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.

This is a thread about perceived internet wisdom.

Now, a case in point for this one would be the Imperial Guard. According to the Internet, it's an underpowered book which is almost impossible to win with. Now, this may well be the case, I don't know, I don't play IG. But then, it also may not be. Remember, this is being used purely as an example, and I am not decrying anyones opinions as long as they are from personal experience.

Now then, the problems come in when a relatively new gamer goes to the Tournament, Store or mates house for a game with his shiney new IG army, and, being a newbie, predictably comes off worse. Seeking inspiration, and at this point probably quite happy to accept his lack of experience to be his downfall, he logs on to the Interwebs, and seeks advice. And what does he get, at least 90% of the time?

Guard suck. Guard are underpowered. Unit X should have Stat Y. IG can't win. Your opponent is being beardy. Blah. Blah. Blah.

So the next time he loses, because the Interwebs told him so, it's not his fault. It's the Codex. It's jinxed, hated by GW, and destined to cause the death of it's bearer from tactical frustration. Soon, he is a slightly more experience gamer who, because he constantly blames his Codex, hasn't actually learnt from his experience and improved. What's worse, he is likely to go on the Interwebs and continue the hooting and hollering about how his book is rubbish and you can't win with it and Guard suck and Guard are underpowered all other Codexes are overpowered, especially that one on the army that beat him last week.

And so on.

Remember, the example above is just an example, and one I felt people would be familiar with on this board. I am not having a dig at peoples opinions.

So, just how many complaints about nerfing, underpowered units, overpowered cheese etc are actually all that valid. Some of them are, I know they are. 6th Edition Warhammer, Skaven were horrendous to fight because of how they interacted with the main rules and their own. But not all of them. Just how many complaints are caused not by the book, rules or anything else, but from the player not actually being all that great at the game compared to their opponents, and deciding an attempt at whinging their way to victory might make a difference.

Is there like a new Dakka rule that half the threads in the Discussion Forum have to be started by you?

BYE

Nope. I'm just a very talkative, very inquisitive gobshite!

Guard are underpowered? Why isn't this in the News section?

I think he's writing about Imperial Guard's interaction with kill points, in a very vague and badly researched way (this is the internet after all).

There definitely is a perception that some codexes are stronger than others. The situation changes as new versions are released.

If there is any truth in these theories one would expect it to show up in tournament results.

I like listening to all the people at the FLGS tell me how over powered and cheesy the Necron codex is and how they can't wait for a new one to come out. I enjoy it more when I tell them how the Necrons are widely regarded at one of the weakest codexs and a new one is likely to improve them and make them better, not nerf them into oblivion like they think they deserve.

I also enjoying everyone on the internets telling me how crappy my army is, then taking it to a tournament and winning first place.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This is a thread about perceived internet wisdom.

Here's the problem. When discussing topics like "codex balance" on the interwebs, we have to take a few things for granted:
1) Dice will be average;
2) Terrain will be average;
3) Army lists will be competitive;
4) Opponents won't be obligingly incompetent; and
5) You, the player, will play well.

If any of the above aren't true, then the discussion isn't about balance, it's about "how do I play better." Which is a topic we're happy to address in the Tactics forum.

An IG tank heavy guardsman list took third at the local Ard Boy tourny out of 14 people. His only loss was to an ork list that swept the whole tourney (and it was a close game), he nearly got two massacres in the other games.

People only complain about codex power levels when they are losing.

That said I play tyranids (regarded as a good codex) and I think its woefully underpowered. You are squeezed into one of two lists capable of winning and two thirds of the codex are overcosted crap (raveners, lictors, gargoyles, biovores, zoanthropses, rippers etc.)

Is there like a new Dakka rule that half the threads in the Discussion Forum have to be started by you?

Is there a rule stating that you are only allowed to actually contribute anything meaningful in one fifth of your posts?

I think this boils down to each players view of the game and how well you can handle a win or a loss.
Some people get angry when they loose and blame the codex, or the dice och that they had the sun in their eyes... or something else.
Other people loose and just shrugs and go 'ok i lost, good game anyway , lets go again?'.

Sure i agree that some codex are a bit tougher than others (especially the newer ones) but in my opinion, blaming your codex is just a bad excuse for a game played bad.


//Edge

it just seems like an easy scapegoat for some people
"a bad workman blames his tools"

I think just about any army can be competitive given the right player and circumstances- sometimes they aren't obvious, sometimes they don't come up due to whatever the situation is- but I find the vast majority of the armies to be fun to play with an against

I've never really had anyone blame their codex for anything like crap units. Newer players have started to open their mouths to me about how X is terrible, I just tell him not to run X. Or not to run a lot of X if it is required like some troops or something.

When people complain about my list which always contains 2 Lash Sorcs and atleast 4 Oblits I tell them it's my codexes fault. I really don't have any other very good HQs or good heavies (except maybe a HB havoc squad which I do run occasionally too). It's what I have painted too and to a good table quality so I'm running it. It really isn't my fault there aren't any good heavies/anti-tank in my codex so I take a lot of Oblits.

Typeline seems to be the sort of player Mad Doc Grotsnik is talking about.

Bignutter wrote:it just seems like an easy scapegoat for some people
"a bad workman blames his tools"

Except for the fact that even a good workman can only get so far with dull or warped tools. For example, Infantry heavy IG start at a disadvantage when kill points are involved, and 5th edition has made Necron armies face more of an uphill battle. Not all codices are created equal, but it's also something of a cop out to just blame your ruleset as solely responsible for a loss.

But someone getting into an army should know what he is going to have to work with. If they don't and discover that they think it is weaksauce, then there is a good chance said individual is incompetent. You shouldn't go to a construction site with a random box of tools you didn't look through and expect to have what you need.

Railguns wrote:But someone getting into an army should know what he is going to have to work with. If they don't and discover that they think it is weaksauce, then there is a good chance said individual is incompetent. You shouldn't go to a construction site with a random box of tools you didn't look through and expect to have what you need.

Good point. Isn't part of being a good player the ability to pick a good army to begin with?

It seems like sometimes people speak about their armies as if they had no choice in the matter.

Its the Commanders problem. I've tabled Marines Orks Nids IG and Such With my IG for kill Points.


IT's NOT EASY.

By no means but one can do it. it's just thinking ahead and a lil Luck.

"By no means but one can do it. it's just thinking ahead and a lil Luck. "

And sometimes hoping your opponent isn't as skilled as you are.

Some armies I would say are rather under powered not becuase of whether or not the units are actually bad, but more so becuase the army itself isn't very flavourable. The most appalling that I have found so far are Dwarves. (Lots of Bretonnians in my area.... only way to win is go shooty and even that has its inherent problems.) Chaos is powerful but has lost a lot of the reasons why people play it, ie its flavour. That and Dark Angels, they while they didn't really lose anything (you can't lose something you never had, with the obvious exception of Death and Raven Wings).

Thats more of the problem I find with some codex's. Its harder to win with all other things being equal with a fluffy or more flavourable army. (Uni-Khorne CSM?) So while by no means impossible it is more of a challenge.

This argument makes the rounds pretty constantly. There are loud voices on two sides of the arugment:

1) Codexes are strongly varied in overall strength, to the extent that certain armies can expect much greater performance, all other things equal.

2) There is no discernable difference between the power levels of the armies, and any such difference seen is only external factors like generalship, missions, dice, etc.

Of course, both are equally wrong.

On any given Sunday, any codex can stand up to any other codex. At the very highest levels of performance (GT top tables and some of the tougher clubs and RTTS), there is a different "metagame" than at a small store tournament, a league, pick up and play, or laid back casual play. At anything but the highest levels, any noticed difference is most likely environmental. In a small store, the "beardiest" army is probably whatever the best player plays. Despite the kvetching, GW does a pretty good job of balancing the books, and it's gotten noticably better as time goes on.

That all said, it is simply naive to dismiss the relative strengths of the codexes completely. they were written for different versions of rules, in different environments, to excel at different missions. That Dark Eldar (written in early 3rd, revised in mid-third) are even remotely balanced with today's codexes that are written for 5th is a marvel, to expect no power difference is asinine.

In addition to what I would consider structural or inherent power, there is also the fact that some armies are easier or harder to master. DE run by new players tend to get tabled, in the hands of a master they are one of the fiercest armies available. Add in any number of local metagames, modeling cost/difficulty, and the number of builds each codex has, and there are many factors for an armies "Environmental strength."

I would like to run a quick example to explain what I mean. Look at the IG codex, in particular at the Chimera. The IG book was written at the very end of 3rd, when they had a pretty good idea about 4th, but as most IG players will tell you, not nearly enough. The chimera as generally fielded runs about 85pts. In 3rd, this was a bargain. troops could assault out after moving (don't laugh, the Col/Commissar powerfist combo was brutal), Chimeras were scoring units, and being obscured turned all penetrating hits into glances. Many thought the price still a bit high, but it worked. The TVR took away the ability to assault out of a moving transport, but added the ability to move and shoot weapons under S5. Still a plus for IG. 4th edition kept those rules, but made transports deathtraps, added escalation, took away their ability to score, made "hull down" only on a 4+, and all AP1 glances got upgraded to pens. So, in the short, chimeras became shootier but more fragile, unable to score, often in reserve, and deadly to their cargo. Now, in fifth, Transports aren't quite as deadly, but they lose the ability to move and shoot multiple weapons. However, every other army is watching their transports pummet in price, to the point where you can buy two HB Razorbacks for the price of a Chimera. Now, am I really to accept the assertion that through all of that, Chimeras in particular, the IG codex in general, and the entire range of codexes has remained utterly and perfectly balanced?

The answer, of course, is no.

What we can do is debate the effect army choice has on winning. I contend not very much on anything but the very lowest (noob on noob) or very highest (sun tzu on Clausewitz) levels. On anything else, knowledge, experience, luck, and skill will matter more. Two kids playing 40k for the first time, one with a few SM battleforces and another with some IG battleforces, even at even points will not have a fair game. Once both players learn the rules, learn their codices, and learn some tricks, it'll even out. That all said, if a brand new player wanted to start 40k, I'd steer him away from DE, DH, IG, and Daemons unless he was a committed guy or had some wargaming experience. The game is simply easier if you start with a more forgiving army.

A well-reasoned and well-written post, as usual, Polonius.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Railguns wrote:But someone getting into an army should know what he is going to have to work with. If they don't and discover that they think it is weaksauce, then there is a good chance said individual is incompetent. You shouldn't go to a construction site with a random box of tools you didn't look through and expect to have what you need.

Good point. Isn't part of being a good player the ability to pick a good army to begin with?

It seems like sometimes people speak about their armies as if they had no choice in the matter.

I'm selling my lictor, ravener, ripper, zoantrhope heavy tyranid army because it's unplayable. On paper it is balanced with a good number of scoring troops, plenty of good offensive units, and a nice mix of fast and ranged. Unfortunately given that the majority of my army costs about 30-50% more than it should its essentially worthless and I lose many battles for no other reason than the fact that I'm simply overpowered. Saying that a player should understand that only a third of his codex is actually useful smacks of elitist douchbaggery. Not everyone picks up an army after weighing the pros and cons of its minmaxed potential. Some people will buy an army for the flavor and models and build a force from that perspective.

When people say that their codex is weak, is it really fair to point out that it's only because they aren't playing the standard GT army of the month? I hate nidzilla and refuse to have nothing but hormugaunts. Should I be considered incompetent because I didn't realize everything else in the book is trash (especially considering I still run about even, despite my composition handicap)? The ravener is an amazing model and I disliked gargoyles so the other half of my fast attack choice wasn't an option. Now that I have six of them (300 points) I realize that they are basically a free killpoint for the enemy and can't possibly pay for themselves. Did my refusal to discount the fast attack part of my book entirely make me a bad player?

There's a difference between a codex having a weakness and being fundamentally weak.

For example Tau have minimal assault capability. Since assault is an important combat function in 40K this is a serious weakness.

However, it is compensated by high-power, long range shooting, and lots of good mobility. This should enable Tau armies to use mobile warfare to win.

We see Tau armies placing highly in tournaments so this theory seems to be correct. We also see players calling Mech Tau beardy cheese coated spam, which proves the theory that players rate codexes overpowered because they lose against them.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm selling my lictor, ravener, ripper, zoantrhope heavy tyranid army because it's unplayable. On paper it is balanced with a good number of scoring troops, plenty of good offensive units, and a nice mix of fast and ranged. Unfortunately given that the majority of my army costs about 30-50% more than it should its essentially worthless and I lose many battles for no other reason than the fact that I'm simply overpowered. Saying that a player should understand that only a third of his codex is actually useful smacks of elitist douchbaggery. Not everyone picks up an army after weighing the pros and cons of its minmaxed potential. Some people will buy an army for the flavor and models and build a force from that perspective.

When people say that their codex is weak, is it really fair to point out that it's only because they aren't playing the standard GT army of the month? I hate nidzilla and refuse to have nothing but hormugaunts. Should I be considered incompetent because I didn't realize everything else in the book is trash (especially considering I still run about even, despite my composition handicap)? The ravener is an amazing model and I disliked gargoyles so the other half of my fast attack choice wasn't an option. Now that I have six of them (300 points) I realize that they are basically a free killpoint for the enemy and can't possibly pay for themselves. Did my refusal to discount the fast attack part of my book entirely make me a bad player?

So, instead of play testing it's effectiveness first, you bought and painted an army for its theme and flavor, and are now frustrated because you have a flavorful and themed army that isn't very competitive?

Doctor Thunder wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm selling my lictor, ravener, ripper, zoantrhope heavy tyranid army because it's unplayable. On paper it is balanced with a good number of scoring troops, plenty of good offensive units, and a nice mix of fast and ranged. Unfortunately given that the majority of my army costs about 30-50% more than it should its essentially worthless and I lose many battles for no other reason than the fact that I'm simply overpowered. Saying that a player should understand that only a third of his codex is actually useful smacks of elitist douchbaggery. Not everyone picks up an army after weighing the pros and cons of its minmaxed potential. Some people will buy an army for the flavor and models and build a force from that perspective.

When people say that their codex is weak, is it really fair to point out that it's only because they aren't playing the standard GT army of the month? I hate nidzilla and refuse to have nothing but hormugaunts. Should I be considered incompetent because I didn't realize everything else in the book is trash (especially considering I still run about even, despite my composition handicap)? The ravener is an amazing model and I disliked gargoyles so the other half of my fast attack choice wasn't an option. Now that I have six of them (300 points) I realize that they are basically a free killpoint for the enemy and can't possibly pay for themselves. Did my refusal to discount the fast attack part of my book entirely make me a bad player?

So, instead of play testing it's effectiveness first, you bought and painted an army for its theme and flavor, and are now frustrated because you have a flavorful and themed army that isn't very competitive?

Correct. I am frustrated that there are only four or five useful unit entries in the entire codex (gaunt, hormugaunt, hive tyrant, carnifex, genestealer). And that any deviation away from that standard just causes your army to weaken (severely). And how do you playtest something that doesn't yet exist? Sure, if I switch to an army now I'm going to have a lot more knowledge about it's strengths and weaknesses but thats because I've now become somewhat of a veteran player with several years experience with a sub standard army. Now I understand that fundamentally some codexes are broken (the tyranid and necron codexes being the best example of this). When I first picked the army up I didn't have that, the book was brand new, and I had rejoined the game from a several year hiatus.


Also, really, how do you playtest an army for its effectiveness that you do not yet have?

ShumaGorath wrote:



Also, really, how do you playtest an army for its effectiveness that you do not yet have?

It's called vassal

Surely there's a difference between a codex that is fundamentally weak and a codex that only provides one or two worthwhile builds.

Obviously every unit in a codex should have its place and proper value, however that is an ideal rarely to be achieved in practice.

This is an interesting topic. I think there are really 3 phases to a 40k game: army building, set up, and the tactical game. The combination of player experience and their codex plays largely into 1st part, and if you make a bad list you aren't going to do well in the next two phases.

The player is the craftsman and the codex his tools. Codex are very different as are players, and often it takes experience to figure out what units are going to be competitive from a certain codex. I do strongly believe that unfortunately some codices simply are more powerful than others and that specific units in them are very bad choices. It is simply very easy for an inexperienced player to blame his codex as being weak because he hasn't figured out how to build a competitive army from it, and yeah if he does then he won't really learn how to make his army any better. Then he goes onto the interwebs and has his opinion confirmed by other players almost exactly like himself. To be perfectly insulting, for every 1 good, intelligent and experienced 40k player there are 50 others who not only have little clue what they are doing but don't even have the experience to realize they don't have a clue, and yet they can all post on the same forums.

Even using a codex that dates back to 3rd Ed you can still make competitive armies, but as the editions march on and newer books come out then you are forced to adapt more and more, sliming down your choices. This is why we see the appearance of one or two very popular army styles for each codex as it starts to get older. It's the easiest formula that the experienced players have found that works.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Correct. I am frustrated that there are only four or five useful unit entries in the entire codex (gaunt, hormugaunt, hive tyrant, carnifex, genestealer). And that any deviation away from that standard just causes your army to weaken (severely).

That's ever been thus though hasn't it? Looking over the orks I can see most elites are now described as poor choices as are most of the heavy and fast attack options, but both armies (tyranid and ork) produce amongst the strongest armies at competition. The army lists will always have a degree of choices which will be sub-par to the best it can be, I'd suggest that boils down to playing competition or with friends (I intend to get alot of the poor choice models like a Nob mob for the modelling and fluff aspects myself).

It's alot fairer than it used to be, when most folks had an army list in the white dwarf compendium and chaos had the entire Realm of Chaos volumes 1&2 or the orks with 2 full books worth (ere we go and Freebooterz). I do think that the only way to get it all down and fair would be to work on and release every codex at once, whilst the same design team were in place adhering to the same outlook (like that would be feasible heh).

But I think Codex creep exists.

That's ever been thus though hasn't it? Looking over the orks I can see most elites are now described as poor choices as are most of the heavy and fast attack options, but both armies (tyranid and ork) produce amongst the strongest armies at competition.

Actually zoanthropes, lictors, and rippers used to be great. In third Zoeys were fantastic. Also while it may seem like the elites and heavy choices in an ork book seem bad thats really only in comparison to the rest of the book which is amazing (Most of the book can be easily replaced with more ork boyz). A killa kan would be a fantastic choice in an IG list and flash gitz would give eldar some good options for staying in the fight longer. Whereas the issue with, lets say the humble ravener is that its just worthless in any comparison. At 46 points sans the gun its more expensive than a terminator with a 5+ save T4 and 2 wounds. It's basically a free killpoint for anyone with a gun, and even when it makes it into combat the new countercharge rules means that a squad of them will be killed in every situation every time now. The lictor is even worse at twice the points and the exact same level of surviveability. I've had my lictors dragged down by pathfinder teams repeatedly.

The only other book I know of with the same bipolar unit entries is the necron book. Paraiahs are terrible no matter what the situation is and wraiths (much like the ravener) are twice as expensive as they should be and don't actually do anything.

This is a sign of a weak codex. A weak codex shouldn't be judged by its capability of crafting a wining force (lets face it even the worst books GT entry is going to crush most people casually) it should be judged by its inability to create a workable varied and balanced force. When it only has a chance in casual play by minmaxing (and thus steamrolling the casual opponant) then something is broken with the book.

olympia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



Also, really, how do you playtest an army for its effectiveness that you do not yet have?

It's called vassal

That is?