How to best rebalance 40k?

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.

**ForceChoke1**

pismakron wrote:
The stormravenlist is not the problem. Missions without objectives to hold IS a problem.

This is really silly. Pitched Battles have been apart of war throughout history. The problem is SPAM.

If you can't play a balanced game during a pitched battle without terrain. Then the game is unbalanced.

Spamming a whole flyer list should be against the rules.

They need restrictive rules on Spam.

**Desubot**

Dunno copy cat net listers tend to exacerbate the problem.

it might be a while or we get the unfortunate knee jerk points balancing that will feth everything up.

**Melissia**

ForceChoke wrote:
The problem is SPAM.

No, it's really not.

There's nothing inherently wrong with, for example, a Sisters player using five dominion squads, a Marines player using a ton of terminators, a Guard player using lots of tanks, an Ork list that uses tons of bikes, an Aeldari list that uses tons of Wraith units, and so on.

If any of the lists are broken, what should be done is to look deeper in to why they are broken, rather than immediately blaming the overall structure of the list itself.

**Azreal13**

Grimgold wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Grimgold wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Grimgold wrote:
Back to the issue of spam, my issue with spam is that it's bad for the game

You keep saying this without providing any reasonable argument why it's bad for the game, especially not one you don't later contradict.

If it's bad for players to spam, there's no reason why it would be okay for troops to be an exception. Troops are just units like any other one in the codex, and spamming them suffers the same "downsides" you mentioned as spamming any other unit, so your argument contradicts itself.

I've given you several reasonable points that you haven't bothered to respond to...

Were they in a different thread?

I'm sorry your incapable* of reading a thread here let me waste my time restating my points for someone who can't be bothered to actually look:

Spam is bad because it's boring, fighting 5 or 500 of the same unit makes for boring battles, since it's the same tactics over and over again.
Spam is bad because it's unbalanced, a minor imbalance can be magnified greatly by taking the imbalanced unit over and over again.
Spam hurts list diversity, having a wide range target profiles means there are several correct answers on how to do your composition, having one target profile running amok, means there will only be a few right answers in terms of comp. So spam begets spam.
Spam is ez mode, bringing a ton of the same unit reduces the complexity of running that army.

You could also save me some time by looking at my responses to black sails criticism of those points, but I suppose I can copy and past those as well.

*you're incapable

No, no, I read those, I'm looking for the reasonable points you mentioned, not the unsubstantiated and fundamentally flawed ones in this thread.

Spam in a bad sense (as opposed to just a thematic sense or as a product of player preference) is a product of imbalance, it isn't, in and of itself, inherently imbalanced as a concept.

I guess you could conflate it with a skew list, which could look similar on the table, but is exploiting a slightly different idea. Again though, skew lists aren't inherently imbalanced as an idea, unless their components are also imbalanced, they simply have a different performance profile (one where they utterly dominate some games but are vulnerable to being equally dominated in others.)

Six Storm Ravens isn't unbeatable (which would make it broken) it merely exploits the fact that most players won't take sufficient tech in a TAC list to deal with it. If it's gains sufficient traction competitively, players will adjust their list, the meta will move on, and it'll become a footnote of early 8th competition.

**Jarl of Vashon**

Honestly, the game is fine. If everything was truly "balanced" we would just be trading blows with no need for strategy... Beyond that, how do you balance a game controlled by dice?

Example: last night I got home from work and had a pick up free for all game with my roommate and his kid in the garage.

Kid had an Eldar Wraithknight allied with an Imperial Knight Paladin. Roomie had a Renegade Knight with a bigass melta and claw fisty thingy and a Lord of Skulls with a Daemongore Cannon and Skullhurler.

Between arriving in a Stormfang with Arjac leading an almost killsquad (plasma guns mostly, for gaks and giggles), Arjac's team managed to lay down some notable wounds on the Paladin and Wraith, kill the Renegade Knight, and almost took out the Lord of Skulls. The Lord was the last thing on the table before he finally managed to kill Arjac and only had 3 wounds left.

Use your noodle. Strategize. Work cover. Git Gud. You aren't losing because of balance, you are losing because

Option A) The Dice Gods are displeased with you,
Option B) You aren't using your noodle,
Or Option C) You expect things to work like they did in 7th.

Just my two cents, and the advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Just remember... It is just a game.

**Blacksails**

ForceChoke wrote:
pismakron wrote:
The stormravenlist is not the problem. Missions without objectives to hold IS a problem.

This is really silly. Pitched Battles have been apart of war throughout history. The problem is SPAM.

If you can't play a balanced game during a pitched battle without terrain. Then the game is unbalanced.

Spamming a whole flyer list should be against the rules.

They need restrictive rules on Spam.

So you make an argument based on historical example, then choose to ignore every instance in history where battles are comprised of multiples of the same type of unit. You might even call it spam. History is OP. The problem is HISTORY.

**Azreal13**

Everyone knows the whole of WW2 was just a massive cheese fest until the great 1942 FAQ and Errata.

**Blacksails**

So here's something I don't get either about the merits of restricting units for some nebulous concept of 'list diversity'. If I bring a battery of three Wyverns, a battery of 3 basilisks, and a battery of 3 Griffons, I've technically met the the requirements of not bringing more than 3 of each unit type. But I also have 9 vehicles with the exact same profile, and 6 of which have roughly the same weapon. Is my list sufficiently diverse?

How about 9 Russes, but three different sets of 3 with different turrets and sponsons? How about Sentinels vs Armoured Sentinels?

**Kroem**

The problem is SPAM.

You could do what Medieval 2 Total War did and charge extra for each copy of a unit in an army?
Then even an underpointed unit wouldn't be as efficient to take a second of, because you would have to pay the 50pt copycat charge or whatever.

Couldn't friendly tournaments just introduce handicaps? The winning player loses 3 command points for their next game and the loser gains 3 command points for their next game.
You could make it even more extreme and if you win your first game you must strip out 100pts from your army, if you lose your first game you get to add 100pts.

**Blacksails**

Kroem wrote:
The problem is SPAM.

You could do what Medieval 2 Total War did and charge extra for each copy of a unit in an army?
Then even an underpointed unit wouldn't be as efficient to take a second of, because you would have to pay the 50pt copycat charge or whatever.

Couldn't friendly tournaments just introduce handicaps? The winning player loses 3 command points for their next game and the loser gains 3 command points for their next game.
You could make it even more extreme and if you win your first game you must strip out 100pts from your army, if you lose your first game you get to add 100pts.

The question remains, why?

What are you gaining? What are you fixing? What advantage does this bring to the game? Is it even a good solution to the problem that is ill defined?

**Slayer-Fan123**

Grimgold wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Grimgold wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Grimgold wrote:
Back to the issue of spam, my issue with spam is that it's bad for the game

You keep saying this without providing any reasonable argument why it's bad for the game, especially not one you don't later contradict.

If it's bad for players to spam, there's no reason why it would be okay for troops to be an exception. Troops are just units like any other one in the codex, and spamming them suffers the same "downsides" you mentioned as spamming any other unit, so your argument contradicts itself.

I've given you several reasonable points that you haven't bothered to respond to...

Were they in a different thread?

I'm sorry your incapable of reading a thread here let me waste my time restating my points for someone who can't be bothered to actually look:

Spam is bad because it's boring, fighting 5 or 500 of the same unit makes for boring battles, since it's the same tactics over and over again.
Spam is bad because it's unbalanced, a minor imbalance can be magnified greatly by taking the imbalanced unit over and over again.
Spam hurts list diversity, having a wide range target profiles means there are several correct answers on how to do your composition, having one target profile running amok, means there will only be a few right answers in terms of comp. So spam begets spam.
Spam is ez mode, bringing a ton of the same unit reduces the complexity of running that army.

You could also save me some time by looking at my responses to black sails criticism of those points, but I suppose I can copy and past those as well.

TIL fighting 3 squads of terminators is boring and EZ mode AND unbalanced.

Are you a troll account? I'd think not with 900+ posts, but your logic is garbage.

**Melissia**

Kroem wrote:
The problem is SPAM.

You could do what Medieval 2 Total War did and charge extra for each copy of a unit in an army?
Then even an underpointed unit wouldn't be as efficient to take a second of, because you would have to pay the 50pt copycat charge or whatever.

So basically "feth you if your book doesn't have tons of good choices".

Sisters of Battle have exactly one troops choice, two fast attack choices, two HQ choices, and two heavy support choices-- and the elite units they only have more than two of because of some mediocre buff characters that few people really want to take any more as they're just not worth the points for most lists due to poorly worded rules.

Even including Ecclesiarchy units, that still leaves only two fast attack and one troops choice, and that forces you to take one exorcist, one retributor squad, and one penitent engine, alongside one canoness, celestine, and jacobus, in every list unless you want to be penalized, and there's no way you can't be penalized in fast attack choices. And you'd get one rhino, one immolator, and one repressor as transport before penalties.

So good now everyone who plays sisters is encouraged to play the exact same list by yet another arbitrary, poorly worded rule. feth yes this is so good for list variety guys why don't we do more gak like this!

**Kroem**

Well the OP was asking how to make the game less about spamming the same units, so that was the problem I was trying to solve :-)

You have a fair point that some people might not even consider it a problem, but I think most competetive games consider it healthy to have a variety of different strategies and tactical options work at the highest level.
40k does have more variety in its little toe than most games do in their whole bodies though haha!

I kinda want to see a meta where only Stormravens are good, then we could rename Warhammer as 'G-Police Wars'

**MagicJuggler**

andysonic1 wrote:
MagicJuggler wrote:
I think it boils down to several things:

-Armybuilding is primarily about minimizing costs for maximum damage and resilience. Support is about minimizing costs for maximal buff efficiency. Positional gaming is "ease of objectives" and "get more attack in range of less return attack." Flanking is relatively meaningless, cover is relatively meaningless, etc.
-The game is IgoUgo, aka "I prepare an alphastrike, you hide or suck it up." More the second, since smallers of supers = being more likely to go first, and vehicle degradation happens in a far less granular manner than removing individual small models. Don't forget that you can only enter Reserves if you explicitly have that rule.
-There is relatively little distinction between units. Tanks are just line infantry with more wounds. They do not get binary immunity to shots, or the ability to fire on the move without penalty (not that it matters unless you're Orks, because moving and firing heavy weapons is only a -1). Aircraft are just tanks/just big infantry that move in a square, at -1 to be hit (break out those Inferno Cannons), but with perfect 360* shooting.
-Inversely, there are way too many units that are stupidly overspecialized to the point that taking them to tailor against certain armies automatically gimps you against others. Facing Horrors and Smitespam? Sure, "take snipers" sounds like strategy (and not list tailoring), until you come across a Stormraven army. "Take mass Onagers" sounds good until you come across Horrors and Smitespam. Etc. The game has become far more "matchup" dependent.

Primaris Reivers
Army building is about getting as much bang for your buck while being able to complete the objectives you will be facing. Right now, spamming and sitting still are in high demand because progressive missions aren't the norm. When they become the norm for your, your area, and/or tournaments, you will see less sit and shoot armies because they will lose to armies that play the objectives. Flanking is meaningless against these kinds of armies and against flyer spam armies simply due to the missions. Once the missions are made more dynamic, again, this will fix the problem.

Not every army alpha strikes so I don't really get your point here. Is your local meta alpha strike heavy?

The lack of distinction comes from two origins: the need for everything to be viable in the initial creation of the 8th rules and the lack of special rules, relics, stratagems, and more that are packed into codex's. When codex's come, units will begin to act very differently between chapters / legions / dynasties / hive fleets and so on.

Again, I don't see your point here? Overspecialized units will not always see their full utilization against every army you will be facing. This is because every army and opponent is different. Even in tournaments you'll be facing a wide variety of foes and units. Top tables will be attempting to utilize whatever they can do get to the top, that is where spam lives at the moment. This is a problem that not only ITC is trying to fix but also GW will most likely address in codex's and FAQs. The point of 8th is to allow people to play what they want effectively but due to the nature of the game and number of possibilities of course this isn't always going to equal a fair matchup. Warhammer was ALWAYS matchup dependent, that is way TAC lists are the end goal of 8th's balance. It isn't there yet and honestly it may never get there or it may with the help of ITC restrictions, but a TAC list should always have a chance against other lists unless the other list is some super specialized list that the TAC isn't prepared to deal with in at least some form or another.

I believe it has been discussed to death that Reivers will be getting more complete rules in the codex / when they get a more complete kit. Implying they will stay as they are is disingenuous.

The lack of distinction comes from turning everything into line infantry, and removing "unit types" altogether, alongside with flatlining the S/T chart that it's only one step removed from playing AOS where everything wounds everything on fixed values.

A TAC list should always be viable and have a chance. Period.

The current rules for Reivers, as released are not promising. They might get weapon options but I doubt their core function will change, or they will turn one Shock Grenade into another. It really does not make for good design to have units that are only allowed to do one thing, against one type of opponent. Duality 101 means more options in-game, rather than gambling on "did my opponent take linchpin characters, or is he running Stormravens" when you take Snipers

**Melissia**

Kroem wrote:
You have a fair point that some people might not even consider it a problem, but I think most competetive games consider it healthy to have a variety of different strategies and tactical options work at the highest level.

Then why are you arguing that such a huge slew of tactical options should be taken away?

To say nothing of how your proposed rule feths over certain armies to begin with, it MASSIVELY reduces list variety and encourages everyone to take the exact same units.

**ForceChoke1**

Melissia wrote:
Kroem wrote:
The problem is SPAM.

You could do what Medieval 2 Total War did and charge extra for each copy of a unit in an army?
Then even an underpointed unit wouldn't be as efficient to take a second of, because you would have to pay the 50pt copycat charge or whatever.

So basically "feth you if your book doesn't have tons of good choices".

Sisters of Battle have exactly one troops choice, two fast attack choices, two HQ choices, and two heavy support choices-- and the elite units they only have more than two of because of some mediocre buff characters that few people really want to take any more as they're just not worth the points for most lists due to poorly worded rules.

Even including Ecclesiarchy units, that still leaves only two fast attack and one troops choice, and that forces you to take one exorcist, one retributor squad, and one penitent engine, alongside one canoness, celestine, and jacobus, in every list unless you want to be penalized, and there's no way you can't be penalized in fast attack choices. And you'd get one rhino, one immolator, and one repressor as transport before penalties.

So good now everyone who plays sisters is encouraged to play the exact same list by yet another arbitrary, poorly worded rule. feth yes this is so good for list variety guys why don't we do more gak like this!

Yeah regardless an all flyer list is clearly broken. Why not make troops free of spam restrictions Or place certain limits on certain army builds like Max 2 flyers

**Melissia**

ForceChoke wrote:
Yeah regardless an all flyer list is clearly broken. Why not make troops free of spam restrictions Or place certain limits on certain army builds like Max 2 flyers

If a flyer is broken taking six of them, it's broken taking one of them. May be less broken, but still broken.

Why not just fix the don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n flyer instead? When a problem calls for a screwdriver, you shouldn't be surprised when people say don't use a hand grenade. If the six stormravens are broken (and there's not actually much evidence it is, given how close their victories were in the tournament games), then fix stormravens.

**Galas**

Spam is not the problem, and the proof is that nobody is crying about full terminator armies or full... I don't know. Ork Walkers armies.

If people spam a unit is because that unit is overpowered. To remove spam is to regocnise that "We can't balance unit, so at least we limit you how many OP units you can take". The solution is not to eliminate the freedom of choice, is to balance units as Melissia is saying.

**Kroem**

Kroem wrote:
You have a fair point that some people might not even consider it a problem, but I think most competetive games consider it healthy to have a variety of different strategies and tactical options work at the highest level.

Then why are you arguing that such a huge slew of tactical options should be taken away?

That wasn't my intention, I was suggesting that players be asked to pay slightly more points for spamming the most point efficient unit options so that their power level is equalised with other options within the codex.

In Rome Total War ranged cavalry and infantry dominated the competetive online play and people would bring entire armies of horse archers.
In Medieval the cost of those types of units increased as you bought more of them. This meant that you could still bring an all horse archer army if you were good, but because they were less cost efficient than before bring a mixed army or a historically accurate army composition wasn't suicidal!
That made the online multiplayer much more enjoyable in my experience. That was the coolness that I was suggesting bringing to 40k :-)

I think the command point handicap idea is much better anyway, as command points are easy to add or subtract from an army to limit or buff its potential. I think GW could have attached much more aggressive negative command point tallys to formations like all fliers or all lords of war.
I'm just concerned that 20 command points might be no better than 10 as you wouldn't have time to use them all.

**ForceChoke1**

Jarl of Vashon wrote:
Honestly, the game is fine. If everything was truly "balanced" we would just be trading blows with no need for strategy... Beyond that, how do you balance a game controlled by dice?

Example: last night I got home from work and had a pick up free for all game with my roommate and his kid in the garage.

Kid had an Eldar Wraithknight allied with an Imperial Knight Paladin. Roomie had a Renegade Knight with a bigass melta and claw fisty thingy and a Lord of Skulls with a Daemongore Cannon and Skullhurler.

Between arriving in a Stormfang with Arjac leading an almost killsquad (plasma guns mostly, for gaks and giggles), Arjac's team managed to lay down some notable wounds on the Paladin and Wraith, kill the Renegade Knight, and almost took out the Lord of Skulls. The Lord was the last thing on the table before he finally managed to kill Arjac and only had 3 wounds left.

Use your noodle. Strategize. Work cover. Git Gud. You aren't losing because of balance, you are losing because

Option A) The Dice Gods are displeased with you,
Option B) You aren't using your noodle,
Or Option C) You expect things to work like they did in 7th.

Just my two cents, and the advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Just remember... It is just a game.

This is also silly the fact an all flyer list won or Razerback Spam... just means again the game is out of whack. 40k has almost zero tactical depth now in 8th. You could GET GUD in earlier editions of the game as long as people did not bring MIN MAXED armies to the table. And you used tactics . Except maybe 6th and 7th
You can't accuse people of not using their brains in 8th. It's designed for the lowest common denominator and children.

Why get GUD when I can bring an all flyer list ?

**Melissia**

Kroem wrote:
That wasn't my intention, I was suggesting that players be asked to pay slightly more points for spamming the most point efficient unit options so that their power level is equalised with other options within the codex.

Which, again, translates basically to "feth you for not playing space marines". Because some codices-- and mostly non-Marine ones, though Grey Knights also suffer from this-- only HAVE one or two points efficient options in any given slot. Of course they take multiples of that.

Or, to be more blunt; Why are you trying to use a sledgehammer to turn a screw?

Kroem wrote:
Total War

In Total War, you're not buying each individual soldier and painting and assembling their models yourself, and furthermore, Total War has less variety than 40k does by far.

ForceChoke wrote:
Why get GUD when I can bring an all flyer list ?

Because an all-flyer list won't win you games on its own.

That player in the high-level tournament playing their all-flyer lists wasn't an unskilled noob.

**ForceChoke1**

Melissia wrote:
ForceChoke wrote:
Yeah regardless an all flyer list is clearly broken. Why not make troops free of spam restrictions Or place certain limits on certain army builds like Max 2 flyers
If a flyer is broken taking six of them, it's broken taking one of them. May be less broken, but still broken.

Why not just fix the flyer instead? When a problem calls for a screwdriver, you shouldn't be surprised when people say don't use a hand grenade. If the six stormravens are broken (and there's not actually much evidence it is, given how close their victories were in the tournament games), then fix stormravens.

That I disagree with. A single overpowered unit or even two may dominate a game but you can often beat it with tactics. However a whole list of 1 type of unit like flyers is just insulting to the main idea of the game. FUN with FRIENDS.

It's not fun when your friends bring a Tank to a knife fight.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
Kroem wrote:
That wasn't my intention, I was suggesting that players be asked to pay slightly more points for spamming the most point efficient unit options so that their power level is equalised with other options within the codex.
Which, again, translates basically to "feth you for not playing space marines". Because some codices-- and mostly non-Marine ones, though Grey Knights also suffer from this-- only HAVE one or two points efficient options in any given slot. Of course they take multiples of that.

Or, to be more blunt; Why are you trying to use a sledgehammer to turn a screw?

Kroem wrote:
Total War
In Total War, you're not buying each individual soldier and painting and assembling their models yourself, and furthermore, Total War has less variety than 40k does by far.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ForceChoke wrote:
Why get GUD when I can bring an all flyer list ?
Because an all-flyer list won't win you games.

K???? then why did it win the tournament?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroem wrote:
Kroem wrote:
You have a fair point that some people might not even consider it a problem, but I think most competetive games consider it healthy to have a variety of different strategies and tactical options work at the highest level.

Then why are you arguing that such a huge slew of tactical options should be taken away?

That wasn't my intention, I was suggesting that players be asked to pay slightly more points for spamming the most point efficient unit options so that their power level is equalised with other options within the codex.

In Rome Total War ranged cavalry and infantry dominated the competetive online play and people would bring entire armies of horse archers.
In Medieval the cost of those types of units increased as you bought more of them. This meant that you could still bring an all horse archer army if you were good, but because they were less cost efficient than before bring a mixed army or a historically accurate army composition wasn't suicidal!
That made the online multiplayer much more enjoyable in my experience. That was the coolness that I was suggesting bringing to 40k :-)

I think the command point handicap idea is much better anyway, as command points are easy to add or subtract from an army to limit or buff its potential. I think GW could have attached much more aggressive negative command point tallys to formations like all fliers or all lords of war.
I'm just concerned that 20 command points might be no better than 10 as you wouldn't have time to use them all.

I really like this idea. Needs tweaking and testing but. Amazing Idea.

**Melissia**

ForceChoke wrote:
It's not fun when your friends bring a Tank to a knife fight.

This is 40k, the person holding that knife can probably tear that tank apart.

ForceChoke wrote:
K???? then why did it win the tournament?

Because the player used their list well. And even then, it came down to the wire with some very lucky rolls that just barely managed to win them the game.

Do you accuse every tournament-winning build of being "ez mode noob list" or something? Grow up, dude.

**Kroem**

Yea it depends on the limts set for each individual unit before you start paying the tax, but I can see how the little factions would be at a disadvantage in a 'one limit for all' situation.

Or, to be more blunt; Why are you trying to use a sledgehammer to turn a screw?

Maybe I am using a sledgehammer! I certainly have no illusions about being a rules writer, just offering a suggestion I've seen work in a similar situation and seeing what people think of it.

Ideally there wouldn't be any OP units and we wouldn't have to argue about how to stop them from dominating the metagame

**Melissia**

Kroem wrote:
Maybe I am using a sledgehammer! I certainly have no illusions about being a rules writer, just offering a suggestion I've seen work in a similar situation and seeing what people think of it.

The similarities between total war and tabletop 40k are, at best, superficial. It is a bad comparison that leads you to a bad conclusion. Might as well be saying "Well, a jalopeno looks like a fat green bean, so clearly it'll taste the same."

Kroem wrote:
Ideally there wouldn't be any OP units and we wouldn't have to argue about how to stop them from dominating the metagame

If you want to fix OP units... here's an idea... fix the freaking units. The gameplay itself, the list building itself, is actually fine. Better than it has been in ages. The problem is poorly balanced units. So tweak the units themselves, and you change the game as little as possible in order to avoid your change rippling over in to negatively impacting other units, or, just as bad, causing other units to become overpowered.

**Marmatag**

People don't spam a unit because it's overpowered, they spam a unit because it is a points efficient option.

If you want to argue a unit is overpowered, you need more evidence than that some lists use multiple copies of it.

There are units out there you can't spam that are totally overpowered, for their cost. For instance, Magnus. He hasn't come up yet because we're talking about spam, but he's the single most undercosted unit in the entire game, excluding Forgeworld.

**Azreal13**

Points efficiency is, essentially, a synonym for being overpowered, it's silly to try and draw a distinction.

**Alcibiades**

ForceChoke wrote:
pismakron wrote:
The stormravenlist is not the problem. Missions without objectives to hold IS a problem.

This is really silly. Pitched Battles have been apart of war throughout history. The problem is SPAM.

If you can't play a balanced game during a pitched battle without terrain. Then the game is unbalanced.

Spamming a whole flyer list should be against the rules.

They need restrictive rules on Spam.

Spam has also been a part of war throughout history.

"Oh man, how can I deal with all those hoplites? Hoplites OP."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There should be a peltist tax.

**Jarl of Vashon**

Everything has a weakness. Stop crying OP and find it.

**Marmatag**

Azreal13 wrote:
Points efficiency is, essentially, a synonym for being overpowered, it's silly to try and draw a distinction.

Points efficiency is largely restricted to the scope of the codex, whereas overpowered makes a statement about the balance relative to other codexes.

If you lose every game spamming the best unit in your codex is that OP?