PDA

View Full Version : GOD, those GW people can't write codexes



changer of fate
08-05-2009, 09:49
Like i said in the title, there are just so many dumb choices in each codex that is just way to cheesed or just so useless that it shouldn't even be there

so i want to hear some opinion on that

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 09:52
You're right, when you look closely at new codex's and their possible army builds, you might end up with about 1/3 of the choices which are actually useful, if that.

Evilmop
08-05-2009, 09:53
In think the game existing for 30 years kind of nulls that opinion.

I mean they must be doing something right.

spacewolf_sven
08-05-2009, 09:56
As well as all that new codexes have no quality background compared to older ones

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 09:56
In think the game existing for 30 years kind of nulls that opinion.

I mean they must be doing something right.

30 years just emphasizes the point, they don't seem to understand their own game enough to make a good codex. Just look at all of the competitive lists winning tournaments, its a pretty quantitative way to see which units are good and which are not.

Evilmop
08-05-2009, 09:59
But the game is not about winning, You have to bear in mind all players play for different reasons, be it to collect a chapter specific army, be as cheesey as possible, have an army that is just fun to play with or just to blatenetly **** off your opponent ala Nidzilla.

The options are there to be just that options.

Plus if you want to play an army that doesnt bombard you with options but is still tactially viable, collect necrons!

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 10:02
You're totally right about the game not being totally about winning. I for one love to build up a cool looking army, but I also like to be competitive. That's no excuse for having useless units. It is easily possible to make a codex where more units are useful, and keep the diversity. Necrons have plenty of options that suck, just like any other codex: monoliths, pariahs, flayed ones, C'tan come to mind.

changer of fate
08-05-2009, 10:03
well take chaos as a example, with the daemon prince available, no one is going to ever take a Chaos Lord or a sorcerer if they are looking for competitive build

spacewolf_sven
08-05-2009, 10:04
Some people still LIKE winning...occasionally

Brimstone
08-05-2009, 10:09
Any actual tactics discussion in this thread?

Didn't think so, so it's off to 40K General.

The Warseer Inquisition

Grimtuff
08-05-2009, 10:11
OP: Welcome to the Interent, home of hyperbole. :rolleyes:

Despite what the Internet says, Flash Gitz, Vanguard, Wraiths etc. are not crap. Funny that.

Huw_Dawson
08-05-2009, 10:20
Score for troll topic:

1/10

Please try harder.

That said, the codexes are fine. Some units are harder to use well than others.

- Huw

SylverClaw
08-05-2009, 10:23
well take chaos as a example, with the daemon prince available, no one is going to ever take a Chaos Lord or a sorcerer if they are looking for competitive build

Not quite. My brother takes both a prince and one of the others. Generally because a prince is stupidly easy to pop, being a MC and towering over every other model - it might as well hold a target over its head.

A sorc in terminator armour, in a termie squad, is pretty handy. Stick bolt of change on him, warp time, DS in and he's pretty good at rear ending tanks. A prince has to slog it all the way across the board before he can knock out pesky indirect tanks.

A lord is less useful, as far as I can see, but one in power armour hidden away in a squad can come as a nasty suprise when your attention is taken by the much more flashy prince.

Just because you (referring to everyone of that opinion, not just you) can't think of a way to use a unit/model doesn't automatically mean its useless.

People play and think in different ways - they need options to support that. Otherwise GW might as well stop selling individual units and just do an Uber Army Box set for the "best" build so everyone can use it.

Aegius
08-05-2009, 10:25
As well as all that new codexes have no quality background compared to older ones

I recently looked through my 2nd edition copy of codex ultramarines. There is just as much background in the new codex as there is in the old, possibly more. The eldar codex has more or less the same amount of background too, I think the tyranids actually have more in their most recent codex. You are probably refering to 3rd edition codexes rather than 4th/5th edition.

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 10:32
The marine book had plenty of background but the new IG codex only has a few pages of generic background, some pages on individual guard army background and the rest of the background is just whats in the section on the individual unit pages. The book also has very little in the way of pictures, its just a few pages of generic models from the old book, two pages of the really crappy old models (tallarn, steel legion, etc.), the only new models shown are the valkyrie and advisors *yawn*. I think its the guard codex that he could be referring to, but overall their books have certainly not been worse lately.

I don't think units are useless because I can't think of uses for them. There are plenty of uses for every possible selection in every codex, but those uses do not hold up in a competitive environment and will not be taken by players who actually want to win AND play with other players who want to win. You can easily win with many of those selections if all of your opponents also play around with quirky but less-than-useful units.

Griefbringer
08-05-2009, 10:38
In think the game existing for 30 years kind of nulls that opinion.


More like 22 years - AFAIK 40k RT was released in 1987.

SylverClaw
08-05-2009, 10:40
I don't think units are useless because I can't think of uses for them. There are plenty of uses for every possible selection in every codex, but those uses do not hold up in a competitive environment and will not be taken by players who actually want to win AND play with other players who want to win. You can easily win with many of those selections if all of your opponents also play around with quirky but less-than-useful units.

I couldn't disagree more. There are certainly units which I can't think of a good use for, but a quick flick through the tactics forums shows that other people have thought of great uses.

Conscripts, for example, I previously considered useless - but that's only because I hadn't really thought about how they might be used.

Do you have an example from the Guard codex to back that up?

Evilmop
08-05-2009, 10:40
You're totally right about the game not being totally about winning. I for one love to build up a cool looking army, but I also like to be competitive. That's no excuse for having useless units. It is easily possible to make a codex where more units are useful, and keep the diversity. Necrons have plenty of options that suck, just like any other codex: monoliths, pariahs, flayed ones, C'tan come to mind.

Sorry I have to dissagree there, How is a C'tan useless? Wounds anything (almost) on a 2+ is toughness 8, has 5 attacks on the charge, is a monsterous creature and ignores even inv saves.

I know he is pricey but you pay for what you get.

Even more so, How is a monolith useless, the whole reasons necrons can be a a pain to play is because of the phase out. The monolith reduces the chances of this happening by giving the player more opportunities to make the WBB rolls.

Plus flayed ones used along side Pariahs are awesome, its a combo thats means anyone with 12 inches of the pariahs has there leader ship reduced to 7 NO MATTER WHAT, then if you assault the Flayed ones there terrifying visage has a 50% of being successful and opponent being only able to wound on a 6. This is not the best tactic by any means, but its still sneaky.

Evilmop
08-05-2009, 10:42
And as for codexes getting better, take a look at the previous CSM one. EWWW it was awful to read and badly set out, the new one on the otherhand has the fluff, is nicely set out and nowhere near as confusing as the previous one.

At the end of the day the game has so many possibilities that it is all down to taste and secondly all units can be rubbish if your rolls are off.

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 10:44
Sorry I have to dissagree there, How is a C'tan useless? Wounds anything (almost) on a 2+ is toughness 8, has 5 attacks on the charge, is a monsterous creature and ignores even inv saves.

I know he is pricey but you pay for what you get.

Even more so, How is a monolith useless, the whole reasons necrons can be a a pain to play is because of the phase out. The monolith reduces the chances of this happening by giving the player more opportunities to make the WBB rolls.

Plus flayed ones used along side Pariahs are awesome, its a combo thats means anyone with 12 inches of the pariahs has there leader ship reduced to 7 NO MATTER WHAT, then if you assault the Flayed ones there terrifying visage has a 50% of being successful and opponent being only able to wound on a 6. This is not the best tactic by any means, but its still sneaky.

C'tan are too expensive and slow for what they do, this diverts points away from actual necrons making them just that much easier to phase out. The monolith has great defensive abilities but crap offensive abilities, it's one major features, like you said, is giving a second chance for WBB, but you have to ask whether the point cost of it is worth that ability or might it be better to just increase the number of necrons. Your flayed one / pariah combo is one of those "tactical" situations where you assume a situation and point out how awesome they are in that situation. The difficulty is actually setting up that situation in a game against a good opponent.

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 10:48
and secondly all units can be rubbish if your rolls are off.

I just can't help but comment on this, are you telling me a guardsman who happens to roll all sixes in a turn is better than the other extreme, a land raider that rolls all ones? It's a pretty ridiculous comparison but there are just mathematical limitations that you come up against with different units. No matter how hard you try, an autocannon will not damage a land raider.

Also, it's just silly to use the random property of dice as an excuse to run terrible units. Dice are random and follow the the laws of statistics (ignoring the dude who tested GW dice and found that 1's roll more often).

Max1mum
08-05-2009, 10:48
let's see, what is it 300 to 400 GW stores worldwide,

thousands of independent retailers,...

and no marketing what so ever..

I guess it's the product that sells it self, might there be some good in it then ?


Right, do you think that griping on the inter-webs is going to change it ?, let me answer that one for you. -NO it wont-.

Lets asume for a second that your smart enough to know that your self ( or at least pessimistic enough ). That means that your just hear making this post for the sake of ranting, what's the point in just ranting ?

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 10:50
I thought that ranting was one of the top two reasons for using the internet? No one is arguing that the game just sucks, just that there are some glaring flaws with how GW designs their game.

rodmillard
08-05-2009, 10:50
I just can't help but comment on this, are you telling me a guardsman who happens to roll all sixes in a turn is better than the other extreme, a land raider that rolls all ones?

Only until he rolls double 6 for morale and gets shot by the commissar...

susu.exp
08-05-2009, 10:56
Let´s look at the empirical evidence: If the GW people can not write Codices (which is the correct plural), then there are not Codices written by the GW people. As it turns out there have been 45 Codices written by GW people, 15 of which are still in circulation (SM, BA, DA, BT, CSM, CD, Nec, Tau, Nid, IG, Ork, WH, DH, DE, E).

Now, some unrelated question is whether these codices are actually good. And IMHO the ones that have come out since Codex Eldar have been pretty great.

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 10:59
Let´s look at the empirical evidence: If the GW people can not write Codices (which is the correct plural), then there are not Codices written by the GW people. As it turns out there have been 45 Codices written by GW people, 15 of which are still in circulation (SM, BA, DA, BT, CSM, CD, Nec, Tau, Nid, IG, Ork, WH, DH, DE, E).

Now, some unrelated question is whether these codices are actually good. And IMHO the ones that have come out since Codex Eldar have been pretty great.

Are you really taking the phrase "can't write a codex" literally? Well its pretty clear that they can physically write *codices* as you said seeing as how they have actually published many. Your "unrelated" question is in fact the question that is being ranted about in this thread. The OP was just saying that there are a bunch of crappy choices, not that they have gotten worse.

Jack5h1t
08-05-2009, 11:22
I've quickly scanned through the thread (might have missed a couple of posts) but I cannot even begin to agree with the main topic.

Let's start at the beginning, I think everyubody agrees that the current format of Codexes started with the Eldar Codex that came out about 3 years ago. I had the previous Eldar Codex and I have to say the current one is superior in every way. People complain that certain groupings like Siam Hann Windriders and seer councils could not be taken but that's not true, with sufficient bumping around of units you can customize an Eldar Army to make up most of the old lists with new rules. Same with the current Orks and Marines dex. I don't know much about old Chaos Marines so although I have the current dex I can't comment on old ones. The recently released Guard Codex is the most radiclly different in army list than it's predecessor, but as a guard player (among others) myself I feel this new dex is a massive improvement over the last, sure we've lost Doctrines, which I really liked I haven't missed them at all in the 3 games using the new dex that I have already played (ok, not quite true, I miss carapace armor on all my infantry, but hey, not I can have shed loads of tanks. FTW!!!). The new rules allow me to customize my IG force pretty much any way I want. Same with the Ork Codex, although I only have about 700 points of Orks so I haven't the minis to build a customized force here.

The comments about army background and fluff are incomprehensible to me, did you ever actually see an old codex? they didn't have any of this information. When I read the current Eldar Codex I was shocked at how much background there was and, yes, how well written it was. Same with the Ork Codex. I'm not too in love with the current marine codex background and fluff, but it is much better than the older dex, and i play Blood Angels marines so really it makes no difference to me. Compare these to the older codexes and your comments are ludicrous.

So the current Codexes have lists that can be easily altered to suit your play style and have (for the most part) great fluff and background info. SO I guess the GW writers must be pretty good after all if all evidence points that way.

Corrode
08-05-2009, 11:31
Are you really taking the phrase "can't write a codex" literally? Well its pretty clear that they can physically write *codices* as you said seeing as how they have actually published many. Your "unrelated" question is in fact the question that is being ranted about in this thread. The OP was just saying that there are a bunch of crappy choices, not that they have gotten worse.

*WHOOSH*.

Personally I'm on the side of the fence that says GW can't write codices. My Ork codex is terrible; there's all these useless units in it. I mean, who's ever gonna take Lootas or Shoota Boyz (LOL BS 2 AMIRITE?). And Biker Nobz are crap, no 2+ save = NO TYVM.

And lol, everything's S3 base! I wound Marines on 5s! Only ****** would take Boyz. What are Grotz even good for? T2? OMG MAN. Good players will take Meganobz and Battlewagons cos big guns and 2+ saves is what makes an army good.

Nevermind the Marine codex. There's no choice at all. I mean, they don't even have an Elites section! It just goes HQ -> Troops! I keep hearing about Terminators but they're not in the list d00dz. New Imperial Guard is just as bad, you can't even make a good list with them. It's the same as before, just spam your d00dz and watch them get killed.

Oh wait, no, I get it. You're complaining about 3 year old codices designed under a different, stripped-down tournament-style mindset, which still contain bags more fluff than the 3rd edition pamphlets. I can only conclude it's because you're an ungrateful whiny idiot who can't conceive that maybe, just maybe, in three years things have changed for the better and that maybe, just maybe it signals a sea change in the way things are written.

Tonberry
08-05-2009, 12:15
People will complain when a codex contains many options, some of which are less tactically viable than others. Conversely, people will also complain when a codex contains no choice, and just 1 strong army build.

You cannot please everyone; live with it.

susu.exp
08-05-2009, 12:41
Are you really taking the phrase "can't write a codex" literally?

Can you give me a good reason not to do so?


Well its pretty clear that they can physically write *codices* as you said seeing as how they have actually published many. Your "unrelated" question is in fact the question that is being ranted about in this thread.

Indeed. It just doesn´t bear any relation to the topic title, which was my point really. If you want to rant on internal balance, you could call the topic "rant on internal balance", rather than make a statement that is demonstrably incorrect.


The OP was just saying that there are a bunch of crappy choices, not that they have gotten worse.

Nor did I. I stated that the dexes since C:Eldar have been very good. There are popular choices, there are unpopular choices. There are things you can get rewarded for taking more easily than others, but there are few no brainers. Now, there may be some units that are objectively worse than others in older Codeci. I´m not a Necron player so I´m not sure about these. But that Codex came out under 3rd Edition, with a vastly different metagame.

Born Again
08-05-2009, 12:52
I use Vespid in my Tau army. Shock, horror. They do some good, on occasion they have even done excellently. A bad unit is just one you haven't learned to use yet.

I might well make a related thread on this.

Draconian77
08-05-2009, 12:59
C'tan are too expensive and slow for what they do, this diverts points away from actual necrons making them just that much easier to phase out.



I do apologise for going off topic but I just can't let this go!
Largest chance of phasing out?
-> Unit destroyed by combat and sweeping advanced.
-> Best method of making the enemy stay away?
-> Stick a S9/10 T8 god of death close to your lines. I would always take the Deceiver over the Nightbringer.
-> Profit.

He doesnt have to do a thing, as long as your opponents assault troops are too scared to advance you are in a great position. If they do advance...well lets just say that the Ctan tend to make Daemon Princes look like Grots when it comes to fisti-cuffs!

Count de Monet
08-05-2009, 13:31
I don't mind so much that there are some units that are more 'efficient' than others.

What bothers me are the misprints and poor and confusing wording. Give me unbalanced books, just *clearly written* unbalanced books. Use actual editors and proofreaders, not just spellcheck. GW can even screw up supposed *corrections*, such as their apparent 'fix' to the Ork Biker unit's Nob only having one wound in the fresh printings of the Ork codex...which also changes regular bikers to 2 wounds. :eyebrows: Great quality control guys. :rolleyes:

Captain Micha
08-05-2009, 13:33
thing is though, Necrons aren't actually that hot against Mech lists (which are really popular these days). Outmaneuvered and out gunned even more so if you are fielding a C'tan who totally destroys the real only way to consistently win with Crons. (Lots of teleporting).

keatsmeister
08-05-2009, 13:42
The marine book had plenty of background but the new IG codex only has a few pages of generic background, some pages on individual guard army background and the rest of the background is just whats in the section on the individual unit pages. The book also has very little in the way of pictures, its just a few pages of generic models from the old book, two pages of the really crappy old models (tallarn, steel legion, etc.), the only new models shown are the valkyrie and advisors *yawn*. I think its the guard codex that he could be referring to, but overall their books have certainly not been worse lately.

IN terms of the background, there's no less in there than any other Guard codex. There are a few areas where background is paraphrased into neater sections, for example Valhalla's epic invasion is cut down because frankly some of it was superfluous detail anyway. The only thing I miss from the old Codexes was having the minis on the back pages along with all the order codes for individual parts - a time when special order conversion was so much easier

As for the OP, if you think you can do better, seriously, submit your efforts to GW. A business doesn't stay running for this long unless they are getting something right.

Cheesed units? Maybe, but frankly having seen multiple efforts by people crying the same thing, and having several submitted to our website on a weekly basis, believe me, the codexes are not half as unbalanced as some people would have them.

As for useless units, from over a decade of experience - there is no such thing! The reason that you have those units is to allow variety, and for you to find your own use for those units. If you can't find a use for them, then that's your own issue, not writing issue. Seriously, try using them in different ways, and you may be pleasantly surprised.

SylverClaw
08-05-2009, 13:47
Oh wait, no, I get it. You're complaining about 3 year old codices designed under a different, stripped-down tournament-style mindset, which still contain bags more fluff than the 3rd edition pamphlets. I can only conclude it's because you're an ungrateful whiny idiot who can't conceive that maybe, just maybe, in three years things have changed for the better and that maybe, just maybe it signals a sea change in the way things are written.

Best sarcastic reply ever. Sir, please accept one internetz for your greatness.


What bothers me are the misprints and poor and confusing wording.

I agree with this, but it's a problem across the whole company and not just 40k. Even Black Library don't seem to bother editting. It's a problem but not one worth discussing anymore - they clearly don't give a damn.

Draconian77
08-05-2009, 13:51
thing is though, Necrons aren't actually that hot against Mech lists (which are really popular these days). Outmaneuvered and out gunned even more so if you are fielding a C'tan who totally destroys the real only way to consistently win with Crons. (Lots of teleporting).

You are mainly teleporting to avoid combat...the need is greatly reduced if you have a Ctan on the field.

I won't comment any more on the subject as its off topic but if you would like to continue the conversation you can always PM me.

freddieyu
08-05-2009, 13:51
Like i said in the title, there are just so many dumb choices in each codex that is just way to cheesed or just so useless that it shouldn't even be there

so i want to hear some opinion on that

That sir, is utterly subjective, but of course that is your opinion...which is respected....

Mine is the reverse, the codexes are just fine....there were more useless units before, and those FOC slots are getting more crowded every time...and while I have not been in the hobby as long as some of you, 11 years is not short either..(I started 1998)....and I have been collecting the codices since them..many are armies I do not use, but I love the history and backgrounds (and it helps to know thy enemy)..and I find the 40k game NOW to be the most balanced and enjoyable....

[SD] Bob Plisskin
08-05-2009, 13:52
I think the current chaos codex is no where near as good as the one before it. Before it felt more chaotic, apart from Iron Warriors there were no really superbuilds, you could do individual leaders (Mostly super powerful but also very points heavy), you could do armies tailored to one god, even the whole free champion upgrade for fluffy numbers was.. well... chaotic.

In terms of fluff the 3rd edition eldar codex was terrible, but coupled with the craftworld codex it made for some very interesting armies. It had the problem of the holo-falcon however the messing around with the FOC was individual, it was different. The 2nd edition codex was a mess but great fluff.

At the end of the day, the rule system is fairly complicated and they dont seem to playtest very well (I think they dont play competitively, they dont build power lists). Maybe the developers just see the hobby differently to the majority on forums. Maybe they play the games for the fun of using different units, painting, modeling, special rules, narrative, etc etc..

If you rate units on how good are they in my list and not how fun are they to play with ;0) how do you know everyone does the same?

keatsmeister
08-05-2009, 13:57
and I find the 40k game NOW to be the most balanced and enjoyable....

Yep, I don't particularly miss the first turn of a 1500pt game taking the best part of an hour and a half on a good day, most of it just on sorting out the psychic phase :rolleyes:

That and the unbelievably powered-up combos that could be had under 2nd edition. [shudders at the repressed memories resurfacing...]

loveless
08-05-2009, 14:06
Token response:

Don't like it? You do it then. Be impressive, then get a job at GW.

Meanwhile, I tend to find that the reason I don't use units in 40K isn't "This unit is crap!" it's "I don't care for the models and have no desire to convert something for them." You can find uses for anything - if all you play is tournaments, then you'll probably see the same builds repeatedly...that's more a function of tournament-mindset than GW-writing. People will always glean the "best" units to use through Theoryhammer and Easter Egg Hunting, post those findings to the public, and then watch as the muddled masses buy up the models in the list to take to a tournament.

bloodraven1000
08-05-2009, 14:12
*WHOOSH*.

Personally I'm on the side of the fence that says GW can't write codices. My Ork codex is terrible; there's all these useless units in it. I mean, who's ever gonna take Lootas or Shoota Boyz (LOL BS 2 AMIRITE?). And Biker Nobz are crap, no 2+ save = NO TYVM.

And lol, everything's S3 base! I wound Marines on 5s! Only ****** would take Boyz. What are Grotz even good for? T2? OMG MAN. Good players will take Meganobz and Battlewagons cos big guns and 2+ saves is what makes an army good.

Nevermind the Marine codex. There's no choice at all. I mean, they don't even have an Elites section! It just goes HQ -> Troops! I keep hearing about Terminators but they're not in the list d00dz. New Imperial Guard is just as bad, you can't even make a good list with them. It's the same as before, just spam your d00dz and watch them get killed.

Oh wait, no, I get it. You're complaining about 3 year old codices designed under a different, stripped-down tournament-style mindset, which still contain bags more fluff than the 3rd edition pamphlets. I can only conclude it's because you're an ungrateful whiny idiot who can't conceive that maybe, just maybe, in three years things have changed for the better and that maybe, just maybe it signals a sea change in the way things are written.

hmmmm so boyz units suck grotz suck lootas suck nob bikers suck and only meganobz are good? well dont play orks let me redirect you to the marine which seem like the army you want (generic allrounders) because orks (hordes in general) cant be your thing or do you just want everything to be ridiculously good i mean orks only cost 6 pts for goodness sake

MajorWesJanson
08-05-2009, 14:18
hmmmm so boyz units suck grotz suck lootas suck nob bikers suck and only meganobz are good? well dont play orks let me redirect you to the marine which seem like the army you want (generic allrounders) because orks (hordes in general) cant be your thing or do you just want everything to be ridiculously good i mean orks only cost 6 pts for goodness sake

I think the Machine Spirit in your sarcasm detector is faulty...

Giant Fossil Penguin
08-05-2009, 14:19
Sarcasm detector failure. ^

susu.exp
08-05-2009, 14:31
40k general scenario rule: Any "detect irony" tests recieve a -20 modifier...

@loveless: Theoryhammer needs to be adjusted to "bad theoryhammer". Which is looking at the stats to pcik the best units for some standard situations. Not to be confused with good theoryhammer, which is looking at the stats to figure out how to make the best of units people deem bad choices and coming up with surprising and decidedly non-standard tactics.

Another point to make is: You can never archieve balance unless you restrict terrain options. You think Biker Nobs are cheesed out auto-win units? Well, there´s a swamp table that makes them no good at all. We´d see more varied lists if people played more varied terrain. You´ve got a lava flow on the table? Skimmers and Jump packed troops just got a big boost. You´ve got mountainous terrain with loads of rubble fields and tight canyons? Template weapons and flamers in particular just got better. Only if you always play the same type of terrain, there are units that will constantly do better and other that´ll constantly do worse. And since a lot of gaming tables look very similar, you get a consensous opinion on which ones they are.

keatsmeister
08-05-2009, 14:42
Another point to make is: You can never archieve balance unless you restrict terrain options. You think Biker Nobs are cheesed out auto-win units? Well, there´s a swamp table that makes them no good at all. We´d see more varied lists if people played more varied terrain. You´ve got a lava flow on the table? Skimmers and Jump packed troops just got a big boost. You´ve got mountainous terrain with loads of rubble fields and tight canyons? Template weapons and flamers in particular just got better. Only if you always play the same type of terrain, there are units that will constantly do better and other that´ll constantly do worse. And since a lot of gaming tables look very similar, you get a consensous opinion on which ones they are.

Yep, time to break out those old Jungle-fighting rules...:D

Vepr
08-05-2009, 14:43
It is hard for me to fault GW to much on game balance because it is almost impossible to have multiple armies across multiple game versions remain balanced with each other. Also we have to question whether or not we would want every unit in an army balanced with each other and every codex balanced against each other. If they could actually achieve balance across the armies and between units I am guessing the game would be pretty damn boring. They are trying to juggle game fun with unit effectiveness and diversity between units and armies which is no easy task. I am no fan boy by any means but I think people often forget the myriad issues facing a company.

My biggest complaint with GW is the glacial pace they release and update faq's often leaving basic rules clarifications up in the air that would seem fairly straight forward to resolve.

Meriwether
08-05-2009, 15:32
I think the Machine Spirit in your sarcasm detector is faulty...

That made me bust out laughing... And I've got students in my room taking a test!

Seriously, though, any time a "this unit sucks" thread comes up, you get people arguing about why said unit does _not_ suck, and why they use them. The only exceptions I know of are Chaos Spawn (which actually had some use in 4th, but really don't in 5th -- at least not at their cost) and DE Hellions (which weren't very good when the codex was new, and have gotten worse with every new edition). Other than that, people disagree on what is and is not good -- and that's a good thing! Variety is your friend.

Meri

Captain Micha
08-05-2009, 15:34
Vespid, and Pariah. You forgot those two. Usually the only people that defend them don't even play their respective armies. I've used Vespid... trust me folks they suck I've used em in every way imaginable. They look cool and that's why I fielded them. They do decent as fire support for Firewarriors in a Fish.... but other than that they are terrible and go down way too easy. The only time they live is when they aren't being shot at.

Codexes Eldar and Up are very well designed for the most part. Alot of that comes with the fact that they've been dropping the ****** (such as Pete Haines,) from codex development.

Meriwether
08-05-2009, 15:40
Well, I try to live in denial about the very existence of Tau. God, how I hate them... So forgive me for forgetting Vespid.

My friend Matt uses pariahs sometimes to reasonably good effect. They're expensive, but that Ld hit can be *huge*. ...but that brings us to the fact that the Necron codex is unviable in 5th edition -- it was good in its time, but it simply cannot win against a good opponent in 5th, and that is truly too bad.

Meri

freddieyu
08-05-2009, 16:14
Well let us what they do with the necrons when their new dex is up...until then my necrons are in slumber, waiting for something to wake them up to wreak havoc again...

The Song of Spears
08-05-2009, 16:17
IMHO this is a 4th ed gripe that is slowly being killed off. The new IG, SM and ORk dex are great, full of options, good and bad and fluff. Even bad wargear or options are nice to have, variety is fun, and if you dont just play tourneys all the time you can set up campaigns were certain wargear or options are just not available, making the game take on a whole new fun aspect, kinda Necromunda style. Hell even the new rulebook suggests bending or making up rules and wargear if you want to, GW is more for fun now than ever.

it was 4th ed that was the edition of tourneys, where every codex was dumbed down, simplified and made to be as balanced as possible. This includes Chaos, Eldar, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels and Tyranids, and Necrons, all of whom got the dumb down stick more or less. But times seem to be changing, and GW hopefully will realize that they sell more when there is more stuff in a codex to buy, and more options to fill out. I see the IG codex generating a Ton of money due to the mass variety of viable army lists you can make, all of which are fun and competitive, same goes for Orks and SM.

mt 2c, cheers!

Hellgore
08-05-2009, 16:26
I disagree with the OP.

I have found the latest codices very refreshing concerning streamlining (and somewhat balancing) the game and giving fluff also competition. I am very pleased with Eldar, Orc, SM and IG codex, and only in a few parts am not satisfied with CSM and DA, those are what I call 5th-ed-dexes oder 5th-ed-already-in-mind-dexes. I remember how ****** both SM and IG were in 3rd ed. And I sold my IG army after that crappy 4th ed dex came out. Now, GW seems to truely have found a way to include variety, balance and fluff at the same time and keeping the basic rules in mind during their creation. That makes exploiting the rules more difficult while some niche-Units you call "useless" still can make a fun game.

40k becomes a more fun-to-play-game since 5th ed in my opinion with every new codex released with competition being still possible. Less cheese, more hobby and fluff.

freddieyu
08-05-2009, 16:31
and with objectives being more of the focus in the 5th ed standard scenarios....that was a refreshing change....

Whitehorn
08-05-2009, 16:39
As well as all that new codexes have no quality background compared to older ones

I thought this when they brought out the 3rd edition leaflet codices. Fortunatly they are slowly getting fatter again. I think the last few are actually on par with the 2nd edition books.

Felwether
08-05-2009, 16:41
As well as all that new codexes have no quality background compared to older ones

Now that's definitely not true.

Durath
08-05-2009, 17:25
In think the game existing for 30 years kind of nulls that opinion.

I mean they must be doing something right.

Their lengthy survival is almost totally credited to their model business and the huge upcharge on their models (a 1.5 oz pewter model probably cost a couple US $ to make, and they charge between $12 and $20 for it). The appeal of the 40 universe's background has a hand in it too.

If they were ONLY making rules for someone else's models, they would have been out of business in the early 90s.

freddieyu
08-05-2009, 17:31
Their lengthy survival is almost totally credited to their model business and the huge upcharge on their models (a 1.5 oz pewter model probably cost a couple US $ to make, and they charge between $12 and $20 for it). The appeal of the 40 universe's background has a hand in it too.

If they were ONLY making rules for someone else's models, they would have been out of business in the early 90s.

Maybe yes, maybe no...pure conjecture..the fact is they are well and alive, and many players (including myself) like most of the new stuff coming out for 40k.

sephiroth87
08-05-2009, 18:07
I think the original poster is trolling. That is all.

Inquisitor Engel
08-05-2009, 18:21
Their lengthy survival is almost totally credited to their model business and the huge upcharge on their models (a 1.5 oz pewter model probably cost a couple US $ to make, and they charge between $12 and $20 for it).


Welcome to business!

Seriously, try a business where you sell a product at less than 50% profit and see how long you last.

StefDa
08-05-2009, 18:25
Indeed. It just doesn´t bear any relation to the topic title, which was my point really. If you want to rant on internal balance, you could call the topic "rant on internal balance", rather than make a statement that is demonstrably incorrect.

You are being an idiot. You clearly knew what he meant.

Hamarpain
08-05-2009, 18:35
Kroot Mercs. After you played with them, nobody should complain anything about underpowered units.

And how might you write a codex that is balanced and full fluff that pleases everybody? Put a half a year of your life into it. Then take the loads of whining and crying about the codex, just because something isn´t how some guy would want it to be.

The guys at Bols do it. They have the right to complain.

Ddraiglais
08-05-2009, 18:38
In think the game existing for 30 years kind of nulls that opinion.

I mean they must be doing something right.

It's the background, miniatures, and dominance that keep people with GW. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "I'm in it for the rules". The rules have always been on the poor side.

Xarius
08-05-2009, 18:43
As well as all that new codexes have no quality background compared to older ones

its not as though the old dexes were at a max 90 pages long with little background, take orks for example.

if you hate gw so much stop buying the stuff and playin the game instead of complaining to people you dont know on the net and then going in and bitching in store to the staff.

susu.exp
08-05-2009, 18:53
Kroot Mercs. After you played with them, nobody should complain anything about underpowered units.

The list is pretty strong IMHO (I´ve recently played against them and after wiping them out, switched sides and wiped my Nurgle CSM out as well...). The strenght does mostly come from the shapers, which can dish out 4 S4 Attacks on the charge. Add an Energy Weapon, or an Eviscerator and they can take down anything. Shooting with Sniper guns isn´t that shoddy either. Add the option to make them fleet to the CC units and they aren´t anywhere near underpowered. The only real issue is CC hordes...

boogle
08-05-2009, 19:24
If someone who is new to the game buys a codex, they are getting a much better deal with the new Codexes, than they would have if they bought anything from 3rd Ed in terms of background (DH/WH/Tau and Necrons excepted), and the options leave a lot more to think about than the old 'point and click' lists that were terrible in 3rd and 4th Ed Codexes.

Plastic Parody
08-05-2009, 19:44
Given the number of people buying their stuff they are never going to keep everyone happy. Its one of the reasons there are 14 dexes instead of 2. Sure you might look at a dex and think that you'd never use certain units but those units may just be someone else's gold. These units may also add flavour and reinforce fluff so can be great in campaigns etc.

I'd suggest that the last lot of dexes have been the best they have done for a while and if your not liking what your seeing its probably not going to get any better.

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 20:31
Welcome to business!

Seriously, try a business where you sell a product at less than 50% profit and see how long you last.

Um... welcome to business? You don't seem to understand that pretty much every company out there makes about a 5% profit margin across the board.

Vitautas
08-05-2009, 20:40
*WHOOSH*.

Personally I'm on the side of the fence that says GW can't write codices. My Ork codex is terrible; there's all these useless units in it. I mean, who's ever gonna take Lootas or Shoota Boyz (LOL BS 2 AMIRITE?). And Biker Nobz are crap, no 2+ save = NO TYVM.

And lol, everything's S3 base! I wound Marines on 5s! Only ****** would take Boyz. What are Grotz even good for? T2? OMG MAN. Good players will take Meganobz and Battlewagons cos big guns and 2+ saves is what makes an army good.

Nevermind the Marine codex. There's no choice at all. I mean, they don't even have an Elites section! It just goes HQ -> Troops! I keep hearing about Terminators but they're not in the list d00dz. New Imperial Guard is just as bad, you can't even make a good list with them. It's the same as before, just spam your d00dz and watch them get killed.

Oh wait, no, I get it. You're complaining about 3 year old codices designed under a different, stripped-down tournament-style mindset, which still contain bags more fluff than the 3rd edition pamphlets. I can only conclude it's because you're an ungrateful whiny idiot who can't conceive that maybe, just maybe, in three years things have changed for the better and that maybe, just maybe it signals a sea change in the way things are written.

You are clearly an ignoramus. I never once said that the new books are worse than old ones, there was no time-series comparison. I also never said that 5th edition is worse than 4th edition, in fact its light years better. What I did say is that GW cannot make 40k books (yes they physically can, GJ with reading comprehension susu) where all of the units are actually effective in a competitive environment. I don't see myself pointing out units based on what stat like you sarcastically portray me as doing.

Somewhat off-topic but it was mentioned, 5th edition is far superior to the previous editions. It DID help balance the game and more builds are viable and I see a lot more close games than I did in the past. But it almost feels like GW stumbled upon a better rule set by pure luck and plenty of things are still wrong with it. The main thing that comes to mind is making vehicles so strong (not a bad thing) that you need melta weapons to take them out (again, not a bad thing), but this made it so armies who don't happen to have an ample supply of meltas (or other very effective AT weaponry, I'm looking at you Tau) are suddenly far less powerful than those who do, great foresight GW. Changing the system to be more objective based was also great, it's far more interesting to play or watch games involving mechanized armies (less static) where the engagements are within 24" (far more tactical) rather than the 4th edition static gun lines.

As for all you *********** ****** who like to totally ignore posts that aren't inane flaming and slobbering (e.i. actual legitimate conversation). Go ahead and ignore all my posts and continue to flame me on the most idiotic basis you can come up with.

Meriwether
08-05-2009, 20:52
Um... welcome to business? You don't seem to understand that pretty much every company out there makes about a 5% profit margin across the board.

I think he was talking about the markup, not the profit margin. Big difference.


What I did say is that GW cannot make 40k books (yes they physically can, GJ with reading comprehension susu) where all of the units are actually effective in a competitive environment.

I have countered this by pointing out threads where people vehemently disagree with one another on whether or not any particular unit is effective in a competitive environment. One man's garbage is another's treasure (with the exception of Chaos Spawn, Hellions, and perhaps Vespid).

If you don't believe me, pick a unit you think is useless and then start a thread in 40K tactics entitled "[Insert Unit Here] Tactica"... I'm sure you'll get people who agree with you, but you'll find plenty of others who don't.

So I don't think that I, personally, have flamed you... but I think you're pretty much flat wrong in your assessment.

Meri

susu.exp
08-05-2009, 20:54
Latest results from GW:
Revenue 61.2 million, profit 3.1 million. Margin: 5.06%. Pre-tax. Since profit margins are usually calculated post-tax, you should really go with the post tax profit of 1.5 million, for a margin of 2.45%.

If you scale the cost of GW product to the cost of pewter, you get huge margins - but only because you ignore the costs for R&D and sales operations including the operation of stores.

Durath
08-05-2009, 21:16
I think he was talking about the markup, not the profit margin. Big difference.

Indeed!

It doesn't take much common sense to realize a company charging 10x to 20x the raw materials costs has a good business model. That's not really conjecture. I mean, I haven't looked up the commodity rate in GB for pewter, but if a 7 Oz. pewter vase costs $12, it's not a stretch to think GW isn't making a killing on their mini's.

http://www.amazon.com/Ginkgo-Hammered-Pewter-Bud-Vase/dp/B000I4SDL6

I was at a local store with my brother, whom is a business consultant, and was discussing some of the GW troubles with the store owner. Their money problems have been partially to blame on the economic climate, but also a large portion of the problems they've had was managerial from the top down. (being things like product placement issues, overstocking raw goods, supply chain issues, poor marketing technique, mis-allocation of free capital... things like this).

It looks like they have corrected some of the managerial problems from what I was told.

susu.exp
08-05-2009, 21:39
Indeed!

It doesn't take much common sense to realize a company charging 10x to 20x the raw materials costs has a good business model. That's not really conjecture. I mean, I haven't looked up the commodity rate in GB for pewter

Roughly $14 per kg, ~$0.40 per oz.

SharpSilver
08-05-2009, 21:55
Like i said in the title, there are just so many dumb choices in each codex that is just way to cheesed or just so useless that it shouldn't even be there

so i want to hear some opinion on that

I have to disagree on the statement about how they cannot write codex's. They have been doing so ever since the 1st edition, and since then there have been about 58 Codex written. Including numerous that are in the works most likely, nothing has ever indicated that they 'can't' write them, all of them have been a success and people work around the problems that may arise with their use.

However, there are flaws that need to be addressed in these books, some races do, I agree, have typically worse unit choices, and these are improving, if you compare codex's from the 3rd and 5th edition.

One thing that makes me think why GW chooses to put these units up for use is the players side of the bargain, making best use of the units that could be chosen, and try and work things to their advantage, I don't think they would put a unit in not to be used at all, everything has a purpose.
.

Egaeus
08-05-2009, 22:27
Like i said in the title, there are just so many dumb choices in each codex that is just way to cheesed or just so useless that it shouldn't even be there

so i want to hear some opinion on that

Well, if that is the main thrust of your complaint, then I would just say that it seems to me bound to happen, especially the way GW creates their rulesets.

Some units are very special-purpose so probably seem "useless" unless you have just the right situation where they will excell. So if you just tend to play "generic" pick-up games then a good number of units fall out of the mix because of their specialized nature.

Obviously some units aren't going to be costed as "appropriately" as they should be, but the problem here is this can always be tricky as it is very subjective. Something someone consider's too expensive might be just right to another, and a third person might even consider it underpriced. But even this has a lot to do with the playstyle of the individuals involved and the paradigms they play in.

On another note: is it just me who hates the layouts of the new books? While it seems like a nice idea to have unit descriptions in the front and the army list in the back they did a horrible job of it. Had the descriptions been purely descriptions rather than including special rules it would have been fine. But as it is it's a huge pain having to flip back and forth in the book to find the rules you want.

09Project
08-05-2009, 22:36
Tournament is the only way to play games players unhappy again?

Oh what a surprise.

On the other hand, for people who like to make themed and fluffy armies and play in a enviroment as such, I think the IG codex is great, it seems to have made them work well and some very fun armies to make up.

Yes some of those armies won't be gracing the top tables at the tournaments, but really, glad that the codex's are catering more towards the story gamers rather than the tournament gamers.

Sorry to tournament peeps but when ever I see armies that play in them, any codex even one written specifically for that competative play would be trimed down to basically nothing but the 'most efficient'.

I will agree though with the comment about background, too much cut and paste GW a bit of new stuff in there would have been nice, ok recycle old but at least try to add something newish.

Though well done the GW art department, some very good new works in it. :)

Durath
08-05-2009, 22:38
Roughly $14 per kg, ~$0.40 per oz.

So if you factor wages, art development (including the mold creation process), marketing, sales, and etc.... a gross adjusted "cost" would probably be about $3-$4 I'd guess.

Yeah, heck of a nice markup. I'm curious what the plastic minis run per Oz. I bet its a heck of a lot cheaper.

dal9ll
08-05-2009, 22:49
And how might you write a codex that is balanced and full fluff that pleases everybody? Put a half a year of your life into it. Then take the loads of whining and crying about the codex, just because something isn´t how some guy would want it to be.

First off,

Game balance comes before fluff. ALWAYS.

I'll repeat that.

Game balance comes before fluff. ALWAYS.

Secondly, its true its not EASY to write a Codex but GW is a massive multi-national corporation that makes massive revenue each year. Theyre MORE than capable of playtesting and updated their rules as much as they should but they just dont. They just plainly do not put in tht necessary effort to keep Codices updated appropriately and simply do not playtest their rules to the appropriate degree.

And from a business perspective, it seems pretty obvious that GW can EASILY increase profits merely by employing regular Codex updates, erratas, and proper playtesting. Why they dont do this is beyond me...

It just seems like GW doesnt respect their player base IN THE SLIGHTEST sense.

Durath
08-05-2009, 23:05
And from a business perspective, it seems pretty obvious that GW can EASILY increase profits merely by employing regular Codex updates, erratas, and proper playtesting. Why they dont do this is beyond me...

It just seems like GW doesnt respect their player base IN THE SLIGHTEST sense.

I agree for the most part... but I will give credit for the latest edition (5th) of the core rules.

I thought they did an above average (for GW) job on them. ;)

Now the codex support FOR this edition has so far been very :wtf:. It seemed we were drifting towards option minimization with Eldar, Chaos, Orks, then BAM, SM and (to a larger extent) IG have been given Chaos 3rd. Ed. 2nd Rev. style books, with army wide changing rules, multitudes of upgrade options for existing units, new Codex-wide rules, new weapons.... etc.

Just doesn't make sense to me.

susu.exp
08-05-2009, 23:08
So if you factor wages, art development (including the mold creation process), marketing, sales, and etc.... a gross adjusted "cost" would probably be about $3-$4 I'd guess.

Yeah, heck of a nice markup. I'm curious what the plastic minis run per Oz. I bet its a heck of a lot cheaper.

If you include all their cost, you´re at a 2.5% profit margin (see above). If you remove licensing, you end up with a fat black 0. The plastics don´t make a big difference, because the mould making is far more expensive and you have to re-jig the machines for a production run of any particular sprue (AFAIK). If you have big runs the production costs are lower, but you have a bigger initial investment. So they probably make a ******** of money on the SM tac sprue but I doubt they make 5% on some of the more outlandish plastics.

The_Outsider
08-05-2009, 23:15
Little known fact: GW doesn't care about tournament players as they make up a tiny percentage of the playerbase.

GW still writes their codex like they did in RT and all the way back to the first games the company ever produced - as a group of rules for players to get together and use cool looking models and have fun.

Anyone claiming tournament play has had a big affect on the hobby (on GW's end) is sorely mistaken.

IJW
08-05-2009, 23:25
Game balance comes before fluff. ALWAYS.
If you're selling a wargame for competitive play, yes. If you're selling a wargame to go with a miniatures line and base things on the background and visuals that the artists create (the way we've been told the design studio works), then no, game balance doesn't come before background. Rightly or wrongly, 40k (and Warhammer) are rules-sets that are inherently background-driven and have been for decades.

EDIT - what The_Outsider said. :)


It seemed we were drifting towards option minimization with Eldar, Chaos, Orks
Orks have minimised options? It's the most flexible codex in print, with perhaps the exception of SM and IG.

ehlijen
08-05-2009, 23:38
Well, first and foremost they are model driven. Both balance and background come after that.

Grimbad
08-05-2009, 23:54
Orks have minimised options? It's the most flexible codex in print, with perhaps the exception of SM and IG.

Less flexible than the old one though. I really miss having more dakka in my sluggas and heavy bolters on my looted tanks. And armories.

Durath
08-05-2009, 23:58
If you include all their cost, you´re at a 2.5% profit margin (see above).

Hmm. I wasn't talking about the company's bottom line profit, I was talking more about the profit line for JUST making pewter models (paying the sculptor, the caster, the molding mats, packaging shipping, tax). It has to be higher than 2.5%.

Of course, all their other expenses, like paying a games development staff, running their website, paying for their office location leases and insurance, their executive meal expenses, etc. would factor into their total profit line.

I tried to look for a detailed breakdown that some companies provide in their annual report, but unfortunately, their annual report is layed out like one of their rulebooks. Not all that concise, and missing some relevant interactions.

In any case, their dividend payout was 4.95 pounds per share last year. That's actually pretty good!.

noobzilla
09-05-2009, 06:41
At Adepticon 2009, I saw these 4 armies more in the TT by far: Orks, Marines, Eldar and Chaos.

I now think that we will see the rise of a 5th army that will be big at the TT, or any tournament for that matter: Imperial Guard. Why? Because it has more options, more builds... it isn't the same spammed crap over and over again, because there are certainly some awesome and interesting builds... (Tank Heavy, Infantry Company, All out Charge, Air-Cav, etc, etc...)

I did not like Games Workshop's direction under 4th edition, and was severely displeased with some of the codecies, due to the mindless spamming of the new power build. I believe the first Codex that I saw and was really impressed with was Eldar. From then on I have read each and every new codex from cover to cover, and I have to say that I am impressed with each and every one, and personally after 5th came out, I began to love the direction that GW is headed in. It seems that the 5 major armies as I refer to them as (IG, Orks, Marines, Chaos, Eldar) will become the basis for which new codecies are judged on. I certainly believe that Eldar, Marines, Chaos and IG are balanced and provide an interesting new aspect to the game. Orks have a very powerful codex, but it is not a "game breaking" influence at all. It just seems that it is near impossible to make a bad list with orks. I hope that Games Workshop continues to make codecies that are as powerful and balanced as IG and Marines. Especially for armies like Dark Eldar and Necrons and Space Wolves.

My personal preference would be for Games Workshop to finish updating all of the codecies before even considering any BRB changes (new editions), including re-doing Tyranids, Tau and the Inquisition.

adreal
09-05-2009, 08:02
well take chaos as a example, with the daemon prince available, no one is going to ever take a Chaos Lord or a sorcerer if they are looking for competitive build


Sorry but no, Chaos lords and sorcs can be used in competitive builds, you just have to play smarter.

A lord with a daemon weapon can (and most of the time will) rip through a unit just as easily as a warp time prince (cheaper as well IIRC), but the lord will also be in a unit incase he fluffs his attacks, and for the next turns shooting phase, so he wont be dusted in a turn.

Sorcs can do alot of fun things, infact the only thing a daemon prince does better is lash, and that's because he doesn't bind a unit to fire at whaever got lashed.

Daemon Princes are great, and stick out with thier bargin bin price tag, but both lords and sorcs can be useful, so don't discount them

Master Stark
09-05-2009, 08:18
But the game is not about winning, You have to bear in mind all players play for different reasons, be it to collect a chapter specific army, be as cheesey as possible, have an army that is just fun to play with or just to blatenetly **** off your opponent ala Nidzilla.

The options are there to be just that options.

Plus if you want to play an army that doesnt bombard you with options but is still tactially viable, collect necrons!

Yes, but what I think the OP is saying is that the points system isn't balanced across the board. Some units are undercosted, and some are overcosted.

changer of fate
09-05-2009, 08:25
Guys chill, I just want to hear some opinnions or personal experience about some unfair or unbelievable choices in codices

Poseidal
09-05-2009, 08:38
Little known fact: GW doesn't care about tournament players as they make up a tiny percentage of the playerbase.

GW still writes their codex like they did in RT and all the way back to the first games the company ever produced - as a group of rules for players to get together and use cool looking models and have fun.

Anyone claiming tournament play has had a big affect on the hobby (on GW's end) is sorely mistaken.

What Outsider said.

Game Balance, tournament play and all of those come after fluff and 'feel' of the armies.

Fluff and 'feel' of armies are what draw players to 40k, something that tournament style rule sets and 'game balance' never will. (though you need some to avoid a dysfunctional game).

Ironically, the most 'tournament' style edition (3rd) was the least balanced version.

Putty
09-05-2009, 08:46
"rubbish" unit choices are for fluff players.

Said players are also the same group of players who lament "cheese"

squeekenator
09-05-2009, 10:30
So, how many games have been perfectly balanced? Even Chess apparently favours white slightly in high-level games, and it has mirrored sides. Starcraft has been constantly changed to improve balance over the course of over 10 years and apparently still isn't perfect. And it has a quarter of the races, each race has less units than a 40K race, and there are no options available. Oh, and it has preset maps rather than 'throw terrain down and hope it works out' and a huge ultra-competitive fanbase who devote their entire lives to playing the game. Do you really expect Games Workshop to make a perfectly balanced game?

freddieyu
09-05-2009, 10:32
"rubbish" unit choices are for fluff players.

Said players are also the same group of players who lament "cheese"

Well, what happens if a few of those "fluff" players actually win tourneys? Then that makes him a "skilled tactician"..one to be respected.......right?

Let us see..I would say when the top 10 in several tourneys start to number 5 to 6 or more kinds of armies, then parity is slowly being achieved...

changer of fate
09-05-2009, 11:47
Well, what happens if a few of those "fluff" players actually win tourneys? Then that makes him a "skilled tactician"..one to be respected.......right?

Let us see..I would say when the top 10 in several tourneys start to number 5 to 6 or more kinds of armies, then parity is slowly being achieved...

It is going to take a while for that to happen..............it is like a slaanesh DP with warptime VS a chaos lord with power weapon.............what Chaos lord.........where?

The_Outsider
09-05-2009, 12:20
It is going to take a while for that to happen..............it is like a slaanesh DP with warptime VS a chaos lord with power weapon.............what Chaos lord.........where?

So if Y cannot beat X in a 1v1 duel Y must be crap right?

"My tactical squad cannot beat a dreadnaught in a duel, therefore tactical squads are crap".

Evilmop
09-05-2009, 12:45
I just can't help but comment on this, are you telling me a guardsman who happens to roll all sixes in a turn is better than the other extreme, a land raider that rolls all ones? It's a pretty ridiculous comparison but there are just mathematical limitations that you come up against with different units. No matter how hard you try, an autocannon will not damage a land raider.

Also, it's just silly to use the random property of dice as an excuse to run terrible units. Dice are random and follow the the laws of statistics (ignoring the dude who tested GW dice and found that 1's roll more often).


I'm not telling you anything, im saying no matter what you take, if you roll 1's to wound it aint going to do jack.

Corrode
09-05-2009, 13:18
It is going to take a while for that to happen..............it is like a slaanesh DP with warptime VS a chaos lord with power weapon.............what Chaos lord.........where?

Oh, and I was so hoping you were just a troll... :(

Egaeus
09-05-2009, 15:50
I'm not telling you anything, im saying no matter what you take, if you roll 1's to wound it aint going to do jack.

While that's true, you can't really base the concept of a unit's effectiveness around that possibility. Otherwise almost everything would be free. :p

Now what it can do is affect an individual's perception of that unit's effectiveness. Let's say a player takes a unit of 5 Terminators in his first game and they come under fire from some basic anti-infantry weapons, and the player gets unlucky and rolls 3 ones, losing over half the squad. The next time that player goes to make an army he might well say "well that unit died pretty quickly, and is fairly expensive...maybe they're not that great and I should look at something else to fill that slot." While he should realize that he just got a statistically skewed result and that probably isn't as likely to happen again. Now I'm not saying this is what happens, just that our perception of the value of things can be strongly tied to our experiences with them.

This is the main reason I find the points system for 40K difficult to justify at times, since obviously my experiences are not the same as the designer's. There are so many factors that play into this (play style, army design, table layout) that saying a unit is absolutely worth a particular points value just doesn't always work. Unfortunately while I can think of a few potential solutions, most of them require tweaking with the system that isn't likely to happen.

noobzilla
10-05-2009, 16:16
"rubbish" unit choices are for fluff players.

Said players are also the same group of players who lament "cheese"

Incorrect... Units such as Chaos Possessed and other units which are written off as being too expensive or not worth their salt are FREQUENTLY used in my gaming group to GOOD results. We all are pretty decent players, including our Club Champion who uses those units the most, and he beats most of us, most of the time. Tactical Expertise wins games, combined with a handful of luck.

Beauty is in the eyes of the Beholder.

bloodraven1000
14-05-2009, 22:10
I think the Machine Spirit in your sarcasm detector is faulty...

hmmm i think i might start bashing my face off the wall but it is a lot harder to detect sarcasm in writing than in person

bloodraven1000
14-05-2009, 22:12
I think the Machine Spirit in your sarcasm detector is faulty...

reread the article and have to admit sarcasm was kinda blindingly obvious whoops