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:

 Blacksails wrote:
Wait, people are voting in a Traditio thread?

Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?

I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.

The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.

In other words:

"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."

Nobody is mocking you for taking Tactical Marines per se, but you are being mocked based on the fact that you seems to use Tactical Marines with Bolters as your baseline comparison model for absolutely everything.

Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I think that the poll shows why the 40k community is so toxic.

No, your posts in this thread do a much better job of this. You've clearly decided that you don't like certain types of players, and this thread is just one more attempt to "prove" that you're right to dislike them.

Amen to this!

To an extent.

for example.

Should 2 Main battle tanks at the same point cost perform near the same level? Yes.

Should they perform at the same level against the same targets? No.

For example. lets say the Russ battle take vs a predator

The russ for 150 points comes with HB's and a battle cannon which is a 5" blast, S8 AP3

The Predetor is 140 for TL laz cannon and side laz guns that are each S9 AP2.

Now, both are Main Battle tanks but both serve different purposes. The Pred is an armor hunter, its going to do a far better job at popping vehicles then the Lemmen russ. BUT the lemmon russ is better at taking out MEQ or groups of enemies because of its large blast tahts going to ignore most armor saves.

Its very hard to compare units and how good they are because their roles may vastly differ.

To more accurately assess if a unit is worth its price, you need to look at the role it provides on the field vs how well it can perform that role.

For example, we will use the pred again, i can outfit a pred for 140 points and its going to get at most 3 shots with AP2 S9 at a target. Compaire with a dev squad, say fully loaded with grav its going to be able to fire off 12 AP2 shots, wounding on armor value, if they move, if still its going to be a deady 20 shots. Now compare price tags.

pred is 140, and the dev squad is 210, BUT its a lot more damage out on the field. You then would need to compare those units to another acquitted unit that performs the same role.

Now if we are saying, person A shows up with 1500 points and person B shows up with 1500 points, should that match be balanced?

Yes, IF, those lists are equally loaded out to deal with each other.

If you show up with 1500 of flyers and i show up with 1500 of AA that 1500 points should be at a disadvantage.

No.

There are too many variables from army to army to demand that any two selections of equal point value be equal to one another in all regards.

 Jimsolo wrote:
No.

There are too many variables from army to army to demand that any two selections of equal point value be equal to one another in all regards.

Exalted for truth.

While ideally any two lists of equal points should be equally matched, the reality is that bad matchups do happen. Even the powerful armies (like Eldar) can run into something that can hard counter them. Perhaps not as often as the "weaker" armies, but it still happens. And it's not just in 40k; I've heard about this kind of thing in Warmachine and X-wing as well, so it's just a fact of life that no game system will give perfect, even games 100% of the time. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.

If you want two armies that are perfectly evenly matched 100% of the time, play chess. Both players get the exact same armies, with the exact same rules.

If you ever take Rhino marines with flamers and missile launchers you should have an autolose. All other armies should be reasonably balanced with each other, with all wargear having a use, but not in every situation.
Like, if you put terminator armor on your captain to go with your bike command squad, you should lose because you're being dumb.

I think there should be a reason to take each unit and option. Everything in the Codex should be the best tool for the job in at least one situation.

Perfectly balancing the game's points costs is an impossible task. I once tried to imagine the variables needed to calculate the perfect points value for every option. Ten seconds in I realized the formula would be way too long and would have to be recalculated every time something new is added to the game. It's actually a better approach to playtest units and try to make an intuitive guess as to an appropriate points value.

I hope 8th edition is just a single book called Codex: Traditio's Tacticals and the entire game is just tactical squads slinging missiles at each other.

Then we can finally get around to banning those damn missile launchers

Overall balance should be the aim. Balance, however, doesn't mean identical. That's chess.

Let's say my son brings 1500 points of Terminators to the table to face my 1500 points of Grots. All in all, he should win, since model for model his are "better". However, I might get lucky, and, in a recent game, my Grots did wipe out a Terminator unit (after they'd been thoroughly softened up by 3 other units).

More importantly, the OP question ignores dice in the question. My grot rolling a 6 will almost always do better than my son's Terminator rolling 1s.

stroller wrote:
Overall balance should be the aim. Balance, however, doesn't mean identical. That's chess.

Let's say my son brings 1500 points of Terminators to the table to face my 1500 points of Grots. All in all, he should win, since model for model his are "better". However, I might get lucky, and, in a recent game, my Grots did wipe out a Terminator unit (after they'd been thoroughly softened up by 3 other units).

More importantly, the OP question ignores dice in the question. My grot rolling a 6 will almost always do better than my son's Terminator rolling 1s.

There will never be a version of WH40k where any army can go up against any other army and have a fair fight.

Proof: An army of Land Raiders against an army of Tactical Marines with Bolters.

 Traditio wrote:
Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.

So you think that if I use nothing but Grots and a Boss without any upgrades I should be able to equally match someones all flyer Necron list?

 DeffDred wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.

So you think that if I use nothing but Grots and a Boss without any upgrades I should be able to equally match someones all flyer Necron list?

Yes, at least, in an objectives game. The necron fliers should have such a low rate of fire and should be so points expensive that, if you use cover and position your dudes right, you should be able to swarm the field with bodies, laugh at your opponent and win the game. Sure, your opponent should be able to hit your grots hard, but he shouldn't be able to get through all of your grots.

Ok, but what about the horde of grots (with no weapons capable of damaging vehicles) against an IG army full of Wyverns and Hellhounds, specialized light infantry killers? Are you now going to suggest that the grot horde should be so durable against an army full of things dedicated to killing grots that the grots have a 50% chance of winning on objectives? Or should the dedicated grot killers be so poor at their job that even against an army with nothing but their preferred target the best they can manage to do is a 50% win rate?

 Traditio wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.

So you think that if I use nothing but Grots and a Boss without any upgrades I should be able to equally match someones all flyer Necron list?

Yes, at least, in an objectives game. The necron fliers should have such a low rate of fire and should be so points expensive that, if you use cover and position your dudes right, you should be able to swarm the field with bodies, laugh at your opponent and win the game. Sure, your opponent should be able to hit your grots hard, but he shouldn't be able to get through all of your grots.

At what point did we say "objective based"?

Should units/upgrades with the same statlines/abilities cost the same amount of points? Yes absolutely. The opposite of this is what we have now, a complete mess. I'm actually pretty surprised most of the community disagrees on this.

I don't have my rulebook infront of me so feel free to correct me on the point cost. Here is an example. You have a imperial guardsman & a space marine. You upgrade each with a powerfist.

Imp guard is now hitting in melee at S6.

Space marine is now hitting in melee at S8.

Both pay 25 points for the upgrade, yet it is significantly better on the space marine. Now, the only way this makes sense is if point cost = the cost of said technology. In which case, yeah lore wise I could see a power fist on both examples needing similar resources/technology. On the tabletop however this creates imbalance. The guardsman has less survivability, worse melee potency, is more likely to fail leadership tests and so on and so on. These kind of examples exist in every army in the game and there will be no semblance of balance until it is resolved. Does that mean I am saying each army has to be the same? Absolutely not. Keep everything as it is but point costs MUST be brought in line. Create a codex in a new edition, then balance everything around said codex using it as the metric. All of these formation shenanigans GW is trying to implement to balance the game have only negatively impacted one of the best aspects of the hobby which is list building. It ignores the underlying problem, which is point costs which reside at the codex level. Point costs should reflect the statline, power, utility of each model. Currently that isn't the case.

So the player who went all flyers against grots and a Warboss shouldn't have a chance to win and auto lose while the grot player laughs? Doesn't sound balanced.

In a 2k point game, I can bring 5 Stormsurges or 10 Riptides that will do poorly against anything that I face, or I can bring a couple and enough markerlights to properly support them. Which should do better?

Sorry, I weighted the question. 'When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' Bringing multiples of a special weapon should never do you as good a job as bringing a balance to the field of battle. If I am facing an army packed full of flamers, I am going to engage with my tanks. If my opponent brings a hundred meltaguns to a game, I'm going to engage from range. If my opponent brings a bunch of battle cannons? Cover. Barrage weapons? Spread out. Psykers? that one wargear, but otherwise try to mitigate what they are doing as much as possible.

If Traditio and the others like him want to play a game that has an equal chance of winning, don't play any tabletop game, play rock paper scissors to best of 3 and call it a day.

In an I Go Ugo type of game, there is only so much that can mitigate for even battles. 'History is replete with armies that come back from a defeat and beat the enemy.' IMHO, seize the initiative was a masterstroke for the game, as it encourages the first go player from deploying things too aggressively.

You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.

 Rolsheen wrote:
You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons.

Sounds like most Traditio Polls haha.

 Rolsheen wrote:
Please stop.

Welcome to the line of people trying to get Traditio to do so haha.

 Rolsheen wrote:
I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.

Traditio really, really doesn't like either apparently


On Topic:

Should all options in the game be equally points efficient and equally playable in game?

An over-simplified question to which the over-simplified answer is 'Yes'., a prime example of which was the Power Fist example given by Commissar Benny. But - like always - you've over-simplified a very complex balance issue.

Should one unit selection be "better" than another unit selection?

An extreme over-simplification that has no simple answer.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Wow.

You put up a binary poll, ascribe a whole bunch of inference to "yes" or "no" that isn't explained in the OP AND try and use it as any sort of evidence when there's barely 50 responses?

Truly, every time I think you can't create a worse thread, you go ahead and prove me wrong.

To the rest of Dakka: This poster is deliberately wasting your time, stop giving him oxygen.

Boycott Traditio!

But he's so entertaining! It should be abundantly clear by now that he's got his own narrative and nothing will ever move him from it, yet something about his delivery still makes people think that maybe this time, they could be the one to make him see the truth. It's a thing of beauty.

 Rolsheen wrote:
You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.

Does anyone like GW?

Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?

Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.

Does anyone like GW?

Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?

Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?

Yes. Yes they have. They're very active on their own social media, dropping leaks, engaging the fans, doing FAQs, and have put out a ton of inexpensive box sets recently. Of course they're still the evil, mustache twirling villain who holds out one open palm witha grenade launcher waiting behind their back (to some). A lot of us recognize they are making improvements. But some black/white arguers will say that one or two items (lowered costs on everything or bad rule sets) haven't happened, so any improvements they make are meaningless. They were in a deep hole with their fans. You can't blame them for testing the rope before they start to make the climb.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.

Does anyone like GW?

Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?

Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?

Have you missed the last ~6months or so?

Community site is back, FAQs for EVERY codex and the brb iirc, bundles that actually save money, new models for chaos, and that's all I can remember offhand. That's quite a nice turn around for GW (feth Tom Kirby driving it into the ground)

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.

Does anyone like GW?

Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?

Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?

Yes. Yes they have. They're very active on their own social media, dropping leaks, engaging the fans, doing FAQs, and have put out a ton of inexpensive box sets recently. Of course they're still the evil, mustache twirling villain who holds out one open palm witha grenade launcher waiting behind their back (to some). A lot of us recognize they are making improvements. But some black/white arguers will say that one or two items (lowered costs on everything or bad rule sets) haven't happened, so any improvements they make are meaningless. They were in a deep hole with their fans. You can't blame them for testing the rope before they start to make the climb.

Okay then. I feel bad about a rather rude e-mail I sent GW a couple of weeks ago.

I've been out of the loop for a while. I had to pack up my WH40k stuff last June when we started trying to sell our house. Haven't unpacked it yet since I decided I'd rather do Kill Team than standard games, and plastic Sisters kits are what I'd need to get my Kill Team force going, so I haven't even set up my table in its new spot yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
You've asked a badly worded question, given two answers, waited until a few people have voted and come up with your own conclusion regardless of voters reasons. Please stop. I think you just don't like 40k or GW in general.

Does anyone like GW?

Am I in a parallel universe where GW doesn't constantly feth over their customers and distributors?

Did GW improve their customer relations at some point?

Have you missed the last ~6months or so?

Community site is back, FAQs for EVERY codex and the brb iirc, bundles that actually save money, new models for chaos, and that's all I can remember offhand. That's quite a nice turn around for GW (feth Tom Kirby driving it into the ground)

I hope the community site isn't just a facebook page. I'll go check it out though.

 Pouncey wrote:

I hope the community site isn't just a facebook page. I'll go check it out though.

I think it's an actual site and everything.

To answer the original question - yes, basically. While there will always be units that are more useful against one thing than another, I think GW should really be aiming at having no units that are objectively bad and I can't fathom why they seemingly aren't. Looking at the likes of Wyches, Hellions, Pyrovores, Bloodcrushers. Do GW not want to sell those kits or something?

Basically I want to feel spoilt for choice when I read through a codex. I want every unit to have something good about it that makes me want to field it. I don't want to be discounting half of the codex as useless before I even start putting together an army list.

As much as possible within a very broad definition of "good" and "points efficient". Because a unit that can tie up another unit while not actually killing it needs to have that added to its points efficiency calculation and most people don't do that, for example.

pm713 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Wait, people are voting in a Traditio thread?

Can't we go ahead and discount most of the votes as being troll votes though?

I see no reason to do so. This basically corresponds to actual in-thread responses on dakka fora. Roughly half of all people, perhaps slightly less, are just as much against power creep, scale creep, etc. as I am.

The other half, perhaps slightly more, are mocking people for taking tactical marines, missile launchers and flame throwers in rhinos.

In other words:

"No. That shouldn't be good. That's an obvious trap choice. LOL at you for falling into the trap."

Nobody is getting mocked for taking tac marines though.

Nope - I mock you for taking tactical marines. Are you taking tactical marines? Consider yourself mocked!

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
No.

There are too many variables from army to army to demand that any two selections of equal point value be equal to one another in all regards.

Exalted for truth.

While ideally any two lists of equal points should be equally matched, the reality is that bad matchups do happen. Even the powerful armies (like Eldar) can run into something that can hard counter them. Perhaps not as often as the "weaker" armies, but it still happens. And it's not just in 40k; I've heard about this kind of thing in Warmachine and X-wing as well, so it's just a fact of life that no game system will give perfect, even games 100% of the time. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.

If you want two armies that are perfectly evenly matched 100% of the time, play chess. Both players get the exact same armies, with the exact same rules.

Except, and I saw this posted 2 other places, the player that goes first in chess has a distinct advantage, and should win the greater proportion of games, the strength of going first.

As seen in 40k with alpha strike list versus alph strike list. He who goes first wins.

 Traditio wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Yes. I should be able to take whatever the bloody feth I want and have a decent chance at winning.

So you think that if I use nothing but Grots and a Boss without any upgrades I should be able to equally match someones all flyer Necron list?

Yes, at least, in an objectives game. The necron fliers should have such a low rate of fire and should be so points expensive that, if you use cover and position your dudes right, you should be able to swarm the field with bodies, laugh at your opponent and win the game. Sure, your opponent should be able to hit your grots hard, but he shouldn't be able to get through all of your grots.

Ugh. No. For so many reasons no. We get it. You either do not have the money to upgrade your army to the current edition or you are not willing to spend the money. Either way this is not the game for you. GW has to keep selling products. You cant just sell one army to one guy and expect to stay in business. You need players to keep spending. Be that edition changes or by simply adding new cool toys. GW has picked the first of the two options. Ddespite it being the inferior business model it is what we have. I am not defending GW by the way. They have done plenty of ganky stuff to their customer base such a 80 usd endtimes books that became useless in a few months time. At some point you need to analyse what you are getting from this hobby and what are you willing to invest into it, and does it match up with reality. In your case, 40k has passed you by. I would look for another game. And I am not being a jerk either.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
No.

There are too many variables from army to army to demand that any two selections of equal point value be equal to one another in all regards.

Exalted for truth.

While ideally any two lists of equal points should be equally matched, the reality is that bad matchups do happen. Even the powerful armies (like Eldar) can run into something that can hard counter them. Perhaps not as often as the "weaker" armies, but it still happens. And it's not just in 40k; I've heard about this kind of thing in Warmachine and X-wing as well, so it's just a fact of life that no game system will give perfect, even games 100% of the time. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.

If you want two armies that are perfectly evenly matched 100% of the time, play chess. Both players get the exact same armies, with the exact same rules.

Except, and I saw this posted 2 other places, the player that goes first in chess has a distinct advantage, and should win the greater proportion of games, the strength of going first.

As seen in 40k with alpha strike list versus alph strike list. He who goes first wins.

Yes but no mater what you do to the game, there always going to be armies that can do that, unless you water everything down to the exact same thing except a different skin on it.