 Ailaros wrote:
Secondly, it's neat to be able to "cheat" the low-point game phase with allies, but what about for everyone else? What about people not starting a new army? What if the ally system makes the game worse for them?

I'm sorry you feel this way. I do think that the ally system was designed to encourage people to spend money on another army. I don't think anybody requires allies in order to compete in the game though, and I doubt that allies ruins the game for anybody. I actually like the allies because I think it encourages people to start another army they've been looking at, or it can help keep old codices competitive to some degree. Many marine players were only staying relevant by including IG allies which is a far cry from breaking the game. If making SM borderline useful is making the game worse for somebody, then I pity them. I recognize that the TauDar combo is obnoxious, but I'm not really convinced that it's any worse than straight Tau either.



Also I don't understand how this edition of deathstarhammer (or flyerhammer or whatever you're upset about) is any worse than last edition of metalboxhammer or reservehammer. The whiners in this thread seem to be romanticizing an era of warhammer which never existed. The game has always had a dominant codex and frustrating units, whether they're Farsight bombs, psyback spam or completely reserved drop pod assault. If you don't like strong units, don't take them and don't play in tournaments. If somebody in your gaming group is playing useful units, then don't play against them or ask them if they would be willing to make a different list. If they don't want to, that's their right and they should be allowed to play against a competent player and learn something.

fuhrmaaj wrote:
Also I don't understand how this edition of deathstarhammer (or flyerhammer or whatever you're upset about) is any worse than last edition of metalboxhammer or reservehammer.

Because, as bad as its balance problems were, MSU transport spam had two redeeming factors:

1) It was at least interactive. Unless you completely ignored the metagame and didn't bother to bring any anti-tank units you were always killing stuff and at least had an illusion that there was a proper game with both players having a chance of winning. With a re-rollable 2++ death star, for example, you don't get any of that interaction. Your opponent rolls dice to see if they can kill your whole army, and if they fail you sit on an objective and win.

2) It represented a deliberate choice of direction for the game. GW clearly wanted to make transports better in 5th, and that's what we got. But with something like the re-rollable 2++ death stars it feels like it was just something GW didn't anticipate and we're stuck with a stupid mistake until a new codex comes out in a few years.

Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

No.

People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

Do not equate wanting balance as wanting to have the best army.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


I do miss 5th edition where lists typically were comprised of MSU, and games hinged heavily on tactical positioning. Nowadays it seems like an exercise in list building more than anything else. Anybody else sick of this?

tactical positioning...

I've played Tyranids through 5th and thus far into 6th and, as far as I could tell, Imperial MSU lists just kind of lined up and shot at me. If I got into assault, units just died in place. They didn't even have to get out of their transports.

6th edition is much more tactical in my eyes. Yes, Tau and Eldar are the exception. But to everyone else you're trying to dodge around all of the AP 2 and Overwatch as you play the game. Heck, even just the inclusion of First blood, slay the warlord and linebreaker have made the game more tactical.

I have a BA Deathcompany list that has no scoring models that still wins games because it clears off the objectives and relies heavily on those three secondary missions. I've built it to seldom give up first blood and I almost always get it with my drop pod full of sternguard with combi-meltas/plasmas.

In 5th, it was cool to be space wolves with 8 razorbacks or GK that could spend like 60 points a razorback with 3 dudes inside that fired 4 TL str 7 rending shots a turn. Things are different, these tactics still work but very differently in the world of Coversaves everywhere and massed firepower.

 Blacksails wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

No.

People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

Do not equate wanting balance as wanting to have the best army.

Look into the complaints and that's what most of them are. People annoyed that others can auto-win when they want their own army to auto-win. Same in 6th as it was in 5th, just different people.

We play nids and faced vehicle spam back in 5th. Dealt with it. I understand it's hard if you're a BA player, we got whupped bad by them once and have tabled them several times since 6th, but this is essentially is a fun fluffy game.

Plenty of people play, say, Orks and have fun (we hope to), are they simply idiots for enjoying themselves?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sometimes it feels like everyone would be happy... as long as their army wins all the time. Math-hammer tells me that might be a problem.

No.

People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

Do not equate wanting balance as wanting to have the best army.

Look into the complaints and that's what most of them are. People annoyed that others can auto-win when they want their own army to auto-win. Same in 6th as it was in 5th, just different people.

We play nids and faced vehicle spam back in 5th. Dealt with it. I understand it's hard if you're a BA player, we got whupped bad by them once and have tabled them several times since 6th, but this is essentially is a fun fluffy game.

Plenty of people play, say, Orks and have fun (we hope to), are they simply idiots for enjoying themselves?

I'm not saying you can't have fun, or play whatever army you want. That's not my point. My point is simply this;

There would be significantly less complaining if this game was genuinely and truly balanced, across codices and within each one, as then the game wouldn't be mostly pre-decided on selecting broken army A and allying in broken army B.

That's it. I make no claims people have to play a certain way, but a balanced game is fun for both casual players and competitive players. I won't say that's a hard fact, but its close enough to be a fairly definitive statement.

I would never want my army to auto-win. Most of my friends feel the same.

The enjoyment of the game doesn't come from the win. It comes from what it took to get there.

And even in a loss, you can walk away knowing it was a great game that well fought on both sides, where the skill of your opponent made up the true challenge, not the power level of the army or one or two important dice rolls.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Blacksails wrote:People would be happy with a balanced, tactically challenging game.

People annoyed that others can auto-win when they want their own army to auto-win. Same in 6th as it was in 5th, just different people.

You 100% missed the point of what blacksails said. Wanting a balanced game is, in fact, the opposite of wanting your army to roflstomp (or any other, for the same reason).

fuhrmaaj wrote:You need to spend quite a bit to get even a 1000 pt army off the ground. An HQ and 2 Troops goes further for some armies than others, and the goal is always to have a somewhat complete army.

You can make a reasonably strong 1000 pt. imperial guard list with 21 infantry models and 4 vehicles. That's not much of a hardship, really, I think the problem is this..

fuhrmaaj wrote:1850 pts is an arbitrary mark people have chosen to describe this completeness

... which is sort of an attitude problem. I really like playing games at low points levels, and find the idea that if you're not playing at 1850 points meaning you're not playing a "real" game of 40k to be annoying.

Plus, if anyone is new to the game, or even just to an army, they will get the best experience with the army playing at low point levels with their core units than rushing off to play with the fanciest toys possible. If allies allow you to skip good points levels that provide good learning experiences, that sounds like a bad thing, not a good one.

It would be better to tell FLGS people to suck it up and play at more reasonable points levels, I'd think.

AegisGrimm wrote:Armies are supposed to have weaknesses that balance out their specialties for a reason. That's the balance. If you're just going to add rules to allow an assault army to easily take allies from another completely different race that is awesomely shooty, you might as well have that Assault army have said awesome shooty stuff in the first place.

Right, and I may argue for or against various things to hash out abstract principles, but this is the one thing that actually annoys me a bit, personally. It would kind of bug me to see that the special thing that I took, that I made the sacrifice for by playing the army, that I was following good fluff protocols for, just showed up in every other army. One of the things that makes the CSM codex special is helldrakes, and one of the things that makes guard unique is the vendetta. If I show up to my FLGS and everyone has one of those two vehicles regardless of what army they play, well... that's just... bad.

As said in the quote above, why bother making armies different in the first place, if everyone can take the same units? What specialness is there left when you soften what differentiates? Why play guard if everyone is including some guardsmen? That kind of thing.

fuhrmaaj wrote:It's not really abuse, it's an expected result of simple economics. It's just a game, one person's got to win it and there are good options and bad ones.

kb305 wrote:i remember that from when i was a kid, and not fondly. it became an arms race to see who could get more cyclones. whoever got first turn would win. warhammer didnt last very long in our group.

And this has the hazard of a real, serious problem.

In chess, for example, both players have the same pieces, so the game is fair. You can't be a noob who gets roflstomped because you brought the wrong pieces. Allies can only increase the power disparity in 40k.

Now, I like the fact that 40k doesn't have chess levels of balance, and you can choose to bring weaker lists against worse players. That's a strength. However, played without a sense of ethics, the game quickly can devolve into people with strong lists beating other players so badly that the games themselves are boring to play. And that can cause a gaming group to disintegrate.

And that's the serious problem at risk here. Allies give people more options to abuse unethical decisions that can push other players out of the game.

Jimsolo wrote:There's more than one right way to play a given army

Yes, but what happens when not everybody appreciates this fact?

In the case of my FLGS, there was a brief moment where half the store switched over to tau. Now that eldar has come out, some who didn't switch to tau, switched to eldar (or took them out of mothballed closets). And yes, we have taudar now.

The tide - exacerbated by allies - is so strong that some of our less must-win-at-any-costs players are starting to migrate over to fantasy. Because otherwise they have the option of playing really boring games where they don't get to do anything because they're tabled by taudar by turn 3, or they have to play a very different kind of army than they want to play (and don't want to play mech/tau gunlines because, once again, that's boring), or not play 40k at all.

In this case, allies are enabling bad people to be worse people. It's festering rot, rather than helping clean it.

AegisGrimm wrote: Unfortunately, 6th edition lists are now being put together like a deck of Magic cards.

That's actually a clever way of putting it. Especially if we're talking about the "you can take anything ever made" branch of MTG. Of course, that got so out of hand that they had to add a lot more restrictions (only starting with sealed starter decks, only using things that came out within the last 2 years), etc.

In another way, MTG has figured out what 40k has known all along - the game is better with more restrictions, not worse. The codex system helps things from getting completely out of control.

I mean, can you imagine how bad 40k would be if you could always just take any unit from any codex?

Mr. Burning wrote:Remember GW do not care a jot of balance, they do not think it has a place in a 'fun and fluffy' game system.

Which would bring us to this. Just because a game is designed to be fun, doesn't mean the game is better if it's designed poorly. A better balanced game with more concise rules makes the game more fun, not less.

And in the end, a game is really only determined by its rules. If fun and fluffy is another way of saying don't want tight rules, then why play a game at all? Why not sit around and have pretend time with miniatures in a ruleless, open-ended environment?

Because if it's a game, rather than pretend time, it has to have rules. If it has rules, then better rules are better than worse rules. Regardless of one's definition of fun.

Jimsolo wrote: I DO think that the game studio considered the rules carefully enough to spot and correct the most severe 'adverse codex interactions'

Of course, one could make the argument that "it could be worse". And certainly it could be.

I think part of the problem here is one of scope creep. Allies are just a part of the game, but in a thread about allies, it's sort of the only thing that matters.

Jimsolo wrote:Specifically, I wish more people were seeking invention and innovation.

Certainly as do I. I would note two things about it, though.

Firstly, there is a HUGE amount of playing around with things you can do within the confines of an individual codex. I mean, over the first year of playing guard, I played with six very different types of guard armies. And there was still plenty of room to go (never played leafblower, never played with vendettas at all, never tried to make a go of powerblobs anyways). I mean, in that huge pile of experimentation over a full year, I still didn't manage to use a bit less than a THIRD of the units in my codex.

The codex system hardly stifles THAT much creativity.

Secondly, does allies giving more options actually inspire that much creativity? I mean, as mentioned, there was a lot of stuff that I had the option to try out, but never tried out. Just because you have the option to try out even more stuff doesn't mean you will.

So, practically speaking, what real gain is there? Is it worth the cost?


And to go completely off-topic..

Veteran Sergeant wrote:I thought about playing it Call of Cthulu style. The players investigate weird things, then the slowest ones get eaten by them.

I'm going to start up a 40k RPG soon. The 40k rules, but with stuff added on like it being cooperative vs. a GM, and with fog of war on, etc. 40k scales down to tiny points levels shockingly well.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos. Chaos combos with 2++ rerolls are tough, are a combo, but struggle with games that don't have KP (which is all but one game type). Where are your getting this butt-hurt from? Your arguments are self defeating and tournament results don't hold them up at all.

Except that in the NOVA Tournament, which I would not describe as "local" or whatever, has 9 of the top 10 finishers using allied armies. So allies do bring something to the table in a competitive sense, and if you're not bringing allies, you're not going to win (unless you're very good). The single codex army was Eldar and finished in the top 5. Everything else as far as the eye could see had allies.

That says something.

Allies =/= cheesey combos (the OP complaint). I haven't seen the NOVA lists yet, but running grey knights and necrons isn't the issue. Screamers with 2++ rerolls + 2 helldrakes or fortuned Riptides is. How many of the top 10 had those type of... combos? Thats the issue at hand.

 Lobukia wrote:
However if you never played GTs before (or WAAC games) and you are now, and you can't put it together that venue/game type is the issue... well your opinion is kinda worthless.

Going to partially ignore that.

The best lists so far in 6th have been at first Cron Air and now WaveSpam. Neither of which are combos.

I assume the OP really meant combos such as Puffmander+Farseer, which we see a lot.

I play mainly straight CSM or straight SM. I love 6th. I'm thrilled xenos have some teeth again. The ally matrix is awesome for people starting new armies and for keeping the game fresh.

There is no balance whatsoever in the ally matrix. I am not a fan of double FOC, but can see the value of being able to ally, _for fun_. Allies are not chosen based on what looks nice but what brings the most dangerous combinations. I can live with that even though I don't like it.

I suspect GW's playtesting never takes this kind of approach to army building.

If your not in tourney play, sit down and work out some league or club rules to blunt WAAC lists. If you can't, then most the people you game with must disagree with you and I'd say your issue is with them and again, not the edition./

I guess expecting common sense is asking too much. People don't have to bring their tournament lists to club games. Want to give Howling Banshees another try? Use them in the club game, leave your 5+ wave serpents at home.

What playtesting?

The moral of the story is that Warhammer 40,000 if it is anything, it is not a pickup game, it's too many different things to too many different people to ever be a pickup game.

With that said, if you can find opponents who enjoy playing the game in the same way or spirit as you, you will have a great time and fall madly in love with the game. If it all just feels like a race to the bottom no matter who you play, you will find little enjoyment. And with some opponents, it will always be a race to the bottom.

 Ailaros wrote:



You 100% missed the point of what blacksails said. Wanting a balanced game is, in fact, the opposite of wanting your army to roflstomp (or any other, for the same reason).

Nonetheless, it's undeniable that a good number of people complaining about the 'unbalanced' 6th, are those who feel their own army is disadvantaged. People's idea of balanced tends to be a status quo that happens to benefit them - throughout society, throughout history. My original point was said partly in jest, but a survey of opinions here would tend to back it up.

 Ailaros wrote:

It would kind of bug me to see that the special thing that I took, that I made the sacrifice for by playing the army, that I was following good fluff protocols for, just showed up in every other army. One of the things that makes the CSM codex special is helldrakes, and one of the things that makes guard unique is the vendetta. If I show up to my FLGS and everyone has one of those two vehicles regardless of what army they play, well... that's just... bad.

I absolutely agree. In our local store tournament, which was pretty competitive, there were no allies - we didn't make it in time, i'm not sure if that was a criterion, but I think there would be a benefit in controlling this aspect in the competitive arena, purely for more genuine diversity.

 Lobukia wrote:
Screamers with 2++ rerolls + 2 helldrakes or fortuned Riptides is. How many of the top 10 had those type of... combos? Thats the issue at hand.

Oh gak, that sounds hideous. I might just use that strategy if I ever decide to dabble in competitive 40k again.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Coming up with an effective one-two punch that your opponent doesn't see coming is a delight like no other, and the allies system has provided us with an even greater toolbox to work with to that end.

I concur, theres nothing more skilful than combining the awesome power of "minimum sized Dire Avengers squads" with Wave Serpents to create a Wave Serpent spam list that is marvellous to behold and a delight to play against. Only the most skillful of players can perform such a feat, and I applaud GW for their creation of these masterful games rules that allow such intricate combinations to appear

Umm, excuse me, but isn't this exactly what happened in 5th? Did I dream up all those Razorback/Chimera/Psyback/Venom spam lists?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

Nonetheless, it's undeniable that a good number of people complaining about the 'unbalanced' 6th, are those who feel their own army is disadvantaged. People's idea of balanced tends to be a status quo that happens to benefit them - throughout society, throughout history. My original point was said partly in jest, but a survey of opinions here would tend to back it up.

No, not really. Its not undeniable, and there isn't some vast majority who simply want their codex to be best. There are quite a number I've observed on here who play Tau and Eldar who freely admit the armies are in their own league and that the game would be better if they were balanced. Not to mention the general call for balance, not 'I wish my codex was super powerful'.

I also highly, highly doubt any intelligently worded survey would indicate even the remotest inclination you suggest. People want balance. Balance is fun. Winning that takes skill and thought is infinitely more satisfying than winning because your chosen faction is three tiers above your opponent's.

If you want proof, go to the other gaming boards on here for Warmahordes, or Infinity, or any of the other ones. Go see how many people are complaining that their faction isn't an auto-win button.

Its because those games are all significantly more balanced than 40k, and the playerbase is generally pleased with it.

The game is way better than it was in 5th at the least. There may be some bent-ass combos out there right now, but overall lists are still for the better part varied in some way whereas in 5th you went to a tournament and saw the exact same Grey Knight army 10 times.

And what's this? Shock horror, people are complaining once again about a business making business decisions. Seriously, do people really think GW are obliged to care about the hobby? They are a business at the end of the day, so expect business decisions every step of the way. That's just how the world works. I'm no big fan of GW, and will openly criticise many of their decisions, but complaining that they put profits over balance is stupid, because at the end of the day, if GW didn't make decisions all about business, they wouldn't have a business and we wouldn't have our games.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
The game is way better than it was in 5th at the least. There may be some bent-ass combos out there right now, but overall lists are still for the better part varied in some way whereas in 5th you went to a tournament and saw the exact same Grey Knight army 10 times.

And what's this? Shock horror, people are complaining once again about a business making business decisions. Seriously, do people really think GW are obliged to care about the hobby? They are a business at the end of the day, so expect business decisions every step of the way. That's just how the world works. I'm no big fan of GW, and will openly criticise many of their decisions, but complaining that they put profits over balance is stupid, because at the end of the day, if GW didn't make decisions all about business, they wouldn't have a business and we wouldn't have our games.

Just a thought, but if they made a tight, balanced rule set, with fair and equally balanced codices with proper internal balance, they would sell more models. And for a simple reason.

With proper balance, every unit would be a good unit.

So really, its not as unreasonable as you make it seem for us to at the very least want GW to produce a better rule set. Making a proper rule set and releasing balanced codices does not preclude GW from turning a profit. They're not mutually exclusive in the slightest.

Its not a simple black and white issue, where we either have a poor rule set and a profitable business, or a great rule set and a broke company. Many other wargames are capable of producing far better rules, listening to feedback, and turning profits while expanding their consumer base and market share.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're not the only one. Every new release decreases my interest in this game, and I've already given up on rebuilding my Tau army. It's just not worth it when GW doesn't even pretend to playtest the latest garbage they're shoving out the door before starting to "work" on the next new release.

Then why don't you just stop playing the game and leave the people who actaully like 40k [strange as it may seem to you ] in peace? Jeez .

Because people can be both disgruntled and invested.

Martel732 wrote:
Because people can be both disgruntled and invested.

Maybe he has a 40k addiction.

Maybe. I pity anyone actually addicted to this game. I've played the same army for 15 years now, mainly with old metal models. I play it because I can get a game at my FLGS, and that's about it. I pretty much hate GW and hate giving them money. They are are the robber barons of the gaming industry.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. I pity anyone actually addicted to this game. I've played the same army for 15 years now, mainly with old metal models. I play it because I can get a game at my FLGS, and that's about it. I pretty much hate GW and hate giving them money. They are are the robber barons of the gaming industry.

Once you learn that everyone in the world is terrible and evil and has unsavory motives for doing anything you'll be much happier.

What do you mean I'm paranoid?

Re-rollable 2+ deathstars aren't the biggest deal ever, you can beat them. 5th had its dangerous deathstars too, especially with old Fateweaver.

The same helpless feeling some armies feel vs the new Deathstars or FMC Daemons, is the way a lot of armies felt vs mech spam of 5th. Many codices had very few answers.

There are a fair number of ways to mitigate CC/Psychic Deathstars. SW allies for RP. Nids have Shadows. Anyone with Divination can roll for Misfortune, Telepathy can help with Dominate/Hallucinate. Eldar have multiple de-buffs at their disposal. You can tarpit, or go MSU in order to minimize losses.

40k won't ever be balanced. Most games aren't, it's just that with 40k you end up having to change armies fairly frequently. If you can't accept that, you may need to consider another hobby.

kb305 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Come on the Macross/Robotech/Last Starfighter Cyclone Death Blossom was beautiful.

Off the top of my head, it was a 6 inch wide blast at St 8, -6 save mod. For each model.

i remember that from when i was a kid, and not fondly. it became an arms race to see who could get more cyclones. whoever got first turn would win. warhammer didnt last very long in our group.

Honestly, I never once saw a Cyclone Spam list. But maybe I played with a better quality of people than others did. Nobody in our "meta" did stuff like that. We never had problems with virus or vortex grenades either. It wasn't like I played in a tiny group either. There was a kid named "Cheesy", but that was about it. Some guys had more powerful lists than others, but I have almost entirely fond memories of 2nd Edition, and absolutely hated what they turned the game into with 3rd where you just rolled dice and pulled models off as fast as possible.

I just know that I nearly always alpha striked my Cyclone if I happened to take one.

As far as 6th Edition crapping on assault, that's only an improvement to the overall direction of the game. I imagine it is painful for the assault based armies though. GW really should have pushed the codex releases for Orks and Tyranids up with that in mind. Rework them and give them the ability to shoot at things like they did in 2nd Edition. Get away from Stick and Hammer 40K, and move it back towards a sci-fi based game with fantasy elements rather than a fantasy game with sci-fi elements.

Though, having said that, a sci-fi game gave us giant Taudar Gundam robots, which was a worse turn than introducing flyers. Those things are ruining 40K more than anything else. A bunch of slow moving flyers that are still really hard to hit as if they were moving fast, and exploiting that limited vulnerability to become massive game changers.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

Honestly when talking about the way some competitive lists are made "combohammer" style that's not really the Devs fault when they're the ones pushing to make the game more focused on being a fun, casual game.

As Ailaros said, abusers will always out-think the developers. The developers may write the game with a given intent but without following that intent (or sometimes knowing what it is), abuse will always occur.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
My issue is not with the people, but with the direction in which the developers have taken the game.

Honestly when talking about the way some competitive lists are made "combohammer" style that's not really the Devs fault when they're the ones pushing to make the game more focused on being a fun, casual game.

As Ailaros said, abusers will always out-think the developers. The developers may write the game with a given intent but without following that intent (or sometimes knowing what it is), abuse will always occur.

I don't accept this. I think the writers are too lazy to write tight rules that can cut down abuses. Or, even worse, they don't understand/play the game they are writing for.