PDA

View Full Version : 40k balance issues



Ixe
11-04-2009, 18:40
I've been feeling quite a bit of angst over 40k balance issues lately. I was happy when the WHFB team took over 40k and started fixing codices up -- I like how each unit has set options with its own points cost, instead of everything costing the same no matter who has it and how powerful it is in their hands. They've also shifted to providing more fluff and more pictures, and overall making a better product.

It also seems, however, that they've committed themselves to the same destructive cycle that happens in WHFB, that the newest army is always the most powerful. I thought they were toning things down at first, because Chaos got a huge nerf, followed by a relatively balanced Chaos Daemons book. But then we got Orks, with everything (except maybe flash gitz and a few other horrible choices) totally undercosted by about 1/3. The new Marines aren't nearly as bad, but they're head and shoulders above the non-updated codices at this point.

I have two armies, Eldar and Sisters of Battle. Neither are bad armies, but neither can hold a candle to the kind of stuff that they're releasing in the new books. It feels like, if I don't jump on a new army bandwagon, I'll be left behind. This is something that I've never felt in the past. Throughout 3rd and 4th, I was able to pick an army that I liked and do well with it. But now, it seems like they're committed to the Fantasy business model of selling minis by making them better than all the other minis. What attracted me to wargaming in the first place was the idea that, unlike a CCG, the person who spends the most is not always the victor. It's about tactical list construction, not about dropping cash on the newest, most epic collectibles. But with the way things are going, 40k seems to look more and more like a CCG to me. I have to spend constantly, or get left in the cold by the cycle of continually newer and more uber codices.

Now, I'm not trying to troll. I'm not one of those people who hates Games Workshop for being a business and trying to make money. Nor am I a secret agent for Privateer or Mongoose or some other podunk minigame company. I'm just worried about where 40k is going, and it's starting to make me lose interest in the game, and I'm wondering if anyone else sees the same problems.

Imperius
11-04-2009, 18:47
Balance and pricing.

10 Space Marines: 40 CAD
20 Imperial Guardsmen: 40CAD
10 Imperial Guardsmen: 50 CAD????

They charge us premium price for a usually not premium product.


Now to your actual issue...


Games-Workshop is a business. riginally the founders actually cared about the game and wanted a balance but the BUSINESS wants to make more money so they make army bandwagons the best thing to do if you want to win.

invinciblebug
11-04-2009, 21:06
Eldar is often considered the second most powerful list.

That said I have to say that 40k feels far more balanced than Fantasy, there are no real ultra armies like DoC, VC and HE and no real underdogs like OnG and OK and the upcoming IG 'dex seems pretty balanced.

Kalec
11-04-2009, 21:08
You are way off OP.

Chaos Daemons balanced? Sisters of Battle and Eldar are weak? Space Marines overpowered?

Come back when you know what you are talking about.

Ixe
11-04-2009, 21:13
Eldar is often considered the second most powerful list.

I don't agree with this at all, I've never heard anyone suppose that Eldar are the second most powerful on the forums or IRL.



That said I have to say that 40k feels far more balanced than Fantasy, there are no real ultra armies like DoC, VC and HE and no real underdogs like OnG and OK and the upcoming IG 'dex seems pretty balanced.

I'll agree with you there, it's definitely not as bad as fantasy. What I'm worried about is whether it's heading in that direction. Each new codex is starting to seem better than the last, and I wonder if we will eventually see tournaments made up of nothing but ultra armies. And for the record, there probably is one ultra army currently in existence -- the biker nobz list, which generally can't be defeated unless you customize against it.

SPYDER68
11-04-2009, 21:19
40k's balance blows the balance of Fantasy out of the water. herohammer ftl...


If played correctly.. Every army can win..

For example..

I saw a daemonhunter player in a 1250 tourney take first place.. He played some good games.

I play a Balanced IG list..

1/3 Tanks
1/3 Infantry
1/3 specialty units

That is what i go for.

And i have no problems with nob biker armies or seer jetbike lists or 180 ork swarms.

it all comes down to.. Do you play an all comer list ?

Or do you spam as much ap 1-2-3 as you can to deal with marines.. then go vs a swarm and get destroyed..

invinciblebug
11-04-2009, 21:34
I'll agree with you there, it's definitely not as bad as fantasy. What I'm worried about is whether it's heading in that direction. Each new codex is starting to seem better than the last, and I wonder if we will eventually see tournaments made up of nothing but ultra armies. And for the record, there probably is one ultra army currently in existence -- the biker nobz list, which generally can't be defeated unless you customize against it.

I don't see why this would be happening, Sure orks were pretty powerful but before that there was no really OPed lists and since then C:SM has come which was balanced and the incoming IG 'dex also seems very balanced.

Tsear
11-04-2009, 21:47
You are way off OP.

Chaos Daemons balanced? Sisters of Battle and Eldar are weak? Space Marines overpowered?

Come back when you know what you are talking about.

This. I'm not sure about SoB, but Eldar are great and SM are fine.

Vaktathi
11-04-2009, 22:00
I don't see how anyone could claim Eldar are undepowered. They aren't the ridiculous invincible skimmers of 4th ed true, but they still can hold their own against just about anything. I've had no problems taking on opposing armies with my Eldar. They have some crappy units, but they also have very good ones too.


As to overall game balance, 40k is a mess, can't deny that. Daemonhunters need an act of god to pull a win against a solid CSM list, Orks will dominate Horde tyranids, etc...

Codex's consistently have clear "take" and "do not take" units and options, etc...

AmBlam
11-04-2009, 22:04
I don't agree with this at all, I've never heard anyone suppose that Eldar are the second most powerful on the forums or IRL.

Eldar are the 2nd most powerful army.

The_Outsider
11-04-2009, 22:11
SoB are probably the most powerful force in the game right now - especially with guard being the next big thing SoB just got stronger (though being rather underplayed few people realise this)

All said and done 40k is reasonably balanced, inbalances tend to be specific units or specific builds rather than the whole army being either overpowered or underpowered - despite what warseer might claim there are very, very few matchups (assuming we aren't talking the silly armies like pure gretchin) where one force will curbstomp the other without massive luck involved.

Fixer
11-04-2009, 22:18
Cannot take more than 4 seer council warlocks on jetbikes.
Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.
Lash of Submission effect changed to halving enemy WS, BS, I and movement speed (rounding down)
Carnifex cannot be taken as an elites choice.
Lots of cleaning up the mess with the Killpoints given for units (Tau drones attached to vehicles not worth Killpoints, enemy units turned into spawn not worth killpoints, spore mines not worth killpoints)

Game suddenly much more balanced :)

invinciblebug
11-04-2009, 22:31
Cannot take more than 4 seer council warlocks on jetbikes.
Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.
Lash of Submission effect changed to halving enemy WS, BS, I and movement speed (rounding down)
Carnifex cannot be taken as an elites choice.
Lots of cleaning up the mess with the Killpoints given for units (Tau drones attached to vehicles not worth Killpoints, enemy units turned into spawn not worth killpoints, spore mines not worth killpoints)

Game suddenly much more balanced :)

QFT

Those changes and there wouldn't be a single thing in 40k worth complaining about, unless you're a whiner or rules lawyer that is ;).
Maybe make Lootas and ork boys a few points more expensive too (I even play orks!).

Ser_Spazz
11-04-2009, 22:51
Honestly, it's not about over powered army lists. It's about pre knowledge on how the hell your going to use your own army, and like it was mentioned above, "did you bring an all comers list or not". I play a balanced force with SM and though I struggle against damn near every army I play against, I also tend to end games on at worst a very close loss. Thought it's not a win big or lose big list, it's definitely fun not losing to horde lists and at least being able to hold my own, or facing an elitist Grey Knight force with 2 LR's and a ton of terms and still forcing him to within 1 kill point.

It's all about balance. The new IG dex looks like a lot of fun, but guess what, even though its got a damned butt load of new shiny toys, who cares, it's a business thing, and though Vendettas seem to be a grossly undercosted tri TLLC platform, theyre easy enough to destroy or silence. Each new army that comes out isn't broken, people just haven't figured out how to beat the shiny new toys that are in it yet.

The Spaz

Akuma
11-04-2009, 22:56
Cannot take more than 4 seer council warlocks on jetbikes.
Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.
Lash of Submission effect changed to halving enemy WS, BS, I and movement speed (rounding down)
Carnifex cannot be taken as an elites choice.
Lots of cleaning up the mess with the Killpoints given for units (Tau drones attached to vehicles not worth Killpoints, enemy units turned into spawn not worth killpoints, spore mines not worth killpoints)

Game suddenly much more balanced :)

GW - just buy this guy :D - that are easly the most perfect solutions to the game problems - simple an easy :D

BTW for the new codex Ig I would impose 3 Max Valks. As there will be lods of 6 Valks rock paper scissors lists :)

Rirekon
11-04-2009, 23:11
How do you fix all that is wrong with WH40k?
Start again from scratch.

All the problems with WH40k are inherited from the legacy that it's built over 5 editions. Each revision of the rule set has to work with the previous one in various ways because not all the armies will be rewritten at the same time.

R Man
12-04-2009, 00:08
I actually think that 40k is the more balanced game at the moment. This might be because there are a few options that you have inbuilt into most units. If you're getting pounded you can go to ground. Need to redeploy? You can run. Forgot the lascannon? You could always try rushing that vehicle. Cover is also a milligating factor. Also due to the ranges of weapons and deep strike options you can usually get what you need where you need it. And even powerful troops need ordinary soldiers to help them, which keeps the stupidity down. Of course out of date armies are at a disadvantage.

Fantasy has less of this. Granted, for the most part it works well and the last few books were pretty good but there are some problems. Namely they haven't stuck to a consistent overriding principle and some basic bad descisions. There is more to it than this obviously but it can be hard to really get a good picture of the games as a whole.

the1stpip
12-04-2009, 00:14
Well no, cos 3rd was a comp-lete re-write, with all new codices, as was 2nd ed.

Indeed, 40k is pretty much balanced. Space Marines are not over powered, Chaos Daemons are not so bad once you ar used to how thy play, and Sisters are awesome, the only thing stopping me owning an army is getting a mortgage to buy them!

Giganthrax
12-04-2009, 00:31
You are way off OP.

Chaos Daemons balanced? Sisters of Battle and Eldar are weak? Space Marines overpowered?

Come back when you know what you are talking about.
This.

Eldar are at least as powerful as SM, if not more so.

freddieyu
12-04-2009, 00:43
I also have eldar and sisters, and they are still very competitive. The ork list is not the newest, and it is very powerful. 40k balance is there in terms of gameplay, but in terms of army types played meqs still dominate, which is ever so slowly changing..

Nym
12-04-2009, 00:51
I don't agree with this at all, I've never heard anyone suppose that Eldar are the second most powerful on the forums or IRL.

That's probably sarcasm I failed to detect... because some 4 threads under this one, there is this thread (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192880), in which several people said that "Orks and Eldar are the two current power armies." and "they knew orks, deamons and eldars were powerful armies".

You'll also find a nice UK GT chart with Eldars ranked 2nd.

Creeping Dementia
12-04-2009, 01:03
Lol, its amazing how many "most" powerful or "second most" powerful armies there are ;).

I personally don't think the balance issues are bad at all. There are a couple armys that generally are fighting an uphill battle, and a couple that have a slight advantage. HOWEVER, a good player will always (or nearly always) beat an average or poor player.

I play Tau and am starting up a Sisters army. Tau aren't exactly top tier, but I can hold my own against everyone in my area, though I may be the only player out there that still has trouble with Necrons. The balance issues really just aren't there, at least not for me.

I'm just thankful I'm not playing Fantasy anymore, I have no idea how the developers let balance get so screwed up over there. It's totally laughable.

mattschuur
12-04-2009, 01:24
I love hearing how Orks are undercosted. Do you people remember when they were 9 points each? I played them in that edition and they were horribly overpriced. And yet there were still people complaining about the choppa rule, even after they beat the tar out of me. I play orks and against orks and have yet to lose to them and i have lost with them. It simply takes a different tactic other than standing in front of them and shooting. If you do that you lose badly. If you castle your army and then hit them with counter-attacks you can win.

Now on topic, i don't think 40k is really all that unbalanced. Orks and Eldar are strong, not overpowering. Space Marines, Daemons, the New IG and Chaos marines are well balanced. The other armies are still competitive. That's the difference between fantasy and 40k. In 40k a 10+ year old book like DE is still competitive against everyone else. That isn't the case in fantasy where if you take Ogres you might have a chance against other weak books but really be hammered if you play newer armies.

As far as overpowering builds, they are rarer now than they have been and usually consist of a small number of units or a single unit. Anybody remember the Daemon bomb? That was a broken "list", not a unit. Or how about Blood Angel rhino rush? Or Eldar falcon spam? None of these exist at their past power level any more. That's the similarity with fantasy, Deathstar units. Nob Bikers are 40k's version of a Vampire on winged nightmare with dreadlance and Red Fury. The cheesy stuff is units not armies and i'd rather have it that way. One quick way to diminish spamming broken units is to bring back the 0-1 restrictions. Personally i believe Daemon Princes should be 0-1 and Nobs as troops should be 0-1.

matt schuur

Occulto
12-04-2009, 01:35
Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.

Instead of that, I'd prefer to see:

"Yoo made it worze!" - if a FNP roll is failed, then the model is removed automatically as a casualty - regardless of any remaining wounds.

Wouldn't change FNP for single wound models, but would make players think twice about sticking a painboy in their nob unit.

Plus it's incredibly Orky in my opinion.

AmBlam
12-04-2009, 01:48
SoB are probably the most powerful force in the game right now - especially with guard being the next big thing SoB just got stronger (though being rather underplayed few people realise this)

All said and done 40k is reasonably balanced, inbalances tend to be specific units or specific builds rather than the whole army being either overpowered or underpowered - despite what warseer might claim there are very, very few matchups (assuming we aren't talking the silly armies like pure gretchin) where one force will curbstomp the other without massive luck involved.

It really depends what is being fielded within the list. I could easily come up with some unwinable matchups.

SOB Most powerful? 0_o

lol at post above ^^ good idea

onlainari
12-04-2009, 05:06
Wow the first post of this thread is terrible. It's sooooo wrong.

Currently 40k has no broken armies. The last broken army was chaos iron warriors. We are in a good period. Orks CSM Daemons and Eldar are more powerful than the rest, that's true, but relatively to the past it's not that bad.

Ixe
12-04-2009, 05:21
That's probably sarcasm I failed to detect... because some 4 threads under this one, there is this thread (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192880), in which several people said that "Orks and Eldar are the two current power armies." and "they knew orks, deamons and eldars were powerful armies".

You'll also find a nice UK GT chart with Eldars ranked 2nd.

You might notice I said "I've never heard," not "nobody has ever said." Obviously, other people have different perceptions.

Anyway, my original post isn't saying that 40k is a broken game. It's just that I'm seeing signs of each new army starting to be better than the last. 5th ed started strong, with important nerfs to Chaos that were badly needed. But it seems to be snowballing into stepping up the power level of the whole game with each new release. I'm not concerned that it's already broken like Fantasy is, I'm just concerned that it appears to be headed in that direction. Lots of people are telling me it's not currently broken, and I agree with that, it's still pretty balanced (except biker nobz). I just sincerely hope that the current developers check themselves before they end up creating the same problems in 40k that they have created for Fantasy.

Blackmoor
12-04-2009, 08:42
Demons are thought to be overpowered in the US, and Eldar are thought to be overpowered in the UK.

The funny thing is that they are both right. Eldar are tough because of Seer Councils being impossible to kill, and that makes them deadly in assault. Demons are powerful because of one thing…Bloodcrushers. They get to abuse 5th edition’s wound allocation rules like Nob bikers do, and they are very hard to kill.



Cannot take more than 4 seer council warlocks on jetbikes.
Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.
Lash of Submission effect changed to halving enemy WS, BS, I and movement speed (rounding down)
Carnifex cannot be taken as an elites choice.
Lots of cleaning up the mess with the Killpoints given for units (Tau drones attached to vehicles not worth Killpoints, enemy units turned into spawn not worth killpoints, spore mines not worth killpoints)

Game suddenly much more balanced :)

Add Bloodcrushers to the list, and you are dead on.

40k's armies on the whole are very well balanced. The problem is that there are a handful of units that are way overpowered, and wildly unbalance the game.

Funny thing is that most of them were OK in 4th edition, but 5th edition made them nearly unstoppable with either wound allocation rules or through combat resolution.

RichBlake
12-04-2009, 09:22
I don't agree with this at all, I've never heard anyone suppose that Eldar are the second most powerful on the forums or IRL.


Honestly, Eldar are an awesome army.

Sisters are also one of the best armies going, for 11 points you get a Guardsman with +1 to BS and Ld, a boltgun, power armour, a 5+ save against psychic powers and Faith Points. That's a bloody good deal.

Also old does not neccssarily mean the worst: Daemons, Sisters and Nids are easily in the top end of the spectrum, alongside Orks, Eldar, New IG and Marines.


You might notice I said "I've never heard," not "nobody has ever said." Obviously, other people have different perceptions.


To be fair Eldar being good is a pretty common opinion. I'm surprised you haven't heard it before.



Anyway, my original post isn't saying that 40k is a broken game. It's just that I'm seeing signs of each new army starting to be better than the last.... But it seems to be snowballing into stepping up the power level of the whole game with each new release....I just sincerely hope that the current developers check themselves before they end up creating the same problems in 40k that they have created for Fantasy.

Hmm I don't know, I think SM, Eldar and Orks will still be better the New Imperial Guard. I played a game with them the other day and overall I felt my army was better but not better then Orks, Eldar or SM.

Generally it seems to be a certain build in every codex that slaps the rest of good designing in the face. For example:

Nob Bikers messing with wound allocation.
Thunderhammer/Stormshield Terminators having a 3+ Invulnerable
Valkyrie being the perfect cost yet the Vendetta costs only 30 points more but a much better load out with no side effects (Valkyrie has 2 one shot battlecannon blasts and a lascannon/multilaser. Vendetta has 3 twin-linked lascannons).
Double Lash with CSM (Note how the Chaos Daemons "Lash" is ten times better. Shorter range and the squad can only be lashed once)

Overall the Ork, SM, IG and CSM codexes are good and balanced (though the CSM is bland), however certain builds are overpowered, usually ones that even seem half thought through ("Hey no-one takes thunderhammers and stormshields, so lets give them a 3+ invulernable instead of a 4+ invulnerable against CC attacks!"*) which is a shame.

*Note: This is paraphrasing the designer's reasoning... sigh

freddieyu
12-04-2009, 09:47
No such thing as unstoppable in 40k, and yes I hope that 40k won't be be heading to be imbalanced like in fantasy...

And yes, relative to before, 40k play is more even stevens than ever....

In a recent tourney, my IG fought a daemon army...the blood crushers scattered about 11 or 12 onto my infantry, and he promtply rolled a 1 for mishap effect,..bye bye 5 model bloodcrushers...must have been tzeentch's fault...sufficient to say I won via wipeout by turn 3...so always remember the dice gods are fickle..meaning nothing is unstoppable!

Fixer
12-04-2009, 10:03
In a game based around probability nothing is unstoppable, but a lot of things are nearly unstoppable.

The problem with things like Nob bikers and Seer Councils is that you usually only have a chance of beating them with perhaps one specialist unit in your army, if you fail to counter it (and unless your opponent is a complete *****) you lose the game. It makes it a one dimensional predictable and boring match.

They you have some armies which just cannot hope to counter them at all. Tau are effectively screwed against Nob bikers due to a lack of numbers in str8+ long range weapons.

Using the anecdote of how a unit lost once to unlikely dice rolls doesn't really make a unit balanced. Though I can't personally say with any certainty that Blood Crushers are that powerful anyway, I havn't faced daemons enough to make an informed comment.

The_Outsider
12-04-2009, 12:26
SOB Most powerful? 0_o



Bolters anf flamers murder hordes, the melta and faith rending will take a good chunk out of marines. SoB typically run mechanised so lash isn't much of a problem, even when they do get lashed they get a save against it.

SoB also rely heavily upon their toops, so you will see lots of scoring units, in KP they come out at about 10 ish at 1500, the excorcist is one of the best tank killers in the game. Their HQ's can be turned into archons and that much power armour (even at T3) doesn't die in a hurry.

SoB have a hard counter to anything you can put on the board and you can take it all at 1500.

Steel Legion for Life
12-04-2009, 15:12
"Valkyrie being the perfect cost yet the Vendetta costs only 30 points more but a much better load out with no side effects (Valkyrie has 2 one shot battlecannon blasts and a lascannon/multilaser. Vendetta has 3 twin-linked lascannons)." - Quote from above.

Tbh, depends who you play against. If you run up against horde armies all the time (e.g 180 orks, all infantry guard), the valkyrie is the better option.

I think the reason Orks seem so over-powered, is that most 40k players are still stuck in the "Must ignore marine saves on all units" or "must be able to take a monstrous creature in a single turn" paradigm of army building.

With Ork & Guard hordes being viable, people have to think "how would I deal with a horde army" - for example, the old SM 6 Lasplas Razorback mounting 6 Lasplas 5 man tactical armies which dominated in 2001-2002 would struggle now; and they themselves were an answer to rhino rush.

Making people think about their army selection to counter certain lists encourages balanced armies, and that's probably a good thing.

PS:- /agree with outsider, yeah Sisters are an awesome list, and on top of that, they just got a big boost out of codex Guard.

ShaiAhlude
12-04-2009, 15:35
Cannot take more than 4 seer council warlocks on jetbikes.

Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.

Lash of Submission effect changed to halving enemy WS, BS, I and movement speed (rounding down)

Carnifex cannot be taken as an elites choice.

Lots of cleaning up the mess with the Killpoints given for units (Tau drones attached to vehicles not worth Killpoints, enemy units turned into spawn not worth killpoints, spore mines not worth killpoints)

Game suddenly much more balanced :)

Hey, I think I just saw 5 house rules soon to pop up everywhere :D

Seriously, the codexes coming out seem pretty balanced to me. Remember that when a new codex comes out, people try new units and tactics, but pretty soon a counter is learned and balance is restored (in most cases, anyway).

I have never actually played WFB so my opinion is based on battle reports where I see, time and again, a single fig, costing at least a third of his entire army, take on the entire opposing force by himself, and wins....balance?

One last thought, the one bonus to playing an antiquated list like DE is that I basically have two lists:
1) Warrior/Wych Raider Rush
2) Warrior/Wych Webway Portal
DE have so much "built-in" anti-marine stuff, I'm free to to put in horde killing stuff without a drastic change in tactics, cost, or fluffiness

Templar-Sun
12-04-2009, 15:37
Ixe, I'm not sure this is happening. Think for a moment, I don't remember people saying Orkz were going to be broken before the latest codex release. In fact it took about a year before I started to hear about its "brokenness". Maybe I'm just slow. I do remember hearing about how broken the new marine codex was going to be. It came out and it seems kind of tame. Now IG codex at first glance seems like it may be broken. Then again it might not be. Eldar got nerfed a bit after 5th was released but they needed it. SOB I'm not sure about but I would guess that it needs a new codex whether it is overpowered or not... As well as DH, WH, DE, SW, Necrons... etc.


Templar-Sun

freddieyu
12-04-2009, 16:08
In a game based around probability nothing is unstoppable, but a lot of things are nearly unstoppable.

The problem with things like Nob bikers and Seer Councils is that you usually only have a chance of beating them with perhaps one specialist unit in your army, if you fail to counter it (and unless your opponent is a complete *****) you lose the game. It makes it a one dimensional predictable and boring match.

They you have some armies which just cannot hope to counter them at all. Tau are effectively screwed against Nob bikers due to a lack of numbers in str8+ long range weapons.

Using the anecdote of how a unit lost once to unlikely dice rolls doesn't really make a unit balanced. Though I can't personally say with any certainty that Blood Crushers are that powerful anyway, I havn't faced daemons enough to make an informed comment.


I like your quotes about orks btw...

The geist of things is that most players are MEQ, and orks, eldar, and chas daemons are very anti MEQ, hence the difficulty for many to handle them!
The fact that marines and tau rely on focused precision strikes to take out elites, and nob bikers, eldar bikecouncils, and daemons are resistant to that.

The IG can counter with multiple s8 pie plates, nids can do so with lightning fast tough critters (stealers), chaos space marines with a combination of shooting and warp inspired nasties too..

However, if nob bikes, eldar seer councils become so much "broken", metagaming will see all armies develop something to counter that I bet. (Similar to the times of collectible card games) except the sideboards will be inbuilt!

Lord Humongous
12-04-2009, 16:49
Instead of that, I'd prefer to see:

"Yoo made it worze!" - if a FNP roll is failed, then the model is removed automatically as a casualty - regardless of any remaining wounds.

Wouldn't change FNP for single wound models, but would make players think twice about sticking a painboy in their nob unit.

Plus it's incredibly Orky in my opinion.

People would certainly still use it. Wound allocation lets you spread wounds around until all the nob bikaz have 1 wound, and at that point it would work just as well as it does for any single wound unit. Still, as you say, its "orky" and tones down the effect, so that you can kill the NB unit with ~75% of the inflicted wounds currently required.

Reticent
12-04-2009, 17:34
Bolters anf flamers murder hordes, the melta and faith rending will take a good chunk out of marines. SoB typically run mechanised so lash isn't much of a problem, even when they do get lashed they get a save against it.

SoB also rely heavily upon their toops, so you will see lots of scoring units, in KP they come out at about 10 ish at 1500, the excorcist is one of the best tank killers in the game. Their HQ's can be turned into archons and that much power armour (even at T3) doesn't die in a hurry.

SoB have a hard counter to anything you can put on the board and you can take it all at 1500.

I absolutely 100% agree with this, but I feel obliged (needlessly I'm sure) to add that high-quality SoB builds are still just a pretty narrow subset of the otherwise antiquated Witch Hunters codex as a whole.

Ixe
12-04-2009, 17:37
I would agree that no painboy would be the right fix. But a better fix would be to fix the stupid wound allocation rules, and require people to take whole models whenever possible. The new wound allocation is nice because it fixes the invincible heavy weapon and/or hidden power fist and introduces more chance into the system. But it's bad because of the very few units that can abuse it. It just needs one small fix regarding multi-wound models, and that would go a very long way into fixing the ork codex. But the entire ork codex is one big 'buy orks and win' advertisement. 6 point boyz with T4 A2 is just crazy. Battlewagon spam is pretty crazy too. They're not unbeatable, that's not my point. My point is, if GW continues along the path of making every codex infinitely better than it was just like they did with orks, the game will suffer.

Regarding Witch Hunters, I know that they're solid. I almost never lose with my SoB. My point is not to complain about losing all the time, I don't. My point is to complain that GW seems dangerously close to following the WHFB model of selling minis by making each new codex the best one, rather than selling minis by having a great game that everyone wants to play because of its solid game balance.

Fixer
12-04-2009, 17:49
I like your quotes about orks btw...

The geist of things is that most players are MEQ, and orks, eldar, and chas daemons are very anti MEQ, hence the difficulty for many to handle them!
The fact that marines and tau rely on focused precision strikes to take out elites, and nob bikers, eldar bikecouncils, and daemons are resistant to that.

The IG can counter with multiple s8 pie plates, nids can do so with lightning fast tough critters (stealers), chaos space marines with a combination of shooting and warp inspired nasties too..

However, if nob bikes, eldar seer councils become so much "broken", metagaming will see all armies develop something to counter that I bet. (Similar to the times of collectible card games) except the sideboards will be inbuilt!

Actually to be fair the tournament scene hasn't been anti MeQ for years. back in 3rd edition around 2004-2005 most armies at the UKGT were marines or equivilent with the occasional eldar army starcannoning them into oblivion. Current tournament forces are designed against all-comers due to the much more varied degrees of opponents you expect to face. Currently at high levels the only MEQ you'll probably be facing is twin lash lead Chaos. You'll see that most tournament lists are designed around the following principles:

Mechanised/Warded to resist lash.
Mobile enough to take objectives
Has to be able to counter horde lists
Has to be able to counter hard to kill units like Nob bikers/Seer Councils.

The thing with marines is that in actuallity: For cost they're not much harder to kill than most horde armies using the same weapons. I hit a horde unit of orks in cover with a flamer I get 6 hits, 3 wounds, 3 dead. 18 points of Orks. I hit the same number of marines, 3 wounds, 3 armor saves, 1 dead. 16 points of marine. What's more, if you can more easilly use wound allocation against the smaller marine squads to cripple them by taking out sgts or special weapons.

Then after that comes the cover saves. A plasma gun shooting a target in cover, reduces a marine to a 4+ save. Any other target gets the same save.

So bulk fire weapons with the occasional specialist fire is order of the day. Ork armies don't have to gear for MeQ. Boyz mobs will murder anything they hit or shoot at normally anway. My Eldar? Scatter lasers and Shuriken cannons. My Salamanders? Flamers and the Thunderfire cannon. After killing a rhino transporting Sternguard my Thunderfire cannon landed 22 wounds on the target causing 7 casualties including the sergeant.

Make sure that your army can fight the power gaming lists using the rules previously mentioned and you should be able to counter any marine or most non-lash chaos marine forces. Only unit that stands out as MEQ being difficult to dislodge with bulk weapons fire are plague marines.

Sasori_jap
12-04-2009, 21:01
1) There are armies easy to play and armies that require more player skill to play
2) There are players that know how to play and players that they dont know yet and still think they do...
3) There are players that outsmart their opponents and players that help them win
4) There are days when luck is on your side and days that is not...

Reading outhr army books, trying new strategies and learining from your mistakes increases your chance to WIN. All armies have their advantages and disadvantages. Some are more obvious and some are not that obvious. Yes the game creators make mistakes but the game is made so you can win against the odds if you know where your soldiers hide their aces.

There is no point to analize which army is undepowered and which is overpowered cause people regarding their experiences and their playstyle will always have diferent points of view and you can see that clearly by reading the post on this thread.

So yeah just play what you like and fits your playstyle and not what others tell you is strong or weak.

nexttothemoon
13-04-2009, 02:41
There's likely two general "ideals" when it comes to game balance in a game system.

A)One school of thought would be that each army should be able to beat any other army on any given day given two equally experienced and skilled players and it all comes down to the luck of the dice and the "whims of fate" in that scenario.

That certainly doesn't seem to be the case in 40K by all the empirical evidence given in tournaments results and forum chatter.

B)The other school of thought is along the lines of a Rock,Paper,Scissors type of balance.

Again, given 2 players that are equally skilled and experienced... each army will have certain builds that are basically unbeatable (unless very lucky in the dice department) by certain opposing armies... but those armies in turn will have builds that are unbeatable against other army builds.

To put it simply in a hypothetical "3 army 40K world" the situation would be like so: A>B B>C C>A


Now as I see it in 40K... you have approximately 16 main codex armies (including DA,BA,SW and BT) (and within those you can generally subdivide each codex into various different builds tailored in various ways such as anti-mech, anti-horde etc)... so very conservatively you have a matrix of probably 40+ playable types of army builds that are all running around combating each other in a huge rock,paper,scissors environment.

Now a matrix with just 3 variables (armies) would be relatively easy system to maintain balance within... but once you introduce the chaos of 40+ variables (which constantly change based on rules and codex updates)... maintaining balance pretty much becomes like trying to spin 40 plates and juggle 10 swords at once.

You also have the fundamental question of whether the goal of having complete balance is even a "good thing" or not. Part of the appeal of 40K is the various differences between the armies that makes them so different to play. To produce armies that are sufficiently interesting and enjoyable to play with... some balance may have to be sacrificed or else you end up with a fairly boring chess-like affair with cookie cutter armies. If you know going into the match that there is exactly a 50% chance of success I would argue that the thrill of winning is actually less than if you were an underdog trying out new strategies and tactics to achieve victory "against the odds".

Maybe it's a bit of a radical thought but it's likely that thrill of unpredictability and imbalances that keeps people interested in 40K. Much like gambling in Vegas where there is no balance... it's always stacked towards the house yet it's exactly that thrill of beating the odds and winning which keeps players coming back to the game again and again.

I'll posit that GW has set up this continually unbalanced and chaotic environment with stuttered codex and rules updates not only to sell more figures as people constantly tweak their armies to counter the current "unbeatable lists" but also this is exactly what keeps players interested in the game. You need balance but not TOO much balance as the game would get too boring and dull and if we wanted balanced and dull with no theme.. then we can all just play Chess instead.

Pink Horror
13-04-2009, 02:50
We should play backgammon. Chess has no dice.

Ianos
13-04-2009, 03:14
I'll posit that GW has set up this continually unbalanced and chaotic environment with stuttered codex and rules updates not only to sell more figures as people constantly tweak their armies to counter the current "unbeatable lists" but also this is exactly what keeps players interested in the game. You need balance but not TOO much balance as the game would get too boring and dull and if we wanted balanced and dull with no theme.. then we can all just play Chess instead.


I don't think it is a company decision to unbalance the game so that it sells. GW has clearly shown the opposite, lately even more.

Simply put there can be no absolute balance. Starcraft has been around for more than 10 years and still patches are released. All that in a game that is now a sport with sponsors, champions and features only 3 races and most importantly is fully computer played, which means fast reaction to balance issues.

40k compared to this is pure chaos. With essentially 16 races!! each with usually at least 3-4 basic strong builds and many different units+unit equipment, it simply can never be absolutely balanced. GW are actually doing a FAR better job than we even think here...

Also a personal speculation i have to add, "a perfectly balanced game, where the players have the super-intellect or infinite time for the best decisions will always end in a draw"

althathir
13-04-2009, 03:21
40k is always going to have balance issues, its really rare when any game of this nature finds a competitive balance between its fractions, and really most of the balance issues are due to 1 or 2 units being out of line and depending on the situation can really make an army dominant. With the way GW releases new codexs and rulebooks this is always going to be a problem.

What I think GW needs to do is realize that a healthy tournament scene is good for their bottom line, and start making guidelines for tournaments that limit the problem units. For example Fixers list at the start of the thread is reasonable and really wouldn't take too much effort on GWs part to make a list like that and keep testing for additional problems.

zeep
13-04-2009, 04:04
Cannot take more than 4 seer council warlocks on jetbikes.
Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.
Lash of Submission effect changed to halving enemy WS, BS, I and movement speed (rounding down)
Carnifex cannot be taken as an elites choice.
Lots of cleaning up the mess with the Killpoints given for units (Tau drones attached to vehicles not worth Killpoints, enemy units turned into spawn not worth killpoints, spore mines not worth killpoints)
Space marines back to 4+ sv.
Game suddenly much more balanced :)

Fixed that for ya. ;)

TheDarkDuke
13-04-2009, 04:14
The only balance issues in 40k right now are that old codex need brought up to par... and we are not talking 1 year old codex... we are talking 5+ year old codex.

-IG look like they are right where they need to be.
-SM are solid and have multiple strong builds, no weak builds.
-Orks are the bench mark for internal balance, no unit is a no brainer, no unit is a never take.
-CSM 100x more balanced then 3.5, yes some bad choices but any mono themed god is a very solid list, and have some extremely hard lists as well.
-Eldar solid lists, few bad choices, some tough tough builds.

-Nids, this is where things start to drop off a bit, in terms of balance. Nidzilla is still a strong build, but the little bugs are now trailing behind.
-Tau, still have range power, could use some tweaking but still not even that bad off.
-BT, could use some tweaks to streamline things and update now no affect items, but for the most part, are actually tougher now then they were.
-DA, allow different builds are a bit behind.
-WH have been boosted big time with 5th ed. Older codex yes, strong builds yes.

-DH need tweaking, can be hard in some occurences but need updating.
-DE right circumstances and really only 1 competitive build, need updating.
-SW are actually a bit better with 5th ed, but need updating.
-BA were updated via WD, but could use a actual codex.
-Necron, were hit the hardest by 5th the most, and need updating now more then DH.

All in all, the balance is very good, those 2nd tier armies all have good shots at beating any of those 1st tier armies, but require a bit more skill to do so, IMO and that is the onyl difference. Third tier are just really old codex that need updating as for the most part a huge percentage of there rules just don't function in 5th ed, as some of them are 3rd ed books!

Dexter099
13-04-2009, 04:27
-IG will be fine, just some soome superior choices and non-superior choices
-SM are a little more powerful; used to be very weak, now balanced
-Orks fine list
-CSM their list could use a little tweaking and editing, but overall competitive and has some nastiness
-Eldar nice and balanced

-Nids little guys are overcosted, needs some updated work
-Tau are fine
-BT are fine
-DA are fine
-WH are great, even better thanks to 5th ed

-DH need some major revisions. GK's are waaaay too expensive
-DE are still the most powerful army, but need a new codex since only one build is viable, even if it always wins if played correctly
-BA are ok...
-Necron need a new codex right now

onlainari
13-04-2009, 05:27
Fixed that for ya. ;)
Nothing screams "I am terrible at 40k" more than what you just did.

The_Outsider
13-04-2009, 14:46
Nothing screams "I am terrible at 40k" more than what you just did.

Someone isn't aware of rogue trader marine stats.

Vet.Sister
13-04-2009, 23:33
My point is, if GW continues along the path of making every codex infinitely better than it was just like they did with orks, the game will suffer.

Hence the signature I choose to have...:)

self biased
14-04-2009, 00:32
I would agree that no painboy would be the right fix. But a better fix would be to fix the stupid wound allocation rules, and require people to take whole models whenever possible. The new wound allocation is nice because it fixes the invincible heavy weapon and/or hidden power fist and introduces more chance into the system. But it's bad because of the very few units that can abuse it.

i agree with your point, but you've a slight flaw in your logic: there's no more or less chance involved when considering armor saves (things do get strange when you have wounds that punch armor, yes). twelve wounds assigned to a squad of ten marines will generally net you four failed saves. under the previous edition, this would mean four dead schnooks with bolters. now, you stand a decent chance of losing a non-schnook model (or if you're me, all of them).


I don't think it is a company decision to unbalance the game so that it sells. GW has clearly shown the opposite, lately even more.

it can't be a company decision to do that. GW has shown time and time again that it lacks any sort of foresight or will to stick to a paradigm for an entire edition, let alone bilk us with that tactic. saddly, it seems that garden variety incompetence is the theme of the day when it comes to imbalance. when it came down to lash of submission, some of the most common questions simply never occurred to the designer.


Hence the signature I choose to have...:)

which is why i feel that special characters (yes, i'm looking at you kayvaan shrike) should generally be relegated to the realm of apocalypse.

onlainari
14-04-2009, 04:31
Someone isn't aware of rogue trader marine stats.
Not only am I aware of them I am also aware hardly anyone used tactical marines in rogue trader.

holmcross
14-04-2009, 05:30
Carnifex cannot be taken as an elites choice.
Game suddenly much more balanced :)

Indeed. Those damn nidzilla lists are utterly destroying the competition in tournements.

:rolleyes:

Ianos
14-04-2009, 15:27
Indeed. Those damn nidzilla lists are utterly destroying the competition in tournements.

:rolleyes:


I guess you 're right, 8 HS (tyrants are a lot like HS) choices can never be imba...:rolleyes:

I second Fixer's list and although some units are not that broken, their sheer tournament appearance is tiring.

I would also like to add TH+SS giving 4++ universally

Fixer
14-04-2009, 15:52
If you dropped TH/SS Terminators down to 4+ universal, no-one would take them again. They had a 4+ save in CC before and it just wasn't good enough. 3+ save makes them just right for taking down the big scary armor bypassing monsters they're supposed to be good at killing.

3+ in cc and 5+ vs shooting would be fine by me. 4+ they'd go back into the display case again to be replaced by regular terminators.

Really though, is 3+ against shooting all that bad? TH terminators are infantry speed and cannot sweeping advance additionally needing a land raider to make effective. Most of the you shoot them they'll be in cover and have a 4+ cover save. So, they get 1/3 reduction in wounds from AP2 weapons in cover and a 50% reduction outside.

If I'm disembarking a tactical marine squad + plasma and rapid firing them (assume sgt and heavy weapons have bolt pistol) It'll do 1.26 wounds to terminators with 2+/3++, 1.44 to Terminators with 2+/4++, 1.63 to 2+/5++. Less than half a wound difference at best. The perception of TH/SS durability far outstrips it's actual resilience.

Vepr
14-04-2009, 16:04
I guess you 're right, 8 HS (tyrants are a lot like HS) choices can never be imba...:rolleyes:

I second Fixer's list and although some units are not that broken, their sheer tournament appearance is tiring.

I would also like to add TH+SS giving 4++ universally

I don't disagree with doing away with the elite fex choice but not before fixing smaller nids.

Ianos
14-04-2009, 16:19
If you dropped TH/SS Terminators down to 4+ universal, no-one would take them again. They had a 4+ save in CC before and it just wasn't good enough. 3+ save makes them just right for taking down the big scary armor bypassing monsters they're supposed to be good at killing.

The reason nobody took them was not that the 4++ in melee is bad, rather that it was only in melee and not shooting too. In this edition they jumped from 5++ in shooting and 4+ melee to 3++ anytime which is HUGE. Add in SCs that boost the performance even further and it gets way too far.


3+ in cc and 5+ vs shooting would be fine by me. 4+ they'd go back into the display case again to be replaced by regular terminators.

Sure i could live with that.;)


Really though, is 3+ against shooting all that bad? TH terminators are infantry speed and cannot sweeping advance additionally needing a land raider to make effective. Most of the you shoot them they'll be in cover and have a 4+ cover save. So, they get 1/3 reduction in wounds from AP2 weapons in cover and a 50% reduction outside.

it's just that now for example you shoot them with dragons and you get half the casualites than a normal termie squad. You assault with banshes and you get 1.66 instead of 2.5 for example. They can virtually assault everything with little fear.


If I'm disembarking a tactical marine squad + plasma and rapid firing them (assume sgt and heavy weapons have bolt pistol) It'll do 1.26 wounds to terminators with 2+/3++, 1.44 to Terminators with 2+/4++, 1.63 to 2+/5++. Less than half a wound difference at best. The perception of TH/SS durability far outstrips it's actual resilience.

The universal 3++ makes all ap ranged and melee attacks innefective. The only thing you can rely on taking ass.termies down is tons of dice rolls. Many armies will struggle to put up so much fire/attacks and on the other hand the termies are excellent VS. almost everything, vehicles, nobs, marines, monsters, aspects, even councils with a little plan will go down.

Now since we are especially talking nob and council nerf here, ass.termies must get a small hit too, for balance's sake.

Akuma
14-04-2009, 16:36
Guys - lets look at this from a diffrent perspective.

There can be NO set of balancing patches like "this army is changed that way and this army is changed the other" - Basicly everyone who's primary unit get's trashed will - say - no way this is stupid.

There is a diffrent way of balancig wh40k without ingerating in the dexes itself.

Tournaments ( as only they are unbalanced ) should be constructed in a way that balances the game.

How this can be achived ?

Few Ideas -

1. Scenarios
2. Terrain
3. Sidebording
4. Point Distribution

ad 1 - Scenarios should be prepered so that each and every mission from the main rule set is played. You have to play one annihilation , one size ground and one capture and control. This ensures that only one mission has KP - 2 others require manuvering forces.

ad 2 - Terrain - there shoud be 3 levels of terrain. I would go with one pretty clear terrain , Harves World for example - some crop fields , few buildings , hedges , fences , hils ( so on ) Second table should be propper 25% of terrain table - could be typical prolonged warfere table with lods of craters , bunkers , barricades , few large rock formations and some ruined buildings , and the third one would be propper cityfight board. almost 50% of whole table covered in ruins of buildings , derbis , destroyed wrackege and stuff. This way army would know that if thay go all shooty - thay wont accomplish anything in game 3 because of the relativly short firing lances. And if thay go all out assoult thay wont do good in game one - with small number of total No LOS terrain. I think that would require more balancig approach in creating armys.

ad 3 Very important element. I think that Wh40K is best ballanced around 1850 pts or 1750 pts. All power builds are easy fit into 1500 pts. But If only one tweek would be made it would result in much better effect. I'm talking about 250 pts or 350 pts sideboard. You build your army from core 1500 pts ( must be legal , and NOTHING form the main 1500 pts can be changed ) and 250 or 350 pts contingent. When you come to tournament you present judge with the 1500 pts army and 3 or 5 250 or 350 contingents that have own numbers. Before each game you write down ( secretly ) a number on a card - opponent does the same. Together you turn them around and explain to each other what will 350 pts containt. This way units that are almost never used because thay are only good vs one build or one army would have a chance of seeing the table. Lods of armys has great counters to popular stuff like nidzilla or lash or plouge marines but those counters are only good for it and nothing else. With this system that would make tournaments more dynamic and more fun.

4. Point Distribution - Well this one is a bit tricky. I'm a fan of KP rather then VP. Tournaments in 5ed should never use VP as this mechanic favourded minimaxing and on top of it made specialists that were expensive quite obolete. In addition to this , VP should never be counted - If a fame is a draw - it is a draw. Simple

For a win player should get 2VP , for a draw 1VP , For a loos 0VP. The ties should be resolved by taking into account games between players and the "Hobby Score" :] - The last thing would be general mark for the "Fluffynes" of the army. So you got same amounts of VP as the next guy. But your army is a mini maxed Deamons with Slannesh troops dancing around bloodcrushers - well you got worse initial FS - so you are placed behind this guy in the tournament. Same should go to the painting and quize part of the tournament score.

Any suggestions ?

DasAtomkind
14-04-2009, 16:37
GW - just buy this guy :D - that are easly the most perfect solutions to the game problems - simple an easy :D

BTW for the new codex Ig I would impose 3 Max Valks. As there will be lods of 6 Valks rock paper scissors lists :)

One problem however - much less Carnifex boxes sold. Much less overpriced bikers (especially the nice FW ones) sold ... etc.

Therefore - not a GW-compatible solution.

Ianos
14-04-2009, 16:40
One problem however - much less Carnifex boxes sold. Much less overpriced bikers (especially the nice FW ones) sold ... etc.

Therefore - not a GW-compatible solution.

And more gaunts, raveners, hormagaunts, boyz, gretchin etc. sold so therefore it is a compatible solution

Fixer
14-04-2009, 16:56
Ianos: I have to respectfully disagree in that area. The entire point of Thunderhammer terminators is that they're slow, heavy, have no ranged weapons and are specialised to kill armor save bypassing units in close combat. If you're using banshees and wraithlords against them you're doing it wrong.

Force them down to a 4+ Inv in CC? Same as last edition I take regular terminators. Same melee damage output, added guns, slighly worse save in CC. My Thunder Hammer terminators go back to being a nicely themed but otherwise not worthwhile squad.

Unlike nob bikers or seer councils there plenty of ways to deal with them. Knock out their transport, block their transport moving by placing a vehicle directly in front of it, outmaneuver them on foot. A unit charged by them that falls back automatically escapes them. They can be soft countered by almost any basic infantry squad. Initiative striking units or conventional weapons fire. You don't charge them at squads with lots of initative striking attacks because you'll lose.

Even not knowing your eldar army, you should have little trouble. Take out or Immobilise the Land Raider with brightlances from afar or vehicle shielded Fire Dragons. Using a fast skimmer to block vehicle movement should you need to, hit the ATs with lots of mass wound causing weapons. Scatter lasers, bladestorm, your own inherent manoeuvrability and the fact that if anything of yours is beaten by assault terminators and fail ld they auto break making the ATs a target to be shot again.

druchii
14-04-2009, 17:12
I've been feeling quite a bit of angst over 40k balance issues lately. I was happy when the WHFB team took over 40k and started fixing codices up -- I like how each unit has set options with its own points cost, instead of everything costing the same no matter who has it and how powerful it is in their hands. They've also shifted to providing more fluff and more pictures, and overall making a better product.

It also seems, however, that they've committed themselves to the same destructive cycle that happens in WHFB, that the newest army is always the most powerful. I thought they were toning things down at first, because Chaos got a huge nerf, followed by a relatively balanced Chaos Daemons book. But then we got Orks, with everything (except maybe flash gitz and a few other horrible choices) totally undercosted by about 1/3. The new Marines aren't nearly as bad, but they're head and shoulders above the non-updated codices at this point.

I have two armies, Eldar and Sisters of Battle. Neither are bad armies, but neither can hold a candle to the kind of stuff that they're releasing in the new books. It feels like, if I don't jump on a new army bandwagon, I'll be left behind. This is something that I've never felt in the past. Throughout 3rd and 4th, I was able to pick an army that I liked and do well with it. But now, it seems like they're committed to the Fantasy business model of selling minis by making them better than all the other minis. What attracted me to wargaming in the first place was the idea that, unlike a CCG, the person who spends the most is not always the victor. It's about tactical list construction, not about dropping cash on the newest, most epic collectibles. But with the way things are going, 40k seems to look more and more like a CCG to me. I have to spend constantly, or get left in the cold by the cycle of continually newer and more uber codices.

Now, I'm not trying to troll. I'm not one of those people who hates Games Workshop for being a business and trying to make money. Nor am I a secret agent for Privateer or Mongoose or some other podunk minigame company. I'm just worried about where 40k is going, and it's starting to make me lose interest in the game, and I'm wondering if anyone else sees the same problems.

I'm sorry.

I stopped reading the entire thread when you said you played sisters of battle, and that they somehow cannot hold a candle to the new codexes.

Sisters are hands down one of the best armies in the game. Simply put, I can't fathom what you're talking about. At all.

I do NOT have the same problem. I've been playing my eldar since the codex was released and been having a fantastic go at it. I guess I wasn't hit as hard by the new books because my army was designed with a more well-rounded approach in mind. All the "new" codexes are non MEQ armies, which, rightly so, are giving people fits.

No longer can you load up on plasma and lascannons, or starcannons and banshees and expect to do well against things like orks, demons and guard. Suddenly the game is changing so that PEOPLE MUST TAKE more balanced armies or they will get thrashed by the 6pt ork, or the 5pt guardsmen firing his lasgun(lol) 3 times.

I don't mean to be harsh, but when you're saying one of the TOP armies in the game can't compete against some of the newer books (one of which has been out, what, two days?) then immedietly a red flag gets thrown-Sisters are absolutely over the top.

d

Ianos
14-04-2009, 17:33
Ianos: I have to respectfully disagree in that area. The entire point of Thunderhammer terminators is that they're slow, heavy, have no ranged weapons and are specialised to kill armor save bypassing units in close combat. If you're using banshees and wraithlords against them you're doing it wrong.

Hey i just said 3++cc and 5++ shooting is fine by me :).

Also although i can give plenty of arguments for the last one (like the fact you need 7 brightlances to take one termie down) i do not wish to turn this into a TH+SS thread.

Captain Micha
14-04-2009, 17:38
Eldar are no good.. what?

lol.

The Eldar are the second best army instead of the first and this makes them "not competitive" anymore?

Try playing Necrons sometime.

Narf
14-04-2009, 18:00
sorry fixer, but your way isnt a great way to take care of the AssTerminators once they're out there LR.

Shuriken catapults, flamers, shuriken cannons, scatter lazers - anything that pump out a high amount of shots cheaply is how to down terminators, dont let them have their 3++ invulnerables, leave em with an amour save, and you'll be surprised at how many 1's are rolled - this goes for any army, bolters, shoota's, pulse rifles, gauss, lasguns etc

Fixer
14-04-2009, 18:20
First part was refering to the land Raider, not that clear though. Price I pay for using a mobile phone to make posts. Will clear it up :)

Ixe
14-04-2009, 18:55
I don't mean to be harsh, but when you're saying one of the TOP armies in the game can't compete against some of the newer books (one of which has been out, what, two days?) then immedietly a red flag gets thrown-Sisters are absolutely over the top.


I know SoB are pretty great, but the post is mostly about how I think they won't be able to keep up if they keep amping up every future codex. I'm worried about whether the game is on a path to look like fantasy, broken in many different ways, or if they are going to lurch back from the brink. It's not that SoB can't beat the new armies, it's just than in terms of the raw power of the new options coming out, SoB don't compare. We can win with very careful tactical planning, but other books are gaining options that practically just roll the dice to win, new weapons and special characters that don't actually require one to think. That's the problem I'm starting to see, and that's the problem I'm posting about.

Akuma
14-04-2009, 20:12
In case of someone missed it on the 3 page of this thread is quite a better balancing solution :P

Lord Asuryan
14-04-2009, 20:44
best thing they could do would be to rerelease the book, WOTR style. less fluff, release that in seperate books. then all armies could be relatively balanced, and changes could be made without going through a whole multi0year codex overhaul, which usually doesn't get finished before the next edition, etc. much better system, they'd probably sell many more.

holmcross
14-04-2009, 20:46
Some friendly advice, don't attempt to argue with Ianos.

His opinions aren't bound by reason, nor do they even attempt to gain the slightest bit of coherency with reality.

Mosey on over to the "how to counter a seer council thread" in the tactics forum to see what I mean. A particularly funny moment is when he, while trying to be too clever for his own good, suggests that the versatility and strengths of the Eldar are similar to the features and functionality to the .... Necrons?

Vet.Sister
14-04-2009, 23:08
I'm sorry.

I stopped reading the entire thread when you said you played sisters of battle, and that they somehow cannot hold a candle to the new codexes.

Sisters are hands down one of the best armies in the game. Simply put, I can't fathom what you're talking about. At all.

I do NOT have the same problem. I've been playing my eldar since the codex was released and been having a fantastic go at it. I guess I wasn't hit as hard by the new books because my army was designed with a more well-rounded approach in mind. All the "new" codexes are non MEQ armies, which, rightly so, are giving people fits.

No longer can you load up on plasma and lascannons, or starcannons and banshees and expect to do well against things like orks, demons and guard. Suddenly the game is changing so that PEOPLE MUST TAKE more balanced armies or they will get thrashed by the 6pt ork, or the 5pt guardsmen firing his lasgun(lol) 3 times.

I don't mean to be harsh, but when you're saying one of the TOP armies in the game can't compete against some of the newer books (one of which has been out, what, two days?) then immedietly a red flag gets thrown-Sisters are absolutely over the top.

d

BWAAAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA...... *SNORT* HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAA HAA HAAAAAAAA

This is what I did after reading

I stopped reading the entire thread when you said you played sisters of battle, and that they somehow cannot hold a candle to the new codexes.
Sisters are hands down one of the best armies in the game.

But then you said something even funnier;
Sisters are absolutely over the top.
d

*giggle* I just can't help it... the very idea that Battle Sisters are over the top???? Ha! HAA HAA HAA HAAAAAAAAAA.....

Seriously, Battle Sisters improved in 5th edition only because a few other armies got toned down a bit.:eek:

If Battle Sisters were as OTT as you claim.... Why isn't everyone saving up to buy the minis? Why aren't there a dozen different threads on how obviously overpowered they are? Why aren't Battle Sisters players completely pwning the tourny scene?

I've been playing 40K since second edition and I think Ixe has a valid concern. Mainly because second edition helped spark the term "codex creep". Designing stuff to be 'fun' first and balanced second can lead to some broken stuff! I'm not gonna make a list because most everyone can name the most egregious offenders from each edition of the game. But what upsets me most, is that it is quite likely when codex WitchHunters gets a re-write, GW will run out of gas and do a slap-dash job that noone is happy with... but will have tons of 'fun' yet useless options!:mad:

onlainari
14-04-2009, 23:34
Being an all metal army, if you wanted to win on the tourny scene you might as well chose orks, csm, or eldar instead.

Sisters are one of the most powerful armies.

Vet.Sister
14-04-2009, 23:42
Sisters are one of the most powerful armies.

I really can't disagree here, Battle Sisters got boost from 5th edition. However, the only no-brainer choice for Battle Sisters is the Exorcist tank. Other codexes seem to have a bit more in that department.... and a lot less of the "next to useless" units. (read: Repentia, Penitent Engines, Orbital strike, etc, etc....)

Somerandomidiot
14-04-2009, 23:51
It feels like, if I don't jump on a new army bandwagon, I'll be left behind. This is something that I've never felt in the past. Throughout 3rd and 4th, I was able to pick an army that I liked and do well with it. But now, it seems like they're committed to the Fantasy business model of selling minis by making them better than all the other minis. What attracted me to wargaming in the first place was the idea that, unlike a CCG, the person who spends the most is not always the victor. It's about tactical list construction, not about dropping cash on the newest, most epic collectibles. But with the way things are going, 40k seems to look more and more like a CCG to me. I have to spend constantly, or get left in the cold by the cycle of continually newer and more uber codices.


As someone who plays Daemonhunters (5000pts) and Necrons (3000pts), I have to agree a *little* bit. It's not that I feel my armies are getting weaker though, but more like I feel my options are narrower than those enjoyed by current codices if I don't want to get laughed off the table. My Grey Knights and Inq Stormtroopers, backed up by Inquisitors, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts, etc work just fine, but heaven forbid I want to take a fast attack choice in my Daemonhunters, or maybe spend a few hundred points on a real Inquisitor retinue, or even try out those expensive Pariah models I picked up (but haven't painted yet, go figure).

I have the ability to build relatively competitive army lists from both codices- but to do so, pretty much every army I run looks exactly the same. Thankfully, I've realized that instead of sitting there feeling sorry for myself, I can actually play other armies, and as such I'm currently painting FW Elysians, and anxiously waiting for my Valkyries to come in the mail. Heck, I might even ally in some Grey Knights!

Vet.Sister
15-04-2009, 00:29
I have the ability to build relatively competitive army lists from both codices- but to do so, pretty much every army I run looks exactly the same.

QFT!

I feel the same about the WitchHunter codex!:mad:

ShaiAhlude
15-04-2009, 00:47
Read this thread through since my last post, and I have to say, I get pangs of melancholy when I see posters put up "my army/codex was <this> in 3rd edition, <that> in 4th edition and <something else> in 5th edition."

Meanwhile us DE players have been out in the cold so long, we have icicles for boogers.

druchii
15-04-2009, 01:43
BWAAAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA...... *SNORT* HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAA HAA HAAAAAAAA

This is what I did after reading

But then you said something even funnier;

*giggle* I just can't help it... the very idea that Battle Sisters are over the top???? Ha! HAA HAA HAA HAAAAAAAAAA.....

Seriously, Battle Sisters improved in 5th edition only because a few other armies got toned down a bit.:eek:

If Battle Sisters were as OTT as you claim.... Why isn't everyone saving up to buy the minis? Why aren't there a dozen different threads on how obviously overpowered they are? Why aren't Battle Sisters players completely pwning the tourny scene?

I've been playing 40K since second edition and I think Ixe has a valid concern. Mainly because second edition helped spark the term "codex creep". Designing stuff to be 'fun' first and balanced second can lead to some broken stuff! I'm not gonna make a list because most everyone can name the most egregious offenders from each edition of the game. But what upsets me most, is that it is quite likely when codex WitchHunters gets a re-write, GW will run out of gas and do a slap-dash job that noone is happy with... but will have tons of 'fun' yet useless options!:mad:


Lets go down the list as to why:
Exorcists.
2+ Save cannonesses with unmodified Ld10 that NEVER die and NEVER run away and lock your units in combat forever.
Sisters of battle in rhinos with ap1 flamers/bolters.
Did I menton the book of unmodified 9/10?
How about seraphim with 3+ invulns hacking your tanks and terminators apart?
Oh wait, did you notice that the NEW GUARD now benefit from the book of unmodified ld?
Here's four squads of 10 guardsmen, have fun chewing through that, well. Ever.

Sisters aren't ruling the tournament scene because people are retards. They play them like a space marine army and not like a "ill lock up your scary stuff and deal with the rest" army.

People don't save up for them because they're expensive (unlike, oh, nob bikers) I mean, hell, a heavy flamer is 10 bucks! Ugly models that are hard as heck to convert and base.

Look at the SOB tactica threads on warseer if you don't believe me, people rarely menton the faith pinata, 3+ invuln melta toting seraphim, or unmodified ld guardsmen.

Sisters of battle got better because of:
AP1 exorcists.
Eviscerators being the SAME points cost as powerfists.
Close combat Ld modifiers changing (see those space wolves cry).
Mech armies becoming better.
Meltas becoming the ultimate tank/mc killers.
The addition of NEW guard.

Somehow you're telling me that armies got "toned" down and yet magically we're seeing codex creep?

Simply put: Orks are owning the tournaments because people are still making anti-marine lists. This much is obvious.

Where is this invisible codex creep? Codex demons? Codex space marines? Codex orks? I've not had a chance to jump into IG yet, but codex IG?

Simply saying "orks is overpowered" doesn't mean squat.

d

Unplugged
15-04-2009, 02:07
Cannot have an Ork painboy on a bike in a nob unit.

I'd say...

Can't have Nob Bikers as Troops. That will fix all the trouble the bastards are giving me.

Thats really the part I don't like about balace of the armies - some armies have troops that can really Do Stuff, some don't. I play marines, and I know, tactical Marines are not bad so I don't want to whine so much - combat squads and drop pods save them. But compared to the rest... Cult Marines? Nobs? Boyz? I'd kill for that. So some armies can actually USE their troops and be reasonable sure to have enough scoring units left, and some can't. Hell, I take at least 30 Marines in Rhinos and 10 scouts with camo cloacs now, and still the tacticals die too fast if I don't put enough pressure on my enemy. Compared to Orks or Chaos with their troops vanilla marines really feel a little bad - and all the rest does not even have ATSKNF and combat tactics. Tau and Eldar seem to do well with their transports...

I'm rambling, sorry. Where was I?

Ianos
15-04-2009, 04:03
Some friendly advice, don't attempt to argue with Ianos.

Nobody was even arguing with me i think, we where having a pretty agreeable mini-discussion with Fixer (if that's what you mean) and i simply added a proposal to his own. And why shouldn't people argue? How else is evolution to be obtained.


His opinions aren't bound by reason, nor do they even attempt to gain the slightest bit of coherency with reality.

I can say the same for you mate, that does not make it true though


Mosey on over to the "how to counter a seer council thread" in the tactics forum to see what I mean. A particularly funny moment is when he, while trying to be too clever for his own good, suggests that the versatility and strengths of the Eldar are similar to the features and functionality to the .... Necrons?

I was simply giving you an example on presentation distorting reality. You presented Eldar as THE unbeatable army of doom and using your words i did the same for Necrons (which i did because most people consider them powerless, which further enhances my point about presentation)

Also if you have something to add to the council thread you could do/have done it already.

Back to the thread: Witchhunters can be powerful IMHO and even tournament stats show this. The reason is simple, lots of flamers which can take care of everything and especially demons and orks.

Players must really understand that they must use more balanced lists, the days of las/plasma/fist are gone, here comes the a little bit of everything with mostly bolters/flamers/missiles and volume of attacks. Improve, adapt, overcome.

The_Outsider
15-04-2009, 11:48
. Improve, adapt, overcome.

ASSIMILATE.

Yeah, the days of dedicated MEQ killing armeis are long over, the forces that can maintain a good GEQ killing as well as the required gear to punch through (or drown) power armour are those that stand above the others.

DE sorta do it because they can get quite a lot of GEQ killing gear on the field, problem is a decent chunk of that is CC based.

SoB dominate though simply because all their gear murders GEQ's as standard and can then be given the ability ot defeat power armour, plus their HQ's can be turned into killing machines that work upon the principle "you cannot kill me befoe I rip you in half".

However few people want to play a force that has terrible models or is entirely metal and requires a good 50+ models at 1500.

self biased
15-04-2009, 11:56
druchii while i agree with you in general, witch hunters remains a difficult army to use properly. exorcists do not always get six shots each, either. they also eat up a HS slot, each.

Fixer
15-04-2009, 12:10
Simply put: Orks are owning the tournaments because people are still making anti-marine lists. This much is obvious.


No serious tournament players are building Anti Meq only armies anymore. It hasn't been like this for about 3 years. I wish people would stop saying this. It's just not true.

squeekenator
15-04-2009, 12:29
Exactly what codex creep is there? The power level is not rising at all. Chaos got hacked down from unstoppable cheesefest of lame to a pretty good army with one broken build. Eldar are still nasty but nowhere near what they were before. Daemons are sorta iffy, can't really say that much about them. Orks are certainly better than before, but they used to suck. Now they have one broken build and every other army is powerful but not overpowered. They're certainly a strong army, but one slightly OP codex does not mean creep. Space Marines would have had to be ridiculously broken to beat the old codex (why did no-one ever use traits properly?), and they aren't. Vulkan is overpowered, everything else you may read is just Warseer people hating Marines (it's the national sport or something...). New Guard will be tough but are certainly not overpowered. They're just effective if used properly.

Where is your codex creep? How is a succession of balanced codexes with a couple of accidental broken builds between them a sign that GW is throwing balance out the door and one-upping every other codex each time one is released? Fantasy's balance is horrific, but 40K has avoided creep so far.

Vet.Sister
15-04-2009, 18:11
Lets go down the list as to why:
Exorcists.
2+ Save cannonesses with unmodified Ld10 that NEVER die and NEVER run away and lock your units in combat forever.
Sisters of battle in rhinos with ap1 flamers/bolters.
Did I menton the book of unmodified 9/10?
How about seraphim with 3+ invulns hacking your tanks and terminators apart?
Oh wait, did you notice that the NEW GUARD now benefit from the book of unmodified ld?
Here's four squads of 10 guardsmen, have fun chewing through that, well. Ever.

Sisters aren't ruling the tournament scene because people are retards. They play them like a space marine army and not like a "ill lock up your scary stuff and deal with the rest" army.

People don't save up for them because they're expensive (unlike, oh, nob bikers) I mean, hell, a heavy flamer is 10 bucks! Ugly models that are hard as heck to convert and base.

Look at the SOB tactica threads on warseer if you don't believe me, people rarely menton the faith pinata, 3+ invuln melta toting seraphim, or unmodified ld guardsmen.

Sisters of battle got better because of:
AP1 exorcists.
Eviscerators being the SAME points cost as powerfists.
Close combat Ld modifiers changing (see those space wolves cry).
Mech armies becoming better.
Meltas becoming the ultimate tank/mc killers.
The addition of NEW guard.

Somehow you're telling me that armies got "toned" down and yet magically we're seeing codex creep?

Simply put: Orks are owning the tournaments because people are still making anti-marine lists. This much is obvious.

Where is this invisible codex creep? Codex demons? Codex space marines? Codex orks? I've not had a chance to jump into IG yet, but codex IG?

Simply saying "orks is overpowered" doesn't mean squat.

d

Before I respond to your post, allow me to say the following. I have read your post. I then re-read my response to your previous post. I sound like a total jerk! I don't mean to be that way, so in all seriousness....
Dear Druchii
I am sorry that I offended you. Please allow me to respond to your points listed above.

1)Exorcists are not any more effective than SM Predator Annihilators. Plus Exorcists are stuck with 1D6 shots, so their reliability suffers.
2)WitchHunters have been paying the higher points cost (for their powerfist equivalent) long before other codexes followed suit. It'd not much of an argument but there it is....
3)The Canoness with the 2+ save and jump pack is definitely a difficult unit to deal with! A Battle Sister player must be careful to use Faith powers carefully, running out of points means that I have to sacrifice a unit to get one back.... not such a good trade off. She can be a real pain in the short term, but like regular Sisters, she has no staying power against a determined foe. Plus, you should notice that most WitchHunter players are selective in what unit they attack with their Canoness. A chaplain in terminator armor with assault terminator squad for back up with kill the Jump-Canoness in rather short order.
4) Battle Sisters use Rhinos because their standard gun is the bolter! As a Battle Sister player I need to get into rapid fire range as fast as possible because that is where my army is the most effective! As for the AP1, I need to roll 6s for that to happen, which is not often. I won't deny that I've had some lucky rolls, but on average a single squad shooting 8 bolters and two flamers is going to net about 3 AP1 wounds. Annoying? yes. Broken? I don't think so.
5) If you really press Battle Sister players, most will admit that this wargear is kinda cheap. I wasn't aware the new IG got this as wargear, I wonder how much they're paying for it?
6) Seraphim can really chew through your faith point pool, so while they are tough in the short run, they have no staying power (much like other Battle Sisters). This is why the Hit&Run rule is so vital for them to operate effectively. In 5th edition they got a big boost since they come with krak grenades and tank are hit on rear AV. But then assault squads for SM are just (if not more) as capable.

7) As for codex creep, there is nothing (yet) that screams such, but I agree with Ixe in that the trend for such is showing up here and there (Nobs bikerz with pain-boy, I'm looking at you).

PS. Sorry for being a jerk Druchii, I mean it.

druchii
15-04-2009, 19:25
No serious tournament players are building Anti Meq only armies anymore. It hasn't been like this for about 3 years. I wish people would stop saying this. It's just not true.

Well,
Having watched the Gladiator, and the Invitational tournament at Adepticon this year, and actually played in the Team Tournament I can tell you that you're dead wrong.

The armies that I saw that weren't orks were tooled up with as much tank and marine busting as possible.

I think a reltive minority of players actually took anything other than meltas or plasma guns-instead relying on basic bolters to deal with hordes-which isn't enough.


Before I respond to your post, allow me to say the following. I have read your post. I then re-read my response to your previous post. I sound like a total jerk! I don't mean to be that way, so in all seriousness....
Dear Druchii
I am sorry that I offended you. Please allow me to respond to your points listed above.

1)Exorcists are not any more effective than SM Predator Annihilators. Plus Exorcists are stuck with 1D6 shots, so their reliability suffers.
2)WitchHunters have been paying the higher points cost (for their powerfist equivalent) long before other codexes followed suit. It'd not much of an argument but there it is....
3)The Canoness with the 2+ save and jump pack is definitely a difficult unit to deal with! A Battle Sister player must be careful to use Faith powers carefully, running out of points means that I have to sacrifice a unit to get one back.... not such a good trade off. She can be a real pain in the short term, but like regular Sisters, she has no staying power against a determined foe. Plus, you should notice that most WitchHunter players are selective in what unit they attack with their Canoness. A chaplain in terminator armor with assault terminator squad for back up with kill the Jump-Canoness in rather short order.
4) Battle Sisters use Rhinos because their standard gun is the bolter! As a Battle Sister player I need to get into rapid fire range as fast as possible because that is where my army is the most effective! As for the AP1, I need to roll 6s for that to happen, which is not often. I won't deny that I've had some lucky rolls, but on average a single squad shooting 8 bolters and two flamers is going to net about 3 AP1 wounds. Annoying? yes. Broken? I don't think so.
5) If you really press Battle Sister players, most will admit that this wargear is kinda cheap. I wasn't aware the new IG got this as wargear, I wonder how much they're paying for it?
6) Seraphim can really chew through your faith point pool, so while they are tough in the short run, they have no staying power (much like other Battle Sisters). This is why the Hit&Run rule is so vital for them to operate effectively. In 5th edition they got a big boost since they come with krak grenades and tank are hit on rear AV. But then assault squads for SM are just (if not more) as capable.

7) As for codex creep, there is nothing (yet) that screams such, but I agree with Ixe in that the trend for such is showing up here and there (Nobs bikerz with pain-boy, I'm looking at you).

PS. Sorry for being a jerk Druchii, I mean it.

Hey man, no worries.
I was sorta miffed, to be honest, at the nasty sarcasm of the first post-such is the perils of text only communication!

1-Exorcists are infinitely better than predator annihilators. They're cheaper, and have the potential to be better. Much better. And really, what ELSE would you put in your HS slot but three exorcists?

2-It IS an argument, because they got better because they no longer pay "more" for eviscerators and eviscerators are BETTER than Pfists.

3-She might be sort of fragile, but like I said she needs to be thrown at units that do NOT have a high number of high strength attacks. She'd be able to tank that chaplain right off the bat, though. Like I said, she has to be used sparingly, but she can still tie up/beat on a unit that's been hammered by 3d6 worth of exorcist shots a turn, too. She gets even worse when there's two on the table (and at the price of an old tac squad, she's worth it!)

4-Again, the problem is that suddenly a sisters squad threatens EVERYTHING in the game, just by simply existing and not paying extra points for it. Marines dump points into melta guns, while sisters turn their s5/ap4 heavy flamer into a nasty deterrent weapon. Like I said before, mech armies got better because mobility is so key in the game now (I'd even take rhinos in a KP mission, rhino walling RULES!)

5-Sorry, the new ig BENEFIT from this wargear. That is I can dump 200 pts of guardsmen on the table, park a sisters squad near it, and let it all benefit from the book of I'm way too cheap.

6-Well except that in the turn they charge the sisters get to toast a pair of marines, and go invuln to ignore their power fist. Then they wang a few more (two?) with their eviscerator. Oh, they're also cheaper and carry meltapistols and chainfists.

The problem with sisters is that it's easy to disect each of their strengths individually, but when you toss em all together you've got an army with unmodified LD ALL THE TIME, VERY cheap units that can lock up much more expensive/scary units for a long time, incredible fire support, the ability to threaten EVERYTHING in the game with EVERY unit in the army AND a strong mechanized base? And faith isn't that hard to come by, when those canonesses die, you get that faith back too! (that's why we call them faint pinatas, you beat on them and when they bust open faith comes sprinkling out!)

I can't think of any army that can boast anything even close to this.

7-And really, I think the nob bikers+painboy IS indeed nasty as hell, but it only really becomes a problem when you see two units on the table. Typically I can deal with one unit (ignore the rest of the army, and deal with it) but it gives my demons fits, I'll tell you that. But the new SM codex, Demons, Guard don't have anything that really screams OMG OMG OMG OMG CRAP! Like the bikers, which was just a mistake-like most things in the ork codex, the mob sizes got a bit wonky.

d

ps. Don't worry about it, thanks for being an adult and apologizing, but there's no need.

Vegeta365
15-04-2009, 21:00
I agree with all that have posted saying not to worry. The game itself is balanced well enough. Obviously there could be a few rules improvements, and there should be some updates to tone down certain units. But we know GW doesn't do this so in youre gaming group you either need to make youre own house rules, decide not to use the ridiculous stuff or just live with it!

The problem only effects me at the tourny scene, where there is no deterant not to take these units. So you end up with a can't beat them,join them mentality that is getting worse. When poeple look at the tourny rankings to see what is best you don't get a true representation. For example, Orks are a good army. They have a good codex and can easily win and lose. However the Ork lists that finish at the top of the tournys are all very simillar. Either Nob biker, or Warboss/big mek kustom force field battlewagon lists with units of 20 boys and maybe a nob squad. Ghazhkull will often be in there instead of the warboss for added pain! So basically the tournys are dominated by two overpowered ork lists, not the orks as a whole. Similarly with Eldar and seer councils or Tyranid Nidzilla or Chaos Lash obliterator spam. Basically, there is a lot of balance in the game that is not visible by looking at tournament results. The power builds that spoil the game skew these results and arent a true reflection of youre general gaming group!

druchii
16-04-2009, 00:26
I agree with all that have posted saying not to worry. The game itself is balanced well enough. Obviously there could be a few rules improvements, and there should be some updates to tone down certain units. But we know GW doesn't do this so in youre gaming group you either need to make youre own house rules, decide not to use the ridiculous stuff or just live with it!

The problem only effects me at the tourny scene, where there is no deterant not to take these units. So you end up with a can't beat them,join them mentality that is getting worse. When poeple look at the tourny rankings to see what is best you don't get a true representation. For example, Orks are a good army. They have a good codex and can easily win and lose. However the Ork lists that finish at the top of the tournys are all very simillar. Either Nob biker, or Warboss/big mek kustom force field battlewagon lists with units of 20 boys and maybe a nob squad. Ghazhkull will often be in there instead of the warboss for added pain! So basically the tournys are dominated by two overpowered ork lists, not the orks as a whole. Similarly with Eldar and seer councils or Tyranid Nidzilla or Chaos Lash obliterator spam. Basically, there is a lot of balance in the game that is not visible by looking at tournament results. The power builds that spoil the game skew these results and arent a true reflection of youre general gaming group!

This is a great point, and one I actually use with the HOLY CRAP SOBs!

At our club we typically get two games in a night. Once every few months we actually will play the same person twice, and swap armies.

You know what happened when I swapped armies with the SOB player? Keep in mind He and I have both been playing 40K for about 10 years, with a wide variety of armies (SOBs, Eldar, Demons, SMs, Chaos, Nids, and Guard between us two). I beat the tar our of him with his own army. He beat the tar out of me with his army.

I wish it was a one time deal, but whenever he's swapped his army with another "old" player the same scenario repeats.

I'm not saying that ALL SoBs are over the top, but they're VERY easy to make so. They're an incredible army, and with the new guard codex they got better!

The "tournament" scene isn't representative of real game play at all. How could it be? The tournament scene is representative of the tournament scene and you WILL see the same things over and over. Biker nobs. Lash princes. Lash sorcerers. Three exorcists. All mech armies. Nidzilla. But in practice, I can count on one hand the number of times I've played against said lists, and I've been playing since the invention of all of these lists, atleast two games a week!

d