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.

 Peregrine wrote:
A BS 8 model in an assault army isn't all that great because you have to leave it back to shoot and therefore split your army into shooting and assault elements.

That's called supporting fire, and most (if not all) assault armies benefit greatly from it. In fact, it's almost required if you want your assaults to succeed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
And then there is the Doom.

A: This guy seems really powerful for 100 points.
B: Better make it 90 points.
A: Why?
B: He only has a 5+ armour save. He'll get taken out easily by bolter fire.

Which was more true in 5th when he was written as he couldn't Iron Arm.

If you're rolling on Biomancy instead of Telepathy or keeping Cataclysm you're doing it wrong.
If your opponent is letting the Doom survive a turn to get Iron Arm they're doing it wrong.

Ass far why I still play this game despite the shoddy work done on the rules, I enjoy the background and this is the only game that has Tyranids in it.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is not true at all because you have a "critical mass" effect in a lot of cases. For example, a single Rhino is a lot less effective when it's the only vehicle on the table than when it's part of an army with a dozen other Rhinos. A BS 8 model in an assault army isn't all that great because you have to leave it back to shoot and therefore split your army into shooting and assault elements. A BS 8 model in a gunline army, on the other hand, is awesome because it can sit back and shoot along with the rest of your army. In fact, because of the way BS works in 40k (with diminishing returns over BS 5), a BS 8 model in a pure assault army might actually be worth less than a BS 5 model in a gunline army.

By that logic the same exact tank in an infantry support role should cost less than a tank in a tank company because more tanks are "more" dangerous together. It is exactly that kind of esoteric BS that leads to the complete lack of standardized point costs we see in the 40k codecies that ultimately mean that 2000 points from one book with a bunch of undercosted units can end up being significantly more powerful than 2000 points from another codex that doesn't have such undercosted units. This is, of course, how the tourney meta ends up being defined at any given time as well. If the point costs were standardized in a logical fashion there wouldn't be such a sharp delineation between "top tier" tourney armies and those that aren't. Instead we get points all over the place so that necrons and IG can spam undercosted transports that fly and also have offensive punch as well while other armies fight to keep up. This defines the meta and could do a lot to bringing the meta back into some semblance of balance.

Skriker

I dont think there is a formula. For an example i'd say doom of malantai. For 90 points it has to be one of my favorite guys in the codex. Its a pretty hit or miss unit but i've had it take out whole squads with out breaking a sweat.

Edit: just noticed doom has already been cited. Go figure

 insaniak wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the codexes are all perfectly balanced. Just contesting the idea that a straight comparison of units across armies actually tells you anything useful.

That used to be OK before allies. Now if Red Space Marines have a cheaper tank than blue, the blues can just take the red tank as an ally.

No, 40k is close to being unworkable. Not quite as bad as 2nd edition with it's blind grenade tables and range modifiers for every weapon, but getting real close.

Sixth has the near-uselessness of power armor in common with 2nd edition. CSM aren't a powerhouse, but if the Tyranids become top tier, it will be a close approximation of 2nd. The loyalist marines are obviously nowhere near as bad as 2nd edition, but the overall feel will be there.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the codexes are all perfectly balanced. Just contesting the idea that a straight comparison of units across armies actually tells you anything useful.

That used to be OK before allies. Now if Red Space Marines have a cheaper tank than blue, the blues can just take the red tank as an ally.

Assuming you don't mind taking a red HQ and troop, and both of these are the same or cheaper than their blue counterparts.

If they do any examinations of comparable units it has to be extremely limited. Looking at the 2 codices I have available, CSM Marines are 5 points more expensive for a unit of five than their DA counterparts, but a point per extra marine cheaper. These 2 units fill the same role by far and large. Where does the extra 5 points stem from? The stupid challenge rule that I will never get to use and rarely has any effect on the game? And 1 point cheaper for extra models? Being the same leadership without having to take an Lord or upgrades, and not having the benefit of stubborn or ATSNKF? If I take the fearless icon, that adds >1 point per model for a max size squad, and still isn't necessarily as good as ATSNKF. Yes CSM has some flexibility that DA don't have, but we don't get most of the fancy Dedicated transports any Space Marine does.