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.

 Therion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Wow, by that definition, tactical marines have an awful lot of "hard counters".

Of course they do, and they counter almost noone in turn. Just in case you were wondering, they also suck, and have sucked forever. That's why people refered to Marines with deck chairs, where one guy is holding the lascannon and the rest are waiting to die.

LOL. That's worth price of admission right there.

 azreal13 wrote:


At no point have you actually argued anything other than semantics. Undercosted is exactly the same thing as overpowered, it is just there is clearly a tipping point where some things are so far undercosted that in order for them to become fairly priced, it is a more practical solution to alter their rules than to try and find a points cost that accurately reflects their abilities in game.

This is literally what I've been saying since page 5

 TheCaptain wrote:


I maintain there is a definite distinction between OP and Undercosted, as some rules are fine and simply not in sync with their price, while other rules, even ones that arent made up and are actually in the game, need an Errata, not a price raise.
-TheCaptain

Im new to the boards but I think I agree with real power house units need to have more points applied to them. Where I came from my LGS forum was flooded with a bunch of players that are what is it? TFG? The forums deteriated into childish name calling instead of working something out. So far I agree with a points increase to Power House Units. also where I came from Units with Str D were a huge debate, a can of worms im sure have been debated here as I get to know this forum.

Undercosted and overpowered aren't the same thing, but are often related. For example, the hypothetical "God Mode" IG squad on a previous page is both, to the point where it wouldn't ever be usable because the rules are just insane.

However, let's take something like the Wave Serpent. Is it overpowered? Likely. Is it undercosted? Most definitely. If it cost more, would it balance out? Probably. The Riptide, or Wraithknight or Heldrake is another example, as is the Necron Night Scythes. These things are overpowered but not because they are inherently broken but because they are too cheap for how effective they are, which has the added caveat of allowing/enabling them to be spammed. Would there be as many complaints about the Riptide if they cost enough so that you couldn't field more than one Riptide in a normal sized game? I don't think there would be, because then you have a powerful unit but one that can be countered.

On the subject of actual balance I'll reiterate that I'm not asking for everything to be entirely equal, merely that every choice be viable in some way and combinations be able to work. I want a game where I can pick units that I like the look of or like the background of, and know that I'm building a themed list that isn't going to just get wiped off the table because the units I like happen to be way underpowered and "useless" in a game compared to other options that I might not like or don't fit. For example, if I really want a Khorne army with lots of Berserkers and close combat, should I be penalized and end up losing most games because I happened to choose a weak unit? NO! The game should be balanced so that a reasonable all Berserker force has a chance of winning with a good general who uses their units to their advantage; that's not to say that you should be able to win if you take nothing but close combat and have no support whatsoever; that's foolish. However, you shouldn't be penalized SIMPLY for picking units that you enjoy, and the rules should be flexible enough to allow for themed armies without penalizing them. For example, if I want an all Terminator army I should be allowed to field it, and assuming that I'm a competent commander and that I'm making reasonable choices (that would naturally be in support of a Terminator company) then I should have a reasonable chance to win with everything else being equal.

I have also had a thought of taking something from the warmachine hordes books. They have a "Field allowance" some units can only have one per army some only 2. Would that be an idea in stopping people from taking 3 Riptides etc?

That wouldn't be necessary if they were pointed appropriately. Or they were crappy walkers like the marines have.

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
I have also had a thought of taking something from the warmachine hordes books. They have a "Field allowance" some units can only have one per army some only 2. Would that be an idea in stopping people from taking 3 Riptides etc?

Can'ts be selling all dem shinies with rules like that.

PP does. at least in my LGS. The shelves are usualy picked clean of any one model that is real good for its particular faction. As soon as they get a shipment in poof is sold within the week.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Undercosted is exactly the same thing as overpowered, it is just there is clearly a tipping point where some things are so far undercosted that in order for them to become fairly priced, it is a more practical solution to alter their rules than to try and find a points cost that accurately reflects their abilities in game.

But that's why they're not the same thing. You can have abilities that come about due to a combination of rules, that when looked at apart are perfectly costed for what they do but when brought together are far greater than the sum of their parts (psychic powers show this tendency all the time). Points aren't always the solution, and "overpowered/undercosted vs "underpowered/overcosted" isn't the same thing.

There are some things that can be incredibly underpowered, yet making them free wouldn't change the fact that other things better fulfil their role. This is what balance should strive to achieve, far more than just getting the points costs right. Making something useful isn't the same as getting something's cost right. Getting the cost right is only part of it.

Of course, things like psychic powers don't technically cost points (anymore) which means they can't be balanced as such, and in fact random powers are a brilliant example of how little GW care for balance in the current edition, as there are so frequently examples where certain choices are head and shoulders above others. Therefore it is impossible to point a psyker fairly, as there efficacy will vary hugely from game to game.

All that said, I still draw no distinction between undercosted/overpowered. Heck, one could even give points back for particularly poor units, it is all still the same principle. Balance solely through points values isn't a good idea, and I haven't claimed as such, but it remains possible, simply not practical.

WayneTheGame wrote:


On the subject of actual balance I'll reiterate that I'm not asking for everything to be entirely equal, merely that every choice be viable in some way and combinations be able to work. I want a game where I can pick units that I like the look of or like the background of, and know that I'm building a themed list that isn't going to just get wiped off the table because the units I like happen to be way underpowered and "useless" in a game compared to other options that I might not like or don't fit. For example, if I really want a Khorne army with lots of Berserkers and close combat, should I be penalized and end up losing most games because I happened to choose a weak unit? NO! The game should be balanced so that a reasonable all Berserker force has a chance of winning with a good general who uses their units to their advantage; that's not to say that you should be able to win if you take nothing but close combat and have no support whatsoever; that's foolish. However, you shouldn't be penalized SIMPLY for picking units that you enjoy, and the rules should be flexible enough to allow for themed armies without penalizing them. For example, if I want an all Terminator army I should be allowed to field it, and assuming that I'm a competent commander and that I'm making reasonable choices (that would naturally be in support of a Terminator company) then I should have a reasonable chance to win with everything else being equal.

The problem with this is that it begs the idea that you can take any unit as a core of your army and have a chance. The fact of the matter is that even good units need specific supports. Even if Berzerkers were good, an all Berzerker force shouldn't be good. Not because the unit is bad, but because lists require unit synergy. A Melee-heavy force should still need fire support and anti-air weaponry, because that makes sense. If the game's units were balanced to the degree that you can literally take whatever units you like and still have a good chance, then list-building won't be relevant at all. It'll just be playing with toys.

I agree certain builds should be more balanced to fit with fluff, but "I like these units so they should be good enough to make an army out of them" just won't work.

It simply wouldn't make sense. An army made of a war boss and a bunch of grots VS. An army of Battlesuits, Riptides, and a Squadron of Vendettas shouldn't be a balanced fight. Not because one army is imbalanced, but because one commander built an army that is actually combat-capable.

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
PP does. at least in my LGS. The shelves are usualy picked clean of any one model that is real good for its particular faction. As soon as they get a shipment in poof is sold within the week.

PP haven't (yet) prostituted the integrity of their game in pursuit of the almighty dollar, consequently they have a more enthusiastic player base, and a ruleset which means that people know they can buy anything made for their faction and likely get some sensible amount of gaming with it.

I guess that GW worships the all mighty dolla is also a problem in the balence.

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
I guess that GW worships the all mighty dolla is also a problem in the balence.

This isn't even conclusive. They will units bad and unusable, and therefore, with poor sales, for multiple editions and codices. I have no idea how they make their decisions.

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
I guess that GW worships the all mighty dolla is also a problem in the balence.

Sort of. It's a root cause, probably, but what it leads to (apathy of rules design, ignorance of rules mechanics that they themselves wrote) is far more damaging.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
I guess that GW worships the all mighty dolla is also a problem in the balence.

Sort of. It's a root cause, probably, but what it leads to (apathy of rules design, ignorance of rules mechanics that they themselves wrote) is far more damaging.

in my opinion they could easily adapt a field allowance of stuff thats considered "rare". Rip Tides for example are just getting out of the proto type stage if im not mistaken? They should be a FA. 1 unit. Its just a thought, adopting that rule will kill sales for sure.

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
I guess that GW worships the all mighty dolla is also a problem in the balence.

Sort of. It's a root cause, probably, but what it leads to (apathy of rules design, ignorance of rules mechanics that they themselves wrote) is far more damaging.

in my opinion they could easily adapt a field allowance of stuff thats considered "rare". Rip Tides for example are just getting out of the proto type stage if im not mistaken? They should be a FA. 1 unit. Its just a thought, adopting that rule will kill sales for sure.

It would take the edge off Riptide sales for sure, but then, Tau players would have to look to other units to fill the gap, leading to increases elsewhere in the range.

Two reasons it won't happen though, firstly, even GW would be unlikely to be unaware of how pissed those players who have already bought multiples would be, and secondly, GW is incredibly risk averse these days, why change something if they're seeing the returns, financially, that they need to? Speaking specifically to Riptide unit sales, rather than the wider financial situation.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, either you think that noobs should play against vets with equal-strength lists, in which case noobs getting repeatedly slaughtered in mirror matches are a good thing, or you think that noobs and vets should play with unequal lists, and imbalance is a good thing.

No, what I think is that the system should be balanced, and adding imbalance in order to go easy on a noob is something that a player can elect to do. That imbalance doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, built into the system because that wrecks the game when you're not playing against someone with a vastly different skill level - as in, for most of us, most of the time.

You keep glossing over the question that has been asked a couple of times now - why is it acceptable for a vet in your imbalanced system to deliberately take a weaker army in order to give a newcomer a chance, while being totally unthinkable for a vet in a more balanced system to just take a points handicap? Or just to not play as hard?

Also, people seem to be falling into the all-or-nothing camp. If a unit isn't quite as strong as another unit that does the same thing, then it's worthless.

And from a purely list-building point of view, that would be correct. If you take a weaker unit when you could have had a stronger unit for the same points cost, all you have done is wasted points.

Sure, you might want to take that unit for fluff reasons, or because you like the models.. but as a tactical choice, taking that unit is a bad one.

If you include even one low-power unit in your army, then you're just going to lose, because your list is worthless.

This, however, is not being said by anyone.

. 40k isn't a game where you show up with your lists and by looking at the strength of them, see who wins without actually playing.

So you keep saying. And yet you keep advocating a game where certain armies are stronger than others by default...

You know how you reduce that problem?

You have armies with more or less even levels of strength... so that the result comes down entirely to luck and player skill, rather than being down to you having GW's current best seller.

People who want a challenge don't want the game to be even because they want to be able to manipulate the inequality.

I want a challenge. But I want that challenge to be me against my opponent, not my codex against his codex. So I want the game to be balanced.

 azreal13 wrote:
Two reasons it won't happen though, firstly, even GW would be unlikely to be unaware of how pissed those players who have already bought multiples would be, and secondly, GW is incredibly risk averse these days, why change something if they're seeing the returns, financially, that they need to? Speaking specifically to Riptide unit sales, rather than the wider financial situation.

There's a third reason - GW doesn't really do 0-1's any more. The only things they really limit (outside of FOC limitations, and even those lines are blurring these days) are Special Characters because even they can't justify a pair of Calgars on the field as part of the same army. 0-1's means that they can't sell as many, which is why they're gone from Codices.

I wonder what would have happened to the Rip Tide and other ilk if it was 0-1 from day one.

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
I wonder what would have happened to the Rip Tide and other ilk if it was 0-1 from day one.

I don't think anything would have happened. They would have been more balanced and less cheese than spamming them, but still a good unit that most people took. I could live with that honestly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Precisely. Points are a useful tool for balancing, but are not balance in and of themselves. Points are not the great leveller. Sometimes things need to have their rules changed.

I almost totally agree (I like points as a pretty darn good leveler, in most, but not all, cases.)

I think most of the things in the game which need to have their rules changed, need that change because their rules don't make sense in the game. Those units have rules which are "too good" (or, maybe more precisely, "too universally applicable"), and nothing in the background justifies or explains it. Increasing the points costs might help, but if the unit doesn't have rules which represent the way it should work on the battlefield, then it needs a rules change.

An overpowered unit which defeats almost everything, for example, doesn't make sense, even at a high points cost, because, in the 'reality' of 40K, something that powerful and destructive and unstoppable would either have been destroyed, or would be dominating galactic conflicts all over the place. If, for example, the 'necron menace' was actually unstoppable, then the narrative of 40K would stop and necrons would win.

For a specific game example, the rerollable 2+ invulnerable save doesn't make a whole lot of sense, simply because it's WAY more protective than a lot of things which 40K tells us are pretty darn protective, like Storm Shields, Shadow Fields, etc. Making it cost more points would help, but the underlying problem is that the rules are a poor representation of what it is supposed to do on the battlefield.

However, I really do think that those situations are pretty darn rare. I think a lot of the overpowered stuff would work with an appropriate increase in points costs.




(The following is not an argument against HBMC. It's just an additional thought tacked onto something else which itself was prompted by what he wrote.)

Now, on the other hand, even if the rules DO represent a unit correctly, there's a good chance, from an editorial/gameplay/narrative viewpoint, that the unit might still not be appropriate for the tabletop. For example, we know Inquisitors can order the Exterminatus of a planet using Cyclonic Torpedos from orbit. That's an established part of 40K Fluff. You could come up with appropriate rules (if your army includes an Inquisitor, you can take Cyclonic Torpedoes). You can come up with an appropriate points cost (let's say, 500 million points, since your inquisitor can reasonably defeat an entire planet of tyranids). It's STILL not a good unit. The rules are accurate. The points cost is appropriate. It's still not what you should see on the battlefield.

-

Omicron-Fenrir wrote:
I guess that GW worships the all mighty dolla is also a problem in the balence.

Ironically, I don't even think that is a problem.

I think GW is allowing their marketing team to define success on their own terms, and on their own metrics, and then turning around and allowing marketing to dictate the direction of the game based on their success in meeting their own self-defined goals.

I think GW's own policy of failing to engage with their fanbase allows them to establish their own, wildly implausible, estimations of what people want, and then generate product based on those estimations.

I think their blinkered, practiced obliviousness to their own internally inconsistent policies and practices allows them to retroactively justify almost any hare-brained decision.

Remember that they decided to stop putting rules in White Dwarf because the need to have multiple rulebooks to play the game was confusing and off-putting to new players? But, somehow, carrying around (even digitally) your rulebook, your Eldar Codex, your Iyanden supplement, your Space Marine Codex, your Imperial Fists supplement, and your Inquisition Codex totally makes sense. That's not confusing. Rules in White Dwarf? Totally confusing to everybody.

In the latest White Dwarf, we learn that:
Jervis likes digital editions because they give him the freedom to write material for publication that wouldn't justify the production costs of a print run.
GW produces a hardcover Codex with one unit and a separate hardcover background book, delving into the lore and imagery of that one unit.

Because the market for two such hardcover books (especially the second) is limited, the books are produced at a high cost, especially the second, which is fundamentally a fluff book for about $75 US. Wait...I thought digital gave you the opportunity to put things out that didn't justify a print run? Now you can just charge more for the book, regardless of content? Then, because some people buy the hugely overpriced background book, and the rulebook, this justifies that decision. Rather than looking at the lost opportunity of selling a less expensive book which contains all this material to way more customers, thus possibly encouraging more of them to buy the plastic army mans that are supposedly the actual basis of your business?

If GW just discounts the costs of any choices they don't make by dismissing them as unmeasurable or irrelevant, then no matter what they decide to do, it is justified economically, in their own little heads.

It's not that they are making decisions based on the all-mighty dollar, but that even based on the all-mighty dollar, they are making wrong-headed, short-sighted, ill-advised, poorly-justified decisions. They have people out there who are still making great stuff (the Imperial Knight is beautiful, but they are making great stuff under the direction of nitwits.

In terms of a Field allowance of amazing units was what I was refering. If GW made a Field allowance rule they would A. piss off every one that has multiples.
B. Loose money on selling multiples.

But if GW is contradicting itself in its buisness terms then I take back the worship of the all mighty dolla.

Da Butcha wrote:
I think GW is allowing their marketing team...

*record scratch*

You're assuming GW has a marketing team?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:
I think GW is allowing their marketing team...

*record scratch*

You're assuming GW has a marketing team?

ooohhh thats right, didnt they recently admit they dont have one or something?

Sales team perhaps, but not marketing.

I wonder has any one gotten imput from their LGS? I cant frome mine since their forum is a bloody mess.

ITT: Peregrine is the sane one.

 Ailaros wrote:

Jidmah wrote:- You just should not be able to just pick the most efficient unit from your codex and be able to kill everything with it.
...
While a knight would do well against anything but a pikeman, a pikeman would do awesome against knights (and other cavalry), but not against anything else.

Jidmah wrote:- If my opponent has all planes, and I brought one or two of dedicated anti-air units, he should be the one losing the game, not me. If my imperial army wasted a slot of artillery or heavy tanks in order to bring a unit that's mostly useless if there are no targets, it better should tear right through anything in the sky that's not extremely heavily armored. Of course, the necrons should be able to just take out the trio of hydras, but that would require points spent in something other than night scythes.

Ah, okay. So, sort of like super rock-paper-scissors?

Certainly it would be bad for spam armies. After all, if I want to play a necron air force and I will be comprehensively destroyed if my opponent brings a single hydra, then I'm going to not play a necron air force. In fact, it would sort of enforce that every player play a one-of-each kind of army, as doubling up on anything is only putting more eggs in the hard-counter basket (while reducing your ability to hard counter).

Maybe not a single hydra, but a whole squadron of them should make it hard for you to win. Three squadrons should make it impossible. Hard-counters still need to be balanced. They should be vastly more efficient at killing their designated target than all-rounder units, but not automatically one-hit all of them turn 1.

Yes, this would throw out triptide lists, but what about everyone else? Should an ork green tide player be comprehensively destroyed just because their opponent brought a single baal predator?

Bah, no need for hyperbole in a serious discussion. But, yes, a trio of Baal Predators should completely obliterate your green tide that had no more thought put to it than "MOAR BOYZ! WAAAGH!". Bring deff dreads and tank bustaz and just destroy the hard-counter to your army. I'd argue having some elites and walkers among your tide makes a much better game for both sides than just pushing 180 identical models towards the other table edge.

Should it be impossible for a marine player to run a drop pod assault just because his opponent brought a single unit that's good against drop pod assaults?

"Drop pod assaults" is not a unit. It's a strategy. A hard-counter would counter drop pods or marines, definitely not both. Also, hyperbole.

Should I not be able to play a stormtrooper/grenadiers guard army just because my opponent brought a heavy flamer or two?

If your opponent has heavy flamers on all his units, your stormtrooper/grenadiers guard army should die miserably, unless some of your guardsmen are equipped with something to stop those flamers. A hard-counter to light infantry should not be hard to kill by heavy weaponry.

The problem here is that spam armies aren't bad armies - only bad spam armies are bad armies. You're only looking at the worst few examples and then throwing hundreds of babies out with the bath water. The problem with spamming riptides or helldrakes is the riptides and helldrakes, not the spam.

No, I'm not. I've been playing a lot of RTS games which always come out as an unbalanced pieces of junk and then get more balanced as the patches go. No matter if you look at StarCraft, Warcraft, Age of Empire, Command&Conquer or any other RTS: The more balanced they got, the less units were spammed. Not because they were nerfed to the ground, but because taking different but equally strong units gives you more options. I think a current green tide army is a terrible thing. Not a single footslogging unit in the ork codex can compete to boyz and lootaz, and you think this is a good thing?

Plus, I don't know if this rock-paper-scissors thing achieves what you want. After all, you said that a single unit (like a riptide) shouldn't be able to just beat up your whole army, and then turn around and say that a single unit (like a hydra) should be able to beat up an entire army. It sounds like what you're doing isn't solving the problem of uber-units by degrading the impact of uber-units, but instead you're elevating every unit to the status of uber-unit, and trying to drown out the problem with a massive blast of more of the problem.

It's a proven concept. Buy any random modern RTS and install it. If it's any good, it has this uber-version of rock-paper-scissors implemented. Because it works.

You are also twisting my words: A riptide can beat up any given army and is never worthless. My version of a hydra can beat up a single type of army and is an utterly worthless choice against a necron army consisting of ghost arks, warriors and monoliths. It's a choice when building your list: bring a hydra to hard-counter potential flying threats, but waste of points and slots if none are present, or bring a leman russ which will always be valuable to your army. Not every unit is going to be a hard-counter, there still will be generalists like boyz, tactical marines, fire prisms, and riptides. They are just easier to kill by their respective counters and harder to kill with units that are supposed to counter other types of units. Due to the limitations of the FOC, it should be impossible to counter an entire army, unless that army's player gambled on a single type of unit and you not having a counter to it.

Jidmah wrote:- If there are combos, they should be hard to pull off and easy to break

Why?

Before we continue, let me define a combo as a combination of units that guarantee a win, or at least make it very likely. Adding a warboss to a unit of nob bikers to catch S10 shots is synergy, not a combo. Prolonging Imotekh's Lightning with effects that add turns of night-fighting is not a combo, because it doesn't win you the game without a lot of luck.
Combos are unfun for the opponent. Ever played against a screamer star? Seen people play against it? Even the most cheerful player is no longer smiling while an invincible unit plows through their army without taking wounds, even though he might still take it very sportsmanlike. Other games have discovered this years ago. Flipping your "I win, no matter what you do"-card is like telling your opponent to pick up his models and go elsewhere. Since WH40k allows you to just sit down all your combo-pieces from the very beginning and arrange them as you like, there needs to be an additional hurdle to make them go off, besides bringing all the pieces. Otherwise, the opponent's army and his skill becomes irrelevant, and if it does, what was the point of finding an opponent in the first place?