Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context, 3 viable codices in the entire game?

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.

**rhinosaur**

Like some others have said in GW's defense - any game that is this open ended and varied is nearly impossible to balance perfectly. That said, they could do a better job. I've played this game since 2nd and it has never been without the ability to abuse the rules. In their eyes it is perfectly balanced - to sell the models. The newest stuff only sells a lot if it is fun to use and that usually means killy. The constant cycle of different aspects of the game being powerful is obvious - assault - transports - shooting - now the giant models that don't even belong at this scale. Instead of fixing something that doesn't work they make new stuff because in the end they must sell toys to survive. There was no need to introduce centurions to SM. They are what terminators should have been but everyone already has a ton of dust covered terminators so changing their stats wouldn't sell any new models. There has always been a need to house-rule the things that don't work for your group. In my experience when something seems too powerful it usually becomes "no fun" to use anymore. So we don't or it gets changed/fixed. If a game isn't fun for both sides there is no point. Some people like tournaments but to me it would seem like making my hobby like going to work.

**Bharring**

The randomish selection has more relation to building a custom specific-fluff list than netlists.

Ever wanted to run Jack-heavy pStriker? Or throw in some Gun Mages *and* Trenchers with Nemo? Or a Storm infantry with a Memo, light on Heavies? The game does a great job of guiding list building towards the fluff as written (Caine and his drinking buddies!), but if you want to get off the beaten paths, you either min-max some gimmick or get rolled over.

In WMH, it felt like even picking the wrong Heavy, or having one too many Jacks, was a nigh-autolose.

In 40k, if I take a Razorback instead of a Rhino, it'll change things, but won't destroy my whole army.

As for options, i don't know whether a WMH faction or 40k Codex has more unit entries, but 40k has far more options easily.
If I run Stormblades, I can take them small, large, plus 1/2 weapons, plus leader (I think, been forever). So (2)(3)(2) options, or 24.
Marines.
5-10 in a unit (6 options there)
One of 4 special weapons (5 options)
Sarge can be Vet (2 options)
Sarge can take one of four Power weapons. (5 options)
And much, much more. But we're already at 300, so I figure I'll stop listing.

You might say the options don't really matter. I think the Tac squad options matter more than Stormblade options.

But the real difference, to me, is that the options exist.
In WMH, its the large or small squad. Nothing in between. Gotta pick the exact right option, though, because every point in list selection is pivitol. You're choosing between the small team and the large team.
In 40k, you pick the exact count you want. Bob took a railgun round to the chest before the game? Field 9. 14 points won't make a huge difference in most lists.

**Azreal13**

rhinosaur wrote:
Like some others have said in GW's defense - any game that is this open ended and varied is nearly impossible to balance perfectly. That said, they could do a better job. I've played this game since 2nd and it has never been without the ability to abuse the rules. In their eyes it is perfectly balanced - to sell the models. The newest stuff only sells a lot if it is fun to use and that usually means killy. The constant cycle of different aspects of the game being powerful is obvious - assault - transports - shooting - now the giant models that don't even belong at this scale. Instead of fixing something that doesn't work they make new stuff because in the end they must sell toys to survive. There was no need to introduce centurions to SM. They are what terminators should have been but everyone already has a ton of dust covered terminators so changing their stats wouldn't sell any new models. There has always been a need to house-rule the things that don't work for your group. In my experience when something seems too powerful it usually becomes "no fun" to use anymore. So we don't or it gets changed/fixed. If a game isn't fun for both sides there is no point. Some people like tournaments but to me it would seem like making my hobby like going to work.

All very reasonable, except not everyone has the luxury of gaming in a steady social group, some people game in an environment where they're playing against strangers or people who they don't know well, and it is near impossible to house rule in those situations.

Nobody asks for or expects perfect balance, but I don't think it is coincidence that the games that are perceived as most balanced are the ones where the designers are engaged with the public and make a concerted effort to maintain the game through FAQ, Errata and even retrospective changes.

**Vaktathi**

RunicFIN wrote:
Title is pretty self explanatory. Firstly, don't jump the gun, read what is being said with thought is what I ask. Arguing about something that hasn't even been said leads nowhere.

This is a rant and an attempt to understand some really flawed logic at the same time. This is all in the context of how the game currently is, what it could be is another topic as I am only interested in the logic that pertains to what and how things are right now, which is pretty much always the case with complaints. Reading this forum you can quickly see the general consesus of there being around 3 viable codices in the entire game ( Tau, Eldar, Necron. ) Everything else is supposedly crap, or mediocre at best. Not true, and here's why.

Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context

There is no point about complaining that your Astra Militarum can't handle Space Marines allied with The Wolves Unleashed on their own. There is no point to being pissed about your Blood Angels not being able to beat 3 Flyrants allied with Adamantine Lance. Why? Here's why:

Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. ) However, who plays competitively with a mono Codex these days? Perhaps Necrons occasionally, but even the top Necron lists tend to have something allied. That's about it. Every competent IoM player uses the allied matrix to allow their list powerful combinations or counters to things their Codex can't handle on their own. So why even complain that in a competitive enviroment my Codex can't take on anyone mono, when no one plays mono competitively? And if you play casually you don't need a competitive list. There is simply no way out of this one so it's use as an argument could just aswell be stopped as it's based on a paradox as a whole. Secondly, the Tau and Eldar codices remain updated and their next iterations will surely be brought down in power asfar as I'm concerned. We should see how things are then, and it's supposed to happen this year.

Either complain in a casual context where there is no need for competitiveness, or talk in the competitive context where monocodex armies are rarely played and triumph even less, making complaining about a monocodex builds power abysmally pointless. You don't get to pick the worst of both, unless you want to be paradoxical ofcourse. But we can't have that, since we're all pseudointellectual experts of pretty much everything around here.

You can have competitive Blood Angels. You can have competitive Astra Militarum. You can have competitive Sisters of Battle. Because in this game, currently, you play competitive lists with allies and multiple detachments and codices, and that's that.

Your argument here is that "your army X isn't uncompetitive, you're doing it wrong by not playing army X+Y".

Well, several problems here.

First, there's a fundamental problem if, to have any semblance of balance, you need to play multiple armies and not just one. That's an issue in and of itself.

Second, I don't want to play with allies, I want to play with Imperial Guard, why should I *have* to play Space Marines too in order to have a decent game? That's a crutch.

Third, it's still very clear GW aren't writing codex books with allies in mind, they're still being written as self-contained armies, not as components of a larger "meta" army.

Fourth, you do see mono-faction armies work competitively. Eldar, Necrons, and Daemons certainly manage it quite well.

Fifth, even with allies, you don't see a lot of these armies placing well in tournaments.

Complaining that a unit is not competitive

Yet another bit you see all the time. Certainly true with units that are undeniably bad ( Mutilators, I'm looking at you ) but almost daily you can see someone saying a unit that can infact perform being useless. Most of the time I attribute this to the player just being clueless on how to play such a unit on a general level, let alone with a synergized army. However there is a clear persisting mindset among your average players, that are really nothing special. Those who make up 98% of us wargamers, myself included. It would appear people judge a units effectiveness or how competitive it is based on an enviroment they themselves will never ever actually be in. This ever receeding, counter argument dodging bubble of ignorance, based on a theorized match inwhich the opponent is a perfect computer of a man ( yes, that's intentional ) and makes no mistake, countering everything you do perfectly, rendering unit in question useless.

Guess what? You're most likely the 98%. You're not in the top tables of ETC competing against Nick Nanavati in tooth and nail matches of tactical genius. No, you're most likely participating in local tournaments, playing with your friends, or even participating in the larger tournaments but never reaching the absolute top. So why do you judge a units competitiveness based on like you were? It's oxymoronic. Your friends mostly aren't 5 Sean Naydens either, they are also the 98% who make mistakes, not to mention the countless other factors affecting the course of a game. If you think you can't win with Blood Angels because the hypothetical Nickean Naydenvati hybrid android will crush you in his/its perfect match where everything goes the way you think it goes before the match has even taken place, fix your brain, because you're thinking wrong and not even remotely realistically.

I've beaten many general cookiecutter competitive lists with my Blood Angels. There is a Tau & Eldar player in my group that has beaten me once ( my Dark Angels, Blood Angels and CSM that is. ) I've seen Daemonkin already basically walk over a Reclamation Legion with Canoptek Harvest. I've been beaten by 9 Khorne Blood Slaughterers while playing my tournament Chaos Daemons. I've seen a Tau player win a local tournament with his casual Tau list by just being a good player, without a single Riptide, against armies such as gravspam White Scars. I've had an experienced Astra Militarum player dominate me with a mono codex list while wielding my Necrons with the previous Codex. I've seen amazing out of the box combinations dominate the cookiecutter in the biggest tournaments in the world. Stuff happens, and the stuff that doesn't work in the top tables of the largest tournaments of the world doesn't mean they don't work for you. You're most likely not in the 2%, so start thinking in your own context, where you and most of your opponents are the 98%. Why think that something will never work in a gaming enviroment you will never ever be in most likely. I press again, this only considering units that can actually perform when their user isn't a complete tool, not things like Mutilators. Personally I play the underdog armies as I find it fun. I also think the best way to develop as a player is to learn to deal with the most op fotm gak with some of the lowest powered codices around. You will then eventually learn to deal with said challenges while having the most barebone tools. Now imagine what happens when you then switch to a top tier Codex with an equally cheesy build? Exactly, you will crush the opponent who is used to his fancy tools. How could you not, you've done it before with a crappier army already.

Ok, I'm going to start by saying that I have played against players of this caliber and in large events over my 40k hobby life and won my share of victories up and down the US west coast. Lets also make it known that these events also aren't playing the same game as the rest of us, with unique missions, different objectives, and usually unique house rules that don't apply everywhere else, and often with the same core group of people over and over for several years.

You're attributing a lot of hyperbole to people. To be fair, there's a lot of hyperbole out there, but nobody is saying Blood Angels can't ever possibly win against certain armies or whatnot. However, is not at all impossible to look at general odds and come to the conclusion that, most of the time, given said odds and abilities, that one side or another will be at a marked disadvantage, and that, player skill being equal, the preponderance of wins and losses will be stilted. And guess what? We largely see that played out in tournaments.

The funniest bit. The 2% make things like Lictors and Scouts win in the top tables, the very units the 98% complain about, and that makes them the 2%. A fact.

The Lictors and Scouts were, effectively, extraneous bits in an an event that did used *significantly* different missions and house rules from "normal" 40k. The core of these armies also still worked off of very tried and true units. Multiple flying hive tyrants and psykers with select hammer units like Grav centurions.

Ultimately, we're also talking about a game that GW has openly proclaimed is not a competitive, balanced ruleset, and is not intended to be. They've made no bones about the fact that the game isn't a very good "game", it's a framework for creating "narrative" fun bits with plastic army men

**ImAGeek**

Bharring wrote:
The randomish selection has more relation to building a custom specific-fluff list than netlists.

Ever wanted to run Jack-heavy pStriker? Or throw in some Gun Mages *and* Trenchers with Nemo? Or a Storm infantry with a Memo, light on Heavies? The game does a great job of guiding list building towards the fluff as written (Caine and his drinking buddies!), but if you want to get off the beaten paths, you either min-max some gimmick or get rolled over.

In WMH, it felt like even picking the wrong Heavy, or having one too many Jacks, was a nigh-autolose.

In 40k, if I take a Razorback instead of a Rhino, it'll change things, but won't destroy my whole army.

As for options, i don't know whether a WMH faction or 40k Codex has more unit entries, but 40k has far more options easily.
If I run Stormblades, I can take them small, large, plus 1/2 weapons, plus leader (I think, been forever). So (2)(3)(2) options, or 24.
Marines.
5-10 in a unit (6 options there)
One of 4 special weapons (5 options)
Sarge can be Vet (2 options)
Sarge can take one of four Power weapons. (5 options)
And much, much more. But we're already at 300, so I figure I'll stop listing.

You might say the options don't really matter. I think the Tac squad options matter more than Stormblade options.

But the real difference, to me, is that the options exist.
In WMH, its the large or small squad. Nothing in between. Gotta pick the exact right option, though, because every point in list selection is pivitol. You're choosing between the small team and the large team.
In 40k, you pick the exact count you want. Bob took a railgun round to the chest before the game? Field 9. 14 points won't make a huge difference in most lists.

Good points definitely, but I still maintain that you never see the majority of the options. I think amount of options is a decent argument if they're all relatively balanced with each other, but in 40k people quickly work out the best option and that's what you see 95% of the time.

But you're right about WMH that you do sometimes have to have the right combinations, but then different combinations mean that almost every model in the game is playable in some circumstance or combination. In 40k if something's bad, tough.

**vipoid**

MWHistorian wrote:
I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.

Basically this. If the models I want to use are crap on the table, then I either have to use them and lose a lot (not fun), or use stronger models (which I don't want to use, and may not even own). Either way, I'm not having a good time.

**rhinosaur**

Azreal13 wrote:
All very reasonable, except not everyone has the luxury of gaming in a steady social group, some people game in an environment where they're playing against strangers or people who they don't know well, and it is near impossible to house rule in those situations.

Nobody asks for or expects perfect balance, but I don't think it is coincidence that the games that are perceived as most balanced are the ones where the designers are engaged with the public and make a concerted effort to maintain the game through FAQ, Errata and even retrospective changes.

Agreed. Not knowing your opponents would be tough for me. Just listening to the other games going on, it is easy to pick out who I wouldn't enjoy a game against and it is unfortunate. A completely balanced game must have fixed armies on a grid like chess. 40k can be skewed just by a player who doesn't measure properly. There are too many variables but it could be better. Using the stat line to make units different as opposed to 50+ special rules would be a start.

How hard would it be for GW to simply have one guy just for FAQs and errata? Maybe they already do, but if so, he is lame. I don't play 7th (stayed with 5th)but even I hear a few things that are in obvious need for change. All it would take is "yes the serpent shield was meant to be 6 inches not 60". Other times it wouldn't be so easy like with grav weapons. From what I have read they are something that goes against balance. Like the old Choppa rule (worst rule ever) from 3rd and 4th that limited saves to 4+. These kind of things break the balance when units are based on a point system. Higher armour makes something more valuable and now higher armour value just means it is easier to kill. The "big" (they belong in epic) models that have been introduced to 28mm have skewed everything as well. The game doesn't seem to have an identity anymore. What level of warfare is it trying to represent? Tables are so choked with models that movement is impossible/pointless.

**Yoyoyo**

Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?

Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!

**ImAGeek**

Yoyoyo wrote:
Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?

Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!

Because not everyone has the luxury of a gaming group that you can experiment with that stuff. If you rely on pickup games, you Mingus not get much chance to mess around with stuff like that. And just because you can't achieve perfect balance in 40k, doesn't excuse the fact that GW make almost no effort to balance their game in any way.

**Yoyoyo**

40k players can afford $200 superheavies that break the game. I'm pretty sure they can afford 10 minutes to read rules you can download online for free.

**ImAGeek**

Yoyoyo wrote:
40k players can afford $200 superheavies that break the game. I'm pretty sure they can afford 10 minutes to read rules you can download online for free.

Yeah every 40k player can spend $200 at the drop of a hat, not a generalisation at all.

Also, money wasn't even the point of what I was saying. If you rely on pickup games you're far more likely to come across people who refuse to change the way they play or try new ways of playing than if you are part of a group who plays lots of different ways.

**Azreal13**

I've turned up at the shop with my 1850 points of shiny new army. You're a complete stranger to me, how exactly do you expect me to agree to play a 200pt Kill Team game I have no inclination to play?

The fallacy of the infinite number of potential opponents is a terrible one, most of us have to make do with what we can.

**Yoyoyo**

How about this. I show up on Thursdays, and play other people who also like to play skirmish and smaller games so I don't have to deal with someone's shiny and poorly balanced 1850pt army.

How hard is that? It takes a minimum of organization.

ImAGeek wrote:
f you rely on pickup games you're far more likely to come across people who refuse to change the way they play or try new ways of playing than if you are part of a group who plays lots of different ways.

Well, that's why people play on groups -- more cooperation, more flexibility, more fun. Even most of the tourney guys know each other. It's a group of sorts. Kind of a lesson there.

Social pressure to be a good partner also discourages people who are actively trying to break the game in order to win.

**ImAGeek**

Yoyoyo wrote:
How about this. I show up on Thursdays, and play other people who also like to play skirmish and smaller games so I don't have to deal with someone's shiny and poorly balanced 1850pt army.

How hard is that? It takes a minimum of organization.

ImAGeek wrote:
f you rely on pickup games you're far more likely to come across people who refuse to change the way they play or try new ways of playing than if you are part of a group who plays lots of different ways.
Well, that's why people play on groups -- more cooperation, more flexibility, more fun. Even most of the tourney guys know each other. It's a group of sorts. Kind of a lesson there.

Not everyone has that luxury. So not really a lesson.

**fallinq**

vipoid wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.

Basically this. If the models I want to use are crap on the table, then I either have to use them and lose a lot (not fun), or use stronger models (which I don't want to use, and may not even own). Either way, I'm not having a good time.

Exactly! First I have to choose between the models that I like and the models that are actually good. With how expensive GW models are, I shouldn't have to choose between the models I really like, and the models with rules that are actually good. Then they'll put out a new codex in a year, and put out a new edition the year after that, and what's good and what's crap completely changes, so suddenly a list that was somewhat competitive now has parts that have to be replaced to keep it from totally sucking. And then, if I decide I'm sick of this spiral of spending and don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in stupid crap models I'm not wild about that are just going to get nerfed next edition anyway, THEN I get to be a "casual gamer" and start losing all the time and have condescending

holes tell me that I need to "learn to how to play the game, bro."

It's not just balancing issues, it's the constant dance of power creep and nerfing, combined with tossing in new stuff that completely wrecks whatever semblance of balance the game had.

**Accolade**

fallinq wrote:
vipoid wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.

Basically this. If the models I want to use are crap on the table, then I either have to use them and lose a lot (not fun), or use stronger models (which I don't want to use, and may not even own). Either way, I'm not having a good time.

Exactly! First I have to choose between the models that I like and the models that are actually good. With how expensive GW models are, I shouldn't have to choose between the models I really like, and the models with rules that are actually good. Then they'll put out a new codex in a year, and put out a new edition the year after that, and what's good and what's crap completely changes, so suddenly a list that was somewhat competitive now has parts that have to be replaced to keep it from totally sucking. And then, if I decide I'm sick of this spiral of spending and don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in stupid crap models I'm not wild about that are just going to get nerfed next edition anyway, THEN I get to be a "casual gamer" and start losing all the time and have condescending holes tell me that I need to "learn to how to play the game, bro." It's not just balancing issues, it's the constant dance of power creep and nerfing, combined with tossing in new stuff that completely wrecks whatever semblance of balance the game had.

Tsk tsk, should have had more money, bro. Then you could have bought more models and codexes. This game isn't for plebs, dontchaknow?

Hard sarcasm in case that's not clear

**Yoyoyo**

That's kind of the point of alt formats, get off the hamster wheel of spending and power creep issues. Aside from skirmish you have formats like highlander. I don't get the hostility towards them -- it's the same ruleset.

It should be noted some people LIKE reaping the advantages of spending and power creep. That is another good reason to get away from it all.

**Accolade**

Yoyoyo wrote:
That's kind of the point of alt formats, get off the hamster wheel of spending and power creep issues. Aside from skirmish you have formats like highlander. I don't get the hostility towards them -- it's the same ruleset.

It should be noted some people LIKE reaping the advantages of spending and power creep. That is another good reason to get away from it all.

On a more serious note, I wish that there was greater accessibility to the rules for 40k. Even if you're looking at just playing Kill-Team or Combat Patrol, you're looking at the core rulebook and a $50 codex. Obviously, you can circumvent some of this cost with eBay and digital copies, but that's still greater than $50 for a small skirmish game. The one-size-fits all of the new rules tends to push games bigger so you can make the most of the significant investment in rules, but I think what results in feeling of a lack of value in rules that get recycled at a pretty frequent pace and bare immense similarity to their predecessors. This has always been a problem with GW rules products, but the 7th edition era of 40k has really exacerbated it to the point where even die-hard fans are balking at prices of rules alone.

**Runic**

Phyrekzhogos wrote:
In response to the OP's title.

Out of curiosity, do you feel like the allies matrix has allowed GW to actually be more lazy in regards to codex balances?

But anyways, the point of my question is really "Are some codexes better written or balanced/viable based on not having as many allies answers to specific things? Do you feel like the allies matrix provides GW with an easy cop-out so they don't necessarily 'need' to work as hard at balancing a lot of codexes? Been wondering about this awhile now, and I'm curious what you and others on Dakka think.

I'm balancing between two options as I do not know for certain. One would be a reason to allow more diverse armies and give people a "reason" as in incentive to buy more miniatures. GW is a business afterall and their main income is miniatures, and many of their decision are quite transparent on this fact ( Daemonkin is basically there to sell the new Bloodthirster the second it came out, and the book, ofcourse. ) The other one is to allow the game to become so diverse that a sort of pseudobalance is achieved - the variety is so huge that defeating everything automatically becomes more difficult. Meaning kind of an easy way out of rules design. Then again, they have stated they don't care about game balance that much. They also state, in vaurious enviroments that they want to deliver the best Warhammer 40,000 experience they can.

These 2 statements contradict eachother. And I don't put much weight on official statements of any company really, they rarely are even close to a naked truth, not in the good, and not in the bad.

Which by the way is an actual thing I've noticed. The more bloated the game gets, the more diverse it gets, and less easier it is to dominate -everything- in the game, resulting in said "pseudobalance."

To answer the latter question, certain codices are certainly better balanced to function without allies competitively than others. For example, the best allround codices in the game are all Xenos. However IoM has the largest BB allying options, resulting in possibilities to compete.

And for the record, I just spent the last hour before logging in debating what GW does wrong, and trying to elaborate it an back up my claims to a guy I know who is apparently fine with everything GW does, whereas I'm not fine with multiple things regarding GW's business practices and the game itself. I am, however, still in the spectrum where the game is fun for me and I enjoy it ( as it's been like this and worse even, before. ) So I'm not blind. In this thread however I am talking in the now, and in the context of "how things are right now in practice."

Yes, it's fine to be unhappy about poor balance. And a poor balance it is. That still doesn't make a Vendetta bad, and SoB unplayable. I can't articulate this any clearer, so if someone doesn't comprehend this point and the context then I guess the rest of us are out of luck.

**Talys**

RunicFIN wrote:
Phyrekzhogos wrote:
In response to the OP's title.

Out of curiosity, do you feel like the allies matrix has allowed GW to actually be more lazy in regards to codex balances?

But anyways, the point of my question is really "Are some codexes better written or balanced/viable based on not having as many allies answers to specific things? Do you feel like the allies matrix provides GW with an easy cop-out so they don't necessarily 'need' to work as hard at balancing a lot of codexes? Been wondering about this awhile now, and I'm curious what you and others on Dakka think.

I'm balancing between two options as I do not know for certain. One would be a reason to allow more diverse armies and give people a "reason" as in incentive to buy more miniatures. GW is a business afterall and their main income is miniatures, and many of their decision are quite transparent on this fact ( Daemonkin is basically there to sell the new Bloodthirster the second it came out, and the book, ofcourse. ) The other one is to allow the game to become so diverse that a sort of pseudobalance is achieved - the variety is so huge that defeating everything automatically becomes more difficult.

Which by the way is an actual thing I've noticed. The more bloated the game gets, the more diverse it gets, and less easier it is to dominate -everything- in the game, resulting in said "pseudobalance."

To answer the latter question, certain codices are certainly better balanced to function without allies competitively than others. For example, the best allround codices in the game are all Xenos. However IoM has the largest BB allying options, resulting in possibilities to compete.

I pretty much agree with your standpoint,

RunicFIN. The one thing I'd add is that allies and the ally matrix makes balancing really tricky, because one faction might be very weak by themselves, but be an excellent ally. Does that make them a good faction, or a bad one? Should every faction be playable equally well on its own? I'm not sure about the answer; I'm not sure if there IS a good answer.

Really, there are no factions that have a full complement of models in the game that are so terrible as to be unwinnable in any but the most competitive game settings; and none at all that can't be enjoyably played as an allied faction. Note that I'm not including factions like Inquisition, which just don't have enough models to make an army.

Some factions are have very strong units or formations, but that only matters if players are building their lists to be only have the very best units their faction offers. I'm not saying that this isn't a legitimate way of playing the game. However, that the people who want to just play homogenous armies inevitably end up playing each other anyhow -- wraiths and spiders will just end up playing the folks who want to play serpents and firedragons, FMC armies, or markerlight gunlines. These players usually end up being mediocre players will great lists, and will generally have a poor win ratio against great players with smarter, more versatile lists, but those matchups don't happen a ton outside of tournaments, because the latter players have their own play partners and generally don't relish rehashing predictable games.

**Runic**

I do infact think myself, that the days of judging an armys performance on a monocodex level in this game are gone and perhaps not even intended any longer. It was an odd change back when allies were introduced, and it took me a while to get used to it. These days I don't even think in the mono codex context any more. Why would I? In practice, using allies I think is more common than not using them ( or for the very least, mixing formations and different detachment that allow you completely different shenanigans to that of a single CAD. )

I personally hate completely ridicilous armies myself, though. I don't ally Necrons with Inquisitors or Eldar with Tyranids or other silly things. With IoM I ally IoM that somehow makes sense, and with my Daemons/CSM I ally them to eachother. I did consider getting a Knight for my CSM as it's somewhat plausible to have a Chaos Knight, but in the end I decided no, I won't do it as on a game mechanical level it's still an IoM unit fighting alongside my traitors. I also don't ally certain Xenos with eachother that I find too ridicilous ( Necrons & Eldar for example is too stupid for me personally. )

**Talys**

I can't imagine any reason for Necron and Eldar to fight alongside each other, Apocalypse or no

On the bright side, you can add a Bloodthirster to your CSM now

That will make a fine addition. One thing though, I've taken a look at how it goes together and such, and I can't imagine how to possibly transport that.

One big benefit that IoM has is that all their freaking models fit into carrying cases nicely. I got 1,000 points into a DE army and stopped, because the models are too hard to take between upstairs and downstairs, much less to anyone's house or a store LOL. Well, ok, and I sort of got sidetracked by Blood Angels, but that's a whole other thing

**Makumba**

Talys wrote:
I can't imagine any reason for Necron and Eldar to fight alongside each other, Apocalypse or no

Good combos. For a very long time a very popular combo for nids was the normal nids army with necron ally to get a chariot lord and scyth immortals. If the combo is good it isn't hard to imagine why people would use it. In fact it is hard to imagine why they wouldn't.

**ImAGeek**

Makumba wrote:
Talys wrote:
I can't imagine any reason for Necron and Eldar to fight alongside each other, Apocalypse or no

Good combos. For a very long time a very popular combo for nids was the normal nids army with necron ally to get a chariot lord and scyth immortals. If the combo is good it isn't hard to imagine why people would use it. In fact it is hard to imagine why they wouldn't.

I believe Talys meant fluff wise.

**Xenomancers**

Peregrine wrote:
RunicFIN wrote:
Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.

You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.

I <3 Peregrine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?

Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!

In chess you are supposed to trade off using white and black to make up for the advantage.

**Naw**

Yoyoyo wrote:
Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?

Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!

So let's not even try, huh! That's great.

In Chess they balance by alternating playing black and white. In WH40K they just give up and say "play with whatever you want".

To the OP, I feel that you make incorrect statement there regarding the tournaments. They already have their own defined set of rules that do not follow the rules laid in the rulebook. They dictate how many allies, formations and whatnot you can have, vs "play with whatever you want", etc.

When 6th edition arrived and Eldar + Tau were fresh out, the immediate rise in power level of those books as mono builds was huge. Looking at the tournament results shows mono Eldar doing very well. Call it Competitive vs Casual, I call it lazy design. They do not even try.

Nevertheless, I still enjoy playing the game.

**Runic**

Vaktathi wrote:

Fourth, you do see mono-faction armies work competitively. Eldar, Necrons, and Daemons certainly manage it quite well.

Fifth, even with allies, you don't see a lot of these armies placing well in tournaments.

Uhm, what.

**Yoyoyo**

Naw wrote:
So let's not even try, huh! That's great.

Ha! You certainly CAN try!

However, rather than take some responsibility on ourselves to play with more cover, bigger tables, houserules, different FOCs or missions, or anything else, some people would rather just complain on the internet. No surprises there really lol!

**Accolade**

I thought the point was that people are paying a great deal for the rules, gaming aids, and miniatures for 40k and thus expect some level of craftsmanship put into the rules other than "here's what we came up (aka we took the old rules and changed the points value plus one other thing)... these units are super cool and do these awesome things, pew pew"

**Blacksails**

40k isn't IKEA.