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.

Supremacy is not that bad. Honestly Storm Surges are better for their cost.

Anyways - the core rules problems are the reason the game is unbalanced.

Tanks vs MC is laughable in terms of balance.
Flyer vs FMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Super Heavy vs GMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Psychic Defense vs ALL OTHER DEFENSE is laughable in terms of balance (except maybe crons but they don't have psychic so kind the same issue).



These are the issues that need fixing IMO. They are core rules problems if you ask me.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
Can the mods just shut this thread down already?

Why? No one is being rude, and the posts are on topic.

But it has run its course I think. Is there anything more to "discuss" besides the strong minority/basically putting words in people's mouths/trolls ruining the poll?

 Wolfblade wrote:
But it has run its course I think. Is there anything more to "discuss" besides the strong minority/basically putting words in people's mouths/trolls ruining the poll?

Who is doing that?

Okay, I want to try something. I played a three-way game of 'The Relic' yesterday. It was 1750 points. One player had Orks, one player had Thousand Sons, and one player had Tau. Here were are lists: (I'm reconstructing two of these from memory, so a few upgrades might be left off, but it's as close as I can get them
Orks:


Thousand Sons:


Tau:



We had no idea what anyone else was bringing before the game started. We knew what the mission type would be (The Relic) and what armies the other players had.

So... Who won? Or, for bonus points, what was the actual outcome? Was it close? Was it a roflstomp? A landslide victory? A near, barely-got-it-done scrape? Which army came out on top? Since you can look at a list and easily see who's going to win... Who was it?

This was the result of going in blind, writing TAC lists, and seeing what happened. Maybe it's an isolated incident, but seeing as one of the armies were close-to-top-tier and another was lower-middle tier, I don't think that it can all be chocked up to coincidence.

It's much harder to predict 3-way, because 2 can gang up on 1. There are a few builds/lists that can take on double points, but I don't see any here.

Martel732 wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
But it has run its course I think. Is there anything more to "discuss" besides the strong minority/basically putting words in people's mouths/trolls ruining the poll?

Who is doing that?

Who do you think was, and has since basically abandoned the thread?

Oh, I had totally forgotten about him. He is now irrelevant to the conversation on his own thread.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Supremacy is not that bad. Honestly Storm Surges are better for their cost.

Anyways - the core rules problems are the reason the game is unbalanced.

Tanks vs MC is laughable in terms of balance.
Flyer vs FMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Super Heavy vs GMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Psychic Defense vs ALL OTHER DEFENSE is laughable in terms of balance (except maybe crons but they don't have psychic so kind the same issue).



These are the issues that need fixing IMO. They are core rules problems if you ask me.

Okay, I'll agree with you on the first two, (One-shotting Land Raiders is a real problem,) but I draw the line at the last two. Super Heavy vs GMC is not anywhere near as unbalanced as regular Tanks versus Regular GMCs. Super Heavies cannot be one-shotted, they can't be shut down by destroying their weapons or immobilizing them, and while non-walkers are vulnerable in close combat, they absolutely should be! They're tanks! (And unlike GMCs, they can't be *locked* in close combat unless they're walkers, meaning that you can't just bog them down and prevent their shooting.) The reason that tanks are super vulnerable is because the potential to immobilize, weapon destroyed, or just straight kill them, not to mention that a single Crew Shaken result can prevent any damage from most shooty tanks for a turn. Super Heavies are immune to all of this. Yes, it's possible for AP1 and 2 weapons to chip off extra hull points if they get an Explodes! result, but weapons with Instant Death (Like Force Weapons) can do the same to GMCs, so it all pans out.

And when you say Psychic Defense, do you mean the defensive buffs granted by Psychic Powers, or the defense against Psychic Powers? I'm assuming it's the former, in which case I have to point out: Unlike any other form of defense, Psychic Defense can be shut down if you use good tactics or have the units to counter it. (Just for an example, if I'm playing against a CSM/Daemons player with a psychicy deathstar, and I don't have the Warp Charges to shut his deathstar down, then my goal is to kill all of his non-deathstar Psychic units so that he can't reliably get off all the powers he needs. If I HAVE psykers, I just Deny the Witch at a critical moment. Or I just bring Sisters of Silence or an Assassin and cancel out his buffs.)
Compare that to, say, Iron Hands, who have several ways to get a 2+3++ 2+ FNP character with 4w and IWND sitting at the front of a command squad with four Grav Guns. (Or hey, 4 Meltaguns works too. 4 of any special weapon is great on bikes, because they can close to effective range really quickly.) No Psychic Powers needed, and the only way to kill him is to hope for a lucky D weapon shot. (And hope that he doesn't LOS that D-weapon shot, or you'll need another one.) Yes, it's true that Psychic Powers can buff him up even more (Maybe make that a 2++, or give him re-rolls on his saves, or the ever-hated Invisibility,) but you don't need Psychic Powers to get crazy durability.
(For one other quick example, Ghazzy and a Warboss with Mega Armor and the Lukky Stikk is an occasionally hilarious combo until your opponent just flanks the unit and kills everyone from behind.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's much harder to predict 3-way, because 2 can gang up on 1. There are a few builds/lists that can take on double points, but I don't see any here.

Okay, fair point.

That Tau list would massacre either of the other two lists in a 1 vs 1.

SHVs are still a joke compared to GMCs, who have layered saves for free.

Yeah, GMCs have saves and SHVs don't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, GMCs have saves and SHVs don't.

Not just saves. LAYERED saves because free FNP.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Supremacy is not that bad. Honestly Storm Surges are better for their cost.

Anyways - the core rules problems are the reason the game is unbalanced.

Tanks vs MC is laughable in terms of balance.
Flyer vs FMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Super Heavy vs GMC is laughable in terms of balance.
Psychic Defense vs ALL OTHER DEFENSE is laughable in terms of balance (except maybe crons but they don't have psychic so kind the same issue).



These are the issues that need fixing IMO. They are core rules problems if you ask me.

Okay, I'll agree with you on the first two, (One-shotting Land Raiders is a real problem,) but I draw the line at the last two. Super Heavy vs GMC is not anywhere near as unbalanced as regular Tanks versus Regular GMCs. Super Heavies cannot be one-shotted, they can't be shut down by destroying their weapons or immobilizing them, and while non-walkers are vulnerable in close combat, they absolutely should be! They're tanks! (And unlike GMCs, they can't be *locked* in close combat unless they're walkers, meaning that you can't just bog them down and prevent their shooting.) The reason that tanks are super vulnerable is because the potential to immobilize, weapon destroyed, or just straight kill them, not to mention that a single Crew Shaken result can prevent any damage from most shooty tanks for a turn. Super Heavies are immune to all of this. Yes, it's possible for AP1 and 2 weapons to chip off extra hull points if they get an Explodes! result, but weapons with Instant Death (Like Force Weapons) can do the same to GMCs, so it all pans out.

And when you say Psychic Defense, do you mean the defensive buffs granted by Psychic Powers, or the defense against Psychic Powers? I'm assuming it's the former, in which case I have to point out: Unlike any other form of defense, Psychic Defense can be shut down if you use good tactics or have the units to counter it. (Just for an example, if I'm playing against a CSM/Daemons player with a psychicy deathstar, and I don't have the Warp Charges to shut his deathstar down, then my goal is to kill all of his non-deathstar Psychic units so that he can't reliably get off all the powers he needs. If I HAVE psykers, I just Deny the Witch at a critical moment. Or I just bring Sisters of Silence or an Assassin and cancel out his buffs.)
Compare that to, say, Iron Hands, who have several ways to get a 2+3++ 2+ FNP character with 4w and IWND sitting at the front of a command squad with four Grav Guns. (Or hey, 4 Meltaguns works too. 4 of any special weapon is great on bikes, because they can close to effective range really quickly.) No Psychic Powers needed, and the only way to kill him is to hope for a lucky D weapon shot. (And hope that he doesn't LOS that D-weapon shot, or you'll need another one.) Yes, it's true that Psychic Powers can buff him up even more (Maybe make that a 2++, or give him re-rolls on his saves, or the ever-hated Invisibility,) but you don't need Psychic Powers to get crazy durability.
(For one other quick example, Ghazzy and a Warboss with Mega Armor and the Lukky Stikk is an occasionally hilarious combo until your opponent just flanks the unit and kills everyone from behind.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's much harder to predict 3-way, because 2 can gang up on 1. There are a few builds/lists that can take on double points, but I don't see any here.

Okay, fair point.

Deny the witch is far too weak - rolling to cancel spells on 6's is a huge joke...its even more of a joke if the critcal spell they are trying to cast comes from two different sources. Cancle the spell twice? LOL - no chance.

Martel732 wrote:
That Tau list would massacre either of the other two lists in a 1 vs 1.

SHVs are still a joke compared to GMCs, who have layered saves for free.

Would it, though? Would it really?
Because the Ork player (Me!) wiped him off the board with half his (my!) army. If I hadn't needed to send the other half of my army to tie up the TSons player, I don't know if he would have lasted through turn 3.

Hurray for one off anecdotes about totally abnormal situations!

 Blacksails wrote:
Hurray for one off anecdotes about totally abnormal situations!

Hooray for literally the sum of player experiences in playing 40k, your cynacism and his optimism both come from anecdotal evidence! Mathhammer exists in a void, gameplay in anecdotes.

Quite surprised at the result, would not have expected Orks to perform so well. A theory is 3-way means everyone starts net closer together

Yeah, but I imagine his point is that Tau aren't some sort of unbeatable monster, but the example is so out of the ordinary (how many people can say they've played more than one game of a three person free for all?) and we know literally nothing about the setup or how much everyone focused on who that all we have is an Ork player saying he won a game against Tau.

That's great, we have dozens of examples of that. No one's arguing they can't be beat, the points being made are that Tau are generally far more points efficient in their power than, say, Orks. Or in general, balance is whack yo.

I just fail to see what the example is trying to prove.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Hurray for one off anecdotes about totally abnormal situations!

Hooray for literally the sum of player experiences in playing 40k, your cynacism and his optimism both come from anecdotal evidence! Mathhammer exists in a void, gameplay in anecdotes.

Quite surprised at the result, would not have expected Orks to perform so well. A theory is 3-way means everyone starts net closer together

Mostly, it was a bit of luck on my part with the deployment, and then good model placement. We all started 24" away from each other in 12x24" rectangles on two corners and the center of the board. I got first turn send my Ghazzystar towards the Tau player, WAAAGH!ing immediately. The Trukk got me 18", and then he blew it up, but thanks to Ghazzy's 2++ and the Lukky Stikk boss's 2+ rerollable (I set them both at the front of my squad,) I was able to soak up all of his shooting without taking any significant damage to the Deathstar.

(For a fun historical metaphor, I went all Nazi-Germany on the other two guys, taking the first turn and hitting as quickly as I possibly could, before any retaliation could be made. And, like WWII, pretty much nobody had anyone left to fight by the end of the game - I had three wounds left in total, between three models, and that was it.)

And the point that I'm trying to prove is that you can't look at a list and predict how it's going to go all of the time. I did get a little lucky by rolling first turn, but outside of that, the dice mostly came out pretty average - Slightly below average with the Tau player's shooting, but then he stomped half my Deathstar in one roll once I finally managed to chase down his Stormsurge, so it evened out.) I won because I was able to outmanuever the other players, pinning the Tsons guy down with hordes of useless Ork Boyz that he had to chop down before he could get to the relic, and trapping the Tau player's most valuable units in the corner while I used some lighter options to shred his troops. (The TSons guy did manage to kill all my useless Ork Boyz, but by the time he did, my Deathstar was done mopping up most of the remaining Tau, so I was able to start hoofing it back across the board and met them in the middle where we fought over the Relic.)

You're probably right that the Tau player could have won, and if we played again, he very well might! He certainly wouldn't let himself be outmaneuvered again, and chances are the Tsons player would put more effort into spreading out quickly on turn one (Before I pinned him in). Of course, I'd have to change up my strategy as well, so we can't say for sure what would happen. My point is that it is entirely possible to win a game using on-board tactics, maneuvering, and target priority. This isn't some random example I'm pulling out from ages ago, either - I played this game last night.

Right, and no one's denying that. What the point being made is that the balance is so far out of whack that you could have put money down on the Tau player and likely won more often than not, assuming of course equal player skill. When discussing balance about toy soldiers on the interwebz, its important to remember we have to assume that both theoretical players are essentially identical in skill and knowledge. Which is why in real life, you get battles like that; someone can out play someone or have fantastic (or gak) luck, which will dramatically shift the outcome.

The big point is that if balance was better, the outcome would be more often dictated by player skill/choice, and also present the players with more opportunities to make those important decisions. Let's be honest, 40k is not a particularly deep game. It amounts to 'chop the shooty stuff and shoot the choppy stuff' with some knowledge of the game to prioritize the right targets and not forgetting to play to the scenario. Everything else is decided by the power of the units you brought and in 40k, a hefty dose of luck.

Good on you for the win though. Not belittling it, just making a point that a single anecdote about a particularly abnormal scenario doesn't exactly raise a lot of relevant points to a discussion about game balance. Plus, if 40k was better balanced, we'd have much closer matches that'd be much more entertaining for all.

*Edit* On a side note to ensure people don't seriously think I'm a big old meanie and grump, I've never had the opportunity to do a 3-way battle. I always pictured it best played on a triangle though, which would be a pain to get a table for. Sounds like a good time though. Hopefully a few beers were enjoyed in the process.

 Traditio wrote:
If I bring a cultist spam list and you bring an army of wyverns, what should my chances of winning be? I'll admit that that it should be less than 50 percent.

Zero. You should have no hope of winning that match. You brought a one-dimensional spam army against an army designed to kill it. The Wyverns should slaughter your cultists effortlessly, and if you by some miracle manage to have any survive to claim objectives they should be tank shocked off. This should be such a one-sided match that if you somehow even come close to winning it should be considered grounds to find you guilty of cheating (somehow!) and ban you from the store/tournament/whatever.

(And, just to be clear, the Wyverns are also a one-dimensional spam army and should suffer a similar fate against an army with tanks that their light mortars can't hurt.)

But if it's 0 or anywhere near 0, why should I even bother playing?

You shouldn't! That's my whole point, the army with nothing but cultists is not something that you should be taking. If you're stubborn enough to do it you should lose every game until you stop taking a list like that. One-dimensional spam lists are bad for the game for three reasons:

1) They aren't fluffy. It's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Nothing But Cultists. A fluffy CSM army might have cultists, but they should be meatshields for the marines that are the focus of the codex. Same thing with other armies, I should look at your army and see something that resembles the fluff, not a bunch of copies of the same unit.

2) They aren't fun. One-dimensional spam lists tend to have very little strategy involved. For example, in the cultists vs. tanks example the game is a simple question of "can I remove cultists fast enough to clear the objectives by the end of the game". You roll dice, remove that many cultists, and repeat for 5-7 turns. At no point does either player make an interesting strategic decision. So why bother putting models on the table at all? Just quickly calculate the average cultists killed per turn and compare it to the number of cultists in the army, and declare a winner. There's no point in slogging through the masochism of actually playing the game.

3) They often aren't balanced. The one-dimensional spam lists that are successful in overcoming the fundamental weaknesses of a one-dimensional strategy and winning 50% or more against the metagame tend to be the lists that identify a single overpowered unit and exploit it as much as possible. People aren't going to spam cultists, they're going to spam scatter laser jetbikes. And if you deliberately attempt to keep the power level of one-dimensional spam lists high enough for them to succeed anywhere near 50% of the time you accept a high risk that you'll go a little too far and make the next jetbike list.

Fair enough, but here, I'm going to question what "bad lists" mean. If you tell me that it's "not optimal according to the current meta," then I'm going to disagree all day long for obvious reasons.

Not optimal according to the current meta is part of it, although the current meta does need some adjustments. But those lists should be more like 40/60 or 30/70 matches, because they do have a coherent strategy even if it isn't as well designed as the best list strategies. The zero-hope lists should be the ones that are fundamentally broken in some way: one-dimensional spam, neglecting important aspects of the game, refusing to take advantage of the available tools, etc.

Why don't you think that YOUR list should be a "bad list"? In medieval terms, in the way that you've described it, it's a list of only cavalry. Why should a cavalry only list be able to have a 50/50 chance or greater against a well-balanced list of infantry, archers and horsemen?

First of all, the medieval rock/paper/scissors example is not valid in 40k because 40k is not a medieval game. Don't attempt to draw any balance conclusions from the example, a "cavalry list" is not equivalent to a medieval list with lots of knights in any meaningful strategic way.

That said, my list should be viable because it's a diverse TAC list. It's taken from a codex that is "IG tank army" but it has a variety of selections from that codex: HQ buff tanks, anti-infantry tanks, tank destroyers, fast flanking units, air support, mechanized infantry, etc. They're all vehicles (and, as a result, the army as a whole has advantages and disadvantages, much like Tau are great at shooting but suck in assault) but there isn't a target type where I look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that". If my opponent also brings a TAC list I will have counters to their strategies, and multiple strategic options of my own.

As much as people make fun of me and ridicule my ideas, I only ever tend to complain, at least as of the last 6 months or so, about the outliers. Ridicule me if you want for decrying the death guard rules, but from what I understand, it isn't just my opinion that the death guard received the "more favorable" end of the treatment when it comes to the new rules in the traitor legions supplement.

That's not the point. A thread like this is a poll on general balance issues, largely in a theoretical "how should a game be designed" sense. The Wraithknight is a specific balance issue. The fact that someone agrees with you that the Wraithknight should be more expensive and less spammable does NOT necessarily mean that they agree with your general theories on game design. So it's rather dishonest to quote support for your arguments about single-unit outliers as if it's support for completely unrelated things you're talking about.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Hurray for one off anecdotes about totally abnormal situations!

Hooray for literally the sum of player experiences in playing 40k, your cynacism and his optimism both come from anecdotal evidence! Mathhammer exists in a void, gameplay in anecdotes.

Quite surprised at the result, would not have expected Orks to perform so well. A theory is 3-way means everyone starts net closer together

There's a saying in the Fire Emblem community called PEDM. It means "Personal Experience Doesn't Matter".

It gets used when gak justifications happen for bad characters that leveled well for them for like two games.

 Blacksails wrote:
Right, and no one's denying that. What the point being made is that the balance is so far out of whack that you could have put money down on the Tau player and likely won more often than not, assuming of course equal player skill. When discussing balance about toy soldiers on the interwebz, its important to remember we have to assume that both theoretical players are essentially identical in skill and knowledge. Which is why in real life, you get battles like that; someone can out play someone or have fantastic (or gak) luck, which will dramatically shift the outcome.

The big point is that if balance was better, the outcome would be more often dictated by player skill/choice, and also present the players with more opportunities to make those important decisions. Let's be honest, 40k is not a particularly deep game. It amounts to 'chop the shooty stuff and shoot the choppy stuff' with some knowledge of the game to prioritize the right targets and not forgetting to play to the scenario. Everything else is decided by the power of the units you brought and in 40k, a hefty dose of luck.

Good on you for the win though. Not belittling it, just making a point that a single anecdote about a particularly abnormal scenario doesn't exactly raise a lot of relevant points to a discussion about game balance. Plus, if 40k was better balanced, we'd have much closer matches that'd be much more entertaining for all.

*Edit* On a side note to ensure people don't seriously think I'm a big old meanie and grump, I've never had the opportunity to do a 3-way battle. I always pictured it best played on a triangle though, which would be a pain to get a table for. Sounds like a good time though. Hopefully a few beers were enjoyed in the process.

The thing is, I think his list *should* have won more often than not, given the conditions of the three-way. (Which is why I sent my Deathstar after him, and my other forces elsewhere.) His army was better suited to fighting against multiple forces, purely by virtue of being able to shell enemies from across the board while I had to run and the Tsons guy had to walk into range. In a 1v1, though? I don't think it would have been as one-sided as you think. The whole point of my list was target saturation, and lemme tell you, he was spoiled for choice on what unit to shoot. Yeah, a really good first turn of shooting would be pretty harmful to me, but barring an exceptional bout of good luck (Including him getting the first turn,) I just don't see how the Tau list that he brought would so overwhelmingly destroy me - I only need one turn to get close enough to pin him down.

Its not that his list was amazing, but if we has fighting only you, I imagine he'd be deploying all his big shooty stuff as far away from your super choppy stuff as possible, then simply focus fire on the one or two legitimate threats you present early (the command squad deathstar and the meganobz basically), then worry about the largely unthreatening 10-man Ork squads. If he had first turn, you'd be fethed, and if you had first turn but couldn't assault by turn 2, you'd also be fethed. Outside of your Waaagh turn for the invuln and hoping Ghazzy can roll 2+'s like his life depended on it, you don't have much in the way of durability against his firepower and outside the deathstar, you aren't much of a threat.

All depending on deployment of course, but the Tau have the range to sit as far back as possible (literally table edge if they need to) and shoot your transports, forcing you into slogging 6" + D6", all the while weathering firepower.

 gummyofallbears wrote:
Can the mods just shut this thread down already?

No. If you're done in the thread, you can stop posting here. When everyone is done with the thread, it will gracefully fall down into the bowels of the forum, fossilizing amongst the sediment of the ages.

But let's stay on topic. That's a rule, and we do enforce it.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its not that his list was amazing, but if we has fighting only you, I imagine he'd be deploying all his big shooty stuff as far away from your super choppy stuff as possible, then simply focus fire on the one or two legitimate threats you present early (the command squad deathstar and the meganobz basically), then worry about the largely unthreatening 10-man Ork squads. If he had first turn, you'd be fethed, and if you had first turn but couldn't assault by turn 2, you'd also be fethed. Outside of your Waaagh turn for the invuln and hoping Ghazzy can roll 2+'s like his life depended on it, you don't have much in the way of durability against his firepower and outside the deathstar, you aren't much of a threat.

All depending on deployment of course, but the Tau have the range to sit as far back as possible (literally table edge if they need to) and shoot your transports, forcing you into slogging 6" + D6", all the while weathering firepower.

Okay, if we ended up deploying lengthwise, you'd probably have a point, but for corners or standard deployment? The most he can get away from me is 35" (Assuming he's lining up models on the back edge of the board), and my Trukks can cross 24" a turn.
As for the Deathstar... You're missing something. Ghazzy only has to tank the AP2 shots. (Also, he has a 2+ invuln every turn, including the first.) The non AP2 shots are instead LoSd onto the Warboss with the Lukky Stikk, because he has a 2+ rerollable save.

If I get first turn, I cross 24" of the board with my Bikes, my Meganobz, and my Deathstar. (Everyone else starts chugging along with run movement. Best case scenario for him, he's got 24" of board left that I haven't covered, and that's assuming lengthwise board.

He has to put at least some of his shooting into popping my trukks, meaning there's that much less firepower I have to deal with. And since I don't have to place my deathstar from inside the trukk until after he blows it up, I can see how he's positioned all of his units, THEN place everyone for optimal defense. If he diverts more firepower to my Meganobz and Bikers, then great, my Deathstar is unphased. If he devotes firepower to the Deathstar then great, my other units are fine. I only have to weather one turn of shooting, which I can certainly do, and then I'm ripping up his gunline.

(Also, assuming the mission was the same, you can't win The Relic by sitting back and shooting. He'd have to send at least some of his troops forward to actually get the relic, unless he could completely wipe me off the board.)


This is all hypotheticals, of course, without just playing it out we can't be sure, but using the list I had against the list he had, I can see some very plausible courses for victory for myself. Getting turn two would really hurt, but that doesn't make it impossible, and getting turn one would be a huge, huge boost.

Martel732 wrote:
But without point values conferred by the codices, how can you make any balance judgments?

Because the Codexes and the core rules are seperate entities. If every Codex sucks - and not every current Codex does - the core rules can still be perfectly functional, it's just that no armies exists that are able to play them out properly.

Assault in 7th ed would be fine if most assault units were cheap. But they're not, which makes them trash because the core rules favor shooting.

Not from where I'm sitting they're not. My GSC army does almost none of its killing with shooting, even against GEQ stuff. It's so bad I don't even bother most of the time, just skip past the dakka so I can get chargin' quicker.

"But you have cheap assault units!" - That's right, I do, and Blood Angels don't. Thing is I'm not paying a premium for an MEQ statline on my dudes, and having to pay that premium is part of the reason MEQ armies suck so hard (and conversely why the Gladius makes them half-way functional) - you're paying for all-purpose resilience out of the box, adding killing power on top of that has to cost you extra otherwise your units end up undercosted.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Okay, I want to try something. I played a three-way game of 'The Relic' yesterday.

How did you play combat? No (A.) shooting into combat or only (B.) no shooting into combat including friendly\allied troops? (A.) could have easily neutered any shooting in the game. . .

The way we have always done 3-way battles (which are common here!) was to say that you can shoot into a combat involving two enemy forces, declaring one unit the primary target. After rolling to hit, you roll again - on a 4+ the target is hit, otherwise it's the other unit in the combat! That number changes based on how many units are in combat, but it's basically the same idea.

 carldooley wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Okay, I want to try something. I played a three-way game of 'The Relic' yesterday.

How did you play combat? No (A.) shooting into combat or only (B.) no shooting into combat including friendly\allied troops? (A.) could have easily neutered any shooting in the game. . .

Technically, we ran with option A, but it only came up once, very near to the end up the game, with 5 surviving Pathfinders that didn't actually have the opportunity to shoot yet. (He was asking for the next turn, once he was going to be in range.)

Peregrine wrote:1) They aren't fluffy. It's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: Nothing But Cultists. A fluffy CSM army might have cultists, but they should be meatshields for the marines that are the focus of the codex. Same thing with other armies, I should look at your army and see something that resembles the fluff, not a bunch of copies of the same unit.

1. Why does fluff matter when it comes to game mechanics?

2. Even if fluff did matter to game mechanics, how is it somehow "unfluffy" to have an army of cultists with a dark apostle as HQ?

2) They aren't fun.

You reject this argument when I make it it about SHVs and GMCs, as well as tank spam.

What gives you a pass to make it about cultist spam?

Not optimal according to the current meta is part of it, although the current meta does need some adjustments. But those lists should be more like 40/60 or 30/70 matches, because they do have a coherent strategy even if it isn't as well designed as the best list strategies. The zero-hope lists should be the ones that are fundamentally broken in some way: one-dimensional spam, neglecting important aspects of the game, refusing to take advantage of the available tools, etc.

You don't take advantage of all of the available tools. You don't use allies, as far as I'm aware: you ONLY use imperial guard. You don't even use all of the tools in your codex. You don't use rough riders, ratlings, ogryn/bullgryn, stormtroopers...do you?

...in fact, if it came right down to it, there's swaths of things in your codex that you don't use.

Does that make your army fundamentally broken? Should it be a zero-hope list?

First of all, the medieval rock/paper/scissors example is not valid in 40k because 40k is not a medieval game. Don't attempt to draw any balance conclusions from the example, a "cavalry list" is not equivalent to a medieval list with lots of knights in any meaningful strategic way.

I didn't intend for a direct one-to-one correlation. This is the only point I'm making: in that scheme, you have A counters B counters C counters A. So if you want a "good" army you'd take a blend of the three.

That said, my list should be viable because it's a diverse TAC list. It's taken from a codex that is "IG tank army" but it has a variety of selections from that codex: HQ buff tanks, anti-infantry tanks, tank destroyers, fast flanking units, air support, mechanized infantry, etc. They're all vehicles (and, as a result, the army as a whole has advantages and disadvantages, much like Tau are great at shooting but suck in assault) but there isn't a target type where I look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that". If my opponent also brings a TAC list I will have counters to their strategies, and multiple strategic options of my own.

You have an army of what should be fast attacks and heavy supports.

The fact that there isn't a target type where you look at it and say "nope, can't even try to counter that" is just bad game design.