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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Available units doesn't matter at all. What people actually use does. I don't think we can prove what most players experience. But none of that speaks to mathematical brokenness of units.

 Melissia wrote:
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.

You could do those things, but you still have a WHFB army on round bases, not anything that belongs in 40k. Demons are supposed to be summoned allies for the mortal Chaos armies, not a complete army of their own. For fluff reasons they should never have been given an independent codex, the rule problems merely offer another reason to get rid of them.

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.

Likewise, tyranids need to go for other reasons. Their models are ugly, their fluff is boring and stupid, and the awful rules just add insult to injury. If you take away the power level differences between vehicles and MCs they are nothing more than a less interesting version of orks. They are, by far, the most worthless faction in 40k and the setting would lose nothing if they were squatted.

Lets not get too far off the rails here on what armies should be removed. These arent armies with the biggest balance issues anyway.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

These armies have builds with relatively low model counts that do see play. Some even are amongst the most powerful these armies can field.

Space bugs are pretty iconic. Although Zerg >>>> Tyranids. Good job, GW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lets not get too far off the rails here on what armies should be removed. These arent armies with the biggest balance issues anyway.

I don't want things removed. I want units to be costed for their actual performance. That seems like a reasonable request.

Martel732 wrote:

I don't want things removed. I want units to be costed for their actual performance. That seems like a reasonable request.

one would think it would be....but GW appears to think otherwise...

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

But again we'll have to differ, because I see a lot of those examples as instances of asymmetry rather than imbalance. Necrons are tough until you sweeping advance them, MCs are weirdly tough until you have Grav in your meta or ID weapons, etc. I see a lot of those examples as part of a healthy churn.

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.

. . .
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.

I view tournaments as very particular events, and not any indication of normalcy at clubs/game circles. It's tempting to look at them as a source of statistics, but only because they are the only source of any statistics. But it'd be crazy to think that was how everybody played 40K.

ok, fair enough

High five!

There is no way you can convince me a scatbike is only worth 27 pts or a Wraithknight is only worth 295 pts. That's NOT just asymmetry. Those are absolute no-brainer picks because they outperform their price tag in nearly every situation.

Just as you can't convince me that a BA tac marine is worth 14 pts or a BA assault marine is worth 17 pts in 7th ed. Because they under-perform is almost every situation.

"MCs are weirdly tough until you have Grav in your meta or ID weapons,"

There are no ID weapons for T6 models for the most part. But any vehicle can be one-shotted by AP 2 or better. Asymmetric? I say imbalanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

Likewise, tyranids need to go for other reasons. Their models are ugly, their fluff is boring and stupid, and the awful rules just add insult to injury. If you take away the power level differences between vehicles and MCs they are nothing more than a less interesting version of orks. They are, by far, the most worthless faction in 40k and the setting would lose nothing if they were squatted.

If Space Marines are drawing at all from Starship Troopers (and they are) then Tyranids deserve to be right next to them as the Bugs in the same novel.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But again we'll have to differ, because I see a lot of those examples as instances of asymmetry rather than imbalance. Necrons are tough until you sweeping advance them, MCs are weirdly tough until you have Grav in your meta or ID weapons, etc. I see a lot of those examples as part of a healthy churn.

And you're wrong again. Necrons being tough until you sweeping advance them is an example of asymmetry and a valid design concept. The issue is not that necrons are tough, it's that they get the ability to stack bonuses to durability (including bonuses from detachments that aren't paid for in the price of the unit) and become far too turable for their point cost. Same thing with MCs, certain MCs are way too durable for their point cost (especially compared to vehicles) and "just take grav" is not an answer when most armies don't have grav weapons.

I view tournaments as very particular events, and not any indication of normalcy at clubs/game circles. It's tempting to look at them as a source of statistics, but only because they are the only source of any statistics. But it'd be crazy to think that was how everybody played 40K.

The only meaningful difference between tournaments and "normal" 40k is that tournaments actively encourage you to take the best possible lists, while "normal" games are often played with unwritten rules that you avoid abusing the overpowered stuff because it isn't fun for everyone else. And when you have to agree to refrain from using the broken stuff it's a concession that the game is broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
If Space Marines are drawing at all from Starship Troopers (and they are) then Tyranids deserve to be right next to them as the Bugs in the same novel.

Nope. The orks already took the "infinite horde" role, and are much more interesting.

Or some armies can take grav, but don't have the tools to defend it from being the first units taken off the board.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no way you can convince me a scatbike is only worth 27 pts or a Wraithknight is only worth 295 pts. That's NOT just asymmetry. Those are absolute no-brainer picks because they outperform their price tag in nearly every situation.

Then you aren't reading correctly. I didn't say scatbikes weren't imbalanced. I said that they were part of the tiny minority of units that are.

Martel732 wrote:

There are no ID weapons for T6 models for the most part.

Use the Force, Luke.

But personally I use Sicarius, and he's lopped the head off a number of them.

There are no ranged force weapons for the most part. Trying to go into CC with MCs is mainly suicide for BA.

"I said that they were part of the tiny minority of units that are. "

I think there are more imbalanced units than you think. And then there's the horde of overcosted units that rarely get used. I have a whole codex of them. No one I play with uses units that my tacticals are effective against, which makes them worth far less than 14 pts. And I have no units that are effective against what they DO bring.

It'd be nice if every codex had some sort of ID weapon.

 Bobthehero wrote:
It'd be nice if every list had some sort of ID weapon.

Maybe one that knocked a couple pips off invuln saves, even.

Why yes, I'd love for my Keeper of Secret to die just by getting looked at with no saves allowed.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Why yes, I'd love for my Keeper of Secret to die just by getting looked at with no saves allowed.

Flying MCs get no pity at all from me. There should be at least a few non-Eldar weapons in the game they respect. Instead, between saves and hard to hit, they can laugh off entire armies worth of fire. Here I am again, having to use Eldar as a standard for competency.

Kinda like Leman Russes or Land Raiders in that regard.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Kinda like Leman Russes or Land Raiders in that regard.

They don't need to kill the land raider, it wrecked itself on a bush turn 1. So is the land raider imbalanced or just not "symmetrical"?

 Peregrine wrote:

And you're wrong again. Necrons being tough until you sweeping advance them is an example of asymmetry and a valid design concept. The issue is not that necrons are tough, it's that they get the ability to stack bonuses to durability (including bonuses from detachments that aren't paid for in the price of the unit) and become far too turable for their point cost. Same thing with MCs, certain MCs are way too durable for their point cost (especially compared to vehicles) and "just take grav" is not an answer when most armies don't have grav weapons.

All MC's? Because I'm sure some Tyranid players would disagree with you. Riptides and Dreadknights =/= all MCs. Even bonus durability Necrons can be sweeping advanced, which is important to note given the thread title.

The only meaningful difference between tournaments and "normal" 40k is that tournaments actively encourage you to take the best possible lists, while "normal" games are often played with unwritten rules that you avoid abusing the overpowered stuff because it isn't fun for everyone else. And when you have to agree to refrain from using the broken stuff it's a concession that the game is broken.

Are you saying that tournaments don't have time limits?

Nope. The orks already took the "infinite horde" role, and are much more interesting.

That's an extreme opinion and you're welcome to it, but Tyranids took the "horde" identity prior to Orks back in 2nd Ed, and "bugs" have been a sci-fi staple for a looong time.

Tyranid players can disagree, but their MCs have way more durability/pt than any vehicle. Poison is too rare and ranged ID basically doesn't exist.

Martel732 wrote:
There are no ranged force weapons for the most part. Trying to go into CC with MCs is mainly suicide for BA.

"I said that they were part of the tiny minority of units that are. "

I think there are more imbalanced units than you think. And then there's the horde of overcosted units that rarely get used. I have a whole codex of them. No one I play with uses units that my tacticals are effective against, which makes them worth far less than 14 pts. And I have no units that are effective against what they DO bring.

This is actually a good point. I myself think now and then that 40k is pretty good except for a few problem units, (and some other more general things,) except I forgot to consider the many many problem units that are problems in the opposite direction.

 Insectum7 wrote:
All MC's? Because I'm sure some Tyranid players would disagree with you. Riptides and Dreadknights =/= all MCs.

If you read my post you'd see that it clearly says "certain MCs", not "all MCs".

Even bonus durability Necrons can be sweeping advanced, which is important to note given the thread title.

Being able to lose to a non-interactive gimmick list that shouldn't exist is not a balancing factor.

Are you saying that tournaments don't have time limits?

They do, but those time limits shouldn't be a major factor. And time limits often help horde armies, since the ability to play slowly and end the game before your opponent has enough time to win is a very powerful one.

And again, I have to remind Xeno players that marines ARE NOT GOOD. Vanilla marines have formations (battle company, skyhammer) and gimmicks (invis) that make NOT GOOD units GOOD. Take away that stuff and you have BA and BT players who try to use crusader squads.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.

Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.

 Runic wrote:
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.

Shooting alpha strikes are highly overstated, unless you don't bother putting sufficient terrain on the table.

 Bobthehero wrote:
It'd be nice if every codex had some sort of ID weapon.

You have to understand that if marines have the answer for X, X is fine.

Is the design team stance, after all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.

Shooting alpha strikes are highly overstated, unless you don't bother putting sufficient terrain on the table.

There's enough Ignores Cover or just plain volume of fire on the top tier lists that normal amounts of terrain hardly make a difference.

Ofcourse in a perfect world one can fill their terrain to look like a scenic shot out of a movie, but in reality tournaments don't usually have this luxury as there are quite a bit of tables to set up.

I deal in the reality, not the utopia.

 Runic wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.

Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.

Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.

Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?

Since when do scatterlasers give a feth about terrain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Runic wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.

Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.

Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.

Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?

Oh, like Eldar haven't been doing this for two editions now. From across the board. They don't even have to get their hands dirty.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
It'd be nice if every codex had some sort of ID weapon.

You have to understand that if marines have the answer for X, X is fine.

Is the design team stance, after all.

Of course, think of the kiddies (or old whales who shell a boatload of monnis), we can't have their uber-badass chapter master of the Raging Snowflake's chapter be sniped somewhere along the game, can't we?