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.

Even in Rogue Trader the game was "broken" from a balance point of view. Landraiders and Rhino's had void shields, for heavens sake!

40K is never going to be a balanced "tournament friendly" game. It's designed by Brits, who don't tend to be as competitive when it comes to our hobbies (generally, if we're feeling competitive, we play sports). Even I, a former assistant Tournament Organiser and 40K podcaster, (and presently an occasional competitive player in local tournaments) am considered a "fluffy" player by the standards of much of the rest of the world. Whereas here, I keep getting poked with reminders to turn down the cheese in my lists when I book a friendly game.

Basically, it comes down to this: if you want to play tournament style (or even simply "balanced") wargames, 40K is not the ideal rules system for you. I'd recommend that you try Malifaux, Bushido or Warmahordes instead, all of which are designed with balance and tournament play in mind.

Ultimately, 40K was designed as a game you sit down and play with your mates on a Sunday afternoon. It's never going to become the balanced "tournament" game that a fairly small but very vocal part of the community wants it to be.

Remember, most 40K players don't post on Dakka. Don't comment on other forums and don't play competitively, (or play for fun frequently enough) to care about game balance. Those of us who play tournaments or even just want to play a balanced game a couple of times a week are in the minority. Even more so considering that increasing numbers of competitively minded 40K gamers are moving to other game systems.

Incorporating balance into the rules is entirely against GW design policy and against the corporate mission, vision and values that govern GW.

Granted, it was less of an arms-race when Brian Ansell ran the show and just a case that the design team didn't consciously think about game balance in what was supposed to be a narrative (rather than competitive) war-game. It really was about forging a narrative back then even though those weren't the words used at the time. It's only since the business-minded types took control of the firm that GW has deliberately incorporated "power creep" into it's design philosophy as a marketing tool to make us plastic-addicts go out and buy a new army every now and then.

The design teams remit is not to go out there and tweak every edition to get a more balanced, perfect set of rules. It's job is to tweak every edition to change the emphasis from one type of play to another. Thus we've had the mech edition, the assault edition, the current shooty edition etc. Basically forcing all of us to go out and buy new models for every army we own to adapt it the current edition.

It's something that we, as 40K players, have to accept ( as much as we hate it) unless we want to switch to another game system altogether.

You know it is a Strength D MELEE weapon right? In fact the knights stats given in the rumors have made them seem fairly balanced for their price. Models seem to look pretty good too.

There are some things that have definitely been poorly balanced. However whether you or others abuse them is entirely up to the individuals. Usually when this sort of stuff comes to a heat it is best to run a campaign or alternative missions so that the units that are best at completing the missions have a chance to change. For example the black legion supplement mission where the CSM player surrounds the other player who is in the middle is murder on serpent spam list who will have to expose rear armour and cannot play from the board edge as is their wont. The forgeworld campaigns require specific lists to play and you should sub out similar for similar in them. They breath a lot of fresh air into the game.

Knights are just more escalation stuff (they are super-heavys and have D weapons), and last I checked most people weren't playing escalation. So, I don't think players of "conventional" 40k have any reason to be concerned.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
500 points fixes a lot of problems...

Yes, and the kill team option does look appealing.

These guys are pointing you in the right direction. This game has lost its way. Small skirmish play makes it feel like the days of old.

Me and my friends are all grabbing one.

Personally, I can't wait for the inevitable 200mm based chaos titan that births 2d3 chaos riptides/turn. Any army will be able to use it. It will come pre-painted and assembled, of course.

/bemused sarcasm

lol.

It's the gigagon. It randomly spawns tervigons. Which randomly spawn termagaunts, a random number of which can be bio-morphed into a single gigagon.

With the exception of the stupid-poor writing of Riptides and Wave Serpents, and the decision to give every Eldar model with a shuriken weapon pseudo-rending and mostly BS4 (ugh why, when can I get my twinlinked lasguns or instant death bolters please) the handling of this edition has been fine.

Knights aren't going to change the meta for squat. 50-75% of the community at least will automatically ignore them, and even if introduced they're not earth-shattering.

I think the fact that the designers have actually considered overall balance and the meta, although possibly inadvertently, is definitely worthy of praise. I'm glad Marines got Grav-Guns and Grav Centurions capable of demolishing Riptides full stop, because otherwise it would have proven far more difficult to fell the things.

The fact that each Codex has a massively powerful unit that stands out massively is nothing new at all.

Take 5th Ed Codexes for instance.

Space Marines: Hammernators
Imperial Guard: Vendettas
Space Wolves: Long Fangs/Grey Hunters/Rune Priests (could be argued it was ANY of those)
Necrons: Lords with MSS (auto-win against characters), Annihilation Barges
Orks: Nob Bikerz
Tyranids: Tervigons
Chaos Space Marines: Lash Prince/Plague Marines
Dark Eldar: Venoms
Grey Knights: Paladin stars.

Seriously. Most competitive/tournament lists for those armies used those units ad nauseam. So this whole stupid shtick about 40k going down hill in unique fashion because of select units is delusional and moronic.

I completely agree with you OP

 Mr.Omega wrote:


Seriously. Most competitive/tournament lists for those armies used those units ad nauseam. So this whole stupid shtick about 40k going down hill in unique fashion because of select units is delusional and moronic.

But a continued cycle of poorly balanced deathstars and escalating game sizes with S: D weapons available is to be lauded and/or dismissed as par for the course?

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


Seriously. Most competitive/tournament lists for those armies used those units ad nauseam. So this whole stupid shtick about 40k going down hill in unique fashion because of select units is delusional and moronic.

But a continued cycle of poorly balanced deathstars and escalating game sizes with S: D weapons available is to be lauded and/or dismissed as par for the course?

Draigowing/Raider Vulkan or Dorn-Hammernatorstar/5th Ed Seerstar/IG Platoon Powerblobstar/4th Ed Codex Deathwing Command Squad Star/Nob Bikerstar would very much like to have a word with you.

Escalating game sizes? That's not a universal fact, probably not even statistically true. Strength D is dismissed by most of the community save in exceptional circumstances like Apocalypse and Escalation tournaments where extra rules can come into play, and while trouble is presented by their inclusion its not like you're forced to play those people who field them if you want to be a stubborn bigot.

If you don't like the game sell your models and move on.

I spent a year+ away from the game because it got burnt out. I wasn't being flexible and didn't feel like chasing the new "competitive" build.

Played the other day and had a good time.

Check out historical wargaming where their aren't any "new" model because......


The battles you are recreating already happened!!!!!

 Mr.Omega wrote:


Draigowing/Raider Vulkan or Dorn-Hammernatorstar/5th Ed Seerstar/IG Platoon Powerblobstar/4th Ed Codex Deathwing Command Squad Star/Nob Bikerstar would very much like to have a word with you.

Escalating game sizes? That's not a universal fact, probably not even statistically true. Strength D is dismissed by most of the community save in exceptional circumstances like Apocalypse and Escalation tournaments where extra rules can come into play, and while trouble is presented by their inclusion its not like you're forced to play those people who field them if you want to be a stubborn bigot.

Erm, that's exactly my point. Why shouldn't people be upset about a constant cycle of crazy powerful deathstars that make a mockery of internal balance, and to a lesser extent, external balance? Just because its been that way for a while doesn't mean it should continue, nor should people stop pointing out that its a flaw.

The game has been designed to be played at increasing point values. Between double force org, reduced cost of models (points wise) and the release of Escalation and Stronghold only point to GW leading the game to higher point values.

The fact that the community has to be relied upon to make certain 'unofficial rulings' or 'assumptions' about how the game should be played speaks volumes for the state of the game. Ignoring it because you think those people are just being delusional and moronic for pointing out that they're flaws in the games design only shows a certain bias in your views.

You can't hand wave away the problems as being a non-issue and claim the game is fine. The problems are there. People saying they're problems are not being delusional and moronic.

Deadnight wrote:

Mate, this isnt new.

the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.

Just wanted to say yep, I remember all of those. Especially the Star Cannons and Blood Angels and the rage they induced. Hoo boy. A lot of people thought the former were utterly ridiculous when they came out and Blood Angel armies were near ubiquitous for a time then too.

Hmm... From the sound of this... I should just tall scale a few of my marines for fun, and offload the rest onto ebay while the gettins good I think my painting queue would not mind one whit.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:


Draigowing/Raider Vulkan or Dorn-Hammernatorstar/5th Ed Seerstar/IG Platoon Powerblobstar/4th Ed Codex Deathwing Command Squad Star/Nob Bikerstar would very much like to have a word with you.

Escalating game sizes? That's not a universal fact, probably not even statistically true. Strength D is dismissed by most of the community save in exceptional circumstances like Apocalypse and Escalation tournaments where extra rules can come into play, and while trouble is presented by their inclusion its not like you're forced to play those people who field them if you want to be a stubborn bigot.

Erm, that's exactly my point. Why shouldn't people be upset about a constant cycle of crazy powerful deathstars that make a mockery of internal balance, and to a lesser extent, external balance? Just because its been that way for a while doesn't mean it should continue, nor should people stop pointing out that its a flaw.

People should stop treating it as though its a new trend, or as though they're special for quitting over it at the current period. Odds are its not going to change because Deathstars are an accepted part of the game and balance can't always be perfect, and the latter is true for any and all games. I'm not saying they shouldn't be upset.

The game has been designed to be played at increasing point values. Between double force org, reduced cost of models (points wise) and the release of Escalation and Stronghold only point to GW leading the game to higher point values.

You've stated cause but there is little to no effect like what you're implying, so this point is kind of moot. This just leads to bigger games overall in model count, which is not the same as the community playing points wise bigger games. And so what if they are, you don't have to cow-tow to their routine like the rest of your attitude implies is mandatory.

The fact that the community has to be relied upon to make certain 'unofficial rulings' or 'assumptions' about how the game should be played speaks volumes for the state of the game.

No, it really doesn't. Unofficial rulings and assumptions are a key part of any hobby group for any wargame. Unless your group is a no limit, super-competitive arena one (even then you'll find them), you're going to have these unofficial rulings and assumptions that ask and make people tone down their lists and/or be fluffy. In some games like Flames of War some books in some periods get excluded for various reasons, and the pretty big and somewhat official (from what I can tell) tournaments held near me have numerous unofficial rules changes like not being able to field artillery if you took naval gun support.

Frankly, the fact that the pitifully short wording in two books has people in tears because they feel forced or pressured to use game-altering supplements, whereas with other GW or FW supplements, particularly with trashy rules (cough cough planetstrike) are already off the table without a word (which with FW is even sillier as every scrap of wording implies they're part of the main game on the same level as Esc./SA yet they're excluded because people bitch about what suits them best) is pretty stupid to me.

Ignoring it because you think those people are just being delusional and moronic for pointing out that they're flaws in the games design only shows a certain bias in your views.

Delusional and moronic for saying that it's anything new as stated previously, you got this the wrong way round.

You can't hand wave away the problems as being a non-issue and claim the game is fine.

Uh, this a fundamental flaw in your logic. They're of exaggerated significance, and cried about when they can just be ignored on a level where maybe you even find other people to play, or convince your group in consensus to ignore them, or just adapt.

The problems are there. People saying they're problems are not being delusional and moronic.

Except if they're wrong.

I'm starting Kill Team this weekend. Also, started two other game systems this week.

Did they update kill team recently or is it still pretty much take 300 points but squads become individuals etc.. ?

Yes, "new" data slate. 200 points, at least 4 dudes, one leader...etc.

Hmm may have to check it out before I box up and sell my defunct 40k armies.. thanks

 Mr.Omega wrote:


People should stop treating it as though its a new trend, or as though they're special for quitting over it at the current period. Odds are its not going to change because Deathstars are an accepted part of the game and balance can't always be perfect, and the latter is true for any and all games. I'm not saying they shouldn't be upset.


You've stated cause but there is little to no effect like what you're implying, so this point is kind of moot. This just leads to bigger games overall in model count, which is not the same as the community playing points wise bigger games. And so what if they are, you don't have to cow-tow to their routine like the rest of your attitude implies is mandatory.

No, it really doesn't. Unofficial rulings and assumptions are a key part of any hobby group for any wargame. Unless your group is a no limit, super-competitive arena one (even then you'll find them), you're going to have these unofficial rulings and assumptions that ask and make people tone down their lists and/or be fluffy. In some games like Flames of War some books in some periods get excluded for various reasons, and the pretty big and somewhat official (from what I can tell) tournaments held near me have numerous unofficial rules changes like not being able to field artillery if you took naval gun support.

Frankly, the fact that the pitifully short wording in two books has people in tears because they feel forced or pressured to use game-altering supplements, whereas with other GW or FW supplements, particularly with trashy rules (cough cough planetstrike) are already off the table without a word (which with FW is even sillier as every scrap of wording implies they're part of the main game on the same level as Esc./SA yet they're excluded because people bitch about what suits them best) is pretty stupid to me.

Delusional and moronic for saying that it's anything new as stated previously, you got this the wrong way round.

Uh, this a fundamental flaw in your logic. They're of exaggerated significance, and cried about when they can just be ignored on a level where maybe you even find other people to play, or convince your group in consensus to ignore them, or just adapt.


Except if they're wrong.

On an unrelated note, its a little difficult to pick out your stuff when its only bolded. Maybe a different colour would help make it pop a little more.

I'll try to address this in the order its presented.

No one's saying that isn't a new trend, but a lot people are certainly unhappy the trend is continuing. Furthermore, no one's saying the balance should be perfect, but deathstars are a symptom of poor balance, especially internally. Some people would like to see that type of trend go away and are simply disappointed in the trend continuing with even more broken stuff like 2++ re-rollable deathstars.

My point about the game size growing larger was from a mechanical perspective; the costs of the models, the additions like double force org and allies, and things like Escalation all point towards the game rules designed at least in part with these things in mind. When you combine that with the rules change that would be more fitting in a skirmish level game, it makes you scratch your head at the intention of the game designer. And of course I don't have to follow their intention, but that's neither my point nor relevant either. I'm discussing game mechanics. It means 40k is a confused game when it comes to its scale; is it a skirmish game or a company level game better suited for 15mm models?

A game should be able to function on its own without community rulings; where such exist it shows a failure in a certain part of that game's design. Regardless of how other games fare in this department, the degree to which 40k is divided in the community is awful. The divide between 'competitive' and 'non-competitive' is based purely on the lack of balance between codices and the units within them. If the codices were balanced, there wouldn't be a distinction between a 'fluffy' list a 'non-fluffy' list. I think its stupid also the way the community is also divided on matters concerning what is 'normal' 40k, but that only shows how poorly balanced and written the game is.

Maybe we're just having a slight misunderstanding, but I agree that saying its new is incorrect, but disliking it is perfectly acceptable. Much of these problems have existed for some time, a lot of us are just tired of it still being an issue.

Its not a flaw in my logic. You being able to say its a non-issue is fine for you, but it may very much be a big issue for other players. Who are you to say its a minor problem for someone else? Who are you to judge what is an acceptable thing to complain about? Most people who do discuss these problems are also adapting and building better rules. It doesn't preclude from also discussing the flaws in the game.

Its never a good way to end a discussion by claiming people are wrong, just because. Why? Maybe explain a little more at the end. Have some sort of conclusion. Waving people away and calling them delusional and moronic because you think they're wrong is not a good way to convince anyone of your position.

 LeadLegion wrote:
Ultimately, 40K was designed as a game you sit down and play with your mates on a Sunday afternoon.

But it really isn't. 40k is designed to be a "game" that can be used to show kids how awesome their new space marine models are going to be. The idea of being able to play with them is just bait to put in front of the customers and hope to get more sales, whether or not anyone actually plays the game is a distant secondary concern. So you get a minimal-effort game that's maybe adequate for pushing some space marines around the table occasionally, but not much else. And you have a company that clearly has no interest in improving the game because the additional sales to people who like the improved game would not be enough to justify paying competent game designers to make it. It's much more efficient to hire the incompetents who can't get a job anywhere else and have them do a rush job every time you have a new model to sell. And hey, when tax season comes around you can write off their salaries as a charitable donation!

A casual "mates on a sunday afternoon" version of 40k that was specifically designed for that purpose would have much better balance, much more straightforward rules, and be a lot more fun.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Lately I am actually gearing up for some idiotically small games of 2nd edition 40K. Like >500pts. It's essentially Kill Team mixed with Necromunda.

I too am doing exactly this!

I've made an Eldar and a Chaos Marine list, at 600 pts in 6th and at 1200 pts in 2nd, and I'm going to do a matching pair of battle reports. Once I get a mate to join me that is...

OP, this is exactly how I felt about all of the Imperial codices in 5th edition.

Arms race? Latest and Greatest codex?

Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.

What you've done is noticed that each edition has a handful of "most powerful armies/units", that's wargaming. There's always been an optimum loadout, you can either chase it forever or just play the game with like minded folks and ignore them.

Just to echo what someone said earlier, if it's stopped being fun, stop playing. Otherwise you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

People are saying all this has happened before. Yes arms races have. But not with nuclear weapons! The WWI and II arms races still made a strong and large military relevant. The cold war and nuclear weapons changed that (well after korea anyway).
Ranged D weapons are the equivalent. The game becomes small cheap MSU armies supporting a d weapon platform because nobody wants to lose 500pts in one roll of the dice.
Now I have not actually seen this happen, but GW have put the potential there for it to occur. Just gotta cross our fingers that it doesnt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There have always been unbalanced codecies. But there have not always been nuclear weapons for all.

I think the only ranged D weapon outside of FW is the Revenant and even that's in the God of War slot. Play without the GoW slot and poof, all gone. Well, that's not totally true, I think there's a D weapon in Stronghold?

Just don't play with D weapons, GW have basically said "Here are rules for of you wanted Titans and other crazy stuff in 40k, a halfway between normal 40k and Apocalypse" if you don't want to use them then don't use them in your games, it's a very simple solution.

Also however silly D weapons get they will never outstrip the Virus Outbreak card from 2nd ed so yes, we have had nuclear weapons before, hell, 2nd Ed Eldar could easily be considered the nuclear response all by themselves.

And then there is the shining example of the Tyranid Codex:
1.) No allies of any sort.
2.) No Titans
3.) No D weapons
4.) No anti-aircraft
5.) No good units
6.) Only competitive units nerfed
7.) Several units deleted because they can.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes, thats why I play 500 points mostly.

You wanna face my 500 pt list with a Riptide in it?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes, thats why I play 500 points mostly.

You wanna face my 500 pt list with a Riptide in it?

When the riptide first came out, and we knew nothing about it, someone did use it. I killed it with lascannons. I havent played Tau since but im sure next time I wont be so lucky. So no I dont really want to play it again lol. I also think it looks ugly as a model.