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.

morgoth wrote:

 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.

I just wanted to get involved in this quote train

Please no more quote trains :(

 Ratius wrote:
Please no more quote trains :(

I agree

 krodarklorr wrote:
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.

You essentially just said... "40k is great except for about half of the factions in the game". You don't see anything wrong with that statement?

There are more than 10 factions in the game. Silly Quickjager

 Quickjager wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
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.

You essentially just said... "40k is great except for about half of the factions in the game". You don't see anything wrong with that statement?

I dunno, there's something in what he's saying. Excluding maybe Eldar, the remaining factions perhaps only need a light touch to become firmly "decent" without being OP in the context of most of the other books.

Personally, having played them solidly for a little over a year, and building and painting what I've done so far has been a real source of enjoyment, I'm now sick of playing Daemons. I still love the idea of them, but the bookkeeping is too much, and it is no exaggeration that fully 25% of some of my lists I have next to no control over, and no idea what I'll be working with until the game starts.

40K has a near terminal case of randomitus, and the sooner someone who isn't Jervis has the idea that replacing player choice and skill with rolling on random tables is not good the better.

But if we're just shooting for "ok" and not "OMG, I never want to play any other games again, I am ruined for them" then, yes, I believe a few small changes are all that's needed.

I can't trust GW to employ a light touch though.

By you're count Pozy the IoM is one faction.

*your

If your best response to someone's argument is to correct their spelling, probably best to just shut up and move on.

Pozy don't start this.

Quickjagger and I are best buddies so we like banter. There's no need to be rude, I know that somehow I have annoyed you today but that's the kind of action that will get you a warning from a moderator.

 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.

O_o
I guess my response to that would be the problem lies with the poor game design and lack of functional playtesting resulting in clearly overpowered units that result in one-sided games rather than it being the fault of players getting discouraged or fatalistic as a result of these issues. Hand-waving away issues by and blaming people for recognizing and acknowledging said issues is a somewhat silly response.

Pozy make no mistake, I am not your buddy/friend/pal, we can't even say we're acquainted because we know nothing of the other person except based on how they treat other people. Your behavior at times is detrimental to discussion, but I still haven't ignored you in hopes that something will slip through your cracks and contribute.

 Quickjager wrote:
Pozy make no mistake, I am not your buddy/friend/pal, we can't even say we're acquainted because we know nothing of the other person except based on how they treat other people. Your behavior at times is detrimental to discussion, but I still haven't ignored you in hopes that something will slip through your cracks and contribute.

But... But... Jagger, we always talk to each other and rip on each other... I thought that you loved me

I don't love anyone except my rottweiler who ironically is named Sgt. sorry for the mixup.

 Quickjager wrote:
I don't love anyone except my rottweiler who ironically is named Sgt. sorry for the mixup.

See, we're learning loads about each other! I have a dog too, she's called Suzi and she's a Malti-Jack (Maltese and Jack Russell).

 Ratius wrote:
Please no more quote trains :(

Choo-choo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
O_o
I guess my response to that would be the problem lies with the poor game design and lack of functional playtesting resulting in clearly overpowered units that result in one-sided games rather than it being the fault of players getting discouraged or fatalistic as a result of these issues. Hand-waving away issues by and blaming people for recognizing and acknowledging said issues is a somewhat silly response.

A silly response is to not re-evaluate your army and look at possible ways to deal with a new threat and instead jumping on the "everything is ruined train" right out of the gate.

Knee jerk responses like that aren't a healthy response.

There's nothing you can re-evaluate to make rerollable 2++ saves easier to deal with.

No, they're not unstoppable, but for many lists they're functionally unstoppable, which was the term used.

I know the AM fixed a ton of the problems the IG had in the last codex. however, it still left some things way over costed like the hellhound and hws.

however, i have to say the layout of the codex is horrible. I like the old layout better. Also they deleted a ton of the fluff.

having said all that I think the game is in a really good place, although they need to fix the ally system.

Back on topic please folks.


The topic is not dogs, your relationship with other posters nor their, apparent, perceptions or views.

If one does find oneself constantly enraged by another poster then use the ignore feature.

Since I now legitly am able to field a unit with a 1+ save, I perceive the state of the game as utterly unbalanced though fun.

 Azreal13 wrote:
There's nothing you can re-evaluate to make rerollable 2++ saves easier to deal with.

No, they're not unstoppable, but for many lists they're functionally unstoppable, which was the term used.

Wraiths don't have a re-rollable 2++ save. They have a 3++ and at best a 4+ RP save. That's not the same thing.

And so the meta gets shuffled a bit. Good. It gets stale when it sits too long. Maybe we'll finally see people take Dark Eldar seriously again.

DaPino wrote:
Since I now legitly am able to field a unit with a 1+ save, I perceive the state of the game as utterly unbalanced though fun.

Isn't there a specific exclusion somewhere in the BRB that says you can't have a save better than 2+?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
There's nothing you can re-evaluate to make rerollable 2++ saves easier to deal with.

No, they're not unstoppable, but for many lists they're functionally unstoppable, which was the term used.

Wraiths don't have a re-rollable 2++ save. They have a 3++ and at best a 4+ RP save. That's not the same thing.

And so the meta gets shuffled a bit. Good. It gets stale when it sits too long. Maybe we'll finally see people take Dark Eldar seriously again.

I wasn't aware we were specifically talking about one unit?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Please no more quote trains :(

Choo-choo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
O_o
I guess my response to that would be the problem lies with the poor game design and lack of functional playtesting resulting in clearly overpowered units that result in one-sided games rather than it being the fault of players getting discouraged or fatalistic as a result of these issues. Hand-waving away issues by and blaming people for recognizing and acknowledging said issues is a somewhat silly response.

A silly response is to not re-evaluate your army and look at possible ways to deal with a new threat and instead jumping on the "everything is ruined train" right out of the gate.

Knee jerk responses like that aren't a healthy response.

I would posit that if you have to rebuild and tailor an army to respond to a single unit (assuming such is reasonably possible), something is wrong with that unit, particularly when quality of fire means relatively little due to its save mechanics.

Really here, we're doing far too much defense of poor game design, and basically telling people "L2P" instead of acknowledging the legitimate game design failure present.Yeah, there's things you can try to do to adapt, but the raw level of firepower we're talking about here is unavailable to many armies to have a chance of dealing with the Wraiths before they get to do their thing, particularly if they want to retain other critical capabilities that you would need for a general "Take All Comers" list.

I mean, yeah, I could roll up to a table with nine Leman Russ Punishers and that'd deal with Wraiths, but then that's three quarters of my army dedicated to that role and almost nothing left for engaging other threats.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Please no more quote trains :(

Choo-choo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
O_o
I guess my response to that would be the problem lies with the poor game design and lack of functional playtesting resulting in clearly overpowered units that result in one-sided games rather than it being the fault of players getting discouraged or fatalistic as a result of these issues. Hand-waving away issues by and blaming people for recognizing and acknowledging said issues is a somewhat silly response.

A silly response is to not re-evaluate your army and look at possible ways to deal with a new threat and instead jumping on the "everything is ruined train" right out of the gate.

Knee jerk responses like that aren't a healthy response.

I would posit that if you have to rebuild and tailor an army to respond to a single unit (assuming such is reasonably possible), something is wrong with that unit, particularly when quality of fire means relatively little due to its save mechanics.

Really here, we're doing far too much defense of poor game design, and basically telling people "L2P" instead of acknowledging the legitimate game design failure present.Yeah, there's things you can try to do to adapt, but the raw level of firepower we're talking about here is unavailable to many armies to have a chance of dealing with the Wraiths before they get to do their thing, particularly if they want to retain other critical capabilities that you would need for a general "Take All Comers" list.

I mean, yeah, I could roll up to a table with nine Leman Russ Punishers and that'd deal with Wraiths, but then that's three quarters of my army dedicated to that role and almost nothing left for engaging other threats.

You mean propose something that we've been seeing since 40k launched and has been a pretty big part of tournament meta forever?

It's not a casual play issue because you can control what you will play and bring. It's a competitive issue. Which is an issue the game has had forever.

I'm not saying the game can't or shouldn't be better, but the fact is that for the majority of players it's not a real issue.

Rainbow Dash wrote:Damn Micro-transactions... there's a reason I don't play video games, now it's creeping into my miniature game.

GW just took a look at what (most of) the videogame industry was doing.

Data-slates are the tabletop gaming equivalents to DLCs in videogames. That is, cancer.

Still you'll find people who will be totally happy to be ripped not once for an incomplete codex, but twice or thrice for several dataslates as well.

It's already reached insulting levels with the CSM.

TheKbob wrote:Seven editions in and the rules are still inconsistent and unclear, no formal rules support, and the most expensive set of rules on the market.

Nope, still really bad.

QFT.

As I've already said in other threads, some people just need to accept the fact that 40k is a poor ruleset. At the same time, it's perfectly fine to play a poor, mediocre and badly tested ruleset and have tons of fun and enjoyment out of it. The rules themselves aren't everything to this hobby, there are many more factors involved. The rules are still a mess though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Please no more quote trains :(

Choo-choo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
O_o
I guess my response to that would be the problem lies with the poor game design and lack of functional playtesting resulting in clearly overpowered units that result in one-sided games rather than it being the fault of players getting discouraged or fatalistic as a result of these issues. Hand-waving away issues by and blaming people for recognizing and acknowledging said issues is a somewhat silly response.

A silly response is to not re-evaluate your army and look at possible ways to deal with a new threat and instead jumping on the "everything is ruined train" right out of the gate.

Knee jerk responses like that aren't a healthy response.

I would posit that if you have to rebuild and tailor an army to respond to a single unit (assuming such is reasonably possible), something is wrong with that unit, particularly when quality of fire means relatively little due to its save mechanics.

Really here, we're doing far too much defense of poor game design, and basically telling people "L2P" instead of acknowledging the legitimate game design failure present.Yeah, there's things you can try to do to adapt, but the raw level of firepower we're talking about here is unavailable to many armies to have a chance of dealing with the Wraiths before they get to do their thing, particularly if they want to retain other critical capabilities that you would need for a general "Take All Comers" list.

I mean, yeah, I could roll up to a table with nine Leman Russ Punishers and that'd deal with Wraiths, but then that's three quarters of my army dedicated to that role and almost nothing left for engaging other threats.

You mean propose something that we've been seeing since 40k launched and has been a pretty big part of tournament meta forever?

It's not a casual play issue because you can control what you will play and bring. It's a competitive issue. Which is an issue the game has had forever.

I'm not saying the game can't or shouldn't be better, but the fact is that for the majority of players it's not a real issue.

I say it's more of an issue with casual gammers. I was a casual and was tired of getting rolled by armies I really had no chance of beating. I'm not a win or go home kind of guy, but for me to have fun, I need a fair chance of victory or it becomes pointless.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I say it's more of an issue with casual gammers. I was a casual and was tired of getting rolled by armies I really had no chance of beating. I'm not a win or go home kind of guy, but for me to have fun, I need a fair chance of victory or it becomes pointless.

I've seen very little of the "spam the most powerful thing over and over" from casual lists like I do in competitive lists.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I say it's more of an issue with casual gammers. I was a casual and was tired of getting rolled by armies I really had no chance of beating. I'm not a win or go home kind of guy, but for me to have fun, I need a fair chance of victory or it becomes pointless.

I've seen very little of the "spam the most powerful thing over and over" from casual lists like I do in competitive lists.

Indeed. If you were facing defeats of that manitude, then the chances are your opponent or their list were not 'casual'. If both players are approaching a game with the same mindset (the product of communication), be that casual or competitive, they both know what to expect and the game should be fine.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I say it's more of an issue with casual gammers. I was a casual and was tired of getting rolled by armies I really had no chance of beating. I'm not a win or go home kind of guy, but for me to have fun, I need a fair chance of victory or it becomes pointless.

I've seen very little of the "spam the most powerful thing over and over" from casual lists like I do in competitive lists.

Alot of this depends on where you play. Club or group of friends casual play typically doesn't experience this becauses it normally gets stomped out quickly, but pick up games at FLGS in my area are often notorious for it.