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.

It is not a secret that factions are VERY disbalanced. Play Taudar and own everything without even having to think tactically. I see it = it dies. Broken. Why even bother yourself buying an army of Orks, for example, painting it, etc., if you will be eventually defeated by someone with very easy and overpowered army? I'll just buy the cheesiest units from the cheesiest army instead of playing an army that I really like. Ever felt like that?

Possible fix is quite simple: the harder (in terms of difficulty) your army is, the more bonus VP you'll get. Example: Space Marines are the easiest army, so after match they get 0 bonus VP. Dark Eldar are the hardest one, so in the end they get, uhm, let's say, 10 bonus VP. If you are loosing terribly because you f*doing CAN'T KILL THAT LANDRAIDER IN A 500 POINTS GAME, there is still hope for you. This feature can boost interest to non-space marine factions and bring some balance on the table. No longer will you see a newbie Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier.

People who play harder armies will no longer need to make extraordinary moves and be tactical geniuses if they want a competitive army. With other things being equal, victory or defeat will finally be based on one's skills, not cheesiness of units.

"Space Marines are the easiest army"

Not even remotely true.

Who judges easiness? What difference do army builds make? How does this change anything when a dramatically unbalanced matchup frequently ends in one side getting tabled?

Until GW hires some sensible rules designers this will always be the way.

Until then play infinity, most balanced game out there at the moment.

It's not only sensible designers, you also need an active balance team to react to changes in meta and players who learn to exploit inevitable design oversights. Example, Serpent Shield. If the protective function was once valued by players more than the offensive ability, it's not nearly as dangerous. But as soon as you buff survivability to all vehicles globally, the Serpent Shield becomes more valuable as a weapon, and the designers who said "help vehicles globally" might not have seen that secondary consequence.

Basically, to keep 40k balanced, you need to continually adjust the rules in response to the choices of players and to manage unexpected secondary consequences. The good news is continual adjustment is possible with e-codexes or fan "balance patches". It's just an investment of time and work for whoever takes it on.

GW would have to actually do playtesting first.

"No longer will you see a newbie Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier."

Tau are not easy to play as you need to get the correct balance of markerlight support; not enough marker lights means poor shooting whilst too many means not enough fire power.

Orks on the other hand are move forward, declare Waaagh, charge, win.

Anyway, there is no way we can avoid GW making better rules for some specific models they want to sell more... *sigh*

why do they need to be balanced? I mean really, I could come out asking if we "rebalanced" based on fluff. A 1000 pt. space marine army is 2 squads and a battle leader, while 1000 points guard is around 500 models.

anyway, the "easiness" of an army is based on the players, and not the book. balance is not as huge an issue outside of tournaments, where "newbie ork" players and 500 point games are far from common.

Also, it's not a balance issue if some ass brings a 250 pt. model to a 500 pt. game.

Easiest way to implement balance without altering current codecies would be a secondary points cost pegged onto each unit/model/upgrade, and having armies be built using a dual resource system

i.e upgrades, certain units, and certain wargears all cost secondary resource as well as points.

So your 70 point veterans buy 3 melta guns for 10 points each, but the meltas also cost x secondary resource.

You want to bring Riptides but you spent all your secondary resources on broadsides and tetras

You want THSS termies but you need to drop the lascannons down to missile launchers on your devs

You want lootaz but you've spent everything on your meganobz

etc

This lets players choose the amount of 'balance' they want - maybe they want a game where every unit can be fully kitted out, so they play with a disproportionate amount of secondary resource

Maybe you want a game of basic units and MSU tactics, so you heavily restrict secondary resource.

SGTPozy wrote:
"No longer will you see a newbie Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier."

Tau are not easy to play as you need to get the correct balance of markerlight support; not enough marker lights means poor shooting whilst too many means not enough fire power.

Orks on the other hand are move forward, declare Waaagh, charge, win.

I can tell you there's more to Orks than that just from playing against them.

SGTPozy wrote:
"No longer will you see a newbie Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier."

Tau are not easy to play as you need to get the correct balance of markerlight support; not enough marker lights means poor shooting whilst too many means not enough fire power.

Orks on the other hand are move forward, declare Waaagh, charge, win.

"Your army is for n00bs, my army requires tactical genius."

shyzo wrote:
No longer will you see a newbie Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier.

The problem here is that while easier, some armies have 'this much' tactical potential whereas an army that's harder to play starts shining when you get a grasp at it. Like when you look at IK. They're powerful, quite easy and fast to play and will dominate in games against unexperienced people. But when you've faced knights a few times with your tac list, you allready know how to neuter them while they can't do much else.

Or like in your example, orks are not easy for the beginner against tau cause you can't just rush forward and win in this case. However, with experience, you realise that you can use some nice tricks like area denial, distractions and simply win via board controle by disallowing a tau player going midfield.

The moment an ork player realises that assault armies are not always about killing stuff in mellee, he increases his performance significantly. And if he has extra points, now that's tau who's at disadvantage.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
"No longer will you see a newbie Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier."

Tau are not easy to play as you need to get the correct balance of markerlight support; not enough marker lights means poor shooting whilst too many means not enough fire power.

Orks on the other hand are move forward, declare Waaagh, charge, win.

"Your army is for n00bs, my army requires tactical genius."

That's what the other guy said; I was expanding on it showing that Tau are not as easy as ignorant people believe them to be. I have an Ork army too so I do knowhow easy it is to play them.

SGTPozy wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
"No longer will you see a newbie Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier."

Tau are not easy to play as you need to get the correct balance of markerlight support; not enough marker lights means poor shooting whilst too many means not enough fire power.

Orks on the other hand are move forward, declare Waaagh, charge, win.

"Your army is for n00bs, my army requires tactical genius."

That's what the other guy said; I was expanding on it showing that Tau are not as easy as ignorant people believe them to be. I have an Ork army too so I do knowhow easy it is to play them.

Perhaps you should elaborate on what exactly makes Tau such a hard army to play then, especially since 7th favours shooty armies?
An army that excels at blasting any army that advances towards them, have the ability to blast anyone that closes the gap by DS/Outflank/reserve shenanigans, assist overwatch on the ones who finally do make it close enough to declare an assault, while having acces to grotesquely durable JSJ MC's and much more risk free DS JSJ suits with TL, innate multi-weapon profile, weaponry and markerligth shenanigans as the cherry top of a cheesy sundae, is not something most people would call "difficult to play".

I'm not trying to turn this in to another Tau bashing thread, nor am I saying that Tau are unbeatable, but the mentioned frustration factors of facing Tau, is present in all (non exotic) builds of Tau lists. Bottom line is; they are unfun to play against. They remove many advantages of units that you paid for and the type of builds that are required to effortlessly beat Tau, usally aren't the type of lists that you'd bring to your friendly games. Meanwhile, facing common Tau builds feels like pulling teeth and that wouldn't be such a bad thing (after all, a hard fought victory is generally worth the struggle) if it werent for the fact that, more often than not, the Tau player doesn't move, picks a target, rolls dice and then rolls dice to see how far his JSJ units move.
So really, if an army barely moves (other than that 1 turn to get into position, but even that is rarely needed), rolls dice in shooting, rolls dice versus DS enemy, rolls dice vs assaulting enemies, rolls dice to move that 1"-3" back from that wall they were hiding behind and mostly discards objectives because, a) his tax FW are already sitting on them or b) the enemy who can contest objectives is dead anyway, then how much thought process, tactics, decision or "skill" does that army really make? Especially when said army have innate, or inexpensive, upgrades or wargear to ignore most things that requires difficult descision making.

There is a big difference in "easy to play" and "easy to win with", especially in a more competitive/cutthroat environment.

 greyknight12 wrote:
There is a big difference in "easy to play" and "easy to win with", especially in a more competitive/cutthroat environment.

I agree but my post/rant questioned the "difficulty" of the Tau dex when, bluntly put, there's little to nothing involved in winning, but to be static and roll dice.
Eldar is easy to win with, but that's certainly not because they win by sitting immobile and ignore 2/3 of the rules in the game.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic so I'll rest my case.

The only way to arrive at a better balance across all codex books.
Is to write a rule set for 40k focusing on the intended game play of 40k.
A rule set that maximizes the amount of tactical consideration, and minimizes the amount of complication in the rules.

Rather than rules that are hastily written to inspire new model sales, with little to no thought to game balance.

I'm not trying to turn this in to another Tau bashing thread- I'm afraid you certainly failed my good sir...

Anyway, there is no way we can avoid GW making better rules for some specific models they want to sell more... *sigh*- Hey Tyrinids! Someone wants to see your new models that are really fun, but have lack luster rules!

Why even bother yourself buying an army of Orks, for example, painting it, etc., if you will be eventually defeated by someone with very easy and overpowered army?- Because Orks could be fun for that person? And nothing is that broken that you will lose every game... I'm sensing someone is going to complain that Orks can't win without trucks...

Possible fix is quite simple: the harder (in terms of difficulty) your army is, the more bonus VP you'll get- The more non-nonsensical this thread is the more sad Ill get.

People who play harder armies will no longer need to make extraordinary moves and be tactical geniuses if they want a competitive army. With other things being equal, victory or defeat will finally be based on one's skills, not cheesiness of units- YAY FOR NO MORE STRATEGY IN 40k! And I think that RP are cheesy so could I please get 10 extra vps?

This feature can boost interest to non-space marine factions and bring some balance on the table- (Gives Lion El'jonson a pat on the head) Its ok Mr. Lion maybe you can go find a different game where you opponent isn't getting + 10 vp to your already lack luster army.

Space Marines are the easiest army- When you played Orks, I'm asking you this sincerely, did you use trucks vs. the space marines? Because if you didn't obviously you would lose because everything would be shot to pieces and would be like using the eraser of a pencil to complete a test.

Ork player dominated by a newbie Tau player simply because Tau are easier.- May I ask again, sorry for being repetitive, do you use trucks? No more like do you own them? Because it seems like you are losing due to a lack of mobility. If so ebay is a good place to start looking for cheap trucks or try your hand at conversions on random things like looted rhinos!

Perhaps you should elaborate on what exactly makes Tau such a hard army to play then, especially since 7th favours shooty armies?- Because Tau suck in CC so if a certain player (hint hint) bought a certain dedicated transport (hint hint) that could get him into CC maybe he could win more.

Play Taudar and own everything without even having to think tactically. I see it = it dies- They see it, it dies. I see trucks I refuse to buy them.

If you are loosing terribly because you f*doing CAN'T KILL THAT LANDRAIDER IN A 500 POINTS GAME- Uh... No cursing on dakka,, use the word fething it is more fluffy for this site and moving on 500 points is an unbalanced point level. The 40k system is made for higher point levels.


I agree but my post/rant questioned the "difficulty" of the Tau dex when, bluntly put, there's little to nothing involved in winning, but to be static and roll dice.
Eldar is easy to win with, but that's certainly not because they win by sitting immobile and ignore 2/3 of the rules in the game- But they don't do that? Are you still playing killpoints with tau? If you are then sure yes they are boring because most armies are boring in killpoint games because nothing is stopping you from just using the thing your army is best at you never have to take a risk.

Dark Eldar are the hardest one- No... That all depends on the build you are making

No offence man, but are deliberately trying to get people to hate you? Never say any army is easy for each has its challenges and while some are better than others there are no definitive "Easy" armies. Again this is not meant in offence, but it is just really bad socially in general to say anything along those lines.

Also this thread while you attempted to justify it is really just a, "IMA ANGRY CUZ DEEZ ARMIES BEAAAAT MEEE!" thread why does this exist?

After reading the whole post I just noticed this thread is half rage war, half really pointless thread and to preserve the "happiness" of the dakka community I ask an Inquisitor (dakka MOD) to declare exterminatus (to remove) on this thread.