Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

Fauk wrote:
I play Orks in 7th Edition and the games I had against Dark Eldar, both in a friendly and tournament environment, where the most balanced, most fun, and most intense games I ever had in WH40k and I loved them!

That's one data point, but let me offer mine: most of the games of 7th I've played have (even ones I've won) have felt like the outcome had way more to do with GW's balance issues, most of them new things in 7th, than who played a better game. 5th and 6th had their problems, but 7th feels so much worse.

Do you have a specific example?

Niiru wrote:
Do you have a specific example?

Psychic phase (invisibility and demon summoning), Nurgle FMCs with 2+ cover saves at all times, random objectives, allowing repair effects (and other buffs) to work on superheavies and repair a Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord/etc's entire HP in one turn.

Azreal13 wrote:Thing is, most of the 6th books are reasonably well set against one another too.

Then you have the brain farts like Tau and Eldar that spoil it for everyone.

I would love for 7th to be the edition where they have a chance to get all the books operating off a roughly similar base line, but until those two books are a memory, all we have is a bunch of reasonable books and those two.

Indeed -- which was kind of the point of the original topic -- that the newer codices are better balanced and have fewer gaps that make one go ZOMG... MUST... HAZ!!

This is also one of the reasons I would greatly favor releasing revisions of all of the lists at the same time, every year, in one volume (or two, one for Imperium, and one for xenos), from a gaming perspective. Then, within that year's release, they could be internally balanced. Instead of the way we have now, when codex updates might be balanced with other codices released near the same time, but way off base compared to codices released 1.5+ years ago.

Peregrine wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Maybe the FW ones. But withe escalation being part of the core rules the ctan and the eldar titan are no questions asked.

If the ctan and Revenant are "core rules" and no questions asked then so are the FW superheavies.

LoW are part of the core rules, simply because inside the BRB, there's a slot in the CAS detachment guide that says, Optional 1 LoW.

I would agree that all FW superheavies (and other units) which are Codex are equally part of core rules. I mean, they are no different than a scratchbuilt model to represent a unit inside a codex. For example, I can think of no compelling reason to allow Baneblade, but not Revenant Titan. However, FW units or variants which are not in codex, should not be allowed in games which are strictly codex (I guess that's obvious, right?).

Personally, I don't have a problem with any FW units. I welcome them, as they are so cool just to look at.

On the other hand: FLGS house rules are weird, and some of them say no FW. Maybe it's just because they can't sell the unit, but who knows, because you can play GW units that are not normally available to the store, even by special order (like many independent characters). What can you do? World we live in.

 Peregrine wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Do you have a specific example?

Psychic phase (invisibility and demon summoning), Nurgle FMCs with 2+ cover saves at all times, random objectives, allowing repair effects (and other buffs) to work on superheavies and repair a Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord/etc's entire HP in one turn.

I'm not sure about the psychic problem, the current psychic phase seems to work but I have only had limited exposure to it. 2+ saves doesnt seem like much of an issue either, but I would have to look up that unit, I can see them being annoying but not game breaking.

However the superheavy repair thing I've actually heard of, and agree its a bit... off. It's far to easy to exploit. However... it generally adds up to over half of an army points cost, and focused heavy weapons fire can destroy it entirely in one turn (barring bad luck), so I'm not sure its overly unbalanced. Just annoying. However I've not actually faced it in real world conditions and I'll agree it shouldnt be possible.

One thing we had thought of to fix it, is that the oponent should get a victory point for every 3 hull points that is taken off. This means that if they keep repairing, you can keep getting more and more victory points. Making infinite repair not a feasible tactic in the long run. But yeh I dunno what a real fix would be.

Niiru wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Do you have a specific example?

Psychic phase (invisibility and demon summoning), Nurgle FMCs with 2+ cover saves at all times, random objectives, allowing repair effects (and other buffs) to work on superheavies and repair a Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord/etc's entire HP in one turn.

I'm not sure about the psychic problem, the current psychic phase seems to work but I have only had limited exposure to it. 2+ saves doesnt seem like much of an issue either, but I would have to look up that unit, I can see them being annoying but not game breaking.

However the superheavy repair thing I've actually heard of, and agree its a bit... off. It's far to easy to exploit. However... it generally adds up to over half of an army points cost, and focused heavy weapons fire can destroy it entirely in one turn (barring bad luck), so I'm not sure its overly unbalanced. Just annoying. However I've not actually faced it in real world conditions and I'll agree it shouldnt be possible.

One thing we had thought of to fix it, is that the oponent should get a victory point for every 3 hull points that is taken off. This means that if they keep repairing, you can keep getting more and more victory points. Making infinite repair not a feasible tactic in the long run. But yeh I dunno what a real fix would be.

And then your opponent with the super heavy goes "uh no, I don't want a house rule that destroys my army. Play the game".

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.

Some lists are fine. I like Orks and Sm. But to claim that all of them are balanced internally...is weak. Externally it's getting better, but internally it's just as bad as ever.

Peregrine, unbound is quickly becoming opponents permission it seems. Check out the BA codex thread reaction to people being told "you can play unbound for your old army back!" By the pro GW crowd.
Spoiler: it went poorly.

Akiasura wrote:


And then your opponent with the super heavy goes "uh no, I don't want a house rule that destroys my army. Play the game".

Ah no you misunderstood, I meant that that rule change is something we thought of that could maybe fix it. Its not a rule we play. Noone uses superheavies in our group anyway.

Niiru wrote:

Akiasura wrote:


And then your opponent with the super heavy goes "uh no, I don't want a house rule that destroys my army. Play the game".

Ah no you misunderstood, I meant that that rule change is something we thought of that could maybe fix it. Its not a rule we play. Noone uses superheavies in our group anyway.

I'm afraid you misunderstood.
I understand it's a proposed solution to a problem, I am pointing out that it goes too far and no one who spent several hundred on a super heavy would agree to it.

If your group agrees to that, great. You removed super heavies from the game. The most my group agrees to is count as armies, especially for armies like mine where the codex is awful for representing your army.

For the record, I own several armies but play alpha legion. I currently use the SM codex, though I used to use wolves for the elite scouts before too.

Talys wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Thing is, most of the 6th books are reasonably well set against one another too.

Then you have the brain farts like Tau and Eldar that spoil it for everyone.

I would love for 7th to be the edition where they have a chance to get all the books operating off a roughly similar base line, but until those two books are a memory, all we have is a bunch of reasonable books and those two.

Indeed -- which was kind of the point of the original topic -- that the newer codices are better balanced and have fewer gaps that make one go ZOMG... MUST... HAZ!!

Yah, I got what the topic was, what the point I was making was that 6th Ed books started off quite well, then went to gak, so to make a thread about how balanced the new 7th books are before all of the books have been updated to 7th (should that even happen) may be a tad premature.

Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.

I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.

Talys wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.

I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.

Wyches lost the only thing they were good at, anti tank. They are terrible at CC and cost similar points as before. They are considered awful and no longer are used according to DE players. I am taking this from threads when the DE dex released and the various tactic threads for the army. Some things in the army improved, but one of the bigger alternate lists got removed.
So while the power got improved (scrouges are better as are wracks, so army power is not an issue) do not expect to see widely varied themed lists.

BA have similar issues. They have a crowded elite slot (11 choices I believe?) And a lot of options are weaker or the same. 2 priests only giving fnp to a unit, an elite choice tax, baal preds are now heavy, asm are no longer troops.
They lack thunder fire cannons, centurions, and many other SM choices. They can't change their army around like DA. They may be a better dex than DA, though they are the next weakest, they have the least amount of builds so far it seems.

Cc would be a theme if cc was a viable play style. Maybe this will change after Tau, cron, and Eldar get new dexes, but for now it's a non starter. Doesn't change the fact they have a very limited dex.

Niiru wrote:
I'm not sure about the psychic problem, the current psychic phase seems to work but I have only had limited exposure to it.

Try playing against a psyker spam demon list that summons more demons (preferably with a model hidden out of LOS where you can't target it), which generate more warp charge to summon even more demons. Your opponent has an endless supply of meatshields and objective holders, and any damage you do is negated next turn. Or try playing against an invisible death star. You hit it on 6s, you can't shoot it at all with blasts or templates, and any hits you do get are negated by saves/FNP/etc. Is it possible to beat these lists? Of course. But they can easily produce games that aren't very much fun against anything less than a top-tier tournament list.

2+ saves doesnt seem like much of an issue either, but I would have to look up that unit, I can see them being annoying but not game breaking.

It's not just a 2+ save, it's a 2+ save on a FMC. So 6s to hit (when not in charge range), followed by a 2+ cover save. And since these are melee FMCs jinking costs nothing, you can still charge without penalty. Again, it's beatable with the right army (Tau laugh at it with their abundance of no-cover shooting), but leads to frustrating games if you didn't bring the right cheese to counter their cheese.

However the superheavy repair thing I've actually heard of, and agree its a bit... off. It's far to easy to exploit. However... it generally adds up to over half of an army points cost, and focused heavy weapons fire can destroy it entirely in one turn (barring bad luck), so I'm not sure its overly unbalanced. Just annoying. However I've not actually faced it in real world conditions and I'll agree it shouldnt be possible.

Bolded the important part. If you haven't faced it don't dismiss it. It's 12 HP of AV 13 or 9 HP of AV 14 or 12 HP of AV 12 that you only hit on 6s, and if you don't kill it in one turn you accomplish nothing. Meanwhile it's continuing to shoot you at full effectiveness right up until it dies, with Apocalypse-scale weapons. And, again, it's possible to beat it if you've tailored your lists to kill a superheavy in one turn (melta pod spam, etc), but incredibly frustrating if you haven't. A lot of armies, especially armies that aren't top-tier competitive lists, simply can not kill a repair Stompa/Thunderhawk/Stormlord.

One thing we had thought of to fix it, is that the oponent should get a victory point for every 3 hull points that is taken off. This means that if they keep repairing, you can keep getting more and more victory points. Making infinite repair not a feasible tactic in the long run. But yeh I dunno what a real fix would be.

The real fix is the "little things don't work on big things" house rule that most Apocalypse groups figured out a long time ago, where buffs/repair/etc don't work on superheavies unless they're provided by other Apocalypse-scale units. Everyone who ever considered playing Apocalypse knew that repair superheavies were overpowered, but somehow GW didn't think it would be a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:
However, FW units or variants which are not in codex, should not be allowed in games which are strictly codex (I guess that's obvious, right?).

And "strictly codex" is a rule that only exists in the minds of certain players. GW didn't publish it, as far as they're concerned there is only one category of 40k rules: the 40k rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:
Peregrine, unbound is quickly becoming opponents permission it seems. Check out the BA codex thread reaction to people being told "you can play unbound for your old army back!" By the pro GW crowd.
Spoiler: it went poorly.

Of course people are enforcing "no unbound without permission" house rules, because everyone but GW understands that it's a stupid idea. But a near-universal house rule is a pretty clear concession that the game as GW published it is broken in an inexcusable way.

Akiasura wrote:

Talys wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.

I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.

Wyches lost the only thing they were good at, anti tank. They are terrible at CC and cost similar points as before. They are considered awful and no longer are used according to DE players. I am taking this from threads when the DE dex released and the various tactic threads for the army. Some things in the army improved, but one of the bigger alternate lists got removed.
So while the power got improved (scrouges are better as are wracks, so army power is not an issue) do not expect to see widely varied themed lists.

BA have similar issues. They have a crowded elite slot (11 choices I believe?) And a lot of options are weaker or the same. 2 priests only giving fnp to a unit, an elite choice tax, baal preds are now heavy, asm are no longer troops.
They lack thunder fire cannons, centurions, and many other SM choices. They can't change their army around like DA. They may be a better dex than DA, though they are the next weakest, they have the least amount of builds so far it seems.

Cc would be a theme if cc was a viable play style. Maybe this will change after Tau, cron, and Eldar get new dexes, but for now it's a non starter. Doesn't change the fact they have a very limited dex.

Your post made it sound like Wyches were removed from the game. We can debate the merits of BA Codex on that thread, if you like, but there are plenty of people who like it just fine.

One does not fix an overly powerful wave serpent and gunline by giving similar toys to everyone else. A better fix is to tone down obviously superior units, which inherently increases choice. I am a big fan of this type of nerf, even if I play those units, because it makes for a better game.

BA have lots to compete for the elite spot, but how is that bad? It is way better than not having enough. If you want more elites, take another detachment. This is also how you achieve balance and prevent people from taking too many units in a disproportionate manner.

It seems to me that BA are at least competitive with the other SM codices, without being obviously better. That's a win, in my book.

Peregrine,
I am not saying you are wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I am merely suggesting that you read the room. To most players, unbound is the equivalent of special characters in earlier editions.

Is this right?
Debatable.

Is this by the rulebook?
No.

Is this the argument at hand?
No.

Will you gain anything by pushing this point?
Most likely not. You have to be realistic about these things.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
However, FW units or variants which are not in codex, should not be allowed in games which are strictly codex (I guess that's obvious, right?).

And "strictly codex" is a rule that only exists in the minds of certain players. GW didn't publish it, as far as they're concerned there is only one category of 40k rules: the 40k rules.

At the end of the day, you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force them to play against something they don't want to, though, right? So if nobody at the FLGS wants to play them because they aren't in a codex, there isn't much you can do. Also, many tournaments say codex only, so either you play by those rules or not at all. As unsaid before, I think, some FLGS don't want FW models because they can't sell them -- so either you abide by that, or play elsewhere.

Frankly, I don't know what the big deal is, and I love the models. But anyhow, I don't think that I can recall even one instance where it would dramatically unbalance a codex (for example like wave serpent).

Talys wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Talys wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

7th is getting better but blander. Look at the DE dex (no wyches) and BA dex (space marines-1). Nids are supplement required to be a fun army list that isn't fmc spam.

I'm so confused.

What happened to Wyches? I guarantee you they are in the current codex.

What happened to Blood Angels? Their codex is just fine -- I would say, better than fine; it provides a reasonable chapter to play that doesn't have obvious avenues of abuse, and is not significantly more or less powerful than other chapters, while being thematically different.

Wyches lost the only thing they were good at, anti tank. They are terrible at CC and cost similar points as before. They are considered awful and no longer are used according to DE players. I am taking this from threads when the DE dex released and the various tactic threads for the army. Some things in the army improved, but one of the bigger alternate lists got removed.
So while the power got improved (scrouges are better as are wracks, so army power is not an issue) do not expect to see widely varied themed lists.

BA have similar issues. They have a crowded elite slot (11 choices I believe?) And a lot of options are weaker or the same. 2 priests only giving fnp to a unit, an elite choice tax, baal preds are now heavy, asm are no longer troops.
They lack thunder fire cannons, centurions, and many other SM choices. They can't change their army around like DA. They may be a better dex than DA, though they are the next weakest, they have the least amount of builds so far it seems.

Cc would be a theme if cc was a viable play style. Maybe this will change after Tau, cron, and Eldar get new dexes, but for now it's a non starter. Doesn't change the fact they have a very limited dex.

Your post made it sound like Wyches were removed from the game. We can debate the merits of BA Codex on that thread, if you like, but there are plenty of people who like it just fine.

One does not fix an overly powerful wave serpent and gunline by giving similar toys to everyone else. A better fix is to tone down obviously superior units, which inherently increases choice. I am a big fan of this type of nerf, even if I play those units, because it makes for a better game.

BA have lots to compete for the elite spot, but how is that bad? It is way better than not having enough. If you want more elites, take another detachment. This is also how you achieve balance and prevent people from taking too many units in a disproportionate manner.

It seems to me that BA are at least competitive with the other SM codices, without being obviously better. That's a win, in my book.

Talys,

I am sorry if you misread my post. It could have been clearer, though I thought it was reasonably obvious that anyone who has the DE codex can see that wyches are a unit entry. They are also not viable and will not see much play, making them a false choice.
Now that you realize what it is about, you can feel free to debate how the DE codex is leading to more varied armies due to the internal balance increasing. The external balance has increased, but the old DE codex had remarkably few units that were not viable.

BA having lot to compete for in one slot is bad because slots are limited unless you are playing unbound. If they had 11 elite choices and 8 or 9 in the others, yes, who cares? But having 2 troops and 11 elites....? This will lead to armies only differing in their elite units if the codex is slanted this way. It's been a big problem for any codex that had certain slots being overly occupied while others are quite bare. I also do not know why you want to debate the merits of the BA codex in another thread. You went ahead and debated the merits regardless, and it is entirely relevant to the discussion.

If you think BA are at least as competitive as SM, I do not know what to say. That is not the feeling that BA players in the thread seem to be having, and that is certainly not my read. I'd ask you to back up what you feel that BA have over SM, because from where I'm sitting the best units are far and away in the SM codex.
Centurions, better bikes, Sternguard pods with combi weapons, better special characters, better chapter tactics, the ability to move the FoC around (granted this may get taken away, but that is speculation. Accurate speculation, imo, but let's stick to the game as is). BA have the ability to give 2 units feel no pain, fast transports, and death company. It seems stacked against BA to me, though that is also because CC isn't as good as shooting is, and hit and run is an amazing ability.

I do not know where your second sentence is coming from. I did not claim that anything should be brought up to waveserpent levels of power (and if I did, please quote me so I can apologize). However, I would like it if everything in an army was at least...reasonable.
Wyches, for example, were struggling to find a place in old lists and usually made it in as good anti tank, something DE lack due to the way that the game works (large amounts of Av 12) and the DE army lacking dark lances in large numbers. Now, the Wyches lost their anti-tank and gained...nothing? That is bad for the game, no one will see wyches, and wych cults are a big deal in DE fluff.

Akiasura wrote:
Peregrine,
I am not saying you are wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I am merely suggesting that you read the room. To most players, unbound is the equivalent of special characters in earlier editions.

Is this right?
Debatable.

Is this by the rulebook?
No.

Is this the argument at hand?
No.

Will you gain anything by pushing this point?
Most likely not. You have to be realistic about these things.

Unbound falls in the same category as Forgeworld. Whether you like it or not, some players view such lists as too exotic or niche, or expensive or unattainable, or whatever. It doesn't really help to argue against people who don't want to play it, whether or not it should be playable

Talys wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Peregrine,
I am not saying you are wrong, not by any stretch of the imagination.
I am merely suggesting that you read the room. To most players, unbound is the equivalent of special characters in earlier editions.

Is this right?
Debatable.

Is this by the rulebook?
No.

Is this the argument at hand?
No.

Will you gain anything by pushing this point?
Most likely not. You have to be realistic about these things.

Unbound falls in the same category as Forgeworld. Whether you like it or not, some players view such lists as too exotic or niche, or expensive or unattainable, or whatever. It doesn't really help to argue against people who don't want to play it, whether or not it should be playable

I....what?
I do not even know what you are arguing here.

My point was that it doesn't matter if something is in the rulebook or not (which is peregrine's argument), it only matters what the meta is by most players. And most players do not accept unbound without permission, as evidenced by most threads here on dakka and warseer.
I was never arguing for unbound or against it.
Where did you even see that?

Akiasura wrote:

I....what?
I do not even know what you are arguing here.

My point was that it doesn't matter if something is in the rulebook or not (which is peregrine's argument), it only matters what the meta is by most players. And most players do not accept unbound without permission, as evidenced by most threads here on dakka and warseer.
I was never arguing for unbound or against it.
Where did you even see that?

I was agreeing with you

The point was addressed to Peregrine, who seems to favor unbound and forgeworld super-heavies, which I was saying, fall into the same argument. If a lot of people don't want to play it, it doesn't help to argue that it's legal (or not).

Not only does Forgeworld not screw up the game's balance, but actually gives a lot of weaker armies some flexibility to make them reasonably able to play with the big boys. West Coast tournaments have been allowing Forgeworld for several years now, and it hasn't caused a single balance issue that doesn't also exist in normal 40k.

Talys wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

I....what?
I do not even know what you are arguing here.

My point was that it doesn't matter if something is in the rulebook or not (which is peregrine's argument), it only matters what the meta is by most players. And most players do not accept unbound without permission, as evidenced by most threads here on dakka and warseer.
I was never arguing for unbound or against it.
Where did you even see that?

I was agreeing with you

The point was addressed to Peregrine, who seems to favor unbound and forgeworld super-heavies, which I was saying, fall into the same argument. If a lot of people don't want to play it, it doesn't help to argue that it's legal (or not).

Explains the confusion.
When you quoted me I thought you were addressing me.

To be fair to Peregrine (and by all means, step in if I am wrong. I think you are being a little hot headed here, but you are someone who I always viewed as deeply insightful into this hobby) I do not think he is in favor of these rules.
He doesn't believe that, as written, they have any place in the rulebook at all.

His argument is merely that, as per the rulebook, these are legal, and any attempt to deny an opponent's ability to take them is a house rule or enforcing your own way on them.

I do not have an opinion on this, I was simply suggesting that he stick to the argument at hand, rather than attempt a new one, as I'd like to hear his thoughts on the topic.

Oh man, seriously, psychic powers can easily push a lot of units, particularly with Daemons past simple "MC" territory and solidly "GC" territory.

Watching a Great Unclean one sitting there with Iron Arm and Endurance, plus several daemonic Rewards, and it's not at all uncommon to see them rolling around with T10 W7 FNP 4+ IWND and a 5++ invul and whatnot and it's just no longer killable.

The psychic powers really seem balanced around T4 W2 psykers. Iron Arm being 1 Warp Charge on such a model is probably fine, but on an MC it gets pretty absurd.

@ Akiasura- I was trying to suggest that if we want to debate specific aspects of the new BA codex, the other thread has a lot of people making good points either way.

The new commander, Karlaen, is amazing. Reserve rerolls whenever you want them is like..... crazy good. DC and DC Dreadnought are cool, and Assault terminators are pretty solid. Lots of flamers... Dante... anyhow, I could go on, but as I'll leave this thread in generalities.

As peregrine said, and I agree, invisible centstars are not fun to play against. This should not be the standard for a new codex as it is probably one or the most broken things about SM, and adding something equally annoying is not really anything good for the game. This is why I think DE and BA codex are good, and why I am actually collecting both now (aside from cool models).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:
To be fair to Peregrine (and by all means, step in if I am wrong. I think you are being a little hot headed here, but you are someone who I always viewed as deeply insightful into this hobby) I do not think he is in favor of these rules.
He doesn't believe that, as written, they have any place in the rulebook at all.

His argument is merely that, as per the rulebook, these are legal, and any attempt to deny an opponent's ability to take them is a house rule or enforcing your own way on them.

I do not have an opinion on this, I was simply suggesting that he stick to the argument at hand, rather than attempt a new one, as I'd like to hear his thoughts on the topic.

I am typing on my phone as I watch Marco Polo with my wife so please pardon me if I am being inarticulate. . Or misquoting... it is so damn hard to select locks on a phone lol.

Peregrine, I hope, will let me know if I'm wrong. He always seems to argue in favor of unbound and FW units (or I seem to remember this), and obviously Peregrine likes FW models, so this is the conclusion I arrived at. I didn't mean to come off as heavy handed, to anyone... sorry if I did!

By the way, totally off-topic, but Marco Polo is actually pretty good

Talys wrote:
@ Akiasura- I was trying to suggest that if we want to debate specific aspects of the new BA codex, the other thread has a lot of people making good points either way.

The new commander, Karlaen, is amazing. Reserve rerolls whenever you want them is like..... crazy good. DC and DC Dreadnought are cool, and Assault terminators are pretty solid. Lots of flamers... Dante... anyhow, I could go on, but as I'll leave this thread in generalities.

As peregrine said, and I agree, invisible centstars are not fun to play against. This should not be the standard for a new codex as it is probably one or the most broken things about SM, and adding something equally annoying is not really anything good for the game. This is why I think DE and BA codeless are good, and why I am actually collecting both now (aside from cool models).

And I am coming from an opposite direction. I find the details are usually the most important part of any argument, but that could be because my profession details with about the smallest details that exist, so that could be coloring it.

Personally, I've found terminators are pretty bad, which is a shame. They were the unit that got me into the game originally, them and warp spiders. Terminators need...something, I don't know. They have twice the ability to survive for over two times the price. They are either mediocre at shooting or pretty good at CC with no ability to shoot at all. I wish they were good, but they don't feel that way when I play.
Reserving rerolls is okay, not crazy good. In an army that wasn't marines, sure. For marines? Its okay.
Flamers are okay but assume you'll be assaulting or someone is assaulting you. Not bad but not the greatest thing either. Its very nice they can take them, though I'm surprised this sin't for salamanders instead.

If you don't want to discuss the details of BA then that is fine.

However, if you do not wish to discuss any of the details of the new dexes, or any of the points I brought up, I am somewhat forced to think we have come to an agreement.

The external balance of the codexes have gotten better, at the cost of more options and weaker internal balance.

Which...is sad. But I do not play 40k as much. I like Warmahordes for gaming more, and play necromunda for the narrative play and modeling.

EDIT: I too am on my phone, usually while waiting for a sample to run. The magnets can mess with my phone as well so...yeah, I understand.
I'll have to check that show out, appreciate the tip.

Talys wrote:
Peregrine, I hope, will let me know if I'm wrong. He always seems to argue in favor of unbound and FW units (or I seem to remember this), and obviously Peregrine likes FW models, so this is the conclusion I arrived at.

You're half right.

FW units are part of the game and refusing to play against them just because they don't have the magic "codex" label is TFG behavior IMO. And I agree with GW that they should be part of the game, functionally they're no different than codex units (or official rules published in any other source), and it's bad design to have different "tiers" of officialness.

Unbound is part of the game, and I hate it. I think it was a stupid decision by GW, and I hope that 8th edition fixes the mistake. However, I also hate the attitude that unbound is somehow not "real 40k". Whether we like it or not GW did make the rules that way. And I really hate the attitude some people have that unbound is "special permission only" because of "balance issues", but every overpowered tournament list is "official" and they're entitled to use it any time they want as long as it follows the FOC.

I like the new codexes, really. Probably except for GK. Don't think they've done a good job with this mono-build.

Makumba wrote:

yes or simple GK builds that take 3 NDKS instead of 2 and ally. and 2 GK libbies instead of tigurius.

So yeah, I have no idea why you are bringing up a fairly balanced codex going against another fairly balanced codex that is utilizing units from 2 other different codices as allies to create one of the most broken combos in the game. You can take those same allies with IG all the same. You can take them with any army in the game ( altough only Armies of The Imperium will benefit from Battle Brothers. )

Doesn´t affect GK and IG codices being balanced with eachother in any way if you can create a broken combination out of 2 completely different codices to ally with.

Fauk wrote:
To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.

Same, seen 0 Unbound armies brought to the table and 0 Unbound tournaments being held. No one has even suggested playing it to me or my mates. I think this, like many other "issues", are a meaningful/real only in some peoples minds and they basically never/very rarely actually come to light when playing. Problems that bother some at a principal level, not in practice.

Unbound and "sitting down before a game to have a long talk to be on the same page about what is allowed" -are both like this. Lots of talk about them on the internets, never faced either issue myself in practice. Again, 71 games this year. Seems to me these issues seem to be impactful mostly to people who don´t play actively or at all, further enforcing the vibe that it´s basically just presuming. I don´t know anyone who has had either of these issues, and I know quite a few wargamers.

Not to say it´s not possible, I´ve just never experienced neither of these issues when actually playing instead of just talking about it.

Regarding Blood Angels, no one on the planet has enough ingame experience to dictate their new Codex being weak nor overpowered at this time. There´s only presumptions and possible kneejerking. Just like with every release, it´ll even out after a while when people play the army in practice instead of armchair theorycrafting. To me their Codex seems in line with the other new codices, including power level. And that is a good thing afaic.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Peregrine, I hope, will let me know if I'm wrong. He always seems to argue in favor of unbound and FW units (or I seem to remember this), and obviously Peregrine likes FW models, so this is the conclusion I arrived at.

You're half right.

FW units are part of the game and refusing to play against them just because they don't have the magic "codex" label is TFG behavior IMO. And I agree with GW that they should be part of the game, functionally they're no different than codex units (or official rules published in any other source), and it's bad design to have different "tiers" of officialness.

Unbound is part of the game, and I hate it. I think it was a stupid decision by GW, and I hope that 8th edition fixes the mistake. However, I also hate the attitude that unbound is somehow not "real 40k". Whether we like it or not GW did make the rules that way. And I really hate the attitude some people have that unbound is "special permission only" because of "balance issues", but every overpowered tournament list is "official" and they're entitled to use it any time they want as long as it follows the FOC.

Huh, interesting.

Well, going back to new codices and balance: I think that FW units, at least with respect to the ones that I've actually seen, do not unbalance any rules. I don't really go out of my way to look up stats of units that I'm unlikely to ever purchase, play or play against (mostly because after import fees, they're ungodly expensive). I wish that if GW wanted to "legitimize" them, they would either include explicit rules in a book (like Revenant Titan in Escalation), or print something official as to how FW models are intended to be played.

A possible problem with FW models is that they may be "shielded" from codex revision, since they aren't part of core rules. I don't think this has been a problem as of yet, though.

I think that unbound *can* affect codex balance, simply because the benefits of battle-forged do not outweight the benefit of "play anything you want". However, I think it has a legitimate purpose in fluff armies, or scenarios -- for instance, a group of terminators having to hold a fort against a horde tyranids would be fun to play. Having all terminators would neither be battle-forged, nor competitive. I'm pretty sure it's here to stay, and I doubt the language of its rules and when it can be used will even be changed in future editions.

I think that the TFG label gets donned on people who really want to play a FW model or an Unbound list for no reason other than that there is an competitive advantage to do so. In any case, as Akiasura said, it's really pointless to argue it IRL when you're sitting across someone or at a tournament. Better to just play a different person.

I hate to break it to you, but I join the chorus of people who simply won't play against Unbound lists, unless there's a compelling reason to do so (like a scenario, or a funky army). I mean, if someone must be "not-quite-battle-forged", because of the models they owned, that's ok (I'm even willing to give them the battle-forged bonuses). But if they want to play a totally screwed up list just so they can have all the most annoying units all at the same time, I'll pass, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fauk wrote:
To be honest I never played or saw a single unbound game, except the one where a super new player wanted to play with detachments, but since he was so new and fresh to the game, he ended up with unbound in a not cheesy way. Every big tournament that is not directly hosted by a GW has unbound banned anyway.

Like you, I run into some new players or even friends who have started a new army and they just don't have the right models yet. Not really a big deal. Occasionally, and even before they called it "unbound" we did for-fun scenarios of "what if....", and invariably, those armies are extreme cases. One time, we tried playing 40k rules on a mass of space hulk tiles -- like enough to fill a 6x4 table

 ImAGeek wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And there's no excuse for this. GW doesn't deserve praise for fixing balance issues when their fluffy/narrative game comes with an implied rule like "don't build fluffy/narrative armies because they aren't balanced".

Well, that´s your opinion. For me fluffy armies not being competitive is no issue.

And that's YOUR opinion. I don't see why the game being balanced enough to play competitively with fluffy armies has any drawbacks at all. That would only be a positive thing.

It wouldn't have drawbacks it would just be much harder to achieve, I'm not sure anyone really knows how to go about achieving this. The current problem is that fluffy armies tend to be point for point worse value than lists built with a more competitive feel. The biggest hope for these fluffy lists are the formation data slates granting special rules to overcome their weaknesses.

The current problem is that fluffy armies tend to be point for point worse value than lists built with a more competitive feel

Unless they are necron or tyranids which have fluffy lists that work just fine . Or better yet eldar who , to use your expresion, tend to bring point for point better value in their models then other armies.

It is not a question of fluff armies being bad or good armies being unfluffy, but GW making rules at random. Can someone explain to me why GW wrote mutilators or warp talon rules the way they did? Or how were the same people able to write the DA and Eldar codex at the same time. And please don't tell me that the rules department was pushed by the sells department. Because if that was realy the truth, the the design team would want all, or at least most, units to be awesome and not make books like GK , where the army is technicly good, but made out of 4 unit types.

So yeah, I have no idea why you are bringing up a fairly balanced codex going against another fairly balanced codex that is utilizing units from 2 other different codices as allies to create one of the most broken combos in the game. You can take those same allies with IG all the same. You can take them with any army in the game ( altough only Armies of The Imperium will benefit from Battle Brothers. )

Doesn´t affect GK and IG codices being balanced with eachother in any way if you can create a broken combination out of 2 completely different codices to ally with.

Because being alfa strikes and losing most of your army always no matter what you do is not broken. Going by that logic there was nothing op in revenant titans in 6th ed, because all IG players could take a bane blade.

I can't take the same ally. Centurions don't have access to drop pod. I would have to use 2 books as ally to get the same effect and unlike the GK , IG can not play full reserv. Which would mean, that even if I cheated, I would still be losing more offten.

And GK can alfa strike without the use of ally too. The only difference is that without the centurions or sternguard they don't pop additional tanks turn1.

You must have very distinct definition of what fairly balanced means

Which we are already seeing put into use with the Tyranids... and somehow GW overlooked the flaw of having 15 point troop slots. Resulting in a HUGE reversal of 'nids being weak to instantly becoming one of the most versatile armies in the game with what you can do with them. However as Jy2 has shown, it has given birth to "Bound" lists that are just as bad as a Unbound list. GW just can't get into balance it seems, I do admit this is Unique with 'nids though due to the HQ being the all star anyway due to its MC status.