PDA

View Full Version : Armor and balance in 40k



scratchbuilt
05-08-2007, 19:18
Armor creates balance issues. There is really no reason to choose troops with lower armor saves, or troops instead of tanks, apart from looks. Supposedly heavy weapons are supposed to keep them in check, but this skews army composition making them neacessary, and now the codexes seem to be moving to limit heavy weapons, which will make tanks far too hard to stop.

Either heavy armor should be more pricey in points, or ordinary weapons like krak grenades, stick bombs etc should be more effective. This would effective increase the amount of different troops and options available.

RampagingRavener
05-08-2007, 19:21
If that is true, answer me this. Why do Dark Angels players ever use anything except Deathwing? Surely by your logic an army of nothing but Terminators and Land Raiders would be amoung to top most powerful army builds?

Slaaneshi Slave
05-08-2007, 19:21
Anti-tank weaponry is already far too powerful. Amour needs helping, not hindering. There are only 2 types of vehicle which are as good as their points in the current system - Tau skimmers, and Monolith. The only one which is better than its points would indicate are Eldar vehicles. Every other vehicle type in the game is not worth its points, unless you spend so many points on vehicles you overwhelm the enemy anti-tank (I run 6 vehs at 1,500pts with my Witch Hunters, for example).

sqigglett
05-08-2007, 19:22
i only have this to say scratchbuilt: lascannons (or equivelent)

Adept
05-08-2007, 19:26
Anti-tank weaponry is already far too powerful. Amour needs helping, not hindering.

I think he's talking about armour-save armour, not armoured-vehicle armour.

max the dog
05-08-2007, 19:27
Well armor should be hard to stop. It makes sense that most troops would have trouble keeping a big lumbering beast of iron and steel from grinding their heads into the ground. Of course some troops can handle armor much easier than others so you should seek a decent balance of both anti-infantry and anti-armor troops. It's a tough balance but it can be done.

The_Outsider
05-08-2007, 19:28
best bit: the more armour gets helped the harder Necrons get.

If 40k became the "Tank edition" it would render Necrons the single most powerful race in the game.

However its a difficult thing to balance - too much in favour of armour IG would start wiping armies off the table as they would never be able to deal with 3 russes. Too much focus on infantry and no tank becomes woth it with the exception of the monolith whih even then would eventually fall.

Ravenous
05-08-2007, 19:35
Balance is a pipe dream in 40k. Its not possible, short of everyone using 1 exact same army, then it just comes down to tactics.

Balance cannot co-exist with character. Thats why chess is boring as hell, and thats also why its balanced.

The best we can get is balanced-ish, which is what 40k is slowly turning into now, not necessary a bad thing, but it does suck the randomness and fun out of it a little more.

scratchbuilt
05-08-2007, 19:58
i only have this to say scratchbuilt: lascannons (or equivelent)

Thats why my chaos army used to have 5 man squads, with a lascannon. But now less and less armies can field heavy weapons in any number. Not that that is a bad thing per say, I want ordinary troops to be the most important part of the army, but reducing the number of heavy weapons just makes heavily armored troops and tanks too powerful.

If you have just one tank in your army, then yes it is vulnerable, and some troops and tanks are overpriced - termies and landraiders. But think of necrons and gaurds for example. An Imperial gaurd armies basic troops are useless, their only function as ablative armor for the special weapons and heavy weapons, or just to draw attention away from your tanks. Necron basic troops on the other hand are perfectly functional on their own. Yes necron basic troops are more expensive, but not by enough.

Deathwing armies loose for two reasons - everyone in tournaments builds their list to destroy armor, and termies aren't very good at dealing with armor themelves. A far better illustration is the nidzilla list (I admit I haven't seen the new nid dex yet, but I know a carni army will be hard to deal with).

An army like the kroot, with few low ap weapons, should still be a viable army, or a guard army without tanks and lascannons, but at the mo that is far from so.

scratchbuilt
05-08-2007, 20:05
'Balance' as such already exists in that everyone can go for the same cheese.

But an alternative balance, where 300 points of gretchin is as likely to help you win as the same amount of monolith, is possible. Not perfectly, but still. Thats the point of threads like this. Many would find the lists boring though.

Personally I think many in GW enjoy making their cheese possible though.

Randy
05-08-2007, 20:07
Despite him saying "Or troops over tanks"? Yeh ok, sure.

The trick to bringing down 2+ saves is to get stuck inwith a cheap unit toting a power weapon or two.

Failing that, force armour saves en masse with those 15 s6 shots you have knocking around.

I just run PFs in every unit almost so for me armour isn't really an issue. Of either kind.

Nemo84
05-08-2007, 20:20
As it is, non skimmer armour in 40k suffers from 3 distinct, but grave problems. The first is the over-abundance of AT-weaponry, and this is a side effect of the over-abundance of MEQ armies vs GEQ. It looks like the new codices are remedying this problem by imposing lots of restrictions on which units take heavy weapons, but this might harm some armies capabilities to deal with the aforementioned MEQ. If most armies were low-save GEQ (one can only dream :p), people would take heavy bolters instead of lascannons, and tanks would be a lot more valuable.

The second problem is that skimmers are way too good compared to equally priced ground tanks, thanks to glancing only. This also results in people taking more AT weapons, so they can reliably deal with them.

The third problem is AV10 side and/or rear armor on many vehicles, meaning they can get glanced by almost every armies basic gun (guard excluded) and almost every dedicated assault unit. In my opinion AV11 should be the minimum unless it is really meant to represent something unarmored (for example the rear part of a centaur). I think that just upping all AV values by one point for most tanks (except skimmers and some other exceptions) would make ground armor finally worth it's price.

As for unit armour, I think that is rather well done. Though I would love to see some small modifiers for armour saves against high-strength weapons such as autocannons, to make them more effective against all these MEQ.

The_Outsider
05-08-2007, 21:20
I like to use the BA (I haven't readthe DA but I assume its very similar) and eldar codices as a basis for the way 40k is going.

Either by making AT weapon require large squads (BA, DA) or making them expensive on most pltforms (eldar).

BA/DA can field a lot of anti infantry weapons (heavy bolters, etc) for very little cost, but if you want to run a predator annihilator you are paying a lot for such a large amount of lascannon.

Eldar too pay high points for their brightlances and starcannon.

GW is shifting the focus on tanks by not altering the core rules, they are building armeis around the obvious durability issue.

This to me will create a more balanced game over rebuilding the core rules ot suit the problem.

Necrons are still not the exception to the trend, in fact they were one step ahead of everyone - by having lots of short to medium range low to medium strength weaponry for anti tank it means units that choose to shoot at tanks are wasting far more firepower for the few glancing hits than normal.