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.

I think there should be price discrepancies in this game to give armies flavor (strengths and weaknesses). However - each unit should have an explicit purpose in its rule-set and for their cost should do something better than other units in their own codex. There should be no auto includes and no bad units. All units should be viable. If you don't agree with this - I just dont get it.

 MarsNZ wrote:
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

Now that would be cool. Wormshammer 40K.

I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)

This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:

50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile

25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak

100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)

This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:

50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile

25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak

100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well

This one time, in Starcraft, my brother and I fought to a stalemate. Eventually we decided to just spam Zealots and Zerglings and send them at the enemy base to see which side would win.

I think about 2 hours later without either side managing to attack a single building our LAN disconnected.

10,000 dead Zerg.
2,000 dead Protoss.

Units in 40K not having a temporal cost do make them more challenging to price. If Eldar had to build WKs and I had a chance to rush them before they could field them.

Martel732 wrote:
Units in 40K not having a temporal cost do make them more challenging to price. If Eldar had to build WKs and I had a chance to rush them before they could field them.

Have you played Dawn of War?

No, but I've heard its decent.

It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.

Martel732 wrote:
No, but I've heard its decent.

It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.

It's got some of the same issues normal 40k does, though the funniest (to me) is the sheer unadulterated transparency of Retribution. The Imperial Guard got released around the same time the 5e 40k book did, so Relic made the entire faction out of units that were new in the book and made them terrifyingly powerful and frustrating to fight (base-hugging Manticores you couldn't interact with that just dropped infinite-range missiles that wiped any effort you made to push somewhere the Guard player had LoS).

(And before anyone accuses me of being a DoW n00b who needs to learn to play I freely acknowledge I'm terrible at it, the Guard army made to sell the 5e Codex just makes me laugh.)

Martel732 wrote:
No, but I've heard its decent.

It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.

In video games, the difference between Chapters is just a paint job on the models. Space Marines are just Space Marines.

That seems a bit lazy to me, but okay.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, but I've heard its decent.

It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.

It's got some of the same issues normal 40k does, though the funniest (to me) is the sheer unadulterated transparency of Retribution. The Imperial Guard got released around the same time the 5e 40k book did, so Relic made the entire faction out of units that were new in the book and made them terrifyingly powerful and frustrating to fight (base-hugging Manticores you couldn't interact with that just dropped infinite-range missiles that wiped any effort you made to push somewhere the Guard player had LoS).

(And before anyone accuses me of being a DoW n00b who needs to learn to play I freely acknowledge I'm terrible at it, the Guard army made to sell the 5e Codex just makes me laugh.)

I play DoW1 because I suck at micro and prefer macro.

Sometimes I like to play IG and just send Guardsmen squads at my enemy until they die.

Ever tried killing a Leman Russ with lasguns?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
That seems a bit lazy to me, but okay.

...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know.

Crispy78 wrote:
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.

Yep totally agree, I'm not expecting my blood crusher to outshoot that firewarrior squad, nor am I expecting those warriors to out fight my crushers, but I do want everything to be as balanced as possible given there roll.

"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

Making a playable faction in a video game is a lot of work. Most games just let you play as Space Marines and no one else.

And game developers just tune right out whenever people call them lazy.

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon.

Table Top Gaming will never be fair and/or balanced; The games I just referenced have been around for a long time, and have undergone extensive play testing. Backgammon is over 5,000 years old; Go is thought to be around 4,000 years old. Chess is only about 1,500 years old, and Checkers (also called Draughts) is a baby compared to the others: It was "invented" in the 12th century in France.

40K is incredibly complicated compared to those games. GW could spend years and millions of pounds trying to balance their game, and I doubt they ever could. I doubt anyone could. It's too big and too complicated. They only way to balance it would be to restrict the armies severely, take away options, and homogenize the game.

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)

This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:

50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile

25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak

100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well

Starcraft is just such a beautifully balanced game that having played it makes you wonder how a game like this struggles with balance. No unit is terrible - if any unit is used at the right time and in the right way - it will be extremely effective. If strong units are used at the wrong time and in the wrong place they can be destroyed by much weaker units.

Heres a good example of something SC2 did with balance. Thors used to be an unstoppable unit and they were crushing their supposed counter (protoss immortals) because their special ability basically allowed thors to 1 shot an immortal. What did SC2 do? They said fck it - these thors are already so strong - they don't need a special ability and straight took it away. Now a thor is a niche unit used for splash AA and to protect siege tanks from melle units. If a thor goes up against an immortal - it gets PWNED now like it should. That same immortal will get greesed by t1 marines with stimpacks for about half the resources.

Always like the immortal concept too. Hardend sheilds make them practically immune to heavy firepower but takes damage normally from small arms.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

I think Soulstorm's the only WH40k video game where you can play Sisters of Battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with the above. All units should be viable. There are too many strictly superior units in 40K. For example TWC and Wulfen vs all possible other astartes assault units. If the SW were BS 3, this would be acceptable. (Barely)

This kind of question really displays the simple brilliance of starcraft:

50 min marine can shoot up and has great dps, but is fragile

25 min zergling is fast, and murders many things quickly if they get the surround, but can't shoot up and are individually very weak

100 min zealot can't shoot up, but utterly dominates in choke points vs zerglings and their collective effectiveness falls off much more slowly. charge upgrade makes them super lethal vs marines as well

Starcraft is just such a beautifully balanced game that having played it makes you wonder how a game like this struggles with balance. No unit is terrible - if any unit is used at the right time and in the right way - it will be extremely effective. If strong units are used at the wrong time and in the wrong place they can be destroyed by much weaker units.

Heres a good example of something SC2 did with balance. Thors used to be an unstoppable unit and they were crushing their supposed counter (protoss immortals) because their special ability basically allowed thors to 1 shot an immortal. What did SC2 do? They said fck it - these thors are already so strong - they don't need a special ability and straight took it away. Now a thor is a niche unit used for splash AA and to protect siege tanks from melle units. If a thor goes up against an immortal - it gets PWNED now like it should. That same immortal will get greesed by t1 marines with stimpacks for about half the resources.

One of the advantages of video games is that you can patch the game rules when issues come up. Another advantage is that the computer handles all the rules, so there's no arguing over rules interpretations.

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon.

Table Top Gaming will never be fair and/or balanced; The games I just referenced have been around for a long time, and have undergone extensive play testing. Backgammon is over 5,000 years old; Go is thought to be around 4,000 years old. Chess is only about 1,500 years old, and Checkers (also called Draughts) is a baby compared to the others: It was "invented" in the 12th century in France.

40K is incredibly complicated compared to those games. GW could spend years and millions of pounds trying to balance their game, and I doubt they ever could. I doubt anyone could. It's too big and too complicated. They only way to balance it would be to restrict the armies severely, take away options, and homogenize the game.

We have several games on the market that are leagues better at balance and generally considered fair and balanced. It will never be perfect, which is what people always get hung up on in these discussions, it just needs to be good enough, which many other games achieve just fine.

40k isn't a special snowflake in that it somehow can't be balanced or is better off being a poorly balanced mess.

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go.

Strawman arguments are bad arguments.

Martel732 wrote:
No, but I've heard its decent.

It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.

Psionic strorm? Yamatoo cannons? Hydra Swarms? Everything has a counter in SC. Even the best stuff will fail vs their counters.

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon...

GAH. Please. Stop. This is an incredibly annoying false dichotomy that keeps cropping up for some reason. "Balance" isn't binary, it isn't a linear continuum. Your choice isn't between current 40k without any changes or Chess. There's an infinite amount of space in between, and this comparison is incredibly useless.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.

I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you want to play a game where all the pieces have "equality", play Go. Too complicated? How about Checkers? Need more strategy and different pieces with different abilities? Try Chess. Like to roll dice? Try Backgammon.

Table Top Gaming will never be fair and/or balanced; The games I just referenced have been around for a long time, and have undergone extensive play testing. Backgammon is over 5,000 years old; Go is thought to be around 4,000 years old. Chess is only about 1,500 years old, and Checkers (also called Draughts) is a baby compared to the others: It was "invented" in the 12th century in France.

40K is incredibly complicated compared to those games. GW could spend years and millions of pounds trying to balance their game, and I doubt they ever could. I doubt anyone could. It's too big and too complicated. They only way to balance it would be to restrict the armies severely, take away options, and homogenize the game.

I disagree. A bunch of units don't even pass the eyeball test. The WK and the pyrovore are two such examples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, but I've heard its decent.

It's just super frustrating because Protoss carriers basically equal WKs, but they don't dominate competitively because no one just sits back and lets carriers happen. I object to not having a choice in tabletop. BA would probably be pretty mean in a RTS because speed.

Psionic strorm? Yamatoo cannons? Hydra Swarms? Everything has a counter in SC. Even the best stuff will fail vs their counters.

Maxxed carriers beat most of their "counters" because of the way supply works. However, maxxing carrier takes FOREVER. Besides, as terran, once I scout a stargate, it's balls to the wall marines because I know they won't have colossi in time. Similar to how maxxed void rays will beat most of the void ray "counters". But you just never let them get there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.

I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.

Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.

Once again, I find myself agreeing vaguely with Traditio sentiment...but finding it comical how he chooses to approach the subject.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.

I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.

Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.

Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.

I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.

Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.

Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.

Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.

I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.

Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.

Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.

Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.

It doesn't matter what "taxes" you think they are. Anyone CTA with Necrons won't have any issues because they're taking it for the Wraiths, which are fast, and the Scarabs are fast and the Spyder is likely dead by T3. Even then, neither of those units are really a tax anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"...Most armies aren't even in the games, you know."

That seems even lazier.

I don't know, most RTS games have three or four factions that are completely different (by this definition AoE2 has one faction since everyone works the same way except for a unique unit and a unique upgrade). DoW1 had, what, nine by Soulstorm? (Marines, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Guard, Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle).

Yep. Just avoid the flier units because they're buggy and the game is still mediocre compared to Dark Crusade.

I know there's mods to fix the bugginess of Soulstorm, and to be fair it wasn't all the company's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the question in the OP, no absolutely not. That concept doesn't exist in Yugioh or Magic. When you make bad choices you need to understand the consequences of your actions. That's part of what made March 2013 in Yugioh so much fun.

Magic is a poor example - bad cards exist soley to make the good cards rare (rarity is not an issue in table top games). So people spend money to buy the good cards. There is also Magic drafts which typically the worst competitive cards dominate because a 6 mana 5/5 with no abilities is fcking awesome when your opponent doesn't have any means to remove it. However - magic is in a state of perfect balance. Why? Everyone has access to the exact same card pool.

Everyone has the same access to the model pool too. My stance still stands.

Thats not true - you want to include certian models you have to abide by restrictions to using them together (come the apoc/ detatchment taxes) Cards in magic are literally designed to be used in multi color decks with deliberate synergy. While it's true battle brothers can do this without much trouble - most units can't. So you don't have real access to everything.

It doesn't matter what "taxes" you think they are. Anyone CTA with Necrons won't have any issues because they're taking it for the Wraiths, which are fast, and the Scarabs are fast and the Spyder is likely dead by T3. Even then, neither of those units are really a tax anyway.

I was referring to say- A necron - who wanted to use a far-seer to fortune his wraiths. The units don't function together. There are endless lists of these examples. Point being - whatever your main force is basically what you are restricted to using (with the main exception being imperium of man - and you still have to take tax units to make this work). In magic if I want to use 2 colors in a deck - all I really need to do is figure how much of each type of mana to use.