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.

Yoyoyo wrote:
That's a nice, but an ultimately misguided thought Crash. Rick Priestly mentioned in his AMA on reddit:

"Game balance is a real chimera for GW because the games are driven by model releases that are entirely out of the hands of the designers".

Priestly was referencing the issues with flyers in 6th. Now it's superheavies in 7th. Scatterbikes? Maybe it's the model team's jetbike that drove that addition. Who knows? The facts are, if you think GW is going to nail balance using points -- EVER -- you're wrong. And the "100% official" holy grail you're tweaking over isn't currently used by any of the major GTs anyway, who have extensive FAQs and comping.

Hyperventilating doesn't make for a very compelling argument. Clarity and evidence does. If you're so keen on official GW decisions, why are you yourself asking to modify design choices like mega-formations that are clearly not leaving?

Ever is a very big word. There is a reason their stocks plummeted. There is a reason they are changing ceo. Maybe they will gain some sense from this. "It is not dead that which eternally can lie. And with strange aeons even GW may realize".

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I think that formations are an important and necessary part of the game now, but I understand wanting to avoid them for more friendly/casual games.

Might I ask why? Not really seeing the benefit to having MFDs knocking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Baselines are definitely important. The problem we have with points is inflexibility. The challenge is in finding an attractive baseline if we try to implement something else.

It's actually the most flexible mechanic for balance.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Until then points + houseruling is the easiest thing to work with.

THEN WHY TAKE AWAY THE POINTS?!

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
THEN WHY TAKE AWAY THE POINTS?!

Encourages a lot of negative powergaming tendencies and frames the game around list building in tightly defined and formulaic competitive missions, rather than thematic, flexible, and creative scenarios involving any unit you might care to field.

But unless you want to go Sigmar and simply not offer any kind of baseline whatsoever, right now 40k is stuck with what it's got.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Encourages a lot of negative powergaming tendencies

No points is even worse, then there aren't even limits.

Yoyoyo wrote:
frames the game around list building in tightly defined and formulaic competitive missions

By default, absolutely nothing stopping you from changing it up.

Yoyoyo wrote:
rather than thematic, flexible, and creative scenarios involving any unit you might care to field.

Which many, many people (including myself) can't handle that at all, and once again that option is there points or no points. Again, why should people be driven away from 40k just to force this on them?

Yoyoyo wrote:
But unless you want to go Sigmar and simply not offer any kind of baseline whatsoever, right now 40k is stuck with what it's got.

And the latter is infinitely better than the former, kinda shocking that you'd advocate the former.

While it is true that Eldar do not have a monopoly on cheese and OP units, CrashGordon94 is right

That is true, but no other player can pick more or less any unit and play with it. A casual random units picked army can go against tournament armies, if you play eldar. There is no one unit to nerf, because if someone nerfs WK, then eldar players will just spam something else. So balancing eldar, if it even should be done at all, is either impossible or would have to be done through some sort of special rule added on top of the rules they already have.

Honestly that just means the non-broken stuff is usable, which isn't a bad thing, and probably something to keep in mind for when other stuff is balanced.

Wk are too cheap by at least 100pts for what they do,

scat bikes are also too cheap for what they do compared to similar priced models, up some pts and 1/3 for special weapons

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Honestly that just means the non-broken stuff is usable, which isn't a bad thing, and probably something to keep in mind for when other stuff is balanced.

Define usable. Because I have seen tournament list with almost every eldar unit out there. There are very few which are "bad", and even those aren't bad per se, they are just bad because melee sucks in general this edition and shoting units are point for point better.
On the other spectrum of the game you have books like GK, which are ok, and have like 4 or 5 usable units in the entire codex. Or IG which has no corner stone units, no specialisation or BAs who are Space Marine- the good stuff.

No, not defining anything.

Not having "bad" stuff is a good thing, we shouldn't nerf things that aren't OP, by the sounds of it those "bad" units need a buff more than anything else, but since they're not Eldar that's another discussion for another time.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I think that formations are an important and necessary part of the game now, but I understand wanting to avoid them for more friendly/casual games.

Might I ask why? Not really seeing the benefit to having MFDs knocking about.

Sure. I feel that these new kinds of detachments are a great way to represent the lore on the tabletop and to give players to take more generalist and traditionally less optimal units. The Decurion, for all the complaints about it, accurately represents Necrons as an unstoppable phalanx. The Gladius actually gives marine players a reason to take Tac and assault marines. 7th edition was designed to be formation edition from the beginning, but naturally GW screwed up the execution. I still think that formations have had more of a positive effect on the game rather than a negative one.

Makumba wrote:

While it is true that Eldar do not have a monopoly on cheese and OP units, CrashGordon94 is right

That is true, but no other player can pick more or less any unit and play with it. A casual random units picked army can go against tournament armies, if you play eldar. There is no one unit to nerf, because if someone nerfs WK, then eldar players will just spam something else. So balancing eldar, if it even should be done at all, is either impossible or would have to be done through some sort of special rule added on top of the rules they already have.

May I ask one question: do you play Eldar? If you do, you should know that Eldar are an army based on synergy. As an army of specialists, you need to have the right units in the right roles; bring the wrong ones and defeat is almost assured. The firepower, mobility, and special rules of Eldar units are compensated by their weak durability. Make a mistake and it will easily cost you units. If you don't just spam the OP units, Eldar can be fun to both play and play against.

Also, are you seriously saying that all Eldar players are powergamers? I resent that description; by the same standard all vanilla marine players are powergamers because some use the Skyhammer or Full Gladius or Centstar.

Makumba wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Honestly that just means the non-broken stuff is usable, which isn't a bad thing, and probably something to keep in mind for when other stuff is balanced.

Define usable. Because I have seen tournament list with almost every eldar unit out there. There are very few which are "bad", and even those aren't bad per se, they are just bad because melee sucks in general this edition and shoting units are point for point better.
On the other spectrum of the game you have books like GK, which are ok, and have like 4 or 5 usable units in the entire codex. Or IG which has no corner stone units, no specialisation or BAs who are Space Marine- the good stuff.

Just because Eldar are well-balanced internally does not make them OP. The problem lies in their specific OP units, not the army as a whole. Outside of those Broken units, Eldar are relatively balanced, at least against 7th edition books. Saying that vanilla marines only have a few good units because those units win tournaments (Blood Angels are another story) is like saying that Eldar are only good because of Scatbikers, D-weapons, and the Wraithknight. If anything, the new marine detachment has given players an incentive to field things other than Centstar.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Victory conditions and terrain are always part of wargaming. Balance is not. It's not all about who has too much S6/S7, or what flavor of the month is undercosted or overcosted. Thermopylae is the most famous tabling in history, and we consider the defeated force to have won.

Just on this, it's entirely possible for a battle that's unbalanced in-universe to be balanced at the tabletop. White Dwarf have had more than one "last stand" scenario, where the attacker has overwhelming forces, but the player controlling the defenders wins if they have survivors after X turns, or accomplish an objective before they get wiped out. The situation is unfair for the fictional soldiers involved, but the important part is, both players have a relatively equal chance of winning.

Dragannia wrote:
See, this is people overreacting. Complaining about Battle Focus, honestly. Battle Focus is a fantastic rule, it's balanced, and frankly Eldar needed a bit of something ever since Fleet stopped being a big deal (before, they and DE were the only ones with Fleet, and no one could Run in those days, and you could assault).

I mean no one's asking Space Marines to have Doctrines stripped. It's a good, balanced rule.

No its not balanced it is a free thing that makes all eldar ridiculous. The move shoot move or move move shoot should not be some free handout its just wrong. Tau have to pay for it in the form of battlesuits and tyranids only gain it through psychic powers so why should it come with litterally no drawbacks for nearly every Eldar unit. In the same regard their Jet bikes doing the jump shoot jump thing now is stupid. Eldar are literally just better Tau in almost every way now where just a short while ago they were quite different. Oh your battlesuits are so good so let me bring my scat bikes (pun intended) with bigger range and volume of shots. Oh Riptides are such BS, let me bring my GC wraithknight that costs only 100 points more. Oh markerlights are such bs. Let me just get out my aspect warriors who are all BS5 because that is balanced.

Just own up to the fact that Eldar have a book that is naturally better than most. (And by most I mean all but Necrons who they are on par with)

 Yaavaragefinkinman wrote:

Dragannia wrote:
See, this is people overreacting. Complaining about Battle Focus, honestly. Battle Focus is a fantastic rule, it's balanced, and frankly Eldar needed a bit of something ever since Fleet stopped being a big deal (before, they and DE were the only ones with Fleet, and no one could Run in those days, and you could assault).

I mean no one's asking Space Marines to have Doctrines stripped. It's a good, balanced rule.

No its not balanced it is a free thing that makes all eldar ridiculous. The move shoot move or move move shoot should not be some free handout its just wrong. Tau have to pay for it in the form of battlesuits and tyranids only gain it through psychic powers so why should it come with litterally no drawbacks for nearly every Eldar unit. In the same regard their Jet bikes doing the jump shoot jump thing now is stupid. Eldar are literally just better Tau in almost every way now where just a short while ago they were quite different. Oh your battlesuits are so good so let me bring my scat bikes (pun intended) with bigger range and volume of shots. Oh Riptides are such BS, let me bring my GC wraithknight that costs only 100 points more. Oh markerlights are such bs. Let me just get out my aspect warriors who are all BS5 because that is balanced.

Just own up to the fact that Eldar have a book that is naturally better than most. (And by most I mean all but Necrons who they are on par with)

Dark Eldar jetbikes have the exact same ability, and it's arguably more important for them due to their limited durability. The reason people are complaining about Eldar jetbikes being able to move in the assault phase is because of the ludicrous mobility and firepower that Scatbikers possess.

Space Marines ignore most of the section of the rules on morale and get free re-rolls thanks to their doctrines. Necrons are the most durable army in the game with their 4+ Res Protocalls. I'm failing to see how the Eldar ability to run/shoot in either order and get an automatic 6" run qualifies as overpowered. Their mobility and firepower and formations bonuses compensate for thier fragile nature; they are T3 across the board and have a 3+ save at best, so they're hardly easy to kill.

I don't think anyone, including myself, has defended the current state of the Wraithknight or denied that Eldar are a powerful army in the game. Tau have plenty of problems of their own due to increased focous on mobility ingame and their lack of options in that area. But you can't honestly tell me that the Riptide and its Forge World brethren aren't undercosted or ridiculously durable for their cost. At the end of the day, most armies are balanced against Eldar minus their OP units.

I'm failing to see how the Eldar ability to run/shoot in either order and get an automatic 6" run qualifies as overpowered.

Because it is yet another rule piled up on top of other good rules. It is not the case of eldar with runing and shoting are good and without it they are bad. It is the case of them buffing units like firedragons or ignoring the supposed shorter range of their troop weapons with it. On top of WK, very good psykers, D weapons on non titans, scatter bikes etc.

At the end of the day, most armies are balanced against Eldar minus their OP units.

And every eldar army runs them, so that is suppose to balance itself how?

Dark Eldar jetbikes have the exact same ability, and it's arguably more important for them due to their limited durability

Dont the eldar jetbikes get a +3sv when deldar ones have +5 or something just as bad?.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Space Marines ignore most of the section of the rules on morale and get free re-rolls thanks to their doctrines. Necrons are the most durable army in the game with their 4+ Res Protocalls. I'm failing to see how the Eldar ability to run/shoot in either order and get an automatic 6" run qualifies as overpowered.

In an army that's built around blisteringly, sometimes absurdly, powerful short range firepower, increasing the potential range of many of these weapons by 50% (or allowing them to withdraw to avoid danger) is a wee bit silly.

That's not saying that Necrons and SM's can't also be broken, but that doesn't mean the Eldar abilities can't also be so, though admittedly the Eldar power comes more from the units themselves than the automatic 6" for run moves.

Their mobility and firepower and formations bonuses compensate for thier fragile nature; they are T3 across the board

aside from T4 jetbikes and T6 Wraith units.

and have a 3+ save at best so they're hardly easy to kill.

Setting aside the fact that they generally have some of the hardest transports in the game to kill, many units have rules enhancing their resiliency or ability to avoid fire (flickerjump, shadowstrike, Shrouded, Jink, etc), and powerful psychic support abilities that can also greatly enhance resiliency (fortune, conceal, protect, etc)

Eldar are not, and really never have been, "fragile" as an army. They can have fragile elements, but have also historically (and currently still are) been relatively hardy once you get past their statlines.

you can't honestly tell me that the Riptide and its Forge World brethren aren't undercosted or ridiculously durable for their cost. At the end of the day, most armies are balanced against Eldar minus their OP units.

I still don't think I'll ever be convinced that something like AP0 BS5 Fire Dragons are going to be balanced

Makumba wrote:

I'm failing to see how the Eldar ability to run/shoot in either order and get an automatic 6" run qualifies as overpowered.

Because it is yet another rule piled up on top of other good rules. It is not the case of eldar with runing and shoting are good and without it they are bad. It is the case of them buffing units like firedragons or ignoring the supposed shorter range of their troop weapons with it. On top of WK, very good psykers, D weapons on non titans, scatter bikes etc.

At the end of the day, most armies are balanced against Eldar minus their OP units.

And every eldar army runs them, so that is suppose to balance itself how?

Dark Eldar jetbikes have the exact same ability, and it's arguably more important for them due to their limited durability

Dont the eldar jetbikes get a +3sv when deldar ones have +5 or something just as bad?.

Dark Eldar Reavers have a 5+ armour save, but a 3+ jink save thanks to skilled rider. They're also only one point less stock than a stock Windrider.

Eldar without Battle Focus would be objectively worse, as it would mean a drastic dip in the survivability of their infantry models. As I said before, they are T3 across the board and with only average armour saves. Remove their mobility, and they have no means of compensating for the short range of their infantry weapons and low durability. Taking away Battle Focus would also mean a loss of flavor to the army, as Battle Focus represents Eldar going into the warrior mindset and heightening their reflexes and agility. Nobody took Aspect Warrriors aside form Warp Spiders before because Wraith units were objectively better, even in the 6th edition codex. Nerf Footdar, and you take away any incentive for Eldar players to not spam jetbikes and Wraith units.

Not every Eldar army runs Scatbikers, D-weapons, and Wraithknights, despite what you may read here on DakkaDakka. The reason you see so many lists like that on this forum is due to many factors, including a greater focus on the competitive scene in the game, upcoming major tournaments (NOVA Open), and the recent flurry of activity in a certain topic by the OP of this thread. Before you accuse me of hypocrisy in list building, feel free to check my posting history. I'm relatively clean in that department.

@Vaktathi: You make some fair points. I'd still argue that Battle Focus isn't nearly as powerful as ATSKNF or Res Protocolls, as its a much more tactical ability; you have to have something to run into to hide, or run toward an enemy to get a better shot and risk being wiped out by return fire. I agree that Eldar have many ways of getting around their lack of durability, but outside of the Wraithknight and undercosted jetbikes and re-rollable save shenanigans I still say that those mitigating factors are balanced. In a codex that features ludicrously underpriced and overpowered Wraith units, jetbikes, and the gargantuan creature to rule them all BS5 AP0 Fire Dragons start to look reasonable by comparison.

 Elemental wrote:
Just on this, it's entirely possible for a battle that's unbalanced in-universe to be balanced at the tabletop. The situation is unfair for the fictional soldiers involved, but the important part is, both players have a relatively equal chance of winning.

That's what I was trying to say, perhaps I could have been more clear.

Imbalance can make sense from a fluff perspective. If IG are intended to lose massive amounts of cheap troops, they shouldn't be penalized when it happens. The Eldar losing a single Wraithknight have incurred a much greater relative loss.

We can leverage that to start balancing Eldar, without even touching the stats and costing. Let's rule any points awarded for destroying an Eldar unit count as double. It's not a complete fix but it's going to make risky play more dangerous and give the Eldar's opponent a better chance of winning through attrition, even if outgunned in a force-on-force sense.

Unit costing and stats aren't the only balance tool available to a designer. I think there are still a lot of untapped ideas out there.

^Potentially, but that can't and shouldn't be the primary way of balancing, because most players simply cannot work with that kind of thing.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
[quote=CrashGordon94
May I ask one question: do you play Eldar? If you do, you should know that Eldar are an army based on synergy. As an army of specialists, you need to have the right units in the right roles; bring the wrong ones and defeat is almost assured. The firepower, mobility, and special rules of Eldar units are compensated by their weak durability. Make a mistake and it will easily cost you units. If you don't just spam the OP units, Eldar can be fun to both play and play against.

Also, are you seriously saying that all Eldar players are powergamers? I resent that description; by the same standard all vanilla marine players are powergamers because some use the Skyhammer or Full Gladius or Centstar.

eldar being fragile or a specialist is a huge misconception. having a fast army with most units having a 3+ save, plus gargantuan creatures, jink saves, along with the strongest firepower in the game to table opponents before they can land a shot, and what have you, does not make a fragile army. A fragile army is one like tyranids, with a genestealer's 5+ save, and which will still die to striking scorpions in cover, due to lack of grenades. A fragile army is one like orks, where you can scythe down boyz with abandon using your scatter lasers. The only thing the eldar army is a specialist in, is how easily it can kill anything. Low AV vehicle? shoot it with your scatter lasers or d-weapons till it stops moving. PA models? Spam scatter lasers or D them to death. CC specialists? kill them before they can touch you, CC is for inferior monkeigh scum with weak codices.

Also, given that eldar has been overpowered for 7 editions straight, to say they have gathered the greatest numbers of powergamers is an understatement.

" that eldar has been overpowered for 7 editions straight,"

There were brief interludes of mediocrity.

Martel732 wrote:
" that eldar has been overpowered for 7 editions straight,"

There were brief interludes of mediocrity.

Even in these very brief periods, there were very excellent, and hard to kill opponents. At no point across 7 editions have they even dipped anywhere near "average"

Regardless of how the eldar codex is corrected, it will still be grossly overpowered the next. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me 7 editions straight, and I don't think anything will change on the 8th. The only 2 solutions are these:

1) Fire Phil Kelly

2) Go AoS and remove all point costs.

kburn wrote:
2) Go AoS and remove all point costs.

Why do people keep posting this as a solution? It solves the problem about as well as trying to put out a fire with gasoline!

kburn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" that eldar has been overpowered for 7 editions straight,"

There were brief interludes of mediocrity.

Even in these very brief periods, there were very excellent, and hard to kill opponents. At no point across 7 editions have they even dipped anywhere near "average"

Regardless of how the eldar codex is corrected, it will still be grossly overpowered the next. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me 7 editions straight, and I don't think anything will change on the 8th. The only 2 solutions are these:

1) Fire Phil Kelly

2) Go AoS and remove all point costs.

I don't think Eldar have been updated in every edition anyway...

I'm getting really tired of repeating myself on this argument. Individual units do mot make an army as a whole OP. Tyranids have an FMC that is ridiculously cheap for the level of firepower it puts out, but you wouldn't in good faith be able to say that the current Tyranid codex is OP. Same goes for Eldar.

Let's take a brief trip back in time, shall we, and chart what has made Eldar OP:

2nd/3rd edition: Starcannons
4th/5th edition: Unkillable vehicles
6th edition: Wave Serpents
7th edition: Scatbikers, D-weapons, Wraithknight

Only the latest codex stands out for the number of broken units, but keep in mind that during that time Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Space Marines, Space Wolves, CSM, and Tau have all been broken, OP, and widely hated on. The Eldar codex may be somewhat more OP have have broken units, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed.

Also, as has been widely argued both here and in other threads, removing points and army construction rules is a terrible idea. Just look at what happened to all the former Fantasy players that got their game desecrated; at least they had alternate game systems to go to. AoS is by far the worst ruleset I have ever read, in that it fails to be a proper framework for a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

kburn wrote:
2) Go AoS and remove all point costs.

Why do people keep posting this as a solution? It solves the problem about as well as trying to put out a fire with gasoline!

Exalted.

Also, you can actually put out a fire by drowning the flames in gasoline (it doesn't burn at low temperatures). Going full Age of Sigmar is like spreading water on an oil fire; all it does is create a much bigger and nastier mess.

One thing to keep in mind, as a ground-up rework Sigmar had a unified design process. Despite lacking points, the armies were designed by the same people, at the same time, with a single ruleset in mind. There's also secondary balancing mechanisms like sudden death, which reduce the effects of lists power imbalance. This is not the case with 40k.

The lesson to draw here is not "no points are better". The lesson is that unified design and a stable, cohesive team are immensely important to releasing anything that is going to work at all. Sigmar would have been a complete disaster if it had the sprawling inequality that's all over 40k.

Star example of this thread, GMCs. They're a crossover rule from Apoc where the only purposed "normal" hard counter were D-Weapons. In regular 40k, the only ranged D-Weapons belong to the same faction. Grav, which presumably appeared in 2013 to help sell Centurions, was never an option for a significant number of factions in the game. Vehicles in general are an absolute wreck against GMC because they weren't designed around ever fighting GMCs in the first place, and these kits are going to be a lot more difficult to change than an infantry special weapon. So why is the Wraithknight a GMC anyway? Immunity to Stomp. Why is stomp in the game? Imperial Knights. Reactive problem-solving and piecemeal additions of new special rules and units leads to these issues and results in what 40k is, a mess.

No points with global access to grav and D-Weapons, is way, way, WAY more fair than points-equal armies which lack access to a proper counter.

You can build a good game either with points or without, but you can't build a good game without deliberate and thoughtful design.

I'd limit jetbike special weapons to 1 per 3 bikes, and increase the price of the WK by 80 points. That would go quite a long way, tested it numerous times already.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Exalted.

Also, you can actually put out a fire by drowning the flames in gasoline (it doesn't burn at low temperatures). Going full Age of Sigmar is like spreading water on an oil fire; all it does is create a much bigger and nastier mess.

Thank you.

And that's legitimately fascinating, had never heard that before.

Yoyoyo wrote:
One thing to keep in mind, as a ground-up rework Sigmar had a unified design process. Despite lacking points, the armies were designed by the same people, at the same time, with a single ruleset in mind. There's also secondary balancing mechanisms like sudden death, which reduce the effects of lists power imbalance. This is not the case with 40k.

1) So have that with points and/or another functional balancing mechanic.
2) "Unified design process" or no, it's still completely unbalanced and basically unplayable in any way that would actually have any sort of balance at all without HARDCORE house-ruling because of a complete lack of any balancing mechanics whatsoever. As for sudden death...
3) I heard about sudden death. That's just a crappy excuse for one. For one thing it's horribly easy to exploit just by bringing a few really big and potent models and for another even if you discount TFG behavior like that it still does little to nothing in the way of actually balancing (just a hypothetical for if 40k worked this way: Is a nice, fluffy Deathwing or Grey Knights list necessarily weaker than a nice, fluffy horde-based Guard/'Nids/Orks list just because it has fewer models? NO!) or giving any guidance to list-building so you have some fething clue what to bring to each match.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The lesson to draw here is not "no points are better". The lesson is that unified design and a stable, cohesive team are immensely important to releasing anything that is going to work at all. Sigmar would have been a complete disaster if it had the sprawling inequality that's all over 40k.

Then why keep pushing the no-points crap?

Yoyoyo wrote:
No points with global access to grav and D-Weapons, is way, way, WAY more fair than points-equal armies which lack access to a proper counter.

No, it's worse. The latter can be balanced by nerfing/removing a handful of problem units/gear options/etc whereas for the first you'd need to jump head-first into hardcore homebrew territory just to get the game working at all.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You can build a good game either with points or without, but you can't build a good game without deliberate and thoughtful design.

You can build a good game without points because other balance mechanics exist, I still push points because it's a lot more flexible than the alternatives, which you narrative campaign types should really appreciate. You can just ignore or tweak points as you see fit if you want to do that specialty stuff, not so easy with the alternatives.
What you can't do is build a good game with no balancing mechanics whatsoever, that's something that immediately dooms the game.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

I'm getting really tired of repeating myself on this argument. Individual units do mot make an army as a whole OP. Tyranids have an FMC that is ridiculously cheap for the level of firepower it puts out, but you wouldn't in good faith be able to say that the current Tyranid codex is OP. Same goes for Eldar.

Also, you can actually put out a fire by drowning the flames in gasoline (it doesn't burn at low temperatures). Going full Age of Sigmar is like spreading water on an oil fire; all it does is create a much bigger and nastier mess.

I don't subscribe to your definition of OP. nevertheless, you are free to replace it with "top 3", "best", "most easily used" or whatever you subscribe to. Doesn't change the fact that they were the most powerful 7 editions straight (other than for brief moments, and even then, they were never average, merely very powerful, but not the best)

Maybe people want AoS rules because they're sick of being tabled by cheesemongers who claim to use a "fragile" or "hard to use" army? Maybe they're sick of being grossly underpowered 7 editions in a row. Maybe they're sick of being subject to the whims and fancies of robin cruddace and phil kelly? Maybe they're sick of half their units becoming unplayable every edition? Maybe they're sick of a poorly balanced narrative game masquerading as a competitive game?

Either way, I'd rather burn everything with AoS rules than play under than current farce.

kburn wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

I'm getting really tired of repeating myself on this argument. Individual units do mot make an army as a whole OP. Tyranids have an FMC that is ridiculously cheap for the level of firepower it puts out, but you wouldn't in good faith be able to say that the current Tyranid codex is OP. Same goes for Eldar.

Also, you can actually put out a fire by drowning the flames in gasoline (it doesn't burn at low temperatures). Going full Age of Sigmar is like spreading water on an oil fire; all it does is create a much bigger and nastier mess.

I don't subscribe to your definition of OP. nevertheless, you are free to replace it with "top 3", "best", "most easily used" or whatever you subscribe to. Doesn't change the fact that they were the most powerful 7 editions straight (other than for brief moments, and even then, they were never average, merely very powerful, but not the best)

Maybe people want AoS rules because they're sick of being tabled by cheesemongers who claim to use a "fragile" or "hard to use" army? Maybe they're sick of being grossly underpowered 7 editions in a row. Maybe they're sick of being subject to the whims and fancies of robin cruddace and phil kelly? Maybe they're sick of half their units becoming unplayable every edition? Maybe they're sick of a poorly balanced narrative game masquerading as a competitive game?

Either way, I'd rather burn everything with AoS rules than play under than current farce.

Any one that openly likes AOS and thinks 40k should go down the same road clearly has lost it. It's a game made for kids (the box should just say ages 3-10. regardless of how 40k is going it's still a very fun game to play, if people don't like competitive army's then don't go to events, it drives me nuts that people with fluff army's and garbage list that they still use from 3ed come to events get tabled and then after the event complain that the game isn't fair and people are bringing OP army's and blah blah blah, if your not a competitive player and don't play with a competitive army then please just play with your friends in your gaming group instead of showing up to events to cry and bomb people's scores because your to sour.

In regards to balancing eldar, no matter what units people nerff the eldar book is so good that people (myself included) will just abuse some other unit. Comp the bikes cool I'll just take aspect warriors, comp the aspect warriors no problem I'll take a seerstar or you want to comp that to no problem wraithknight army it is. The list goes on and on

Crash mate.... once and for all, just because I'm discussing the relative pros and cons of ideas, doesn't necessarily mean I'm asking anybody to support one.

Historical "no points" organization is interesting but it's usually pitched at more mature audiences. In this thread at Warlord Games, Rick Priestly and others (including a magazine editor who's been playing since 1969) discuss pros and cons but it's obviously a very different audience than here on dakka.

Edit: Forgot the link. http://www.warlordgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=392

To get back to the point of balancing eldar.

Isn't the big problem spamming? Wouldn't it be great if a units cost increased if you had more of them? And let that go for weapons aswell.

Like first scatter laser is X. Second is 2X. Third is 3X. And so on in a unit.

Then sure you could have loads of the same weapon if you really wanted. But it would cost you.

And for units it could be a "tax" added to some units perhaps. Like first unit of jet bikes costs Y for 3. Next unit costs (Y+30)=Z. Next unit costs (Z+30). And so on.

Would be what I would change atleast.