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.

Well, if anyone's interested, I'm pretty good at offering unbiased analysis. I didn't like 3rd because meqs were too good, but I hated 2nd because non-chaos meqs were hopeless.

I have no trouble taking out wave serpents. Almost tabled the guy who came in 2nd behind me (first) at the last region tourney. A lot of times, it is the order you fire which weapons at them. Forexample, many will start off with shooting a manticore at them and then move to the autocannons and then las cannons.. I would fire the las cannons at the first as they are hole punchers that would otherwise only kill a single pointy ear. Then, i would move to the autocannons as they still have a fair chance of destroying it and would only hit 2 at most elves after they roll out. THEN, only after failing with all else will I fire the manticore at it because if it is popped before then (and it usually is), you can pie plate over the entire unit rolling out instead of just one or two. little tricks like that add up in no time at all to spell victory.

Is this with Imperial Guard? I've often hypothesized that the IG can bring enough pew pew to grind through all the cheesy elf defenses. OF course, I also maintain that the IG book is still better than any meq book, including the new one. With meqs, you need lucky grav hits or they might as well be immortal. The CSM and DA are just hosed.

Is the problem with the core rules themselves, or with the expanded rules via Codex, Supplements, Expansions? Seems to me that the main problem is really with poor play testing of new mechanics introduced in the expanded rules.

For example, 2++ rerollable wasn't possible until Codex: Chaos Daemons made it a reality. D-weapons weren't an issue until Escalation introduced them to standard 40K. Balance issues don't come from the core rules, they come from poorly playtested Codices that try to cram every possible advantage over the previous army that was released. I feel that with this, the issue really is that you have individuals leading the efforts on different armies, and they likely don't collaborate near enough to make sure these things balance out. Anybody with half a brain would have seen that the 2++ rerollable Lord of Change was a bad idea, or that dedicated transports bearing an extreme range gun with good strength, potential for re-rolling missed shots, and IGNORES COVER wouldn't be abused.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Is the problem with the core rules themselves, or with the expanded rules via Codex, Supplements, Expansions? Seems to me that the main problem is really with poor play testing of new mechanics introduced in the expanded rules.

For example, 2++ rerollable wasn't possible until Codex: Chaos Daemons made it a reality. D-weapons weren't an issue until Escalation introduced them to standard 40K. Balance issues don't come from the core rules, they come from poorly playtested Codices that try to cram every possible advantage over the previous army that was released. I feel that with this, the issue really is that you have individuals leading the efforts on different armies, and they likely don't collaborate near enough to make sure these things balance out. Anybody with half a brain would have seen that the 2++ rerollable Lord of Change was a bad idea, or that dedicated transports bearing an extreme range gun with good strength, potential for re-rolling missed shots, and IGNORES COVER wouldn't be abused.

I'd have said that the BRB is the source of the problems, and that this has been compounded on with every new release.

Martel732 wrote:
Is this with Imperial Guard? I've often hypothesized that the IG can bring enough pew pew to grind through all the cheesy elf defenses. OF course, I also maintain that the IG book is still better than any meq book, including the new one. With meqs, you need lucky grav hits or they might as well be immortal. The CSM and DA are just hosed.

yes, this is with my guard. it seems that each army is "stronger" against some armies and "weaker" against others. Against eldar, it is looking like my guard is fairly strong against eldar.
i think this goes beyond the guns though. For example, my guard swing last against almost every army out there while the eldar specialty is to swing first and they give up toughness and strength to make up forit. Against guard, this eldar trade off is wasted and is actually a detriment to them as it makes them less likely to wound me, more likely for me to wound them and they woulda swung first anyway.

Isn't being multi assulted by the seer council a serious problem? Wave serpents are broken, but they are far more broken in context of the Eldar lists that contain Seer Council and Warp Spiders.

The seer, multiple farseer, baron biker council does hurt me. The only thing i can do is use flamers if i can, hellhound, stuff like that (or a coatex unit of monkeys with the right div power) as allies..
Of course, this is the case with about every army and a prime example of how battle brothers in allies is broken. Love the idea of allies, hate the battle brothers aspect as it allows too many unintended combos.

Allies wouldn't matter as much if immortal units with 2+ rerollable didn't exist. The Baron only matters because the best tactic with the seer council is to tarpit.

i thought he gave them stealth or shrown which gave them the 2+ and that without him it would be 3+?

 EVIL INC wrote:
i thought he gave them stealth or shrown which gave them the 2+ and that without him it would be 3+?

Yeah, but what he really gives them is hit and run. The rest is just details.

Ahh,thanx. Hadnt realized that. I can see where that can be OP against some armies.
The extra +1 on the saves is what kills me. The hit and run doesnt really come into effect against me as they kil y unit on the turn they asault. .

Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?

Martel732 wrote:
Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?

Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Is the problem with the core rules themselves, or with the expanded rules via Codex, Supplements, Expansions?

Both. The core rules are a bloated mess, and GW has no idea whether they want the game to do (small infantry skirmishes with a focus on heroic characters, epic tank battles, etc). Then on top of that mess you add bad codex/expansion rules with no playtesting. Honestly it's a small miracle that 40k's balance and quality aren't even worse than they are now.

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?

Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.

I don't quite understand this post.

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?

Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.

I don't quite understand this post.

Well. Where Evil Inc said "I can see where that can be OP against some armies.", and you replied "Try all armies.", my brain did a backflip.
And told me that fliers and ordnance care not for deathstars, as they're infantry. And thus can be avoided/blown to bits with the right force.

But, then again, I know little of the codex this deathstar comes from.

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?

Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.

I don't quite understand this post.

Well. Where Evil Inc said "I can see where that can be OP against some armies.", and you replied "Try all armies.", my brain did a backflip.
And told me that fliers and ordnance care not for deathstars, as they're infantry. And thus can be avoided/blown to bits with the right force.

But, then again, I know little of the codex this deathstar comes from.

Fliers can't hurt the Seer Council and neither can Ordnance really. And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Some armies? Try all armies. An immortal unit that can't be tarpitted?

Aaaannnddd incomes the fliers and ordnance.

I don't quite understand this post.

Well. Where Evil Inc said "I can see where that can be OP against some armies.", and you replied "Try all armies.", my brain did a backflip.
And told me that fliers and ordnance care not for deathstars, as they're infantry. And thus can be avoided/blown to bits with the right force.

But, then again, I know little of the codex this deathstar comes from.

Fliers can't hurt the Seer Council and neither can Ordnance really. And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.

I can't forget what I'm currently ignorant to.
Though, I do see how you're probably right.

i said some armies because with some armies, it plays a larger role. Against my army for example, H&R doesnt play a big role as they kill me on the charge. against an army that can standup to the assault and actually fight back , it plays a larger role.

Oh, yes. I see that point then. They are a nightmare for every list. In fact, Seer Council backed up by serpent/war spider is probaly the strongest thing in the game right now. Barring FW. But I haven't heard of any FW stuff better than Seer Council.

Martel732 wrote:

And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.

I'm not following this. I've seen this referenced a couple of times in this topic indicating that the Seer Council can split up in the last (or any) turn. Where exactly is this described because the Eldar codex doesn't reference this in any way that I can find.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

And don't forget the last turn scatter drill for the Seer Council.

I'm not following this. I've seen this referenced a couple of times in this topic indicating that the Seer Council can split up in the last (or any) turn. Where exactly is this described because the Eldar codex doesn't reference this in any way that I can find.

I know the Farseers at least can do it because they are ICs and can split off. So can the Baron.

seems highly effective to suddenly contest 3 or 4 separate objectives that the enemy thought the "had".

i hate to jump on the bandwagon, but i love it when people say the rules aren't that bad, and people can play games with no issues, and always use the D6 process of "fixing rules issues". the current rules are terrible. 40k suffers from, as a whole, inconsistent verbiage use, inconsistent definitions, inconsistent analogy, and inconsistent methodology and nomenclature when discussing feature, functions, abilities, capabilities, options, ect ect...

It is very clear that whoever wrote these rules has never once stepped into any form of a technical writing class, or have themselves ever read any type of rule book with which to draw inspiration or at a minimum organization from.

People can play a game without arguing/debating/actively discussing a rule? I doubt this. I haven't seen a game of warhammer in 6th edition yet not stall in some kind of questions/debate and sometimes argument about how the rules work. While the degree of the discussion is certainly different between players, every game i have played and seen in 6th has ALWAYS resulted back to two people spending 15 min looking through their books, ipads, websites, and finally giving up and rolling a D6 on it...and that brings me to my personal favorite, - lets 4+ it and see what happens.

If this is a mainstay rule in any game system, its fundamentally broken. something has stopped working properly. I understand that you cant possibly cover ALL rules interactions throughout the course of developing a game system, but after 25 years you would think someone has a handle on it. instead, we get the steadfast rule of "if you don't know, then just roll a dice on it if it isn't clear in the BRB." Honestly through, that doesn't bother me as much as GW using this as a method to actually ANSWER questions in their own FAQ, which is a document comprised to do the exact opposite of providing ambiguity. The other problem is that gamers love rules, because we love to push them, bend them, and skirt them. Gamers love to play games where we can use some really cool trick to win with, or we get to use this awesome unit because they kill stuff ridiculous all over the place. Gamers also have to be right. games don't agree on "rolling dice" to see how this rule works, because games want consistency in how they approach the rules, and rolling a D6 just doesn't cut it when you have invested more into this game than the price of your car. no one wants to buy a unit of whatever and it completely sucks half of the time because the rules aren't clear and all you can do is "D6 it." thats like throwing away money, and a good chunk of it now given GWs prices, to not have a unit play the way YOU think it should play because the freaking rules are specific or accurate.

But, the biggest problem is that gamers have to have a standard. There has to be one source that releases rules that says "hey guys, this is how your toy army men will play, and this is the number of dice you need to roll". Gamers cannot be left to themselves to govern this, because then stuff gets more broken (is it possible) than it is now. Whether your a competitive player or a fluff bunny that "never plays to win", there has to be consistency in the rules set that allows players to go from one game to the next and somewhat have a reasonable expectation of what the experience will be. with independent development of rules, that simply cant happen.

honestly, i still have my ultramarines, and some Templars and other stuff, but they sit around and collect dust. even in my small town, i have no problems finding war machine players and hordes players and have been having a fun time playing those games. i don't think gamers will be able to unite to fix this game. gamers will not unite. our very definition defies that process. however, there are alternatives. i found a few, and from what i gather, there is a group looking up to start AT43, and im super interested in that, so i may be moving on to the next game. who knows.

point is, gamers cant fix this. there has to be a singular set of rules and one voice to bring them out. stick to house rules. they will make games more palatable until the next edition where submarines are the next flyers and they can destroy half of the board in one turn, or when someone else gets a new codex, or when the FOC just doesn't matter anymore and they go back to a % based system like in 2nd edition, so you can take even more allies with more data slates, and all kinds of other fun and new and exciting ways to completely ruin a game.

i guess the good news is that if GW keeps breaking gak at the rate they are doing it, sooner or later, everyone is just playing horribly broken stuff, and that, oddly, will bring al ittle balance back.

In the mean time, as i have seen so many times, GW compared to MTG and Hasbro, i will say this.

5 color control was terrible for the game of magic. the color pie didnt matter and colors lost all of their uniqueness to them. since that standard rotation, while lorwyn Shards were in, Hasbro has been increasingly launching more crazy and broken stuff to "balance" the color pie out.

it hasnt worked yet. it wont work here.

lets just hope that when GW does sell their business to hasbro, or whatever they are planning on doing, the next people who get the IP, and the chance to do something about it, know that games like organized play, gamers need structure, and gamers need concise rules that make sense.

if they do that, 40k will be one hell of a game agian. and the ultramarines will show back up in my local segmentum.

Silly question, but wouldn't it be easier to simply come together as a community and buyout GW? Feth, I'd throw money at a Dakka Kickstarter whose sole purpose would be to take over GW.

That would be even less feasible than the community coming together on a ruleset they made themselves, for the same reasons discussed earlier. Money would have to be spent to take the company in a direction that can't be agreed upon, because there will always be a vocal group whe feel they're getting the short end of the stick, so the money won't come. While I'm sure many of us want GW to have a change in management, the 40k community is too splintered and widespread in opinion that there will be no total satisfaction and acceptance of wherever it heads afterward.

What exactly are the problems? I myself have not had any rules that cannot be resolved by sensible discussion. With my opponent.

madd_leeroy wrote:
What exactly are the problems? I myself have not had any rules that cannot be resolved by sensible discussion. With my opponent.

The fact that it has to be done every few rules, and that the whole thing is incredibly unbalanced. And takes forever to play.

madd_leeroy wrote:
What exactly are the problems? I myself have not had any rules that cannot be resolved by sensible discussion. With my opponent.

The very fact that you have to have those discussions in the first place beyond "Let's go look and see what the rules say." for one. Take a look at any of the 5/10/20+ page topics in the YMDC forum. Unfortunately, not everyone that plays 40k has the luxury of having regular opponents with which to sit down and discuss the various rules issues.