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.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The reason for Marines to take a whirlwind would be narrative, aesthetics, army dedication, or rule of cool. You know, all the things that don't have the words "points efficiency" in them around which people build their armies.

This is utterly terrible game design.

Why? Is there some reason people should expect their mono-faction to be 100% as good at everything as any other mono-faction?

It's like saying a Bard should be able to reasonably mimic a Barbarian in melee combat in D&D, or wear no armour like a Monk, or cast spells as well as a Wizard. How do you differentiate anything when you could just say "Artillery Unit A" because everything's equally efficient...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why? Is there some reason people should expect their mono-faction to be 100% as good at everything as any other mono-faction?

Not at everything. But you just want to intentionally create trap units and justify it by fluff. Points exist for a reason, worse stuff needs to cost les points.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why? Is there some reason people should expect their mono-faction to be 100% as good at everything as any other mono-faction?

Not at everything. But you just want to intentionally create trap units and justify it by fluff. Points exist for a reason, worse stuff needs to cost les points.

I don't want to create trap units? I want armies to have identities. An army that is identified as the "melee army" should have better points efficiency than an army that is not, when engaged in melee.

Making bad units cheaper ups their points efficiency. Consider a hypothetical artillery unit (call it the BirlBind) that is exactly half as good at being an artillery as another unit (called the Smashalisk). If you make the BirlBind cost exactly half the points as a Smashalisk as well, then there's not really a difference between the two - they're exactly as efficient as eachother, and Army Face Purines is exactly as good at artillery, point for point, as Army Bastard Militantrum.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And here we're back to why I voted "Faction vs. Faction" balance on the poll.

The reason for Marines to take a whirlwind would be narrative, aesthetics, army dedication, or rule of cool. You know, all the things that don't have the words "points efficiency" in them around which people build their armies.

Ok, but what about factions that have 1-2 models that are semi ok to play? GK only ok units are 2 HQs, eveything else, which is 20+units, are different levels of bad. And because of rule of 3 GK can't even spam those options.

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And here we're back to why I voted "Faction vs. Faction" balance on the poll.

The reason for Marines to take a whirlwind would be narrative, aesthetics, army dedication, or rule of cool. You know, all the things that don't have the words "points efficiency" in them around which people build their armies.

Ok, but what about factions that have 1-2 models that are semi ok to play? GK only ok units are 2 HQs, eveything else, which is 20+units, are different levels of bad. And because of rule of 3 GK can't even spam those options.

what about them? Badly-balanced existing armies have little impact on balancing theory, which is what we are talking about now. Of course GK needs a rebalancing; not sure anyone said they didn't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It's like saying a Bard should be able to reasonably mimic a Barbarian in melee combat in D&D, or wear no armour like a Monk, or cast spells as well as a Wizard. How do you differentiate anything when you could just say "Artillery Unit A" because everything's equally efficient...

If it is not equally efective it needs to cost less points or to be able to do multiple things like the bard! You just want some units to be bad because some other units in the codex are OP. It doesn't work, everyone will just ignore the bad units.

Why should Imperial Fists siege cohort using a lot of Whirlwinds suck? How should new players know that they're not supposed to build an army like this?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


what about them? Badly-balanced existing armies have little impact on balancing theory, which is what we are talking about now. Of course GK needs a rebalancing; not sure anyone said they didn't.

well if they don't have multiple ok units to build on, and no access to primaris, and GW does not seem to want to fix the existing units, the theory kind of doesn't help them. GW seems to make changes build on how much they like an army, tournament data and it does not seem like they are much love for GK among the design studio, and the tournament data for GK use is non existant.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It's like saying a Bard should be able to reasonably mimic a Barbarian in melee combat in D&D, or wear no armour like a Monk, or cast spells as well as a Wizard. How do you differentiate anything when you could just say "Artillery Unit A" because everything's equally efficient...

If it is not equally efective it needs to cost less points or to be able to do multiple things like the bard! You just want some units to be bad because some other units in the codex are OP. It doesn't work, everyone will just ignore the bad units.

Why should Imperial Fists siege cohort using a lot of Whirlwinds suck? How should new players know that they're not supposed to build an army like this?

Let me address your point in sub-bullets:

 Crimson wrote:
If it is not equally efective it needs to cost less points or to be able to do multiple things like the bard!

- "Costing less points" is making it equally effective, when you're talking about points efficiency between two units. Consider my smashalisk example in an earlier post.
- "Do multiple things" is fine. I'd be alright, for example, saying a Whirlwind Missile Launcher could also fire like a Typhoon missile launcher should it so choose. That's fine, and could contribute to a faction identity idea that all the marine stuff is general-purpose instead of specialized.

 Crimson wrote:
You just want some units to be bad because some other units in the codex are OP. It doesn't work, everyone will just ignore the bad units.

No, what I want is for some factions to have identities. And the "everyone" I've highlighted in cyan there is really just "competitive players". I've met plenty of players who take suboptimal choices in the face of fluff. For example, I just met a player who keeps his Basilisks in a separate Detachment from his vostroyans but runs them as Vostroyan anyways, because they're from the same regiment. In a separate detachment, though, they could be any regiment, and Vostroyan is clearly a suboptimal choice for a Basilisk.

 Crimson wrote:
Why should Imperial Fists siege cohort using a lot of Whirlwinds suck?

- Why shouldn't it? The "faction identity" for Space Marines is not that of siege engineers or siege warfare or trench warfare, and shouldn't be. Back when the fists were "experts" at siege warfare, what it really meant is they were experts at "storming the fortress" quickly. Once the siege actually starts, and you get long lines of convallations and whatnot, do you really envision a Space Marine chapter dicking around with their thumbs up their bums firing artillery from 100km away at an area target because it might kill something, for years?

 Crimson wrote:
How should new players know that they're not supposed to build an army like this?

What do you mean "supposed to"; the whole point is they can build the way they want. If you mean "how will new competitive players learn what is or isn't competitive, then that is a larger question, though I'd be happy to go into it, if you like. Usually it involves internet research and list testing.

Not every player needs to be competitive you know.

Trap units are crap. There are no trap units in starcraft. This assumes good scouting. I'm really missing temporal cost for unit.

Marine artillery should be inferior to guard artillery but cost significantly less due to this. Overall efficiency preserved.

Martel732 wrote:
There are no trap units in starcraft. This assumes good scouting.

There are no trap units in 40k. This assumes good list-building.

Also, what the feth even are trap units? Can someone define that for me?

Is it "a unit a player might take because they think that doesn't perform as well as they expect" or something? I'm sort of unclear. Right now, it just sounds like "units that are suboptimal relative to other units in a similar role" which is ... silly. Of course Berzerkers should outperform Kroot at an even points-level in melee, despite them both being melee-role units.

Which will never include a whirlwind. Try again.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't want to create trap units?

Then why are you suggesting things that result exactly that?

I want armies to have identities. An army that is identified as the "melee army" should have better points efficiency than an army that is not, when engaged in melee.

No it shouldn't. The melee army should have a lot of melee units that can perform varied roles in the melee ways. Melee infantry killers, melee elite killers, melee tank killers, etc. Non melee focused army might have a melee unit for one of those roles, but it must be point effective or it simply just is not taken.

Making bad units cheaper ups their points efficiency. Consider a hypothetical artillery unit (call it the BirlBind) that is exactly half as good at being an artillery as another unit (called the Smashalisk). If you make the BirlBind cost exactly half the points as a Smashalisk as well, then there's not really a difference between the two - they're exactly as efficient as eachother, and Army Face Purines is exactly as good at artillery, point for point, as Army Bastard Militantrum.

As it should. Now if you want one army to be more artillerery focused, you need to give it more artillery related units, which can perform different roles via barrage, not simply better units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are no trap units in starcraft. This assumes good scouting.

There are no trap units in 40k. This assumes good list-building.

The above is laughable. 40k has entire trap factions, let alone individual options.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The most important matter is that a unit shouldn't be terrible just because it's part of a faction that isn't really about that role. Kroot aren't exactly good for melee right now, and some people might use the excuse that Tau aren't a melee faction anyway. Whirlwinds aren't good, and some people might use the excuse that Marines aren't supposed to use artillery anyway.

This goes back to the argument way at the beginning of the thread, about faction identity. I am exactly the person that thinks Kroot should not be as point-efficient as dedicated melee units like Berzerkers. I am also of the opinion that a Whirlwind should not be as point-efficient as a Basilisk, for example.

This is a terrible line of thinking.

Why SHOULD Kroot. a dedicated melee unit, be bad at melee just because they're part of the Tau faction? If I made them a choice for CSM, would you agree with the unit's design?

The answer is no. Whirlwinds shouldn't be mathematically bad just because Marines don't typically use artillery. They should, at minimum, not be terrible for their dedicated role of anti-infantry compared to the Basilisk which is better at everything.

There is a difference. One costs half as much. And they might be better vs different kinds of targets. You just want your super death unit to cost a pack of skittles like they do now.

No, what I want is for some factions to have identities. And the "everyone" I've highlighted in red there is "competitive players". I've met plenty of players who take suboptimal choices in the face of fluff. For example, I just met a player who keeps his Basilisks in a separate Detachment from his vostroyans but runs them as Vostroyan anyways, because they're from the same regiment. In a separate detachment, though, they could be any regiment, and Vostroyan is clearly a suboptimal choice for a Basilisk.

But a basilisk is still good, even if it is non catachan or cadian. There are factions which are bad for tournaments, and bad for casual games. GK indentity was deep strike, termintors and psychic powers. Deep strike got nerfed, termintors are bad and GK psychic powers got nerfed because GW thought they would be too powerful. Of course they forgot about that when they were making eldar or IG psykers, but that is a separate issue.

What do you mean "supposed to"; the whole point is they can build the way they want. If you mean "how will new competitive players learn what is or isn't competitive, then that is a larger question, though I'd be happy to go into it, if you like. Usually it involves internet research and list testing.

Not every player needs to be competitive you know.

yeah, because someone who never played a game of w40k and goes in to a store, will totaly start by playing with paper cut outs and reading deep in to forums, he does not even know exist. I tell you more often then not it is someone selling them an army, or they buying models they think should work. If they have friends or siblings they habe it better, because at least people will not cheat them selling an army. For everyone else they have to pray they army is good. I would have loved if someone have told me before I bought GK that they are unplayable.

Also, what the feth even are trap units? Can someone define that for me?

NDKs of the normal kind cost almost as much as a GM NDK, but have worse stats. It is like buying a primaris, but it not having +1W over normal marines.
You could go over most of the GK codex and it is full of trap units. Normal troop termintors. GM in termintor armor etc

Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't want to create trap units?

Then why are you suggesting things that result exactly that?

I want armies to have identities. An army that is identified as the "melee army" should have better points efficiency than an army that is not, when engaged in melee.

No it shouldn't. The melee army should have a lot of melee units that can perform varied roles in the melee ways. Melee infantry killers, melee elite killers, melee tank killers, etc. Non melee focused army might have a melee unit for one of those roles, but it must be point effective or it simply just is not taken.

Making bad units cheaper ups their points efficiency. Consider a hypothetical artillery unit (call it the BirlBind) that is exactly half as good at being an artillery as another unit (called the Smashalisk). If you make the BirlBind cost exactly half the points as a Smashalisk as well, then there's not really a difference between the two - they're exactly as efficient as eachother, and Army Face Purines is exactly as good at artillery, point for point, as Army Bastard Militantrum.

As it should. Now if you want one army to be more artillerery focused, you need to give it more artillery related units, which can perform different roles via barrage, not simply better units.

So you're essentially saying that an artillery army or melee army should have more "options" for those roles, rather than just being "better." How does that not result in being better, exactly? Army A's artillery is still better than Army B's when listbuilding, as a general rule, so competitive players looking to optimize would widely overlook Army B unless they had some non-points-efficiency-related reason not to.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are no trap units in starcraft. This assumes good scouting.

There are no trap units in 40k. This assumes good list-building.

The above is laughable. 40k has entire trap factions, let alone individual options.

This goes for Karol as well: I am making no argument that current 40k is balanced. It is currently awful. Commenting on the current state of 40k is irrelevant.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The most important matter is that a unit shouldn't be terrible just because it's part of a faction that isn't really about that role. Kroot aren't exactly good for melee right now, and some people might use the excuse that Tau aren't a melee faction anyway. Whirlwinds aren't good, and some people might use the excuse that Marines aren't supposed to use artillery anyway.

This goes back to the argument way at the beginning of the thread, about faction identity. I am exactly the person that thinks Kroot should not be as point-efficient as dedicated melee units like Berzerkers. I am also of the opinion that a Whirlwind should not be as point-efficient as a Basilisk, for example.

This is a terrible line of thinking.

Why SHOULD Kroot. a dedicated melee unit, be bad at melee just because they're part of the Tau faction? If I made them a choice for CSM, would you agree with the unit's design?

The answer is no. Whirlwinds shouldn't be mathematically bad just because Marines don't typically use artillery. They should, at minimum, not be terrible for their dedicated role of anti-infantry compared to the Basilisk which is better at everything.

The Basilisk is actually not better at killing Imperial Guardsmen than the whirlwind in current 40k (2d6 strength 6 AP0 gives something like 3 dead Guardsmen, while the Basilisk at 2d6 drop lowest, str 9, -3 gives about 2 (2.59 vs 1.85). But people don't take the Whirlwind, which returns to my point:

An army with "more artillery options" is going to be better at artillery than an army without when viewed from a competitive listbuilding standpoint...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How do you differentiate anything when you could just say "Artillery Unit A" because everything's equally efficient...

There is a lot of leeway here for how to reach that efficiency. The Space Marines Artillery Unit is the Whirlwind. The Chaos Artillery Unit is the Defiler. The Tau Empire Artillery Unit is the Sky Ray. The most you can say that these units all fire very far away (doh...) and both the Whirlwind and the Sky Ray fire missiles (kinda).

Imperial Guard and Space Marines vehicles are much easier to compare, though, because they're in the same macro-faction. There's little excuse for Imperial Guard artillery to be so vastly superior to Space Marine artillery, because both space marine and imperial guard players have the choice to bring whatever is best.

Imperial Guard have been underpriced since the beginning of 8th editdion. Take a stroll over to blood of kittens and look at the faction breakdown. While this may not be perfect data, the gentleman who runs the site, Nick, actually looks at all the lists when creating his breakdown.

It's also worth noting that Index Sisters are outperforming several codexes (Necrons, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Angels).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't want to create trap units?

Then why are you suggesting things that result exactly that?

I want armies to have identities. An army that is identified as the "melee army" should have better points efficiency than an army that is not, when engaged in melee.

No it shouldn't. The melee army should have a lot of melee units that can perform varied roles in the melee ways. Melee infantry killers, melee elite killers, melee tank killers, etc. Non melee focused army might have a melee unit for one of those roles, but it must be point effective or it simply just is not taken.

Making bad units cheaper ups their points efficiency. Consider a hypothetical artillery unit (call it the BirlBind) that is exactly half as good at being an artillery as another unit (called the Smashalisk). If you make the BirlBind cost exactly half the points as a Smashalisk as well, then there's not really a difference between the two - they're exactly as efficient as eachother, and Army Face Purines is exactly as good at artillery, point for point, as Army Bastard Militantrum.

As it should. Now if you want one army to be more artillerery focused, you need to give it more artillery related units, which can perform different roles via barrage, not simply better units.

So you're essentially saying that an artillery army or melee army should have more "options" for those roles, rather than just being "better." How does that not result in being better, exactly? Army A's artillery is still better than Army B's when listbuilding, as a general rule, so competitive players looking to optimize would widely overlook Army B unless they had some non-points-efficiency-related reason not to.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There are no trap units in starcraft. This assumes good scouting.

There are no trap units in 40k. This assumes good list-building.

The above is laughable. 40k has entire trap factions, let alone individual options.

This goes for Karol as well: I am making no argument that current 40k is balanced. It is currently awful. Commenting on the current state of 40k is irrelevant.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The most important matter is that a unit shouldn't be terrible just because it's part of a faction that isn't really about that role. Kroot aren't exactly good for melee right now, and some people might use the excuse that Tau aren't a melee faction anyway. Whirlwinds aren't good, and some people might use the excuse that Marines aren't supposed to use artillery anyway.

This goes back to the argument way at the beginning of the thread, about faction identity. I am exactly the person that thinks Kroot should not be as point-efficient as dedicated melee units like Berzerkers. I am also of the opinion that a Whirlwind should not be as point-efficient as a Basilisk, for example.

This is a terrible line of thinking.

Why SHOULD Kroot. a dedicated melee unit, be bad at melee just because they're part of the Tau faction? If I made them a choice for CSM, would you agree with the unit's design?

The answer is no. Whirlwinds shouldn't be mathematically bad just because Marines don't typically use artillery. They should, at minimum, not be terrible for their dedicated role of anti-infantry compared to the Basilisk which is better at everything.

The Basilisk is actually not better at killing Imperial Guardsmen than the whirlwind in current 40k (2d6 strength 6 AP0 gives something like 3 dead Guardsmen, while the Basilisk at 2d6 drop lowest, str 9, -3 gives about 2 (2.59 vs 1.85). But people don't take the Whirlwind, which returns to my point:

An army with "more artillery options" is going to be better at artillery than an army without when viewed from a competitive listbuilding standpoint...

Forgetting to include Regiment benefits for your Basilisk (which is several situations), the fact you don't see issue with 2 vs 3 dead Infantry is kinda scary.

You'd be the last person that should talking about balance in this game, as you didn't even know what a trap unit was!

To get back to the OP: hollistically. YOu need approach balance at every level.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Forgetting to include Regiment benefits for your Basilisk (which is several situations), the fact you don't see issue with 2 vs 3 dead Infantry is kinda scary.

You'd be the last person that should talking about balance in this game, as you didn't even know what a trap unit was!

Are you shocked that the army which specializes artillery buffs artillery relative to the army that doesn't? That's what I mean by blandification. Army A is a melee army (or artillery army in this case). Army B isn't, but has some tools. Army A's will be better, because Army A has army-trait buffs for its melee units, tools to give them, HQ's that benefit them, etc. Army B rightfully should not, as it's army trait HQ's might buff shooting or durability or whatever their faction identity calls for.

This is part of the problem with Imperial Guard. It's a "shooting-emphasis durability army that takes a fair hit to mobility" with shooting that's far too powerful relative to its durability, and melee options that are actually quite competitive (e.g. straken + priest + blobsquad). The Imperial Guard's army identity is now "good at everything" and that's unhealthy for the game. They can do everything fairly well.

I don't know why you said the Whirlwind killing 3 infantry was bad compared to the Basilisk, considering the whirlwind is cheaper? It's literally outperforming the Basilisk for less than the cost, I'm not sure what more you could ask for... except army-buffs (e.g. regiment traits) for artillery, which isn't the Space Marines' army identity, nor should it be.

Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"

EDIT: Also, once again for the people in the back: I acknowledge the current state of 40k as imbalanced, and in need of fixing. I am not arguing to endorse 40k in its current state. I am merely seeking to discuss balance theory from the perspective that "unit vs unit" balance is less desirable than army vs army, and faction vs. faction is the most desirable yet.

It's not bland. It's fair. GWs method of handing out objectively superior units is extremely high level crap that they are not capable of.

Looking into this Whirlbind vs. Basilisk example: Are guardsmen Basilisk's main targets? I guess not. Birlwind however specialises against infantry and being able to kill 3 guardsmen a turn is really bad, like really bad. Funnily enough Wirbelbind is more efficient against MEQs than GEQs, everyone act surprised Now!

GW could play around so much with rules if they wanted. Vengence Launcher could easily have rule that it does 4D3 hits against units with 5+ saves. This would make Birlbind roughly equally efficient against MEQs. So we could go even up to 5D3 or 6D3 to force the weapon to be efficient against cheap horde-like units. But then someone shouts 'Rules Bloat!'

I think all goes back to the fact the general weapon rules are bland and GW avoiding to create true anti horde weapons, for example flamer is more efficient against MEQs than guardsmen when looking at points destroyed. Everyone act surprised again!
So we end up in situation where many weapons don't have clear well defined roles and everyone who can spams mid strength high volume weapons to shred both infantry and tanks.

Ghorgul wrote:
Looking into this Whirlbind vs. Basilisk example: Are guardsmen Basilisk's main targets? I guess not. Birlwind however specialises against infantry and being able to kill 3 guardsmen a turn is really bad, like really bad. Funnily enough Wirbelbind is more efficient against MEQs than GEQs, everyone act surprised Now!

GW could play around so much with rules if they wanted. Vengence Launcher could easily have rule that it does 4D3 hits against units with 5+ saves. This would make Birlbind roughly equally efficient against MEQs. So we could go even up to 5D3 or 6D3 to force the weapon to be efficient against cheap horde-like units. But then someone shouts 'Rules Bloat!'

I think all goes back to the fact the general weapon rules are bland and GW avoiding to create true anti horde weapons, for example flamer is more efficient against MEQs than guardsmen when looking at points destroyed. Everyone act surprised again!
So we end up in situation where many weapons don't have clear well defined roles and everyone who can spams mid strength high volume weapons to shred both infantry and tanks.

Right, the current state of the rules is pretty unfortunate, ironically.

It's telling that the Index era was both the most balanced 8th edition has ever been (not that it was super balanced mind...), and also the blandest 8th Edition has ever been...

Ghorgul wrote:
Looking into this Whirlbind vs. Basilisk example: Are guardsmen Basilisk's main targets? I guess not. Birlwind however specialises against infantry and being able to kill 3 guardsmen a turn is really bad, like really bad. Funnily enough Wirbelbind is more efficient against MEQs than GEQs, everyone act surprised Now!

True, it would be better to compare Mortar Teams to Whirlwinds for cost and survivability ratios, as both are anti-infantry artillery rather than anti-vehicle artillery.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lastly, what I was asking for was a definition of "trap unit" because people throw the term around and I don't think they understand my position on the issue. They say I want "Trap Units", which I don't. does a unit have to have "THIS UNIT IS SUBOPTIMAL NARRATIVE PLAY ONLY" slapped across its datasheet in red or something to be considered "not a trap?"

Yet, "trap unit" is being used in the context of, "this unit may seem cool, but is very point inefficient and should not be taken in a competitive atmosphere".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
EDIT: Also, once again for the people in the back: I acknowledge the current state of 40k as imbalanced, and in need of fixing. I am not arguing to endorse 40k in its current state. I am merely seeking to discuss balance theory from the perspective that "unit vs unit" balance is less desirable than army vs army, and faction vs. faction is the most desirable yet.

But we can't ignore that this is a 40K board on a largely 40K site and one of the biggest issues of 40K is its level of balance, and has been since before Rogue Trader was ever printed. This thread was put here because of those issues and people wanting to talk about those issues.

 AtoMaki wrote:
How do you differentiate anything when you could just say "Artillery Unit A" because everything's equally efficient...

That's the wrong way to look at it. It isn't about making units perfect mirror copies of each other. You can take away from "points efficiency" in one area and give it something else in return to make asymmetrical balance. "Balance" doesn't have to mean "literally the same".

In an "ideal" balancing perspective, both whirlwinds and the equivalent points in say mortars would be balanced against each other. You would have to examine the damage output of the equivalent points in mortars, vs the durability per point vs a range of weapons that could be shot at each and adjust the points cost of one or the other respectively.

Maybe the whirlwind is more durable per point vs the equivilant points in mortars, therefore it may cost a little more... or have less damage output per point to make up for it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you're essentially saying that an artillery army or melee army should have more "options" for those roles, rather than just being "better."

Yes, exactly. Such an army would be able to do more things via artillery, without having to resort to other units for those tasks. An army with non-artillery focus could only do one thing via artillery, and would have to utilise other units for other things.

How does that not result in being better, exactly? Army A's artillery is still better than Army B's when listbuilding, as a general rule, so competitive players looking to optimize would widely overlook Army B unless they had some non-points-efficiency-related reason not to.

No, individual units are not better. The Kroot are an unit purpose of which is to deal with light infantry, and they should be appropriately costed for their capability in that role. If we do what you suggest and overcost the Kroot and undercost Tau shooty units (because Tau is a shooty, not a melee army) then you're just better off dealing with that light infantry via Firewarriors or dakka drones etc. By including Kroot you would just make your army worse. This is a trap unit.

Even if Kroot are appropriately costed for their ability to kill light infantry with pointy sticks, Tau will not become a melee army; they do not have melee units for other roles, they need to still deal with tanks and heavy infantry with shooting. A more melee focused army such as Orks would have melee units that could deal with those things too.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
Looking into this Whirlbind vs. Basilisk example: Are guardsmen Basilisk's main targets? I guess not. Birlwind however specialises against infantry and being able to kill 3 guardsmen a turn is really bad, like really bad. Funnily enough Wirbelbind is more efficient against MEQs than GEQs, everyone act surprised Now!

True, it would be better to compare Mortar Teams to Whirlwinds for cost and survivability ratios, as both are anti-infantry artillery rather than anti-vehicle artillery.

Actually wouldn't it be the wyvern that would be most comparible to a whirlwind with castellan launcher?

Anyone saying the Index lists were balanced are playing revisionary.

Necrons ALONE prove that wrong. Look at Deathwatch, though, and how bad they were. Eldar costs were scattered all across the board, Conscripts needed just one model and they were impossible to remove and were easily buffed, Grey Knights were still bad (though the base Terminator became worse with the codex, which was an impressive feat in of itself), Smite was completely silly...

We aren't balanced now, but stop pretending the Index stuff was done even close to mediocrity. It was done just to get us by for some games and it really shows.