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.
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.
So then the relative point of reference is the majority of options facing you on the table?
Your last statement inadvertently summarized most of the problems with the game.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Traditio wrote: Chances are, you don't only use units that were released in 6th and 7th edition.
What does that have to do with anything? You might be using the same pieces of plastic but the rules for those models are all from 7th edition (unless, like the one remaining SoB player, you have a codex that GW has neglected). For example, you might have the same plastic tactical squad kit that you had in 5th edition but those tactical marines now cost less per model, have access to different upgrades, etc. Talking about how a unit is balanced relative to a 5th edition tactical squad in a 5th edition Rhino makes no sense at all.
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.
CrownAxe wrote:Which is stupid because we're playing two editions later and not in 5ed
A common rebuttal, but not really true.
What army do you play? What models do you use?
Chances are, you don't only use units that were released in 6th and 7th edition.
You probably use models that were released prior to 6th edition.
And even if you don't, your codex is probably loaded with them.
It wouldn't make sense to complain about the disparity between 5th and 6th+ edition power levels if only 6+ edition power levels were in the game.
They aren't.
6th edition onwards is a mix-mash of units/rules from different editions.
Chances are, you are still playing 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition, etc. to varying degrees.
None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Pouncey wrote: So then the relative point of reference is the majority of options facing you on the table?
Exactly, but in a broader sense than your personal table. A unit is still "bad" if it compares poorly to the pool of representative options for the game as a whole even if it's really effective for a person who only ever plays 40k against their 10 year old kid and a space marine starter set.
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.
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
You're dodging my question. Why is it prior to 6th edition, and not prior to 5ed, 4ed, or 3ed?
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
But what has this actually got to do with anything?
Just because a unit was conceived before or after a given edition does not mean that we can or should have to use any edition of the core rules other than 7th Edition since 7th Edition is the current edition.
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?
I answered it earlier by saying it doesn't kill much for 85 points and having to be reliant on the Scatter Dice. He then ignored it by saying what I'm comparing it to.
I don't have to compare anything to anything. There's no direct comparison for Rubric Marines but they're still garbage.
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.
Traditio wrote: Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
I did this, I counted a total of zero. The old codices had some units with a similar name and fluff but that has nothing to do with the rules. All of the rules in my codex are from 7th edition.
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."
Because in the majority of matchups, they don't pull their weight.
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
I have zero selections after 6th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 06:30:01
Easy. A 7th edition codex has zero units from any previous edition. Every rule in the codex is new, any resemblance to previous rules for units with similar fluff and/or models is entirely coincidental. And you will never find any situation where a 7th edition codex says "keep using the rules from this older book".
(And then of course there are the armies that didn't exist at all before 6th edition.)
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.
Easy. A 7th edition codex has zero units from any previous edition. Every rule in the codex is new, any resemblance to previous rules for units with similar fluff and/or models is entirely coincidental. And you will never find any situation where a 7th edition codex says "keep using the rules from this older book".
(And then of course there are the armies that didn't exist at all before 6th edition.)
CrownAxe wrote:None of what you said explains why you get to arbitrarily pick 5ed as a baseline for power level. Why didn't you pick 3rd edition or 4th edition? Why can't you move forward and use 6ed or 7ed as the base power level?
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
You're dodging my question. Why is it prior to 6th edition, and not prior to 5ed, 4ed, or 3ed?
Compare sternguard veterans to tactical marines. Different editions, different capabilities, but there's not so much of a power disparity.
If Deathwatch armies end up becoming a "thing" in the competitive setting, it's not because the deathwatch codex is essentially an army of sternguard veterans.
From 6th edition onwards, things changed. The new releases were decidedly different from the status quo up until that point. Flyers come to mind. The wraithknight comes to mind. Jink comes to mind. The riptide comes to mind. Grav comes to mind.
If you compare 3rd, 4th and 5th edition selections to each other, the disparities aren't as noticeable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:I have zero selections after 6th.
1. Jinking grav bikers are a 6th edition innovation.
2. The BA codex has access to fliers, no?
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/29 07:06:43
I think what Traditio is trying to get you guys to realize on your own, is that reverting to 5th edition would invalidate large swathes of people's model collections.
Also, Traditio, trying to get people to realize your point on their own is a losing strategy in every instance I've tried it.
Traditio wrote: Compare sternguard veterans to tactical marines. Different editions, different capabilities, but there's not so much of a power disparity.
What's your point? Both of those units have had their rules changed over the past few editions, so their current relative balance has nothing to do with what they used to be way back in 5th edition. Meanwhile Eldar jetbikes existed in 5th edition but are a major balance problem in 7th edition. On the other hand nob bikers still exist (I think?) and were overpowered in 5th but they're garbage in 7th.
From 6th edition onwards, things changed. The new releases were decidedly different from the status quo up until that point. Flyers come to mind. The wraithknight comes to mind. Jink comes to mind. The riptide comes to mind. Grav comes to mind.
So what? Who cares about 7th edition power levels relative to 5th edition power levels, nobody is playing games with 7th edition rules against 5th edition rules. It doesn't matter if a 5th edition army (complete with 5th edition vehicle damage tables, 5th edition wound allocation, etc) would be crushed by a 7th edition army, or if the 5th edition army would crush the 7th edition army. What matters is how 7th edition armies and units compare to other 7th edition armies and units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: I think what Traditio is trying to get you guys to realize on your own, is that reverting to 5th edition would invalidate large swathes of people's model collections.
No, that's not his point at all. His point is that everything should be measured against his 5th edition tactical-heavy C:SM army, the style of game that he wants to keep playing. Riptides/Wraithknights/etc are overpowered because they beat his 5th edition army, regardless of how they compare to units/armies that actually exist 7th edition. It's nothing more than nostalgia and yet another attempt to portray anyone who doesn't want to continue playing 5th edition style games as some kind of WAACTFG.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 07:29:44
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.
A unit is bad if it's not capable of performing it's intended role in the army for the cost to field it.
Dirt cheap units incapable of anything are bad (spore mines), Units too expensive for their capabilities are bad, (Raveners) And units that are simply unfocused messes that just can't seem to fill any particular niche and thus get outclassed by all the other better designed options are bad.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
No, that's not his point at all. His point is that everything should be measured against his 5th edition tactical-heavy C:SM army, the style of game that he wants to keep playing. Riptides/Wraithknights/etc are overpowered because they beat his 5th edition army, regardless of how they compare to units/armies that actually exist 7th edition. It's nothing more than nostalgia and yet another attempt to portray anyone who doesn't want to continue playing 5th edition style games as some kind of WAACTFG.
The crux of every post and poll the OP creates regarding 40k.
No, that's not his point at all. His point is that everything should be measured against his 5th edition tactical-heavy C:SM army, the style of game that he wants to keep playing. Riptides/Wraithknights/etc are overpowered because they beat his 5th edition army, regardless of how they compare to units/armies that actually exist 7th edition. It's nothing more than nostalgia and yet another attempt to portray anyone who doesn't want to continue playing 5th edition style games as some kind of WAACTFG.
The crux of every post and poll the OP creates regarding 40k.
Sounds about right.
@Traditio
Here's why your obsession with previous editions both makes sense and doesn't make sense: It makes sense in regards to codeces that are not up to date (i.e. don't have an edition to match the current - 7th Edition - Core Rule Book), but only as long as we consider the most recent edition of the given codex (since it is not only the most recent but also the one most likely to be used in casual and tournament play). Where it doesn't make sense, however, is when you talk about the previous editions of the game (i.e. editions of the Core Rule Book prior to 7th Edition) as if they should be some benchmark for units in 7th Edition. There is no valid reason for this. Please stop. It doesn't matter what edition the unit was conceived in or how much you value the relative balance of previous editions versus 7th Edition. We are in 7th Edition and want to balance 7th Edition. How is that not clear to you by now?
And regardless of what edition you think we should all live in, the On-Topic point still remains that a single unit to act as a universal standard of comparison is simply not viable. Yes: Everything should be compared with other units in order t achieve game balance, but there is no universal standard by which every single unit in the game can be compared with. I'm curious as to why you think such a concept is anything other than completely and utterly flawed?
Theoretically, one or two units per unit type could be used as a baseline if the game had been designed that way. As an example, BFG has a Chaos and Imperial cruiser that were designed first, tested against each other, and the rest of the game built around them as a baseline.
In 40k however, you are correct in that there's simply no good way to even determine a baseline and that everyone will think of a different power level as a comparison point.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Open up your codex. Start counting up the unit selections available prior to 6th edition. Then count up the unit selections available after 6th edition.
Get back to me. Tell me how many of each you count.
The SM Tactical Squad is a new unit (not the same as the 5th edition unit of the same name). So it's balanced against wraithknights according to your theory?
As to numbers - the below compares 7th ed to 5th ed, excludes named characters and excludes units changed due to core rule changes.
Codes Space Marines - Units not new to 6th/7th
IronClad (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Attack Bikes (changed from T4(5) to T5 but it's close enough)
Rhino (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Drop Pod (cost of deathwind changed from 20pts to 15 pts but it's close enough)
Thunderfire Cannon
Land Raider (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Crusader (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
Redeemer (cost of some upgrades changed but it's close enough)
So that's 32 new units, 7 new units that are very similar to 5th edition units and 1 unit from 5th edition (albeit buffed significantly by core rule changes)
That is not in fact what he said.
He's trying to point out that some of your units did not exist prior to 6th.
That's correct - virtually every unit in the SM codex is new. The Thunderfire Cannon is the only unit with a datasheet identical to a 5th ed unit (but the core rules did change artillery substantially so even that is a dubious claim to being the same as the 5th ed version.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/29 11:13:42
When people say x unit sucks, its not based off of another unit, its based off of the point cost for the unit and the upgrades given with what they can do.
For example, Ravenwing bikes squads with plasma gun vs black knight. Same point cost, but the ravenwing are loads better.
Terminators, for 235 points, i get 5 tac marines with a 2+ save and an assault cannon. For the same price i could get a tac squad with 10 guys so 10 wounds vs 5, with a special, and a heavy weapon like a grav and for a little more i can get a transport.
When people say x is bad, its not comparing them to space marines, or the standard mid tier unit, its a comparison of points and what you are getting when you pay for a unit.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 