It is impossible to balance 40K

[YorkNecromancer]

It Is Impossible To Balance 40K

Or

Please, Just Hear Me Out

‘I think it’s obvious, that with only one or two minor changes, 40K would be, if not balanced, at least significantly more balanced than it is at the moment.’

So begins every ‘positive’ comment on game balance ever. As a phrase, it might be worded slightly differently. It might call for ‘several’ changes; it might call for ‘tweaks’. But hey, at least it’s more positive to read about than the soul-numbing misanthropy that comes from reading endless comments about how broken the game is, how the Codex creep is ruining things, how these or those units are undercosted, overpowered, cheap, beardy, useless or autoincludes.

The one thing that both the ‘just a few tweak’-ers and the ‘I’M NEVER PLAYING 40K AGAIN AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU’ complainers share is an underlying assumption. If the Tweakers and the NEVERS! represent different sides of the same coin, then the assumption is the metal the coin is made from. As a result, it’s so intrinsic to the argument that it’s never questioned, and is more seductive than a naked Burt Reynolds holding a gamepad in one hand and a bottle of 100 year aged bourbon in the other.

http://www.omgblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/burt-reynolds-portrait.jpeg
Pictured: ‘Sure, we can balance the game with just a few tweaks. Why don’t you just shuffle out of that uncomfortable-looking T-shirt and tell me your ideas for how. More bourbon?’

The thing is, this assumption is so critical to all these arguments, I don’t think many people even realise it is an assumption. So what am I on about? This concept:

’It is possible to balance 40K.’

Has to be true, doesn’t it? I mean, it just has to be. Well, I don’t think so. I would go so far as to call that assumption a big load of sweaty man-bollocks, and in this article I’m going to

Okay, calm yourself. Come back. I can feel the rage through my screen from here. Look, if you want to skip to the end and post angry comments, feel free. But at least hear me out.

So, anyway, in this article, I’m going to

Seriously: this is going to be fine. I’m just going to write some ideas down and then we can talk about them like civilised adults. There’s no need for that kind of language. Or a gun.

So yeah: game balance. In 40K? Not possible. That’s what I think.

Here’s why.

Defining The Assumption.

So when people operate with the assumption

’It is possible to balance 40K.’

They’ve probably got an idea about what this means. So let’s just clarify that before we begin so we all know where I’m coming from and nobody has to threaten my family or phone in bomb threats to places where I’m giving talks.

I would argue that the sentence ‘It is possible to balance 40K.’ could, more precisely be defined as:

‘I feel that it is possible for Games Workshop’s design team to construct the game of Warhammer 40,000 such that in a two player game - held between people of equal knowledge and skill – each player has a completely equal chance of winning, one based entirely around their own personal abilities. That it is completely possible to design the game such that no player can ever exploit a single rule, option, unit, combination of units or armies in a way unintended or unforeseen by the design team, such that they could be considered to have an unfair advantage over their opponents’ army.’

Bit more of a mouthful. Basically comes down to ‘if my opponent and I are as good as each other, we should have an equal chance no matter what army we play as’.

But here’s the thing: that assumption? It is insane. The more you look at it, the more completely and utterly insane it becomes, and the reasons why are what I want to spend the majority of this article looking at.

Opinion Number 1: 40K Is Too Complex To Balance

Okay, so let’s be real here: 40K is the biggest and most successful wargame there has ever been. Warmahordes has roughly eight ‘big’ factions (Khador, Cryx, et al.) and a couple of medium-smaller ones (Cyriss, Cephalyx, etc.) Infinity has eight factions. Flames of War has twelve.

Assuming you regard Forge World’s lists as game legal (which I do, because Games Workshop has officially said they are), Warhammer 40,000 has thirty five: Astra Militarum; Adepta Sororitas; Blood Angels; Chaos Daemons; Chaos Space Marines; Cult Mechanicus; Clan Raaukan; Dark Angels; Dark Eldar; Eldar Corsairs; Eldar Harlequins; Eldar; Grey Knights; Haemonculus Covens; Imperial Guard Armoured Battlegroup; Death Korp of Krieg Assault Brigade; Death Korp of Krieg Siege Regiment; Elysian Drop Troops; Imperial Knights; Inquisition; Khorne Daemonkin; Militarum Tempestus; Necrons; Orks; Ork Dread Mob; Renegades and Heretics; Skitarii; Siege Assault Vanguard; Space Wolves; Tau; Tau – Farsight Enclaves; Tyranids; Tyrant’s Legion; and all the various Chapter Tactics flavours of Space Marines.

Then, given we have the upcoming release of Horus Heresy in plastic, we can also include the following twenty four ‘30K’ lists in our comparison: Imperial Militia and Cults; Mechanicum – Ordo Cybernetica; Mechanicum – Ordo Destructor; Mechanicum – Taghmata; Questoris Knight Crusade; Solar Auxilia; not to mention all eighteen Space Marine Legions.

This all brings the grand total of game legal Warhammer: Sci-fi Warfare armies to (by my calculation) sixty. Just stop and roll that number around your head for a moment. Sixty armies. Sixty.

https://whyweprotest.net/attachments/terry-crews-blown-mind-head-brain-explodes-1360545.215270/
Pictured: what happened to my brain after the fifteen minutes it took me to check through everything, knowing that there’s probably still some other lists I’ve missed. ‘Sentinels of Terra’ maybe…

No other game comes remotely close to that.

Then consider how much you can micromanage those armies. Each codex has a variety of units. Some, like the Cult Mechanicus, only have a limited number – just six model types. However, each model has at least two different wargear options, not to mention a variety of army rules, special wargear options and the like, all of which can be combined in a multitude of different, extremely personalised ways, meaning that while you may only have six units, they can be built into a vast number of extremely different ways. An all-grav Servitor list is going to play very differently to a power-fist and flamer Robot list, and even more differently to a all-phosphor Robot list that mixes in plasma Servitors.

And Cult Mechanicus is one of the smallest factions in the game. Compare them to Space Marines, who have an absurd number of units to choose from, each with multiple wargear options, special wargear, dedicated transports, and so on.

That is a LOT of stuff to keep track of. A lot of stuff to compare to each other and assign points values to. Even if we (as some people will no doubt argue we should) ignore Forge World’s lists, keeping this as GW-‘pure’ as possible (which, of course, makes the assumption that the Games Design team ignored Forge World’s products – something I strongly suspect they don’t do), that still leaves twenty-three discrete armies, not including Space Marine chapter tactics.

Imagine trying to balance all those things.

'Yeah, but half of those armies are Marines, or Marine equivalent, so they're all basically the same. It can’t be that hard to balance them. It’s like Horus Heresy. Everything’s Marines; it’s all completely homogenous.’

https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1373242534_tumblr_lpj75u9Suz1qekhgv.gif

Do you remember 5th edition Grey Knights, Kanye?

I remember 5th Edition Grey Knights.

*Shivers*

If you don’t? How great is it to be eleven and just have discovered 40K? Welcome to the community! Also, go to Google, and search the articles that were on BoLS round about the end of 2011 and all through 2012. 90% of the articles were either ‘Holy Throne this Grey Knight combo is brokenly good and will win you every game you play’ or else ‘HOW DO I BEAT THE GREY KNIGHTS?! HOW?!!!!!’

It was not a great time to be a 40K player.

Those Chaos players who pine for a codex in-line with the 3.5 CSM Codex know exactly how it felt to be a Grey Knight player circa 5th edition.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130518153751/villains/images/c/cc/Tumblr_mmg44lh4iU1qjztgpo1_400.gif
Pictured: the shift from Chaos V2 to Chaos V3.5

An MEQ codex isn’t naturally balanced just by virtue of being MEQ; ask an actual Horus Heresy player about the differences between Legion playstyles, and you’ll learn that very quickly. So it’s not as easy as ‘make all the armies the same’, because a few changes here and there can very quickly add up to OH MY GOD HOW DO I EVEN COME CLOSE TO BEATING THIS F**KING ARMY?!!!

‘Okay fine. But the game should still be balanced; that’s why they have a design team! If the team can’t balance the game, what are they doing?’

https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1373242534_tumblr_lpj75u9Suz1qekhgv.gif

Okay, Kanye, fair point. Because, sure, GW do have a fully-paid design team, paid in what I assume is genuine, real-world money. And you know what? That means you’re kind of right. With enough professional people comparing ideas and coming up with new ones, you probably should be able to come up with a fairly well-balanced game; even one as complicated as 40K. And anyway, as long as players observe the social contract, ‘fairly well-balanced’ is all you’ll ever need for fair games. (Remember that phrase; we’ll talk about the social contract later.)

The thing is, Kanye, that 40K isn’t just difficult to balance because it’s complicated. It’s also difficult to balance because, like a house built on a foundation of delicious pudding, things are always shifting in ways you can’t control.

Opinion Number 2: New Releases Naturally Create Imbalance.

This one should be obvious. Every new model released is, to all intents and purposes, an unknown quantity. No-one knows how they’re going to perform until they’re out there ‘in the wild’ being used in games by the players.

Of course, the natural tendency for the internet is to LOSE ITS G*DAMNED MIND each and every time, crying ‘OMG BROKEN!’ at the release of any new model. Because we all know that every new model is released with the most broken rules to increase sales, right?

http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99120106033_Maleceptor01.jpg
Pictured: The Maleceptor thanks you for your faith in her.

No. Contrary to what every single person wailing ‘OMG BROKEN!’ wants you to think, they don’t really know if a new unit is going to be good or bad at all. Because no-one knows for sure whether anything is broken or not until six months or so down the line, when it’s seen enough real-world play for the community to be able to draw empirical conclusions. Of course, those occasions when a new model is broken are immediately seized on by these kinds of people as proof that doomsaying is always right.


http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99120106033_Toxicrene01.jpg
Pictured: The Toxicrene thanks you for the selective cherry-picking of evidence that proves she is, in fact, a terrifying monster who has been the bane of every tournament since her release.

This immediate doomsaying means new releases have all kinds of ‘distorting’ effects on the metagame, simply because they’re new releases. As a result, when a new codex drops, the simple fact of the release schedule itself makes it difficult to balance the game. Players don’t know whether an army is OTT or not until well down the line.

That’s before we get to the fact that improving one army often has the side-effect of naturally downpowering another. For example, when they were re-released for 5th edition, the Dark Eldar were a strong army. Not top-tier, but dangerous. Their cheap Wych assault units could be devastating in the right hands. Then Overwatch became a thing and they were suddenly in trouble. Then Tau 6th edition and the ‘Supporting Fire’ rule mades Wyches disappear in a puff of smoke, because really – what was the point? They weren’t going to make it into combat - the thing they were designed for – and so why bother with them at all?

Yes, it’s arguable that the latest edition of the game, with its focus on firepower has hobbled the Wyches more than anything (not to mention the loss of Haywire grenades, which was all they really had going for them), but if you take Wyches against Tau, well… You’re not going to auto-lose, but, to misquote Blade, you are going to spend the majority of the game ice-skating uphill. Overwatch damaged Wyches, but 6th edition Tau killed them.

So the obvious answer might be to take out the Supporting Fire rule. But if you do that, you leave Tau far too vulnerable to Assault. So how do you balance Wyches? Banshees had the same problem until the latest Eldar codex made Banshee masks awesome. Hopefully, the next Dark Eldar codex will give Wyches something similar. (Or at least give them their bloody Haywire grenades back.)

And this is the thing with game balance – it’s a work in progress. Because Games Workshop is a company, one dedicated to making money, it’s going to need to release new models for its armies. That’s just how it is. And when a new model drops, it’s going to imbalance the game. The more models that drop, the more the imbalance. That’s also part of things. You can’t change that.

‘But the design team…’

Yup.

You’re right, Kanye. The design team are responsible. As I discussed first, they have an incredibly complex task to accomplish, and it’s one that’s always changing. They’re never going to be done, because the day 40K done, Games Workshop goes out of business. So there’s always going to be new units.

‘But the design team…’

And this is where we get to The Real Problem.

See, 40K is complicated, but alone, that’s not enough to stop the game being balanced. And 40K is always changing, but again, that’s not enough to stop the game being balanced. Because the design team does a good job, and 40K has experienced numerous periods of being pretty well balanced, assuming players adhere to the social contract.

Opinion Number 3: Ignoring The Social Contract.

I love wrestling.

I love it as much as I love 40K, and I love 40K a lot.

‘But wrestling’s fake.’

https://images.tackk.com/mio/414191/mrkha5fg/large
Pictured: it’s real in my heart!

Look, I know (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jt00i), because 1.) I’ve got a functional brain and 2.)I’ve wrestled (yes, the 'fake' variety). I’ve performed in the ring, taking bumps for a paying audience (and I’ve got the back injury to prove it). I’ve thrown men around like they were ragdolls and let me tell you now: I couldn’t have done it if they weren’t helping me.

But that’s all by the by. The real reason I’m bringing this up is because of Vince MacMahon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_McMahon).

Vince MacMahon is the owner and operator of WWE, the premier wrestling promotion in the world, and he likes to tout himself as a business genius. He’s got the success of the WWE to back him up, and as evidence goes, a multi-million dollar company is pretty compelling. WWE has always been profitable, ever since it was the WWF. It’s come through recessions and busts and it’s still going strong. In many ways, it’s like Games Workshop: a company that kind of shouldn’t exist – because it’s a throwback to an earlier time, to interests that should have died out – but one that is, against all the odds, perhaps even perversely, successful.

How does this relate to the social contract?

WWE wasn’t always this way. Vince MacMahon is actually the second Vince MacMahon to own a wrestling company. His father, the first Vince MacMahon owned the Capitol Wrestling Co, which Vince MacMahon jr. bought out in 1984, and turned into the WWF.

Now the first Vince MacMahon, he’d worked with his rivals. Wrestling companies in the US were split across territories; each territory would have its star wrestlers, and they would move out as the fans got tired of them, coming back later to roaring cheers, ensuring that local fans never got tired, and that everyone got paid. A network of handshake agreements, unenforceable in court, ensured that no-one business trod on anyone else’s toes. They existed as a kind of co-operative, with everyone able to enjoy the fruits of their work, and many, many options for success.

Vince MacMahon jr came along and changed all that, because he was a Business Genius. What he did was very simple. He ignored the non-aggression treaties and offered the big stars of rival companies massive money contracts to come and work for him. Funnily enough, his plan worked. He made an absurd amount of money, destroyed almost every other wrestling company, and established WWE as an absurdly dominant monopoly.

Vince MacMahon’s only success is WWE… But I would argue that he succeeded not by skill, ingenuity or gumption, but through breaking the social contract. He saw that if he was prepared to ignore handshake agreements, he could take control of wrestling. He assumed it's because he's a great businessman… But the way he ‘won’ would have made whoever did it rich - it was nothing to do with his skill/genius, and everything to do with ruthlessness... And some 40K players are like that.

You know the sort (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/That_guy). The kind that, back when the 6th edition Chaos Codex had dropped, went out and bought three Heldrakes and fielded them every battle. The kind that, when the Tau Codex dropped, went out and bought three Riptides and fielded them every battle.

‘Cause there ain’t no rule says they couldn’t do it… So they just did it, ignoring the social contract because it means they get a win, and a precious, precious win is more important to them than anything else.

There’s always that cry of ‘the design team should…’ whenever the issue of balance comes up, but the problem isn’t always the design team. Sure, sometimes it is: Grey Knights in 5th, Chaos in 3.5, those are times when the fault absolutely lies with them.

But other times? Other times it’s us, for not acknowledging a very simple truth: for many people, breaking the game IS a game. And for many people, especially the kind who enjoy making things like this nonsense (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/09/40k-top-ten-ex-power-lists.html), it can seem like the main one. So the Games Design team isn’t working in a vacuum. They’re actually in combat, and their opponents are the people who play their game. They have to design everything so it fits into a massive system of many, many interlocking units, characters and vehicles, one that’s always changing, and they have to do it in such a way that a person who is cleverer than them cannot exploit the system they create.

I’ll just repeat that, because it’s the most important part of this piece: games designers have to design every rule for every model in such a way that a person who is cleverer than them cannot exploit the system they create.

And that’s impossible, especially in this day and age. The internet has connected us all; when I was growing up, the only source of tactical information were one-off articles in ‘White Dwarf’ and lunchtimes at the school Games Club. Now, I’m a single click away from extremely helpful, well-detailed tactics articles apparently written by racist, misogynist psychopaths. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Category:Warhammer_Tactics) There are forums where I can discuss tactical ideas with the best of the best. There are statistical breakdowns of which armies perform best at the most recent tournaments. In short, there is a surfeit of information about how to play.

What does this mean? Well, in simple terms, the design team have to be cleverer than literally everyone on the internet, because the moment an exploit is discovered, it’s going global. There are writers on sites like BoLS who spend their days thinking of the next tactics article, and if they read about a gaping hole in the games’ design that can be exploited, you better believe they’re going to tell everyone.

Look, Just Get To The Point: What The Hell Is This Social Contract You’re Going On About?

‘We’re both just here to play a game and have fun. I’m not going to ruin your experience for the sake of my own.’

That right there? That’s the social contract. It’s an unspoken rule that says ‘I like to play games in the time between birth and the grave. I’m going to be dead one day, and I want to fill the time between now and then – where I can – with enjoyable activities. I enjoy the company of fellow human beings, and I enjoy it more when there is an activity we can share. I would like to play this game with you. I would very much like to win, but I understand that, in order to play, I’m going to have to treat you fairly. With respect. As a result, I will not play the absurdly overpowered units that will win me the game with little effort, because that’s disrespectful to you, as it means you will not have fun. I don’t want to use you as a scratching post for my ego, and so I will deliberately tailor my list to be less devastating than it could be if my army is a powerful one.’

The unspoken social contract is the reason so much argument goes into game balance. Arguing that an externally mandated ‘game balance’ will solve all the game’s problems essentially removes any responsibility for gamers to play according to the unspoken social contract, and means that those WAAC players who bring the nastiest toys to the fight will be controlled without the rest of players having to tell them to stop being so mean.

But here’s the thing: there’s nothing wrong with being a WAAC player; it’s actually allowed. There ain’t no rule says they have to play nice. Oh, there are frequent mentions, but there ain’t no rule. Powergamers will ignore the fluff in favour of increased utility in games, because winning is what they enjoy, and if everyone’s agreed that that’s how they want to play (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html), then why is that wrong?

Not to mention, it’s a bit rich to have a go at the WAAC players when even the severest fluff-gamer will efficiency maximise in some ways. I love Grotesques, but I know they’re pretty overcosted in a standard Dark Eldar list, not to mention that for the price of three Grotesques, I can get far more Blasters into my Trueborn squad, maybe even a spare Venom to go with them. It's honestly stupid to say 'play to the fluff' if it cripples your army.

Don’t believe me? Look at the Pyrovore.

http://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99810106008_PyrovoreNEW01.jpg
Pictured: WHAT THE F*CK DO YOU ACTUALLY DO?

It was a joke on release and it’s still a joke now. A two-wound Marine Scout with a power sword and heavy flamer. It’s got some other rules, but they don’t help it much. Oh, and it’s huge and easy to spot over scenery.

‘But you can take them in squads of three now!’

This waste of space costs £20. I’m not spending £60 for a sub-par unit made of Aero chocola – sorry, Finecast.

‘You could put them in a Tyrannocyte, use them to incinerate some Marines and…’

A Tyrannocyte costs £38. So I’m spending a minimum of £58, maximum of £98, for a sub-par unit that takes up valuable space I could have used on another Winged Hive Tyrant. Who is cheaper, more terrifying, and can actually do stuff.

So, no matter how much Tyranid players might play to the fluff, the only ones who field Pyrovores are the ones who enjoyed the refreshing taste of lead paint back in their youth.

In many ways, the metagame is an evolutionary process, driven by players seeking to maximise efficiency. Even if they choose to ignore maximally optimal units to honour the social contract, they will still generally ignore sub-optimal choices. And the thing about evolution, is that it doesn’t produce ‘balance’. Competition never produces ‘balance’; it only leads to an apex predator. That predator will shift as the game shifts. Today that predator might be Slaanesh Daemon Prince with Lash. The next it might be Psyrifle Dreadnoughts. The day after that, Wraithknights with the D.

Balancing the game is a deliberate act, made by design, and therefore, only as effective as the cleverest person involved in its creation.

There’s always going to be someone cleverer out there. And that’s the core problem.

I Think We Can Agree, All It Would Take Is A Few Tweaks, And…

BOLLOCKS.

'It would only take this to balance the game' is nothing but a seductive delusion, because there’s too many things to consider; because the game is never ‘whole’, so it's always going to be a work in progress; because there’s always going to be someone cleverer than the Games Design team out there, and there’ll always be players prepared to ignore the social contract if it gets them the win.

At best, there will be periods of balance, followed by periods of imbalance, much like the Kondratiev Wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave) that’s observed in economic systems. But a wave is not a stable thing, and no matter what happens, that period of relative calm always gives way to the storm. So that’s why I believe 40K will never be balanced, and why it’s folly to believe it ever will be.

[Lexington]

Opinion 2 rather negates Opinion 3, doesn't it? If we can't know anything useful about a unit until six months after its release/revision, we're talking about huge, huge portions of the player base that can't, in good faith, observe that social contract, since, again, no one knows anything. Rather paralyzing, that logic.

Of course, it's silly, because we do know quite a bit about the armies the moment they're released. 40K's present framework has been out in the open for about three years now, and the underlying engine of the game was released during the latter days of the Clinton Administration. We know what works and what doesn't. D-weapons, extreme buffs (2++ re-rollable armor saves, anyone?) and hard-counter debuffs (Invisibility) are all understood. Contra the article, the consensus that forms around new releases tends to be pretty accurate, because 40K's base system isn't particularly complicated.

At the end of the day, this article doesn't really address the main problem with balancing 40K, which is that balance is not a priority of the design team. They are not an independent entity within the structure of Games Workshop, tasked with creating the best game they can and nothing more. Within GW's internal hierarchy, the Design Studio is a component of the Sales division, and their work reflects that fact. There's no magic bullet to "fixing" 40K, but the problems aren't hard to identify.

[Charon]

Opinion 2 rather negates Opinion 3, doesn't it? If we can't know anything useful about a unit until six months after its release/revision, we're talking about huge, huge portions of the player base that can't, in good faith, observe that social contract, since, again, no one knows anything. Rather paralyzing, that logic.

Of course, it's silly, because we do know quite a bit about the armies the moment they're released. 40K's present framework has been out in the open for about three years now, and the underlying engine of the game was released during the latter days of the Clinton Administration. We know what works and what doesn't. D-weapons, extreme buffs (2++ re-rollable armor saves, anyone?) and hard-counter debuffs (Invisibility) are all understood. Contra the article, the consensus that forms around new releases tends to be pretty accurate, because 40K's base system isn't particularly complicated.

At the end of the day, this article doesn't really address the main problem with balancing 40K, which is that balance is not a priority of the design team. They are not an independent entity within the structure of Games Workshop, tasked with creating the best game they can and nothing more. Within GW's internal hierarchy, the Design Studio is a component of the Sales division, and their work reflects that fact. There's no magic bullet to "fixing" 40K, but the problems aren't hard to identify.

Pretty much this.
Add in that nobody talks about "perfect balance" and the understanding that balancing a game that expands is an ongoing process with erratas and FAQs (which then, if they became numberous, turn into a new edition). To be fair they dont even give a rats *** about clarifying unclear rules or weeding out grave mistakes (see drones on bomber).
There is a huge gap to fill between "can't be perfectly balanced" and "well, you bought it so we don't care anymore"

[YorkNecromancer]

Opinion 2 rather negates Opinion 3, doesn't it? If we can't know anything useful about a unit until six months after its release/revision, we're talking about huge, huge portions of the player base that can't, in good faith, observe that social contract, since, again, no one knows anything. Rather paralyzing, that logic.

Not really. The social contract is 'I won't let my fun come at the expense of yours'. Therefore, if you're mid-play, and it turns out the New Hotness is absolutely broken, then maybe talk about that with your opponent? Ask if they're still having fun? Ask if it's okay to go on?

As I have discussed before, and at much greater length (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html), it's like with sex: if you're being intimate with someone and halfway through, they start looking away from you, shuffling awkwardly and basically pulling faces that say 'I'd rather this was over', you don't just carry on 'serving your own needs' - not unless you're some kind of self-serving psychopath.

The social contract requires communication because it is social. If a person isn't going to talk to their opponent, periodically checking they're okay as and when it seems necessary, then seriously: why are they playing? This isn't really the best hobby for antisocial loners.

So no, I don't see my logic as being particularly paralysing. Frank and open discussion is the lifeblood of all successful human interaction.

[Alaric]

Enjoyable read York.

[Charon]

So no, I don't see my logic as being particularly paralysing. Frank and open discussion is the lifeblood of all successful human interaction.

The problem here is that the social contrac between 2 armys of the opposite spectrum of power level will NEVER be enjoyable for neither side. You may prentend that you totally enjoy picking a really bad unit comp with ugly models because that happens to be the only way your opponents army will ever have a fair chance but neither of you will really enjoy the game. For your opponent you are a duche for not taking him and his army serious and you would rather like to play your newly painted ghostkeel and stormsurge instead of not even painted vespids and half assembled kroot.
Sure. The social contract is important for pickup games but the game system must provide a common ground to start from. If the social contract does force you to only pick certain units instead of "just" refraining from spamming and combine to not stomp your opponents army, the game system does not provide a solid foundation.
CSM vs the new codices is as one sided and boring as Eldar vs Dark Eldar and no amount of social contracting will make it enjoyable without telling you how you HAVE to build your army to remain "fair".

TL;DR Agreeing to "no deathstars, no invisibility, no ecessive spamming" is all fine but it starts getting ridiculous if you can't use half of your codex because the powerlevels are so different.

[Lexington]

As I have discussed before, and at much greater length (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html), it's like with sex: if you're being intimate with someone and halfway through, they start looking away from you, shuffling awkwardly and basically pulling faces that say 'I'd rather this was over', you don't just carry on 'serving your own needs' - not unless you're some kind of self-serving psychopath.
I think the comparison of 40K's current state to bad sex is pretty apt. :p

But, this misses the overall point there, which is that Opinion 2 is pretty much nonsense. It's easy to figure out where the really broken stuff in 40K is these days. It didn't take me six months of arduous playtesting to figure out that the new Eldar Codex completely outclasses my Orks - it took six seconds. The game just isn't that complicated, nor is it hard to figure out the relative power between two units if you've got a good understanding of the game and some years of playing under your belt.

Were balance a real concern of the Design crew, it actually wouldn't be difficult for them to reign in the system and create something that, while imperfect, was at least much more balanced than the 40K we have right now. Lots of other game systems do it. GW just chooses not to. This fad of blaming players for not observing an unwritten and incoherent "social contract" just seems like a way to try and get GW off the hook for making an inferior rules product.

[Mr.Gold]

Probably the one thing that will go a long way towards balance is change all battle Brothers to Allies of Convienence - no more super frineds lists, no more weird buffs from one army affecting another in a starnge way...

[Arkhan Land]

thats only part of the problem, some of the issues are entirely army internal buff madness for crazy saves/attacks/etc. but the army to army issue is there definetly. i always felt it would be something helpful to say that only UNIVERSAL special rules could be exchanged between armies, and then do work to carefully name codex specific things for derivative stuff like fearless/fnp/etc to carefully regulate which rules can end up between armies. lotta effort but maybe something for future edition cleanups

[40kGamer]

'It would only take this to balance the game' is nothing but a seductive delusion, because there’s too many things to consider; because the game is never ‘whole’, so it's always going to be a work in progress; because there’s always going to be someone cleverer than the Games Design team out there, and there’ll always be players prepared to ignore the social contract if it gets them the win.

At best, there will be periods of balance, followed by periods of imbalance, much like the Kondratiev Wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave) that’s observed in economic systems. But a wave is not a stable thing, and no matter what happens, that period of relative calm always gives way to the storm. So that’s why I believe 40K will never be balanced, and why it’s folly to believe it ever will be.

I'm a huge proponent of at least trying to balance the system. I do respect your position since it's a massive undertaking to even list all the possible combinations and permutations of the game, and it is constantly evolving. However I still firmly believe that the game engine could be designed around some linked probability matrices that could be used to derive expected points values. This would be transparent to the community as it would just be data used on the design side. I'm not under the illusion that this would give players 'equal chances to win' but it should level the field at least a little bit. :p

[Kirsten]

balance is not a priority of the design team. They are not an independent entity within the structure of Games Workshop, tasked with creating the best game they can and nothing more. Within GW's internal hierarchy, the Design Studio is a component of the Sales division, and their work reflects that fact.

this is a notion I am sick of seeing. all this codex creep nonsense. The design team are gamers as well as developers, they don't want an unbalanced game any more than the rest of us. there is no truth whatsoever to the idea that every new unit and every new codex is more powerful to drive sales. plenty of new things come out all the time that spark debate and complaints about them not being worth taking. the other argument people use all the time is that certain units get toned down or powered up with new releases in order to push those sales, that something which was great will be nerfed in order to shift sales to something else. again, has never been remotely true, there is zero evidence for it.

sure the game isn't perfect, but the sheer range of units and armies is a big part of what does make it fun and even. I see all sorts of complaints about Chaos Space Marines, and yet there are plenty of great units in the book that get overlooked because of internet complaining. How many people actually buy what is considered to be powerful or optimal online? nobody I know. There are far too many cries of 'army x must use units y to fight army z' but how often do you fight with or against army z with the 'tournament approved perfect list'. how many eldar players actually own six wave serpents? how many in fact have a mixed army of aspects, bikes, falcons, etc?

[Charon]

this is a notion I am sick of seeing. all this codex creep nonsense. The design team are gamers as well as developers, they don't want an unbalanced game any more than the rest of us.

A lot of Ork, Dark Eldar, Sisters or CSM players would disagree. The creep has become worse. You do not even need spamming, powergaming or deathstar building anymore to just obliterate anything from these books with tons of free, undercosted or overpowered units.
While it is true that the books at the upper levels do play quite well against each other and are fun as there are tons of options, the books on the lower levels have just become the NPC peasants in a "glory to the space marines" story.
Nobody is arguing that there is not one or two good units in the books, but this is not enough to fight armies with only 1 or 2 bad units in their books (especially when your "good units" are even weaker than their "medicore" units)

[Kirsten]

there are books that are better than others, but that is simply proof that the idea of creep is nonsense. if it were true, then each book would be incrementally better, but the dark eldar book is not considered to be better than all the books that came before it. I love my dark eldar, and my regular opponent uses thousand sons. they are a nightmare to face with any army, yet people tend to write them off.

[Path Walker]

A fluffy true to the spirit game with two players who embrace that will result in an enjoyable game, I primarily play Orks. The spirit and the intentions of the opponent are more important than the perceived power levels of a codex

- - - Updated - - -

Remembering that most people want to play that and don't take the optimised boring net lists and want to play a game not beat their opponent. Codex power doesn't matter nearly as much as the Internet people who don't play outside of a tournament environment (or at all) would think

[Charon]

I love my dark eldar, and my regular opponent uses thousand sons. they are a nightmare to face with any army, yet people tend to write them off.

Because thousand sons is a strong army :rolleyes:
Yes, if you play garbage vs garbage you end up with a fair game. I know you love your echo chamber but you are not the chosen who knows how to play every army to the fullest. You are not the one who found strong but overlooked units. You play in a setting that caters to YOUR needs. That's basically it. If you consider thousand sons as a "nightmare" your opponent is either the best competitive gamer in the world or you are just not very good.

[AlexRae]

Whilst it was an enjoyable read and probably deserved to be on the front page far more than many of the click bait articles that do make it there, the basic premise of this piece is a straw man argument.

Perfect balance of a multi faction game is like infinity, you can only tend towards it but never reach it.

None of this article addresses the fact that some things are so clearly redundant compared to others in 40k that they may as well not exist. You even highlighted several of them. Pyrovores are the poster child. Mandrakes another.

Then there are more subtle imbalances such as Walkers against Monstrous Creatures. We know MCs are vastly superior in this system.

The internet allows us to identify these imbalances INCREDIBLY quickly. We work like a hive mind. HOWEVER, as was correctly pointed out, most of the time you can see what's what within 15 minutes of opening the Codex on your own if you have experience with competitive play. Tau Coldstar Commander only has T4? Fails a grounding check and dies immediately? Let me never place that fellow on the table top. Took me 30 seconds to spot that one. I can plug in 3 units of Warp Spiders that are functionally immune to most shooting AND they get a BS buff? Let me do that immediately!

The fun of competitive 40k for me is threefold: Finding answers to problems on the table top in the existing meta. And secondly finding new combinations that may not have been identified yet. And finally and most importantly, winning a game using superior tactics and playing the mission against an equally savvy opponent with a roughly equal power level force.

None of these things require perfect balance. Perfect balance is a myth. But there is no reason why professionally paid game designers can't identify some of the more obviously over powered combinations and the clearly useless unit entries no one will ever take in a competitive list.

And when it comes to profit, beautifully detailed collectible miniatures that ALSO have good rules in the game system surely make the most money?

As competitive players we just want GW to tend towards balance, we don't expect perfection.

[Lexington]

this is a notion I am sick of seeing. all this codex creep nonsense. The design team are gamers as well as developers, they don't want an unbalanced game any more than the rest of us.
That may be true, but "being a gamer" isn't their job description - they're employed to to act on the Sales Department's priorities in the form of game design. If Codex Creep is in that priority set, they're damn well going to execute on that. If they don't want to do that, GW has made it clear that they can go join Andy Chambers and Rick Priestly in the Design Studio Alumni Club.

Let's be clear that Codex Creep is, indeed, in that priority set at current. One can argue about which post-Necron books have a slight edge over the others, but I've yet to see anyone really try to argue that they're not all on a level far above the 7th Ed books that came before.

[Andrew Thomas]

The biggest problem I have is that the standard of measure for game stats (IG, er, Astra Militarum) is seldom used competitively, or at least, used alone at an appreciable rate. The typical tournament field of contenders in no way reflects the fluff in terms of ease of force mobilization, relative force size, or sheer proportion of available troops, even. The bottom line is that the game doesn't support rarity as a game constant and as a result, we have an overabundance of armies, and units within those armies, that in the fluff would only be fielded in limited quantity at particularly dire situations.

[YorkNecromancer]

The internet allows us to identify these imbalances INCREDIBLY quickly. We work like a hive mind. HOWEVER, as was correctly pointed out, most of the time you can see what's what within 15 minutes of opening the Codex on your own if you have experience with competitive play. Tau Coldstar Commander only has T4? Fails a grounding check and dies immediately? Let me never place that fellow on the table top. Took me 30 seconds to spot that one. I can plug in 3 units of Warp Spiders that are functionally immune to most shooting AND they get a BS buff? Let me do that immediately!

The internet has a tendency to become an echo chamber, though. If it was true that all it takes is thirty seconds of reading, then by rights, that all-Lictor list should never have won the tournaments it did - Lictors have been dismissed by the echo chamber for years.

Yes, we can definitely spot the absolute turkeys, but that doesn't mean that everything is immediately apparent. That Lictor list seems like it should be a solid B+ kind of a list, but it absolutely ruined everything it came up against, and it definitely wasn't immediately apparent.

[Charon]

The internet has a tendency to become an echo chamber, though. If it was true that all it takes is thirty seconds of reading, then by rights, that all-Lictor list should never have won the tournaments it did - Lictors have been dismissed by the echo chamber for years.

If you had any idea about the mechanics and the specific settings and meta that made that list work in this specific environment you would know that the lictor in itself is still a bad unit.
You cant just go and say "see it did well on a tournment with different rules, a different meta and a different set of missions, so I conclude the unit can not be bad in a standard 40k game without all these factors."

[Gridlock]

None of these things require perfect balance. Perfect balance is a myth. But there is no reason why professionally paid game designers can't identify some of the more obviously over powered combinations and the clearly useless unit entries no one will ever take in a competitive list.

And when it comes to profit, beautifully detailed collectible miniatures that ALSO have good rules in the game system surely make the most money?

As competitive players we just want GW to tend towards balance, we don't expect perfection.

I agree that there´s no such thing as perfect balance, heck even in Warmachine (from what I have heard), you have to bring at least 2 or 3 lists in a serious tournament; because no single list can take everything your opponent can throw at you.
So you do your best to come up with lists you think can take most of what is out there.

Speaking of Privateer Press one thing they seem to do, that Games Workshop hasn´t done is actively participating in tournaments actually listening to their players.

Okay Asphyxious 2 is a little overpowered, okay we´ll scale him down a bit so he becomes more balanced.
Yes he´s still a nasty piece of work, and a lot of players groan when the see him, because they know they are in for a fight.
But he´s no invincible and neither is the army he´s in, there are ways for every army out there to defeat him.

GW on the other hand seems to close their ears, whenever the tournament players complain.
The problem with just one design team without serious feedback from the outside, is that while you might think your product is perfect and something makes perfect sense to you, that might not be so for an outsider.

A thing they could do is getting a hold of some people for the ETC and ask them to test out this draft to the new rules for an army and give their feedback on what they thought of it and what they might want to change.

Then take it into consideration, sure it might not give perfect balance, but I think it would be a hell of a lot better, then what we got now.

And as you said in the end that´s what most tournament players want a game that´s fairly well balanced.

[Defenestratus]

I can plug in 3 units of Warp Spiders that are functionally immune to most shooting AND they get a BS buff? Let me do that immediately!

Funny.. I've used that before.

And still lost! To a space marine player using nothing but sternguard and vanguard marines and the 1st company formation.

Amazingly the game still manages to betray conventional wisdom of the collective brainiacs on the internet.

[AlexRae]

lol No comment


Funny.. I've used that before.

And still lost! To a space marine player using nothing but sternguard and vanguard marines and the 1st company formation.

Amazingly the game still manages to betray conventional wisdom of the collective brainiacs on the internet.

[Charon]

Funny.. I've used that before.

And still lost! To a space marine player using nothing but sternguard and vanguard marines and the 1st company formation.

Amazingly the game still manages to betray conventional wisdom of the collective brainiacs on the internet.

First of all, he did not write auto-win did he?
Also you did play a top codex vs top codex. And to be honest. If you play very strong formations from a very strong codex and still lose to a fun list, you might probably be not as good as you would like to think you are.

[Andrew Thomas]

Honestly, Charon, what does skill have to do with a discussion of the (apparent) inability to balance 40k?

[Defenestratus]

First of all, he did not write auto-win did he?
Also you did play a top codex vs top codex. And to be honest. If you play very strong formations from a very strong codex and still lose to a fun list, you might probably be not as good as you would like to think you are.

Never claimed to be good at anything other than making sure that both myself and my opponent have an enjoyable game playing 40k - in other words, I win at the only game that really matters, being a good person.

Nor did I claim that his list was a "top codex". In fact, his list is built around "the rule of cool" more than the rules.

In that game, my D-cannon battery died to drop podding sternguard turn 1. My Avatar died to a deep striking mortis contemptor in an icarus drop pod all before I was able to even move it. Two out of my three war walkers died to an orbital bombardment first turn before I was able to use them. Then finally when I was able to actually bring the warp spiders in, I managed to not even do a single hull point to the contemptor and his 3 ablative HP with 30 warp spiders @ bs5 (its all the anti armor I had left as lame as it sounds).

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YAuD_djsqSy0IH9hvbm8r3OzVpTETJNUOxz_KSKucHNIgLDFW2 kPTZ6febEQzRhPpr--MbmdLpog9x9QW053oDHJ1UNSCKmzRmFczriVM_0sHWSGM-PLj9iV7RTVqlx6SDH7-4Erc-ewlhH0S8ixzkw3c5djDp5KDP0jbcO16iO1pC5wkT0TwEXAlbLt ySaKP_4zxFnEiQ74cOlHwSzGk0tAyA3M53ypDvfqThMR1jZCut YmqrxJjof5TqNXg82O_L8VDfVkEhW7V_1BgG7bVtDH-2X5KbMELAlvr3I13LsIUQqQv-r5_Ak7U2LmSHpEWBZRLyuFyRB398dfX0uUnMzuMy2thcKqyR40 B_45r4z6P1ijxVJPEvT4tXKP6v8mPwaGp6t-jPDPd8kceBLG5RXfUxwDY5XiHIxhqpQcDTMmq32dRV_4gwoUGL YJP6jOpzqRqS4pBun3aV8_Okq6kFcaXslB2SKaYQh7V0hXdknQ Q9XDmghFTcQOTIlWHsV580iZ5YhjP_CZauuY5Tzilg4MchNUxb 6NzNbzPOo=w2250-h1670-no

[Charon]

Because there are people in here that use their personal experience in their local stting as an "argument" that certain units/formations/book are totally fine and balanced.
Certain players here do honestly think 40k is balanced as they are able to win with their Dark Eldar against nightmarish powerful 1k sons or lose with their Eldar to fun lists. It is hard to have a discussion about balance when there are people who will not admit that the current system is quite heavily in favor of the newer (read post necron) releases and that up to a point where it is increasingly frustration playing an army before the necron power surge.
If "I always lose to Dark Eldar with my Eldar list, so Dark Eldar are OP and Eldar need to get buffed" becomes the metric of the discussion, it is rather pointless to actally discuss the topic.

[Sly]

Opinion 2 rather negates Opinion 3, doesn't it? If we can't know anything useful about a unit until six months after its release/revision, we're talking about huge, huge portions of the player base that can't, in good faith, observe that social contract, since, again, no one knows anything. Rather paralyzing, that logic.

Of course, it's silly, because we do know quite a bit about the armies the moment they're released. 40K's present framework has been out in the open for about three years now, and the underlying engine of the game was released during the latter days of the Clinton Administration. We know what works and what doesn't. D-weapons, extreme buffs (2++ re-rollable armor saves, anyone?) and hard-counter debuffs (Invisibility) are all understood. Contra the article, the consensus that forms around new releases tends to be pretty accurate, because 40K's base system isn't particularly complicated.

At the end of the day, this article doesn't really address the main problem with balancing 40K, which is that balance is not a priority of the design team. They are not an independent entity within the structure of Games Workshop, tasked with creating the best game they can and nothing more. Within GW's internal hierarchy, the Design Studio is a component of the Sales division, and their work reflects that fact. There's no magic bullet to "fixing" 40K, but the problems aren't hard to identify.

Pretty well said.

Also, I and many others who are good with math IMMEDIATELY said that the GK Psyfleman Dread was clearly better than other comparable units. And the previous edition of the Wave Serpent. And the current edition of Wraith Knights and Scatterbikes. And that the previous edition of Mandrakes was just bad. It's not all that rare that a unit's capabilities can be seen immediately upon reading the Codex. Frankly, the only two major units that I can recall being panned or not mentioned immediately upon release was the Screamerstar with a re-rollable 2++, and Daemon Princes being worth their 300 or so pt pricetags. Other than those, there have been smart people on the internet who were ACCURATELY lamenting a unit's lack of balance within days if not hours of a release. It's just shoddy that GW releases stuff like that.

Yes, perfect balance is elusive. But most of the complaints are not about a lack of perfect balance. They're about obvious mistakes such as: why does every other Eldar unit pay a 5pt premium to go from Shuriken Cannons to Scatter Lasers, except for the one unit that most would prefer to avoid being in Bolter range, and thus can make the most of the extra 12" of range? I mean, that's a right incompetent balls-ups, and it didn't take more than a few seconds of WTF?!?! before people pointed it out. Apologize for GW for being unable to make perfect balance if you wish, that's fine... no one is going to write a perfectly balanced system. But you must accept that GW has made some seriously simple errors in balance, and that is what drives most of the complaints.

[Denzark]

Thanks Yorkie - an enjoyable read. I think for a change I agree with your conclusion but not your argument. Without clarting on at length I think it is pretty well accepted pan-community from WAAC to fluff beards, that the Design Team are heavily influenced by sales.

You also miss the preponderance of USRs that are well nigh impossible to cost in points. Back in the day points of race profiles were balanced, equipment was costed to demonstrate availability to said race. In third it was effectiveness of equipment in multiples put the price up.

Nowadays who the hell knows.

[benn grimm]

Its not impossible; far from it; I'll take 1000pts of space marines, you take 1000pts of space marines (the exact same 1000pts of space marines) and we'll fight out some battle from the age of darkness, it'll be fun. We won't use any reserves, psykers or maelstrom missions and we'll set up in exactly the same place opposite each other and play on perfectly symmetrical terrain...

Or... I can take an Ork list from the old edition (coz i hate the new one) and run it at your blood angels (from the old edition too if you fancy) until we figure out what makes a fun game. Will it be perfectly balanced? No, thank the lord. Will it be more balanced than playing some random and hoping s/he has fun like you have fun? Will it be better balanced than 40k out of the box? Hells yes's, and by reaching a consensus; by communicating and using common sense and flexibility you know what we just created? Balance. And the only balance that matters a damn.

If you take a weak list to a tourney, then you just lost in the first round, the not taking a bad list round. I've heard guys who took a whole army of dreads to a tourney moaning about how broke the game is.... If you want to have a chance at winning, take the 'broke' list and get on with it. If everybody who moaned about scat-bikes n wraithknights or grav stars, went out and bought that very army, so tourneys were composed of all the same list, or maybe two or three variations on said list; a) tourneys would have suddenly become more balanced than they'd ever been at a stroke, and b) tourney organisers would be desperately saying to themselves; how are we going to get people to stop bringing these lists so we can get back to the good old days?

[Alaric]

Never claimed to be good at anything other than making sure that both myself and my opponent have an enjoyable game playing 40k - in other words, I win at the only game that really matters, being a good person. ]

There would be no major problems if we all had this outlook. Well Said. Id play you anytime.

[AlexRae]

Pushing a different collection of toy soldiers around the table doesn't make you a good person. The entry level is higher than that I am afraid. Nor does pushing round a very powerful combination of models round the table make you a bad person.

But that is by the by and does nothing for the discussion at hand whatsoever. It's an ongoing nonsensical argument used by people who have an aversion to competitive toy soldiers.

I would like to make a pertinent point with regards the credit people give the design team in regard to sales....

Going back to my earlier example of the new Tau Commander in Coldstar suit, Games Workshop cannot write rules well enough so that new units are automatically better than old ones and are a 'must buy'. If they could then Dark Angel Flyers, Tau Flyers, Ghostkeels and Coldstar commanders, Helbrutes and any number of the new Tyranids would actually be useful on the table top. However they aren't. It is literally a fluke of chance when something is powerful in this game, it is certainly not by design.

The fact of the matter is GW are not that good when it comes to games design or rules balance or even pushing the power level of new releases. 20+ years of evidence backs that up.

[Alaric]

Pushing a different collection of toy soldiers around the table doesn't make you a good person. The entry level is higher than that I am afraid. Nor does pushing round a very powerful combination of models round the table make you a bad person.

But that is by the by and does nothing for the discussion at hand whatsoever. It's an ongoing nonsensical argument used by people who have an aversion to competitive toy soldiers.

I would like to make a pertinent point with regards the credit people give the design team in regard to sales....

Going back to my earlier example of the new Tau Commander in Coldstar suit, Games Workshop cannot write rules well enough so that new units are automatically better than old ones and are a 'must buy'. If they could then Dark Angel Flyers, Tau Flyers, Ghostkeels and Coldstar commanders, Helbrutes and any number of the new Tyranids would actually be useful on the table top. However they aren't. It is literally a fluke of chance when something is powerful in this game, it is certainly not by design.

The fact of the matter is GW are not that good when it comes to games design or rules balance or even pushing the power level of new releases. 20+ years of evidence backs that up.

And in those 20+ years there is still a large following, maybe not the biggest but its there, which means lots of people have made their peace with it. Nothing is truly balanced in anything really, yet people hold GW up to impossible standards every day/release. As I always say: I don't blame them a bit for not doing social media or communication, its impossible to please all of ya, so why bother. Same thing with the rules.

[AlexRae]

And in those 20+ years there is still a large following, maybe not the biggest but its there, which means lots of people have made their peace with it. Nothing is truly balanced in anything really, yet people hold GW up to impossible standards every day/release. As I always say: I don't blame them a bit for not doing social media or communication, its impossible to please all of ya, so why bother. Same thing with the rules.

I dunno about you but I keep it up and many of the people I know/see stick with it due to the incredible background

[Path Walker]

Yeah, 27 years of no serious attempt at balance (except for a moment of maddest in 3rd edition) and it's still the most popular fantasy wargame in the industry. Maybe "balance" isn't that important to most people

[McKenzie James]

As a long time fan of Games Workshop, beginning in the Christmas of 1993 when
my grandmother brought me a single figure and 3 paints and a not so fine brush, right up
to the present, I do not consider GW a boogeyman, or an evil corporation who's
headquarters is in an ancient castle teetering on the edge of some cliff and patrolled by
legions of undead lawyers. Much.

Now I have played through 6 editions of Warhammer 40,000, about 4 editions of
Warhammer Fantasy Battles, Battlefleet Gothic, Inquisitor, Man O'War, Warmaster, Epic
40k, Mordheim, Necromunda.... Well, you get the idea, I have been around the traps a bit.

Balance doesn't need to be perfect but it IS achievable to a reasonable degree.

It doesn't take a lot to create a game and balance it. However, taking a game and
balancing it whilst you continually add new units from the sidelines is a difficult beast. I
fully understand how Games Workshop can find it daunting. Games like Starcraft, Diablo,
Warcraft, Quake, (I show my age with that reference) are often released and go through
extensive patching re-playtesting, more patching etc until they achieve some real balance.
This is often due yo the competitive nature of these games, however, at least they are
willing to patch it. Games Workshop continuously releases new rules, but they make no
effort to step in and apply a fix to an issue. Once upon a time, FAQ's were swiftly acted
upon via White Dwarf, and you would get a large treatment on misunderstood, poorly
written or poorly executed rules. These days we are lucky to see any FAQ's for periods up
to a year in some cases. So, where did it all go wrong?

Throwaway line no.1: "We are not a gaming company, we are a miniatures company
that also sells rules for our products." So why the **** are you called Games Workshop
and not Minature Workshop if that's your focus? I know, a cheap shot, but let's think. As it
was put on 1D4Chan, "They (GW) started out making **** that you could use in other
publishers games, and printing American RPGs up in jolly olde Angleterre. Soon they
made a wargame and a few board games and people began to take them seriously as
something other than a magazine publisher." These are the actions of a company that is
selling games, not a company that is miniature orientated. Of course, we can always go
further and point out the fact that GW actively sponsored and ran tournaments throughout
the late 90’s and early 00’s, so clearly they were invested, in some degree at least, into
some sort of competitive gaming. Most notable of these was of course Games Day.
So the excuse seems pretty poor that they are not a games company to me, however,
there is yet more to be said. You see, if you don’t care about balance, or creating a good
game system, then why pay a large group of people to develop new rule books and
codexes, army books etc. if you don’t care about the quality of the end product?
Essentially it is throwing money down the drain, because you could hire a couple of
dedicated writers, and shoe-horn new units into the game via the release of dataslates,
rather then renewing whole codexes. The reason then that you release new codexes must
surely be that you in fact do care enough about the rules that you want to market them as
a product, you’re selling them as a rules system, not a hobby assistance device. In fact, I
can remember the last time a codex had actual modelling information in it, it was the Eye
of Terror campaign book, and it spoke about how to convert mutants for your Lost and
the Damned list.

I can thus surmise that GW cares enough about gaming that they actively write for it,
and actively market their products for it, so clearly, the throw away line “we are not a
gaming company” is absolute bull. They ARE a gaming company. The DO sell rules for
their games. They DO make attempts to balance their books, but fail miserably due to
other issues.

Throwaway line no.2: “Our games are not meant to be competitive by nature.” Uh,
what? As I mentioned a mere two paragraphs ago, they RAN Games Day. They actively
supported tournaments in the 90’s and early 00’s. Clearly at some point they thought the
game should be competitive, I won’t make so absurd a claim as to say that any one rules
system is more balanced, however, they shot themselves in the foot here, as the earlier
systems were much closer to achieving balance. Let me explain a thing or two about
creating balance between units in a points-based gaming system.

-First, every unit must have a starting cost. That is the base line. It may be something like
an Imperial Guardsman for example, with mild stats across the board. Next, you assign a
points value to this unit, perhaps 6 or 7 points.
-From here, you then will modify the unit to turn it into something else. To do this, you
will change stat lines and add special rules.
-For every change you make, you must add a cost in points, either positive or negative,
depending on what you have done. So, for example, in turning a guardsman into a marine,
you will increase his WS, BS, S, T, I, Ld & Sv. So for every two of these (rounding up),
you may arbitrarily decide to add 1 point. Now, your 7 point Guardsman is 11 points.
-Now you add new rules to the unit. In this case, we gain ‘and they shall know no fear’,
‘chapter tactics’ and ‘combat tactics’. For each of these we will also add one point. Now
our marine costs the same as TWO guardsmen, however, the price now reflects his
increased stats, armour and weaponry far better.

Where have they failed to apply this simple methodology? Well, the simplest
comparison is this: “A chaos space marine is 1 point cheaper then a tactical marine.
They have the same stat line, but don't have ATSKNF. BUT you can take them in a squad
of 20. You can give them hatred 'all loyalist space marines' and +1 Ld for 1pt. So now
you have hatred Space Marines and are Leadership 9 base. So where are the points going?
ATSKNF is worth a lot more then one point, especially when you see 500 points of Chaos
Terminators run down in CC. Are Chaos undercosted, or overcosted? You can mark the
squads to make them better, but you're paying a lot of points for it, so while making up a
bit of the gap, you're actually using more points. Then you have chapter tactics and
combat squads, far far handier then the, again, 1 pt gap would suggest. All this from a
unit with a 100% equal stat line.” As you can see, due to the similar stats, the units are
roughly on par balance wise, however the special rules are largely weighted in the favour
of one side, thus, in a points-for-points game, it will be unbalanced. Imagine a game of
chess where the other player can move his pawns sideways as well as normally. Seem fair
to you? This is what has led to the slow degradation in the gaming community. What?
Why?

If you are a long term gamer, there is nothing more frustrating then having a sound
tactical knowledge and working knowledge of the game, but being pwnd in what should
be a relatively equal battle. Yes, dice can go against you, you can make mistakes, the
opposing players might be undeniably good. However, if you’re a 15 year hobby veteran
and your nice balanced list gets its *** handed to it by a smug teenager with little to no
experience, it can be soul crushing.

This is my first comment on BOLS in so long that I have actually forgotten my login....

[Charon]

And in those 20+ years there is still a large following, maybe not the biggest but its there, which means lots of people have made their peace with it. Nothing is truly balanced in anything really, yet people hold GW up to impossible standards every day/release. As I always say: I don't blame them a bit for not doing social media or communication, its impossible to please all of ya, so why bother. Same thing with the rules.

Might be the background, might be the investment. But the rules are a big downer. A friend of mine loves his imperial guard madly deeply. But he doesn't play it anymore as every new release just screws him over big time. He is not playing in a competitive setting and he considers the lists employed against him as reasonable. He himself tries to optimize his list as much as possible and he is a pretty good player.
So... if everything is "reasonable balanced" why is his success far greater with my Eldar he didnt even play before than with his imperial guard he plays for over a decade?

Again this is not about perfect balance not about "impossible standards".
If you consider creating rules that do cause a unit to not fire the whole game or creating an errata with misinterpretated rules "impossible standards" you might be in for a rough time irl.

[Path Walker]

But you're missing the point, the imbalances don't matter a jot to the game or its sales. In fact, the company does better when the game isn't balanced and more people play the game when it isn't.

But yeah, I am sure your invented example of a friend is relevant too.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, LOL at the person thinking that the tournaments that GW ran were competitive. As someone who played in them, they were not, the prizes went to best overall, which included painting, army composition (fluffy armies = more points) and sportsmanship, those categories all had equal weighting with the actual results you got so it was possible to "win" the tournament without winning many of your games.

[Lexington]

But you're missing the point, the imbalances don't matter a jot to the game or its sales. In fact, the company does better when the game isn't balanced and more people play the game when it isn't.
Given that GW's sales are down about 20% overall since mid-2013, you could probably use to revise your theory. ;)

[Path Walker]

Given that GW's sales are down about 20% overall since mid-2013, you could probably use to revise your theory. ;)

Not when you look at other EU market sources outside of the wargames hobby industry but hey, you wouldn't want to let the chance to try and dig at GW would you. Nothing makes you look cooler than having a go at a company that makes toy soldiers. It's not at all increasingly sad and pathetic of you.

[Lexington]

Not when you look at other EU market sources outside of the wargames hobby industry
Why bother going outside of the wargaming industry? After all, Corvus Belli's located in the EU, but I guess no one told them (http://www.infinitythegame.com/article.php?id=106) they should be doing poorly. Really, given that GW and their competitors operate internationally, locality should only figure into it so much. If there's really a worldwide slump that's cutting the market leader's sales by a fifth, you'd expect to see smaller competitors dropping like nobody's business. But, there they go, ignoring the facts of things, launching an unprecedented number of products in the same space, running highly successful Kickstarters, and seeming to just grow like weeds.

Really, someone needs to sit the market down and explain to them that they can't be doing well when GW's not. It's just rude.


but hey, you wouldn't want to let the chance to try and dig at GW would you. Nothing makes you look cooler than having a go at a company that makes toy soldiers. It's not at all increasingly sad and pathetic of you.
He tries so hard, folks. :p

[Havik110]

And in those 20+ years there is still a large following, maybe not the biggest but its there, which means lots of people have made their peace with it. Nothing is truly balanced in anything really, yet people hold GW up to impossible standards every day/release. As I always say: I don't blame them a bit for not doing social media or communication, its impossible to please all of ya, so why bother. Same thing with the rules.

Im not asking for perfect balance but there are some glaring problems and DE has most of them when compared to ther books and looked at based on THIS EDITION OF THE GAME.

1. A ravager gets 3 st 8 ap2 lance shots or 9 s4 AP 2 shots. but the current game (since 6th) you kill vehicles by hull pointing them down not blowing them up and it is inferior at killing armor to anything with a few more shots and less strength (because you no longer need to blow stuff up)

2. In this edition, non deathstar CC is DEAD. so our CC unit that needs to be in CC to survive or it is dead and usless is more useless than it has ever been. It cant even be a suicide tank killer unit any more. 3rd edition wyches that used to cost more points were MUCH MUCH better...

3. Think of every marine dex EVER and how their veterans can take whatever weapons they want...Vanguard vets, take as many power weapons as you want...blood brides? you can take 1 more useless wych weapon (WT actual F)...(HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?)

4. The raider is the easiest way to see they dont have any idea how the changes in their MAIN RULE BOOK affects a game. Why is a raider 70 points in 7th edition the same it cost in 5th and in 3rd when 7th has more shooing per turn than 3rd had in a game? in 3rd-5th my raiders were more survivable because if you moved and then shot your bolter you could only shoot 12 inches, so i stayed away from bolters and so my speed was my defense, now an armor 10 vehicle that needs to get close to get anything done is USELESS because it dies to bolters because there is no way to make 24 4+ cover saves...

5. why does a plane with armor 10 and 2 ST9 not even twin linked lances cost 245 points?

Once again, no one is asking for full 100% balance, they are asking them to look at the units and say, wow, that doesnt work...or wow, it would take DE 30 lance shots to kill 1 of these things...or wow, why do we even bother with DE any more with as good as we built eldar...

[Alaric]

Well. Lets pretend they change all 5 of those things. Cool. Now the next guy us gonna have problems. So then he makes a list of 5 personal gripes. They change it. Oh but wait! One of those 5 things the other guy has a problem with is something you like.

Do you see where im going there? What are problems to you may not matter a whit, which in my case is your whole list.

1.hullpoint gripes with lances...really?
2.deathstars are always a danger, the tau will have a shooty one now. Step yer game up.
3.Yes. Because every single marine player uses as many vets as they can. I have seen tons of articles on BalLs saying "tone down the vets!"
4. Its a fu#king RAIDER. They have never been tough. Why should they be now. Use cover and play like u got a pair.
5. Points cant reflect every eventuality. I wish their were a better way to make an army...like pick as many models as you want and just throw down..im sure a game with no points would work.

K so obviously just havin fun there but the point is: nobody will ever agree on what balance is.

[Charon]

I think you do not really understand the problem here.
This is not about 5 random things that irk him, this is about DE beeing not remotely valid at the moment.
When everyone got buffed, DE got nerfed hard. They lost a ton of characters and special rules. The codex was not strong before. The stronger codices got rewritten later... and they got buffed.

I would really like to see you share your wisdom with all us incompetent players instead of only throwing catchphrases like "step up your game" in the room.


1.hullpoint gripes with lances...really?

Yes, really. As Lances are one shot, not twin linked and not cheap it is pretty hard to get enough together (especially as the same units that carry lances also carry the anti-meq weapons)


2.deathstars are always a danger, the tau will have a shooty one now. Step yer game up.

Do you care to elaborate which Deathstar DE got or how to "step yer game up"? Because either you are the best player in the word, or you are just talking hot air.


3.Yes. Because every single marine player uses as many vets as they can. I have seen tons of articles on BalLs saying "tone down the vets!"

So vets are not good? Fair point. And now imagine that they are still an extremely valuable, valid and cost efficent unit in comparison what DE got.


4. Its a fu#king RAIDER. They have never been tough. Why should they be now. Use cover and play like u got a pair.

"ignore cover". And even in cover... how many 4+ do you roll? There is no difference between a raider in cover and a leman russ in cover. Oh wait there is. The leman russ gets the better cover save as the camo netting is better than DE tech. Another pointless cathphrase from somebody who has no idea what to actually say.
And you really dont get the point. Raiders have been tough. I do not know where your expert analysis comes from that they never have been, but there were different rules in place that made it pretty tough.
Just to name a few: rapid fire range, Nightshield, glancing, there is no escape, S3 explosions. So please... if you really have no idea what people are talking about feel free to ask instead of posting so such an obviously wrong statement. It only shows that you know nothing about the topic you try to discuss.


5. Points cant reflect every eventuality. I wish their were a better way to make an army...like pick as many models as you want and just throw down..im sure a game with no points would work.

Please go and troll your AoS friend. You have made no point (get it?) but we can do this. You can throw down DE and I throw down CWE. Im totally sure you will have the most fun in your life when you surrender in turn 2.



nobody will ever agree on what balance is.

As a hint. If you there is a point where you need double the points of your army to remove a single enemy model (which is at the cost of 1/6 of your army) you can imagine that there is something very wrong.
People would not agree on finer nuances. But they pretty much agree on overall balance. However I can see that you have actually no idea what you are talking about.

[Mr Mystery]

K so obviously just havin fun there but the point is: nobody will ever agree on what balance is.

This.

And now to elaborate....

There are thousands of gamers. Therefore, there are thousands of opinions. Naturally I don't have time, info nor if I'm honest inclination to present a study into these, so bear with me whilst I heft my biggest brush for some very broad strokes indeed.

Stroke 1 - FIGHT!

For some, balance should be everything worked out to five decimal points etc - absolute perfect balance where it's down purely to player skill.

Stroke 2 - FIGHT!

For others, every Codex should work against any other codex - each should have their strengths and weaknesses, and every list from each Codex should have a reasonable chance on the field (as in not 'oh. I see. I'll just pack up now, shall I?)

Stroke 3 - FIGHT!

My army should be the besterest evar and nevar evar loss any matches.

Stroke 4 - FIGHT!

Every Codex should have it's speciality warfare, which by necessity leaves it vulnerable to certain other Codecies which present its natural nemesis.

With the clear exception of Stroke 3 - none of the above are exactly unreasonable expectations of any given game. None of them. Some are taller orders than others (Stroke 1 essentially describes Chess, a game which achieves it through a general lack of variables. Both players have the same pieces and identical restrictions). Me? I probably fall mostly into Stroke 4. I take my choice warts and all and just sort of accept there'll be some armies that are going to turn me into splutchy little pancakes in no time at all.

But, here's a caveat....Warhammer 40,000 is none of the above.

And next, a revelation....Warhammer 40,000 has never been any of the above. And that doesn't bother me, personally, at all. I mean, how can it? 40k has always been a slightly shonky, thrown together game - ever since I started to seriously play back in the mid-90's. If that state of affairs was high up on my needs list, I would have switched games ages ago.

I play largely for the hell of it. When I come up against a Nemesis list or something intentionally beardy, I get my fun out of trying to eke out a draw, or at least make my opponent sing for their supper - but don't get me wrong. This isn't a sermon, it's just my opinion.

As for getting the game perfectly balance? Well, after 20 odd years of playing, it's abundantly clear GW aren't fussed for that. And to echo Yorkie's opening post, given the sheer number of variables out there, it's amazing there's anything even resembling balance in the game.

Yes, some armies are boring snoozefests (Gav Thorpe's take on Dwarfs - custom designed to park on a hill and blast you into oblivion before you run into some of the best combat troops in the game, or perhaps the 5 Knight list when you've gone for a more rounded force able to tickle most types of armies). But in my experience that has always, always been GW. It's not a recent thing.

If it's not your bag, then absolutely fair enough. I can see why it gets up people's noses so much. But, y'know.....maybe it's time for you to move on. The Leopard isn't going to change it's shorts any time soon, so go find a game which gives you what you're craving.

[Path Walker]

Lex, we don't know how well Corvus Belli are doing, they don't publish any figures for people with no understanding of them to pour over. People thought Dropzone Commander was doing well until the owner of Hawk Wargames revealed last week that they're tens of thousands of pounds in the red and operating at a massive loss. Corvus Belli could be too for all you know, I'd be very surprised if they were making much money at all to be honest but we don't and won't know that unless they choose to tell us. Sales doesn't mean profit but a lack of profit does mean an end to operating. GW sales are down, yup, like every luxury product in the Eu (from where GW generates at least 50% of its sales so yeah, that's going to have a big impact) but it's in profit and has been for years, which is what a business needs.

I know there is no point trying to explain is, you've proven time and time again that unless it's echoing the idea you've held for years that GW are going out of business because they're not doing things the way you like them, you won't let pesky things like facts or evidence get in the way.

The point is, a few people might complain about balance, you've seen here that someone is saying Dark Eldar are useless because you can't use them like Space Marines, but most players want their armies to be different and play in interesting ways. We could easily have a game where identical armies fight each other and get more balance but people don't want that and, more importantly, GW don't want to make that game and as Mystery says, they never, ever have. (Cue someone saying "well what about GWs tournaments?!" ) They weren't competitive events in the sense players mean it now, they were scored based on hobby, fluff and sportsmanship scores more than winning games, the idea of competing to win a hobby just wasn't thought of as important back then at least not in Nottingham. The objective of the game is the won, the aim is for two or more people to have fun, if you ignore the second to ensure the first, you're not playing the game GW made, that's fine if that's what you care about and your opponent feels the same but don't complain when you've chosen to make the game something it isn't and are finding it isn't working properly.

[Morgrim]

It would be nice to be able to build an army using any codex in the book and be able to face a player of a similar skill level and have at least SOME chance of winning. Or having a fun game. Or having a game, period. I haven't played 40k in over a year because pickup games against 1k of Dark Eldar are apparently not worth setting up for.

Perfect game balance may be impossible, but I don't think it's too much to ask for enough balance that people are willing to play an army instead of saying it's so bad that it's not worth the effort of kicking my teeth in.

[Lexington]

The point is, a few people might complain about balance, you've seen here that someone is saying Dark Eldar are useless because you can't use them like Space Marines, but most players want their armies to be different and play in interesting ways.
No, the point is that you claimed GW does better when 40K is less balanced, and I pointed out that GW's current sales slump dovetails nicely with a widely-recognized crash in 40K's game balance. You can blame GW's problems on whatever you like, but the fact is that 40K's definitely less popular than it was when it was better balanced.


I know there is no point trying to explain is, you've proven time and time again that unless it's echoing the idea you've held for years that GW are going out of business because they're not doing things the way you like them, you won't let pesky things like facts or evidence get in the way.
Bull, I've never said any such thing. GW's a publicly-owned company with valuable IP to be had, they're not going to just shut their doors like some mom-n-pop dime store. Companies like GW don't just up and die, they just shrink, get sold and watch their IP devalue to the point of irrelevance. That's where GW's heading right now, long-term.

[Andrew Thomas]

Lex, we don't know how well Corvus Belli are doing, they don't publish any figures for people with no understanding of them to pour over. People thought Dropzone Commander was doing well until the owner of Hawk Wargames revealed last week that they're tens of thousands of pounds in the red and operating at a massive loss. Corvus Belli could be too for all you know, I'd be very surprised if they were making much money at all to be honest but we don't and won't know that unless they choose to tell us. Sales doesn't mean profit but a lack of profit does mean an end to operating. GW sales are down, yup, like every luxury product in the Eu (from where GW generates at least 50% of its sales so yeah, that's going to have a big impact) but it's in profit and has been for years, which is what a business needs.

I know there is no point trying to explain is, you've proven time and time again that unless it's echoing the idea you've held for years that GW are going out of business because they're not doing things the way you like them, you won't let pesky things like facts or evidence get in the way.

The point is, a few people might complain about balance, you've seen here that someone is saying Dark Eldar are useless because you can't use them like Space Marines, but most players want their armies to be different and play in interesting ways. We could easily have a game where identical armies fight each other and get more balance but people don't want that and, more importantly, GW don't want to make that game and as Mystery says, they never, ever have. (Cue someone saying "well what about GWs tournaments?!" ) They weren't competitive events in the sense players mean it now, they were scored based on hobby, fluff and sportsmanship scores more than winning games, the idea of competing to win a hobby just wasn't thought of as important back then at least not in Nottingham. The objective of the game is the won, the aim is for two or more people to have fun, if you ignore the second to ensure the first, you're not playing the game GW made, that's fine if that's what you care about and your opponent feels the same but don't complain when you've chosen to make the game something it isn't and are finding it isn't working properly.

And herein lies the problem: the Tournament Standard Faction is an Elite army, not the Game World Average. Space Marines are not and should not be considered basic infantry, and basing your appraisal of how an army functions on how close they match Space Marines is never going to give you a fair impression.

If you want balance at the Tournament level, you need to limit the presence of Elite Factions.

[Path Walker]

No, the point is that you claimed GW does better when 40K is less balanced, and I pointed out that GW's current sales slump dovetails nicely with a widely-recognized crash in 40K's game balance. You can blame GW's problems on whatever you like, but the fact is that 40K's definitely less popular than it was when it was better balanced.


Bull, I've never said any such thing. GW's a publicly-owned company with valuable IP to be had, they're not going to just shut their doors like some mom-n-pop dime store. Companies like GW don't just up and die, they just shrink, get sold and watch their IP devalue to the point of irrelevance. That's where GW's heading right now, long-term.

Except that "balance" is entirely subjective, some people say 7th is more balanced that 6th (especially if they don't do what ever they can to avoid the maelstrom missions being part of the game).

I wish they'd just rip off the band-aid like with Age of Sigmar, get rid of the worst elements of this hobby.

- - - Updated - - -


And herein lies the problem: the Tournament Standard Faction is an Elite army, not the Game World Average. Space Marines are not and should not be considered basic infantry, and basing your appraisal of how an army functions on how close they match Space Marines is never going to give you a fair impression.

If you want balance at the Tournament level, you need to limit the presence of Elite Factions.

Space Marines are fine, its just that they tend towards a very simple play style and so most competitive players don't bother to learn any of skills they need to play say, Dark Eldar and just complain when the army they bought painted off of eBay because they heard it was OP isn't easy for them to win with. Thus internet rage.

Hint for Dark Eldar, you shouldn't be visible to your opponent on their turn, either you're not moving enough or there isn't enough terrain on the table. Tournaments hardly ever have enough terrain.

[Alaric]

I think you do not really understand the problem here.
This is not about 5 random things that irk him, this is about DE beeing not remotely valid at the moment.
When everyone got buffed, DE got nerfed hard. They lost a ton of characters and special rules. The codex was not strong before. The stronger codices got rewritten later... and they got buffed.

I would really like to see you share your wisdom with all us incompetent players instead of only throwing catchphrases like "step up your game" in the room.



Yes, really. As Lances are one shot, not twin linked and not cheap it is pretty hard to get enough together (especially as the same units that carry lances also carry the anti-meq weapons)



Do you care to elaborate which Deathstar DE got or how to "step yer game up"? Because either you are the best player in the word, or you are just talking hot air.



So vets are not good? Fair point. And now imagine that they are still an extremely valuable, valid and cost efficent unit in comparison what DE got.



"ignore cover". And even in cover... how many 4+ do you roll? There is no difference between a raider in cover and a leman russ in cover. Oh wait there is. The leman russ gets the better cover save as the camo netting is better than DE tech. Another pointless cathphrase from somebody who has no idea what to actually say.
And you really dont get the point. Raiders have been tough. I do not know where your expert analysis comes from that they never have been, but there were different rules in place that made it pretty tough.
Just to name a few: rapid fire range, Nightshield, glancing, there is no escape, S3 explosions. So please... if you really have no idea what people are talking about feel free to ask instead of posting so such an obviously wrong statement. It only shows that you know nothing about the topic you try to discuss.



Please go and troll your AoS friend. You have made no point (get it?) but we can do this. You can throw down DE and I throw down CWE. Im totally sure you will have the most fun in your life when you surrender in turn 2.




As a hint. If you there is a point where you need double the points of your army to remove a single enemy model (which is at the cost of 1/6 of your army) you can imagine that there is something very wrong.
People would not agree on finer nuances. But they pretty much agree on overall balance. However I can see that you have actually no idea what you are talking about.

awww a DE player needs a hug.

[Charon]

awww a DE player needs a hug.

Always.
But better start with a fair representation on the tabletop. I know fairness is not your cup of tea but try for once.

But interestingly... this is exactly the attitude Morgrimm was talking about. You do not get games because it is a boring waste of time to kick somebody that is already n the ground and you still find people online who consider themselves "likeable guys" and "fun gamers" who make a big show of stomping on your motivation. Well played.

[The_Gonk]

Perfect balance is unattainable and probably even undesirable. What, IMHO, is desirable and attainable is a game where factions are close enough to give each other a run for their money.

[shiwan8]

Reasonable balance is reachable. Perfect is too, just not a realistic expectation.

What we have here is GW making fluffy rules and forgetting that there is no point in playing if the result is known beforehand. Oh, and they try to sell models so generally new things are way better than average. Not always though. Some times it's for CSM and if for some reason it's at least ok by accident they will FAQ it to dirt. That's another topic though so lets not go there any further.

[Alaric]

Always.
But better start with a fair representation on the tabletop. I know fairness is not your cup of tea but try for once.

But interestingly... this is exactly the attitude Morgrimm was talking about. You do not get games because it is a boring waste of time to kick somebody that is already n the ground and you still find people online who consider themselves "likeable guys" and "fun gamers" who make a big show of stomping on your motivation. Well played.

I play regularly against DE guys who kick my butt because they try different things. Thats why that whole list made me laugh. By all means continue on with your preconceived notions, as I would hate to ruin a bad perception of myself.

[Mr Mystery]

Always.
But better start with a fair representation on the tabletop. I know fairness is not your cup of tea but try for once.

But interestingly... this is exactly the attitude Morgrimm was talking about. You do not get games because it is a boring waste of time to kick somebody that is already n the ground and you still find people online who consider themselves "likeable guys" and "fun gamers" who make a big show of stomping on your motivation. Well played.

Apologies if it's been posted elsewhere, but understandably I don't much fancy picking through the bickering in search of it.....

But what do you feel DE need to give them their lift? (Might necessitate a new thread of course)

[Morgrim]

At the moment, it's really hard for the vehicle hunting elements of the army to hurt heavily armoured vehicles due to hull point mechanics; the assault elements of the army struggle to make it into assault; and there is not a single anti-air element in the army.

Being a synergy-based glass cannon is fine. Having armour made of tissue paper and vehicles that are antimatter engines strapped to kites is fine. DE just need some way of returning to being a fast, manoeuvrable, hard hitting army. Give us a way to deepstrike a webway portal that our assault units can charge out of, or give wyches some ability to blunt overwatch so they can get into combat. Let our very expensive dark lances one shot light tanks again, and let massed dark lance or other anti-vehicle weaponry take down or properly cripple a landraider if we're willing to toss a few units at it. (Because at the moment my best option for killing vehicles is throw a talos at it in close combat, instead of actually using my anti-vehicle weaponry, and there is something wrong with that.) Stop making GC immune to poison, because massed poison is our only way of getting past the high toughness and high armour units. Give us something with skyfire or a flyer that can actually hit a hellturkey. Stop making craftworld eldar faster and more manoeuvrable than us, that's our hat!

And if you could convince more players that terrain is not an optional bonus and the game writers that everyone else doesn't need anti-cover on all their big weapons that would be nice too.

[Mr Mystery]

Ignores Cover is one I'm fully in tune with.

It's not a massive problem for the armies I play (Necrons, Knights and Mechanicum) as such, but it does impact the wider game. Such things should be more specialist, and something to be primarily considered when doing a city fight, rather than just a general rule on weapons which are already fairly effective without it.

So for the Dark Lance quandary, what's the fix? Better AP to make the penetrating shots hurt more, or a point higher S to help turn those glances into hits (which, if I'm getting me sums right, would be a 50% chance at S9 against Max AV 12)? Both? Or a better weapon? (edited because it appeared I was saying you can only have one of the first two options)

And as for terrain - yep. Again in total agreement. I'm soon to be assembling my gaming board, and I'm intent on having lots and lots of terrain at my disposal, and I hope to include various walkways connecting the buildings - because 3D warfare is much more fun than Planet Bowling Green.

Though of course, Planet Bowling Green can be fun for a massed tank battle, so nothing is getting glued to the board.

Further thought on Terrain or lack thereof....that's an important balancing factor in 40k, Warhammer and AoS. If the board is barren, close combat armies are at the mercy of those with competent ranged capabilities.

For a second, let us consider my burgeoning Tau force. Oh god I've got a lot of dakka. Lots and lots and lots of dakka. If there's no terrain, I have a (very boring) field day as I simply pick my targets, light them up like a Christmas Tree, and then eradicate them from existence. It denies me, as the Tau player, interesting tactical quandaries and opportunities.

I don't need to worry about expending two Markers to ignore your cover save. I'd be less inclined to field Breachers over Strike Teams - my plan with Breachers is to spot and control choke points, hopefully forcing my opponent to risk my stupidly potent short ranged firepower in order to break through.

I don't need to get clever with my Battlesuits either. I just hop into range, blast away, then fall back out of range again, rinse and repeat.

Then you have deployment itself to consider. If there's sparse cover, I can quite easily predict your deployment and subsequent strategy - if I've got MEQ or better, that's an unfair advantage, as they don't traditionally need cover so much, and often lack the firepower to quickly whittle down enemy units in cover.

This is why I enjoy city fights so much. They're harder to orchestrate from the get go, and require me to remain on my toes at all times :)

[Path Walker]

Its the tournament idea that maybe one big Line of Sight blocking piece of terrain and a few ruins is fine that causes these imbalances as far as I can see, a lot of the powerful units are hampered because they're big so dense terrain that they can't navigate easily or even stand it really changes their usefulness, suddenly the light zippy things look a lot better and when your wraith knights can't move anywhere because the base is too big, they've easier to deal with.

Basically, Zone Mortallis rocks.

If you can draw a Line of Sight to most of the table from any point, there isn't enough terrain, if terrain is just something gunlines are using to gain a cover save, you need more terrain with more than blocks Line of Sight. There should be one or two fire corridors where you might get a clear shot at something half the board away but any less than that and the tougher or shootier armies have the advantage.

People say orks are terrible because they can shoot a unit of 30 off the board in a turn with massed fire are missing the point here, it shouldn't be possible for your who army to all shoot that one target in any one turn because they shouldn't all be able to eaily draw a line of sight.

[grimmas]

Scenery and cover are a good example of why 40K is very very difficult (possibly impossible) to balance. Their use provides a total open system in that every game can and often will have totally different scenery and the use of which is determined by the players and ultimately can't be legislated for without changing the game into something totally different.

It also has a massive effect on the effectiveness on both units and army builds. My friends and I will often bemused by many of the "meta" issues mentioned on the Internet. We as loooong time players have developed a large amount of scenery and as such play a very different game to "tournament" players in the US for example, because they use such a small amount of scenery in ways we wouldn't.

This is just one example of this. The whole game in an open system with many variables controlled not by the rules but by the players themselves, points level, missions, scenery(both amount and construction) game type (planet strike , cities on death and so on) and that's before we mention the many situationally based unit options and unit types themselves. The game is designed to encompass all these things not just 1850 pts on planet little scenery.

That's not it say you shouldn't play tournament games but to expect rules written encompass such a large variety of player lend choices is going to lead to heartbreak

It's worth noting that WM a game that was built from the ground up (twice) to be the ultimate in competitive balance still requires a 14 page supplement for tournament balance.

Also the intended apex for 40K is not tournaments, thats probably for the early middle of your gaming curve, the true apex is when you've gone beyond that, and points values, into true scenario based stuff balanced by what works for the story and what the players know will provide a positive experience for both players.

For context don't forget this game was written in Enlgand ( not Britain in this context). And we are also the people who gave you test Cricket a game which is played for 5 days and quite often has no winner. It's all about the journey not the destination

TLDR

40k is to big and played in too many ways by too many people to provide any thing other than a nod to balance. You can tailor it to your needs but this will change the game to somthing that will only have a passing similarity to the game player by others.

[Path Walker]

Sometimes I play Test Match 40k, 5 days of play (with breaks for Tea of course) in a series of 6 matches. It's the only real way to experience the game as it should be played.

[grimmas]

Sometimes I play Test Match 40k, 5 days of play (with breaks for Tea of course) in a series of 6 matches. It's the only real way to experience the game as it should be played.

Nice.

[Charon]

At the moment, it's really hard for the vehicle hunting elements of the army to hurt heavily armoured vehicles due to hull point mechanics; the assault elements of the army struggle to make it into assault; and there is not a single anti-air element in the army.

Agreed. You have basically a single anti Tank/Gmc weapon that is worse than a LasCannon for everything below AV14 AND has a shorter range.
The ability to get into melee is fine. Eating overwatch and doing damage however is not. The lack of anti-air and LoW is also embarassing.


Being a synergy-based glass cannon is fine. Having armour made of tissue paper and vehicles that are antimatter engines strapped to kites is fine. DE just need some way of returning to being a fast, manoeuvrable, hard hitting army. Give us a way to deepstrike a webway portal that our assault units can charge out of, or give wyches some ability to blunt overwatch so they can get into combat. Let our very expensive dark lances one shot light tanks again, and let massed dark lance or other anti-vehicle weaponry take down or properly cripple a landraider if we're willing to toss a few units at it. (Because at the moment my best option for killing vehicles is throw a talos at it in close combat, instead of actually using my anti-vehicle weaponry, and there is something wrong with that.) Stop making GC immune to poison, because massed poison is our only way of getting past the high toughness and high armour units. Give us something with skyfire or a flyer that can actually hit a hellturkey. Stop making craftworld eldar faster and more manoeuvrable than us, that's our hat!

Again agreed.
We are SLOWER than eldar (who have battle trance on troops in addition to fast antigrav vehicles), less resilent (AV12 and 3+ armor for a lot of Eldar units) AND have less firepower (Scatterlaser, Fusion gun, Distort,...) and all this while we also lack psykers.
We are basically a synergy based fast hard hitting army that lacks speed, punch and synergies. Hell even if you try to put a Succubus into a unit of Bloodbrides on a Raider they actually LOSE the ability to carry special weapons. Great synergy right here.
Now even Space MArines may assault after Deepstriking, while the cunning Dark Eldar archon cant even plan his raid to take place at nightime. Or another great synergy... our Nightfields give stealth so we don't even get a bonus from nightfighting while an imperial guard camo net actually stacks with night fight.


And if you could convince more players that terrain is not an optional bonus and the game writers that everyone else doesn't need anti-cover on all their big weapons that would be nice too.

We do play quite terrain heavy (thats 2 or 3 pieces per 1/6 of the table and at least 4 LoS blockers) but it does not make a difference. Raiders are too big to hide on most tables, ignore cover exists in masses and post problematic units (superheavy/GMC) do not care about terrain at all while beeing as mobile as we are. Add to that that our dedicated melee units do have a high initiative but no grenades (and no unit that causes pinning) and our transports can die in difficult terrain and you come to the conclusion that more terrain is not always better.

[Path Walker]

2-3 pieces a quarter isn't terrain heavy. That illustrates why its a problem, using a minimum amount of terrain and thinking that represents a terrain heavy board.

Terrain hurts GMCs and Super Heavies by making it impossible to place them everywhere they might want to be, making sure there are few spaces available for a GMC sized base or model to go. meaning they're limited and not able to hop accross the board on a whim.

The idea should be to create interesting tactical choices, as well as a narrative, allowing free reign for shooting armies and GMCs to go where they please will skew the game in their favour. Narratively you have to look at the board and what it is representing, most conflicts will not happen in a sparsely populated suburb with one or two ruined buildings every 100 feet or so. It looks better and makes the game more interesting if its not always possible to see everything.

Its also good to change this out too, make it so that not every table you play on is the same density, so will be packed and hard to move around others freer, this, along with using all the missions if you want to randomly select, means its very hard to have a perfect army for the expected situations.

Tournaments tend to play a uniform density of terrain and publish missions before hand, meaning that you can write your army to the tournament and expected opponent. With a wide variety of terrain and missions that constantly generate surprise objectives that you have to cover as an eventuality, you encourage people to go for more balanced armies, why risk taking a unit that might be situationally useless in a game because you don't even have space to deploy it?

These are the games I want to play, they're interesting and tell a story, the same old 6-8 ruins and a tower in the centre playing the missions we've had since 5th edition is boring and isn't the direction the game is heading and why people using that mentality are seeing it as increasingly unbalanced.

This is also the best way to let the best generals show themselves, a plan shouldn't survive contact with the enemy, showing the ability and foresight, to be adaptable makes the game more about who is the better player, yes you might not get tournaments where there at people going 8-0 with wins but the best players will be those able to adapt to misfortune and take full advantage of a lucky break so over all will still win the majority of the matches, yes some "lesser" players might win the odd tournament but that's not really a bad thing, it encourages tournament attendance amongst those who might avoid it for fear of humiliation knowing that it'll be closer and with a bit of luck they could come out on top.

[Mr Mystery]

Path - try to be more constructive dude. Please?

If I recall correctly, the old recommendation (5th Ed, I think?) was to have roughly 25% of the table covered by terrain. On Portent somebody demoed this in 'real world physics'. Shot of a 6'x4' board with all the terrain accumulated in one corner, and then the same terrain distributed about the board in a fairly haphazard manner.

It was far, far more than you might think.

2/3 pieces will depend on their size. I've seen opponents try to claim each 6" section of wall as one piece of terrain each. Equally daft would be 2-3 Bastions of course - they're bulky and LoS blocking, but so dull when fielded enmasse.

Sod it. I'm going to go start a new thread about board population. I shall post it as soon as I've thought up a suitably witty title.

[Path Walker]

Path - try to be more constructive dude. Please?

If I recall correctly, the old recommendation (5th Ed, I think?) was to have roughly 25% of the table covered by terrain. On Portent somebody demoed this in 'real world physics'. Shot of a 6'x4' board with all the terrain accumulated in one corner, and then the same terrain distributed about the board in a fairly haphazard manner.

It was far, far more than you might think.

2/3 pieces will depend on their size. I've seen opponents try to claim each 6" section of wall as one piece of terrain each. Equally daft would be 2-3 Bastions of course - they're bulky and LoS blocking, but so dull when fielded enmasse.

Sod it. I'm going to go start a new thread about board population. I shall post it as soon as I've thought up a suitably witty title.

Added to my reasoning to try and say why I don't think 2-3 pieces is "terrain dense" and what can be done and why its a good thing.

[Havik110]

The point is, a few people might complain about balance, you've seen here that someone is saying Dark Eldar are useless because you can't use them like Space Marines, but most players want their armies to be different and play in interesting ways.

Thats the thing, there is a major issue with playing DE vs Marines. Marines have armor and DE dont...what DE does have is speed, and in this game, in this edition and 6th SPEED DOES JACK S#1T.

I once again put forward that in most games today there is more shooting or the possibility for more shooting in 1 turn than an entire game of 5th back. how does that affect DE, well a raider has 3 HP and armor 10. That used to mean that in 5th back, that even bolt pistols could kill you, because back in the day, you kept 18 and a 1/2 inches back, and then moved 12, got out 2, and assaulted 6, meaning you didnt worry about bolters. you used your maneuverability and speed as your weapon and then applied force to a flank or a unity alone. Realize when i say I assaulted, i assaulted 10 marines or 5 terminators with 20 wyches mostly to get 2 agonizers into them. (Off topic rambling (wont even go into how useless agonisers are now) back in the day, wyches had wych weapons that removed your extra cc weapon attack so i had some defense and it lowered your WS in 1/2 which really only affected characters and low WS units))

now at 24 inches marines have 10 shots on my raider, that hit the raider with the same frequency that they would hit a stationary landraider (think about that, they hit the fastest vehicle in the game outside of jetbikes, just as easily as a battle tank that hasn't moved). Well I may get a 5 up cover save or a 4+ if I have night shields (dont even get me started on the nurf to night shields) but that is still the easiest main transport int he game to kill.

once again this would be fine in 5th and back but in 6th and 7th it is a major flaw. it would be great for 4th but it sucks in 7th...

So our speed gives us a cover save of 4+ sometimes on armor 10 in an edition where MOST THINGS CAN HIT IT DUE TO THE CHANGE OF RAPID FIRE. 1 lost lance screws us over, and we lose them like crazy now...




Hint for Dark Eldar, you shouldn't be visible to your opponent on their turn, either you're not moving enough or there isn't enough terrain on the table. Tournaments hardly ever have enough terrain.[/I] and if a raider had an eldar jetbike move were it could move shoot and move this would be great, but the simple fact is that if i come out to shoot, and dont kill my raider is done next turn vs an ig tank that can sit on the back line for an entire game and not worry because it doesnt have to move for cover and/or it can shoot without los...

One again if a bolter can kill us and they used to only be able to kill us from 12 but now can kill us from 24 and GW has never compensated for that, its GWs lack of game design that is the problem here...

[Path Walker]

Its not the easiest transport to kill in the game. The Ork Trukk holds that distinction in my opinion being entirely Av10, Open topped and no feasible way of getting a cover save for it (besides a Big Mek with KFF which costs twice what the Trukk does) and no Jink.

The cover save provided by Jink is what represents that a Raider is harder to hit than a Land Raider, plus its extra speed making it easier to move behind terrain to remove Line of Sight to it.

I'll reiterate, have you tried using more terrain in your games? What aren't you in a position where you can avoid being seen by marines 24" away?

Tactical Marines are a threat to a Raider, but I think you're overstating the damage 10 Marines can do to you at 24" are doing 0.74 HP a turn (assuming a Jink with no other modifers to the 5+ cover save). The maths there is based on Dice Tools from Battlescribe, its nearly hometime on a Friday and I've been in meetings all day so I've not checked it to be honest, looks about right though.

Yes, they could get lucky and wittle away the Raider while you're 24" away in one turn, but they're far more likely to do just one HP of damage, leaving you within potential charge range (granted if you're exactly 24" away, then you'd need a damn good charge even with Fleet, but if you're 18" say, you're making it pretty easily most of the time)

You don't need to "Move Shoot Move" you play with a little more cunning, you set up traps, you lead the enemy into ambushes, in fact, play like the Dark Eldar. You aren't out in the open, you're hiding, moving, avoiding until the time is right.

Craftworld Eldar is Easy Mode Eldar. You have move so you can't be shot at and let them try and get to you, you pop out and charge from around a corner (as your transports are open topped) from where they couldn't see you, while another has popped behind them to wittle the numbers down from the rear. These are all things only really possible with more terrain to hide you, the table should be more than just an open barren plane of existence, basing your maths on the idea that its one Raider vs One Tactical Squad (which most mathshammer relies on) not taking in to account the thousands of variables that can move things in your favour.

Consider your terrain, if you're finding the problems you describe are happening to you in a game, then try using more of it, no opponent would realistically argue with wanting more terrain on a table, no decent opponent anyway.

Remember the old wargamers motto; "the more terrain, the better the game"

[Andrew Thomas]

Agonizers are the best Close Combat Weapon that you can take in quantity, especially on Beastmasters.

Also, Jink starts at 4+, up to 3+ with Nightshields.

Lastly, just about everything that can shoot well has Deep Strike. Use it.

[Havik110]

You don't need to "Move Shoot Move" you play with a little more cunning, you set up traps, you lead the enemy into ambushes, in fact, play like the Dark Eldar. You aren't out in the open, you're hiding, moving, avoiding until the time is right.

basing your maths on the idea that its one Raider vs One Tactical Squad


I just said, i have always put 2 squads into even tac squads...ive been playing DE since 4th (started in 2004) and 6th and 7th suck compared to 4th and 5th for them.


Agonizers are the best Close Combat Weapon that you can take in quantity, especially on Beastmasters.

Also, Jink starts at 4+, up to 3+ with Nightshields.

Lastly, just about everything that can shoot well has Deep Strike. Use it.

1. be nice if our vets could take as many aw we want like marine vets huh?

2. and then your shooting vehicle does Nothing (ravager, venom)...I would prefer modifiers to hit to saves, make speed a real defense....oh it went flat out, is not a tank, and is so far away from you, hit it on 6s...

3. if we had the guidance systems pods had that might work well...

4. Put assaulting out of them back to 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rules. MOve 12, pop out 2, assault...moving 6 is for the slower races...

[Charon]

Agonizers are the best Close Combat Weapon that you can take in quantity, especially on Beastmasters.

That really made me laugh.... so you are spending 35 points on a T3 model without any save? Really? I mean for less points you get a Wraithblade or Strenght D Wraithuard.
An agonizer is 25 (!) points. That is so absurdly expensive on a T3 model without a proper save and attacks.

[Alaric]

Agonizers are the best Close Combat Weapon that you can take in quantity, especially on Beastmasters.

Also, Jink starts at 4+, up to 3+ with Nightshields.

Lastly, just about everything that can shoot well has Deep Strike. Use it.

This is what I mean aboot trying different things. Well done Andrew.

[Path Walker]

That really made me laugh.... so you are spending 35 points on a T3 model without any save? Really? I mean for less points you get a Wraithblade or Strenght D Wraithuard.
An agonizer is 25 (!) points. That is so absurdly expensive on a T3 model without a proper save and attacks.

Not everything is as simple as the Toughness and Saving throw of a model, its how you use it. He's making it work for him, what are you doing? Reading a stat line and deciding from there.

- - - Updated - - -


I just said, i have always put 2 squads into even tac squads...ive been playing DE since 4th (started in 2004) and 6th and 7th suck compared to 4th and 5th for them.



1. be nice if our vets could take as many aw we want like marine vets huh?

2. and then your shooting vehicle does Nothing (ravager, venom)...I would prefer modifiers to hit to saves, make speed a real defense....oh it went flat out, is not a tank, and is so far away from you, hit it on 6s...

3. if we had the guidance systems pods had that might work well...

4. Put assaulting out of them back to 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rules. MOve 12, pop out 2, assault...moving 6 is for the slower races...

1. Your verterans aren't marine verterans, imbrace what theyre good at instead of bemoaning what they are.
2. The Jink save represents the speed, it mechanically works the same way, you're hard to hit for half the time you avoid the shot. That's what a cover save from Jink is.
3. So only Marines in drop pods can effectively deep strike now? Thats just not true, again, other armies cop fine without them
4. So you'd gain a massive 2" on the charge? Even then, rolling for charge distance means you've got more distance than in 3rd-5th on average, especially with Fleet.

You're not looking at what your army is good at, you're not playing up to their strengths, that's on you, not the designers. People are trying to help you get more from the Dark Eldar and because they don't work in the same way as they did 4 years ago, you're convinced no one can tell you otherwise.

[Andrew Thomas]

That really made me laugh.... so you are spending 35 points on a T3 model without any save? Really? I mean for less points you get a Wraithblade or Strenght D Wraithuard.
An agonizer is 25 (!) points. That is so absurdly expensive on a T3 model without a proper save and attacks.

It can hurt things a vanilla power sword (@ strength 3) just can't touch. And I'm not talking about Wyches, or Kabalites even. I'm talking about your Beastmasters, Solarites, Aberrations (Good Lord, Aberrations), or Arena Champions. Things that actually can fight and live.

Besides, Allies are a cop-out. Sure, Wraith units may be more cost-effective, but this tangent is about Dark Eldar.

- - - Updated - - -


I just said, i have always put 2 squads into even tac squads...ive been playing DE since 4th (started in 2004) and 6th and 7th suck compared to 4th and 5th for them.



1. be nice if our vets could take as many aw we want like marine vets huh?

2. and then your shooting vehicle does Nothing (ravager, venom)...I would prefer modifiers to hit to saves, make speed a real defense....oh it went flat out, is not a tank, and is so far away from you, hit it on 6s...

3. if we had the guidance systems pods had that might work well...

4. Put assaulting out of them back to 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rules. MOve 12, pop out 2, assault...moving 6 is for the slower races...

We do have a guidance system, it's called a Webway Portal. Just second in a Haemonculi Coven, and you can have 6 extra no scatter Venoms or Raiders, filled as you like.

Waiting to assault from deep striking/Cruising assault vehicles is annoying, but who wants to face that from assault terminators out of a land raider?

[Djbz]

It can hurt things a vanilla power sword (@ strength 3) just can't touch. And I'm not talking about Wyches, or Kabalites even. I'm talking about your Beastmasters, Solarites, Aberrations (Good Lord, Aberrations), or Arena Champions. Things that actually can fight and live.


Ok Aberations, Solarites and Arena champions I can understand but beastmasters?
They have ONE attack and only the one melee weapon- literally every other model with access to an agoniser will be attacking with 2/3 times the number of attacks most of the time. And both Kabalite squad leaders and Wych squad leaders have a better chance of reaching close combat than beastmasters because the enemy will have to get past the 4/3+ jinking Raider before they can shoot them properly (And the wych squad leader has a better save in combat)

[Charon]

It can hurt things a vanilla power sword (@ strength 3) just can't touch. And I'm not talking about Wyches, or Kabalites even. I'm talking about your Beastmasters, Solarites, Aberrations (Good Lord, Aberrations), or Arena Champions. Things that actually can fight and live.

Besides, Allies are a cop-out. Sure, Wraith units may be more cost-effective, but this tangent is about Dark Eldar.


That is the point. They cannot "live". No transportation, no attacks, no save, no toughness, no grenades. They just die.


We do have a guidance system, it's called a Webway Portal. Just second in a Haemonculi Coven, and you can have 6 extra no scatter Venoms or Raiders, filled as you like.

Waiting to assault from deep striking/Cruising assault vehicles is annoying, but who wants to face that from assault terminators out of a land raider?

at this point im sure you are trolling.
First of all venoms have a transport capacity of 5. That means if there is anyone in there, the haemonculus does not have a seat.
And second... do your really pay 170 (!!!) points for ONE no scatter venom and call that good?

I would really like to see you in a vid podcast playing this. Im sure your opponent dies from laughing.

[Path Walker]

Charon, the more you post, the more confused I am getting about if you actually play the game or just look at the statistics of units and weapons and decide from there who wins?

The guy s talking from his experience I using units with those weapons and finding them effective and once more all you can talk about are stationed and wargear.

[Morgrim]

Beastmasters are one of the few decent units at the moment. Run them with khymerae up the flanks and they can be quite good at assaulting your opponent's back field, and the invul save on the khymerae can be used to screen the beastmaster to get them into combat. They also make semi-survivable distractions, because a lot of older players are still really spooked by agonisers.

[Charon]

Beastmasters are one of the few decent units at the moment. Run them with khymerae up the flanks and they can be quite good at assaulting your opponent's back field, and the invul save on the khymerae can be used to screen the beastmaster to get them into combat. They also make semi-survivable distractions, because a lot of older players are still really spooked by agonisers.

The problem with Khymarae is not that they are upright bad (altough they still got nerfed from 4++ to 5++) but that they share their fast attack slot with Venoms, Raiders, Razorwings, Reavers and Scourges.
The fun thing is they are still better than wyches (more A, better S/T, invual always available, 12" movement) but worse than Reavers and you will need your FA slots for multiples of them. They offer more bord control, are harder to remove and works as MSU.
If we had a Formation like the Gorepack from KDK I would probably recommend them, but as it is you are better off with Reavers, Scourges and Razorwings.

Furthermore the Back field assaults are no issue as any vehicle can deepstrike or just use aethersails. Grots (especially from Coven or as Grotesquerie Formation) are much harder to remove and pose a real threat to almost anything (that is not a Walker or a Sv2+ unit or a Deathstar). Khymerae have the issue that in such a scenario they can not assault the turn they come in, so you sit a turn only relying on your T4 and 5++. That was no issue when you could have big Beast packs with ablative Khymarae to deliver Razorwing Flocks but since both where toned down and the pack has a maximum size of just 12 that sadly has become a very weak option.