The units I like v the units that work??

[me_in_japan]

When you assign numerical values to things, I think you have a basic responsibility to make sure those numbers reflect the reality of the gaming table, within some degree of hand-wavy mumbo-jumbo about reasonable margins of error or what-have-you.

fair point - well said

I just kinda think that people (and by that I do mean random/abstract hypothetical people-on-the-net), tend to expect more from 40k than they should. It's just a game. The designers have said many times that they dont care if its unbalanced, so for people to always complain that its unbalanced smacks of not reading the instructions properly (metaphoricaly speaking, i mean.)

I honestly dont believe that codex creep is entirely an evil marketing ploy. It does encourage people to buy new armies (e.g. eldar currently suck. If I was a winnin' kinda guy, Id be buying the new shiny stuff-that-wins. Ah, thatd be dark eldar, then... )

ahem, anyway - as I was saying - codex creep may encourage new army purchases, but its hardly a new phenomenon. Its just the way GW have always done things (since 2nd ed, anyway.) I put it down to disinterest in balancing the game, rather than out-and-out manipulation for financial gain.

[job]

Sorry. I will just say rubbish.

Nope, not rubbish. It is fact. It is a fact that GW has said the game is not balanced. It is a fact that they have said they have not written it for tournament play.

Of course they could write a more balanced game, but they don't want to.

GW and you can say what you like, skippy, but it is still 'rubbish'. You say anything, but if it's silly and worthless, it's also "rubbish".

If some essence of balance and wasn't thought why would there be tournaments, constant attention to play testing before releases and, as TOD cleverly pointed out, points values.

The gaming communities if been part of have almost always demanded balance, most particularly from GW fans who tend to be the most competitive bunch in my experience.

GW really looks like their just making an excuse for not living up to fan demands.

[Spevna]

Sorry. I will just say rubbish.

Nope, not rubbish. It is fact. It is a fact that GW has said the game is not balanced. It is a fact that they have said they have not written it for tournament play.

Of course they could write a more balanced game, but they don't want to.

GW and you can say what you like, skippy, but it is still 'rubbish'. You say anything, but if it's silly and worthless, it's also "rubbish".

If some essence of balance and wasn't thought why would there be tournaments, constant attention to play testing before releases and, as TOD cleverly pointed out, points values.

The gaming communities if been part of have almost always demanded balance, most particularly from GW fans who tend to be the most competitive bunch in my experience.

GW really looks like their just making an excuse for not living up to fan demands.

Of course you need, as you put it, an essence of balance to add a basic framework and structure to choosing forces. A game with an essence of balance, and a balanced game are not one and the same. The PP games are balanced (from what I have heard). WH40K can be balanced IF the people playing sit down together and and make their lists with that intention.

40K in it's original incarnation was basically a tabletop skirmish/rpg game. Balance was not even an afterthought. The GM would sort out the forces involved and run the players through the scenario. That mentality still influences the game to a certain extent I think.

Most of the tournaments are not official GW events I believe ( I could be wrong here). GW has said that they never wrote the rules to be for tournaments. If players try to play a 40K tourny and then complain about a lack of balance, they should call for a waaawaaawaaaaambulance.

If there was the constant attention to playtesting that you talk of, surely the issues of balance would be obvious. And if they are obvious, GW must be choosing not to act on them. And the reason for that lack of action is that balance is not, has never been, and probably never will be something that GW bothers themselves with.


WH40K is a casual game designed to be played with beer, pretzels, friends and for fun. This is the reason I don't attend tournaments.

If players are getting into a game that was never designed to be balanced, and is well know for not being balanced,they shouldn't proceed to then complain about said lack of balance.

It would be like buying a pair of white sneakers with velcro straps and then complaining that they should be black, and have laces, and be more formal, and made of shiny leather. If you want shoes, buy shoes. If you want sneakers, buy sneakers.

And don't call me 'skippy'.

[Mike the Pike]

^I think we have just found Spevs new nickname
He soooooo reminds me of the beloved Bush Kangaroo/A box of cornflakes.

[Konrad]

If you are a truly competitive gamer, you ought to be playing chess and find out exactly how smart you really are. Leave the toy soldiers with the dorks and kids.
And I take units I like. I play so infrequently and paint so slowly that by the time I get a super killer unit finished, (only just finished a unit of Lootas this morning) the new edition of the game or codex creep has made them merely okay.

[Admiral-Badruck]

Konrad you have a great point here Codex orks came out 3 or 4 years ago and he is finally putting the once uber unit in his list (Great show old man) hooray for the mean green...

Skippy has a point

It is up to the players to make it balanced be cause the RAW is not balanced I think we all agree on this point....

GW has never nor they will ever back tournaments in the way the competitive fan base wants them to. I worked for the company about 2 years ago... and they never encouraged tournaments in any way shape or form. I ran 2 tournaments for them and they sent a bit of prize support but they did nothing to help with the rules pack and they did not even help us advertise it on the website.

Back to my OP

I guess my ploy is that players balance there games take less competitive armies and play for a laugh... no list tailoring take what is fun not what will crush your "friends" amy. Example

Job plays Dwarves, if I take an amy that is built to kill dwarves up against him, when he is bringing an all comers list then the game might be less fun and is therefore a wast of time.

Skippy is a really good nick name much better than my earlier attempt Spevina

[Primarch]

Lets take a look at points values for a second.
So, choosing something that appears in a wide variety of books from different ages, lets look at Tactical Marines as they have the same stats and appear in 6 books.

First up, Codex Space Marines.
Base cost 16 points with a sarge for 10 that you MUST buy. Come with Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Grenades. They can get a free special and heavy weapon if you buy 10 of them. Special Rules - ATSKNF, Combat Squads, Combat Tactics.

Next, Codex Blood Angels.
Base cost 16 points with a sarge for 10 that you MUST buy. Come with Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Grenades. They can get a free special and heavy weapon if you buy 10 of them. Special Rules - ATSKNF, Combat Squads, Red Thirst (which, lets not forget has only a 1 in 6 chance of working).

Ok, Codex Dark Angels.
Base cost 16 points with a sarge for 10 that you MUST buy. Come with Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Grenades. They dont any free weapons, but can buy a special weapon with only 5 men. Special Rules - ATSKNF, Combat Squads.

Next, Codex Space Wolves. (Grey Hunters)
Base cost 15 points with no option for a sarge. Come with Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Close Combat Weapon and Grenades. They can get a free special if there are 5 of them and a 2nd if you buy 10 of them. Special Rules - ATSKNF, Acute Senses, Counter Attack. If you attach a sarge from another squad you lose the option for the 2nd weapon or cant put them in a transport.

Codex Black Templars.
Base cost 16 points with no option for a sarge. Come with Bolter or Bolt Pistol and Close Combat Weapon and no Grenades. They can get a cheap special and a heavy weapon regardless of squad size. Special Rules - No Fear (fearless in assault), Righteous Zeal (+1d6" movement if they take casualties).

Finally Codex Chaos Space Marines.
Base cost 15 points with a sarge for 15. Come with Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Close Combat Weapon and Grenades. They can get a special weapon if you have 5 marines and special or heavy weapon if you buy 10 of them. Special Rules - None, but have a better LD (9) compared to all the above marines.

So there you have it. 15/16 points gets you roughly the same models/gear/options across a wide range of books. Black Templars probably are the worst of the bunch being an early 4th edition codex. Space Wolves are probably the cheapest for what you get, but have some drawbacks compared to their vanilla cousins. Even so, there isnt much between them really. Of course, taking a codex as a sum of all it's parts, the newer books are just better written than the older ones. More choices for every slot, more competition between those choices for which ones you take.

As for the "update everything at the same time" technique being done by PP/FoW.
PP started out with the basic army list in the core book.
They then released 4 (I think) add on books.
They then said "Hey look, a consolidated army book."
Then they changed the edition and started the process again. Total books bought = 6, 4 of which only have about 20 pages relevant to my army.
GW started with nothing in the core book.
Then they released 1 army book. Total books bought = 2
Battlefront released the core book. (Not sure if there are any lists in that).
They then released a hundred supplements, downloads and random lists.
If I want to do a general list, there is one book. If I want to do a themed list I need another book. Total books bought = 3, 2 of which only have about 20 pages relevant to my army.

So, looking at the books I have bought, GW is the cheapest option for people who only play a single army. I might have to wait a while between books, but I only need 2 books per edition.

[Admiral-Badruck]

I really do not see what this has to do with the OP...or Balance in the game.

[Primarch]

I really do not see what this has to do with the OP...or Balance in the game.

Just showing that the points values are generally balanced across multiple books going back several years.

[Admiral-Badruck]

Ok that is true and it is relevant thanks to the what was currently pulling this thread off topic... I think we have had enough we can lock this down if no one else has any thing to say about taking units because one likes them as apposed to taking units that one does not like...