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.

Just reading the thread on the 'basic' CSM, and it got me thinking about things like balance and unit functionality.

One of the mainstays from 3-early 4th ed. was that you were almost always better off taking a specialist unit (i.e. a unit that focused on one thing) than trying to have an all-around unit, or shoehorn a unit into doing something it was bad at. So Conventional Wisdom held that IG squads carried lascannons or Heavy bolters, Tau Battlesuits were either MEq killers or Anti-tank platforms, and Space Marines were best executed as min-maxed SAFH armies with some highly mobile units (dping termies, tornadoes, AM squads) or all podding terminator (read: assault cannon) delivery systems. Anything that didn't excel at the one job or that could be replicated more cheaply were tossed.  There obviously  were some units that belied this: anything with an assault cannon quickly became both anti-troop and anti-tank, but that was the seeming prevailing wisdom.

Now,are the designers pushing the game toward all-round, Jack-of-all-trade units? Dire Avengers, Eldar Jetbikes with Spearlocks, and now full-sized SM and CSM squads with transport, equipped leader, heavy and special are all examples of what could be called 'all-rounder' units (their effectiveness is obviously arguable). Are we going to see a further emphasis in Codex Orks of units that, in theory, fill multiple roles? Is this 'good' for the game?

It strikes me that it is a radical shift from the way the game has been played for a LONG time. For new players, it probably would make some sense: I can get some utility out of this entire box of Space Marines/Guardsmen/etc. OTOH, for Veterans, this may be part of the 'meta-issue' with the Jervis revolution: that a fundamental way the game is played is changing, but is changing in such a way as to encourage blowback (e.g. taking cult CSM instead of generic CSM to fill specific roles).

Anyway, your thoughts?

If they are trying to accomplish this, they are failing. As a rule its always better to specialize. When you specialize, you are the best at what you do for the points. When you generalize, you may be able to do everything in a half assed way but you will never equal the specialists. If for some reason you do equal the specialist in ability, you will either be extremely expensive (obliterators come to mind here) or broken (assault cannon).

Regardless of how it is done, the current game mechanics of not being able to fire heavy weapons on the move, not being able to effectively hurt the enemy with basic weapons at range, and not being able to shoot once you are in hand to hand all mean that you are going to concentrate on one aspect or another. Points spent on being good at one thing are completely wasted when you are doing another and the game is about getting the most out of your points.

Think you are right in the fact that thats what thy are trying to do and it would be cool. But the way it is done so far doesnt help.
As you said, assultcannon still is about the best on everything. Even if many troops(chaos and DA) are better in HtH they still loose quite big to specialists.

Dire avengers are good at shooting, but don't have the S, T, save, LD, attacks, or power weapons to really succeed in HtH. They are essenetially guardians that aren't pushovers in HtH.

10 Necron Immortals. Anti-vehicle, anti-infantry, no pushovers in H2H. There's a generalist unit that will see competitive play.

Back in 2nd ed, specialists were important, but the flow of the game meant they were not all-important. When units could hide, run, toss grenades, go into overwatch, etc, the more unpredictable dynamic meant it was good to have a unit which could respond to different situations. Not that 2nd ed didn't have a whole bushel-load of problems, but that was one good aspect to it.

The game is ruled by specialist units now because the environment and game flow are much, much more predictable. This makes getting the most out of your one-shot pony easier, and decreases the attractiveness of units that are both easily taken ou by the easily-delivered specialists AND non-specialists themselves.

-Adso

With MEQs not being nearly as common due to popular Eldar, Tau, and Nid codecies, all around troops will be more important. If the Ork Codex is a success I don't think you can count on 50% MEQ at tournaments anymore. Heck the Las Vegas GT was already not 50% MEQ. Generalist units will have more of a role when you don't just have to be able to kill armor and marines 80% of the time.

Sisters of Battle might be a good example of an all around army now. Their general squads can't take less than 10 models, and there is no option for anti-tank at range. It might well be they are trying to bring MEq armies into line with that model, only with the bonus of decent anti-tank at 10 man squads.

I agree though that if Codex:  Orks heralds the comeback of melee infantry hordes we will definitely see a big change in the weapons tooling, though with Mech Eldar and Zilla Nids still being dominant, the change will probably be more along the lines of "I brought a few heavy bolters with my lascannons" than "every unit can kill hordes or TMCs equally badly."

SoB troops fail as an all-rounder unit as they still focus on anti-infantry firepower. In combat, at >12" range, or against vehicles you are not maximizing their points. True they can carry a meltagun, but other units pop vehicles better (cannoness, seraphim, exorcist). Sisters will always win games by specializing in shortrange firefights, and avoiding combat - which is why they are very efficient at it, compared to marines.

The only all-rounder part of any list that I can think of (with oblits being somewhat nerfed against hordes) would be the assault cannon. Its simply the best gun to fire at anything.

Well, obviously, for Tau, specialising crisis suits is a bad idea, and you're much better off with fireknives, the versatile unit.

Specailist units are generally better if you can consistentally get the unit to perform its role and not get sucked into the role it cant perform.
Take dakka fexes. They shoot but suck at combat (hidden fists always beat them from even the most basic squads)
If your army is built arround getting the most out of them by screening them with something from assult then they are quite good as specalists. On the other hand if you dont build your army arround keeping them out of combat they suck as a specalist because their weaknesses are exploitable.

Generalists give up some measure of power to remove this weakness. They are more usefull if your army design doesnt have something to stop people from exploiting your weaknesses (which could be a weakness to moving and shooting weapons or hoard assult units)
Immortals are a great example. They have only the weakness of a 30 in threat zone. Everything else they can perform and this is important to them because the army contains virtually nothing else to help them vs anything.

People commonly sprout the phrase jack of all trades master of none but that only looks at the unit not where it fits in the army.

Lets say you have two dedicated shooting squads and two assult squads.
I, on the other hand, have four units that shoot and assult but not as good as your dedicated squads (realistically generic units are about 2/3 as powerfull in an area as specailists)

You could sit back and shoot me but I would win that fight.
If you move the assult squads forward and shoot with the shooting squads I can easily shoot then assult(or you assult me, makes little difference) your assult squads and beat them and then try to duke it out with you in shooting (probabally a losing proposition but not by much). Your dedicated squads wont win by a huge land slide and they got to do what they were there for, not a good sign.

I'll contend that Codex Necron is an example of a generalist list, and its tournament competitive. Specialists are not the end-all, be-all.

thats because necrons were made to be the ultimate generalist.

dev squads?

who needs them when your basic troopers rifle an glance AV14

heavy weapons?

who needs them when your basic troopers rifle can auto wound something reguardless of toughness.

 

most lists need specialized units to deal with certain enemy units(aside from necrons)

the army as a whole should be able to take on a little bit of everything by working as a well tuned machine-everybody having thier part to play to make the army work.

 

there are of course some units/weapons that can do a little of everything, but its not the majority.

 

Yeah necrons are definately the ultimate specialists with their gauss weapons. I think generalist troops are better in that it is much harder to play to their weaknesses as opposed to specialist troops. Granted if you fight a specialist on what they are good at then you will likely lose, but that is more an issue with your tactics. Specialists seem to win big or lose big either way which, from what I've read on the forum so far, is the way to go at tournemants (I have little experience with tournies however, I'm just going by other posts on the forums).

Personally I prefer to play generalists since with some thought I can play to a specialist's weaknesses until they are weak enough that I can kill them at what they are good at if need be. On the other hand specialists can be easier to play in that you definately know that this unit shoots and this unit assaults.