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.

I hope they rewrite newcrons
There's so much of bad wording in there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

Wraiths are a lot harder to kill than they used to be, and that may make them unstoppable.

Assault units have this threshold where once they can reliably get into assault they wreck face turn after turn at double (or more) the speed of shooting, with nothing that can really stop them.

Again, let's wait and see, but durability on an assault unit may very well translate into auto win.

NOTHING in this game is "unstoppable".

I would argue that differentiating "literally unstoppable" and "functionally unstoppable in most cases" is unnecessary.

 adamsouza wrote:

The Tesla Nerf weakened Necron Anti Air. Combine that with the points increase made Annhilation barges much less competitive.

So, now the Annihilation Barge is 120pts for 4 S7 TL shots (and doesn't get Tesla against fliers)? Meaning you now average 1.22 S7 hits against fliers.

Ok, before complaining that your anti-air has been nerfed, please show me a 120pt (or less) Dark Eldar ground unit that can match that output.

morgoth wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
The codices aren't really up to date. Game is clearly in a transitional phase:

Tau and Eldar codices are still overpowered comparing to the other new codices, which ( aside from CSM and perhaps DA ) are pretty well balanced against eachother infact.

If GW would update Eldar and Tau to have the same powerlevel than the rest, the game would be in the best shape balancewise than it ever has been. If they would also update CSM and DA ( and give them the same powerlevel aswell ) then that would be great.

I´m sure both will happen, but it will take a long time. It's also possible ( and likely ) GW will make mistakes while writing the new rules and once again break the balance by allowing some army/armies gamebreaking combinations that they didn´t see coming.

What's that obsession with Tau and Eldar ?

Why are there so many people still stuck way back in sixth edition ?

This is seventh, and for at least a year, Imperial Knights have been dominating, and Eldar, Tau and Necrons were roughly at the same level.

It doesn't make sense to say "Tau and Eldar", it's like you think the problem is the second and third place, but not the first and fourth, because reasons.

'crons have just been addressed. and by and large knights aren't as big a problem as people make em out to me. they're good, but not godly. Tau and Eldar however have some stand out issues that need to be addressed. honestly they're so minior GW could honestly just errata em

BrianDavion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
The codices aren't really up to date. Game is clearly in a transitional phase:

Tau and Eldar codices are still overpowered comparing to the other new codices, which ( aside from CSM and perhaps DA ) are pretty well balanced against eachother infact.

If GW would update Eldar and Tau to have the same powerlevel than the rest, the game would be in the best shape balancewise than it ever has been. If they would also update CSM and DA ( and give them the same powerlevel aswell ) then that would be great.

I´m sure both will happen, but it will take a long time. It's also possible ( and likely ) GW will make mistakes while writing the new rules and once again break the balance by allowing some army/armies gamebreaking combinations that they didn´t see coming.

What's that obsession with Tau and Eldar ?

Why are there so many people still stuck way back in sixth edition ?

This is seventh, and for at least a year, Imperial Knights have been dominating, and Eldar, Tau and Necrons were roughly at the same level.

It doesn't make sense to say "Tau and Eldar", it's like you think the problem is the second and third place, but not the first and fourth, because reasons.

'crons have just been addressed. and by and large knights aren't as big a problem as people make em out to me. they're good, but not godly. Tau and Eldar however have some stand out issues that need to be addressed. honestly they're so minior GW could honestly just errata em

And how does your opinion alter the hard statistical evidence ? Does it corrode it or something ?

And Crons may just have been addressed wrong. Yes their favorite build has been nerfed, but many unwarranted buffs have occured as well.

I imagine most releases for 40k for the next while will be like the harlequins; small, the Ed armies or forces that add a bit more flavour, but nothing groundbreaking. Maybe admech skitarii, supplements for codices, maybe a few more stormclaw or exterminatus styled releases, and a new model or two for various armies.

Other than that I expect them to focus on fantasy for a few months before anything major for 40k. Maybe daemons will get something Khorne oriented out of archaon, but then again, they didn't really get anything out of glottkin (besides an alternate guo, I suppose)

morgoth wrote:

And Crons may just have been addressed wrong. Yes their favorite build has been nerfed, but many unwarranted buffs have occured as well.

I'm not sure their buffs were unwarrented, in that many of their units were overpriced for what they brought (e.g. Triarch Praetorians were 40pts for a dedicated melee unit with 1 attack ).

However, I am concerned that some units were over-buffed, if you see what I mean. e.g. Necron melee units suffered from I2 - since casualties wouldn't repair themselves until the end of combat. Now, RP is instant, so units that succeed on RP rolls can still attack normally. On top of that though, the aforementioned Triarch Praetorians got a 12pt per model point drop, their weapons are no longer unwiedly, they got an extra attack and their ranged attacks have twice the range. For as bad as Praetorians were, that's a lot of buffs.

Although, if I'm honest, part of me is also very jealous of the Necron book (and I say this as a Necron player). I can't help but think "I wish they put that sort of effort into making more of my Dark Eldar units viable."

I mean, let's compare how the books treated various bad units:

Flayed ones - improved RP, +1 Attack, Shred
Wyches - Lost Haywire (which was the only reason people took them in 6th), wych weapons nerfed into the ground, no buffs to speak of

Lychguard - Improved RP, massive point reduction, shields now 3++, with the only downside being that warscythes are now AP2
Bloodbrides - Same price, lost haywire, wych weapons nerfed into the ground, still serve absolutely no purpose

Triarch Praetorians - Improved RP, 12pt price cut per model, +1 attack, weapon no longer unwieldy, +6" range with base weapon.
Hellions - 3pt price cut, lost an attack, lost the Baron - so can no longer be made troops, can no longer get stealth, can no longer get reroll failed dangerous-terrain tests, and are outperformed in every way by Reavers.

Destroyers - Same price, Improved RP, +1 Wound, gained JSJ
Wracks - Same price, got a new weapon, but Liquifier gun nerfed into the ground, Hexrifle nerfed badly (both in its own rules and as a sniper weapon), can no longer be made troops, min squad size of 5 (so can't put them and an IC in a Venom), suffer badly from 7th's poison rules, and don't benefit from half of either pfp table.

It's frustrating, to say the least.

morgoth wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
The codices aren't really up to date. Game is clearly in a transitional phase:

Tau and Eldar codices are still overpowered comparing to the other new codices, which ( aside from CSM and perhaps DA ) are pretty well balanced against eachother infact.

If GW would update Eldar and Tau to have the same powerlevel than the rest, the game would be in the best shape balancewise than it ever has been. If they would also update CSM and DA ( and give them the same powerlevel aswell ) then that would be great.

I´m sure both will happen, but it will take a long time. It's also possible ( and likely ) GW will make mistakes while writing the new rules and once again break the balance by allowing some army/armies gamebreaking combinations that they didn´t see coming.

What's that obsession with Tau and Eldar ?

Why are there so many people still stuck way back in sixth edition ?

This is seventh, and for at least a year, Imperial Knights have been dominating, and Eldar, Tau and Necrons were roughly at the same level.

It doesn't make sense to say "Tau and Eldar", it's like you think the problem is the second and third place, but not the first and fourth, because reasons.

Yeah the fact Tau and Eldar have dominated tournaments along with Imperial Knights by a huge margin compared to any other codex shouldn´t have anything to do with this, especially since it has been statistically proven by sites like Frontline gaming on multiple occasions.

Daemons are still broken. FMC are still broken.

BrianDavion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
The codices aren't really up to date. Game is clearly in a transitional phase:

Tau and Eldar codices are still overpowered comparing to the other new codices, which ( aside from CSM and perhaps DA ) are pretty well balanced against eachother infact.

If GW would update Eldar and Tau to have the same powerlevel than the rest, the game would be in the best shape balancewise than it ever has been. If they would also update CSM and DA ( and give them the same powerlevel aswell ) then that would be great.

I´m sure both will happen, but it will take a long time. It's also possible ( and likely ) GW will make mistakes while writing the new rules and once again break the balance by allowing some army/armies gamebreaking combinations that they didn´t see coming.

What's that obsession with Tau and Eldar ?

Why are there so many people still stuck way back in sixth edition ?

This is seventh, and for at least a year, Imperial Knights have been dominating, and Eldar, Tau and Necrons were roughly at the same level.

It doesn't make sense to say "Tau and Eldar", it's like you think the problem is the second and third place, but not the first and fourth, because reasons.

'crons have just been addressed. and by and large knights aren't as big a problem as people make em out to me. they're good, but not godly. Tau and Eldar however have some stand out issues that need to be addressed. honestly they're so minior GW could honestly just errata em

What are in ypur opinion the 'stand out issues' Tau has that make it any more in need of addressing than:
-Daemon factories
-SM Centstars
-White Scars Grav Bikestars?

Why doesn't anyone ever complain about Daemons? They're cheesier than Tau. Tau are balanced; IKs, GKs, Daemons and Necrons are not!

 RunicFIN wrote:

Yeah the fact Tau and Eldar have dominated tournaments along with Imperial Knights by a huge margin compared to any other codex shouldn´t have anything to do with this, especially since it has been statistically proven by sites like Frontline gaming on multiple occasions.

Yeah because 2% win rate is like total domination right ?

It stands to reason that the slightly better army will always have a much larger share of top spots, that doesn't change the fact that they still lose 44% of their matches (Eldar v7).

If you were to nerf Eldar by say 10% (which you'd definitely argue should be 50%), they would end up with 38% win rate or something, and that would bump up Tau to 57% and Necron at 55%, Daemons 54% and SM 53%.

How would that fix anything ?


That's why you need to understand that +2% win rate is not a huge margin.

This 'win rate' of yours Morgoth is not the be all and end all.

morgoth wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Yeah the fact Tau and Eldar have dominated tournaments along with Imperial Knights by a huge margin compared to any other codex shouldn´t have anything to do with this, especially since it has been statistically proven by sites like Frontline gaming on multiple occasions.

Yeah because 2% win rate is like total domination right ?

It stands to reason that the slightly better army will always have a much larger share of top spots, that doesn't change the fact that they still lose 44% of their matches (Eldar v7).

If you were to nerf Eldar by say 10% (which you'd definitely argue should be 50%), they would end up with 38% win rate or something, and that would bump up Tau to 57% and Necron at 55%, Daemons 54% and SM 53%.

How would that fix anything ?


That's why you need to understand that +2% win rate is not a huge margin.

It's also worth remembering that most WR averages encompass a rather large sample size, with players of varying skill levels. As such, an army with a moderate ceiling but a very high floor might very well pullhigher averages than an army with a high ceiling but a very low floor.

Such is the case with knights IMO. I highly doubt even the best knight list can compete with really top tier lists, but on the other hand even the worst possible knight list will stomp other codices' bad lists with ease.

LordBlades wrote:

It's also worth remembering that most WR averages encompass a rather large sample size, with players of varying skill levels. As such, an army with a moderate ceiling but a very high floor might very well pullhigher averages than an army with a high ceiling but a very low floor.

Such is the case with knights IMO. I highly doubt even the best knight list can compete with really top tier lists, but on the other hand even the worst possible knight list will stomp other codices' bad lists with ease.

Very true, and there are many other factors that could be considered in order to have a proper picture.

But the fact is the only thing we have to discuss balance are Win Rates, and anything else is just opinion.

If you're willing to do an in-depth study on said statistics, I'm interested in reading it.

morgoth wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

It's also worth remembering that most WR averages encompass a rather large sample size, with players of varying skill levels. As such, an army with a moderate ceiling but a very high floor might very well pullhigher averages than an army with a high ceiling but a very low floor.

Such is the case with knights IMO. I highly doubt even the best knight list can compete with really top tier lists, but on the other hand even the worst possible knight list will stomp other codices' bad lists with ease.

Very true, and there are many other factors that could be considered in order to have a proper picture.

But the fact is the only thing we have to discuss balance are Win Rates, and anything else is just opinion.

If you're willing to do an in-depth study on said statistics, I'm interested in reading it.

Honestly, I feel the best basis for a balance discussion would be a listingof Top 5 or Top 10 armies of recent major tournaments. It would provide a more accurate (IMO) picture of what works and what doesn't at the very top level.

LordBlades wrote:

Honestly, I feel the best basis for a balance discussion would be a listingof Top 5 or Top 10 armies of recent major tournaments. It would provide a more accurate (IMO) picture of what works and what doesn't at the very top level.

Hardly.

With 54% win rate, you can be first most of the time as long as you have statistical relevance, which does happen as Eldar are well represented, especially among power gamers and tournament goers.

The other way around, you can't figure out anything except that those top 5-10 armies are obviously better than the other ones.

morgoth wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

Honestly, I feel the best basis for a balance discussion would be a listingof Top 5 or Top 10 armies of recent major tournaments. It would provide a more accurate (IMO) picture of what works and what doesn't at the very top level.

Hardly.

With 54% win rate, you can be first most of the time as long as you have statistical relevance, which does happen as Eldar are well represented, especially among power gamers and tournament goers.

The other way around, you can't figure out anything except that those top 5-10 armies are obviously better than the other ones.

On the other hand, weren't knights at some point the army with the highest WR? And yet, how many tournaments did they win?

By analyzing the top 10 armies of a number of tournaments you can establish in a qualitative rather than quantitative manner which are the overperforming codices. Then you can dive deeper in the causes of overperformance.

Just by looking at the WR in a vacuum it's impossible to say if an above average WR is due to overperforming good builds or a lack of bad builds.

morgoth wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

Honestly, I feel the best basis for a balance discussion would be a listingof Top 5 or Top 10 armies of recent major tournaments. It would provide a more accurate (IMO) picture of what works and what doesn't at the very top level.

Hardly.

With 54% win rate, you can be first most of the time as long as you have statistical relevance, which does happen as Eldar are well represented, especially among power gamers and tournament goers.

The other way around, you can't figure out anything except that those top 5-10 armies are obviously better than the other ones.

Morgoth, you have it exactly backwards.

With nothing but a total win/loss ratio over a large pool that includes lots of less competitive gamers, newer players, etc, and where all the armies seem to cluster around 50 +/-5%, you can draw exactly zero conclusions about the power level of the army at the highest levels of play. Likewise you have no idea how hard or easy it may be to win with the army as a newer player (i.e. the learning curve of the army) or how much the power level can swing between different builds in the same codex.

Like other people have pointed out, a 53% win/loss ratio could be 70 people playing an army in tournaments where wins and losses follow a neat bell curve, in which case the army likely wouldn't dominate tournaments. Or it could be 70 people playing an army where 26 of them win 4/4 games and the other 44 lose 3/4, in which case you could see that army sweeping the top few positions of every tournament in spite of their "modest" looking win/loss ratio.

Without any information about the distribution of wins/losses on a player by player basis within each tournament, you can't draw any real conclusions about the power level of armies.

Knowing the top 5 or 10 armies at each tournament, given enough tournaments, does tell you something about power level. It isn't perfect either (those armies could be over-represented, for instance), but it is certainly indicative of how strong the army is when played at a high level, while strict win/loss ratios is NOT.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Without any information about the distribution of wins/losses on a player by player basis within each tournament, you can't draw any real conclusions about the power level of armies.

Knowing the top 5 or 10 armies at each tournament, given enough tournaments, does tell you something about power level. It isn't perfect either (those armies could be over-represented, for instance), but it is certainly indicative of how strong the army is when played at a high level, while strict win/loss ratios is NOT.

Going from the statistics is quantitative whereas looking at top 5-10 is qualitative.

Both are profoundly inaccurate without any deeper analysis.


What is immensely relevant however is that your meta and your every day 40K is a lot closer to statistics than top 5-10 at tournaments, unless you're regularly at top tables in GTs.

morgoth wrote:

Both are profoundly inaccurate without any deeper analysis.


What is immensely relevant however is that your meta and your every day 40K is a lot closer to statistics than top 5-10 at tournaments, unless you're regularly at top tables in GTs.

I think that couldn't be farther away from the truth.
Most local metas tend to build around certain concepts, with people that disagree with them ending up being pushed away. As such, most local metas will show their own dufferent results, based on the version ofv40k they're playing.

For example, if you have a 'non cheesy' meta, you will find Tau and Eldar aren't that good (the units that make them good are conaidered cheesy by most), while Daemons and SM reign supreme (way less people consider summoning or bikers cheesy for example).

morgoth wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Without any information about the distribution of wins/losses on a player by player basis within each tournament, you can't draw any real conclusions about the power level of armies.

Knowing the top 5 or 10 armies at each tournament, given enough tournaments, does tell you something about power level. It isn't perfect either (those armies could be over-represented, for instance), but it is certainly indicative of how strong the army is when played at a high level, while strict win/loss ratios is NOT.

Going from the statistics is quantitative whereas looking at top 5-10 is qualitative.

Both are profoundly inaccurate without any deeper analysis.


What is immensely relevant however is that your meta and your every day 40K is a lot closer to statistics than top 5-10 at tournaments, unless you're regularly at top tables in GTs.

Those are both quantitative measures by any definition (representation in tournament top 10's, for example, is definitely a statistic you can measure, even if it's one you personally seem to have something against).

But yes, neither one will give the entire picture. This gets back to the original point of this whole conversation, which is that touting a 52% win/loss ratio overall tells you next to nothing about the army's peak power level. It's far from sufficient evidence to claim that armies are balanced. Looking at the top 5 or 10 armies in tournaments overall isn't anywhere near a complete picture either but it is more relevant when you're worried about whether one army or another is overpowered at the highest levels of play.

In the end, I'd like to see win/loss for each individual player for as many tournaments as possible. Even better would be knowing who played who, at what point level, and how they did on objectives (i.e. close was the win/loss). With enough data points I think you could draw some really interesting conclusions about overall power levels and the floor/ceiling on list strength, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordBlades wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Both are profoundly inaccurate without any deeper analysis.


What is immensely relevant however is that your meta and your every day 40K is a lot closer to statistics than top 5-10 at tournaments, unless you're regularly at top tables in GTs.

I think that couldn't be farther away from the truth.
Most local metas tend to build around certain concepts, with people that disagree with them ending up being pushed away. As such, most local metas will show their own dufferent results, based on the version ofv40k they're playing.

For example, if you have a 'non cheesy' meta, you will find Tau and Eldar aren't that good (the units that make them good are conaidered cheesy by most), while Daemons and SM reign supreme (way less people consider summoning or bikers cheesy for example).

I absolutely agree. Any given local meta is likely close to neither the overall win/loss stats nor the top 10 tournament stats. The sample size for a local meta is too small - you are likely to see wild divergence from the tournament averages (and even from the average win/loss for all players worldwide, if that number was available). Local metas are heavily influenced by quirks in what armies and units the individual players own, what they like in terms of gameplay, what they agree on for house rules, etc, what kind of terrain they collectively have access to, even down to how well as a group the players know the rules.

This is why it's important to know more details about the distribution of tournament results (not just the top spots or the average). For example, a codex whose power level has a high floor and a moderately high ceiling, so to speak, might have an average win/loss ratio in tournaments, and not place in the top 5 very often. But it might still be "easy mode" in many local metas, where a "weak" list from said codex might still get easy wins against weak to average builds from other codexes who suffer from worse internal balance.

It's a little heartening to hear that the win/loss average overall seems fairly tight, but it's more worrying to hear that the same handful of armies seem to dominate the top spots. In the end though this is all theory-hammer until someone gathers enough data to support any conclusions.

The problem with top x information is that in every game where a race or codex had even slightly better win rate, most of the top x was made of that race or codex.

It gives the wrong impression that said race or codex is far more powerful when it's basically at worst 5% stronger.

bibotot wrote:
Daemons are still broken. FMC are still broken.

FMC aren't broken, 7th nerfed the crap out of them. It seems as only Tyranid FMC are viable anymore.

Daemons are only broken if you run summoning herald spam, which is, in my mind, a boring build to play (and play against).

I actually hope the CD codex gets redone right after the CSM one, and some synergy is restored between the two. I also hope that the combat oriented MCs (Bloodthirster and KoS primarily) get some much needed buffs. Right now, they are just not strong enough to do much, but at least the KoS can use psychic powers. The BT is beyond outclassed for his cost and really needs to see some major buffs. The GUO needs to be base T8. All of the GD with the exception of the Lord of Change need to be base S7(or higher in the BT's case) and T7. All of the GD need a better save, even if it means a point increase for some of them. It should tell you something that equal cost in Flayed Ones will generally murder a BT or KoS that charged them. CD psychic powers need to be redone too, especially Tzeentch's, as most of them stink and are bypassed for the more effective BRB powers.

Other changes I'd like to see is make CD infantry units be impacted by their power number, so if Slaanesh units are taken in multiples of 6, Nurgle multiple of 7, and so on, those units get a small bonus. It will never happen, but I'd love to see it. I like the Storm table, but its clunky and can simply cripple an army, so if it gets removed, I'd shed no tears. I'd like to see formations for each power, as well as combinations of powers. I'd like to see a real negative to having opposing powers in the same army.

But that would mean they still need a rebalance otherwise the scene stagnates.

...I wish GW just moved to fething free rules... it would give them incentive to actually balance.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

Wraiths are a lot harder to kill than they used to be, and that may make them unstoppable.

Assault units have this threshold where once they can reliably get into assault they wreck face turn after turn at double (or more) the speed of shooting, with nothing that can really stop them.

Again, let's wait and see, but durability on an assault unit may very well translate into auto win.

NOTHING in this game is "unstoppable".

I would argue that differentiating "literally unstoppable" and "functionally unstoppable in most cases" is unnecessary.

I argue that adopting a fatalist mentality about any unit in the game is the fastest way to ruin your enjoyment of the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

Wraiths are a lot harder to kill than they used to be, and that may make them unstoppable.

Assault units have this threshold where once they can reliably get into assault they wreck face turn after turn at double (or more) the speed of shooting, with nothing that can really stop them.

Again, let's wait and see, but durability on an assault unit may very well translate into auto win.

NOTHING in this game is "unstoppable".

I would argue that differentiating "literally unstoppable" and "functionally unstoppable in most cases" is unnecessary.

I argue that adopting a fatalist mentality about any unit in the game is the fastest way to ruin your enjoyment of the game.

Attitude still doesn't change the fact that some units are functionally unstoppable.

I think 40k is in a great state right now. I believe CSM, CD, Eldar, Tau, and maybe Nids need a 7th ed. book, but mainly for tweaking units and point costs, and bringing OP things in line with everything else. Eldar, fix Wave Serpents. Tau, put markerlights back to their old version, and change some point costs. CSM, anything. Like, for real. Daemons, update for the psychic phase, remove a lot of current cheese, buff things that need it, ext. And Nids, they have terrible internal balance, and 60% of the book never sees play. All of these could use 7th treatment, IMO.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

Wraiths are a lot harder to kill than they used to be, and that may make them unstoppable.

Assault units have this threshold where once they can reliably get into assault they wreck face turn after turn at double (or more) the speed of shooting, with nothing that can really stop them.

Again, let's wait and see, but durability on an assault unit may very well translate into auto win.

NOTHING in this game is "unstoppable".

I would argue that differentiating "literally unstoppable" and "functionally unstoppable in most cases" is unnecessary.

I argue that adopting a fatalist mentality about any unit in the game is the fastest way to ruin your enjoyment of the game.

Attitude still doesn't change the fact that some units are functionally unstoppable.

But they aren't. Yes they might be hard to kill (more so for some armies than others), but they are by means "unstoppable".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
With all the codex's a edition apart the state of the game is still a mess. Everybody knows who are the powerful codex and the weak ones are. You would think after 7 editions that GW would figure out how to balance the game.

The 7th ed stuff is still largely balanced (even if Crons are a bit ahead of the others, as a codex they have more durability than offensive bite I feel. I say as a codex because anyone monkey can spam an unbound Wraith army, and even if it's a little harder to kill than it use to be doesn't mean it's unstoppable. It'll just change the meta and we'll see things like more poisoned weapons and S10 things entering the meta if they get out of control).

The 6th stuff isn't balanced with 7th but that's because it was written for 6th edition's rules, not 7th's. If, and I know it's a big if, all the books make it into 7th I feel we'll be seeing the best edition balance wise to date.

Wraiths are a lot harder to kill than they used to be, and that may make them unstoppable.

Assault units have this threshold where once they can reliably get into assault they wreck face turn after turn at double (or more) the speed of shooting, with nothing that can really stop them.

Again, let's wait and see, but durability on an assault unit may very well translate into auto win.

NOTHING in this game is "unstoppable".

I would argue that differentiating "literally unstoppable" and "functionally unstoppable in most cases" is unnecessary.

I argue that adopting a fatalist mentality about any unit in the game is the fastest way to ruin your enjoyment of the game.

Attitude still doesn't change the fact that some units are functionally unstoppable.

But they aren't. Yes they might be hard to kill (more so for some armies than others), but they are by means "unstoppable".

Look Ma, I'm quoquoquoquoquoquoquoquoting !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:


Look Ma, I'm quoquoquoquoquoquoquoquoting !

Do it this way, it ends up being a lot less ridiculous.