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.
The wyvern does the Whirlwind's job better and for less points. It also has +1 AV on the front and a heavy bolter.
So what?
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
I showed you an example of an self propelled artillery piece used in a similar role that is both superior in firepower and cheaper to boot. It proves that the Whirlwind is subpar in it's classs. And that is about the best way I can answer your question about how a unit's worth is determined in the meta. There is no objective metric to measure a unit's capabilities in 40k nor in any other wargme I know of. There are simply too many variables to get such a forumla. You have to understand Tradito that the world doesn't always fall into clean absolutes. And your quest to find the clean absolute to prove whatever point you are trying to make will inevitably fail.
If you could find out how a unit is determined to be bad by a master objective metric I am sure you could make a clean bit of cash being a games designer. Because your basically trying to determine what dozens of professional game designers have been pouring countless hours into figuring out. And even they have failed.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Traditio isn't wrong in the sense that comparisons need to be made when trying to properly balance things, but it's a fallacy to say that Tactical Marines (or anything else on the list of poll options) could ever be a standard baseline for comparisons for everything in the tabletop game.
ShredderShards wrote: what are you comparing it to when your poll title calls riptides and stormsurges "opbs" ? How do you know they are not perfectly balanced?
All of warhammer 40k prior to 6th edition.
Do you know why, whenever something new comes out, there are cries of "OP," "CHEESE" and "IMBALANCE?"
Because It's usually OP, cheese and imbalanced in comparison to the rest of the game up until that point.
Do you know why people keep answering this by saying things like "adapt newb"?
So they don't have to feel bad when they buy those OP, cheesetastic things and demolish their opponents.
I have a suspicion. I won't even call it a theory. It's just a suspicion, but I think that will be corroborated by the opinions of others:
Warhammer 40k is actually a very balanced game...in a certain respect.
What I mean by this is that the editions are well balanced. If you take a set of units from 4th edition, it will be balanced relative to other units from 4th edition.
If you take units from 5th edition, it will be balanced relative to other units from 5th edition.
If you take a stormsurge and balance it against a wraithknight, it's basically fine.
The problem is when different editions meet.
So when people complain that something is underpowered, they're comparing it to the models from the most recent edition/set of releases.
"The riptide is balanced" means "the riptide is on par with the general power levels in 6th and 7th edition."
"Leeman Russes suck" means "The LRBT is not as good as post 6th edition units."
But again, that's just a suspicion on my part. I can't actually prove it right off hand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 05:07:59
Traditio isn't wrong in the sense that comparisons need to be made when trying to properly balance things, but it's a fallacy to say that Tactical Marines (or anything else on the list of poll options) could ever be a standard baseline for comparisons for everything in the tabletop game.
Gotta pick something though.
But that's my point:
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
And then you have to show that whatever you used to show that the Wyvern is fairly costed is also fairly costed, and on and on in an endless circle. But we come back to the same question I asked before:
WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT HERE?
If we assume that your premise here is correct, what exactly does it lead to? How does it change our understanding of balance to argue over whether a unit is called "overpowered" or "sdoifgnjodgodfjg"? Saying "Riptides are fine, the rest of the codex is weak" and "Riptides are overpowered, the rest of the codex is balanced" are functionally identical claims about the Riptide's power level: that it is more powerful than other options. The only possible difference I can see is that the latter option allows you to continue your "Riptides are WAAC cheese and anyone who uses them is TFG" crusade.
Finally, I'd like to point out that you don't even consistently follow your own premise. When you, over and over again, rant about how "OP" Wraithknights/Riptides/grav spam/etc are you don't include any disclaimer about what units you're comparing them to and how they could be "balanced" if compared to different units. In fact, your poll in this thread starts off by labeling those units "OP bullgak" as if that's an objective evaluation of their power level.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
Then how do you balance different unit types against each other?
Wraithknights and chaos cultists are both in the game. How do you balance them against each other if there's no way to compare them?
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
I think that would take too much math for anyone to actually work out.
So, instead of saying, "X unit is bad" instead say, "X unit is worse than alternative unit Y at task Z."
And make sure that unit Y is something in the same Codex, or at least one of the rulesets in the combined force being discussed.
Because ultimately, if you say, "Unit X is bad because it's power level is 4" that's not enough information to figure out if it's bad or not. We don't know if 4 is low, high, or average unless we have a reference point to what is average. So... just compare it to a similar unit that's meant to do something similar.
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
Then how do you balance different unit types against each other?
Wraithknights and chaos cultists are both in the game. How do you balance them against each other if there's no way to compare them?
I didn't say they weren't comparable, I'm saying that when your balancing a unit, it's best to at least start with more appropriate comparisons. For example, it's better to compare LRBT's to Predators than t is to compare LRBT's to Land Raiders and thus should have a majority of the balancing done with the more appropriate comparisons in mind. Then, when all that is done, then you can start asking questions like "Do they do too much damage to Tactical Marines and other MEQ's? If so, let's nerf LRBT's and their equivalents; and if not, maybe we should buff LRBT's and their equivalents." That way we can maintain the balance of all the units that fall under a type and/or category and then maintain said balance when we start comparing them to other unit types/categories.
(1) For any given unit, an appropriate unit to compare it to may vary.
(2) There is no such thing as a baseline comparison that can be used for the whole game.
You need to be able to compare the unit in question to as many other units as is appropriate in order to get the most accurate comparative image and thus be able to balance the unit properly. Having a single unit serve as the baseline is not going to work.
I think that would take too much math for anyone to actually work out.
So, instead of saying, "X unit is bad" instead say, "X unit is worse than alternative unit Y at task Z."
And make sure that unit Y is something in the same Codex, or at least one of the rulesets in the combined force being discussed.
Because ultimately, if you say, "Unit X is bad because it's power level is 4" that's not enough information to figure out if it's bad or not. We don't know if 4 is low, high, or average unless we have a reference point to what is average. So... just compare it to a similar unit that's meant to do something similar.
Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 05:20:56
Cant believe Im chiming in between you two but my idea to my buddy was a mathematical equation/algorhythm. Start with values for point cost for each rule, stat, inch of range, heavy, fast, torrent, character, facing armor value, hull point wound, special rule etc etc. With multipliers and dividers etc etc. Complex equation and poof.... instabalance. Would it be hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Iterative and contentious? Most definitely.
It would turn into old school battletech where tge unit could be designed from the ground up.
There just no denying some units are soooooo much better than others.
doktor_g wrote: Cant believe Im chiming in between you two but my idea to my buddy was a mathematical equation/algorhythm. Start with values for point cost for each rule, stat, inch of range, heavy, fast, torrent, character, facing armor value, hull point wound, special rule etc etc. With multipliers and dividers etc etc. Complex equation and poof.... instabalance. Would it be hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Iterative and contentious? Most definitely.
The problem is that the value of things like point costs for a stat depends on everything else about the unit. For example, BS 10 on an assault marine with only a bolt pistol for a ranged weapon is worth much less than BS 10 on a devastator marine with a heavy weapon. And once you've accounted for all these complex interactions you've died of old age before ever finishing your equation, and spent way more time than it would take to do the traditional "guess at a point cost, iterate through playtesting to fine-tune it" method with good results.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
doktor_g wrote: Cant believe Im chiming in between you two but my idea to my buddy was a mathematical equation/algorhythm. Start with values for point cost for each rule, stat, inch of range, heavy, fast, torrent, character, facing armor value, hull point wound, special rule etc etc. With multipliers and dividers etc etc. Complex equation and poof.... instabalance. Would it be hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Iterative and contentious? Most definitely.
The problem is that the value of things like point costs for a stat depends on everything else about the unit. For example, BS 10 on an assault marine with only a bolt pistol for a ranged weapon is worth much less than BS 10 on a devastator marine with a heavy weapon. And once you've accounted for all these complex interactions you've died of old age before ever finishing your equation, and spent way more time than it would take to do the traditional "guess at a point cost, iterate through playtesting to fine-tune it" method with good results.
The problem isn't that it would take too long (practically speaking), but instead the problem is that it would probably have to supersede any major releases for the foreseeable future as well as making sure that new units that are released follow the formula by which they're now balancing the game. In short, they'd have to sacrifice Sales for Rules Balancing, which is something GW will never ever do.
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
And then you have to show that whatever you used to show that the Wyvern is fairly costed is also fairly costed, and on and on in an endless circle. But we come back to the same question I asked before:
WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT HERE?
If we assume that your premise here is correct, what exactly does it lead to? How does it change our understanding of balance to argue over whether a unit is called "overpowered" or "sdoifgnjodgodfjg"? Saying "Riptides are fine, the rest of the codex is weak" and "Riptides are overpowered, the rest of the codex is balanced" are functionally identical claims about the Riptide's power level: that it is more powerful than other options. The only possible difference I can see is that the latter option allows you to continue your "Riptides are WAAC cheese and anyone who uses them is TFG" crusade.
Finally, I'd like to point out that you don't even consistently follow your own premise. When you, over and over again, rant about how "OP" Wraithknights/Riptides/grav spam/etc are you don't include any disclaimer about what units you're comparing them to and how they could be "balanced" if compared to different units. In fact, your poll in this thread starts off by labeling those units "OP bullgak" as if that's an objective evaluation of their power level.
Peregrine:
I'm not sure that I really have a point. As I said in the OP, this thread was inspired by a trend that I noticed, i.e., that people tend to make blanket claims about whether a unit is good or bad, but provide no frame of reference to critically assess what they are saying. The topic of the OP is very open ended.
To the extent that this thread has a point, I suppose I could summarize:
"Balance is relative. Please provide a frame of reference when you talk about a unit's being good or bad. Be specific. LRBTs suck...compared to what? In what contexts?"
LRBTs suck against drop pod melta and against wraithknights. Against tactical marines with plasma weapons? Different story.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 05:40:03
The wyvern does the Whirlwind's job better and for less points. It also has +1 AV on the front and a heavy bolter.
So what?
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
Here's the proof.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
That certainly shows something about your personal dispositions, beliefs, tendencies, etc. It doesn't show anything about the whirlwind.
You didn't answer me. I ask again:
How many naked guardsmen can you expect to kill in the course of a game with a whirlwind?
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Traditio wrote: I'm not sure that I really have a point. As I said in the OP, this thread was inspired by a trend that I noticed, i.e., that people tend to make blanket claims about whether a unit is good or bad, but provide no frame of reference to critically assess what they are saying. The topic of the OP is very open ended.
Then why are you making a thread about it, if you don't have anything to say? It reminds me of the people who google "philosophy" one time and rush to make an excited post about "whoa, did you know the whole world might be all in your head" or some nonsense like that. It might technically be a true thing to say, but even if it is it doesn't mean anything.
"Balance is relative. Please provide a frame of reference when you talk about a unit's being good or bad. Be specific. LRBTs suck...compared to what? In what contexts?"
LRBTs suck against drop pod melta and against wraithknights. Against tactical marines with plasma weapons? Different story.
I expect you to do the same, and never again talk about Wraithknights/Riptides/etc being "OPWAAC cheese" without being very specific about what you're comparing them to, and to never again talk about how the people using those units are WAACTFGs because the units might be "balanced" in the comparison they're making.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
That certainly shows something about your personal dispositions, beliefs, tendencies, etc. It doesn't show anything about the whirlwind.
You didn't answer me. I ask again:
How many naked guardsmen can you expect to kill in the course of a game with a whirlwind?
How many naked marines?
IIRC, a Whirlwind is S6 with a standard round, so I don't think it actually matters the difference between naked Guardsmen and naked Marines since you're wounding on a 2+ either way.
Can you actually take naked Guardsmen or Marines though? I haven't bought a new Codex in a while so I didn't know armor was optional now.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
That certainly shows something about your personal dispositions, beliefs, tendencies, etc. It doesn't show anything about the whirlwind.
You didn't answer me. I ask again:
How many naked guardsmen can you expect to kill in the course of a game with a whirlwind?
How many naked marines?
Out in the open? Are we assuming 6 turns? How many fall under the template? What rounds are being used?
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Yes!
I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
The wyvern does the Whirlwind's job better and for less points. It also has +1 AV on the front and a heavy bolter.
So what?
Again, this doesn't prove that a whirlwind is bad, even at 85 points. It only shows that the wyvern is better.
In order to show that the whirlwind is bad, you'd have to show that the wyvern is well balanced, not op, fairly costed, etc.
Here's the proof.
If I had NO other artillery option in the game for ANY army outside the Whirlwind and ONLY the Whirlwind at 85 points, I'd never take it. That's proof right there.
It must be a cold day in hell since I'm backing up Traditio on this, but you didn't actually answer the question. Why do you not want to take it? Is it because it get's countered by too many other units? Or because it's weapons don't do enough damage? Or something else?
Traditio wrote: I'm not sure that I really have a point. As I said in the OP, this thread was inspired by a trend that I noticed, i.e., that people tend to make blanket claims about whether a unit is good or bad, but provide no frame of reference to critically assess what they are saying. The topic of the OP is very open ended.
Then why are you making a thread about it, if you don't have anything to say? It reminds me of the people who google "philosophy" one time and rush to make an excited post about "whoa, did you know the whole world might be all in your head" or some nonsense like that. It might technically be a true thing to say, but even if it is it doesn't mean anything.
The point is that people say "X unit is bad" as a full and complete point. When they shouldn't, unless they actually do have a standard baseline reference.
Pointing out that people are frequently making arguments that don't actually say anything should be pointed out, because no one has been noticing that it's even a problem.
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Yes!
I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
So then you shouldn't say the opposite either then
"Riptides are broken. Period" "Wraithknights are broken. Period"
Traditio wrote: I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
I don't know why you think this is a clever observation. When people say "LRBTs are bad, period" everyone but you understands that it means "LRBTs are weak relative to most of the things you can expect to face and should not be taken if you're making a TAC list", not "there is no possible situation, even against the weakest possible opposing list, where a LRBT can win". Stop being over-literal about this and you'll no longer see any reason for this thread.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote:Then why are you making a thread about it, if you don't have anything to say? It reminds me of the people who google "philosophy" one time and rush to make an excited post about "whoa, did you know the whole world might be all in your head" or some nonsense like that. It might technically be a true thing to say, but even if it is it doesn't mean anything.
It's an open ended topic. It's asking a question and designed to promote discussion.
"What exactly do you have in mind when you say that x unit is good or bad?"
I expect you to do the same, and never again talk about Wraithknights/Riptides/etc being "OPWAAC cheese" without being very specific about what you're comparing them to, and to never again talk about how the people using those units are WAACTFGs because the units might be "balanced" in the comparison they're making.
At this point, my standard of comparison should basically be evident to everyone: "Relative to pre-6th edition power levels."
Pouncey wrote: The point is that people say "X unit is bad" as a full and complete point. When they shouldn't, unless they actually do have a standard baseline reference.
But you don't need a standard baseline reference of a single unit. You can look at an average sample of what kind of armies people bring and how the unit performs against them. If a unit is significantly more powerful than most of the opposing units/armies in the average sample it's probably overpowered. If it compares well to most stuff but loses to a few of the most powerful units/armies then it's probably a mid-tier unit. If it compares badly to almost everything and would be a liability if you brought it against an unknown opponent from that random sample then it's a bad unit.
In the case of the LRBT we look at that representative sample and find that the most powerful armies can wipe LRBTs off the table, and against most armies it will struggle to kill anywhere near its point cost in enemy models. The LRBT only does well against the weakest lists/strategies (tactical squads with no transports played by someone who doesn't space out against blast weapons, etc) so it's a bad unit. If you take a LRBT against an unknown random opponent the odds are strongly in favor of that LRBT being a liability.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
IllumiNini wrote: Fair enough, but what I'm ultimately trying to say is that there is no such thing as a universal baseline comparison unit (regardless of what the poll question implies).
Then people should stop saying "X unit is bad." and simply leaving it at that as though there is such a universal comparison unit.
Yes!
I really couldn't have put it better myself. For all of the people in this thread claiming that there's no universal standard of comparison, a lot of people certainly do talk that way:
"Leeman Russes are bad. Period." "Tactical marines are bad. Period."
I will fully admit that I have a ton of forum experience with making a valid point that I simply am incapable of expressing articulately enough to have it understood. At one time I expressed myself so badly that my post about how bikini armor in WoW could be a sensible option with an extremely tiny change to lore that simply required making an existing feature canon, received over 100 dislikes (that's a metric gakton on that forum) from people who either believed I was arguing against armorkinis, didn't believe armorkinis needed a reason to be sensible at all, or didn't believe my explanation was valid at all. And my argument was solid enough that people who hate armorkinis admitted fully that it was a pretty good way to make them make sense. Seriously, I think my argument in favor of armorkinis got more acceptance from the anti-armorkini crowd than the pro-armorkini crowd. More than that though, while everyone focused on my actual argument in favor of armorkinis, my point with the thread was simply just to use some sort of good reason instead of the terrible one everyone keeps insisting on using.
Traditio wrote: At this point, my standard of comparison should basically be evident to everyone: "Relative to pre-6th edition power levels."
Which is stupid because we're playing two editions later and not in 5ed
This. Who gives a about 5th edition power levels, the game isn't 5th edition anymore. Talking about 5th edition power levels makes about as much sense as talking about how a unit in a 2016 codex is overpowered when you use the 5th edition rules for wound allocation, or how Wraithknights are ok because the 4th edition rules limit superheavies/GMCs to a separate war machine detachment that can only be taken above 2000 points.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
about 5th edition power levels, the game isn't 5th edition anymore. Talking about 5th edition power levels makes about as much sense as talking about how a unit in a 2016 codex is overpowered when you use the 5th edition rules for wound allocation, or how Wraithknights are ok because the 4th edition rules limit superheavies/GMCs to a separate war machine detachment that can only be taken above 2000 points.