PDA

View Full Version : Unbalanced Armies?



Plebian
19-05-2008, 22:05
This post is a response to the "Marines are unbalanced" post. I was just curious which of the other army lists you feel are too good/too bad and which you feel are balanced. Remember, this is an opinion poll, so please no flaming.

Warboss Jhura Ironfang
19-05-2008, 23:19
Okay, I'll be first to respond by saying Eldar are the most cheddar army there is. Tau are a second for cheddar rating. Now I don't want to sound mean or anti-TauDar, but they're the most abused armies out there.

Examples:

Eldar- Flying Circus of Death, MEQ-Hunters, Falcon Spamm :eyebrows:

Tau- Crisis suit of Doom, Fish of Fury, MEQ-Hunter

Now my favorite of all is a Eldar list I've named the "Let my fething army get to Turn 3!" army.

Here's the LMFAGTT3! army- :mad:

HQ- Farseer & Aurtarch

Elites- Clowns x2 and Banshees

Troops- Lots of Guardian spam mit Starlances, Dire Avengers

Fast Attack- Vypers

Heavy Support- Cheesebirds

Cheerz, Jhura

Reflex
19-05-2008, 23:40
armies are only broken when losers will play a win at all costs army. the cost is usually fun and friendship.

almost any army is capable of doing this and it should be looked down upon. can we do anything? not really, just dont play people who play win at any cost armies.

snooggums
19-05-2008, 23:58
Translated from above: "I can't build an army that can potentially win. I only play other crappy players and dislike anyone who spends more time on how to win a game as opposed to painting which is the most important part of this hobby and if you win a game you are a WAAC player obviously."

CommisarMolotov
20-05-2008, 00:00
Oooh, touchy. Looks like Reflex hit a little too close to home...

Plebian
20-05-2008, 00:02
Lets play nicely children;)
All armies can be min/maxed, it is true. But are there any armies that are inherently broken?

Johnnyfrej
20-05-2008, 00:04
I voted for each, because any army can be made "poorly" (fluffy but not competative) or "cheesy" (all competative no flavor).

CommisarMolotov
20-05-2008, 00:05
I voted for each, because any army can be made "poorly" (fluffy but not competative) or "cheesy" (all competative no flavor).

True, true.

onnotangu
20-05-2008, 00:06
guardsmen seem to be on the short end of the stick compared to the current forces present.

SquishySquig
20-05-2008, 00:07
:skull: I voted for all armies are cheese... except for orks. I play orks so there's no cheese about them. I don't own any of the other armies and they can do things I can't so they are obviously cheese. By the way in case it's hard to tell, I'm joking. I am not convinced any army is "cheese". :skull:

Torga_DW
20-05-2008, 00:09
Yeah, any army can be powergamed really. But imo necrons stand out as broken. I guess its just me, since so few ppl voted necrons. But imo most of the v3 codexes are broken, one that stands out that wasn't included is 13th company. Mark of the wulven for everybody! (+1d3 attacks, fearless for the character and his squad, sergeants can take it). Anyways, thats my rant.

Khornies & milk
20-05-2008, 00:19
You'd be hardpressed to make a 'cheesy' DH list...closest I could get would be allying with WH, and that I'd call balanced personally.
Eldar and Tau are the easiest to 'cheese', but in the end it comes down to the player and how he/she wants to play.

Broken lists....all the older codexes, in one way or the other.

Seth the Dark
20-05-2008, 00:25
The whole point of the game is to win, be it in a friendly enviroment or competative. All of the armies have the potential to be either too powerful or weak.

Reflex
20-05-2008, 01:02
Translated from above: "I can't build an army that can potentially win. I only play other crappy players and dislike anyone who spends more time on how to win a game as opposed to painting which is the most important part of this hobby and if you win a game you are a WAAC player obviously."

wow, you know, instead of attacking me in this abrupt and absurd manner you could have just said i disagree and then provided evidence as to why.

but yea i do have a problem with powergamers. tournaments are a completely different end of the spectrum so leave them out. the game is meant to be fun for BOTH players, not just the one winning. and yea another point of the game is to win, so from your post i am assuming you have to powergame to win, and that... thats just the saddest thing of all.

Ronin_eX
20-05-2008, 01:16
Meh, every army is unbalanced in some way. This really only matters to competitive/tournament players in the end though. So long as things are roughly balanced and you play with mature players who are in it to have fun and give a good/challenging game for both players all is good and most wont notice any but the worst imbalances.

My advice is to do what was once recommended by GW devs when the game wasn't so up its own **** with the tournament mentality and simply play with your friends. Tourneys are fun but when they become a primary focus of the parent company like what seems to be the case with GW now then it can really ruin the game from what I can see. In any case many devs have professed in the past that the 40k/WFB systems (or any of the GW systems) were not meant for full on tournament play. They are not perfectly balanced and if someone wants to aim to win then the system gives them plenty of tools that can make their wish come true with very little actual skill on their part (mostly it is just netlist-'n-go).

If you want a well balanced tournament wargame then play an abstract one like chess, go or dvonn. Those games are well balanced from the ground up. If you want a fun game that is a little less abstract and can provide a good story to tell over beer afterwards then less abstract wargames should be the goal. Just like no battle plan survives the enemy no wargame really ever survives contact with the users. Most games will have unbalanced forces to some degree and there's not much you can do about it outside of using a dedicated GM for the game (which usually produces the most balanced battle as that GM has a better idea about how the two forces will stack up under either player than any point system that can ever be devised).

Wargames allow players to set up cool scenarios and create a story while presenting a challenging game within which to let the story unfold. As I said tourneys can be fun but outside of that I don't think they should ever become a major focus lest you end up with threads like this and many others that constantly assail web communities. So my vote is all of them though I wish there was an option for "does it actually matter?" ;)

Edit -


The whole point of the game is to win, be it in a friendly enviroment or competative. All of the armies have the potential to be either too powerful or weak.

To me it is the objective of the game to win but the point of the game itself is to have fun. If the game isn't fun for both parties then what is the point of winning? But that's just my personal stance on the subject. :D

Drakon
20-05-2008, 01:59
IG need a revamp now with the orks out with their boys costing more and also more lethal in CC with ability to get close and dirty quicker IG dont seem to stand a chance.

Troops need to cost less and need some way off keeping enemy away for a while so the petty lasguns can do some damage.

Plus bikes would be cool stuff the horses. 40k and their still using horse :wtf:

Brother_Chaplian Raimo
20-05-2008, 02:12
Translated from above: "I can't build an army that can potentially win. I only play other crappy players and dislike anyone who spends more time on how to win a game as opposed to painting which is the most important part of this hobby and if you win a game you are a WAAC player obviously."

And thus, by your own post, you prove yourself an extremely adept idiot. Obviously, by saying "please, no flaming" in the opening, the OP meant armies. As usual, anyone who sees fit to enter a reasonable disscussion is fair game. I have to admit, I'm with Reflex here. Cheese is in the eye of the beholder, but the hand of the creator.

Oh, and horses? I swear, if you take away the horses, I'll find you and subject you to a fate too horrific to describe.

Lord Cook
20-05-2008, 02:13
I voted Guard as underpowered, and would have voted DH as well had they been on there. Nothing inherently overpowered, but certain builds are obviously abusive.


I voted for all armies are cheese... except for orks. I play orks so there's no cheese about them. I don't own any of the other armies and they can do things I can't so they are obviously cheese.

This wins the thread hands down.


Plus bikes would be cool stuff the horses. 40k and their still using horse :wtf:

They used more horses than tanks in WWI. And remember horses are edible.

Gallant
20-05-2008, 03:44
...to do what was once recommended by GW devs when the game wasn't so up its own **** with the tournament mentality and simply play with your friends. Tourneys are fun but when they become a primary focus of the parent company like what seems to be the case with GW now then it can really ruin the game from what I can see. In any case many devs have professed in the past that the 40k/WFB systems (or any of the GW systems) were not meant for full on tournament play. They are not perfectly balanced and if someone wants to aim to win then the system gives them plenty of tools that can make their wish come true with very little actual skill on their part (mostly it is just netlist-'n-go).


I think it was the player base that really drove itself mad with focus on tournaments. GW went along with it. In the last few years, people have become much more focused on the tourney schedule, which has resulted in folks sitting around min/maxing lists ad nauseum. I've gotten sick of people comparing lists for pure tourney win-ocity. If I had my way, people would sit around more comparing lists for sheer concept coolness. I do recall that being more common. Tau Devilfish-based forces designed around Vietnam-era Air Cavalry and IG forces ripped from Lawrence of Arabia. Sigh.

Captain Micha
20-05-2008, 04:19
Ig =nerfed.

=I= are nerfed.

Necrons =nerfed. (though become stronger the more cheese the enemy typically pours on)

Space Marines = cheesed.

TheDarkDuke
20-05-2008, 04:28
Well on the "nerfed" side I think you will find, IG and the Inquisition are the hurting ones.

When it comes to cheese armies I don't think there is one as every army has like 1 or 2 really badarse builds that a randomly thrown together list will have difficulty against. However I think Eldar would be deemed the cheese masters, simply because they have some of the most cost effective units in the game, and anyone even just throwing together a bunch of different units not thinking about WAAC will probably end up with some of the most effective units in the game, when combined together.

killa kan kaus
20-05-2008, 04:41
Inquisition is almost unplayable but out the main armies IG get shafted a little more then everyone else.

Khornies & milk
20-05-2008, 05:01
Inquisition is almost unplayable but out the main armies IG get shafted a little more then everyone else.

Maybe in the overall scheme of things perhaps, but within my gaming group I do very well thank you. i read on here somewhere that DH did pretty damn well in the recent "ard Boyz" event.
I'm not saying they're great and they certainly need some GW love, but unplayable....sorry you're wrong.

incarna
20-05-2008, 05:16
I may get flamed for this but I strongly believe that every army is balanced barring armies with out of date codex. I believe the most recent codex have gone a very very long way to balancing the game and some codex, IG and Dark Eldar specifically, are unbalanced (I would argue in an un-compeditive direction) due largely to the fact that their codex are out of date.

Every army has potential for “abuse”. While I have never faced a tri-falcon clown car army I have faced dual lash armies as well as other armies that are widely considered “broken”. My next army is going to be demons and it's going to include 2 greater demons and 3 demon princes not because I want to make a broken army but because I have a theme in mind that I want to build.

Every army can ALSO be composed in such a way as to make them un-competitive; IG tricked out with every stupid doctrine in the book comes to mind as well as an all-melee Nid army with lots of upgrades. I think that much of this game rests on your ability to compose a strong army before it hits the tabletop and those individuals who see certain combinations as extremely powerful should not feel obligated to compose their army in a way that conforms to other peoples vision of the game.

While my current Eldar all-jetbike army as well as my chaos army would probably suffer fiercely at the hands of a tri-falcon clown car army, I believe my IG army consisting of over 120 models and three Basilisks would crush such an army beneath the weight of shear numbers.

Enjoy the fact that challenges exist in this game. Enjoy the fact that you can face an opponent with god-knows what kind of merciless combination and know that, though it may be difficult, those armies can be beaten with balanced army composition and sound tactics. Without a challenge to be faced at every game, why play?

alex03
20-05-2008, 05:21
Imperial Guard needs a boost the most. Whatever army captain micha plays should be nerfed heavily so he can become even more bitter about marines.

Alx_152
20-05-2008, 05:45
I voted all armies.
Every army can be designed to specifically beat another army. If you do not how to counter another players tactics, it is easy to call his army overpowered.

ankara halla
20-05-2008, 06:22
The whole point of the game is to win, be it in a friendly enviroment or competative. All of the armies have the potential to be either too powerful or weak.

No, the whole point of the game is to have fun.

Plebian
20-05-2008, 06:29
No, the whole point of the game is to have fun.

Aye, and many people have fun by winning a competitive game. Or losing a competitive game. Note that this does not make them bad people. Both players need to decide whether they are playing competitively or not before the game.

nurglez
20-05-2008, 06:31
i agree, IMO, the point of the game is to have fun, i would rather lose a good game then win a crap one.

i havent played in any tournies, and generally dont play cheesy lists. i would have to say almost all forces can be min/maxed to a certain degree, some more then others.

Ronin_eX
20-05-2008, 08:18
I think it was the player base that really drove itself mad with focus on tournaments. GW went along with it. In the last few years, people have become much more focused on the tourney schedule, which has resulted in folks sitting around min/maxing lists ad nauseum. I've gotten sick of people comparing lists for pure tourney win-ocity. If I had my way, people would sit around more comparing lists for sheer concept coolness. I do recall that being more common. Tau Devilfish-based forces designed around Vietnam-era Air Cavalry and IG forces ripped from Lawrence of Arabia. Sigh.

Yeah, I agree with this assessment. Personally I see 3rd as a concession to the growing tourney population myself. So much about it seems fueled by changes that the tournament scene wanted and it was also quite rushed so that GW could cash in on the growing wave of tournament interest. Rules were slimmed down while model counts rose, armies need to be changed/rebuilt with each new edition and many other things that seem to be a primary characteristic of other tournament focused games like MTG. I will admit that even during 3rd GW still said the game was not meant for tourney play but despite what they said they never really seemed to act on it until they started bringing out things like City Fight and Apocalypse.

I'm with you in missing cool concepts like the armies you listed being discussed rather than the latest iteration of a list that has been tuned to the tits. They certainly still exist but those who come up with them tend not to post them in armylist sections (and I don't blame 'em).

In the end the players pushed GW down this street and it has only been recently that they have really started opening up avenues for non-tourney play. I'm still hoping they release a campaign supplement for the 40k-verse one of these days that can be used for everything from BFG down to 40k and everything in between. I think the 40k-verse needs a full campaign system instead of just a small section in the main book and it would certainly open up new players to alternate methods of playing the game rather than just lining 'em up and knocking them down.

Reflex
20-05-2008, 08:25
Aye, and many people have fun by winning a competitive game. Or losing a competitive game. Note that this does not make them bad people. Both players need to decide whether they are playing competitively or not before the game.

yes thats true, but there is no reason why you have to bring bearded armies to the table to make the game competitive. i challenge everyone on this forum to play 2 games, the first being a game where both your army and your opponents army are as dense cheese as possible. The next game, make the most underpowered army as possible. keep in the back of your mind that you want to win with both armies, but then after both games, come back and tell me, which army was most fun and tactically challenging to play with?

i myself have done this, and found it was more fun to play with an underpowered army because victory was earned, not given.

kenny3760
20-05-2008, 08:52
yes thats true, but there is no reason why you have to bring bearded armies to the table to make the game competitive. i challenge everyone on this forum to play 2 games, the first being a game where both your army and your opponents army are as dense cheese as possible. The next game, make the most underpowered army as possible. keep in the back of your mind that you want to win with both armies, but then after both games, come back and tell me, which army was most fun and tactically challenging to play with?

i myself have done this, and found it was more fun to play with an underpowered army because victory was earned, not given.

You just don't like competitive armies do you. 2 equal players using 2 competitive armies will result in a game that is just as tactical and fun as the same 2 players horsing about with the crappiest lists possible. Whats the difference? It's the same players both trying to win both games with "equal" lists.

Now, I play with DE a lot, not Wych cult, but Kabal. So tell me am I using a broken list or an underpowered list. If my win ratio is high does that make it a broken list? or does it make me a WAAC? or am I just pretty good at the game. Am I having fun, are my opponents having fun, getting to play a fairly unusual army for a change, even if it does give them a nightmare time. I pretty much play to win but I'll always try to ensure that during the game theres a good bit of craic going on and that me wiping out his unit of "clowns" was actually a moment of high jovallity for both of us. Dig...

Plastic Rat
20-05-2008, 10:56
In any case many devs have professed in the past that the 40k/WFB systems (or any of the GW systems) were not meant for full on tournament play. They are not perfectly balanced and if someone wants to aim to win then the system gives them plenty of tools that can make their wish come true with very little actual skill on their part (mostly it is just netlist-'n-go).

Yeah, pretty much where I am. I just struggle to understand the pride some people take in crunching a bunch of numbers so their little plastic soldiers can beat up somebody else's little plastic soldiers.

'Nerfed' armies are simply those that have fewer readily apparent exploitations that can be pulled.

By all means play the game competitively... just don't fool yourself into thinking that you're Garry Kasparov or General Patton.


Dig...
No...

snooggums
20-05-2008, 13:00
wow, you know, instead of attacking me in this abrupt and absurd manner you could have just said i disagree and then provided evidence as to why.

but yea i do have a problem with powergamers. tournaments are a completely different end of the spectrum so leave them out. the game is meant to be fun for BOTH players, not just the one winning. and yea another point of the game is to win, so from your post i am assuming you have to powergame to win, and that... thats just the saddest thing of all.

My currently used army has won 2 out of 10 games, themed Space Marines without min maxing. I don't care that I lose.

My previous and main army is IG. I run a lot of infantry and Tanks. I won maybe 60% of the time and I'm playing the SM instead for variety. I like competition and not knowing I will win the game at deployment.

Just because I like competition doesn't mean I'm WAAC. What you should have gotten from my post was that I don't have fun playing against someone who doesn't try to play the game, they just throw stuff around willy nilly. Generally these players have well painted armies that follows the pre laid out fluff of a specific GW army and they min max themselves yet cry cheese at whatever beats their particular army. I also have to point out the things their armies can do, like special rules for vehicles.

Every list that can be powergamed has a counter, and even the best army does poorly when the player doesn't know how to play that army. The only people I've seen call cheese only call it against the players that beat their army, and these players min max themselves so it's just the cry of a sore loser. And no, I don't play tournaments.

Democratus
20-05-2008, 15:38
yes thats true, but there is no reason why you have to bring bearded armies to the table to make the game competitive. i challenge everyone on this forum to play 2 games, the first being a game where both your army and your opponents army are as dense cheese as possible. The next game, make the most underpowered army as possible. keep in the back of your mind that you want to win with both armies, but then after both games, come back and tell me, which army was most fun and tactically challenging to play with?

We've done this experiment a number of times at my LGS. The game with more powerful lists was far more fun. Every time.

Many people enjoy high level competition. They like to test themselves against the best and most difficult challenges. Environments like this produce very good players. The very competitive environment, I believe, is why 80% of the 'Ard Boyz state finalists came from my home town last year.

x-esiv-4c
20-05-2008, 15:41
Every army can be unbalanced, it's up to the player to design a list with enough fromage in it.

MagrukWikkid
20-05-2008, 15:59
IMO, Wyches are inherently broken. I have no issues with anything else in the game, the rest of the codex usually balances out any inconsistencies in pricing.

But then I play in a friendly group. We run our tournaments and are starting to work out a campaign. Everyone wants to win, but everyone wants an army which is fun to play with or against.

Danny Internet
20-05-2008, 16:06
yes thats true, but there is no reason why you have to bring bearded armies to the table to make the game competitive. i challenge everyone on this forum to play 2 games, the first being a game where both your army and your opponents army are as dense cheese as possible. The next game, make the most underpowered army as possible. keep in the back of your mind that you want to win with both armies, but then after both games, come back and tell me, which army was most fun and tactically challenging to play with?

i myself have done this, and found it was more fun to play with an underpowered army because victory was earned, not given.

Competitive play involves both the metagame and the game itself. Structuring your army is arguably just as important (some say more) as how you use it on the battlefield.

Competitive players don't generally want to bring bad lists to the table because they are purposely taking a handicap and the only way to ensure an even match is by hoping their opponent has voluntarily taken the same handicap. And at the end of the day you wonder if you won/lost because you purposely gimped yourself more/less than your opponent did.

It's much less complicated for people to try their best and all aspects of the game thereby letting their talents (on and off the field) decide the match.

Sir_Turalyon
20-05-2008, 16:07
All armies are or can be cheesy except Kroot Mercanaries who are nerfed. So if GW removed kroot list game would become balanced :angel: .

incarna
20-05-2008, 16:09
I find it odd that Guard, would be considered the most unbalanced army second only to Eldar when dual-lash Chaos sits at the very bottom of this poll.

I also find it odd that the total of all the % comes out to 288.79% instead of 100.

Danny Internet
20-05-2008, 16:10
I also find it odd that the total of all the % comes out to 288.79% instead of 100.

It's because this poll allows you to vote for multiple selections as opposed to only one.

ReveredChaplainDrake
20-05-2008, 16:20
Inquisitorial armies (particularly my poor Daemonhunters) were never thought out very well, and neither were the Necrons. Funny enough, Necs, DHs and WHs were all made roughly around the same time, and all three are about as balanced as my diet. Both DHs and Necrons in particular are so poorly balanced that the only way to win with them is to rock a scissors army (though the fact that Necrons are a very broad rock should not be confused with them being balanced), and where's the fun in that? At least with GKs you get to scream "For the Emperor!" at the top of your lungs and still feel somewhat like a mature adult.

As for brokenness, I would put the new Orks up pretty high. When the Orks came out, the game unilaterally changed, and everybody traded in their Plasma Guns for Flamers, Lascannons for Heavy Bolters, and elite Infantry and HQ upgrades for sheer grunt models. When it once was a good thing to take a healthy amount of anti-MEQ and a healthy amount of anti-horde and anti-tank, Ork lists meanwhile are bowling over even many of the anti-horde lists by taking 120 Boys in a 1500 pt list and other such stupidness. And max-Boys aren't all they do. They can also do all-Kan/Deffdread lists, Speed Freeks, 'Ardwing, and even the "Orkwizishun".

An Ork player with enough green (meaning money) can always bring a tailored list that will win without breaking a sweat, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've only ever heard of Orks losing a game once. And that was to another Ork player.

Lord Cook
20-05-2008, 16:31
I find it odd that Guard, would be considered the most unbalanced army second only to Eldar when dual-lash Chaos sits at the very bottom of this poll.

It's not just talking about unbalanced as in too powerful. It also includes unbalanced as in chronically underpowered, such as Guard. It also says Chaos, not "dual-lash Chaos". Only a very small majority of Chaos players actually use that combo. The army as a whole is very good.


I also find it odd that the total of all the % comes out to 288.79% instead of 100.

Each army has the percentage of people who voted for them. So ~42% of people voted for Guard, and ~49% for Eldar, and so forth. I personally contributed to both those statistics, and I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one.

George Dorn
20-05-2008, 19:01
I'd say that a particular army list is unbalanced if it seems to be, er, broken. If, say, you look at it and think it's a killer, then find that for some reason it tends to pancake usually, rather than come out on top. You know, two Achilles heels but a big club. Therefore, if a Codex tempts you to put together extreme 'broken' lists then it might be considered unbalanced. Especially if you put together a wild list out of a sense of desperation :eek:

At some tounaments in the UK players mark one another on sportsmanship for a few bonus points, and the armies are similarly ranked for WYSIWYG and painting. This the same elsewhere? Anyhow, maybe a system of extra cheese point allocation could be figured out? Little anti-WAAC measures like this are what make WH tournaments stand out from traditional wargame competitions.

Don't get me wrong though - competitions are like elephant enclosures - interesting, but I wouldn't like to have to go to one every day.

Meriwether
20-05-2008, 19:23
I don't think guard are particularly competitive. In fact, a 'good' army of just about any other codex will beat guard just about every time.

Necrons cannot, and I mean cannot, win against a psychic choir nidzilla list (unless the generals are *tremendously* mismatched), but do ok against most others.

DE have a lot of bad units, but their good units are really, really good.

So except for guard, I see a lot of reasonable parity in the game.

Meri

40kdhs
20-05-2008, 19:47
The emphasis of this game is to have fun and GW unfortunately has not made any effort to ensure that we do that when playing any army by doing a good job at playtesting.

The unbalanced army is DH and everybody knows it. As a buyer and player, it has definitely been an unpleasant experience for me because of how poorly this codex was written.

The big 'I' does not stand for Inquisition . It simply stands for 'Incompetence' and 'Incompletion'.

Colonel Fitzgerald
22-05-2008, 13:23
As for brokenness, I would put the new Orks up pretty high. When the Orks came out, the game unilaterally changed, and everybody traded in their Plasma Guns for Flamers, Lascannons for Heavy Bolters, and elite Infantry and HQ upgrades for sheer grunt models. When it once was a good thing to take a healthy amount of anti-MEQ and a healthy amount of anti-horde and anti-tank, Ork lists meanwhile are bowling over even many of the anti-horde lists by taking 120 Boys in a 1500 pt list and other such stupidness. And max-Boys aren't all they do. They can also do all-Kan/Deffdread lists, Speed Freeks, 'Ardwing, and even the "Orkwizishun".

An Ork player with enough green (meaning money) can always bring a tailored list that will win without breaking a sweat, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've only ever heard of Orks losing a game once. And that was to another Ork player.

Whoah - I reckon calling them 'Broken' for being playable is a bit strong. My Orks sucked big time in 3rd ed - they remained sucky until the new codex came out & it became possible, nay, encouraged, to go all Ork's Drift on the opponent. Orks are a horde army - besides being shot to smithereens & burned to a crisp, they to deal with possibly being charged too - a squad of IG may not kill many Orks by screaming 'fix bayonets' & going for it, but what they will do is slow down up to 30 of the blighters at once, buying time for the rest of the platoon to get into position. Just my opinion - I do see what you mean about them being powerful but I think that's because they're supposed to be - put them on the back foot though & they suddenly don't seem so tough. They get great vehicles & all that but so does everyone else:)

Meriwether
22-05-2008, 14:47
I think that the ork codex (and now the daemon codex) is fundamentally changing how people build their armies to play competitively. I see this as a _good_ thing, and not a bad thing.

Meri

Danny Internet
22-05-2008, 15:17
a squad of IG may not kill many Orks by screaming 'fix bayonets' & going for it, but what they will do is slow down up to 30 of the blighters at once, buying time for the rest of the platoon to get into position.

How is a squad of guard going to slow down 30 Orks? They could use loaded dice and the Orks would still roll over them in a round of combat and then get a D6" massacre move on top of the 6" charge.

The_Outsider
22-05-2008, 16:16
I think that the ork codex (and now the daemon codex) is fundamentally changing how people build their armies to play competitively. I see this as a _good_ thing, and not a bad thing.

Meri

It actually represents a fundamental shift in balance for the entire game and changes the usefulness of a ton of units across every army (hell i'd use SC scourges because of orks alone).

I myself voted for DE - they fit into both (overpowered and underpowered). The overpowered stuff however related to what meri said, if this fundamental shift in the metagame didn't happen DE would be stupid as they are built to annihilate marines but the rise of GEQ armies brings them back into line and also shows up the underpowered parts of the list.

Its almost like they've come full circle.

Codsticker
23-05-2008, 04:20
'Nerfed' armies are simply those that have fewer readily apparent exploitations that can be pulled.

I voted IG and Inquisition for this very reason.

Gensuke626
23-05-2008, 04:24
:skull: I voted for all armies are cheese... except for orks. I play orks so there's no cheese about them. I don't own any of the other armies and they can do things I can't so they are obviously cheese. By the way in case it's hard to tell, I'm joking. I am not convinced any army is "cheese". :skull:

to the thread, TL;DR

but in respons to squig, this reminds me of my favorite joke.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Paper is Broken, Please Nerf.
Scissors is balanced.

Love,
Rock.

Thrax
23-05-2008, 05:20
I didn't vote because there was no option for "none of the above."

Draconian77
23-05-2008, 05:50
Orks are very good now. People say they are a horde army and should be able to play like this, etc, etc which is fine but when is it my Tyranids turn to be able to field a horde that can actually achieve something? :cries:

I still don't think Orks are overpowered, I think Termagaunts need to be about 4pts. ;)

Colonel Fitzgerald
23-05-2008, 08:10
How is a squad of guard going to slow down 30 Orks? They could use loaded dice and the Orks would still roll over them in a round of combat and then get a D6" massacre move on top of the 6" charge.

Well they can burn a good few of them to death with the squad flamer firstly - that will help (90% of all my Guard squads have a flamer) then charge the Orks - it sort of depends on model positioning - gouting flames into the Orks can lead to a situation where your IG outnumber them where the fighting actually takes place (most of the time Orks try to spread out to avoid template casualties mounting up) so the IG are now forced to charge two or three Orks instead of 10 of them. In this way they *might* just about get a positive result - as you say though, that's a lot of 'ifs'. I mention it because I've seen that sort of thing happen a lot.:)

Gwedd
23-05-2008, 13:35
Well,


After many years of playing, I have found that there are no unbalanced armies, only unbalanced players.

Respects,

Travman
23-05-2008, 13:39
Clearly any army that defeats mine on the table is unbalanced.

Vaktathi
23-05-2008, 17:36
No army is inherently "broken" at its core, but some definitely have the power to be ridiculous where others may not.

At the bottom of the scale I'd say is the Inquisition armies and Imperial Guard. The Inquisition armies suffer from overcosted extremely elite units and each of them has a glaring lack of a counter to something (DH lacks anti-tank for instance).

Guard suffer from having everything hideously overpriced for what they offer. Just about every unit or upgrade costs more than its worth, sometimes very nearly twice what it should cost, usually in the 50% range. It also suffers from a lack of mobility and lack of being able to properly utilize a mechanized list as anything other than a tank gunline list.




At the other end of the spectrum we have Eldar and Orks. Eldar are here mainly because of the Skimmer rules and their tank upgrades. Orks however are different issue altogether. They can pack in so many bodies that its impossible to stop them. I have a hard time killing a couple squads of 30 boyz before they get stuck in. Trying to kill 180 of them isn't even remotely possible, and they still have plenty of points left over in an 1850 or 2000pt game for upgrades, tons of lootas or bikes, and a decent HQ.

RCgothic
23-05-2008, 17:44
IG nerfed
=I= nerfed even worse.

Orks due to the metagame. An allcomers army is always going to struggle agaisnt something quite so hordy. Unless the army is designed specifically to take on orks it isn't going to do brilliantly.

40kdhs
23-05-2008, 18:28
=I= nerfed even worse.


instead of fixing I so that it can be balance, It's simply forgotten. It's really sad.

Theblackprince
23-05-2008, 20:08
I find it really hard to say that any army is “broken”. There are to many other factors outside of the game that come into effect. First off what kind of game are you playing? A tournament, single in store game, or a game at someone’s home? Then do you know what army they are brining? Do they know what army you are bringing?

Most armies can be beaten by any other army if both players know what they are facing. Ex imperial guard vs imperial guard armored company. If the regular guard player knows what he is facing then he can win by bringing lots of missile launchers and lascannons. However if they meet in a tournament then the regular guard player is doomed. It is these other factors that make a list "unbalanced" or not.

Son of Makuta
23-05-2008, 21:45
I voted IG, Space Marines, Inquisition and Necrons as being unbalanced. Close call on the Eldar, but I decided to avoid it. Reasons being:

- IG: The codex lacks options besides gunlining and a couple of "cheese" builds. Heavy weapons are prohibitively expensive, and the list isn't all that well laid out imo. (I played a guy once who took tons upon tons of heavy/special weapons in individual units - not only was he a jerk, but his first turn took almost an hour as he shot my guys off with tiny little squads and sniper rifles one... by... Chaos-damned... one.)

I personally think Guard should get a bit more in the list build options department, a lot more in the counterassault department, some more tongue-in-cheek sprucing up (like expendability type rules, etc) that also provides some neat in game effects for the army, and generally a smoothing-out of the entire structure of the list. As a Tyranid player I can field literally anything from 192 Spinegaunts (if I owned 192 Spinegaunts...) to Nidzilla and whatever I like in between. I think Guard should get a bit more of this.

- Space Marines: For two reasons. One, they get loads of stuff which is just plain stupid or which other races might deserve as well, like psychic hoods (it wasn't until the 4th ed Eldar codex that another army got a psy-hood equivalent!), assault cannons, Land Raiders (AV14 all round... what?! Not even Titans have AV14 all round!), and so on. Lascannons, plasma cannons, plasma guns and so on are awesome weapons and Marines have them in spades.

This brings me to the second, and the bigger, problem with Marines. They're just BS4 Guard in power armour. In my experience the typical marine army gunlines up in their deployment zone and patiently awaits my gribblies eating their face off. Despite their 3+ saves, their demise comes fleetingly fast. Only when mobile elements are employed, and employed well, can Marines beat (at least my!) Tyranids.

Marines are supposed to be a surgical strike army. They aren't, in the slightest.

- Inquisition: The Inquisition codexes have a plain stupid power gradient. Their cheesily effective and pathetically ineffective lists (and there are numerous examples of both as far as I know) are scattered all over the place. They have loads of stupidly cheesy units (grr, assassins) and fill up much of the rest with markedly underpowered ones. Adding an Inquisitor and an assassin to another Imperial army can immediately up their cheddar factor.

Also: orbital bombardments...
1) wtf?
2) Does not every other army in the galaxy have ships? And better ones than the Imperium at that?... So why is bombardment Inq only?

Generally, the Inquisition need treatment much like the Imperial Guard. I'd personally like a toning down of the anti-such-and-such effect (so why don't my xenos get Ordo Imperialis allies, then?) so that the army isn't automatically rock-paper-scissoring itself - against other armies it's paying the points for useless abilities, and against the army it wants to fight, it's almost a foregone conclusion. The Daemonhunters in particular also need new units and more variety.

- Necrons: Necrons have a lot of cheese potential in their list, the nigh indestructible Monoliths, and a ridiculously complicated We'll Be Back system. They also have a number of nigh-useless or underpowered units. Coupled with a low unit count to begin with, no unit upgrades, and very expensive models, this makes 'Crons a very cookie-cutter army. They can be both boring and frustrating to play against - boring because you've seen 'em before in some way or other, and frustrating depending on how many Destroyers they've taken.

Again, Necrons need more variety and options in their units. Some need more functionality as well. I also personally believe the army needs a firm decision on how they're supposed to play. Are they a phalanx of marching metal warriors, as the fluff has them, or are they darting, teleporting tricksy raiders, as the other fluff has them? I don't see a thematic match between Destroyers and Warriors in the slightest and I think the best way to fix this would be to add another troops choice or two, but that's a matter for another thread (which I will no doubt post in at some point).

- Not Eldar: I should have, really, for the Falcons. But I don't think that, aside from that one particular build, and the one with 60 Guardians, an Avatar and **** loads of Pathfinders, Eldar are cheesy at all. Eldar infantry armies are damn hard to use and balanced forces are reasonably effective. As such only a minor tweak is needed to fix both. 5th ed's skimmer rules will kick the "flying circus" in the nuts neatly, and the Guardian one would likely be eaten for breakfast by, say, Tyranids (what, you have a 12" range? ...lol, prepare not to have a chance to fire), not to mention Orks, Tau most likely, Chaos perhaps and a number of other armies. While having x Pathfinders is quite cheesy, as far as I know the list wouldn't be all that effective.

So, there's my two kilos of biomass. :)

Grubnar
24-05-2008, 01:49
I voted for Craftworld Eldar, their kin the Dark Eldar and their ancient nemesis the Necrons.

I think that the Eldar always have been unbalacend and most likely always will be. It seems to matter not who is the designer behind them, they always go too far...

The Dark Eldar on the other hand have been left so far behind that it is almost impossible to see them from here. The Wytch cult army list is alive and well but the regular warrior list is dead, dead, dead. I honestly do not remember when was the last time I saw an army of those, mush less played against one.

Then there are the Necrons. With only a single HQ choise, and a single Troops choice, and the Uberlith, about 99% of all necron armies I ever see are EXACTLY the same. Now, that does not mean they are unbalanced as such, but they sure could use a little varity in the form of more units (and maybe move some existing units between catagories).

Chaos Space Marines are too new for me to be able to jugde them.
So are Deamons of Chaos (not on the list).
I am also not familier enough with the Tau Empire list.

Space Marines, Tyranids, Orkz and the Imperial Guard are (for the most part) perfectly balanced. I just hope GW will not make the Guard FUBAR in 5th edition.

ReclecteR
24-05-2008, 01:56
First off, I'd like to point out that these whole "which is the cheeziestest OMG lets go run around like chickens with their heads cut off" posts are quite hilarious. I'm not having a go at anyone posting here about such and such army is obviously cheezed out cause I can't beat it, or the OP.

Cause the thing is, a book with a few pages of rules and photos cannot, no matter how you look at it, be cheese. Cheese is something you eat in a sandwich, or on some biscuits from time to time.

Players make lists that people with an army designed to take on the opposite kind of list end up hating, spamming, and crying cheese.

It is a player's problem if they cannot find a fun alternative in friendly games.
Of course each codex is going to have a unit that a certain type of army is going to have trouble with. This unit then borders "cheese" when said army cannot kill it.

For example. Carnifex's are good units. Not "cheesy" by any means though. Now, it is only when people start taking 6 of them that people start to hate them. Of course, if they were fielding a type of list designed to kill carnifex's, the Nid players would shout cheese. If the army was designed to take out gaunts only in shooting, the player of that army would cry cheese.

"Cheese" is such an overused term and, quite frankly, is usually employed only by people who have little imagination. Not everyone, of course, but when people complain about such and such as being cheesy.

I guess I've rambled on for a bit, but my point is: No pages of paper stuck together is edible. Certain armies only become cheezed out when they are a rock to someone's scissors, and that person complains loudly about it.
Rant off.


- Inquisition: The Inquisition codexes have a plain stupid power gradient. Their cheesily effective and pathetically ineffective lists (and there are numerous examples of both as far as I know) are scattered all over the place. They have loads of stupidly cheesy units (grr, assassins) and fill up much of the rest with markedly underpowered ones. Adding an Inquisitor and an assassin to another Imperial army can immediately up their cheddar factor.

Also: orbital bombardments...
1) wtf?
2) Does not every other army in the galaxy have ships? And better ones than the Imperium at that?... So why is bombardment Inq only?


Orbital bombardments are supposed to represent the fluff that Inquisitors will consign whole worlds to doom on the chance they harbour something ill. The point is that not many other armies would resort to such measures, either because they could not kill that many innocents or because they want that world as their own.

If you wouldnt mind, could you elaborate how you feel certain units in the DH codex are unbalanced? I've heard very few such claims, and would like to understant your thinking.

Codsticker
24-05-2008, 04:32
Also: orbital bombardments...
1) wtf?
2) Does not every other army in the galaxy have ships? And better ones than the Imperium at that?... So why is bombardment Inq only?

:)

I try not to think too hard about that otherwise you start to wonder why we even have an assault phase. :eyebrows:

Pink Horror
24-05-2008, 04:40
I guess I've rambled on for a bit, but my point is: No pages of paper stuck together is edible. Certain armies only become cheezed out when they are a rock to someone's scissors, and that person complains loudly about it.
Rant off.

I guess you've never heard of a metaphor, or jargon, or one word having two separate definitions.

When the scissors are a typical army based on fluff, and the rocks are forces with the minimal two troops choices and as many supposed support units as possible, it irritates some people.

ReclecteR
24-05-2008, 04:49
I guess you've never heard of a metaphor, or jargon, or one word having two separate definitions.

:eyebrows: It was meant as a pun, in a bid to lighten the mood. I fear you have just made yourself look pretty foolish by trying to personally attack me.


When the scissors are a typical army based on fluff, and the rocks are forces with the minimal two troops choices and as many supposed support units as possible, it irritates some people.

Most of the time Rock, Paper, Scissors is meant as in how those three forces react to eachother in the game of R,P,S. Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, paper beats rock. In that sense it is taken to mean that a certain army tooled to beat another certain type of army will struggle against an army of the opposite nature. I hope you realise that.

And of course the guy with the power gaming list isnt going to be looked favourably upon in a friendly environment. That has been my point the whole time. It is the player: not the codex.

Vaktathi
24-05-2008, 05:01
That has been my point the whole time. It is the player: not the codex.

That also depends on the armies involved. An all-comers Ork, Tyranid or Eldar list will probably have an advantage on an Imperial Guard or Witchhunters army, just as a balanced Chaos, Tau or Space Marine list will probably have an advantage over a balanced Daemonhunters list.

There are some armies that are simply inherently weaker than others.

Kaldaris
24-05-2008, 05:02
It doesn't help the game balance when the game devs decide to change the direction of the game half-way through updating codices, Commence the codex creep.

Pink Horror
24-05-2008, 05:45
It doesn't help the game balance when the game devs decide to change the direction of the game half-way through updating codices, Commence the codex creep.

It is frustrating that the thought behind some units is that they are very rare and powerful models, so they should have very conservative pricing, like the land raider. But the thought behind other units is that they are meant to be centerpieces, so they should be very powerful and priced to be used often, like the monolith. Balance can be achieved with either design. They just don't generate good feelings when mixed together.

Some army lists are filled with entries that practically scream out, "Load up on me! I'll win you the game!" Usually they have weapons that can kill anything, or invulnerability to many different forms of attack, on top of point costs that appear cheap, not only in their own lists, but when compared to other forces. These are the problems. The list with the most of these things, Eldar, bothers many people because of this. The list with none except maybe the Leman Russ, and which presents you with the opposite problem of being forced to take many models which appear overpriced, also generates complaints. This doesn't surprise me.

How do you measure the power of a whole codex, especially a flexible one like Eldar? Should someone choosing an entire guardsman army, with one HQ, be allowed to expect a fair fight against an entire army of marines or shootas or gaunts? The people fielding bike armies and mechanized armies and assault armies and gunlines all seem to demand this right.

Should rock-paper-scissors exist at the army scale? Is that something we have to accept? Should we have to choose between a gun that's good against Orks and a gun that's good against Necrons? If I went entirely with the anti-Ork guns, do my Ork opponents have a legitimate complaint? Can I then moan when I face Necrons? If the Deathwing is always going to have trouble beating the Flying Circus (I personally have never played with or against the Deathwing, so this is only a hypothetical), is that a terrible balance error or a feature?

I don't think there's even a majority opinion of what a balanced game should look like. We all know there should be more variety than chess. Most want no codices to have an advantage against, say, more than half of all the other ones. Besides that, I'm not sure what the community is asking for. I can't blame GW for not knowing, and it's understandable that they sometimes seem confused.

KrisPicman
24-05-2008, 06:20
I voted Dark Eldar because they can be a very cool army but I will die of old age before that idea ever takes shape...

I voted Eldar because I plain out just dont like them.
I think the Wraith Lord looks like half annorexic fashion model half 2nd rate alien garbage. It just should'nt be able to do 75% of what is capable of.

big squig
24-05-2008, 06:31
So far, as long as you play a proper mission and with proper terrain, I have seen no cheesy armies.

That's not to say things like falcons don't need a nerfing, but really the falcon that's causing trouble, not the codex it's self.

I guess you could argue that nidzilla is too powerful.

ReclecteR
24-05-2008, 06:39
Well, after unfortunately receiving an inflammatory private message from Pink Horror, I just want to clarify.
Yes, some codex's have more obvious ways to load up on powerful units, and some codex's are obviously more difficult to utilise well. However, the unbalanced form of the game ultimately results from the player or list-builder.

Again, thats not to say that every codex has the same formula for doing well. We would all hate to see that happen.

Pink Horror
24-05-2008, 07:25
That's not to say things like falcons don't need a nerfing, but really the falcon that's causing trouble, not the codex it's self.

How many units that need nerfing does a codex need, before the codex is causing trouble?

Hicks
24-05-2008, 07:40
It's been said countless times before, but IG and Daemon Hunters are too weak at the moment. Inversely, the Eldar list is too easy to abuse. The Tau are not far behind, but at least they are weaker against certain armies.

Ouroboros
24-05-2008, 10:43
IG: Old codex has been left looking a little obsolete of late. Even when new however it still included a lot of garbage units, a lot of garbage upgrades and a lot of overcosted options.

Marines: Some potential for abusive lists if you get a little too fond of the assault cannon and certain special characters but hardly the best choice for a real powergamer. Sheer prevalance means just about everyone you face will already be pretooled to kill you.

Chaos: Boring as generic marines with spikey helmets but not nearly as absusable as it was before. Pity the balance had to come at the cost of virtually every last drop of flavour in the book though.

Tau: I'm told they can be potentially cheap but I've never seen it myself. Even then the tales of their cheapness seem to come down to "they used vehicles and mobility on me!". Well balanced army from what I've seen.

Eldar: The current powergamer's army of choice. Overpowered vehicle upgrades ensure you can mount almost your entire force in virtually invincible transports. Remember when the new transport rules came out and people were complaining Eldar were going to get the shaft?

Orks: I've had very limited experience with their new book so I can't comment on them right now.

Nids: "Godzilla" list probably the runner up for the cheese crown currently held by mech Eldar. You probably won't see it too often anymore though because most of the people who'd actually run it probably have their new mechanized Eldar armies finished by now.

=I=: WH is a more effective list than DH which is a pretty hard one to win games with. WH army effectivness is also directly tied to table size. On a large table they'll tend to struggle, but on a small one they can rapidly transform into one of the more formidable armies in the game.

Dark Eldar: VERY old book leaves a lot wanting but still surprisingly effective for a codex written in the late 90s. Half the book is absolute garbage and a few units are probably a little bit too good for what they typically cost. The net result is a pretty good balance, if somewhat limited options.

Necrons: A balanced if somewhat boring list. They can seem a bit overpowered against certain armies, those being ones that don't have any armour penetration rules a monolith can't just ignore, but in general I wouldn't consider them particualrly broken or particularly weak.

xXxFMGUYxXx
24-05-2008, 15:56
well in theroy couldnt any army be imbalanced in the right hands or wrong hands.

W0lf
24-05-2008, 23:35
Eldar, Tau and Ork dominate the tournament scene. Theres my vote.

Draconian77
25-05-2008, 00:03
Tau? Tau?!

Are you kidding me? They may be doing well on the touny scene but cheesy they are not! For one thing this is one of the few 40k armies where the units actually do get pinned and flee!

big squig
25-05-2008, 04:03
How many units that need nerfing does a codex need, before the codex is causing trouble?
In the eldar's case, none. 5th ed is fixing it.

I guess one is all it takes, but I still haven't found myself upset with the game, my opponent, or a codex. I still have yet to find myself in a truly unfair game that is played with a proper mission and proper terrain.

Now games that are played with too little terrain and are nothing more than 'get the most VP' are never ever fair.

Thrax
25-05-2008, 05:25
"Cheese" is such an overused term and, quite frankly, is usually employed only by people who have little imagination. Not everyone, of course, but when people complain about such and such as being cheesy. ~ ReclecteR

I couldn't agree more.

Spectral Dragon
25-05-2008, 07:35
I vote that the army that hasn't had a codex update the longest is the most nerfed.

Fear is the mind killer
25-05-2008, 15:43
Dark Eldar, Daemonhunters and Necrons are all too weak now. Dark Eldar have too many pants units like scourges, DH need an update in light of the daemons codex, and Necrons need Gauss to be replaced by rending or to have some way of damaging MEQ armies.

bassmasterliam
25-05-2008, 16:06
every army is cheeseable, but at least IG has a reason, we only have one good tactic.

The_Outsider
25-05-2008, 16:45
Dark Eldar, Daemonhunters and Necrons are all too weak now. Dark Eldar have too many pants units like scourges, DH need an update in light of the daemons codex, and Necrons need Gauss to be replaced by rending or to have some way of damaging MEQ armies.

DE and necrons are hardly weak, underpowered in a few areas perhaps, but certainly not weak.

Vaktathi
25-05-2008, 19:07
and Necrons need Gauss to be replaced by rending or to have some way of damaging MEQ armies.

The last two times I fought a Necron army, I lost most of my Chaos Marines by turn three without any AP2 fire directed at them. Immortals and Destroyers forcing 8 or 9 saves each time they fire will see them gone very quickly. Necrons DO NOT need Rending. While they do need some spicing up and a couple units changed, they have no problems defeating marines, forcing wounding 9 times with AP4 weapons against marines or wounding 3 times with an AP2 shot will give you the same average number of casualties. Necrons do the former very well, and they get back up, they don't need the latter.

Fear is the mind killer
25-05-2008, 21:19
DE and necrons are hardly weak, underpowered in a few areas perhaps, but certainly not weak.

I was referring to their codexes, not to the armies themselves.

I've never fought Necrons before, but what I've heard from veteran necron players is that they suffer from lack of anti-heavy infantry firepower and that the Troops choices are lame duck units when facing such armies. I have no idea how good or bad they are, and just assumed that the veteran was right.

SirSnipes
26-05-2008, 03:36
ANYTHING STILL IN 3RD EDITION ESPECIALLY CRONS WE NEED MORE CHOICES MAN
lol i felt like caps
but impy guard are too

Codsticker
26-05-2008, 05:39
Necrons DO NOT need Rending. While they do need some spicing up and a couple units changed, they have no problems defeating marines, forcing wounding 9 times with AP4 weapons against marines or wounding 3 times with an AP2 shot will give you the same average number of casualties. Necrons do the former very well, and they get back up, they don't need the latter.

When I was using Necrons on a regular basis I found them to be quite capable of defeating MEQ's and just devestating against IG and Tau. They could, on occasion, have a hard time against fast ork armies and 'Nids.

Lord Damocles
26-05-2008, 11:43
ANYTHING STILL IN 3RD EDITION ESPECIALLY CRONS WE NEED MORE CHOICES MAN

More choices, a better codex does not make. /Yoda mode off

The Necron list is more or less fine as is - give Pariahs a bump up, add Obelisks and your pretty much there - Codex Necrons is one of the most balanced codexes GW has ever made.

chrisc86
26-05-2008, 16:12
I wish i could understand why marines are cheesed. It just kills me. I have no idea.

I just have to add that i think necrons are the Provolone of the armies. Mostly because all there normal warriors chew up tanks like its no big deal and the monolith is ******* crazy(too cheap mostly).

AmBlam
26-05-2008, 22:03
Translated from above: "I can't build an army that can potentially win. I only play other crappy players and dislike anyone who spends more time on how to win a game as opposed to painting which is the most important part of this hobby and if you win a game you are a WAAC player obviously."

Sometimes things get Lost In Translation :cries:

Adam40kPlayer
26-05-2008, 22:24
An unbalanced army to me is anything unfluffy.

these include Space marine armies with lots of tanks and heavy/speacial weapons. seen as space marines are meant to be small elite forces that rely on surgical strikes with alot of finite arcane equipment it baffles me to why they would take lascannons and the like on a simple misson?

Shooty nid armys. Why would nids shoot?

Stuff like that to me creates an unbalanced army. As for people creating an all puropose army of doom that can destroy everything I for one think that good tactics and the right choices will still be able to come through.

Spell_of_Destruction
26-05-2008, 22:40
I'd say Necrons, not because they are overpowered (quite the opposite against some opponents) but because some armies will struggle hard against them if they've not tooled to face them.

As an Eldar player, I know that if I'm facing a monolith I'd better have taken something other than brightlances for anti-armour (rarely used choices such as wraithguard work very well). Otherwise I might as well just ignore it and focus on killing as many necrons as possible in attempt to make them phase out.

Doomseer
26-05-2008, 23:39
I think 5th edition will be the leveler. It's true some of the older codexes suffer in some way or another right now and we all know which ones and why, but some of the most recent books are currently seen as overpowered because they were clearly written for 5th edition.
With a lot of patience from us and if GW can finally settle on the upcoming rule set, (which is probably unlikely!), eventually all the armies will catch up, balance will be restored and we'll all look back and laugh.

Personally, I can't wait to see the back of the infiltrating devastator marine lists! ANY other list is fine with me!

Snapchuck
26-05-2008, 23:49
I voted for IG and Necrons - need more flexibility in the troops choices please.

Kaldaris
26-05-2008, 23:49
Out of curiosity, does anyone else think the 5th Ed codices are pretty balanced amongst each other? If we ignore the books that weren't developed with 5th in mind(anything before the DA dex) It seems to me that new codices have reached a far better level of balance than any of the previous editions.

The_Outsider
27-05-2008, 00:57
Out of curiosity, does anyone else think the 5th Ed codices are pretty balanced amongst each other? If we ignore the books that weren't developed with 5th in mind(anything before the DA dex) It seems to me that new codices have reached a far better level of balance than any of the previous editions.

I agree to this.

Hence the rift we have now - all armies are equal, just some are more equal than others.

Arandmoor
27-05-2008, 01:20
More choices, a better codex does not make. /Yoda mode off

The Necron list is more or less fine as is - give Pariahs a bump up, add Obelisks and your pretty much there - Codex Necrons is one of the most balanced codexes GW has ever made.

ANY codex would be easy to balance if it had 11 unit choices and no options.

...'cause, you know, when there's no flavor to get in the way of balance...

As a Necron player, I would much rather have a more "unbalanced" (as you put it) codex than the ungodly bland thing I have to work with.

I fall asleep just looking at my army and that's not right.

Pink Horror
27-05-2008, 02:29
...'cause, you know, when there's no flavor to get in the way of balance...

When you chose Necrons, didn't you realize that they are the force that is meant to have absolutely no personality? That's their shtick. They are surely meant, by design, to be dull and aggravating to play against.

Of course, I have to wonder why the designers actually thought that it was a good idea to design such a monster. Sure, some people, a minority of gamers, like controlling such atrocities, but they annoy so many other players. At least they're beatable.

Doomseer
27-05-2008, 11:27
Out of curiosity, does anyone else think the 5th Ed codices are pretty balanced amongst each other? If we ignore the books that weren't developed with 5th in mind(anything before the DA dex) It seems to me that new codices have reached a far better level of balance than any of the previous editions.

I agree but I also think the Tyranid and Tau books offer a good balance, but then they are quite recent themselves. The Blood Angels pamphlet does make me question the consistency of future books though.

Brucopeloso
27-05-2008, 16:18
Inquisition is almost unplayable but out the main armies IG get shafted a little more then everyone else.

Unplayable?
I play DH allied to guard and they are hard!
Guard firepower with DH countercharge ability is yummy.

I currenty play Eldar, CSM, Marines and DH+IG and the latter is not doing any worse than the others.

In my opinion DE need a revamp as they can be quite unbalanced (a bit too hard)

Codsticker
27-05-2008, 16:41
I think he was speaking in terms of competitiveness, which is of course, relative to your gaming group. In my gaming group both DH and IG have a bit of a hard time as we have a couple of players that like to build quite hard armies.

Arandmoor
27-05-2008, 17:16
When you chose Necrons, didn't you realize that they are the force that is meant to have absolutely no personality? That's their shtick. They are surely meant, by design, to be dull and aggravating to play against.

Of course, I have to wonder why the designers actually thought that it was a good idea to design such a monster. Sure, some people, a minority of gamers, like controlling such atrocities, but they annoy so many other players. At least they're beatable.

When I chose Necrons I had taken a good look at the cover, read some of the background in the codex, and managed to stuff a plastic wrapped 40k rulebook under my arm from the new release rack.

I had seen a few turns from a few games played, and that was it.

So no. There is no way in hell I could have had an idea. All I knew was that they had better background fluff than the rest of the 40K armies put together.