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.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
I could use a SM codex weekly

Nei.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
The PBC isn't OP because it's better than a Doom Scythe. The Doom Scythe just fething sucks all on its own.

I mean, i'd rather field a doom scythe over a Helldrake but yeah.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I mean, i'd rather field a doom scythe over a Helldrake but yeah.

Dragon > Croissant.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
I could use a SM codex weekly

Nei.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
The PBC isn't OP because it's better than a Doom Scythe. The Doom Scythe just fething sucks all on its own.

I mean, i'd rather field a doom scythe over a Helldrake but yeah.

Eeeeeeeeh to be fair we haven't seen the new CSM codex yet.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
I could use a SM codex weekly

Nei.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
The PBC isn't OP because it's better than a Doom Scythe. The Doom Scythe just fething sucks all on its own.

I mean, i'd rather field a doom scythe over a Helldrake but yeah.

Eeeeeeeeh to be fair we haven't seen the new CSM codex yet.

The fact that we're now 3 editions into GW's mega-crazy edition churn manufactured discontent festival and we're still making statements like this as if someday Gw's going to get all the codexes out using the same design philosophy and they're going to be balanced against each other and dang it we're going to get to KICK that football is incredible to me.

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
I could use a SM codex weekly

Nei.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
The PBC isn't OP because it's better than a Doom Scythe. The Doom Scythe just fething sucks all on its own.

I mean, i'd rather field a doom scythe over a Helldrake but yeah.

Eeeeeeeeh to be fair we haven't seen the new CSM codex yet.

The fact that we're now 3 editions into GW's mega-crazy edition churn manufactured discontent festival and we're still making statements like this as if someday Gw's going to get all the codexes out using the same design philosophy and they're going to be balanced against each other and dang it we're going to get to KICK that football is incredible to me.

Well 6th it was godly, 7th it was okay (changing to the firing arc happened in 7th I think? Am I remembering that right?), and 8th was whatever. I don't have high hopes because of how badly the new Death Guard was handled actually.

Oh, I don't care about heldrakes. Mostly I was just laughing at the statement "until we get the codexes out we can't judge game balance."

Game balance is always going to be whatever it is at this particular second. Gw isn't releasing codexes with an overarching plan for them to eventually be all out and all balanced. By the time all the codexes come out for 9th, the early codexes will either look like they did in 8th (awful due to power creep) or they'll look like they did in 7th (crazy OP because GW decided mid-edition to tone down)

the_scotsman wrote:
Oh, I don't care about heldrakes. Mostly I was just laughing at the statement "until we get the codexes out we can't judge game balance."

Game balance is always going to be whatever it is at this particular second. Gw isn't releasing codexes with an overarching plan for them to eventually be all out and all balanced. By the time all the codexes come out for 9th, the early codexes will either look like they did in 8th (awful due to power creep) or they'll look like they did in 7th (crazy OP because GW decided mid-edition to tone down)

I always say you can't judge unit balance until the codex gets released rather than game balance itself, if that makes sense.

I'm a really new player and don't have that much experience about playing yet. I have played with new DG codex against my son's BA several times and some games me having BA and he DG. Compared to last codex, this one seems much stronger against marines.

Otherwise I'm just curious about this what is OP and what is not discussion. I understand that balanced game is something you like to have. Still that PBC discussion compared to Lancer is something which I can't fully understand. Yes, PBC is much better when it's points cost to Lancer, but isn't part of the game mechanics that some of your units are better competitive way than others? Then for some other units SM equivalent is better. I mean sometimes I feel that only balance what is OK for people is that units would have same stats. I say this bit sarcastically, sorry for that. I'm novice and mostly play for fun so please forgive me . Just my two cents.

EDIT. What I try to say is that, does it give a proper view to blindly compare different units to each other? Vehicle that costs 20 pts more than same kind of unit for some other army isn't necessary same thing. Can it be that for some army that unit can be more precious even it's more expensive in points.

Finn what your talking about is factional balance, which works fine if your limited to 3-5 factions and you can only take 1 or 2 of such limited units.


when you have as many factions as 40k does and can sometimes take an unlimited number of the same unit, that kind of balance is not considered good for competitive play.

There is no way to truly balance 40k due to the miriad of abilities and rules the different factions get. The best they can do is continue to change points costs on overpreforming or underpreforming units.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

There is no way to truly balance 40k due to the miriad of abilities and rules the different factions get. The best they can do is continue to change points costs on overpreforming or underpreforming units.

I agree with you. I feel that there should be much more restrictions how many same units you can have etc. Of course that is against GW sales.

They aren't OP in my opinion. Like so many others have stated, they are slow and their ranged output is pretty subpar.

I think they excel at holding ground and not dying. In 9th, those are powerful abilities, but far from an auto-win.

As far as Mortarion goes, and this is my super controversial take, but I think he is a trap. I think he is very well balanced for his points cost. He is a quarter of their army, in an army that already has a pretty high per model cost save for pox walkers. He also doesn't have to be killed to be reduced in efficacy. Bracketing him once is a pretty decent hit to his efficacy, and while I have never killed him in one turn, I have killed him in two turns several times, and I have seen more games end with my DG opponents stating that they love to play him, but he probably inst worth it. They just feel they have to give up too much to get him.

After playing probably around or just over 10 games against them, I agree. the most difficult games are when he is on the table. The incredibly swingy games are when he is.

DG are a great noob-stomper faction, because their strengths are obvious but their weaknesses require you to understand how to play the game.

Morty is that on steroids. He's the ultimate "pwn the noobs" model, and while those models don't typically unbalance the top tier competitive scene unless they're truly absurdly OP, they do lead to a lot of feels bad for new players, so I don't think they're generally good for the game for that reason.

yukishiro1 wrote:
DG are a great noob-stomper faction, because their strengths are obvious but their weaknesses require you to understand how to play the game.

Morty is that on steroids. He's the ultimate "pwn the noobs" model, and while those models don't typically unbalance the top tier competitive scene unless they're truly absurdly OP, they do lead to a lot of feels bad for new players, so I don't think they're generally good for the game for that reason.

I couldn't begin to tell you how much I agree with this.

Dark Angels, specifically death wing, kind of follow suit along those lines. I think they are so good, and their plan is so straightforward, that is pretty friendly to new players and hard on new players playing against them at the same time.

That said, when I roll up to the table, I don't fear the Deathwing player. I have to respect them, of course, because they are good, just like DG, but I don't fear the game or look at it as an auto loss. But if I play a better fundamental game than they do, I will win.

The people I fear are the people playing Harlequins or Ravenwing who have fully painted and pretty armies. Chances are those players have been playing them for a bit, and those armies are VERY hard to counter for what i play.