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.

hobojebus wrote:

 Galas wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.

Or the disadvantage of revealing their stratagy first.

No, it's a well established fact in the Chess world that the advantage is to white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

EDIT: Ninja'd!

 Purifier wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Galas wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Chess and checkers have perfect balance so yes it's possible just not in 40K with several different races.

But you sure as fekke can get better than 7th.

No, the whites one have an advantage for beginning first.

Or the disadvantage of revealing their stratagy first.

No, it's a well established fact in the Chess world that the advantage is to white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

Sorry when did we cross over into talking about world class games? here I thought we were on about regular gamers playing at clubs and stores.

Hobojebus, isn't necesary to move the goalpost so further away from the point when you are wrong. I have been wrong many times. People correct you. You learn something new, life continues.

When were goalposts set? Can you point out where anyone said this thread was only about high end tournaments?

Because if that's the case sure in pro chess white has an advantage, but if we are just talking about average joes like me then it makes no real difference according to that article.

So if I play some rando at chess and I get white its highly unlikely I as a pleb will gain that 5% advantage meaning chances are 50/50.

You guys need to learn to not engage with some of the people on forums lol.

 auticus wrote:
You guys need to learn to not engage with some of the people on forums lol.

If your not willing to defend your point of view then its clearly worthless, besides a good spirited discussion is fun and intellectually stimulating.

Cowards refuse to hear opposing views.

Balance can exist outside of a mirror match like chess. Starcraft, while not perfect, is MUCH closer than 40K has ever been. Even a heads up game of Civ 5 is better balanced for most of the factions. This is GW's first attempt at giving a crap. Most of my play group is stoked, including many who quit in late 5th ed because of IG/BA/GK/Necrons.

The notion I see trotted around here of perfect imbalance is, to me, nonsense. Units should cost what they are empirically worth. Said units can have very different roles, and these costs may certainly shift over time.

Necrons were actually lower tier in 5th it was sixth that massively boosted them.

Gk and sw razorback spam were too strong certainly, don't remember ba being that great.

BA were very strong. Some people claim they were a problem, but I was beaten by Orks on a regular basis. IG/GK/SW/BA were all strong in 5th due to parking lots.

BA did not have psybolt ammo or super undercosted chimera spam going for them, though.

Lots of Xeno players forget how incredibly pedestrian vanilla marines were. They regularly lost to Orks and Tau in 5th.

Man I miss orks being a threat on the table, hull points devastated their ability to cross the board reliably and green tide just got slaughtered.

I hope we're wrong about orks in 8th sincerely.

Orks look good in 8th. But I don't even have my books yet. They've got their 4th ed morale back, and that alone helps a LOT. They're also base S4.

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
You guys need to learn to not engage with some of the people on s lol.

If your not willing to defend your point of view then its clearly worthless, besides a good spirited discussion is fun and intellectually stimulating.

Cowards refuse to hear opposing views.

Like people that dismiss arguments and claim their are oranges to apples? Hasn't happened in this thread.

Martel732 wrote:
Orks look good in 8th. But I don't even have my books yet. They've got their 4th ed morale back, and that alone helps a LOT. They're also base S4.

their biggest boost was the new mob rule. much less likely to run off. a 30 man blob will only possibly run off on a roll of a 6 after 16 casualties removed. and that is assuming no bigger unit is within 6 inches.

vehicle buffs are a mixed bag, w lost open topped so no move the BW, get out, waaagh to run then charge, but they can barring melta usually rush up, weather the first turn then get out and charge turn 2 or 3.

I am optimistic about a lot of their stuff, though I am still dumbfounded by the 900 point base stompa unless GW just wants to sell more morka and gorkanaughts.

It's got 40 wounds. You have to pay for that. Maybe they got it wrong, though. They might be erring on the side of caution for now after the riptide debacle.

Starcraft has gone through a lot of patches throughout its history though and there is still a fair bit of debate over whether it is as balanced as fans like to claim it is (there historically had been a far heavier preference for Terran and Zerg over Protoss at high-level play). One thing Blizzard has been good at is fixing notable exploits in their system like the Shooting Shuttle.

Back in the day, Reavers could fire super-powerful bomb drones, but they had to be built using resources, and firing them had a pretty hefty cooldown. Since embarking/disembarking from a Shuttle or other transport automatically reset the cooldown, one player found that extreme micro let him load/reload his Reaver to get all of its drones out in an alphastrike the game devs did not anticipate.

The GW approach to balance would probably be "no more than half your army may be Reavers" or some other cap that doesn't address the core issue!

I care about balance. It's not a 1000% omg wtf bbq must hab at the expense of every other thing in the game-- if it was, I'd be playing checkers (because chess is way too unbalanced, queens, rooks, and bishops are OP). But internal and external balance, while keeping flavor, is important.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Starcraft has gone through a lot of patches throughout its history though and there is still a fair bit of debate over whether it is as balanced as fans like to claim it is (there historically had been a far heavier preference for Terran and Zerg over Protoss at high-level play). One thing Blizzard has been good at is fixing notable exploits in their system like the Shooting Shuttle.

Back in the day, Reavers could fire super-powerful bomb drones, but they had to be built using resources, and firing them had a pretty hefty cooldown. Since embarking/disembarking from a Shuttle or other transport automatically reset the cooldown, one player found that extreme micro let him load/reload his Reaver to get all of its drones out in an alphastrike the game devs did not anticipate.

The GW approach to balance would probably be "no more than half your army may be Reavers" or some other cap that doesn't address the core issue!

Well, "no more than half your army being Reavers" wouldn't address the surface issue either, since shuttles make up the other half!

GW has always failed at translating flavor to the game, imo. Where are the 500 tyranids per game?

Martel732 wrote:
GW has always failed at translating flavor to the game, imo. Where are the 500 tyranids per game?

Or they fail in translating the game to the fluff. The books can say "one squad of Grey Knights versus an entire daemonic incursion..." but if you have to paint hundreds of models to play Daemons and only a dozen to play Grey Knights who's going to play Daemons?

You guys are acting like GW's fluff is, in and of itself, consistent. Foolish, that

Martel732 wrote:
It's got 40 wounds. You have to pay for that. Maybe they got it wrong, though. They might be erring on the side of caution for now after the riptide debacle.

As an Ork player, I would not say the Mob Rule or lack thereof was the main issue for many builds, so much as that the army has become increasingly one-dimensional ever since Andy Chambers left. From losing functional Zzap Guns and Turbo Boostas, to losing looted vehicles to round out their capabilities, losing functional Deep Strike/Infiltrate (Nazdreg's Kunnin Plan) in the 3rd to 4th transition, then seeing the viability of Warbuggies and Kans plummet from 5th to 6th, to losing functional Deffrollas and Bike Troops and Nob Troops and making Lootas compete with Kannons from 6th to 7th, while requiring a Warboss to even Waaagh in the first place.

The army has become very much about the Boyz, but the tools to make them work have been fairly sidelined. You get your Tankbustas and Deffkoptas and Mek Gunz and call it good, while Bikes were only a choice if you're running Zhadsnark. An Ork army should be both Kunnin and Brutal, or was that Brutal and Kunnin. Be it Kommandos firing smoke grenades in front of enemy Devastators, Bubble Chuckas creating temporary forcefields to wall off enemy escapes, or even giving Grots access to longer-ranged weapons so that Ork Snipers isn't just a euphemism for Inquisitorial shenanigans. Be it Battlewagons with Grabbin Klaws being able to pull enemy Rhinos off objectives, or even Lootas being able to commandeer enemy vehicles in-game, there's a lot of potential for Orks to have comedic hijinks that actually result in emergent tactical decisions while not being reduced to "hurrhurr, random charts is funny" like 4e Trukk Explosion rules.

Martel732 wrote:
It's got 40 wounds. You have to pay for that. Maybe they got it wrong, though. They might be erring on the side of caution for now after the riptide debacle.

true, it has 40 wounds, but it is 900 base, no inv save

Imperial knight is 320 base and has 24 though. though it has a 5++ inv to shooting making it ~ 32 wounds to shooting

once kitted the IK seems on paper to be better than the stompa barring lucky rolls on the stopma part. roughly the same in cc but the ik deadlier at range

(heavy d6 / heavy 2 D6 shots looks nice but you still are looking at averaging 2/4 hits)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW has always failed at translating flavor to the game, imo. Where are the 500 tyranids per game?

Or they fail in translating the game to the fluff. The books can say "one squad of Grey Knights versus an entire daemonic incursion..." but if you have to paint hundreds of models to play Daemons and only a dozen to play Grey Knights who's going to play Daemons?

To be fair, I remember the 3rd ed Daemonhunter Codex let Daemon players do "Without Number" DS reinforcements, and there was that whole fluffy narrative section for allowing your character to be possessed/have Daemon allies. (Which could potentially lead to hilarity like a Daemon-possessed Necron Lord) or the Witch Hunters fighting Psyker Dark Eldar.

Rather silly but little things like that *could* in theory be exploited for making narrative asymmetric advantages between factions.

Maybe they got it wrong, then. I'm thinking many erratas are coming in the next year. Or they fix it in the codex.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe they got it wrong, then. I'm thinking many erratas are coming in the next year. Or they fix it in the codex.

hopefully, its not a huge deal. and i did not add there the transport capacity 20 though still not seeing the points change. morka and gorkanaughts look good though so my stompas shall stay counts as gorka and morkanaughts with magnetized weapons

No one is likely to care if you do that.

Can meks repair these things? That might make a difference?

it seems like a mek can repair 1 wound, a big mek can repair D3. but it is one repair per vehicle no matter how many6 meks there are, and does not say it can be repaired from inside. it appeas no more 7th edition unkillabel stompa with 2 big meks, 2 regular meks and 3-6 loota meks in there

After the 4E debacle stemming from it "all balance, all the time", I have shied away from cries for uber-balance in other games.

That does not mean that I want an unbalanced system, but I don't want that balancing to become so much of a concern that it interferes with my enjoyment of the game. - the armies should feel and act different, not just be redressings of black and white chess pieces, and preferably no unit or option should be utter trash. A particular option/unit may not cater to a particular player's playstyle, but it should work for a significant number of players if they choose to use them.

 Stormonu wrote:
After the 4E debacle stemming from it "all balance, all the time", I have shied away from cries for uber-balance in other games.

That does not mean that I want an unbalanced system, but I don't want that balancing to become so much of a concern that it interferes with my enjoyment of the game. - the armies should feel and act different, not just be redressings of black and white chess pieces, and preferably no unit or option should be utter trash. A particular option/unit may not cater to a particular player's playstyle, but it should work for a significant number of players if they choose to use them.

See, here we go again. "Redressings of black and white chess pieces" isn't balance, it's symmetry. It may be easier to achieve balance in a highly symmetrical game since there are fewer variables you have to consider, but balance is a property independent of symmetry that can exist to different degrees in both symmetrical and asymmetrical games. (The bit of your post right after "black and white chess pieces" is a much more apt/accurate description of "balance" than the comparison to chess earlier in the post is.)