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.

This is a question that I've found myself asking on multiple occasions, to which, it seems, I have never really been given a satisfactory answer.

Example:

"Leeman Russes are mediocre at best." Compared to what?

"Tactical marines are terrible." Compared to what?

"Riptides are balanced." Balanced against what?

Basically, whenever there is a discussion about whether something is overpowered, underpowered or appropriately powered, I find myself wondering about the presuppositions of the persons speaking.

What are x, y and z units underpowered, overpowered, etc. against?

Example:

In comparison to what are thunderfire cannons appropriately powered for their points cost?

In comparison to what are manticores appropriately powered for their points cost?

I've read multiple people claiming that manticores are "good" for their points cost, but not overpowered. Compared what?

It is an oft repeated axiom of mine, which should be seen as self-evidently true, that every balance claim is relative.

What is it that you have in mind, against what are you making the comparison, when you talk about the power level of a given unit?

Are leeman russes mediocre to tactical marines? Predators? Landraiders?

What exactly do you mean?

DE Scourges are underpowered vs Crisis suits as a weapons delivery platform. They are a fast attack unit and should be JSJ. This would give them some sorely needed extra durability i.e. jump out of cover, shoot then back behind LoS blocking terrain. Also a tad pricey imho.

When I compare infantry, I tend to compare them to Tactical Marines, but beyond that I don't really do much meta-analysis or listening to net-bickering.

Does that count?

Its very difficult to make these kinds of comparisons. Ideally if the point system had any semblance of balance that would be the metric one could use to make comparisons but you cannot.

Point costs are all over the place. You have units like Wolfen, which cost about as much as terminators, but are terminators on steroids.

You have units like Bullgryn, that cost more than both when upgraded, yet are inferior to both.

You have units like assassins who cost as much as most tanks yet will be lucky if they ever make their points back with the exception of the cullexus temple. The other temples need a 25-33% point reduction.

Here is my standard of comparison:

Will (x) unit pay for itself on the field. If no, and it isn't providing some insane utility or diversion it is not worth fielding. Pretty much 1/2 of the IG codex.

I think most people will be comparing them based on similar units to them, such as Leman Russ variants compared to something like a Predator. Either that, or MEQ's and how effective they are at taking them out, since MEQ's are far and away the most common army found in the game, competitive or not.

It's pretty subjective though - while you find many objectively better units, people compare them on different levels to different things, so getting a straight answer is a bit difficult

Commissar Benny wrote:

You have units like Bullgryn, that cost more than both when upgraded, yet are inferior to both.

And that's a sad state of affairs. They added such an awesome unit, and then they made it too trash to take. The shield ones need a better special rule. Like that they cover the area between them too?

There are a few references that I use. ( none are mentioned in the poll)

1: The games I play. If it is bad in there its just bad.
I tried mega dreads. Looked cool and all. But they all died before they could ever come close to making their points back -> BAD!

2:The codex that those units are in.
I have 10+ buggies I like them a lot, but I also have deffkopta's and they are just better in almost any way. They are faster, sturdier, never dmg my own boyz by exploding ignore terrain and can attack stuff in close combat. This makes my poor buggies bad.

3:stuff I like to ally my army with.
Ork mek guns look great and all until I look at my allied renegade guard atillery. Now my ork kannons and other artillery are suddenly really bad.

 Purifier wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:

You have units like Bullgryn, that cost more than both when upgraded, yet are inferior to both.

And that's a sad state of affairs. They added such an awesome unit, and then they made it too trash to take. The shield ones need a better special rule. Like that they cover the area between them too?

It is. The new ogryn/bullgryn models look outstanding. I own them, but never field them because their point cost is so outrageous per model. Despite being what should be the dedicated counter assault unit of the codex, they only have 1 loadout that fill that niche. Slab shield/grenade launcher & ripper guns offer no bonus to melee whatsoever despite ripper guns being specifically designed to be used as clubs in the lore. To make matters worse, the delivery systems available to them is extremely limited. Meaning they are likely going to be foot slogging it across the board. As if that wasn't enough, they have low leadership as well meaning you need to attach a commissar or some other babysitter to the unit to ensure they don't break bloating the cost of a small unit of ogryn/bullgryn to that of 1-2 tanks.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
When I compare infantry, I tend to compare them to Tactical Marines

I wonder what tactical marines are you comparing them with.
The regular priced ones or the 3 pt ones in the discount formation ?

bad poll gives bad poll options

I think an option is missing from the poll: Things that can do the same job in the same codex.

From a SM perspective, it’s easy to compare scouts to tacs, WWs to TFCs, pred to devs, etc. Some have a reasonable balance list of pros/cons, but others (at least historically) did not. One example that springs to mind is the Whirlwind before it had its price dropped. IIRC it was 85 points, while the TFC was 100. And the cannon brought so much more to the table. The WW was a bad unit. Sure, it could drop a pie plate of fun anywhere on the table, but the TFC did that, with more fire modes, while tougher, and had the techmarine to fortify a ruin and other tricks. For 15 more points.

Another way to be bad is to not do your job. Terminators, for example are not the tough-as-nails walls they are made out to be. Railguns don’t do a good job popping tanks. I can understand units being overpriced. They may be inefficient, but at least they do what is says on the tin. And some units that are bad at what they are supposed to be, can still find a use. Assault marines, for example are going to fold to any true CC unit. But with a pair of flamers, they can go bully backfield campers; plenty of non-assault units out there need killing.

I try not to compare across codexes. External power levels are wonky. Direct comparisons are a little more legit, i.e. dreadnoughts from different chapters. While some of those are artifacts of the print order, some represent strengths/weakness of their codex.

I can understand the need to compare to the top end. If I’m playing at that level, I should. "Does this unit meet the gold standard? Am I going to replace the overpowered stuff in my list with it?” For people squeezing every drop of power out of their lists, this is the only test that maters. On the flip side, does a unit make a difference against the OP stuff? Can it deal with scatbikes/WKs better then what I already have? If not, why bother. I don’t play at this level, so don’t need to deal with it, but understand the POV.

Why the pool options are all wrong.

Suppose you are an ork player and you would like to know shoota boyz are any goods. Well there is little point in comparing them with anything in the list now is it. Sure you can say that SM tactical are better but whats the point you can't buy them in an ork army. The only reason to compare stuff with SM's is if you are deciding to switch to playing them or not.

It's so circumstantial but it's a good topic. For troops I'd compare to tac marines if it's a codex/unit I'm unfamiliar with just to get a general idea of how efficient the unit is, but when it comes to making a list I'd just compare with the other troops available. I've seen it suggested plenty of times that CSM troop units aren't worth taking because tac marines are better, but so what? You can't have SM tac squads instead so you can only compare to cultists, cult troops and sometimes chosen to determine your CSM troops selections (though more often than not fluff decides my choice of troop units more than anything else)

In terms of overall power level I'd rate a unit on its own specific merits and then also what it costs vs a similar unit (any codex) that has the same role. Flesh hounds never come out badly compared to other fast CC pressure units, neither do screamers or ork bikes. Warp talons don't compare favourably with any of those units, and more importantly don't compare well with chaos bikes and raptors

It gets harder when a unit requires support from other units to function (non synapse tyranid creatures, low Ld conscripts) or supports other important parts of your army (HQ's sharing special rules, venomthropes, meks). Then it isn't so easy to compare. Part of why I love this game so much- a unit that seems bad on paper and doesn't hold up well against similar units in a vacuum may have an important purpose in your own list and become a decent pick. I think there are few things more satisfying in this game than surprising an opponent with a unit they think is bad because of common wisdom

What I compare to depends on the context, simply.

I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole, which is in comparison with competetive options such as Tau and Necrons.

Sometimes I say Mutilators are bad, which is in comparison with everything.

Terrible poll is terrible, but what else is new with OP.

Comparisons are relative. There are units that are universally good, and some that are situationally good, and yet others that are only relatively good while being relatively bad based on the comparison point, which is fluid and varies person by person and situation by situation.

So what are these 'mid tier' options? They're entirely subjective! Are Hive Tyrants mid tier? Are Thunder wolves? Wulfen? Dreadnoughts? Riptides? You'll get people arguing both sides for each if these units being mid tier, so we should really get some more detail, Traditio

Wait, Bullgryns and Leman Russes are bad? Those are usually some of the toughest units when I face Guard lists. Bullgryns with a Priest are particularly tough for me.

 Ashiraya wrote:


I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole

Wat

Reavas wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole

Wat

Nothing to see here, just a standard denialist, move along.

Traditio's back! With a poll!

I've come over all nostalgic.

People in my area generally compare all mid tier shooting to scat bikes, mobile units to spiders, flyers to Crimson hunters, and gargantuans to wraithknights. Essentially, people in my area hate my eldar(only eldar player around) xD I personally think there are other cheese(most other 7.5 codexes) but other people here love to hate on them space elves

SGTPozy wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole

Wat

Nothing to see here, just a standard denialist, move along.

Hahaha I personally have no problem against even the new SM gear and rules mainly due to me playing slanneshi daemon gak. But I just thought it was an amusing quote as I can't throw a rock without hitting someone complaining about how OP SM are

I always compare it to a similar unit elsewhere in the game. For example, comparing a chaos cultist to a guardsmen, or a tactical marine to a chaos space marine.

SGTPozy wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole

Wat

Nothing to see here, just a standard denialist, move along.

I thought I explained this very comprehensively in the previous thread, but it seems like people still assume 'superfriends' is the same as the overall strength of the codex.

I guess we'd better nerf CSM then, just look at how strong Belakor is.

Wyches are bad compared to anything. Same with Hellions

 Ashiraya wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

Reavas wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


I sometimes say the Space Marine codex is bad as a whole

Wat

Nothing to see here, just a standard denialist, move along.

I thought I explained this very comprehensively in the previous thread, but it seems like people still assume 'superfriends' is the same as the overall strength of the codex.

I guess we'd better nerf CSM then, just look at how strong Belakor is.

Space Marines have many powerful combos and units, so yes the army strength is high. You could say the same about any army; if you ignore the powerful stuff the army is weak...

Most of the SM codex consists of things like Terminators, Tactical Marines, Predators, Land Raiders, and so on and so forth.

These units are weak. They are barely better than what CSM have.

Armies that are powerful overall, such as Eldar and Necrons, are very competetive even if you take away their strongest combos.

Again, I explained this very comprehensively earlier.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/698390.page#8822797

If we only take the absolute top of each codex, the Marine options are competetive - well, if you take DA/SW allies, anyway - but you will notice that my initial post said 'as a whole' which is not to be disregarded.

My standard of comparison is usually to a variety of other units that fill the same role rather than to a predefined 'mid-tier'.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Most of the SM codex consists of things like Terminators, Tactical Marines, Predators, Land Raiders, and so on and so forth.

These units are weak. They are barely better than what CSM have.

Armies that are powerful overall, such as Eldar and Necrons, are very competetive even if you take away their strongest combos.

Again, I explained this very comprehensively earlier.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/698390.page#8822797

If we only take the absolute top of each codex, the Marine options are competetive - well, if you take DA/SW allies, anyway - but you will notice that my initial post said 'as a whole' which is not to be disregarded.

There are two terminator units (excluding HQs), one tactical marine unit, one predator, and three types of land raider... But how many units are there in the codex? Pretty sure those listed units don't make up all of the codex.

Space Marines rely on the extra special stiff they get given because GW wants the players to feel extra special, such as Death from the Skies, ally shenanigans, so many formations, extra rules just because and many game breaking stuff.

Necrons aren't that great without the Decurion, so no, I don't think they're powerful overall.
Elder? Without their stronger stuff they're pretty fragile, so pretty easy to kill.

SGTPozy wrote:


There are two terminator units (excluding HQs), one tactical marine unit, one predator, and three types of land raider...

Vanguard Veterans. Scouts are not good either. Land speeders are unimpressive, as is the Whirlwind. The AA tanks are mediocre at best. The Razorback is only useful in Gladius. Sternguard would be horrid without drop pods, and even with them they are expensive for a suicide unit. Bikes are rather inefficient, only grav command squads on bikes have any noteworthy damage output (and they are locked behind a captain wall).

Most of the meat of SM codex is barely any better than the CSM equivalents, and CSM are absolute bottom tier.

Space Marines rely on the extra special stiff they get given because GW wants the players to feel extra special, such as Death from the Skies, ally shenanigans, so many formations, extra rules just because and many game breaking stuff.

Allies hardly counts. SM have the same allies as the rest of the Imperium. Does anyone actually use DFTS?

Necrons aren't that great without the Decurion, so no, I don't think they're powerful overall.

Not at all. Even if we exclude their strongest stuff, like Wraiths, the rest of the codex is still solid. They have a couple of dud units (C'tan shard) but they are few in number and even the C'tan shard is really not worse than most of Codex: SM.

Elder? Without their stronger stuff they're pretty fragile, so pretty easy to kill.

The Eldar codex is perhaps the most internally balanced codex in the game. Take away Bikers, Librarians, Centurions and Drop Pods from Marines and they are as helpless as a turtle flailing on its back. Take away Jetbikes, Farseers, Wraithguard and Wraithknights from Eldar and they still have a powerful codex. Warp Spiders, Fire Prisms, War Walkers, Autarchs...

Even Eldar 'dud' units, such as Banshees and Storm Guardians, have jobs they can do quite well (Banshee fragility is well balanced out by their speed, Overwatch immunity, and high initiative). They are niche units and require working together with the rest of the Codex, but that does not make them bad.