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.

Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

4E Eldar were astoundingly strong. Flying circus, invinciskimmers, untargetable harlequins, etc. Before that was invinciskimmers and Starcannon spam and Alaitoc disruption tables. Eldar were absolutely top tier in 3E and especially 4E. 2E they were so broken they were a big part of what prompted the 3E reboot (though some of that was due to the insanity of 2E psychics). 5E was the *only* edition where Eldar were not at the top 1-3 of the power pile, mainly because it was the only edition they didnt get a codex update in.


Eldar have absolutely been a top tier army throughout the vast majority of the games lifespan

It all depends on what you call top tier.
In my opinion, if your army doesn't get more than 25% of tournament victories, it's not really top tier.

how do you define "tournament victory"? First place? Best overall? Best General? Events make a lot of distinctions, and often the difference between 1st and 7th is a single die roll coming up for the opponent.

In 4th Edition, the top Eldar build was Falcons with Harlequins, which were very targetable

only within 2d6x2 inches, which meant, between 4E LoS rules and area terrain, invinciskimmer transports, and consolidation into new combats, they were effectively untargetable by shooting. 4E is when I initially built my Eldar army, and they were truly ridiculous in that edition, easily on par with the most heinous CSM 3.5 builds before that book got replaced.

but unfortunately for you, they would only get out of the Falcon to charge you, because that was still a thing, and Falcons with holofields were hard to crack.

Right.

They were playable, they had a shot, but they were VERY FAR from being the best 4th Ed army, and I'm quite sure they weren't top 3.

Ther tournament placement would dictate otherwise as they dominated GT events with that codex

In 5th Edition, the top Eldar Build was more around Wave Serpents with Fire Dragons, which was weaker than 4th Ed and definitely not top 3.

hence why I noted the exception for 5th.

2nd Edition ?

while I dont have hard tournament results anymore, betwern psychics, SR5 for determing first turn, moveshootmove skimmers, -3 ASM giant flame template initiative test warp spider guns, etc, Eldar were horrifically broken and matched largely only by a couple Chaos builds and some Space Wolf sillyness with multiple HW equipped terminators

3rd Edition ?

Eldar did very well in this edition with cheap 3 shot Starcannons on everything, nigh unkillable skimmers, psykers that were almost impossible to directly attack due to IC rules, and stuff like Alaitoc disruption tables.

4th Edition was Leafblower ?

IG were terrible in 4E, absolutely awful (yay chimeras that cost 100pts after basic kit and force an autodisambark with a pinning test on each penetrating hit!), and the "leafblower" thing was a 5E incarnation that came about in 2500pt 'Ard Boyz events, mainly where one player on a popular blog got first turn every single game and won one year with a heavy alpha strike list

4E was *very* friendly for the Eldar in tournament placement.

5th Edition was dominated by GK, Eldar wasn't top 3

again, hence the exception, but the edition was more a rotating circus of imperial armies in general on top, 2008 was SM's, 2009 was IG and SW's, 2010 and 2011 was GK's and to a lesser extent BA's, with Necrons moving in on top spot in the last few months up to 6E.

Martel732 wrote:
Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.

Oh yeah, 9 wounds on T4 3+/4++ WITHOUT FEARLESS models is an uber-tarpit. Specially cheap and cost effective. And good and totally reliable. Just be careful you don't lose that ld test you're going to make every single round. And my comparison isn't meaningless since he said they WRECK FACE. Not that they are a tarpit, but a hammer to crush the enemy.

And this is from a veteran player's comments:

My experience was that it still took relatively mistake-free play to actually win games regularly - one bad decision or mistake could easily cause even the competitive builds of the day to fold, and quickly.

Yeah, marine competitive builds have always done that too, haven't... they?

Lord Kragan wrote:

BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.

This doesn't happen terribly often, but I'm with Martel on this one. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and in that time frame, only during 5th edition were there some dexes that edged out Eldar. 3rd ed Eldar featured starcannon spam and the incredibly abuseable Codex: Craftworld Eldar. 4th ed featured unkillable Falcon grav tanks. 5th edition, they didn't get a dex, but they were still at least mid-tier. 6th ed re-established Eldar as the heavyweight champion of the broken dexes,, but that is a title they enjoyed for a long, long time before then.

Martel732 wrote:
Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.

Hey, let's not attack Terminators. They are real cc units. Abaddon is a Terminator.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.

Oh yeah, 9 wounds on T4 3+/4++ WITHOUT FEARLESS models is an uber-tarpit. Specially cheap and cost effective. And good and totally reliable. Just be careful you don't lose that ld test you're going to make every single round. And my comparison isn't meaningless since he said they WRECK FACE. Not that they are a tarpit, but a hammer to crush the enemy.

And this is from a veteran player's comments:

My experience was that it still took relatively mistake-free play to actually win games regularly - one bad decision or mistake could easily cause even the competitive builds of the day to fold, and quickly.

Yeah, marine competitive builds have always done that too, haven't... they?

Vanilla marines have rarely had a spot in the sun. Yes, they'r rather obnoxious at the moment, but it's still rather novel, because they've never been on top for an extended period of time before.

One actually had to play 2nd ed with people who knew what they were doing to appreciate the absurdity of the 2nd ed Eldar codex. It was a long time before the trio of CSM/Eldar/Tyranids was surpassed. Even the 3.5 CSM codex couldn't touch the 2nd ed CSM list.

I think Vakathi's specifics settle the issue of Eldar efficacy since 2nd ed. So pity is out of the question. As for 1st turn charges, I'm still not seeing the difference between that and losing 1/3 of my list on the 1st turn to shooting. Except that I don't get to choose what dies when getting shot and the Eldar list does get to choose what gets assaulted when they deploy. If you stick big daddy Wraithknight out there, they better charge with something heavy duty.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Not long ago, we had a thread that was titles "Am I the only one who thinks 40K is fine?", and lo and behold, the OP was not the only one. So saying things like "Can't we all just agree everything is horrible" and "indesputably a broken mess" is only done by people who only can't conceive of an opinion different than their own. Which is a poor way to have a conversation.

I can conceive of an opinion different from my own, but that opinion is still wrong. 40k's balance problems are indisputable, no reasonable person can argue that wraithknights and scatter laser jetbikes are balanced with orks. Functionality is also pretty indisputable, as demonstrated by the YMDC forum and how many arguments there are over how the rules are supposed to work. And GW's own statements confirm that they don't care about balance or rule clarity, if the current state of the game wasn't already enough proof. Anyone who can look at 40k and say "this is fine" is either playing their own heavily house-ruled version of 40k that fixes the standard version's problems or so completely lacking in experience with other games that don't share 40k's flaws that they're unable to imagine a better way of doing things.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Is that a joke?

Why would it be? Are you honestly going to suggest that 40k isn't broken and unbalanced?

Not long ago, we had a thread that was titles "Am I the only one who thinks 40K is fine?", and lo and behold, the OP was not the only one.

40k being "fine" in a subjective sense for any individual is different than 40k being broken and unbalanced. Sometimes people are perfectly fine with, or even actively seek out and enjoy, broken and unbalanced things. Some people just don't have to face the really broken stuff or just don't care about rules functionality issues and won't have problems from their views. However, it doesn't mean that 40k isn't an extremely poorly functioning ruleset with insanely poor balance

Would you like to make the case that 40k is a balanced game, and has a finely tuned, well functioning, and easy to understand rules system?

The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced. That there are a small amount of actual imbalances, doesn't invalidate the vast majority of perfectly acceptable units and rules, and their relationships to one another. I prefer asymmetry, it makes the game more interesting, IMO.

The proof that the rules are acceptable and functional for me, is that I can get an enjoyable game (in which I have to make meaningful decisions on the tabletop in order to win) with a complete stranger. It has been a loooong time since I felt the game has screwed me with some rules interpretation/misunderstanding. The most unpleasant situations I can recall, have largely been because the other guy was a dick, and that hasn't happened in a while. And most of the time, even if the other player is a bit of a tool, I can still manage to make meaningful moves on the table that often result in a victory for me, so the game still works.

As for Orks (or Tyranids), I'm a firm believer that horde armies are plenty capable, but just not tournament friendly. I see this more a fault of tournaments than the structure of 40K. I've watched a green tide army run over a number of competitive lists "in the wild", so while I understand that they aren't top tier, the fact that a capable player can still win with them is just more evidence that the system functions. (and that asymmetry is an important component)

Starcraft is asymmetric, yet doesn't have a scatterbike equivalent.

BA have basically zero meaningful moves vs Tau and Eldar.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.

This doesn't happen terribly often, but I'm with Martel on this one. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and in that time frame, only during 5th edition were there some dexes that edged out Eldar. 3rd ed Eldar featured starcannon spam and the incredibly abuseable Codex: Craftworld Eldar. 4th ed featured unkillable Falcon grav tanks. 5th edition, they didn't get a dex, but they were still at least mid-tier. 6th ed re-established Eldar as the heavyweight champion of the broken dexes,, but that is a title they enjoyed for a long, long time before then.

I think 4th featured a number of very good codexes though, of which Eldar was only one of them. Space Marines, Necrons, Chaos (most of 4th they were on 3.5 book), and even Nids were all solid books from what I remember. Personally I never had much of an issue with Eldar in 4th. In fact most of what I remember about Eldar in 4th was Eldar fans being upset at Necrons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Starcraft is asymmetric, yet doesn't have a scatterbike equivalent.

The scatbike is not representational of the majority of 40K, the scatbike is an outlier.

Martel732 wrote:
BA have basically zero meaningful moves vs Tau and Eldar.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. You have Grav, Drop Pods, and Librarians with access to the same new psychic powers that Chaos and SM have. BA may not be top tier, but you still have options.

 Insectum7 wrote:


The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced.

I would agree that asymmetry does not necessarily mean imbalance, however that does not mean that 40k is balanced. A typical Ork or IG army is going to be at a marked and significant disadvantage against an Eldar or Necron army, and its not because of some fundamental aspects of any of these forces being inherently intended or designed to be vulnerable against or excel against the others. I dont feel that is a controversial statement.

Something like a Knight army absolutely can be so asymetric as to be inherently and fundamentally imbalanced in a pickup or all comers scenario. A formation like the Skyhammer detachment can absolutely win many games right off turn 1. Stuff like rerollable 2+ saves, Titans, etc all can easily result in stupidly one sided games that one player has no chance at winning.

That there are a small amount of actual imbalances, doesn't invalidate the vast majority of perfectly acceptable units and rules, and their relationships to one another.

I would take issue with the idea that there are a small amount of actual imbalances. Without wanting to waste pages on detail, there are gargantuan issues with allies interaction, formation and detachment freebies and synergy, unit and wargear costings, and more.

The proof that the rules are acceptable and functional for me, is that I can get an enjoyable game (in which I have to make meaningful decisions on the tabletop in order to win) with a complete stranger. It has been a loooong time since I felt the game has screwed me with some rules interpretation/misunderstanding.

See, I've had increasingly more of these problems, and, at least in my experience and the locales I haunt, pickup gaming is dead as a result. The last time I was able to get in just a general pickup game was probably almost two years ago now? Most everything else has been arranged games or store events. And thats in two different states and four or five different game stores.

The most unpleasant situations I can recall, have largely been because the other guy was a dick, and that hasn't happened in a while. And most of the time, even if the other player is a bit of a tool, I can still manage to make meaningful moves on the table that often result in a victory for me, so the game still works.

what finally killed it for me was running a CAD IG list against a War Convocation playing with probably close to a 30%pts advantage over me and it was all "kosher" because...reasons.

And there's a difference between the game "working" well enough that occasionally you can squeeze out victory and being meaningfully balanced, particularly with the very high level of RNG in GW games for almost every single possible mechanic.

The sheer amount of FAQ GW has had to do, and the minirulebooks of errata that tournaments have to use should be plenty of evidence the game has major functionality and balance issues. Well balanced and smoothly functioning rulesets do not require these things to such an extent. It has been almost three years and people still have routine and major issues sorting out things like allies and multiple detachments.

"I'm sorry but I don't believe you"

Come try it sometime. Drop pods are crap in the hands of BA because they turn off our chapter tactic AND formation bonuses. And we have no units really worth podding in.

We have grav, but without invis or skyhammer, no platforms with the durability or means to deploy said grav.

We have the new psychic powers, but no libby conclave, so there is not a good way to cast them. Our "chief" librarian still only gets two rolls on any given psychic tree.

"
The scatbike is not representational of the majority of 40K, the scatbike is an outlier. "

There's no limit on how many scatbikes can show up, nor how often they show up. BA have no reasonable counters to said scatbikes. Scatbikes ARE 40K at this point.

"but you still have options."

Options that all result in a loss.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced.

I would agree that asymmetry does not necessarily mean imbalance, however that does not mean that 40k is balanced. A typical Ork or IG army is going to be at a marked and significant disadvantage against an Eldar or Necron army, and its not because of some fundamental aspects of any of these forces being inherently intended or designed to be vulnerable against or excel against the others. I dont feel that is a controversial statement.

Something like a Knight army absolutely can be so asymetric as to be inherently and fundamentally imbalanced in a pickup or all comers scenario. A formation like the Skyhammer detachment can absolutely win many games right off turn 1. Stuff like rerollable 2+ saves, Titans, etc all can easily result in stupidly one sided games that one player has no chance at winning.

So, examples like the all Knight army, Skyhammer, Titans and re-rollable 2+ saves I see as representing less than 5% of the actual game content. A very small portion whose existence owes little to what I'd consider to be the core game, IMO.

As for the "typical Ork army vs. typical Necron army", I have no idea what a "typical Ork army" is supposed to look like. I just know what I've seen to be effective. I'd also say that many army matchups/unit imbalances can shift dramatically depending on army-wide strategy and terrain. What is "typical" can change from club to club, and can be defined by the players themselves. The fact that Tau are incredibly dangerous to face on tables without what I'd consider to be ample terrain is just no surprise at all. And of the Necron armies that I've seen recently vs. the Ork armies, I'd actually put my money on the Orks.

Everything else I think we'll have to agree to disagree on. I can't agree that 40K is inherently broken.

If 5% of the content gets used 75% of the time, it becomes 75% of the content. In effect, windriders are the only Eldar troops because taking the others ones is foolish. Because of imbalance. I consider that a state of brokenness. BA are different kind of broken in that no matter which units you put together, there's a good 40% of game you can't touch on the table.

Martel732 wrote:
"I'm sorry but I don't believe you"

Come try it sometime. Drop pods are crap in the hands of BA because they turn off our chapter tactic AND formation bonuses. And we have no units really worth podding in.

We have grav, but without invis or skyhammer, no platforms with the durability or means to deploy said grav.

We have the new psychic powers, but no libby conclave, so there is not a good way to cast them. Our "chief" librarian still only gets two rolls on any given psychic tree.

"
The scatbike is not representational of the majority of 40K, the scatbike is an outlier. "

There's no limit on how many scatbikes can show up, nor how often they show up. BA have no reasonable counters to said scatbikes. Scatbikes ARE 40K at this point.

"but you still have options."

Options that all result in a loss.

"Scatbikes ARE 40K at this point. " That might be the most hyperbolic statement I've read in a long time. They certainly haven't been in my area.

For the rest of it, I'm embarking on my new journey with Chaos, who, at the core, are CC oriented marines without Grav, Drop Pods, AKSKNF, Skyhammer or Gladius. You could wait for me to have a new sympathy for BA, but I doubt it'll come.

I don't care if you have sympathy or not. Also, your area doesn't matter to me in the slightest. If I go to a tournament, they are everywhere, just as they are everywhere were I play. I can't get away from them. The fact that they are legal at 27 ppm is broken, even if people in your area choose not to use them. That actually has no bearing on their mathematical brokenness.

"For the rest of it, I'm embarking on my new journey with Chaos, who, at the core, are CC oriented marines without Grav, Drop Pods, AKSKNF, Skyhammer or Gladius."

Who have good assault from DS units instead of gak ones. CSM are now 10X more functional than BA at their own game.

Martel732 wrote:
CSM are now 10X more functional than BA at their own game.

Because CSM are a gun-line army? and 10X functional is a bit much. As good as would be a better way to describe them.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
CSM are now 10X more functional than BA at their own game.

Because CSM are a gun-line army? and 10X functional is a bit much. As good as would be a better way to describe them.

Having a viable assaulter from deep strike makes an enormous functional difference. As does workable formations. Angel's Blade is turning out to be some diarrhea that GW put on some paper and published.

Martel732 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
CSM are now 10X more functional than BA at their own game.

Because CSM are a gun-line army? and 10X functional is a bit much. As good as would be a better way to describe them.

Having a viable assaulter from deep strike makes an enormous functional difference. As does workable formations. Angel's Blade is turning out to be some diarrhea that GW put on some paper and published.

Yeah well just wait till you try and DS with CSM and realize that there is little to no DS mitigation so of the 3 units you have deep striking only 2 come in and only 1 of those actually lands where you want it to.

Maybe, but Jancoran swears by it and he has more victories with CSM than I do by far. You can also bring twice as many models as I can, so you've got lots of chances.

I cannot bother to answer to some of the stuff I read in he posts but anyone that thinks that EVERY current Eldar unit overperforms is either incredibly bad at this game, misinformed and never played, or just insane.

Also, In 3rd Eldar were absolutely not difficult to play as the Dark Eldar (and the latter were almost impossible to play before the revised rules).
They were good enough in the hand of competent players; and that was what they should be. Now does not happen because Phil Kelly.

Craftworlds helped. Some list was just cosmetic, but Ulthwé in the rigth hands was solid.

morgoth wrote:

Jesus... what codex do you even play ?

How can people hate Eldar so much for daring to have a full 24 months of competitive light between years of Imperial abuse ???

Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.

 Runic wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Jesus... what codex do you even play ?

How can people hate Eldar so much for daring to have a full 24 months of competitive light between years of Imperial abuse ???

Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.

Also, the original comment was based off a falsehood.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced. That there are a small amount of actual imbalances, doesn't invalidate the vast majority of perfectly acceptable units and rules, and their relationships to one another. I prefer asymmetry, it makes the game more interesting, IMO.

No, 40k's balance problems are balance problems, not asymmetry. And yes, even if a minority of things are unbalanced to the degree of riptides and scatter laser jetbikes it's still a major flaw with the game as a whole. Guess which units you're going to see a lot of, and how likely you are to see those weak units that can't compete.

The proof that the rules are acceptable and functional for me, is that I can get an enjoyable game (in which I have to make meaningful decisions on the tabletop in order to win) with a complete stranger. It has been a loooong time since I felt the game has screwed me with some rules interpretation/misunderstanding. The most unpleasant situations I can recall, have largely been because the other guy was a dick, and that hasn't happened in a while. And most of the time, even if the other player is a bit of a tool, I can still manage to make meaningful moves on the table that often result in a victory for me, so the game still works.

You must be exceptionally lucky then. Every game of 7th I've played against strangers, without up-front negotiation and working to fix at least some of 40k's problems, has been a miserable experience. The games I've won have been because my army is just better than my opponent's army and the game consists of nothing more than rolling dice to make it official, and the games I've lost have been because my army is just worse than my opponent's army and the game consists of nothing more than desperately hoping for dice luck to give me a chance. Thankfully none of the rules arguments have escalated to TFG behavior, but most of these games have included way too much time spent on flipping through rulebooks trying to figure out how something works.

As for Orks (or Tyranids), I'm a firm believer that horde armies are plenty capable, but just not tournament friendly. I see this more a fault of tournaments than the structure of 40K. I've watched a green tide army run over a number of competitive lists "in the wild", so while I understand that they aren't top tier, the fact that a capable player can still win with them is just more evidence that the system functions. (and that asymmetry is an important component)

How exactly are they "not tournament friendly"? Getting isolated wins here and there doesn't mean much if they can't compete in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So, examples like the all Knight army, Skyhammer, Titans and re-rollable 2+ saves I see as representing less than 5% of the actual game content. A very small portion whose existence owes little to what I'd consider to be the core game, IMO.

Then you're wrong. It's way more than 5% of the actual game content because people inevitably play the stuff that is good. It doesn't matter if they're only 5% of the rules by word count, they're way more than 5% of the game experience for most players. The only time these things don't dominate the experience is when people agree that a problem exists and avoid using the game-breaking stuff, a concession that the game as published by GW is unplayable garbage.

morgoth wrote:

In my opinion, if your army doesn't get more than 25% of tournament victories, it's not really top tier.

Sweet! I win 1 out of 4 games I play! I'm fething top tier! Like a wedding cake!

 kronk wrote:

morgoth wrote:

In my opinion, if your army doesn't get more than 25% of tournament victories, it's not really top tier.

Sweet! I win 1 out of 4 games I play! I'm fething top tier! Like a wedding cake!

Have an exalt!

 Runic wrote:
Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.

There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.

There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.

Lists aren't tabled any more by first turn assaulting than by first turn shooting.

 Peregrine wrote:
The only codices that would need to see major changes/squatting are demons and tyranids. Tyranids are a terrible idea that should be squatted for many other reasons, and demons never should have been an independent army in the first place. Put them back to being support units for a C:SM army

Eurgh, no thanks. We don't need to turn the game in to even more of a marinefest than it already is.

Chaos marines are boring as feth compared to daemons, and ultimately no need to restrict daemons that way. There's plenty of ways to turn daemons in to an army that has shooting options without simply shoving them in as support units for pathetic, whiny bald donkey-caves screaming about how much they hate their dad and really frakking wish they could cut off his life support and burn down his house out of sheer teen-angst-induced spite. Slaaneshi daemons assaulting with psychic sound waves that shatter bones, nurgle daemons attacking by throwing nauseating disease-ridden creatures that glide in to enemy position, tzeentch daemons being easy with any number of possibilities on how they'd deploy their pure warp-energy based destruction, even khornate daemons could do things warp-guided chained hooks that if enough hit make it easier to assault-- really, just be creative. They're Chaos after all.

And Tyranids, as well, there's plenty of options for biology-based weaponry that enables further shooting, such as guns that fire powerful gastric acid streams, or pneumatic lung-cannons that launch corrosive poison grenades, a specialized giant creature that can spit out a wide swath of plasma devastation, and so on.

Though all that said, a more rational idea is to stop the constant one-upsmanship in firepower that GW keeps getting itself in to like some kind of gun addict that just can't stop himself from constantly purchasing more and bigger guns.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced.

I would agree that asymmetry does not necessarily mean imbalance, however that does not mean that 40k is balanced. A typical Ork or IG army is going to be at a marked and significant disadvantage against an Eldar or Necron army, and its not because of some fundamental aspects of any of these forces being inherently intended or designed to be vulnerable against or excel against the others. I dont feel that is a controversial statement.

Something like a Knight army absolutely can be so asymetric as to be inherently and fundamentally imbalanced in a pickup or all comers scenario. A formation like the Skyhammer detachment can absolutely win many games right off turn 1. Stuff like rerollable 2+ saves, Titans, etc all can easily result in stupidly one sided games that one player has no chance at winning.

So, examples like the all Knight army, Skyhammer, Titans and re-rollable 2+ saves I see as representing less than 5% of the actual game content. A very small portion whose existence owes little to what I'd consider to be the core game, IMO.

Its common content, one of those is an entire faction unto itself that them has formations to give it even more freebies, and that was a very tiny subset of things just to give examples. I could go on for pages. Decurion bonuses that give basic 13pt Warriors resiliency roughly on par with 40pt Terminators across most weapons types, Necron wraiths, TWC's and wound allocation shennanigans, Invisibility, FNP that has to be FAQ'd to "only" work on a 2+. Skimmer transports that can jink and still allow passngers to fire at full effect. The clear gap in capability and resiliency between skimmers and non skimmers. MC vs Vehicle balance. Allies abuse and formation/detachment synergy. Gravcents, Scatterbikes, BS5 Aspect Warriors that pay nothing for the stat boost, Wraithknights, Etc ad nauseum. Then we can go to the opposite end of the spectrum. Why are Defilers 200pts? Tempestus Scions with neutered range AP3 popguns for twice the price of a basic IG Veteran. Maleceptors, Mutilators, Vespids, etc . This sort of balance mismatch is ubiquitous, not rare exceptions.

As for the "typical Ork army vs. typical Necron army", I have no idea what a "typical Ork army" is supposed to look like. I just know what I've seen to be effective. I'd also say that many army matchups/unit imbalances can shift dramatically depending on army-wide strategy and terrain. What is "typical" can change from club to club, and can be defined by the players themselves.

In some ways, sure. However, there are generally strong trends, themes, hallmarks, etc that, both intentionally and unintentionally, have impacts that are pretty universal, and going by results data from events we can see that Orks do not place anywhere near as well as Necrons or Eldar do on average. Looking at amalgamated results and averages will usually tell a pretty accurate story of relative capabilities. The fact that Eldar and Necrons pretty routinely take high placings and Orks or IG do not tells us there is a balance issue of some sort.

The fact that Tau are incredibly dangerous to face on tables without what I'd consider to be ample terrain is just no surprise at all.

well, Tau are dangerous on any table, markerlights and deep strike help a lot. IG are far more impacted by terrain.

And of the Necron armies that I've seen recently vs. the Ork armies, I'd actually put my money on the Orks.

fair enough but I think you'd be in the minority. Going by my own subjective experience and reviewing tournament results, I would without hesitation put my money on the Necrons with strong confidence.

Everything else I think we'll have to agree to disagree on. I can't agree that 40K is inherently broken.

ok, fair enough

 Peregrine wrote:
How exactly are they "not tournament friendly"? Getting isolated wins here and there doesn't mean much if they can't compete in tournaments.

Tournaments have strict time limits, and are thus not friendly to high model counts.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then you're wrong. It's way more than 5% of the actual game content because people inevitably play the stuff that is good. It doesn't matter if they're only 5% of the rules by word count, they're way more than 5% of the game experience for most players.

Prove it.

I can prove that Scatbikes, Riptides and Wraithknights make up not even a single percent of available units. Can you prove what "most players" experience? Keep in mind that tournaments are not what most players experience, and that tournaments encourage very specific player behaviors.