Here are a few links regarding balance in 5th:
Balanced lists - Truth
SW & IG aren't unbalanced
Let let's get some discussion going (not flaming) into why or why you don't think 5th is balanced.
Kirb your enthusiasm!
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Poll Discussion - Balance in 5th?
Here are a few links regarding balance in 5th:
Balanced lists - Truth
SW & IG aren't unbalanced
Let let's get some discussion going (not flaming) into why or why you don't think 5th is balanced.
Logging you in...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lyracian 59p · 730 weeks ago
I think there is codex creep from 4th to 5th edition. Apart from the poor Tyranids the new books seem to have a reasonable balance against each other. I think Codex Ultramarines is starting to suffer a little now we have had three more marine books each of which seems to do generic marines better. They at least still have Bikers and special characters like Vulkan and Kantor. While I do like the HQ changing FOC style there is too much of you must play Special Characters to do cool stuff for my taste.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
In addition, regualr Marines still hve:
Cheap AssTerms
6 Cheap Riflemen
Bikes
Vulkan
Pedro
Lysander
Cassius
Null Zone
Sternguard (BA struggle to fit them in)
Khan
Shrike
...and they need more?
balance=fuuu · 730 weeks ago
Cambrian · 730 weeks ago
Keith · 730 weeks ago
Badger · 730 weeks ago
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
This then creates a gap between UM and BA.
That Fangs are even better than the cheapened BA is craziness.
How can guys not concede this as Creep?!
Kirby 118p · 729 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
nyenyec · 730 weeks ago
@SackOfOwls · 730 weeks ago
IMO they are pretty balanced. Tyranids sort of get the short end of this stick so far. Mostly due to the FAQ, imo.
Digilante · 730 weeks ago
Lyracian 59p · 730 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 729 weeks ago
Overall for the Tyranid codex is strong but with matchup issues highlighted by the lack of ability to diversify their army which was compounded with the FAQ.
Lurking Horror · 729 weeks ago
Why should there be a difference?
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
LinkHero · 729 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 730 weeks ago
N.I.B. · 729 weeks ago
FAQ Doom overnerf came from allowing cover saves. After a good amount of games I can say that this is a pretty big difference.
As for the topic - I play Tyranids, haven't played really good players using the best SW or IG lists, so I can't really have a solid enough ground to stand on to form a solid opinion. But my educated guess is that with 25% terrain, 40K is close to balanced, with a slight tip to mech armies.
A slight nerf of the vehicle damage table in 6th ed would balance the game.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
N.I.B. · 729 weeks ago
Von · 730 weeks ago
Von · 730 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 730 weeks ago
Swarms - 2e Snotlings, or if we ignore that in favour of proper ones, Rippers.
Monstrous Creatures. :p
plastic Fast Skimmers.
;)
I'm sure there's more. First open-topped plastic vehicle? lol (Warbuggy) First plastic Jetbike/Bike.
Marshal Wilhelm · 730 weeks ago
10 Fangs. 8 ML = 230 pts
Given that Greys hold the midfield better than Tacs, yet Tacs are supposed to be bringing extra HW pewpew, is really undone when you see that the Tacs one ML in no way balances the disparity between the Devs and Fangs.
Given that Ultras cannot out pewpew Wolves, who are also better in mêlée than Ultras, really makes me feel creep is alive and creeping.
abusepuppy 121p · 730 weeks ago
10 Fangs, 8 ML = 230 pts
(And that's only because Vanilla Devs are overcosted; BA gets them for 260, which is a much more fair price.)
SM and SW are actually very balanced in terms of shooty because SW can't get good shooty in its Troop slots, bar Razors (which are good but have their own issues.)
artemi7 78p · 730 weeks ago
That might be true.
But that doesn't change the fact that in later Marine books, both SW and BA get cheaper ones. If GW is not going to go back and change the SM costs accordingly, I don't see how you can claim anything BUT codex creep in this single instance. The fact of the matter is that, no matter WHY the SM devs are more expensive, they are. Being wrong in the first place doesn't matter when you compare later books, and only see improvements.
Kirby 118p · 729 weeks ago
GW dropped the ball on pricing them and fixed it in later books compared to the new books just being plain better all the time.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
It's entirely plausible that they are deliberately more expensive in order to prevent the SM Codex being, literally, a 'Does-Everything' Codex. One of the problems with the previous Editions was that when the new Space Marine Codex came out it automagically invalidated the majority of every previous Marine book, simply by covering a build close enough to require a minimum of modification, while also providing further, better options and alternatives.
Now they are trying to carve each a niche, and make them all truly unique, and balanced. Why not wait until they finish the process before judging?
artemi7 78p · 729 weeks ago
Still, I guess it's not any diffrent then putting in cool new toys and readjusting costs to make you buy new models. It just comes across as far too much stick, for the carrot they normally hand you (Valks, Trygons, Thunderwo... er, nevermind).
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
Antebellum · 729 weeks ago
Because the process will never be finished. There are already whispers of 6th edition and Necrons, Eldar, Tau, Orks, Chaos, Demons, Templars, Dark Angels, Sisters do not have 5th edition codices. By the time Space Marines have all of their books, some of them will be in 6th edition and a comparison will not be able to be made.
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Does it really matter if Wolves cannot get get shooty from Greys, compared to that 1 HW the Tacs bring?
I have already shown that Wolves are getting 4 more MLs over the Devs. So the Tacs reduce that down to a three HW advantage to the Wolves. Woot?
The Wolves not only bring more HW pewpew via the Fangs outshooting BOTH the Devs & Tacs, but then are far more competent in the midfield.
That you concede Vanilla Devs cost to much IS the very definition of Codex Creep.
Less bang-forbuck IS disparity, which IS creep.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
In addition, by doing it your way you create a FoC disparity, which cannot truly be quantified in mathematical terms - you are using 2 Heavy Support Slots for those Long Fangs, but only one for the Devastators. It makes your comparison wholly invalid, IMO.
In addition, you need to define WHY they are supposedly better in midfield - if I have not done this sufficiently for my argument, please, say so.
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
How can you guys not concede that paying an extra 30 pts for units that:
1] cannot split fire
2] cannot counter attack
3] drop to Ld 8 when the sergeant is gone, whereas Fangs only drop to Devs target engagement levels.
o_0
I know we all want 40K to be a tight rules set, but it isn't. Maybe they are bridging the gaps, but they still haven't.
I think you are pretending/hoping/wishing that 40K is tight, to keep those horribly negative "stop playing 40K too hard" people quiet. Ya, I wish they'd pipe down too, because you *can* play 40K hard. It is played hard and that is proof enough to keep those negatives quiet. If only they'd realise it, but they don't so yeah. Lol.
But just because it is tightening, doesn't mean there is no Creep.
How can Vendettas and Valkyries+meltavets not be seen as powerful units, which are the very underpriced.
3 las Pred costs what? Vendetta costs what? Ya, no creep there....
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
They provide an AV13 bulwark with which to screen your Transports, and are a tiny bit more accurate, with the proviso that they are more likely to grant a Cover save - though the survivability issue is a huge one.
TheKingElessar 71p · 730 weeks ago
The increased melee ability of Fangs over Devs is irrelevant, as anything that will actually be engaging them in melee is more than likely to smash their grizzled faces in anyway - Counter-Attack alone does not a Melee unit make.
Also, I firmly believe that if you are putting Missiles on Tacs and expecting them to do anything other than bugger all, you are being silly at best. The real benefit of Tacs is the capacity to take Multi-Meltas, a weapon that Wolves have very little access to (since Wolf Scouts and Wolf Guard take away Elite slots, and TWC take away Speeder slots) and who's AP1 is hard to quantify as to how excellent and valuable it is.
There is literally no way, for instance, that a Heavy Bolter and Multi-Melta are equally powerful options, despite the cost. /tangent.
Grey Hunters alone do NOT hold midfield better than Tactical, because if that was true then so would Chaos.
They do things very differently - Tacticals are there to take midfield defensively, GH are offensive units that frankly don't have much bite beyond their initial shots. Their Razors are more deadly, and SM get the option of those too. Indeed, SM can choose to take those and play differently, using the MLs and setting up dual or triple firebases, while Wolves have to settle for one that can target like 2 for less effect.
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Sure, lets combat squad the Devs.
It's still 4 MLs versus 8.
The Devs 2+2 can target two units. The Fangs 4+4 can target four units. So not only are the Wolves bringing more guns but they are not 'wasting' those guns via overkill.
The combat squad drops to Ld 8, or you could have a second 5 man Dev squad if you really wanted . But that is another 10 pts up your shirt, and the Devs are already bringing less guns as it is.
You can say Ld 8 is not a bad drop from Ld 9 [4/36] but then why do most Wolf players take those Ld 9 Wolf Guard then. They ALWAYS mention the Ld increase. Kirby has used Ld 8 < Ld 9 as a defence for why Greys are not stronger than Tacs many times.
So is Ld 8 worse or not?
You can't have it both ways.
Who cares if you loss MLs straight away with the Fangs?
Initial: 8 v 4
After 4 ML deaths, the Fangs STILL have as many guns as the ablative use Devs. Whilst getting the advantage of 4 ML shots in the meantime.
MLs are ALWAYS used. Ablative Marines are only being used when the squad is taking wounds. If the enemy is not shooting at them, the Marine player has paid for something ineffective. Is not being shot at nice? Sure. But imagine if they also didn't shoot the Fangs - they are twice as effective. If the Fangs are targeted, they only drop to 4 MLs after taking four casualties and are still as effective as the Devs. Plus whatever is in the midfield hasn't been shot at.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
2+2+1 < 4+4 with split fire.
Okay, make it a MM then [which is what I would take, btw]
If the Marines go first, the MM cannot shoot anything anyway. So the Wolves are back to an 8 v 4 advantage on T1.
Now the Tacs are in position, assuming that where you want to be was only 12" away from your DZ. Cool.
Yes, 24" range is nice, as is a 12" MELTA.
But compare with this: Wolves move 6" and now have a range of 18" and also 12" MELTA. Still a Marine win. But the Wolves have moved another 6", which can be vital if where you want to be isn't that nice 12" out of your DZ. And the Wolves only get hit on 4s, instead of the auto hit the Marines suffer.
So lets say Tacs and Greys are even in the midfield in terms of melta power.
How about when you need to assault a unit off that midfield Objective? You can say, use the Hammernators for that, but you don't always have things go to plan. Sometimes the unit is there has to make it happen.
Both can RF something that is too nasty to assault. But the Greys can always join in an assault with another of their units, whilst the Tacs stand around cheering on their engaged unit, or add their ferocious 2 attacks on the charge.
Greys put out 3 attacks on the charge [plus the Standard buff] and are twice as effective from then on as the Tacs.
Combat tactics is nice. But sometimes running away and RFing doesn't matter, you just need to take or to hold something.
Ya, Tacs run away from combat IF they win the initiative test. Sometimes just putting out 3 times as many attacks is better than having another whirl of RF.
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Wolf Guard - 18 pts PF - 20 pts Combi Mg - 5 pts = 43 pts
You can buy an extra WG for that cost, and chuck him in with the already amazing Fangs if you really want.
Don't like that comparo? Cool. Not that this is another epitome of Creep....
WG 18 pts. Sergeant 26 pts.
Go over by 2 pts and add in a Wolf Standard. I know *you* don't like them, but they undoubtably buff the units mêlée for that turn AND half the number of failed saves suffered. Again, the WG is just as good as the sergeant, and you get a strong buff thrown in for 2 pts.
Chaos Marines are not as good as Greys. They cost too much.
The Aspiring Champion is 4 more points over the already too expensive sergeant, and yeah Ld 10 is nice, but I'd rather give that up and have ATSKNF. Then they have to fork out another 10 pts to get a re-roll on that Ld 10.
Then they pay an extra 5 pts for a Mg, and cannot get that MM you recommend anyway. That is why CSM are not btter than Tacs.
That Fangs ARE better in mêlée, be it only a little, is just more salt in an already gaping wound. You can pooh-pooh the difference if you want, but you can't tell me you wouldn't take it if it were offered. Therefore it IS an advantage.
They are no mêlée unit, sure. But being twice as effective 30/36 times is much better than not.
blacksly · 729 weeks ago
Or I could compare Hammernators, which are far cheaper for SM, and "prove" that SM > SW.
Entire Codex vs entire Codex, if you please, if you're going to make arguments that one Codex is stronger than another.
And, as an aside, clearly units are being changed from Codex to Codex... Hammernators for SM were probably too cheap, so they increased the cost for SW, which turned out too high, and then BA got them at 45 pts vs the original 40 for SM. That's not a case of Codex Creep, but rather trying to adjust unit costs. Same idea for Devs, although pretty much exactly in reverse. I think this shows that they're not trying to make each Codex as bigger and badder, but rather trying to tighten all of them down towards a shared level of strength.
shedim · 730 weeks ago
Mortie · 730 weeks ago
shedim · 730 weeks ago
Nobody wants Orks, Nids or whatnot that are just mirror copies of marines. People just want army books that are just as good/balanced as the Imperial ones.
Mortie · 730 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 730 weeks ago
But the upshot is:
Orks are a 4e book, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
Karnstein · 730 weeks ago
Fast skimmer (transports) took a huge hit compared to track/wheel-vehicles with ed5, esp. with some very stupid FAQ decisions. So as long as the core rules penalizes skimmers the "imperial" armies will have an advantage in ed5.
Excluding tyranids from the poll make it kind of senseless anyway in my opinion. The game is not utterly broken, but I don't think it is a nicely balances as kirby&co wants us to believe is is.
Kirby 118p · 729 weeks ago
Excluding Tyranids is acknowledging Tyranids have match-up issues.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
Doz · 730 weeks ago
Some armies, like orks, struggle to take down a LR. Yes PKs but then the vehicle exploads and takes down about 5 boyz then its hammer time and its all over but the crying. While some armies like BA and DE have got a massive boost with better options and better/cheaper AV and anti-troop. I know that the playstyles are different but i would like to see all armies have a way to deal with razorspam and IG parking lots.
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Sure you don't get to bring as much of the fancy, but I think if all get to play at a similar level, then so much the better.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
Orks are better, maybe Daemons...but not even CSM either...3 Rhinos + Oblits isn't better than 5, even with lessened enemy firepower.
Finally, the greater points levels open more variety and options for players to step beyond 'core' requirements.
Zjoekov 74p · 729 weeks ago
Chaos is actually a bit better at 1500, as their ranged firepower (read: Oblits) is here a little more sufficient (read less sucky sucky) and Oblits their flexibility shines a bit more here too. Chaos seriously troubles filling their slots effectively at more than 1500, so get worse there.
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
And when the choice is taking a third Troops choice or a 3rd Dragon unit, that's bad. Especially since it also limits variety of the (mono) build - ie, Eldrad is more powerful, but much less viable. :(
necroninja 36p · 730 weeks ago
That is, of course, assuming that (under fair circumstances), Mech IG are as beatable as everyone says. For all the talking that people do, no one ever really says HOW to beat them. Again, I've never been in this situation, so I have to trust other people's accounts.
Badger · 730 weeks ago
If you take Daemons and Tyranids into account, you're looking at an altogether different picture. Still, 5th remains the most balanced and interesting edition so far, and even outdated armies such as Tau and SoB can still compete, so I don't mind. Even Ork and Daemons can compete in a more laid-back environment.
TheKingElessar 71p · 730 weeks ago
Badger · 730 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 730 weeks ago
willydstyle · 730 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
a) How finished 5e was when Daemons was printed
b) How similar most of their playtest copies of the main ruleset were to the end product
c) How much they actually invested [time] in playtesting Daemons in 5e as opposed to 4e, not necessarily knowing how close together the releases would be
d) We don't know how long either was playtested for
e) We don't know how long Daemons sat on the 'nearly done' shelf waiting to go to the printers. We must all have heard the rumours that they're always half a codex ahead of what we see...
Matt · 730 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 730 weeks ago
CptFornost 44p · 730 weeks ago
Warhammer 40k (and all other wargames for that matter) is not an abstract entity, but rather a game created and supported by a company in the UK, which has experienced massive growth throughout the 2000s and has just become rather standarized. If you look closely, fluff is playing an ever minor part in codex design these days. Codex authors are taking more liberties when introducing new units, characters, and bits of fluff, yet we must not forget that when designing new codices, fluff is still king. So no hope that Assault marines will be any good in the near future, as fluff does not like abrupt changes.
We must also take into account that for the past 3 years, the western world has been passing through one of the worst crisis in the history of capitalism, but more importantly the UK had been hit relatively hard. Those who hail from there, or who buy stuff from UK webstores may have noticed a flux in not only GW's but in general pricing, with the UK lifting and reapplying VAT charges. We've also had quite a few price hikes these last years. Bear with me, I'm almost done with this part.
Summarizing, Warhammer 40k is constrained by the economy, so if people don't buy minis, game's over for Games Workshop (lol redundancy). It is only logical that they go for the most popular ranges when the time for and update comes. Imo Dark Eldar were a high stake.
It would seem, also, that GW has invested a lot in new designing equipment and is anxious to show every other company and player that they can do a hell of a job now with their new kits - a tendency that started with the Apoc-size kits (Baneblade, Stompa), the Stormraven and such being the latest examples of this (not to mention the new SW and BA boxes). Again, the strongest choice would be to give these new toys to popular armies. The advantages of this, in my opinion, are threefold: First, it is safer to say that the new kits would be bought a lot. Second, it ensures almost everyone will have a look at these kits (even if they do not own them) and say 'wow!' - that's a show-off of skill. And third, these new kits can increase the popularity of said armies, bolstering the playerbase even more.
I'm done with context, honest! next up, why I think there's no balance problem in 5th Ed.
Codices have two kinds of 'rules' which I will call 'hard' and 'soft'. The main difference between them is, you can do mathhammer with 'hard rules', but with 'soft rules', you cannot. 'Hard rules' are statlines and wargear options , and points cost. 'Soft rules' are USRs, unit special rules, FOC location, and overall codex context.
As I see it the problem with the later codices is everyone focusing on the 'hard rules' and completely ignoring the 'soft' part. Before GH, a lot of people thought CSM were the sh!t because they had CCWs. Yeah, how about the rest of your codex is shameful. Now, many claim that SM have been superceded by the SW for all the well known reasons. Yet the same error keeps showing up. What about combat tactics? are all C :S M list portable to C :S W and to which degree? What about giving up an Elites slots to start with? Are we spending more or less for unit equivalents and the same or similar wargear?
Lots of people miss this point. If it's not numbers, it doesn't matter. Obviously they are wrong.
sinsynn 106p · 730 weeks ago
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Touché, I say. Touché.
Malkov · 730 weeks ago
Ianos666 · 730 weeks ago
Orks also can be extremely dangerous, yes they are not pure 5th but they can handle well. Truth be told though xenos armies always require more from the player than imperial ones but they can also do things imperial armies cannot. Overall barring Crons and Eldar, 5th is balanced IMO.
Smurfy · 729 weeks ago
Amount of melta access. Rather - AP 1.
It makes marines and IG lists have easymode for killing even toughest stuff, and no the Monolith doesn't count because it's full of utter fail.
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Marshal Wilhelm · 729 weeks ago
Ianos666 · 729 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
Point is, the Melta is very heavily concentrated in a few FoC slots, whereas most marines can have a Melta weapon in every FoC slot.
Ianos666 · 729 weeks ago
I do still however think that most xenos armies are still highly underutilized by most players and that they are indeed made in such a way that they require a different mindset to be as effective, if not more than imperial ones.
Archy · 729 weeks ago
artemi7 78p · 729 weeks ago
TheKingElessar 71p · 729 weeks ago
Enjoy Part One: http://hobbyinfobythekingelessar.blogspot.com/201...