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.

Just saying, the Daemons won the battle.

I'm not sure a random battle between two random players is indicative of anything. It was done on a lark to support an explicit point. Also, people will draw the wrong conclusions about what (if anything) should be done so long as they think about anyone other than the average gamer. Power gamers and social-construct-established play groups aren't affected much.

 InventionThirteen wrote:
I've had no end to terrible once sided battles since the start of sixth and the rise of some seriously rubbish rules writing. (6th ed works but the codexes are getting beyond help). These new escalation rules are the icing on the cake for me. This game needs some serious attention and someone needs to throw out the game design team bar Phil kelly and a few select others. Matt ward not included. He can go.

This post has got to be a joke. Phil Kelly is responsible for two of top three books right, including the hideously broken Seer Council and Screamerstar, but you're advocating keeping him? Seriously? 6th edition was pretty balanced until Phil Kelly started pumping out books for armies he likes.

Yeah, no one was complaining abut the necron flying bakery/cronair list at all before PK made the eldar codex. No-one was complaining about Tau and markerlights at all either...

I'm not defending PK - Its just Mat Ward and Jeremy Vetock aren't any better/worse.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
Yeah, no one was complaining abut the necron flying bakery/cronair list at all before PK made the eldar codex. No-one was complaining about Tau and markerlights at all either...

I'm not defending PK - Its just Mat Ward and Jeremy Vetock aren't any better/worse.

I did say Two of the top Xenos, Vetock with Tau makes the third.

And Necrons oddly just petered out as 6th went along, people brought more AA and allies that could deal with them and it was like Nob Bikers, strong for the beginning of the edition but then went weaker, and it ended up more balanced somehow.

I used to want an apocolypse lite that would allow me to field a Baneblade without the absurd OTT-ness that is Apocolypse...little did I realise that this would ruin 40k for everyone.

So guys...I'm sorry, okay? I don't know what I was thinking.

It just seems whichever is the latest xeno codex gets the most hate.

Marines never got complained about - until chaos got heldrakes and then they got added to the complained about category.

Now its just loyalist marines that don't get complained about. It seems any other army is in a state of broken at times.

I'm looking forward to the new nid dex. Then we can all complain about them instead

But yeah, in the meantime - Screw Escalation!

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm not sure a random battle between two random players is indicative of anything. It was done on a lark to support an explicit point. Also, people will draw the wrong conclusions about what (if anything) should be done so long as they think about anyone other than the average gamer. Power gamers and social-construct-established play groups aren't affected much.

I don't completely agree with this Mike. I am a competitive tournament (aka Power Gamer), that is constantly up to date on the latest meta and lists.
I own and have played most of the super power lists in tournaments including: Leafblower (5th), Draigo Wing (5th), Purifier Spam (5th), Fatecrusher (5th), Venom Spam (5th), Dual Lash Oblits (5th), Flamer\Screamer Spam Demons (6th), Screamerstar (6th) FMC Daemons (6th), Sabre\Thudd Blob IG (6th).

This video just made me sick. I am a pull no punches, hardcore, "don't whine", competitive player. I just could not bring a list like that to a competitive game with a straight face.
The game has ceased to be a game, and needs serious attention and issues addressed.

I think you and Reecius, and the other major TO's should get on a conference call once or twice a month to discuss things. You guys have enough weight in this community that what you say will be widely accepted.

The game desperately needs help, and GW is just going to make it worse. They simply do not care about game balance.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
It just seems whichever is the latest xeno codex gets the most hate.

Marines never got complained about - until chaos got heldrakes and then they got added to the complained about category.

Now its just loyalist marines that don't get complained about. It seems any other army is in a state of broken at times.

I'm looking forward to the new nid dex. Then we can all complain about them instead

Honestly all we need is for Nids to have "offensive" Shadows (i.e., it meaningfully messes with the success rate of a psychic power cast), probably ban Formations/Escalation/Stronghold, and the game will be right back to a VERY good state (you don't need to nerf 2+ re-rolls if Tyranid are solid, b/c they'll be able to tarpit screamers and shut down fortune on jetcouncil, meaning neither list becomes viable to bring routinely to a tournament). Currently Tyranid already utterly demolish any kind of Daemon list, and utterly demolish jetstar. Problem is, they're an "old" codex, break your back to play with the correct list (Which involves 0 dakka tyrants for all those who think that's a good Tyranid list ...) in a tournament setting and aren't therefore played by very many people.

So ... honestly ... everyone should hold their horses, cross their fingers for a GOOD Tyranid codex and enjoy the Holidays.

If, on the other hand, Shadows in the Warp becomes an X" aura of "+2 to DTW!" ... well, gak.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
It just seems whichever is the latest xeno codex gets the most hate.

Marines never got complained about - until chaos got heldrakes and then they got added to the complained about category.

Now its just loyalist marines that don't get complained about. It seems any other army is in a state of broken at times.

I'm looking forward to the new nid dex. Then we can all complain about them instead

But yeah, in the meantime - Screw Escalation!

Loyalist marines were complained about loudly in 5th edition when they were the strongest books. Now they're not, so they're not.

 Swastakowey wrote:

I'd have to agree. 6th edition was awesome when it came out, so many cool rules and so on. But then all these new codices came out and it all started to go downhill. The codices really bring out the flaws in the rules.

What flaws in the rules? There are no flaws, only marketing opportunites that have not been explored/exploited yet.

The term loyalist marines is really broad..You mean Grey Knights and Space wolves? Standard marines rarely if ever get complained about.

I've been told 6th is "OK" if you ban allies and double Force Org - and now add Fortifications/Escalation/Stronghold too?

Just going to point this out, (theoretically speaking) the "unbalanced" game suddenly becomes balanced when both sides are fielding a Lord of War unit. It seems rather unfortunate that this is the only way to achieve a real sense of balance in the context of Escalation, but given the name of the supplement, it seems this is exactly what GW intended. That is, they intended for people to escalate their gameplay by adding in these ridiculous uber-units they've been producing in plastic and haven't been selling.

So to balance Seer Councils and Screamers, we should field Seer councils and Screamers? If something is balanced everything has a shot.

I missed vanilla loyalists being complained about - I only remember BA (for a bit), Wolves and GK getting complained about for marines.

We'll just spin the wheel onto the next 'broken codex' to be released and we'll all go round again.

MVBrandt wrote:

Honestly all we need is for Nids to have "offensive" Shadows (i.e., it meaningfully messes with the success rate of a psychic power cast), probably ban Formations/Escalation/Stronghold, and the game will be right back to a VERY good state (you don't need to nerf 2+ re-rolls if Tyranid are solid, b/c they'll be able to tarpit screamers and shut down fortune on jetcouncil, meaning neither list becomes viable to bring routinely to a tournament). Currently Tyranid already utterly demolish any kind of Daemon list, and utterly demolish jetstar. Problem is, they're an "old" codex, break your back to play with the correct list (Which involves 0 dakka tyrants for all those who think that's a good Tyranid list ...) in a tournament setting and aren't therefore played by very many people.

So ... honestly ... everyone should hold their horses, cross their fingers for a GOOD Tyranid codex and enjoy the Holidays.

If, on the other hand, Shadows in the Warp becomes an X" aura of "+2 to DTW!" ... well, gak.

This+1 - let nids run a psyker spoiler army and it'll really mix things up again.

Although no-one ever complains about the DA. Poor DA.

 PredaKhaine wrote:
I missed vanilla loyalists being complained about - I only remember BA (for a bit), Wolves and GK getting complained about for marines.

We'll just spin the wheel onto the next 'broken codex' to be released and we'll all go round again.

MVBrandt wrote:

Honestly all we need is for Nids to have "offensive" Shadows (i.e., it meaningfully messes with the success rate of a psychic power cast), probably ban Formations/Escalation/Stronghold, and the game will be right back to a VERY good state (you don't need to nerf 2+ re-rolls if Tyranid are solid, b/c they'll be able to tarpit screamers and shut down fortune on jetcouncil, meaning neither list becomes viable to bring routinely to a tournament). Currently Tyranid already utterly demolish any kind of Daemon list, and utterly demolish jetstar. Problem is, they're an "old" codex, break your back to play with the correct list (Which involves 0 dakka tyrants for all those who think that's a good Tyranid list ...) in a tournament setting and aren't therefore played by very many people.

So ... honestly ... everyone should hold their horses, cross their fingers for a GOOD Tyranid codex and enjoy the Holidays.

If, on the other hand, Shadows in the Warp becomes an X" aura of "+2 to DTW!" ... well, gak.

This+1 - let nids run a psyker spoiler army and it'll really mix things up again.

Although no-one ever complains about the DA. Poor DA.

People complain about DA all the time......they're called DA players

Thimn wrote:
So to balance Seer Councils and Screamers, we should field Seer councils and Screamers? If something is balanced everything has a shot.

GW clearly isn't balancing on a unit by unit basis, they're doing it on an army by army basis instead (and not doing a very good job of it at that). Every army, I think, has the tools available to it to defeat any other army, but it requires fielding very particular units/builds, which may or may not be fluffy, etc. In short, powergame.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thimn wrote:
So to balance Seer Councils and Screamers, we should field Seer councils and Screamers? If something is balanced everything has a shot.

GW clearly isn't balancing on a unit by unit basis, they're doing it on an army by army basis instead (and not doing a very good job of it at that). Every army, I think, has the tools available to it to defeat any other army, but it requires fielding very particular units/builds, which may or may not be fluffy, etc. In short, powergame.

I don't believe GW is playtesting or balancing anything, at all, even a little bit. That doesn't mean the game is bad, but the less balance it is, the better it is for power and group gamers ... the worse it is for LGS and average gamers.

Breng77 wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:
I missed vanilla loyalists being complained about - I only remember BA (for a bit), Wolves and GK getting complained about for marines.

We'll just spin the wheel onto the next 'broken codex' to be released and we'll all go round again.

MVBrandt wrote:

Honestly all we need is for Nids to have "offensive" Shadows (i.e., it meaningfully messes with the success rate of a psychic power cast), probably ban Formations/Escalation/Stronghold, and the game will be right back to a VERY good state (you don't need to nerf 2+ re-rolls if Tyranid are solid, b/c they'll be able to tarpit screamers and shut down fortune on jetcouncil, meaning neither list becomes viable to bring routinely to a tournament). Currently Tyranid already utterly demolish any kind of Daemon list, and utterly demolish jetstar. Problem is, they're an "old" codex, break your back to play with the correct list (Which involves 0 dakka tyrants for all those who think that's a good Tyranid list ...) in a tournament setting and aren't therefore played by very many people.

So ... honestly ... everyone should hold their horses, cross their fingers for a GOOD Tyranid codex and enjoy the Holidays.

If, on the other hand, Shadows in the Warp becomes an X" aura of "+2 to DTW!" ... well, gak.

This+1 - let nids run a psyker spoiler army and it'll really mix things up again.

Although no-one ever complains about the DA. Poor DA.

People complain about DA all the time......they're called DA players

Touche

MVBrandt wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thimn wrote:
So to balance Seer Councils and Screamers, we should field Seer councils and Screamers? If something is balanced everything has a shot.

GW clearly isn't balancing on a unit by unit basis, they're doing it on an army by army basis instead (and not doing a very good job of it at that). Every army, I think, has the tools available to it to defeat any other army, but it requires fielding very particular units/builds, which may or may not be fluffy, etc. In short, powergame.

I don't believe GW is playtesting or balancing anything, at all, even a little bit. That doesn't mean the game is bad, but the less balance it is, the better it is for power and group gamers ... the worse it is for LGS and average gamers.

I guess that pretty much sums up why I'm not a fan of 40K 6th...

I have to say, I agree. 40k is broken and no longer fun. Formations, Weird allies, escalation. It is now absurd and confusing.

When something is fundamentally unfair, people react differently. Some instantly adapt and exploit the unfairness, others divest themselves of the unfair situation. I find myself being the second... I do not want to take a tau formation and a Baneblade with my orks to compete. I don't want to use a standard force org orks with no allies or added rules and just be tablewiped by turn 2 by the grossly unreasonable focus on 'shooting' in 6th.

I don't think GW is balancing anything, and really cares zero about the tourney environment. One could even say they are doing it to purposely destroy competitive gaming. Or they are balancing the core codexes as a 'per army' balance, and have no idea how allies or these datasheets impact the game.

Tourneys have been ruined. This is why we had COMP in 3rd edition and why we didn't need it in 5th. Now apparently the game is broken enough to require it again.

I am going to take a break from 40k until I can digest these rules and hopefully a new Ork codex hits, but I don't like the direction this ruleset is taking.

 Alpharius wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thimn wrote:
So to balance Seer Councils and Screamers, we should field Seer councils and Screamers? If something is balanced everything has a shot.

GW clearly isn't balancing on a unit by unit basis, they're doing it on an army by army basis instead (and not doing a very good job of it at that). Every army, I think, has the tools available to it to defeat any other army, but it requires fielding very particular units/builds, which may or may not be fluffy, etc. In short, powergame.

I don't believe GW is playtesting or balancing anything, at all, even a little bit. That doesn't mean the game is bad, but the less balance it is, the better it is for power and group gamers ... the worse it is for LGS and average gamers.

I guess that pretty much sums up why I'm not a fan of 40K 6th...

This is also why there's so much talk of game tweaking. Really very few people already attending tournaments are going to stop just b/c some of the more extreme possibilities don't exist, while a lot of the average middle grounders are going to find it a little more accepting and a little less "you have to do tons of research and spend money flawlessly to have any chance of bringing even a half-capable TAC list to an event these days."

MVBrandt wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thimn wrote:
So to balance Seer Councils and Screamers, we should field Seer councils and Screamers? If something is balanced everything has a shot.

GW clearly isn't balancing on a unit by unit basis, they're doing it on an army by army basis instead (and not doing a very good job of it at that). Every army, I think, has the tools available to it to defeat any other army, but it requires fielding very particular units/builds, which may or may not be fluffy, etc. In short, powergame.

I don't believe GW is playtesting or balancing anything, at all, even a little bit. That doesn't mean the game is bad, but the less balance it is, the better it is for power and group gamers ... the worse it is for LGS and average gamers.

I bet they don't do much/any playtesting simply because when was the last time a tactical squad changed? I mean they've pretty much been the same since I started play at about the middle of 5th, and I can only assume they've not changed much in editions prior. I bet they look at something and go, "if we give it this, that, and another thing, it should probably cost x points." then they let it sit and just put it into the final product.

I'm sure a small closed beta would have done wonders for finding out broken things in the codices, but oh well.

 Alfndrate wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thimn wrote:
So to balance Seer Councils and Screamers, we should field Seer councils and Screamers? If something is balanced everything has a shot.

GW clearly isn't balancing on a unit by unit basis, they're doing it on an army by army basis instead (and not doing a very good job of it at that). Every army, I think, has the tools available to it to defeat any other army, but it requires fielding very particular units/builds, which may or may not be fluffy, etc. In short, powergame.

I don't believe GW is playtesting or balancing anything, at all, even a little bit. That doesn't mean the game is bad, but the less balance it is, the better it is for power and group gamers ... the worse it is for LGS and average gamers.

I bet they don't do much/any playtesting simply because when was the last time a tactical squad changed? I mean they've pretty much been the same since I started play at about the middle of 5th, and I can only assume they've not changed much in editions prior. I bet they look at something and go, "if we give it this, that, and another thing, it should probably cost x points." then they let it sit and just put it into the final product.

I'm sure a small closed beta would have done wonders for finding out broken things in the codices, but oh well.

Indeed. While waiting for December advent calendar formations and Tyranids to release, our group has been playing a lot of Malifaux ... it inspired a blog post about comparisons with the game ... and the designer of the game actually posted as the first comment (http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/12/beer-pretzels-and-drunken-gremlin.html). Kind of a 180 from what you'd expect from Warhams. GW would do wonders for themselves if they kicked up forums and got people excited about purchases while shifting the bar around testing for a few months before each dex. NOTHING prevents them shifting the bar enough to change models and thus sell sell sell while also keeping the game balanced.

Indeed, you could make the new stuff strong, and different old stuff strong, while still mainting some sembalnce of blance between armies.

There is nothing to stop them from reading forums seeing what players are doing and being like "Oh....we didn't see that..." and FAQing stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are plenty of easy changes they could have made to balance out some of the more broken combos and powers without huge rules overhauls
Change Grimoir to effect Daemon only save.

Make the Warlock power that gives +1 Armor save (or -1 Armor save) warpcharge 2...Now only spirit seers can use it...

Limit Signature systems (or relics in other armies) to a certain point limit or number.

etc.....

MVBrandt wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:
It just seems whichever is the latest xeno codex gets the most hate.

Marines never got complained about - until chaos got heldrakes and then they got added to the complained about category.

Now its just loyalist marines that don't get complained about. It seems any other army is in a state of broken at times.

I'm looking forward to the new nid dex. Then we can all complain about them instead

Honestly all we need is for Nids to have "offensive" Shadows (i.e., it meaningfully messes with the success rate of a psychic power cast), probably ban Formations/Escalation/Stronghold, and the game will be right back to a VERY good state (you don't need to nerf 2+ re-rolls if Tyranid are solid, b/c they'll be able to tarpit screamers and shut down fortune on jetcouncil, meaning neither list becomes viable to bring routinely to a tournament). Currently Tyranid already utterly demolish any kind of Daemon list, and utterly demolish jetstar. Problem is, they're an "old" codex, break your back to play with the correct list (Which involves 0 dakka tyrants for all those who think that's a good Tyranid list ...) in a tournament setting and aren't therefore played by very many people.

So ... honestly ... everyone should hold their horses, cross their fingers for a GOOD Tyranid codex and enjoy the Holidays.

If, on the other hand, Shadows in the Warp becomes an X" aura of "+2 to DTW!" ... well, gak.

Or, the Tyranid codex could have Formations, Lords of War, and D weapons right in the codex. I don't expect a 180 from them at this point. I had hopped the last three releases would do what you hope the Tyranid codex is going to do. I'm not holding my breath; GW has become very unpredictable at this point.

Though yeah, you can't really plan anything until the next official codex release. On the other hand a month or two of the community not knowing what "Official" 40K means is probably not a good thing. I know at least in my area there aren't enough active players right now to get picky about what expansions/formations/supplements the other guys wants to play.

Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?

 frgsinwntr wrote:
Didn't GW have a facebook post about these things only being optional and not likely in their tournament formats?

GW still hosts tournaments?

 Kirasu wrote:
The term loyalist marines is really broad..You mean Grey Knights and Space wolves? Standard marines rarely if ever get complained about.

How many times were TH/SS Terminators or Vulkan called OP? There was plenty of whining, in fact so much whining that people started complaining about any MEQ as "easy mode". As a BT player I was more than a little annoyed at that...